# Ilford SFX 200



## Alpha (Jul 1, 2007)

A test of the new batch of SFX. This was from a shoot I did a couple weeks ago. Taken with a 25 filter.


----------



## cherrymoose (Jul 1, 2007)

Great shot & fantastic perspective. The only thing I don't like is how centered she is, but it doesn't bother me too much.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 1, 2007)

does it bother anyone else when the shadow is on half the body and off the other half? maybe it's just me. Agfa has such a nice feel to their black and white film and paper. i love them. the photo has nice composition with her body but would it not be better if this was shot horizontally and you composed her at the top of the frame so you could included more stairs to get a better idea of her being on stairs?


----------



## Alpha (Jul 1, 2007)

1) From Charles Hamilton's "Photographing Nudes":
"A frontal, head-on light shows little if any dimensional qualities. As the light is moved in an arc around the nude, modeling effects are gradually increased until one half of the figure is in highlight and the other is in shadow. At this point modeling and the consequent illumination of dimension is at the maximum."

2) The film is Ilford, not Agfa.

3) No, more stairs would not look better. The stairs are not the subject. In fact, I cropped them out of the finished photo.


----------



## cosmom3 (Jul 2, 2007)

Its a bit riskay how you can see through the bottom of the dress. What side of her were you trying to capture?


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 2, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> 1) From Charles Hamilton's "Photographing Nudes":
> "A frontal, head-on light shows little if any dimensional qualities. As the light is moved in an arc around the nude, modeling effects are gradually increased until one half of the figure is in highlight and the other is in shadow. At this point modeling and the consequent illumination of dimension is at the maximum."
> 
> 2) The film is Ilford, not Agfa.
> ...



hah, whatever dude. i was just giving you my own opinion. sorry, i must be in the wrong critique thread. and uhm, just because stairs are in the photo does not mean that makes it the subject. if i saw stairs in the photo i would not think of it as "the subject". i would see it as a nice design element that is leading my eye directly to the model but whatever dude. i meant to say Ilford, whoops.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

cosmom3 said:


> Its a bit riskay how you can see through the bottom of the dress. What side of her were you trying to capture?



Her underside?

Sheesh. Give me a break. And save a few tears to shed when I start shooting nudes.

And the word is *risqué*


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 2, 2007)

Perhaps it's the scan, or perhaps my monitor isn't warmed up, but the overall contrast is a bit flat.  I think cropping out the bit of sky would eliminate a distracting element and give the piece a nice panoramic composition.  I love the pose, and mood however.  Nice work.

I'm curious why you are so unable to withstand being critiqued though.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

It's not that I'm unable to withstand being critiqued. I didn't object to CherryMoose's comment that she was too centered, and the points that you made are well-taken. In fact, I'm going to re-scan this series I think. As for PhotoPhoenix's comments, I wasn't particularly keen on the "would it not be better" bit, as if the composition were unintentional. There are people on this board who don't know what they're doing. I'm not one of them. Really, as if upon preparing to take a shot such as that, it hadn't occurred to me to include the stairs... And Cosmom3 apparently has only ever seen Mapplethorpe's photos of flowers.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 2, 2007)

Max, some of us make compositional mistakes from time to time.  Sometimes, my compositional choices are unintentional.  I'm glad to know however that you know what you are doing, and seemingly never make a mistake.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 2, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> It's not that I'm unable to withstand being critiqued. I didn't object to CherryMoose's comment that she was too centered, and the points that you made are well-taken. In fact, I'm going to re-scan this series I think. As for PhotoPhoenix's comments, I wasn't particularly keen on the "would it not be better" bit, as if the composition were unintentional. There are people on this board who don't know what they're doing. I'm not one of them. Really, as if upon preparing to take a shot such as that, it hadn't occurred to me to include the stairs... And Cosmom3 apparently has only ever seen Mapplethorpe's photos of flowers.



haha. people are sooo full of themselves. it's amazing. you read it yourself.. he knows what he's doing so it's ok that her face doesn't have any fill light and it looks like she has black eyes. why are we even critiquing this if you do not want to take advice kindly? my turn to be rude. if you think i do not know what i'm doing, i suggest you follow that link in my signature.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

It's not that I don't want to take advice, or that I never make mistakes. The fact that there are things about the photograph that could be different doesn't necessarily make them "mistakes" or even problematic. And the fact that I planned them that way (with the exception of the sky thing) doesn't make me full of myself for maintaining that they aren't problems per se.

Edit: The distinction to be made is one of parallel versus vertical changes in terms of quality. Following the rule of thirds with her horizontal positioning, adding a fill light on her face, or including more stairs below would have made the shot _different_, but not necessarily _better_ as far as I'm concerned. So I don't take all that kindly the implication that I'm stubbornly refusing to improve upon my photographic abilities by not taking advice to change them. It makes no difference. A better quality scan, or removing distracting elements from the background, however, may indeed improve the shot iself.


----------



## PhotoPhoenix (Jul 2, 2007)

ok.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Jul 2, 2007)

I actually quite like the basic idea, but there are a couple of reasons why I don't think it's quite come off.

'scuse numbering

1. Too much of the model is in shadow and as a result an awful lot of detail in the dress is being lost. It feels like I'm having to peer into the shot to pick out the main subject.

2. The shadow across the models' upper body is distracting.

3. Finally, a very promising looking location is dominating the shot, especially the wall behind the model. As reluctant as I am to use it myself, this feels like some fill-in flash would have balanced out the foreground with the background.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

Thanks for the input. I'll keep those in mind when I go back to post-process the next scan.


----------



## zendianah (Jul 2, 2007)

I hear and I am no expert that technically you need a fill flash for the shadows under her eyes. Visually I think it goes well with the picture. It sets the mood for me. I like it and the shadows.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

Matt: had a look at the horizontal crop you suggested. very nice indeed. I'll repost after a second edit.


----------



## cosmom3 (Jul 2, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Her underside?
> 
> Sheesh. Give me a break. And save a few tears to shed when I start shooting nudes.
> 
> And the word is *risqué*


Thanks for the spell check Max. Perhaps you misunderstood my question though. "What side of her were you trying to capture?" was directed at her pose. Not being critical...just asking what theme you were going for.

As for your impertinent comments on most everyone including myself...are you really this uptight about your hobbies? I mean honestly, Id hope people take a grain of salt with your little care for peoples esteem. Maybe you should also take a grain of salt with peoples judgments. Lashing out at me for instance because I have *not *seen Mapplethorpe's photos shows just how immature you really can be. I mean give *me* a break. It's too bad we can't all be as great as you...but for the sake of us rookies coming up in the world of photography keep your comments at a respectful tone.


----------



## Digital Matt (Jul 2, 2007)

MaxBloom said:


> Matt: had a look at the horizontal crop you suggested. very nice indeed. I'll repost after a second edit.



Cool, lookin forward to seeing it.


----------



## Alpha (Jul 2, 2007)

cosmom3 said:


> Thanks for the spell check Max. Perhaps you misunderstood my question though. "What side of her were you trying to capture?" was directed at her pose. Not being critical...just asking what theme you were going for.
> 
> As for your impertinent comments on most everyone including myself...are you really this uptight about your hobbies? I mean honestly, Id hope people take a grain of salt with your little care for peoples esteem. Maybe you should also take a grain of salt with peoples judgments. Lashing out at me for instance because I have *not *seen Mapplethorpe's photos shows just how immature you really can be. I mean give *me* a break. It's too bad we can't all be as great as you...but for the sake of us rookies coming up in the world of photography keep your comments at a respectful tone.



What I said to you had absolutely nothing to do with your skill level. Perhaps I should have spelled it out the first time. I was using Mapplethorpe as a microcosm. What I meant was, given photography's tradition of nudes, semi nudes, pinups, etc, I found it very strange that you would consider such a photograph to be risqué. I didn't even respond to the question you asked.


----------

