could you be so kind to check my pics made in summer 99 in new york. Its the first time that I show those images to the public and it's the first time that I'm posting here....so please be nice to me ;-) but don't hesitate to critique.
image 1 (36kB)
image 2 (33kB)
image 3 (31kB)
thanx in advance

-- bernhard benke (uisquad@zip6020.com), March 06, 2002

Answers

Very nice. Thanks for a new look at the WTC

-- Brooks (Bvonarx@comcast.net), March 06, 2002.

i like the first image for it's color. what film did you use? did you shoot much film on your trip? these 3 images are all you want to show us?

john

-- john molloy (ballyscanlon@hotmail.com), March 06, 2002.

Hi, Bernhard:

Relevant excercise in composition that of the Towers.

Your posting could be educative besides nice to look at if you made accesible the technical data of them: camera, lens, film, f and exposure.

Keep posting, please. Thanks for sharing.

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 06, 2002.

"Your posting could be educative besides nice to look at if you made accesible the technical data of them: camera, lens, film, f and exposure. "

I'm a photo student so I'm always eager to learn, but I can't see how any information beyond perhaps the focal length of the lens would be useful or educational unless your goal is to try to recreate someone else's photograph. Even then I think there would be too many variables to pull it off and, in the case of image 3, would be patently impossible.

Magazines like Popular Photography obsess over the "technical details": camera, lens, film, aperture, shutter speed. But I always think they're just trying to sell gear to the insecure (as in, "Wow!, if I had a Nikon N90s instead of my Pentax K1000, I could make a shot like that!") Don't most photographers make that stuff up (aperture, shutter speed)? Who actually remembers or records every setting for every frame?

-- Keith Davis (leica4ever@yahoo.com), March 06, 2002.

bernhard, liked the third shot the best. the design and contrast were killer. the others were not my cup of tea, but keep on rockin.

also, i just find the exposure info interesting. i know i'm not going to recreate the shot, but i like to know how fast (or slow) the shutter was and depth of field so i can take all of this into account on what to do or not to do if i run into a similar situation. it's just nice. wh

-- dave s. (davstonner@aol.com), March 06, 2002.

Keith:

I don't intend to do things the way they are shown in somebody else's submisions here. And regarding Bernhard's third photo I couldn't even think of doing it, right?

What happens is that many times I guesstimate the conditions under which a given shot was made, according to my own experience, the same way that when I shoot with a exposure value based on experience rather than on a light meter reading.

And I feel that such an excercise is more rewarding if you have actual values against which to check/trim your estimations. Since your capabilities to get the best out of meter-less M3s like mine depend heavily on your experience and thinking, I like to keep playing these practice games so that my abilities get sharpened in time (hopefully, at least . . .)

No, I don't read those magazines since much longer than I can remember with any accuracy.

Regards, Keith

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), March 06, 2002.