|
Don't get hung up on graphs and stuff, the final product looks nice and that's what matters. It's a nice washed out look that is very in right now (just look at VSCO and the like). It's obviously intentional and I think it would look pretty boring with normal curves.
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Dec 29, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
I'm surprised anyone would even really comment on it - isn't this kind of processing pretty common? It might be a little much but I don't think I would go so far to say it is so over the top that I would call him on it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
rio posted:I'm surprised anyone would even really comment on it - isn't this kind of processing pretty common? It might be a little much but I don't think I would go so far to say it is so over the top that I would call him on it. Yeah, that's what surprised me. I don't mind criticism at all. Hell, I post in this thread because goons are very critical and often catch things that I missed and posters on other forums don't see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Yeah, I realize it's "in" right now, I just honestly don't see the point of relying on it as a stylistic choice. What does it add to the image? Like with any other kind of post-processing, be careful you don't let your processing be the point of the image. I feel like you use it as a crutch. I know I don't post in this thread a lot (something I plan on changing) but there's a lot of other stuff I'd think about before adding that type of post work. Some of your compositional choices are a little bizarre to me, for example.
MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 05:02 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Is your monitor the "broken" part? Because your blacks aren't even close to black and your whites aren't even close to white. That's what makes this awesome. Why does everything have to be color-histogram-exacto? Low contrast sometimes makes for the most interesting shots. Just look at home-scanned film shots. They tend to have a low-contrast feel and work very well. This was a good photo. Processing was good; it matched the mood of the photo. That's just my 2 cents. Everyone has their own view, so no harm no fowl. I just think it works well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:I got bored and had to finish a roll of 120. I like this one a whole lot. It's unexpected. Nice job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Mannequin, post some pictures of me! You got it, sir. But as I mentioned to you on Facebook my main disappointment was your sort-of "serious" look as opposed to the photos you typically take which have a look of exuberance and excitment. So ... anyway, here you go. Shot with my Hasselblad and Fuji 400H film. I always try and go for the relaxed and comfortable pose, and that was the direction I gave, more or less.     ** A few notes: we had limited time. I had only one roll to shoot with so I could not experiment with film types. Light was running low so I had to make do with what was available. We hopped around to a few of my usual locations. The restaurant shot marks a picture that I thought would be really cool, but I missed focus. I had another one similar to this that was actually worse, not worth displaying. I liked the concept behind the shot. We went in and ordered 3 glasses of water and I took a light reading inside the restaurant and then went outside with my tripod and took the shot. (Then we left. Poor waitress.) It's possible that head movement contributed to the blurriness, (not really Elite Taco's fault), but I more contribute it to myself. However, it was getting dark so narrow depth of field to let in the most amount of light was necessary; but this double-edged sword made clean focusing tough. Exposure was probably around 1 second or more, I don't remember. The restaurant has since gone bust so I was very sad to see the shot here didn't come out well. Of course if I had been shooting with a digital camera this would have been perfected on the spot. But poo poo happens. Hope you like 'em Taco! Mannequin fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, that happened. I'm ITT. Also, I did 1,2,3. I'll show em to my kids one day  Thanks for hanging out with us and making my photo.My only C&C would be on the last frame. Even though I'm a dude, you probably wanna crop out my awkward butt a bit. Bringing up the bottom border strengthens the frame a bit.
