Support NeoGAF

[Lemurnator]

I went to the zoo during spring break and I burned off a roll of 35. These are scans from the pictures I took while at the zoo.

Nothing in here is particularly creative, and I didn't have a zoom lense so a lot of the pictures are very grainy because the prints I made had to be enlarged quite a bit. This is for my gallery in Photography. They don't have to be good pictures to get a good grade really, but I tried the best with what I have, a Minolta SLR with no shutter speed or aperture settings. ;_;

Tell me what you think.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

I know they're far from professional, but at in the least they're cool pictures from the zoo, and the zoo rox. :3

Tell me what you think.

 

[Lemurnator]

Tears am falling down in keyboard.

 

[Takuan]

The one of the bear rocks, too bad it looks corrupt or something towards the bottom.

 

[DarkAngelYuna]

Decent, though I recommened you quit centering everything and look up the rule of thirds. Nice though .

 

[sprsk]

the bear is all right

they all seem to be in focus so thats good.

as for content :/

 

[darscot]

Man I hate the Zoo, it's just so depressing. Take pictures of something people like to look at.

 

[Xenon]

The one of the bear rocks, too bad it looks corrupt or something towards the bottom.

Yeah it does. Like the claws

 

[Lemurnator]

the bear is all right

they all seem to be in focus so thats good.

as for content :/

What's wrong with the content?

I rike the tigers going rawr.

I also like the one with the tiger underneith the tree walking toward me looking directly at me as I took the picture....

 

[Rorschach]

Are these scanned photographs?

 

[Lemurnator]

Yes. Scanned black and white photographs.

 

[darscot]

Wildlife photogrophy and the Zoo just don't mix.
It's like nudes at a fat old people convention.

 

[Che]

The only one I really liked was the sixth. As for the rest the content doesn't seem the most suitable for black and white photography.

 

[Lemurnator]

I think the 6th when it's completely uncropped and in 5x7 form looks particularly awsome. If I had a scan of my proofsheet I'd show you but it looks really neat. Like a painting.

 

[SSGMUN10000]

Im no photography expert or anything but when taking pics of nature or animals using color pics would be is preferrable. Your pics are decent but a few of them would have looked alot better in color.

 

[rc213]

Im diggin #1 & #6 alot.

 

[Lemurnator]

Im no photography expert or anything but when taking pics of nature or animals using color pics would be is preferrable. Your pics are decent but a few of them would have looked alot better in color.

I have no way to develop color photographs the exact way I want them. ;_;

 

[Lucky Forward]

I like the tiger and the bear shots, but it looks like they were shot at mid-day and are kind of contrasty. If you try to shoot in the hour or so after sunrise or before sunset (not always possible at the zoo, though) you'll find the tone of the light is more even and you won't have the stark highlights set against black shadow area. If you're shooting color, it also gives you a nice golden light. You can get evenly lit shots on an overcast day, too. Bright afternoon sunshine is the worst light for photography, IMO.

In the butterfly and bird shots the bright background fooled your light meter so they came out too dark. If you had full control over your exposure, you can override the settings the camera has selected, but for now just try to keep the sun behind you and try not to juxtapose a dark subject against a bright background. Nice framing on the close-in bird shot, just too bad he's in silhouette.

 

[nitewulf]

most are underexposed and shutter should have been higher on tiger yawing shots. some shoul have been zoomed in more at subject(s). contrast is low = i no like.
bird silhouttes are good, impressive depending on whether intentional or not.

 

[Lemurnator]

I have no control over any camera settings... I have a shitty camera. No zoom either. ;_;

The bird is intentional however, since it was shot indoors and I don't have a flash. There's no other way it could have come out other than in silhoutte, but I knew that when I took them in the first place.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

No shutter or apterture settings on the camera? In light of that information, I'd say your pictures are quite good. Did you develop them manually in a lab? If so, I'd go back and up the contrast on a few of the animals so they stand out more. Throw some borders in too. You really need different film too; the big grains of silver in the film emulsion are killing ya.

bird silhouttes are good, impressive depending on whether intentional or not.

I agree. If the picture wasn't grainy, it would be be very, very nice.

