[Muzman]

These are pretty typical beginner shots. I'm no photographer really , but I know many. I also have known a few dozen arty types with a passing interest in photography.
Rolls and rolls and rolls of photographs of naked women/girls. The next closest subject is old rusty/dirty environs, but the naked ladies beat that 3 to 1 on a shot count basis. Of course there is no shortage of girls who want to be thought of as worth photographing from an asthetic premise. (uh; largely sociological stuff there, nothing to do with art)
Third one's the best for mine. Colour and composition are good. The rest I'm far too jaded to care about (see above).
Get yourself a cheap old secondhand 35mm SLR. They should be pretty common and cheap; Canon and Olympus ones are like dirt over here and cost about $150 (which is roughly US$75), all the proper knobs etc. At present they're actually better value for money than digitals I reckon(things are evening out though). Film might seem like an unecessary step these days, but it has a certain romance and lots of interesting effects.
Good luck and carry on.

[sacrelicious]

Excellent work overall. My father's interest in photography is what introduced me to digital art (he bought a scanner, the scanner came bundled with image editing software... the rest is history). Your model has a beautiful body- fit yet curvaceous, truly ample-bodied. She seems to combine the classical and modern ideals of beauty. I can as easily picture her carved in marble by Michelangelo or painted by Bougereau as I can see her in these photos. And I like the animalistic/alien effect of her freckles- it adds an air of exotic mystery. I hope you continue with your work and find solutions to your equipment difficulties, because I can't wait to see more!

[A.Buttle]

Awesome work, Lunatique.

[Lunatique]

Ragnarok--Thanks. I'm sure she would be happy to know that everyone loves her freckles.

The pictures were taken in late afternoon, and all of the originals were VERY blue. I set the white balance to indoor lighting, which is ok for the lamp lights, but cooled off the window lights way too much. I had to color-correct all of them in PS. I had a UV filter on, but I keep it on all the time more as a protective layer from damage to the actual lense. The photos are blurred probably because of low light, and my unsteady hand. . ..(I used a tripod on some of the pics) The ISO of the C3030z ranges from 100 to 400, which isn't all the impressive. I had the apeture set at F2.6, and the shutter speed varied. I guess if I had a camera with more sensitive ISO, wider F stop, and faster shutter speed, the pics would've turned out sharper and with less noise?

[ May 22, 2001: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[Cooter]

I would have to agree with Muzeman. For $1,500 dollars you could get a really good camera and all of the equipment for a basic darkroom.(If you know where to look)But digital sure is catching up fast. Also, I recall seeing on The Making of the Sports Illustrated Issue program on TV(Hey it was on late night TV ok...) Anyhow there was a photographer on there that used a Kodak "disposable" camera rather than one of the "pro" cameras. The thing is he achieved the same quality with the disposable camera as the other photographers did with the big $$$ ones.(I know, I bought the magazine and studied the pictures...lol) Only proving that it's not the camera, but the eye behind the camera that takes the pictures.

As for your pictures, I like them. I do not agree that you should go out and put silk sheets and fluffy lace pillows all over the room. The only thing that would make you (imho) is a poor Playboy photoshoot knockoff. As they are your photos have sort of a (and this is meant as a compliment) "trashy, jaded innocence, slutty look" to them. Meaning the girl looks extremely innocent within the confines of a cheap motel room. I mean talk about contrasting extremes. If you've ever seen a book, and for the life of me I cannot remember the title of it, but it's a photo essay on an Irish wedding. But it isn't the typical "pretty white satin pure" wedding. Instead the photographer found the whitest of white trash subject to photo. We are talking baby in poopy diaper standing by the alter next to pregnant mommy type book here. every picture in that book is creepier than the previous one. The reason I bring that book up is because to me your photos are the exact opposite. Rather than having the subjects being impure in the pure setting. You have a pure subject, in an impure environment. Totally cool, at least to me. Other people may have different opinions, but that's the nature of art.

