Got a thin skin? Then look elsewhere. Post a link to an image that you've made, and invite others to offer their critiques. Honesty is encouraged, but please be positive in your constructive criticism. Flaming and just plain nastiness will not be tolerated. Please note that this is not an area for you to showcase your images, nor is this a place for you to show-off where you have been. This is an area for you to post images so that you may share with us a technique that you have mastered, or are trying to master. Typically, no more than about four images should be posted in any one post or thread, and the maximum size of any side of any image should not exceed 950 px.
Moderators: Greg B, Nnnnsic, Geoff, Glen, gstark, Moderators
Forum rules
Please note that image critiquing is a matter of give and take: if you post images for critique, and you then expect to receive criticism, then it is also reasonable, fair and appropriate that, in return, you post your critique of the images of other members here as a matter of courtesy. So please do offer your critique of the images of others; your opinion is important, and will help everyone here enjoy their visit to far greater extent.
Also please note that, unless you state something to the contrary, other members might attempt to repost your image with their own post processing applied. We see this as an acceptable form of critique, but should you prefer that others not modify your work, this is perfectly ok, and you should state this, either within your post, or within your signature.
Images posted here should conform with the general forum guidelines. Image sizes should not exceed 950 pixels along the largest side (height or width) and typically no more than four images per post or thread.
Please also ensure that you have a meaningful location included in your profile. Please refer to the FAQ for details of what "meaningful" is.
by Reschsmooth on Thu May 03, 2012 9:43 pm
These were from our trip to the Hunter a couple of months ago. I still have about 20 rolls to develop. These were scanned via the D200 and a 55 3.5 macro lens. Next time, I shall remember to clean all surfaces! C&C appreciated  In the shot below, the use of the red filter appears ineffective on the scan. I realise, in retrospect, that I needed much more room at the bottom.  
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by PiroStitch on Fri May 04, 2012 1:26 am
What film did you use? Just wondering because of the grain. Also can you share the technique you used? I'm considering getting a V700 but hard to justify the cost since that's another weekend in a Euro city 
-

PiroStitch
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4669
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 1:08 am
- Location: Hong Kong
-
by Reschsmooth on Fri May 04, 2012 7:38 am
Wayne, the film is Adoc CHS 50 developed in the current version of Rodinol. The grain may be a function of the digital process. The scanning process is: D200 and 55 3.5 lens on a tripod; place film om light box; focus, meter and shoot; download and invert image in PS; adjust white and black points, curves and fix scratches. I would much prefer a V700. There are so many potential problems with my technique such as non parallel planes between camera and film and keeping he neg flat.
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by biggerry on Fri May 04, 2012 12:49 pm
I prefer the composition of the first and last, however the BW and the tone seem a bit off for lack of a better term. They appear to have a colour cast to them? is that just me? With the first, i wanna see some dodging and burning then some more contrast added (and teh cast corrected), digital version would be fine, but as you probably can guess, i would be more impressed with darkroom generated print version 
-

biggerry
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 5930
- Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 12:40 am
- Location: Under the flight path, Newtown, Sydney
-
by Remorhaz on Fri May 04, 2012 2:04 pm
biggerry wrote:I prefer the composition of the first and last, however the BW and the tone seem a bit off for lack of a better term. They appear to have a colour cast to them? is that just me?
No - it's purple for me too - not evenly purple even - I think the darker areas have shifter more than the lighter perhaps?
D600, D7000, Nikon/Sigma/Tamron Lenses, Nikon Flashes, Sirui/Manfrotto/Benro SticksRodney - My Photo BlogWant: Fast Wide (14|20|24)
-

Remorhaz
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 2547
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:14 pm
- Location: Sydney - Lower North Shore - D600
-
by Reschsmooth on Fri May 04, 2012 3:10 pm
I agree, there is definitely a cast and not sure why. The darkroom will fix this.
I agree about crop page in the second. Hopefully the darkroom can emphasize the dark sky via the red filter but the net suggests otherwise.
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by aim54x on Fri May 04, 2012 9:56 pm
I have been interested to see what you were doing with the D200 "scanner" these look promising, but yes there are all the issues mentioned already...have you looked at using the BR2 + ES1 (not sure if it will work for neg strips though) combo?
EDIT: looks like you need mounted frames....so scratch that suggestion
Cameron Nikon F/Nikon 1 | Hasselblad V/XPAN| Leica M/LTM |Sony α/FE/E/Maxxum/M42Wishlist Nikkor 24/85 f/1.4| Fuji Natura BlackScout-Images | Flickr | 365Project
-

aim54x
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7305
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:13 pm
- Location: Penshurst, Sydney
-
by Reschsmooth on Fri May 04, 2012 10:51 pm
Cameron, if I was to persist with the D200 as my scanner of choice, I would get the adaptor for my enlarger to facilitate scanning - it would hold the camera steady and ensure the relevant planes are parallel.
That said, I will simply save my euros for a V700 to expedite the process.
Regards, Patrick
Two or three lights, any lens on a light-tight box are sufficient for the realisation of the most convincing image. Man Ray 1935.
Our mug is smug
-

Reschsmooth
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 4164
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:16 pm
- Location: Just next to S'nives.
-
by surenj on Fri May 04, 2012 11:34 pm
Looks to be reasonable dynamic range and a tricky exposure.
-

surenj
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 7197
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:21 pm
- Location: Artarmon NSW
Return to Image Reviews and Critiques
|