 

[Lemurnator]

I developed myself in a lab yes. What kind of film would you suggest? 2 rules: It has to be black and white, and it can't be the kind that develops in color photo chemistry.

I have a concern that after school, I won't be able to develop my own pictures at all. Are there places or camera stores that have darkrooms, chemistry, enlargers ect. ect. that you can use for a fee?

I'll get info from my photo teacher concerning the type of chemicals.

 

[nitewulf]

just buy a digital. if you are beginning the hobby there is no need to be a film elitist. right now you need to take 1000s of shots and see them before your eyes and make proper adjustments. digital is the way to go. you can take b/w shots w/ a digi as well.
after you're proficient, and want to tell ppl at every opportunity that you preffer film...go ahead and get a film slr.

 

[Lemurnator]

I really do prefer film though. ;_; It's easier to me since I'm not great at photo editing and or using advanced digital SLRs.

Digital may provide instant gratification, but I prefer nearly everything film over digital. Digital pictures just don't look right to me. I don't know how to explain...

 

[Lemurnator]

You are right about taking 1000 pictures and adjusting though.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

just buy a digital. if you are beginning the hobby there is no need to be a film elitist. right now you need to take 1000s of shots and see them before your eyes and make proper adjustments. digital is the way to go. you can take b/w shots w/ a digi as well.
after you're proficient, and want to tell ppl at every opportunity that you preffer film...go ahead and get a film slr.

Yeah, digital would be the way to go, methinks.

BUt if you're intent on using film, you can eliminate some of the graininess by purchasing lower ASA film. The higher the ASA, the larger the silver grains in the film emulsion. Consequently, bigger grains of silver means less light's required for exposure, making this type of film great for action shots where quick shutter speeds required. Lower ASA has smaller grains of silver, making the pictures turn out really nicely, but needs longer shutter speeds to get properly exposed (or an aperture/good lighting). Since your camera has no control over shutter speed/aperture, and you have very little control over the depth of field, changing film ASA's won't be very beneficial since you'll have little control over what youre camera does anyways.

Listen to nitewulf. It sounds like his knowledge outstrips the semester of photography I took in grade 10 3 years ago

 

[Lemurnator]

It sucks ass my teacher teaches us how to use a vignette, and doesn't teach jack shit about composition.

 

[Sukahii16]

For the butterfly macro you might want to try burning in the ledge that he's set on because right now there's no detail.

You're going to need a manual slr to have more control over your composition and learn to use the camera. You can fine them really cheap either through ebay or see if anyone's parents still own an old camera they don't use. I use a Canon AE-1 Program and they're on ebay all the time for under $100 or so.

I think your pictures are good considering you had no control over what you were doing. The grain isn't terrible and I don't think it detracts from the photo as much as people have been saying.

What kind of film were you using?

 

[mrklaw]

first tiger one is nicely composed and a nice subject, but its too flat. Needs something to bring the tiger out a bit

and the first bird one is quite nice too.

You should at least have a crack at some digital stuff. Basic things like you do in the lab are very easy to do in photoshop elements or PSP. Levels, contrast, curves, burn and dodge are all very simple to learn.

 

[Zaptruder]

the bear is all right

they all seem to be in focus so thats good.

as for content :/

Shut it. You're too much of an elitist. It's doubly bad because a normal person would appreciate the stuff you're deriding over your photos, quirky strange and quirky they be.

That said, I'm not getting anything from the photos... except a very 1950s book on zoo creatures vibe.

 

[SickBoy]

What film did you use for these shots?

I don't even know what B&W film gets made any more, but I'd recommend Kodak Tri-X 400. A lot of people prefer T-MAX, but I think the Tri-X is good. Very versatile too... you can push it pretty far as well (i.e: shoot at ISO 1600 and overdevelop it). This is good news if you're worried about underexposure, because you can tweak your developing times for better results.

However, your results are also going to depend on what chemistry you're using to develop the film as well...

Some people go for the grainy look, too. One of my short-lived favorites (not made any more) was Kodak recording film, which had a really chunky grain to it... I wish I could have bought some more

Oh well, not like I use my camera any more, even with just a P&S for a digital.

BTW, how is it an SLR with no aperture or shutterspeed settings????