I'm not winning a Pulitzer obviously. I can see some under/over exposure issues. And i need a graduated filter for skies. Wat else?
IMO those aren't the best angles for the cars. They are great looking cars but IMO they just look decent in the pictures. Play around with different angles, and I personally don't mind a nice pelfed car shot, it can help a little if you don't overdo it.
#1 is accurate for the color. THere was horrible tungsten lighting on the car, but the sky and buildings are color correct. And since the car is white it just eats the color up. I'd need to merge 2 photos to get the car color correct.
are those kdubb's cars? some decent photos of some awesome cars. some lighting would really help those cars pop.
they all look too noisy to me. id hate to say it but "Digital is like shaved legs on a man - very smooth and clean but there is something acutely disconcerting about it."
They suck, and so does Kevin. You don't need PWs, you need to learn that commander mode. And then buy a cheaper (SB 600) flash and do over. Maybe I'll bring my lights with me to austin one time and all 3 of us can go out and spoon!!!
how do you feel about the end result image quality of your printed images being determined by the scanner, instead of your camera/lens/film? I left film when I started printing digitally, because I KNOW how much more detail is in slide film, and my darkroom slide prints made my scanned, digitally printed slide prints look like absolute garbage. I would actually argue that unless you're using a drum scanner, your slide film is going to waste...