[/URL]
[/URL][/URL]
), travels through the lens system in a way that is not accounted for by the lens design - because the design is specifically to produce an image of (relatively) distant objects. Because of it's origin position, it is not brought to the same focus as the rest of the scene, and because it acts essentially like a point source, the shape of the flare commonly takes the shape of the lens aperture.
Hello everyone.
Thank you for all of your responses.
My light leaks are intentional, although the seals do need replacing (I'm having no problems at the moment). I did them on purpose by opening the film door for a few seconds and closing again. Myself personally, I quite like them, I think they add a certain je ne sais quoi to the photo.
The photos that I took:
Possibly the human brain interpreting a mixture of the orange of the light leak and the background colour of the 'correct' through-the-lens exposure? Eg, if the orange of a light leak bleeds across a dark blue background then you might think you see magenta or purple?
Portra160NC_2011-08-04_012.jpg by The Big Yin, on Flickr
.
Twaddle and balderdash, if you don't mind me saying lads
Photography is an art form, there are no boundaries, you can do what you want when you want to with whatever you want to do it with and experimental techniques help you to learn.
Don't let these old fuddie duddies stop you from trying something new.
Anyway, can I interest you in some nice special effects filters Andy? You could improve your photos no end with those! 
By all means experiment, have fun and see how the results turn out, but I wish I'd known back then what I know now.
Yes it was, and you should have seen the refraction effects I got of it glinting in the sunlight with that starburst filter!H'mm that pot of gold looks easy to get at
That's brilliant! I want one!By all means experiment, have fun and see how the results turn out, but I wish I'd known back then what I know now.
Yes it was, and you should have seen the refraction effects I got of it glinting in the sunlight with that starburst filter!
Stay tuned, I picked a ruck of them up cheap off eBay ready to shoot a project next year... something along the lines of 'great shots ruined'.That's brilliant! I want one!
That's brilliant! I want one!
In all fairness, so does this when not playing it for comedic effect... but where's the fun and art in playing it straight?
Either way though, it's still a rubbish base shot, and there's only one way to remedy that. 
In all fairness, so does this when not playing it for comedic effect... but where's the fun and art in playing it straight?
) to offer advice.
Quite right,! Better to wait for the younger and more clever ones like you Andy ( cough, splutter, choke
Personally I reckon that I'll be Sams best bet, not least of all cos I'm still a teenager myself and know how to relate to youth
Aside from your essay, effects are OK and fun to play around with but the novelty soon wears off, Sam. When I was your age (and a couple of years younger) we had those plastic effects filters that slid into a holder in front of the lens. There were loads of different kinds, from multi-pointed star effects for lights, refracting and multi-image prisms, soft colour centre spots, coloured graduated filters (with purple and tobacco being popular - yes, really!) and even a fairly unconvincing fake rainbow!
However, eventually it dawned on us that these often just distracted us from concentrating on the photo instead of the novelty effect; and to be kind the results were probably best described as being 'of their time'... or to be unkind, possibly just naff and tacky! So what advice would I have given my younger self? Forget the effects and concentrate really hard on trying to learn how to 'see' a photograph.
Sound a bit like a riddle? OK, take a look at two or three photos from your favourite photographer and ask yourself why does that photo work? Is it the framing? The light? The subject? The message it sends? The mood or feeling it creates? Learn to 'see' why it works. Then once you've done that, try to 'see' your own photos when you're out and about with your camera. It's not easy, as it's tempting to notice the makings of a good shot and just 'snap at it' it without thinking why it's caught your eye as having potential as a photo. Look and ask yourself why you thought it would make a good shot, then try to make sure you capture and/or major on those elements. Quite often when you actually look at it you'll find it won't work as a photo as the light is wrong or there's too much clutter to distract attention away from what you've 'seen'.
The real skill comes next, taking a photo of the image you've 'seen' in such a way that other people can 'see' that too when they look at your photo. Don't expect a great success rate though, even the pros may only get a couple of dozen really strong photos per year, and perhaps just two or three really great photos per year.
As for your photos, it looks like you've nailed the exposure, focusing and depth of field (unless the auto exposure was choosing the aperture rather than you?), however, I think the composition of the shots could be improved (always easier said than done! ). Take your third photo, by moving the model to the left a bit you'd have hidden most of the distracting road cone clutter in the background and you'd also have shown the 'Wait' sign, which adds context to the street scene. Also, by framing the shot more to the left you'd have shown more of the crossing (to add more context) and got rid of the traffic light box in the top right-hand corner. I like the remaining traffic light boxes above the model as they again add to the context of the scene.
Same with the first photo, the 'wait' sign isn't doing anything for the photo (apart from looking a bit like a backpack), so when you framed the shot it would probably have been better to either have hidden it or made a feature of it to add context? I appreciate that there might have been reasons why you didn't frame those shots differently, such as clutter, obstructions, danger of being run-over, etc. (like the first photo I posted, there was too much background clutter to get a good shot - ignore the framing in my second photo as it was just a snap taken when I was about 15, it was only included as it shows light leakage), but as I said, not every photo you visualise will work, so move on and find one that will, and learning to 'see' will help that. Also, I find that asking myself why a shot doesn't quite work (or work at all) is helpful too, so I can try to avoid that next time if that's possible (if I can remember at the time!). It's not easy with busy street scenes that are constantly changing, but once again, leaning to 'see' should help you cut through the chaff. Hope this is useful, best of luck and enjoy your photography.
Twaddle and balderdash, if you don't mind me saying lads
Photography is an art form, there are no boundaries, you can do what you want when you want to with whatever you want to do it with and experimental techniques help you to learn.
Don't let these old fuddie duddies stop you from trying something new.
The amusing side:- manufacturers (and us) spend time and money getting our cameras light tight and others enjoy a camera full of "holes"
…...spending money ( that you don't usually have as a teenager) to repair kit simply isn't important.
That's the reason I (rightly or wrongly) gave up a bit of time to give a bit of feedback, and I hope Sam takes it the right way and it doesn't annoy him. If he wants to ignore it then fine, no harm done either way.
Sorry I have to disagree, it would appear that the OP, certainly in this instance, is not looking to 'see' a photograph but to experiment and have some fun creating a look. Sure there's room for all the serious 'seeing' a photograph malarkey should he or she want to approach the art of snapping that way in the future but please lets not fall down the elephant trap of discouraging people from experimenting. Those of us that are old enough to remember the joy of the Cokin filter range were happy to make those mistakes and I for one would not change that.
That's better but aren't the colours out of sequence ..but then not many people would know that
Thanks, Chris!
Anyway Sam, feel free to ignore and/or laugh at the above posts. The main thing is... have we answered your original question along the way? If not, feel free to tell us and we'll have another go.
It is interesting to see all of your responses, but yes. I have more of an idea now.My friend was telling me about cross processing in our photography lesson the other day, sounds like something fun to experiment with.
