|Originally posted by zig |
Yeah they are not bad shots, the close up head shots work best, although they are under exposed by about a stop, i presume they are all shot on the same roll of film, the last head shot is correctly exposed but would look better if printed on a harder grade paper, about 1 grade down, if grade 2 go to 3 or 3 1/2 this would give the picture more punch, more effect.
If you shot them on different rolls of film then the roll with the head shots could have been underdeveloped, the negatives are to thin but probably just underexposed.
What type of film did you use and what speed ASA, and do you develop them yourself or a go to a lab.
The reason why some of the quality sucks is that I no longer have my own dark room. I had to go to a lab to get them done so they don't spend as much time with each individual picture as I WOULD have done. When I used to have my own dark room each picture had the perfect exposure. Not only that, but the location we were in didn't have suitable lighting, so I was experimenting on the lighting (which is why some of the lighting is not perfect) so that I would be able to make better judgements for the next time.
And to Shakka - I could move to Europe and move in with my sister, but the problem is the economy is so awful that I would have more of a difficult time finding a job over there than I would over here. Basically the only available job is a translator and I would lose patience with the moronic people in minutes. Plus that would also require me to be a full time babysitter for her twins.
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire