Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Not sure about this one. Not enough detail in the tree? Too much sky? C330S. Acros 100.
On Calton Hill
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Chris Dodkin
West Coast Correspondent
Maybe too much sky and not enough foreground on #1 Rob - a lower comp could have had the track intersect the frame corner perhaps.
I do like the look and the people on the track.
#2 is an excellent comp, with the cloud really making it - was the banding visible before post processing?
I do like the look and the people on the track.
#2 is an excellent comp, with the cloud really making it - was the banding visible before post processing?
Pete Askew
Admin
I don't object to the ratio of sky to foreground in the first Rob, but I do think you need to tweak a bit more detail out of the tree. I like the second very much though. What a shame about the banding. Where are they coming from?!
Brian Moore
Moderator
I'm with Pete about the detail in the tree, Rob.
As to the vertical banding, have you checked the negs yet?
As to the vertical banding, have you checked the negs yet?
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Yes. I can't see anything in the negs. Must be the scanning. If I want to print them I'll get them scanned again.
Beth Carter
Well-Known Member
#2 for me. wonderful comp. and tones.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Beth!
Paul Lange
Moderator
I prefer number 1 at the moment but things might change as I think I would really like 2 if some bits were cropped but thats just my opinion. I do think the tree is way too dark, Shame about the banding I do hope that it turns out not to be the negs Rob. You have been posting some really nice film based images.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Paul. I'm not completely on top of film yet. I forget to do important things here and there, like attach the right filter, set the right ISO, take a light reading, keep perfectly still or use a tripod, etc, etc. But I am getting a (for me) high proportion of useable images from a roll. It is expensive, though, and I'm getting a little worried about that. However, the more time I take over a shot, the fewer shots I take, so it should work out to be financially viable.
I'm thinking of - for one month only - restricting myself to one roll of 120 film, just 12 shots, and only shoot when I'm absolutely certain it's what I want. That would be a tremendous discipline, and a world away from my digital shooting. And I'm going to force myself to get one or two printed every month on rag paper.
It's a plan...
I'm thinking of - for one month only - restricting myself to one roll of 120 film, just 12 shots, and only shoot when I'm absolutely certain it's what I want. That would be a tremendous discipline, and a world away from my digital shooting. And I'm going to force myself to get one or two printed every month on rag paper.
It's a plan...
