Did my first shoot with a "model." The girl is my friend from school.
Shot with Portra 400, on a 500cm
Looking for c/c, also I just had this 80mm lens repaired but still seem to have focusing issues (K I L L M E)
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:44 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:47 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
I used a tripod +mirror up for all of these
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:40 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1134 Image Height 1152
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:39 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
I let her take one of me
>dat ear
Rate my edit I guess if u want
idgaf if anyone recognizes me
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:42 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
>>2689990
So far: be careful of backgrounds and the model's head. She doesn't look too relaxed, but that's probably her not being a model rather than you as a photographer. Perhaps see if you can read up on some good poses for beginners.
>>2690001
Should read "be careful of backgrounds interfering with the model's head". I'm tired.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 150 dpi Vertical Resolution 150 dpi Image Created 2015:10:06 23:24:43 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 452 Image Height 315
Here's a b/w conversion beacause I felt like it. this marks the start of the ones with shit focus other errors.
This one was shot at 2.8 1/30 as well
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:46 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
>>2690004
yeah bro its me
glad u could make it to my big Hasselblad re-attempt
>fugg
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:41 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
>>2689991
>unfocused nose
loool
how about not bokeh whoring and actual photo?
beware of mergers
her facial expressions are too casual, you needed to tell her to look like this and this: be angry, be distant, be bitchy, whatever, but not that hey lets eat breakfast happy face.
get Rolleiflex im tellin you.
Jesus fuck a lot of these are blurry as living hell itself. Okay maybe not hell but you know what I mean.
>>2690002
>>2690001
yeah I almost took this shot with that tower on the left hand side of the frame growing out of her head. Then moved her and decided to have her come in as close as she could to get one big shot of her face
>kek
This is my favorite shot of the bunch, as she was actually front lit and the focus is at least good enough. I tried going for her eyes in each of these.
<--- As for this shot Im pissed at this focusing. How could I fuck it up so bad? I guess I need to spend even more time with my face in the viewfinder
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone Camera Software VSCOcam Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:22 16:07:49 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
As I told you last time, you need to re calibrate your focusing screen, send the body and back for a cla.
Or just put it back on ebay, pay the premium at a retailer and make sure you get a good one, half of eBay is almost faulty shite.
>>2689990
>AppleCamera ModeliPhoneCamera SoftwareVSCOcam
wtf iphones are good as fuck, am i being duped or?
>>2690010
I didnt want 2 bokeh whore bruh but I was forced to shoot wide open with how the light was. That or shoot like 1 second at 4/5.6
fucking overcast appeared out of nowhere.
<-- these next two I would please like to know wtf happened to make them so low contrast and orange. These are the untouched scans Are they underexposed? I followed my
light meter and for some reason these negatives turned out absolutely wretched. Should I kill myself?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2016
>>2690016
You're retarded. He literally says what camera he used in the post you quoted.
He used VSCOcam to edit because.. i don't know. moralfag?
>>2690012
>I guess I need to spend even more time with my face in the viewfinder
YOU are the photographer. you may take whatever the shit time the photo needs to come out perfect. MF is slow, so do it right.
btw your new gf aint shit compared to the brunette you posted once. youre a heap of bad decisions m8 tbh
>>2690018
>but I was forced to shoot wide open with how the light was.
no you didnt. shit light = dont shoot. its very simple.
>>2690014
I took it to a legit repair place and they assured me the body was fine, but the lens was all fucked up. They took it apart and re-focused it. I will go back tomorrow and show them these shots and ask them to check their shit again.
These pictures are an improvement over what I had before but its still fucked.
What do you mean about calibrating a focusing screen?? They pop in and out, and dont really warp or anything.... I could maybe get a replacement one but I dont see how it's the issue.
>>2690019
Says Iphone nigga
>>2690019
I use vsco to simply store them on my phone, and resize them. all editing on these photos was done in Lightroom from .tiff scan files from my local camera racket
and she ain't my gf
>that fucking feel when
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2016
>>2690021
we were running out of daylight quickly and I really wanted the shot, big fucking deal? it wasnt ideal but 1/30 on a tripod is just good enough.
>>2690027
>1/30 on a tripod
looooooool m8 fam learn to camera tbh
1/30 is handheld territory. 1/15 too.
if tripod, go to 1/2 sec, you cuck why didnt you do the right thing. now you have a goofy snapshit, dont say otherwise.
>>2690012
>hams for legs
>'model'
nope
>>2689990
>on a 500cm
>>2690025
>and she ain't my gf
tbh sorry to hear fam
>>2690036
>she couldnt stop giggling
she wants your bbc (beautiful bonsai cucumber) m8
>>2690048
m-my bonsai only has sticks
o-o-hh
you t-too
>>2689990
hey san diego faggot...which school do you attend?
>>2690007
you miss that focus more than I miss my dead girlfriend
>>2690110
lol what the fuck
>>2690105
Mesa
lol. learn to focus
>>2689993
personally I think this is your best shot. But her bracelets bother me its too tight on her arm
Why the fuck do you add a bunch of noise ('grain') on purpose. It looks like shit, you are literally wasting your time adding artifacts on your image.
the images are all waaaay too fucking grainy. Is it because of your fantasy to plant your grain inside that grill?
>>2690132
That's what 400 speed film looks like. Think before you open your mouth
Example of 400 speed grain, straight from the scanner
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make AgfaPhoto GmbH Camera Model d-lab.2/3 Camera Software RB98k or later from AgfaPhoto GmbH d-lab.2/3 Photographer Only the Best :-)) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 400 dpi Vertical Resolution 400 dpi Image Created 2015:10:10 13:17:48 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1532 Image Height 1024
>>2690134
his critique is true. There are some shots that I think would look better without the bokeh. Objectively a lot of his shots are out of focus
>>2690138
Though those criticisms are true, the person I replied to only mentioned grain which is just a natural part of shooting film
>>2690130
ugh I know. Thing is, I noticed the bracelet made a red impression on her arm before I took the shot, so I had her cover up the impression... which squeezed the arm.
Couldnt really win.
>>2690138
I know. Ive had focusing problems for several rolls of film. I had the lens fixed last week, but there still seems to be something wrong. focus still seems to consistently fall behind where I aim it.
Going to take the camera back and have them do their measurements again. This is driving me crazy.
>>2689990
she's embarrassed that she likes a grouch
you sure the film is flat when scanning? Might be focus issue but with the first few shots I wondered if the film wasn't flat.
>shooting wide open in daylight
every time
>>2690110
kek
>>2689990
Did you fug her?
>>2690032
Wow 1/30 - 1/15 is still doable handheld? I mean with my dslr it always is a fucking messo even if i am shooting a mountain, but maybe I am just too weak to press a button without moving the camera too much. Or Parkinson
>>2689993
I feel like this would be waaaaaay better if you were more fortunate with the lighting, it seems like a really dark b/c the weather. I like it though, the bracelets kinda draw the eye a little too much
Your friends pretty too, which is good on your part, model selection is important.
>>2690025
Would be a bretty gud shot if she didn't look so uncomfortable.
Guess you're used to that look tho.
>>2690212
You got trolled.
1/15 handheld will be good if you make a 100x100 print
>>2690022
A faulty lens won't cause missed focus, a focusing screen, or mirror or backplate half a mm out will cause the exact problems you are seeing. You definitely shouldn't be popping your focusing screen out, that's definitely fucked the calibration.
>>2690018
1 second? The fuck you talking about?
It's cloudy, with iso 160 film, slightly over exposing portra gives nice results, so your exposure would have been 1/125 at f8.
The negative confirms you overexposed the buggery out of it. As you've been told before (again) use a smartphone app for your lightmeter, they're a lot more dummy proof.
Put the Hassy down, you don't know enough about what you're doing to not give consistently shit results. Go get a mirrorless camera, they have an instant wysiwyg exposure preview, this will not only allow you to never fuck up exposure, but also never fuck up focusing.
No, try not to go below 1/2*focal length for your ss handheld. You're being trolled for 1/15 hh.
And you were using iso 400 film? Dude, go fucking memorise all of the sunny 16 rule so you know when your lightmeter is lying. 1/15, f2.8, iso 400 would give adequate results in a very dimly lit pub.
1/15 hh is a reality.
you fucking wimpy dyel trembling cockbois.
