I made an online portfolio to help get this job. comments?

Hakko · 07-02-2005, 03:48 PM

Here's the link. http://hakko.tripod.com/photos/

would love to get some constructive criticisms on these. Some I've already pretty much acknowledge that more could be done and what could have been done. Please say more than these are good,great,horrible. Really want input.

Thanks

Hakko

PS, click the "View Fully-size image" link. it really helps

Capt. Insane · 07-02-2005, 04:31 PM

the bw are good, but then again ive rarely come across a poor bw picture. the others are honestly not that great. they just look like ordinary every-day pictures that some tourist took with a cheap camera. the lighting isn't that great and the quality is shady. though i do like the flower one, that's actually good. you really capture the detail well on it

ilikemittens · 07-02-2005, 05:34 PM

So much for being constructive...

No, these aren't all exactly Glamour Shots, but how often are you out with the family and have perfect lighting, a wonderful backdrop and your settings ready to roll? Hakko has some really nice pictures. Did you see the one of his two aunts? He's got a knack for knowing when to snap the camera. Look at his photos again and pay less attention to technical things and more at the moments he captured. I know that what makes a good photo is part technical stuff, but now that he'll be working in a studio he can control the lighting, setting, etc. and he'll get some training and even more experience to make his photos look wonderful. I have a feeling if he posts some of his work in a few months we'll be amazed.

Capt. Insane · 07-02-2005, 06:18 PM

you know, i didnt look at the names really earlier, but ive got an aunt judy too. thats funny

Hakko · 07-02-2005, 09:22 PM

Quote:

So much for being constructive...

Actually I think he is being constructive by giving an honest opinion. He thought the B&W are decent, but he stated most look like ordinary pictures with cheap cameras and that the lighting and quality is shady. I thought I had something on the album, but I might have left it out. The not quite right quality of the outdoor pictures can probably be attributed to the scanner I used to scan the prints and then my lack of skill in photoshop trying to correct what the scanner did. I feel the lighting on those are really good, but the scanned results are lacking. But as for lighting on the indoor pics, Insane has a great point. It does look like it was taken by someone that has never used a camera. Red eye problems, washed out faces and big shadows because of the flash. He might be missing the .. what I call emotion of the moment.... But these pics are of people I know and what I feel may be personal and not felt by others when they see this. Most of these I wasn't trying to be creative, just wanted to capture the moment and perhaps Insane is looking for more creative things. If I was someone else looking at these photos of people, id probably not feel much and not really care to linger on them. I really wish my indoor photos where better. I'm pretty unhappy with the onboard flash. I don't think I have redeye reduction mode and the flash is too close to my lens. it tends to wash out the face too much and produce unwanted shadows. I generally try not to use the flash indoors. Now I have to pics of the banjo/guitar cousin and aunt. The underexpose pic was done on purpose to create a warmer feeling as I felt the flash was probably too bright.

All in all, the b&w photo of my father in law is my favorite, but even then it could have been better with a lower iso rating, the removal of the trashcan in left corner and a change of lighting, but the moment only happened right that then and there was no time to ponder things. I no longer by that film and now have Kodak T-MAx 100 sitting here in front of me.

Once I go digital, I'll have no excuses for poor quality as I can set the iso speeds right there and have other functions.

The pic of my wife I was trying to be creative with the angle and the various tones/shades of red. But, the lighting on the face is not as good as it should have been and that is not a scan defect.

I appreciate your comments Insane.. May I ask what you would have done differently if you were in my shoes at those moments. Can you tell me if you would have refrained fromt eh flash, increase/decrease aperatures and shutter speeds or changed the angle to make the pictures more desirable. Your input on what you would have done could be educational for future pics. Just for reference, it seems most of these pics had an aperature range of around.. an average of 5.6 and most on P mode.

Laura, as always, thank you for belief in me. It is most appreciated. But surely one of these must not be all that good to you and you might have some ideas on how to improve it.

OK. I gotta play some CS:S.. having withdrawal espisodes.

Capt. Insane · 07-03-2005, 10:23 AM

yeah i was looking at them more on the technical side of things...i thought that's what you wanted. as for scanning the pix (before i get to other things) if you think you'll be staying with film for awhile, buy a film scanner, you'll get better quality. if you dont know what it does, it scans the picture from the negative instead of the print.

as for what i would have done differently, it's hard to tell not having been there. i havent used a 35 in a while, either. however, when i did use it i wasn't all that great with varying the creative aspect of picture-taking. my camera had a device in it that would tell me when the apature and everything is set up perfectly (using a flash being the exception) so all i'd have to worry mostly about is focus and making sure the camera is level. but i think you might be right in that the flash didn't help to much; on-board ones never seem to work too well. also, what kind of camera are you using? slr cameras (which is what im guessing you used) tend to take better pictures than those point-and-shoot ones

Hakko · 07-03-2005, 01:41 PM

It's a Nikon n6006. SLR.

