![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sublimatedangelHere are the two I turned in... a silhouette of my younger brother with the dog, and then a close up of the dog. There is some lint in my scanner, so any spots you see are from that. Not bad for a first attempt I think?
http://www.nateandamy.org/Jay-Sonia1.jpg
http://www.nateandamy.org/Sonia1.jpg
I have another one from this shoot that I need to get ahold of and scan, and may print some more of the negatives - not sure.
http://www.nateandamy.org/Jay-Sonia1.jpg
http://www.nateandamy.org/Sonia1.jpg
I have another one from this shoot that I need to get ahold of and scan, and may print some more of the negatives - not sure.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Very nice!
Date: 2002-03-10 08:13 pm (UTC)And I like the souldful expression in Sonja's eyes in the second. Not sure if it's the scanner or the print or the negative, but the only critique I'd give is that the eyes are fuzzy... the whole thing has a soft-focus feel to it, but with her expression the depth of field (IMO) should have focused sharply on her eyes, and left the rest soft.
Just an opinion... otherwise I'd say very nice. What has been the teacher's/class feedback so far?
Re: Very nice!
Date: 2002-03-10 08:53 pm (UTC)Backlighting was one of the assigned lighting styles, but the shot was unplanned - it just looked good so I took it. I am happy with how it turned out - I tend to not like silhouettes as a general rule.
The second shot is out of focus on the print - I'm not good enough to guess on the negative, but I suspect it is slightly blurry too. I was going for a soft-focus feel, though, and think I just didn't get it quite right. Still, considering it's from the first roll of film I've ever shot using an SLR, I think it turned out well. Just getting her to stay still instead of trying to lick my face behind the camera was tricky enough :)
Teacher did give feedback regarding the focus on that shot - I think he didn't know it was meant to be a softer look. He also thought it needed more contrast, which could be true. He highly recommends refining or even reshooting and then resubmitting stuff for better grades.
I plan to process my film from the motion assignment tomorrow - not sure how wonderful those will be, but I *am* learning alot, and that's the important part.
Re: Very nice!
Date: 2002-03-10 09:03 pm (UTC)I think perhaps you teacher may have noticed the same thing I did... that the whole emotion of the picture of Sonja is caught up in her eyes. I was always taought that the eyes are "the windows of the soul" and to -always- keep them clear unless there was a very obvious, deliberate reason why it was shot otherwise. A shorter depth of field, maybe by stopping down a few notches, would have allowed you to keep her eyes crisp, but throw the rest of the picture into softness.
I don't think I agree on the contrast, though. Even though I prefer hard prints, I think with her darkness and the white fabric behind you would lose some of the details in her face. Contrast you can play with digitally or by putting a filter in the enlarger, just to see how it looks.
I've been thinking of taking another class, just to get my feet wet again. You've inspired me! *smiles* I'll let you know how that goes.
Oh, yeah!
Date: 2002-03-10 09:49 pm (UTC)Re: Oh, yeah!
Date: 2002-03-11 10:54 am (UTC)I know your weekends are busy until after Easter, so I figure you'll want to do it after that. Theoretically, I should be getting better the longer I do this :)
Re: Oh, yeah!
Date: 2002-03-11 02:03 pm (UTC)