>>2690256
fuck me I can barely do 1/40 handheld
>>2690256
not for me, bud
>>2690274
Seeing Michael J Fox recently really brings you crashing down to earth.
>>2690000
over 90000
>>2690033
sheeeit.....I would plow that like an angry farmer. ham legs and all....
>>2690256
Let's see your 100% crops, hh at 1/15 with an 80mm lens (or longer) without is on a body without ibis.
Protip, you're not gonna get more than 10% keepers.
>>2689990
she looks creeped out by you
Buyers remorse general, anyone?
OP youre such a cuck. Sell that piece of shit, get proper camera and lrn to photo.
>Balboa Park
Ive seen you post pictures of Chicano Park too
Chick is hot 10/10 would bang
NICE LOMOGRAPHY, CHAP
>>2690339
>cuck
perhaps
>sell it
;_;
>>2690220
the focusing screen is a fucking replaceable part? How are you still losing your shit over this? It only goes in one way, its meant to be removable. There is no way to "calibrate" it you mong. The mirror being inaccurate fucked is much more likely.
I was using a smart phone lightmeter
I do have a mirrorless,
It doesnt have anything to do with my ability to see what's in focus.
>put the hassy down
>you need to learn
How is your advice so contradictory and shitty? Maybe the more I use it the better I can find out why 3/4 of my shots turn out fucked?
>>2690378
yea she's pretty hot mang
>>2690304
This
If u wood not berry you are LOW TEST ITT
>>2690217
Thank you, here is the untouched, for comparison
I agree about the bracelet.
>>2690148
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2048 Image Height 2016
>>2690428
>drawn eyebrows
>rough, manly facial features
>hot
yall gringos have a pretty fucked up idea of whats "hot"
>>2690434
>gringos
yfw this is the standard issue mexican woman
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1300 Image Height 960 Scene Capture Type Standard
too much stupid for one thread. I can't even read through it all.
OP your lens definitely appears to be backfocusing. In almost all of these you can clearly see what you intended to be in focus and the resulting plane a few inches behind that appears to be what's actually in focus.
I spent a couple weeks diagnosing focus problems with my hassy when I first got it. Unfortunately it could be several things. Some places to start:
Get a tape measure and look through your WLF to see if what's in focus on the tape corresponds to the distance on your focus scale.
Have you tried using different backs? Are you sure the film is sitting flat against the pressure plate?
What condition is your lens in? Are the blades sticky at all or are they quick to snap into position?
>>2690431
your pp a shit tbh
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:23 15:52:17 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 986
>>2690437
yfw im not even mexican and tbh im not the one friendzoned by a manfaced bimbo :^)
>>2690000
Quads
>>2690443
>>2690443
>sky completely blown out
thanks for nothing
>>2690440
Im pretty sure the film is sitting flat, Looking at the magazine everything looks good
I took the lens to a repair place and they did a CLA on the lens. Blades ect working great, no stickyness
Havent dont the tape measure yet.
Repair place said body was fine, but like another anon said and my original suspicion was the the mirror is out of
alignment.
Mirror looks janky when up but when I cock the camera it seems to get straight again. Repair place also said the mirror is at a good 45 degree angle
>>2690440
the solution is to get rid of meme camera, and then you come here you flamboyant faggot and encourage him to keep wasting time, film and money into a fucked camera? youre a pretty good troll m8 8/8
>>2690448
>Im shitposting on /p/ !! ¡Aye Carumba!
>>2689993
too much shit in the background
wtf you doin fam
>>2690454
I just didnt want the sky blown out
But actually I think you're right about how busy it is.
>>2690434
Well, we DID legalize inappropriate relationships in June.
>>2690457
oh true that. faggot flag projected into the white house and everything.
>>2690443
The background on the right is kind of jumbled and distracting. I would have taken a step to the right and recomposed.
>>2690464
I feel you
It probably would have been better I did it from the opposite side of the table. That background would be a wide emptyish plaza. Not as busy
>>2690451
Tape measure should be item number one. Letting a shop diagnose the problem for you will cost out the ass since they have little financial interest in not sorting it out for you quickly. You need to go to them with concrete ideas of what it's doing wrong instead of an idklol.
If the lens had a good CLA you can probably move on to other culprits. Measuring will give a good indicator if your mirror is off. Be sure to use the pop-out magnifier that comes with the stock WLF.
