Sam, since you've posted your images for us to see, I will offer some feedback. I'd like to be kind,
but I think you may possibly gain more from my being honest.
Your first image of the girl, lined up in a rules-of-thirds style, is a bit too contrived. It doesn't look
natural, and the photo seems to do nothing more record that the young lady is actually very good looking.
The second image is well exposed, but thats it. Again, a cliched and hackneyed of a girl is given. It could
have used imagination to a much better impact. As it is, it just looks static, and unspecial.
The third image could have had a better angle of approach. As we see it, there is not enough to hold the
interest, and one's eye flits around the image looking for something........more.
The fourth image is one that I would have thrown in the bin, and not shown anyone. Its just lacking in life.
Yet there are three people in it, so maybe waiting a second more might have shown the better shot.
Your last image cried out for some follow-up shots, closer, and maybe with the boy's permission. Not bad,
but the boards at the front dominate the image, and they have now life in them, or much story about them.
I know why people like Mr.Smyth sneer at some who use the older way to make their photographic images. I
agree with them, but I don't agree that digital is superior. Obviously I feel that film photography is worthwhile,
because the medium itself gives a mood, that digital doesn't, without potato-chopping.
Its also sadly obvious from some posts in this thread, that just owning film cameras is enough to make some
people on here feel that they've accomplished something. I suggest differently. That its only through what one
can accomplish with these cameras, that would make the user known a good, indeterminate or bad photographer.
I can teach nearly any child of 8 years old to properly compose imges and take accurate light readings manually.
Putting them together to make something a bit special, now that is the challenging part.
Sam, since you've posted your images for us to see, I will offer some feedback. I'd like to be kind,
but I think you may possibly gain more from my being honest.
Your first image of the girl, lined up in a rules-of-thirds style, is a bit too contrived. It doesn't look
natural, and the photo seems to do nothing more record that the young lady is actually very good looking.
The second image is well exposed, but thats it. Again, a cliched and hackneyed of a girl is given. It could
have used imagination to a much better impact. As it is, it just looks static, and unspecial.
The third image could have had a better angle of approach. As we see it, there is not enough to hold the
interest, and one's eye flits around the image looking for something........more.
The fourth image is one that I would have thrown in the bin, and not shown anyone. Its just lacking in life.
Yet there are three people in it, so maybe waiting a second more might have shown the better shot.
Your last image cried out for some follow-up shots, closer, and maybe with the boy's permission. Not bad,
but the boards at the front dominate the image, and they have now life in them, or much story about them.
I know why people like Mr.Smyth sneer at some who use the older way to make their photographic images. I
agree with them, but I don't agree that digital is superior. Obviously I feel that film photography is worthwhile,
because the medium itself gives a mood, that digital doesn't, without potato-chopping.
Its also sadly obvious from some posts in this thread, that just owning film cameras is enough to make some
people on here feel that they've accomplished something. I suggest differently. That its only through what one
can accomplish with these cameras, that would make the user known a good, indeterminate or bad photographer.
I can teach nearly any child of 8 years old to properly compose imges and take accurate light readings manually.
Putting them together to make something a bit special, now that is the challenging part.