Restless — An Alex Hall Portrait (Full Film) | Faction Skis

Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Check out my Flickr?

profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
I have never really done this before but some honest critique would be really sick. Just any feedback or comment is wanted, if there is anything at all that i should focus on then let me know. Anything.


I shall also be offering the karmas
Oct 8 2010 7:04PM
0 0
profile picture
[]Soul_Steeze[]
Posts: 2357 - Karma: 61

really good stuff man.

2650 and 2643 were my favorites.

are you using a fisheye in some of those?

Oct 8 2010 11:43PM
0 0
profile picture
*simba*
Posts: 9125 - Karma: 512
Good stuff!
Oct 8 2010 11:49PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Some of your work I would consider to be alright, but most of it Im just not sure about. I can't figure out why you took the shot, or what you wanted to show us by posting the shot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brockerton/5017916377/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brockerton/5018516302/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brockerton/5018497064/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brockerton/5062739653/
They seem excessively cluttered, and don't portray the normal as anything but.

Not sure why the flare testing shots are in there.
Fix your horizons.
Whats your obsession with security cameras? << Really though, answer that, I tend to take pictures of them, but never post them anywhere and can't figure out why I shoot them in the first place, but I continue.

One shot I did like was this.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brockerton/5018496888/

By no means do I think your shots are bad shots, but more learning shots. It seems you've got the technical down, but your work is lacking the inspiration, the feeling, the you in them. Flowers wont every capture that, so challenge yourself not to shoot them for a little while.

And finally, milf. That is all.
Oct 9 2010 1:53AM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
well in my defense I only have 2 shots of them. Thank you for the insight though, I definitely agree with you on the fact that I need to pay more attention to horizons and get rid of the cluttered and misplaced shots.
Oct 9 2010 12:01PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
3, counting the round mirror. But I wasn't accusing you of anything..? Only inquiring.
Oct 9 2010 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
2 new shots up/ bump

Oct 10 2010 6:18PM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
meh, it's digital.

Oct 10 2010 6:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Yung_Gnarley
Posts: 9092 - Karma: 3,022
haha yup
Oct 10 2010 8:35PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
explain.
Oct 10 2010 10:27PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Digitals not art br0. Only film. Thats why the photographers who actually know what they are doing only shoot film. Everyone knows that. Films art. B&W grainy shots make my mediocre shallow dof picture of a flower art.

Art.


haha..
Oct 11 2010 1:10AM
0 0
profile picture
assface
Posts: 4319 - Karma: 2,031
yeah fuckin purists, they need to get off their goddamn high horse
Oct 11 2010 2:41AM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
Im picking up strong readings on my meter!

Why cant someone just fucking explain these things without the stupid underlying sarcasm.
Oct 11 2010 2:17PM
0 0
profile picture
SeanTom
Posts: 7936 - Karma: 1,747
I shoot both as i'm sure a lot of people on here do.

The general themes i've picked up on are that
Digital is quick and easy and anyone with a camera can pick it up and produce some sort of a photograph. Considered a "Cold" form of photography by some.

Film it seems the artist (if you will) is much more involved in the shot as there are only so many frames on a roll (for me it's 12). There's more care put into the composition and exposure and then of course you have the entirety of the darkroom.

feel free to add or take away NS
Oct 11 2010 2:33PM
0 0
profile picture
beermuscles
Posts: 1821 - Karma: 100
what camera are you using here?
Oct 11 2010 2:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Yung_Gnarley
Posts: 9092 - Karma: 3,022
my thoughts
Oct 11 2010 3:37PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Why does it even need to be explained in the first place.
Oct 11 2010 4:15PM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
Any Joe can pick up a camera and go take 1000 pictures, and 9/10 out of those 1000 there's going to be a couple ok shots.

For the 1/10 that can't manage to get a good shot, they put it on the computer and edit the living fuck out of it until it looks ok.

None of this editing can be done on film, and you also can't go take 1000 shots in a day (not unless you're really really rich).

This is why I look at peoples flickrs who just have digital shots as 'meh'. I don't know how you shoot, whether you have another flickr for film, what your views on this subject are, how long you've been shooting, all these kinds of variables, which would be great if they were included somewhere...

Yes there are shots that are amazing, and are creative, but much of what I see isn't...

Digital's wicked for magazines and whatnot, and films awesome for having a hard copy of your photo to hold and give to people, and more personal of a feel.

This is me half ranting right now, but I'll leave it with that.
Oct 11 2010 7:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski.banANNA
Posts: 5 - Karma: 9
Your shots are AMAZINGGGG! :) nice job

I like the one of the leaves
Oct 11 2010 7:53PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
So I could take the exact same shot on digital as I would film, and you are saying that you would completely discredit the digital shot, solely based on the fact it is not film?

You can edit in the darkroom. Film elitists make me laugh.
Oct 11 2010 8:14PM
0 0
profile picture
gabe.
Posts: 1891 - Karma: 47
i liked 0494 a lot
Oct 11 2010 8:30PM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
thank you, 10/10.

These are the responses im looking for. Ones that give you insight into different aspects of the photography world, not idiots trying to be clever. (you can leave despite)
Oct 11 2010 8:57PM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
not at all, a good shot is a good shot.

what i'm saying is that i don't know how many shots it took you to get that picture with digital. with film he could be lucky, know how to take pictures, or have tried his ass off to get that shot.

not a film elitist, i've shot on both dslr and film, I just prefer film for what I shoot.
Oct 11 2010 9:14PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
I think the same things you are judging digital on, could be applied to film. I dont know how many shots it took you to get that one. It could of been just as many as digital, except the film shooter wasted a ton more money. The digital shooter could be lucky, or know how to take pictures, or worked his ass off to get the shot. I have never once been proved that a digital shot should be any less credited simple based on the fact that it is digital. My assumption is if you can get a great shot using digital, you could of done the same with film.
Yeah I went through a film stage too. I still shoot film regularly, Nikon FE with portra and extar  for color, and delta for b&w, but I never value one shot over another because one is film and the other is digital.