If it passes the measurement test, try to get another back to shoot a test roll with. Speaking of, I'd highly suggest not shooting expensive color film until you sort the issues out. Shoot cheap bw and dev it yourself. Then examine the negs with a loupe or something.
>>2690493
I actually just went back to the repair shop and had a chat with the technicians. Showed them these snapshits and explained the focusing problem was still there.
They said when they calibrated it they did it with a diopter or something for the "backfocus" and didnt do it through the body itself. They said it could be the little adjustment screws under the focusing screen or the mirror angle itself. They agreed to do any body adjustments for me and even shoot a test roll.
Will report back with more uncomfortable snapshits with man-grills in Balboameme Park and Family wedding pictures from Chicago next week (the reason Im trying to get this Swedish piece of shit fixed so quickly)
I appreciate your advice-- will use tape measure in the future under less rushed circumstances
>>2690443
sooooooo what kinda panties u think
>>2690578
floss tbh
full bald pussy too.
>>2690000
You must be a Slav
>>2691195
>No stripes on pants
Try again.
>>2689990
out of focus op
DUDE THOUSANDS IN REPAIR LMAO
DUDE MOON CAMERA LOL
DUDE NASA LMAOO
>2015
> 85mm
> Not using Neutral density filter
Found your problem
I am dissappoint tbh fam
>>2690000
I'd take you over her any day
>>2690000
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:25 03:47:31 Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1152 Image Height 1134
>>2691340
>>500cm
>>2691362
holy shit, you have no idea what you're talking about!
>daily reminder
>>2690025
Grainy as fug to be honest. I would use a slower film in any kind outdoor portraiture
Obv there is a issue with the lens too so if grainy and out of focus is the statement you're after, good job bru.
>>2689990
I've got it, her nose is so long it's out of focus.
>>2691362
You do know that an ND filter would simply lower the EV value of the light entering the lens, meaning you would just up the exposure and go right back where you started.That argument is pointless loop. Maybe you mean a graduated ND filter, which would change the light at the top of the image but not the bottom. But even so, that would simply lead to a darker area up top. The sky would still be without detail.
The way to "fix" this image would be to compose it differently. Shooting from a higher angle is almost always more flattering, and in many cases there's no need to show so much sky behind the subject of a portrait. the negative space is distracting.
If you shoot wide, you should make the surroundings lead in to your subject, or complement them in some way.
>>2691369
OP here thank you for this
>>2691362
uhhh no
maybe you mean a polarized filter to darken the sky?
>>2691369
I agree it's too wide, and garbage can in the back isn't helping this look either.
I still say a 2 stop ND will open up the aperture. Besides DOF, all my primes get much sharper starting around 5.6 or 4
>>2691379
>open up the aperture
shoot a slower film. choosing portra 160 would do exactly the same without having to fuck about with a filter. you'd be taking it on and off every time you needed to focus or recompose.
>>2691391
I was surprised 400 grain showed up
as much as it did on this 120 film
>>2690121
Thats where my girlfriend goes. For nursing!
>>2691410
how is that working out
>>2690007
lol wtf is with your focus why would you post this
>>2691409
Lab scans are always garbage.
D S L R
S C A N
L A
R N
>>2691434
I don't think I've ever seen this done with more than one word, good on ya mate
>>2691434
idk how ;_;
and also, doesnt a DSLR scan largely depend on sensor quality? I only have a crop sensor.
So what the fuck you take a
picture of a negative against a light tray?
>>2691434
Wow. Nice double
Nevemind all the technical and background issues. You will learn how to improve those.
The huge problem is that the direction and interaction with the model is not good at all.
Each one is like you yelled "OK LOOK AT ME NOW" at her. She is uncomfortable and kind of just looking at the photographer. There is no suspension of disbelief. The 4th wall has been broken. This makes it more like vacation snapshots of your sister than being about the model and having some sort of narrative.
You have to learn how to be transparent. The guy standing behind the camera should be obvious.
>>2691512
Yeah it was tough, she would start giggling most of the time and to force a straight face for most of these
>>2690212
You can get tack-sharp handheld panning shots of race cars at 1/60 on a 300mm with a bit of practice.