I've been trying to find an affordable flat bed scanner that can do negatives as I am really not pleased with my end results right now. I saw one that was looking really good until I found out hat it had trouble with strips and would underexpose 10% of one side and overexpose 10% of the other. Now that I'm employed, my first duty is to get a new vehicle, next is to buy a Nikon D70 or a Canon EOS 20D.

Technical critisicms is the main part, especially for non living things, as I have a lot more time to compose for the shot and think it through. Living subjects in my photos are meant to be critiques more from a emotional stance over technical. I tend to try for very candid shots of my victims and it doesn't give me a lot of time to check my exposure and stuff.

Sometimes I don't even go for emotion, it's more about seeing a little deeper. My wife was shot at an angle just to try a different angle and see what the result would be, but I also had noticed the shades fo red. Did you notice that? The brick, hair, shirt. I found it interesting.

When shooting people, I look for Happiness, depression, sadness, loneliness and stc.. That B&W pic of my father in law, to me, is depressing. How does it feel to you? I already know that it could have been done better with a better film and a little bit more prep work (move that damn trash can). That's one pic where I simply cared about emotion.

Other shots like the side view of stone mountain was for a different point of view that isn't often captured on film. Also noticed the details brought out with the sun and shade. To me, it shows a lot more detailed over the frontal picture.

But, some pictures are very much point and shoot as you have said, such as niece pictures. It's more of a record keeping events. I should have taken those out I suppose as they are very ordinary.

I agree that more information on the pics can really help people offer advice. I plan on recording my aperature and shutter speed settings and time of day for future pics to make it easier for advice.

ilikemittens · 07-03-2005, 03:10 PM

Hakko the picture of your niece at the table where she's turned around to look at the camera is one of my favourites. When ever I'm at get-togethers and there's babies/children I always try to pull off pictures like that - perfectly clear and no bluring. The ONLY thing I could possibly think of that's wrong with it is maybe a minor color issue, but I'm almost certain that's a scanning issue and could simply be corrected in PS.

The one of your two aunts, as I've told you, is definitely my fav. I just love it.

I also like your sister looking "grown up" into the camera, although I wish it was a bit more centered, which would probably have more of her head showing. Yeah, it would have been nice if the baby was looking but I don't think it was absolutely necessary. Babies are often in their own little world...

Baby with the balloon - I like the expression, it's very cute. I think I would have liked to see this more as a close up though... it would have gotten rid of a lot of the other distracting elements in the pic.

The purple sky, 11pm at night... That's really awesome and I wish I could do something like that. I THINK my shutter will only stay open for like 4 seconds though... that doesn't seem right but I've never really tried.

Cousin with sleepy son is uninteresting to me as an outsider. However, I can picture my own cousin with his son (in a few years) in that same pose and I can see how it would mean something more to you. Same with the Aunt Judy rock out pictures. Cousin with cat I feel would have been better if it were a little more straight (pull out some guidelines in PS, rotate, and crop and you can probably fix that) and if he was a liiiiittle bit closer to the camera.

The photoshopped versions of Stone Mountain are very nice. I like the dead on angle the best. And I wouldn't feel bad or anything about having to PS it - I have to all the time. Especially if I'm taking a macro of words on a paper or something. They don't stand out at all unless I do some PS work.

I like your idea behind the blurry sister picture but the background (cabinets) turn me off. You mentioned you'd like to use this technique again and I think, given the proper setting, it would definitely work.

I was going to comment on the rest but I gotta run now. I have some family up from Kentucky. Again these are just my personal opinions about the pictures. What I would have done differently. And I realize the same can be said for you Capt., I was just wanting you to be a little more specific since he asked for some CC.

Capt. Insane · 07-03-2005, 05:22 PM

if i wasnt going to be studying abroad in the spring i think i'd prolly buy myself a new digital camera. im not really happy with mine

Hakko · 07-03-2005, 10:03 PM

Laura, your camera can take a 16 second shot
Programmed Auto: 4 - 1/2000 sec
â€¢ Aperture Priority: 4 - 1/2000 sec
â€¢ Shutter priority: 4 - 1/1000 sec
â€¢ Manual: 16 - 1/1000 sec

that's your specs.

I just bought a cable release with a lock so I can try to do some more.

I just picked up a 12 exposure roll of Fujifilm Superia Reala 100ISO. Anxious to try it out.

As for centering, Here and there I've tried to practice the Rule of Thirds for placement of my subjects. For mor einformation on that go to http://www.photo.net/learn/nature/ghopkins/comp3/

Blurred sister photo. Holy cow. You're right. If the cabinents were white it wouldn't stand out so much. My attention was on my sister. Good eye Laura. I'll have to be more careful of what is in the background.

I hear fireworks. going to try and get a photo of them