|
03-16-2008, 04:32 AM
| #1 (permalink) |
| Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 91 From: Silverdale, WA My Camera: Canon 40D | Critique Please These are just a few of the pictures I've finally decided to upload. It's with my NOW old camera, Canon EOS. It's a film camera. I have just recently bought the 40D, so I won't be using this one anymore. I also don't understand why the pictures didn't come out so well on the CD. The actual pictures turned out marvelously, but when I view them on the computer, they don't look so well... Also, to make it easier for people to load, they're clickable thumbnails. Anyway, any comments?               |
       |
| | |
|
03-16-2008, 06:50 AM
| #2 (permalink) |
| Senior Member  Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 272 From: Federal Way, WA My Camera: D300 & D200 | Seems your camera has quite a bit of internal dust in it. Your dust on the external glass may be bad as well. Lookin forward to seeing your canon 40D results!
__________________ http://darrenbeattyphotography.com |
| |
|
03-16-2008, 07:01 AM
| #3 (permalink) |
| Senior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 272 From: Federal Way, WA My Camera: D300 & D200 | By the way, welcome to the forum! 
__________________ http://darrenbeattyphotography.com |
| |
|
03-16-2008, 10:32 AM
| #5 (permalink) |
| Senior Member  Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 184 From: Darkness My Camera: must take pretty pictures | there are a bunch of pics here. Can you narrow your request for critique down to 1 or two in particular?
__________________ JayTPhotos.com |
| |
|
03-16-2008, 06:17 PM
| #6 (permalink) |
| Moderator  Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 538 From: a cesspit. My Camera: disposable | these all look like negative scans, hence the dust. this true? if you paid to have these scanned, i suggest not using them again. if you happen to have the color negatives, you can purchase a decent film scanner for ~150 and just scan them yourself, which also doubles as an image scanner in case all you're left with are the prints. the only blaring thing i could critique about the images themselves is the pillar in the first one. the pillar should not have been so close to the edge nor cut off. if anything it should have been in the frame entirely, with a little breathing room OR not in the frame at all. nice images, otherwise. Last edited by jezterr; 03-16-2008 at 06:25 PM.. |
| |
|
03-16-2008, 11:35 PM
| #7 (permalink) |
| Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 91 From: Silverdale, WA My Camera: Canon 40D | Ya. These were from my last camera, a film one. They were developed and then put on CD...as I said above, the actual prints look great, but these look bad.... But thanks for the input. At the moment I wear glasses, and sometimes when I look into the viewfinder, it's a little hard sometimes to see 100% of what I'm looking at. I do my best to be careful, but when the pictures got developed, I thought it looked alright, but would be better with it more, or without it... But thanks though, very much. |
| |
|
03-18-2008, 10:39 AM
| #8 (permalink) | |
| Junior Member Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 23 From: Kirkland, WA My Camera: Canon A640 | Quote:
What I've found is developer to developer you can get wildly different digital files. Some processors will give super compressed, totally degraded image files on the CD. Others will give very high resolution, RAW files. Seems you got more of the former than the later. So basically, while the prints could be brilliant the files they made you weren't. And if they end up giving you some wimpy 72dpi, 640x480 image files they're basically useless for anything other than email and facebook... | |
| |
|
04-12-2008, 12:06 PM
| #9 (permalink) | |
| Senior Member  | Quote:
| |
| |
 |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