I'm sure you can learn to shoot a mountain at 1/30 Without having a seizure
>>2691734
Why did you let that happen? You have to manage your model. Tell her it's perfectly okay to laugh. To make any face. That you won't use any bad photos, so she needn't worry. Etc.
>>2691758
If he could be assertive with her, he wouldn't be her beta orbiter.
>>2689990
HEY OP! Your pics are boring, because it looked like you had no idea of what you wanted when shooting. It takes a lot of skill to "just go for a walk with a girl and a camera" and come back with good pictures. Since you still seem to lack that skill I'd advise thinking your shoot through before you do it. think about specific moods, poses, lighting etc.
>>2691762
kek
>>2691441
I use a canon rabal for my scanning, and the quality is great.
You need a 1:1 macro lens and a flash, either on a cable or with a remote trigger.
You can use a light table, but it's a much bigger pain in the ass because you have long exposure times.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make SIGMA Camera Model SIGMA DP1 Merrill Camera Software SIGMA Photo Pro 6.0.6 Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 28 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 180 dpi Vertical Resolution 180 dpi Image Created 2014:12:04 09:28:39 Exposure Time 1/40 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Center Weighted Average Flash No Flash Focal Length 19.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1568 Image Height 2352 Rendering Custom Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Unique Image ID 3030333132323837A2D8054
>>2690007
That's a really nice photo of some stone pillars. I don't know what's up with the out-of-focus girl in the center of the frame, though.
>>2691810
jesus no ty
>>2691819
oh look its this post again
>>2691810
Elaborate please
>>2690032
how can you have blurry pics and miss focus doing 1/15 on a fucking tripod?
why didnt you use a Colorchecker?
did you use some Lees?
>>2691889
focusing screen is most likely misaligned
>>2691892
Because it's film? what the fuck. let me just set the white balance on my 500cm m8
>>2691810
What tripod?
>>2691954
That's just some plastic garbage.
The brand is Velbon.
But that doesn't really matter, as you should be using a remote release, and in any event you're using a flash, so your exposures are instantaneous.
Having a reversible centre column, so you can point it straight down, is the most important thing.
My setup has actually changed a bit since this photo, but the principle is the same.
I now use a big esky as the lightbox, and sit the glass over the top, and use a Gitzo Explorer with a horizontal column to hold the camera.
It's also how I took this.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 550D Camera Software GIMP 2.8.6 Firmware Version Firmware Version 1.0.8 Serial Number 1132529712 Lens Name 30mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 350 dpi Vertical Resolution 350 dpi Image Created 2015:08:14 15:41:34 Exposure Time 1/4 sec F-Number f/4.5 Exposure Program Manual ISO Speed Rating 100 Lens Aperture f/4.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 30.00 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1084 Image Height 800 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Exposure Mode Manual Focus Type Auto Metering Mode Partial Sharpness Unknown Saturation Normal Contrast Normal Shooting Mode Manual Image Size Unknown Focus Mode One-Shot Drive Mode Timed Flash Mode Off Compression Setting Fine Self-Timer Length 10 sec Macro Mode Normal White Balance Custom Exposure Compensation 3 Sensor ISO Speed 160 Color Matrix 129
>>2691931
Yes because it's film, a gray card at least!
They've been developed in variable conditions, which can cause a colour shift, then scanned, another massive variable, then adjusted by eye.
If you used a colour checker you could set up a profile in lightroom based off reference photos for different film stocks and have consistent results from every shot.
one of the joys of 6x6 is that you would normally crop to a rectangle. So you can keep a gray card or colour checker in shot.
>>2691965
I'll consider that but I dont do my own scanning at the moment. How would the frames be developed under different conditions? they were all on one roll.
Her poses are a bit stiff and your DoF seems a bit too deep for such wide shots, kinda hard to have her as the focus when the background is so clear.
For some reason the fact that all of your shots are out of focus and you decide to post them PISSES ME OFF FUCK PLEASE THROW YOUR HASSY OVER THE EDGE AND JUMP TOO. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ffs the guy knows his shots are out of focus, get over it. He's received other tips to improve the shots, so what's the issue? Better to get some feedback on what he can do better for the future.
>>2692018
we talked about this
>>2692008
noted.
