Your photos (142)


Hints and tips
by Philip Grosset



If you'd like to submit photos for criticism,
click here.

with comments from Philip Grosset




"Okay, I already sent you three pictures (#141), so here's my last one. Let me know what you think! " (Karen Echols, Phoenix, Oregon)
Baby Baby lightened
Your photo on the left is underexposed (perhaps your camera was misled by the lightness of the bath. In these circumstances, take a reading from the child's face). On the right, I've lightened it. This is an attractive natural-looking pose. Ideally, it might be better without the large empty area in the top right of it, but with very small children you just have to take your chances when they come! As an experiment, I've tried using lettering to make use of this space. Perhaps it could then be used as the opening photo in an album. Or you could just give the child's name. Altogether, it's a very happy portrait.




"Hi there! I'm a very raw beginner at photography, and these are some shots from my first roll of film. The camera is a 2nd hand Minolta Dynax 300si, with either a 35-70 or 75-200 zoom lens. Film used was Kodak Ultra, 200ASA. I took these practice shots around my home town of Lincoln. Having admired a friend's travel photos from her trip to South Africa, I at last decided to take the plunge and buy a camera of my own for my forthcoming trip to Switzerland. What do you think of the shots, and have you any tips on how to improve my composition?
The first attachment shows a sculpture that spans the River Wytham which runs through the centre of town. Part of it's appeal is the way the figures are lit at night, hence my attempt at night photography. I have been told that 200ASA film isn't ideal for this, but it is what I had in the camera at the time.
The second attachment wasn't taken through a badly aligned lens - the house really is built crooked. There is a rumour that it was built by a chap who was constantly under the influence of alcohol, and if you get really drunk it starts to look straight...
The third attachment is of the quaint and busy Steep Hill. I tried to capture both the bustle and the extreme gradient. It looks busy enough, but I'm not happy with the apparent steepness, or rather the lack thereof. The real thing is very steep indeed. Any suggestions as to how to best capture gradient on film? Thanks." (Keith Harper, Lincoln, UK)
Night scene cropped
Night scene
I like your photo on the left. All I've done on the right is move just a little closer so as to feature the sculpture more strongly and use it to provide more of a frame for the picture. The result is very pleasing, although it sometimes pays to take night shots earlier on when there is still some light in the sky.
Crooked house Foreground lightened
By including the vertical building in the background, you effectively show how much the crooked house is leaning over. Ideally, it might have been a good idea to wait until the lighting conditions were right for showing the left bottom foreground a bit more clearly, as in my version on the right.
Steep Hill Steep Hill
Your photo on the left is effective too. On the right, I've tried coming in a fraction closer, reducing but keeping in your very effective framing, and I've also removed the ugly wires across the street - not something you could do at the time! The apparent steepness of a street is determined by the camera angle you choose. Aim for the horizontal, even if this means you have to search for a higher camera position so as to get the whole street in.

These are all very successful photos for a first attempt. The best of luck in Switzerland!

Reply from Keith Harper: "Hi! Thanks for your words of wisdom with regards to my first tentative steps in photography. I certainly am most pleased that they weren't judged complete disasters! The first picture does benefit from cropping. I'm still at the stage where I hesitate to attack my prints with a guillotine, but I see the advantages of doing so. The second picture is also improved by showing theforeground more clearly. However, when travelling, one doesn't always have the opportunity to wait for the right lighting conditions. Do you think using the fill-in flash could have had a similar effect here? As for picture number three, I'll experiment with camera angles and positions, and see what can be done about showing the real steepness of Steep Hill. Even though I've only shot off one roll of film so far, I'm really enjoying committing my memories to celluloid (or whatever they use these days). I wish I'd got into photography years ago! Many thanks.
I've been reading through your excellent site, and have found quite a number of references to ASA/ISO ratings, and the photography section of the local Boots has a bewildering array of differently rated films on sale. I have a vague idea of how these numbers are related to film sensitivity, but do you think that you could put together some sort of table describing what sort of conditions and subject matter each film is best suited for, assuming one is using either an automatic camera, or an SLR in full auto mode? I would certainly find it most useful, as I am sure would many other less experienced photographers such
as myself."

Yes, fill-in flash might have done the trick with your second picture. As for ISO ratings, I'd suggest sticking to ISO 200, at least to start with. If you ever want to photograph badly lit fast-moving subjects that require a shorter shutter speed to freeze the action, you might want to try, say, ISO 400 or 800. Each time you double the film speed, you only need half the exposure time (for example, 1/400th instead of 1/200th sec). But each time you increase the film speed, the picture gets a little grainier. In theory, ISO 100 may give you marginally better picture quality than ISO 200, but ISO 200 is a happy compromise, and is well suited to automatic cameras.




Go on to YOUR PHOTOS (143)




Please don't forget to sign my GUEST BOOK before you leave the site!



 Finding your way around this site

NEXT PAGE