Elite Taco fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
TheLastManStanding posted:I think it's more of the fact that he's barely using 60% of his tonal range, which is a really odd style choice. In terms of composition it's a neat image, but it looks really, really flat when it doesn't have to. gently caress this graph. That photo is niiiice. Elite Taco fucked around with this message at 06:43 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Even with the missed focus this is a cool photo. That film really picks up light well, so much mood there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Holy poo poo, that happened. I'm ITT. Pictures of ourselves often make us feel self-conscious. Awkward butt? No idea what you are talking about here. You could oblige, though. Feel free to crop as you see fit and I will send the bigger versions so you can play around with them. I think you look very normal and nothing looks out of the ordinary in that shot. The only disaster for me was #4 where focus went to hell. Thanks for being such a cooperative subject and making the evening a whole lot of fun! Edit: Bottom Liner posted:Even with the missed focus this is a cool photo. That film really picks up light well, so much mood there. Thank you! I wanted to go for something different and was really excited about the concept. I should have been further back, bringing more context into the photo and probably stopping down (assuming I had faster film) to bring more into focus. But... everything is a learning experience. With film, even more so. Appreciate the feedback.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
You are probably right and I'm projecting how I'd shoot it onto your photo. I still like them We'll totally get together next time I'm up in NYC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Just look at home-scanned film shots. They tend to have a low-contrast feel You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about so kindly shut the gently caress up. That's like saying that a test print is flat, or a raw file is flat. Of course it is, that's a desirable starting point. This is advantageous because it gives you latitude to work with. If something 'home scanned' is low contrast it's either because the person who scanned it was a lazy fucker who does no post (identical to what I assume your workflow is like) and simply accepts the starting point as the end point, or has been intentionally made flat. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work with low dynamic range, raising a black point, lowering a white point, or anything else, but if your only reason for presenting an image the way you do is either "that's how it came" (from the lab, or from your home scanner or your camera) or "it's in right now," that is deserving of derision.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about so kindly shut the gently caress up. That's like saying that a test print is flat, or a raw file is flat. Of course it is, that's a desirable starting point. This is advantageous because it gives you latitude to work with. If something 'home scanned' is low contrast it's either because the person who scanned it was a lazy fucker who does no post (identical to what I assume your workflow is like) and simply accepts the starting point as the end point, or has been intentionally made flat. There is nothing wrong with wanting to work with low dynamic range, raising a black point, lowering a white point, or anything else, but if your only reason for presenting an image the way you do is either "that's how it came" (from the lab, or from your home scanner or your camera) or "it's in right now," that is deserving of derision. http://www.flickr.com/photos/buyable/
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
 yes, these are images with black blacks.edit: tell us more about home scanning 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:
There are also images with very low contrast. Note the gray skies, for instance, which are clearly intact -- not possible with a high contrast photo. I mention home scanning because you don't often get the strong contrasts that you get, (or I get) from my own lab. Reichstag posted:if your only reason for presenting an image the way you do is either "that's how it came" or "it's in right now," that is deserving of derision. Is it always deserving of derision? What if it looks nice? Or more specifically, what if it looks nice to you? Why should photographs, or any artwork for that matter, have to be important to anybody but the person taking them? If the purpose of the work is self-expression and self-gratification why does it need to be anything other than what fulfills the artist? "Deserving of derision" is a very specific and harsh phrase which implies that something has to be correct or incorrect. If you are happy with it then as far as I'm concerned the goal has been met, and everyone else, if you so choose, can go straight to hell. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:There are also images with very low contrast. Note the gray skies, for instance, which are clearly intact -- not possible with a high contrast photo. I mention home scanning because you don't often get the strong contrasts that you get, (or I get) from my own lab. Mannequin posted:Is it always deserving of derision? What if it looks nice? Or more specifically, what if it looks nice to you? Why should photographs, or any artwork for that matter, have to be important to anybody but the person taking them? If the purpose of the work is self-expression and self-gratification why does it need to be anything other than what fulfills the artist? "Deserving of derision" is a very specific and harsh phrase which implies that something has to be correct or incorrect. If you are happy with it then as far as I'm concerned the goal has been met, and everyone else, if you so choose, can go straight to hell.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think that laziness and a complete surrender of any control over what the image looks like is indeed something to look down on. Why should you be any less rigorous in determining what an image will look like than in determining what goes in the image? If we're talking about the original image here, it's obvious that "complete surrender of any control over what the image looks like" is not at all pertinent, because clearly some thought and control went into it. Now whether you like the end result is a different matter, and possibly not even relevant, but it doesn't apply to the original discussion. If you're talking about me specifically, you actually don't know jack poo poo about what I do with my images, how I direct the lab to process them, or how I process them myself when I get them back. You seem to be guessing a lot. And while it's true that I may have less control over my images than a scan I could produce myself, it doesn't mean that I have no control at all or that I don't care about how my images look as much as I do about the subjects I photograph. I would not equate laziness in the work that I showcase. But that's besides the point. I sense we are heading down a road that may attract the banhammer of SoundMonkey if we keep this up, so I'm going to just end this now. You are free to disagree with me until you are blue in the face, and if you would like to discuss it more you know how to get in touch with me. Mannequin fucked around with this message at 08:01 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
Soundmonkey, can we have a rule where we have to post histograms instead of pictures from now on. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:28
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Soundmonkey, can we have a rule where we have to post histograms instead of pictures from now on. Thanks. Yours would be all bunched up around the "bad posts" section of the histogram.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:Soundmonkey, can we have a rule where we have to post histograms instead of pictures from now on. Thanks. