13 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
APFrey | 8 | 182 | ||
APFrey | 2 | 53 | ||
APFrey | 5 | 58 | ||
APFrey | 5 | 76 | ||
APFrey | 7 | 76 | ||
APFrey | 10 | 30 | ||
APFrey | 9 | 32 | ||
APFrey | 4 | 16 | ||
APFrey | 25 | 95 | ||
APFrey | 6 | 22 | ||
APFrey | 7 | 20 | ||
APFrey | 3 | 13 | ||
APFrey | 1 | 11 |
85 comments found!
Great advice everyone. Anyone else care to comment? Now, If I could just get a job!... Andrew
Thread: I need advice... | Forum: Photography
Thread: Spiderman | Forum: Photography
Are you insane?!! Spiderman will be worlds better than X-men! I saw the trailer and there's no question. Also, when there's as much hype surrounding a movie for as long as this one has, it's bound to be good. In X-men, they were so worried about characters and action that they forgot a key element...A good story line! =) Nice photo BTW.
Thread: Newcomer with many thanks | Forum: Photography
Keep 'em coming Ravenism! You do wonderful work and I think we all want to see more. I couldn't agree more about Render. There aren't many websites that make getting ample exposure this easy. In an environment like this one, I think we tend to grow very quickly as artists. Andrew
Thread: Photomanipulation or montage? | Forum: Photography
Thread: Check this out... | Forum: Photography
Thread: A second return for me, I demand everyone to read and respond, or else suffer.. | Forum: Photography
"A black and white awakening". I like the sound of that! As for the new contest, I think they were talking about creating a new "zone III" for you Slynk. Just kidding. Glad to see you back since I too am "back". Andrew
Thread: Introduction by way of Self-Portrait | Forum: Photography
Thread: Walking home | Forum: Photography
This is a great photo. It is a little underexposed but I think it helps make this image a bit more interesting. Great job Shuffler! Andrew
Thread: I've landed in B&W hell | Forum: Photography
Thread: To which gallery does this belong? | Forum: Photography
This belongs in the gallery entitled, "Great work originating from photographs from 40 years ago that have been made to look beautiful again"! OK, you may have trouble finding that category. There aren't really any rules for photo gallery. If there's a photo in it somewhere, stick it on here! You're bound to get a response. =) Andrew
Thread: I've landed in B&W hell | Forum: Photography
Alright! Now we're talkin' some interesting stuff! First, let me say Tmax 3200 has its place. It's a terrific film if you need some serious, serious speed. I've had good results pushing it all the way to iso 12800. Now That's speed! That's about the only thing you'll need it for though. My film of choice is Tri-x and I'll tell you why. Perhaps most importantly, tri-x will give you about 2 stops more latitude than tmax. That's quite significant when doing a wide range of tones. It helps to keep from having to blow out highlights and losing detail in those shadow areas. I've also gotten a lot better contrast out of tri-x than tmax, especially tmax 3200, simply because the general rule is the slower the film, the more contrast you get. But even when you use similar speeds of both films, you will find tri-x gives you more contrast. Tri-x used to be the "grainy film" but Kodak has since changed their formula so you don't have to worry about that anymore. The majority of photographers loved tri-x before the change and even more love it since the change. It is very popular and for good reason. If you want finer grain than that, I would recommend Ilford's Pan F iso 50. This is a great film but it is very slow. That may be what you want though. Keep in mind that unlike the previous two films, this is a "professional" film however, and it should be refridgerated. Don't throw out your Kodak B&W c-41 just yet! It definitely has it's place as well. Some of the absolute finest grain you can get in a B&W print, is from c-41 monochrome film. And that's surprising considering it is somewhat fast at up to iso 400. Even at that speed, you will get terrific grain even in huge enlargements. Don't forget how much less expensive it is to process. So what do you give up with this film? If you take to your everyday, 1-hour lab, your prints may come out a bit bluish. Some people like that. Some people don't even notice that. There is an alternative. You can get your prints done at a custom lab on black and white paper and not have to worry about the coloration at all. So this film definitely has it's place. I hope that's been helpful. I could go on for a long time about films like these, but I'll save everyone the torture! If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. I would love to help. For example, you may want me to explain that whole latitude thing and how you can meter to get detail out of everything in a high contrast situation. Wow, I just can't shut up! Anyway, I hope that helps... Andrew
Thread: Softly II | Forum: Photography
Alpha- My guess is that this is the result of a poor scan. Since I have the world's most pathetic scanner, I can tell you this happens to me frequently. Andrew
Thread: Softly II | Forum: Photography
Also, you should take a look at this same version in monochrome. Your pic is terrific in B&W.
Thread: Softly II | Forum: Photography
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: I need advice... | Forum: Photography