|
I think an example might be needed to more accurately demonstrate the "story" of a photograph. This is a photo by Daido Moriyama, and while it doesn't tell a traditional narrative, it does tell a story by getting the mind wandering. Where even was this taken? Why was there a barefoot girl here scrambling up (?) this pile of garbage? What is she running from? What is she running to? What was the photographer even doing here? Is this an alley? An old warehouse? A garbage dump? Why is this girl in ANY of these places? Its very easy to imagine many different stories or scenarios behind this photo, it almost feels like a horror or mystery photo. I'm sure someone can provide more (or better) examples as well.
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
simplyhorribul posted:Is there anyone who can clarify the word “storytelling” in photography? I really can’t wrap my head around it how you suppose to tell _a story_ with a single picture. Multiple pictures sure, but single picture? The photographer could have a story in his mind when he took the photo, and the photo best describes it somehow to him. Presenting it to other people, they can also choose to interpret the elements in the photo to tell their own version of whatever story the photograph is meant to convey. After all, that is why you take a photo - there are just some things that can't be put down into words. If we could, we wouldn't need to take the photo, we'd just be writing stories. I'd say though, these days most of the stories or narratives are done through a sequence of photos. A single photo story tends to either be obvious, or convey a sense of mystery as to what's happening in the photo. Making you create the story to fill in the gaps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 06:31
|
|
to argue why I’m feeling that way. I’m just finding it incredible frustrating to find out or understand about the term “storytelling” all together, since the “perfect” examples of it are usually tied to a single pictures without relating to the context what so ever. Which obviously begs the question what’s the storytelling about it?
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I think an example might be needed to more accurately demonstrate the "story" of a photograph. If an old dude with a point and shoot was chasing after me yelling about how he's a famous photographer I'd be loving runnin' too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2019 20:45
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:If an old dude with a point and shoot was chasing after me yelling about how he's a famous photographer I'd be loving runnin' too. Okay, how many times do I need to say I’m sorry about that!!
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2019 03:36
|
|
|
I'm taking my a6000 with a 20f18 35f18 and the kit 18-55 to the Sequoia's this weekend. Any tips for shooting in the forest? How do I get cool sun streaks through the trees? (I'm a n00b)
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Nitramster posted:I'm taking my a6000 with a 20f18 35f18 and the kit 18-55 to the Sequoia's this weekend. Any tips for shooting in the forest? How do I get cool sun streaks through the trees? (I'm a n00b) A Tripod. When taking pictures in a forest, low light is the biggest obstacle.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
Nitramster posted:I'm taking my a6000 with a 20f18 35f18 and the kit 18-55 to the Sequoia's this weekend. Any tips for shooting in the forest? How do I get cool sun streaks through the trees? (I'm a n00b) Sunbeams? You’re going to have to see them to be able to shoot them. I would look for direct sunlight and some mist/fog/smoke in the air. Early morning or early evening, when the sun is low.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 14:22
|
|
|
Spend a week watching Simon Baxter videos to get your head in the right place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
If there is no fog/mist when you are there hand out a bunch of juuls to teens and get them to create a big cloud then you should be able to get some cool "god rays".
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2019 02:27
|
|
|
This is a long shot, but I have to ask anyway. Does anyone know any places in Southern California that could do repairs on a 2009 Canon 50D body?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
I've ruffled feathers in a local photography Facebook group. Some guy posted a screenshot of his approval for media credentials for the Trump rally in Cincinnati today. It turns out he's not a photojournalist, and is not covering the event for any media outlet - he's going because he thinks it will be a cool experience, and wants to be able to have those photos in his portfolio. I made a comment to the effect of "please be respectful of the people that are there because it's their job and are accountable / responsible for getting certain coverage" and some folks seemed to take issue with that, saying that it's a once in a lifetime opportunity so he should go for all the shots he wants, not to sit back at all, etc. I'm not crazy, right? I feel like it's similar to when wedding guests are aspiring photographers. There are times when their personal desire for "portfolio photos" will interfere with the wedding photographer trying to do the job they've been hired to do. I guess the best analogy I have is if you were a NASCAR driver, but at every race there were like 5 dudes in Audis, BMWs, maybe a Porsche, etc who are allowed on the track (because it's a NASCAR track and a once in a lifetime chance to drive on it). Sure, you're going to be able to get around them every lap just fine try to win, but it's frustrating to have to do your job around people who aren't there to race. I think this particular person may have misrepresented themselves because they freelance for a local radio station on occasion, but in this instance they are not covering it for the station. I feel like if this person just wants take a photo of the president, he should attend the rally and try to get a good spot among the other attendees. I asked a photojournalist friend of mine who shoots for the Cincinnati Enquirer, and he said quote:You're 500 percent correct. I'm sure I'll be able to spot that guy a mile away tonight and I hope he doesn't get in my way. For what it's worth, the national TV camera guys are not nice, so if he's messing with anyone trying to work I'm sure they'll put him in him place.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 18:50
|
|
|
Criticism on Facebook is fit to be ignored. That guy is going to do what he wants unless he has some vested interest in seeing you happy. Like your friend says if I'm on the clock trying to get photos, I am literally going to yell at people to get out of the way. I will even go as far as talk to an organizer/security about maintaining an angle. He won't get very far without a media pass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:05
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:Criticism on Facebook is fit to be ignored. That guy is going to do what he wants unless he has some vested interest in seeing you happy. Like your friend says if I'm on the clock trying to get photos, I am literally going to yell at people to get out of the way. I will even go as far as talk to an organizer/security about maintaining an angle. He won't get very far without a media pass. He got a media pass by... I guess just applying for one? I'm doubting the trump campaign is staffed by the best and brightest. But yeah, I've definitely stood in front of yokels with phones on sidelines -- it was probably wishful thinking to think I could help someone see that their desire for an "exciting opportunity" is obnoxious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:11
|
|
|
dakana posted:I've ruffled feathers in a local photography Facebook group. Some guy posted a screenshot of his approval for media credentials for the Trump rally in Cincinnati today. Why do you care?
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 19:54
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Why do you care? Because I've worked events like this and dealt with people who were there for "the experience." Sure, it's Facebook, but it's also a fairly engaged local group that people use to refer clients to others, hire 2nd shooters, etc so it's not an anonymous forum, leading me to think that it's possible I could maybe influence someone's perspective so that they see this can be a lovely thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Aug 1, 2019 20:56
|
|
|
You’re absolutely right, and you might as well go polish up the “I told you so” for when this guy comes back to the group and complains about getting suplexed by a CNN video guy who’s there to actually work. The last thing you want to do as little baby media is get in the way of the experienced guys. Same for photo/video as for people in the writing pack. Lacking that sort of objectivity and understanding will get you mauled.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 03:26
|
|
|
.
melon cat fucked around with this message at 00:20 on Jan 11, 2024 |
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 13:39
|
|
|
dakana posted:Because I've worked events like this and dealt with people who were there for "the experience." Sure, it's Facebook, but it's also a fairly engaged local group that people use to refer clients to others, hire 2nd shooters, etc so it's not an anonymous forum, leading me to think that it's possible I could maybe influence someone's perspective so that they see this can be a lovely thing to do. You're absolutely right about this. But... Unless you have some personal connection to the guy, saying something on facebook is never going to result in a good reaction. You might have gotten some good thru a PM, but you poo poo on his parade in public (as far as he sees it). No good comes of facebook arguments.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 13:50
|
|
|
When I go to Lime Rock Park to watch cars go fast, I notice the official photographers in their high vis jackets kind of meander around with hilarious camera set ups that make me think they're just people who greased some palms.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 13:52
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:When I go to Lime Rock Park to watch cars go fast, I notice the official photographers in their high vis jackets kind of meander around with hilarious camera set ups that make me think they're just people who greased some palms. And have long since forgotten that once upon a time they were the rookie pissing off everyone that was trying to earn a paycheck. I get it, these days everyone with a phone thinks they're a photographer now so the crowds are much worse than they used to be. But if dude buys the access legit he's got just as much privilege to take his pictures as anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 14:15
|
|
|
The thing is you can't just buy your way in, typically. You need to apply and on that application is a line for which media outlet you work for. Their cameras or clothing don't signify who they're with so its just a wild guessing game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2019 14:23
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:When I go to Lime Rock Park to watch cars go fast, I notice the official photographers in their high vis jackets kind of meander around with hilarious camera set ups that make me think they're just people who greased some palms. Japan is the opposite, when I've gone to Fuji Speedway for Super GT there were banks of dudes with $10,000+ worth of gear in the general crowd, it's hilarious. and yeah same as with sports, you have to apply for those positions and (in theory) be an actual working journalist/press in order to get that photo bib.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
harperdc posted:Japan is the opposite, when I've gone to Fuji Speedway for Super GT there were banks of dudes with $10,000+ worth of gear in the general crowd, it's hilarious. My impression from Japan [at least Tokyo] was that you need to be at least 5 grand deep to even consider yourself a hobbyist photographer. I could go to any random park and I’d see Leicas, big giant Canon zooms or even someone shooting medium format film with one of those old box cameras.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2019 03:56
|
|
|
You’re not truly in this hobby unless you’re at least 5 figgies deep Hence, Photobucks
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2019 21:12
|
|
|
I spent about 5 years doing it professionally, decided it was blood money, and got the hell out. Spent around that much. The only thing I've found out that buying lenses new is for suckers and then used bodies only make sense if you buy and sell around once a year to keep up with depreciation. I found that camera ownership was an annual expense of about 2k a year to maintain a full suite of lenses, a couple of bodies, lighting, memory, insurance and software. And that's after you own it all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2019 21:23
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:This is a long shot, but I have to ask anyway. Does anyone know any places in Southern California that could do repairs on a 2009 Canon 50D body? Quoting because this question got buried by FB posts. My guess: not a long shot at all. Google "camera repair (city name)" and then phone the best looking hit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Canon's official west coast repair address is: Canon Factory Service Center 123 Paularino Ave Costa Mesa, CA 92626 No idea whether they'll still work on a 50D.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
BetterLekNextTime posted:No idea whether they'll still work on a 50D. For future reference if anyone else has this extremely specific problem, the answer is no. I did find a guy to work on it, though, in Anaheim. (Camera Tech of Anaheim, 1347 Anaheim Blvd., 714-535-0993.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2019 05:25
|
|
|