Dont know why I had her so far away for some shots. Seemed like a good idea at the time
>>2692065
>why I had her so far away
gee what could it be
>>2692092
such a salty troll tbh fam smh
did you make steamy love afterwards?
>>2691734
The giggling face might actually be better. Did you get any shots of those?
>>2692185
This.
Giggling, a bashful look, anything can work. The fine line is that the viewer needs to feel that the emotion is authentic.
In reality, the ways it can go are:
1. The subject is looking at, or projecting toward ME (viewer)
2. The subject is introspective, directing toward him/herself
3. The subject is directing at another subject in the image
4. The subject is directing at an unseen person out of frame
The fine line comes in the "at camera" looks. Yes, the photographer is there - but the viewer shouldn't feel "that look isn't for me" When the photographer's presence is obvious, it takes away from the viewing experience.
If you know the model isn't going to be able to pull it off - then it's kind of up to you to "set the table" - create a story for her. Make a character. Or, if all else fails, have her look off-camera.
>>2690423
Had the same problem, just with a mamiya 645, so I don't know if this actually helps but for me it was that some incompetent fuck put the spacers in between the mechanism that holds the focusing screen and the camera in incorrectly. I consistently missed focus by about the same amount on the image plane, no matter the lens or distance to the subject. Putting them in correctly put the screen about 0.2 or 0.3mm closer to the mirror but that made all the difference.
>>2692366
The hassy has four screws that kind of hold up the screen, so I told the repair Co that I think that is the problem or the mirror itself. Its most likely that is it the screws, since the lens was also fucked with retardedly by the previous owner.
Hopefully they can get it set right for me.
I wouldnt know where to begin adjusting them and they are flat so there is probably some special tool needed to do it.
>>2692189
Why does she look like a white Bahar Mustafa?
>>2692390
>Bahar Mustafa
There's no black, shriveled soul and poison belief system in my photo. No resemblance.
>>2689990
Boring AF in my opinion. None of these capture my attention more than a snapshot would.
>>2689993
>>2690431
just quickly helpin you out op.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 2048 Image Height 2016 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2015:10:26 22:41:38 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1000 Image Height 1000
>>2691377
>>2692457
This is great thank you
>>2692457
looks raunchy
>>2692460
yeah because it makes so much less sense than getting an ND filter you stupid faggot
>>2692519
if you think that is a post of approval you are sorely mistaken my anonymous friend
>>2692516
raunchy as in sexy?
>>2692566
>I cannot into reading comprehension
kill yourself my man
>>2692682
>cant into argument
no u
>>2692457
Thx for tha skintones contrastbro
>>2691377
You're suggesting a polarizer instead of a grad nd for fixing an overexposed sky.
Yeah,no
>>2693610
............
it fucking works too you dipshit
>>2691432
How the fuck is that an excuse? That's just retarded. "Oh hey, I know this image has a huge, glaringly obvious flaw which completely ruins it the instant you look at it, but can I get critique on it?". It doesn't make sense why you'd even bother uploading it, or why you'd want critique on it when you surely must know what everyone is going to say about (>>2690007) in particular (and all the other ones which are obviously out of focus).
From one CM owner to another, whatever focus screen you have in there, throw it the fuck out and get a split screen.
80mm Planar on one of those puppies is photography on easy mode.
Sure at the end of the day, it's going to come down to the person behind it, but in portrait / fashion work, the 500cm is fucking tidy.
You need to go slower, make sure you're locking focus and exposing correctly before piss farting around with post and fancy effects.
Get the basics right and reap the Hasselhoff
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/1.4 Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2015:10:30 15:01:33 Exposure Time 1/30 sec F-Number f/1.4 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/1.4 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
Why is the analog noise so much better than the digital noise.
Film Noise >>>>> CCD noise >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CMOS noise.
Digital cameras can't make any artistic photograph.
>>2695379
5/10 for making me respond but:
its personal choice. digital noise is square and linear
film grain is more like 'clouds' with seemingly rounded edges (until you get it under a microscope). it just appears less harsh
>>2689990
Portraits with the model in the center are boring most of the time. Take your model from different angles with more background.
The idea is to bring context, otherwise it could be in Portugal or US or in a studio for all we know, so you have to make us understand why she is there.
>>2690114
yes
my gf died. Sad story.
