What is your opinion on this photos?

[ericzhu]

Ericzhu: how you view the world, including your loved ones imprints itself on the negative, assuming solid command of technique and mastery of one's equipment.

Beyond that, my hat off to Pistach. I am with him one-hundert-and-one percent. And the pixelised world is a sterile wasteland.

All my best.

All my photos start from my daughter. Since we couldn't meet everyday (only 60 days a year), so I saved my $ and got nikon D100 after her birth. Last year, I am more interested in b&w, so addicted to leica now.

Just stride my 1st step on my road to photograph. Hoping make more progress. And I am glad to see that my daughter has the potential, look at her paintings: http://www.fotop.net/ericzhu/paintings

I am ready to give all my gears to her when she grows up. :dance:

 

[Goodyear]

she says she is looking too fat in the picture.

Says my wife: how does that make her look fat?

1-3 are super images with a nice soft feel (in a good way). The others could do with some more exposure, I guess. But I regularly shoot much much worse.

 

[RML]

So man shall choose a beauty as his wife. Beauty needs no makeup. I now know the words' meaning: Marry in haste, hatred at leisure. 😀

My wife is a beauty (OK, I'm biased) and still she "needs" make-up. Fact is that even many of the most gorgeous women feel "naked" without make-up. And aren't men just as bad? How else can you explain the hatred for big, fat bellies and so many men always wanting to lose weight. 😛

 

[merciful]

My wife says that these pictures are too underexposed, totally too dark. But I don't think so. What is your opinion?]

The first three are fine exposures, though of course there's some room for subjective commentary as to post-processing/printing choices. They're also far too smooth for my tastes; but still keepers.

The last three are very obviously badly underexposed, but still salvageable by abandoning any hope of keeping shadow detail, since it isn't there. Unlike Pistach, I don't care at all for shadow detail (that's why I push Tri-X so much.

The attached example comes from a neg that i assume was about as underexposed as yours.

 

[JoeFriday]

I would say all under exposed to some degree.. the first three could be considered 'artistic' in the use of shadows.. but the others are definitely underexposed to the point where I wouldn't use them.. so I would agree with your wife.. but I do like the composition of them all

 

[x-ray]

I've seen very few images on various forums that really knock me out but I have to say X12 is one that does. EXCELLENT use of space and light. The disconnect of the subject from the camera is superb. All of them are very good but this one really shows something that goes well beyond a simple photography. As far as too dark or too light, If it pleases you then it's just right. Experiment and see if you like something different but I think it has a very delicate and soft feel. Darker might make it too harsh and kill the delicate feel of the photo. You've pulled all of the elements together to make a superb piece of art!


http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showgallery.php?cat=5045

 

[Magus]

Post deleted by posters request

 

[ulyssescat]

I think they are mostly great photos.You are being harsh on yourself if you think you are not a good photographer.The ones that are very grainy and could be construed as 'underexposed' look like they were shot with a Collapsible summi wide open at F2.Some of my photos look like that shot with this lense.
As for the underexposed thing,I think that is entirely a matter of taste on whether its bad or good.Sometimes I like to underexpose on purpose,as a creative tool.I don't think there is a wrong or right.
However,perhaps your wife is not a photographer,so I can see where she is coming from.She is probably used to colour,bright,everything in focus,flash infested pictures.I am afraid this is the case for most people.
Keep up the good work mate,there are some truly good photos there.
We have only ever seen for example Bresson's or say Ansel Adams' famous pictures,and not the other pictures on the same roll of film that didnt come out.

 

[Rafael]

I agree that you have some very nice images here. To my mind, the question of correct exposure really comes down to the effect that you intend to create in your image. I agree with the previous post that underexposure can be used creatively. The latter three images are technically underexposed. However, the effect (partricularly in X12) is quite interesting. Personally, I think that X12 is more effective than X11. The expression that you have captured in your daughter seems to fit the mood of the photograph better in the former image than in the latter. But the real question is what you intended. If you intended images 4-6 to be exposed similarly to the first three, then the latter three are definitely underexposed. However, if you achieved the effect that you intended, then your exposures are bang on. And hey, if you achieved a result that you are happy with completely by accident, then again I would say that your exposures are bang on. I doubt there are many photographers out there who have not produced a great image quite by accident at least once or twice! Thanks for sharing these images.

 

[regit]

Good stuff, Eric 🙂 They have the old-world look to them and I think the exposure add atmosphere to the pics.

PS: Are you Eric from DPR?

 

[zanydave]

Now't wrong with your photo's mate. She just
hasn't learn't to see yet!

 

[ericzhu]

Good stuff, Eric 🙂 They have the old-world look to them and I think the exposure add atmosphere to the pics.

PS: Are you Eric from DPR?

Hi, Regit, nice to meet you again. I am the Eric from PRC (People's Republic of China). We have contacted before, and I always admire and enjoy your photos. By the way, have u got the noctilux? If not, let me give u a drug: This is my another test shot of it (I forget to put the lens shade on, but it seems it is necessary): http://www.fotop.net/ericzhu/fireworks

 

[ericzhu]

Thanks all friends. I have gained confidence and I would not mind my wife's words any more.

 

[ericzhu]

Hi Eric,

I think that the first three shots are fine. Nice pics, good exposure. The next three definitely look like underexposed film to me. The fourth and fifth pictures of the child would have been better with more exposure to the negative, and you could have still printed the photos dark to get the same effect you were after. I think that the picture of the woman could also have come out better with more exposure. What kind of film did you use? The last three pictures look like they were made from an underexposed C-41 Process black & white film.

Mike Sullivan

Hi, Mike

After finding the original film, i finally confirm the film I was using:
For the first 3 photos, it uses Ilford Pan F Plus;
For the others, a Chinese New luck 400 film ($0.7/roll).

Film developed in Kodak D76.