I need a little help wrapping my mind around a postprocessing workflow involving layers and masks. I'm using Affinity Photo but I'm sure this applies across the board to Photoshop and similar software. I'm learning as I go. On this image I've done the following: - brightened up the eyes with a curve + mask, and then darkened the border of the iris with another curve and inverted mask - smoothed out skin with frequency separation + Gaussian blur, and done some inpainting to remove blemishes - whitened teeth with HSL and curve adjustments Here's what my layers look like:  Now I'd like to apply some sharpening by doing a high pass filter and brushing in the sharpening over a black mask, but I've gotten myself a little lost with where to add a layer that will allow the sharpening to show through. Previously I've kind of given up and done a "merge visible" and just operated on that, but then of course I can't come back and edit the layers beneath. Do I need to follow a certain order of operations, or is there something that I'm missing in terms of the editing philosophy? e: I came up with a simplified example of my question and edited the post above accordingly Easychair Bootson fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Aug 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Any tips for getting a shot like this? Trying to make sure the faces are lit up while still being able to make out the dark areas in the back. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
Front master strobe and a bounced fill for the crowd
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:01
|
|
|
Easychair Bootson posted:Now I'd like to apply some sharpening by doing a high pass filter and brushing in the sharpening over a black mask, but I've gotten myself a little lost with where to add a layer that will allow the sharpening to show through. Previously I've kind of given up and done a "merge visible" and just operated on that, but then of course I can't come back and edit the layers beneath. Do I need to follow a certain order of operations, or is there something that I'm missing in terms of the editing philosophy? Assuming you're doing a layer with high pass filter with overlay blending mode? It should function just like any of the other adjustment layer masks; anywhere in the stack should be fine, as long as everything is above the background image.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I guess I just don't get why it works. Does shifting the lens up that extra inch or whatever make a difference compared to just lifting the camera an extra inch? If so, why? http://cow.mooh.org/tilt-shift-a-diy-guide-part-2-how-do-tilt-shift-lenses-work.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
xzzy posted:(a shot of the Milky Way and nothing else is boring as gently caress). xzzy posted:those fake as gently caress super vibrant Milky Way shots xzzy posted:The "tripod and remote trigger EVERY SHOT" people are generally pixel peepers. Leave some grump for the rest of us
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 10:31
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Assuming you're doing a layer with high pass filter with overlay blending mode? It should function just like any of the other adjustment layer masks; anywhere in the stack should be fine, as long as everything is above the background image. I must be misunderstanding some fundamentals, because it doesn't work as I would expect. I tried both of the following methods: 1. Select the duplicated background layer (second from bottom) --> Live Filters --> High Pass --> crank up the radius and use Overlay blend mode 2. New pixel layer at the top of the stack --> Filters > Sharpen > High Pass --> crank up the radius and then set to Overlay blend mode Neither has an effect. If I do a "merge visible" and operate on that layer I can see the sharpening effect clearly. What dumb little thing am I missing? e: It looks like this issue is related to my "skin" group. If I turn off the "Low Frequency - blem removal" layer within it, everything works as expected. I did this group following this tutorial with the addition of what's mentioned in the top comment: duplication of the low frequency layer to avoid oversharpening. Sure enough, when I disable that duplicate low frequency layer I have excessive sharpening. I'll have to read up more on frequency separation and see what to do here. Easychair Bootson fucked around with this message at 16:23 on Aug 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
Frequency separation is a destructive editing process. You need to flatten down after you have finished that if you want to make additional edit layers on top of that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:Frequency separation is a destructive editing process. You need to flatten down after you have finished that if you want to make additional edit layers on top of that. Ah, that's what I'm missing. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2019 19:20
|
|
|
Ireland trip report: I took all my lenses and tripod. It was a bit weighty overall, but I'm incredibly glad I had the tripod as I used it for a ton of landscape shots. Additionally there were a lot of shots where the sky was cloudy/gray and was getting blown out so I did a lot of bracketing exposures. Sadly the few nights we were in the dark sky park it was cloudy, so no milky way shots for me this time. Also I only had one really good sunset night, as the other two times when we had good light in the evening, the friends I went with were too hungry so I was sitting in a loving pub for an hour and a half while the skies were lit up all nice. I ended up using my 18-55 for a large portion of my shots. I didn't use the wide angle a ton, but when I did I was super thankful to have it. 70-300 was ok, but there's something about that lens that just doesn't feel right when I'm shooting. The 50mm and 24mm mostly stayed in the bag, I think I only pulled out each of them once during the trip. Hopefully I'll have some worthwhile images to share soon, but I have thousands of images to go through now, which is a bit daunting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 01:11
|
|
|
Big McHuge posted:so I was sitting in a loving pub for an hour and a half while the skies were lit up all nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2019 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
Get yourself a to-go cup.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:30
|
|