Brock - wtf is you're problem? I gave you an honest critique, gave you more insight than everyone else in this thread combined, then you go and get pissy at me. Then I had your back when everyone discredited your work solely based on the fact its digital, then you go and tell me to leave your thread? Ha kid, you amaze me. You know what, I take back what I said, keep shooting your ill-inspired shots. There awesome br0. Love em.
Oct 11 2010 11:21PM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
he was your only friend in this thread...
Oct 11 2010 11:27PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
Im not sure if your talking to me or not.. If yo were, how exactly was he my friend?
Oct 11 2010 11:30PM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
I was talking to the OP. You were nice and helpful to him. It clearly did not come back around.
Oct 11 2010 11:41PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
man, you've given me some good insight in the past, so i don't really want to get into this, but can you PLEASE tone down your aggression?
Oct 11 2010 11:48PM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
you could, but i think what's good about film is it's made me look for the right shot the first time around, instead of taking and looking i look before i take.

also another plus about film is you can't have a harddrive die on you and lose all those photos, which was another reason I switched. had a scare where i thought everything from the last year was gone, but this is simple to fix with and easy raid 1 configuration like the one i have now.

and like you said, the dude taking film could've spent a fuck load of money on multiple rolls to get one shot, but i never take more than two shots of one thing, waste of money.



Oct 11 2010 11:53PM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
akrieg - makes sense, ha I wasn't sure how he 'friended' me at all..

scott - so you were ready, to discount his work, because you had a technology scare awhile back? I get what you are saying about only shooting one or two frames, I'm the same way, but just because its digital doesn't mean the user just goes clicking away in hopes of something.
Now I'm not trying to be close minded here, but I'm failing to see how "meh digial" is an relevant critique of someones work?

*For the record, I think shooting film is a key stage in learning photography, for all the reasons fsscott has provided. I would probably shoot film a lot more often if I was still a labbie and had free range of a lab.
Oct 12 2010 12:31AM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
This thread was made for photo critique not "making friends". I couldn't care less wether or not you hate film or digital, I dont give a flying fuck unless you raise valid points or some kind of intellectual argument, unlike despite going on about how people that use film are fuckheads.

Despite- I unfortunately overlooked the fact that you were the one who posted the legitimate critique in the first place (should have scrolled up to check), so for that I am genuinely sorry :,(
Oct 12 2010 12:42AM
0 0
profile picture
Brock.
Posts: 5698 - Karma: 1,332
this. you blow everything out of proportion and come off as an asshole with your stupid unnecessary nattering.
Oct 12 2010 12:51AM
0 0
profile picture
.jr
Posts: 5313 - Karma: 356
aggression?
Ha Scott and I were having a debate about credibility in both film and digital, I'm fairly sure you were the only one to get mad in this thread. Something about how I wasn't fully explaining things to you with out using sarcasm.
Oct 12 2010 1:38AM
0 0
profile picture
family_vacation
Posts: 6200 - Karma: 7,840
all the aggression in this thread is coming from one person... and can we all just be nice?
Oct 12 2010 1:46AM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
not because of a technology scare, but because of the lack of background info for the person shooting digital.

and yes that is true, but with digital you have the option of doing so. with film nobody in their right mind would do that. not saying it's not an option, but if they're doing that it's a bloody waste of film.

there's thing about film though, holding it, passing it to other people, just having a tactile photo you can hold is something i can't really explain.

another thing i love about film is not knowing what you're gonna get, which makes you take even more time setting up to make sure you're gonna get the right shot. just the suspense and everything together is wicked fun

and i see what you're saying, and to clear it up here's what I think.

it looks like you're new to photography from most of the shots I see. it's good you're experimenting with shooting different subjects and not just one thing, most of us find what we like to shoot a little while in. keep taking photos, and try to bring a camera everywhere. the last thing you want to do is run into a pirate wedding and not have a camera...yes, it's happened.

sorry if that's all discombobulated (ha, fun word)
Oct 12 2010 2:20AM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
http://www.flickr.com/photos/53775914@N05/

Any criticism is welcome.
Oct 12 2010 2:29AM
0 0
profile picture
michael_bc
Posts: 1386 - Karma: 721
I'm a little bit amazed by your hefty attack on digital photography, in defense of the art of film photography, and then seeing this trite, cliche photo album. It kind of confirms all the stereotypes of the artsy fartsy types. Being a trend whore does not make you special.

Personally, I believe what separates the artist from the professional photographer and the amateur, is that the artist creates with whatever tool at his disposal. It doesn't matter whether it's film or digital, a cheap crappy camera or a professional one, whether its a box with a hole in it or a $5K lens. An artist will create something out of it. A trend whore will complain that it's not Canon, or not film, or not whatever shit detail that isn't trendy right now.
Oct 12 2010 9:08AM
0 0
profile picture
fsscott
Posts: 4684 - Karma: 114
as i've clearly stated earlier i prefer shooting film for what I shoot.

Digital is great for a lot of things, but not for me right now.

and as for your artist rant an artist can create with whatever, but some prefer one thing more than another ie) pencil or paintbrush.

whether or not what he's doing is 'trendy' or 'hip' at the time isn't the point, it's that he or she is doing what she likes to do regardless of what everyone else is saying
Oct 12 2010 10:41AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)