And now I can't believe I am going to do this since I prefer to be more of a lurker, rather than a contributor... but here's a sample of my garbage...
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~jedaca/wallpaper1024x768.jpg

(**copyrighted image** that's going to be in a racing products catalog, so don't use it for anything or I'll get kilt)

As to the aspect of some photographer's never getting past the snapshot phase, what you need to realize is that what you see usually is the best of the few remaining ones that the photographer likes after weeding out the garbage. I know personally I try to take massive amounts of shots when out and about. I've actually figured it out that the ratio for me is something like 1 useable print in 1 1/2 rolls of film.(about 1:40 print to negative shotwise) There are two distinct thought processes on this, and they both are valid. One is the take the time to get the perfect setup for the perfect shot and get it just right before you take it theory. While the other is the shotgun approach, shoot as much as possible and hope something is good. I like the second mainly because once you say to yourself, "Oh hey that'd make a good shot." It's gone. And also because the moment you tell someone to "hold that pose" it turns into a pose, which to me looks staged...and I prefer candid anyhow.

[wayfinder]

lunatique, except for the #5, which i really really like and would like to see without the sepia, i don't see anything else than snapshots in these (#3 may be another exception, but i don't like it because of the environment - the straight lines of the bed and machinery don't work together all too well with her gently curved body and the rather chaotic sheet; also, fuzz, fuzz, fuzz)

some general comments: i think that some sharpness would do the pictures much good. i know you were going for a candid look, but still.. it partly comes off as inability. pics #5 & #8 have this sharp, textured look, the others don't.

more interesting compositions!! prepare yourself, don't just shoot the pics as you go along. interesting compositions are in pics #1, #2, #4 & #5. notice a pattern? damn right, it's the sepia tinted shots. you have a critical amount of stuff going on in the background in the non-sepia pics. not enough to make an interesting, "subject" background, but too much to not take away the viewer's attention from your subject. this has to do with shapes AND colors, and tinting the pic in sepia eliminates the colors, and that pushes the background below the threshold.

from an artistical AND technical point of view, i like only #5. the others are not bad, but they aren't good either. but the #5 pic.. i just wish you hadn't caught the leather strap (or whatever that thing is!) on the chair. i love the pose, the lighting, the quality of the photo. good one! the face could have more contrast, but that's ok.

anyway, develop this! you seem to have a talent, but try to get some education in the field.

[Ragnarok]

Lunatique, I got a fairly decent Canon EOS for 270$
And to learn you could take photos with a cheaper one, but the important thing is the camera must be reflex, a 35mm SLR. Believe, it's different to the rest of the cameras =)
And to learn more you could go to photo.net, and to the Learn section, lots of good "tutorials" there.

About your question of how to take better shots in low-light situations, I don't really know how the camera works, but you'll need a tripod, low aperture (but keep in mind that the shorter the apperture, the smaller the focused part) and long exposition times (and if they are long, the model shouldn't move).

I hope this helps.

[Lunatique]

Muzman-- I decided to go with a digital camera(even though much more expensive)in the first place because I wanted to be able to see the result right away, and reshoot if necessary. Also, I could try different settings on the camera with the same shot, and compare the results easily. There's definitely a romance to film cameras, but at this point, having to deal with the film aspect might actually slow down my progress. If I had money to throw away, I would definitely have a film setup. For now, I'll just push forward with my digital.

sacrelicious--I'll pass your compliment on to her. She is a very insecure girl, and it'll make her blush and smile shyly(and if I'm lucky, I might capture that in a shot ).

A.Buttle --Thanks. I have much to learn, and it should only get better from here(I hope).

Cooter--Oh yeah! I saw that too! I was shocked at the results he got from the disposable camera. I guess it's the same as painting(to some degree)--it's the artist, not the paint/brush.

Haha. I like your analogy of of innocent vs. trashy. I guess she does kind of have an innocent look(I thought the same thing when I first met her). I know the book you are talking about. It definitely got under my skin when I flipped through it. Can't remember the name either. . ..

What camera do you use?

I like both approaches, depending on the subject matter. In a controlled enviroment, with a subject I can instruct, I go for the careful approach. If it's something like an animal or moving scene, then the shotgun approach.

I love candid shots. It is also possible to set up a shot to look like a very convincing candid shot. The key is to tell the model to really "do" something and pretend you are not there, and then snap away(that's what I did with these).

wayfinder--thanks for the critique and advice. Very helpful. You prety much hit all the problems right on the nose.

Ragnarok--I'll try to do some test shot with different settings ans see how they turn out. Thanks for the link.

Thanks to all of you for your feedback. Hopefully my next photography posting will have improved by leaps and bounds.

[Bishop_Six]

I really like that 3rd one. There's just something about it.

[Cooter]

2 Chinon 35mm slr's, circa 1983... one my dad gave me, the other from a pawn shop.

total old school...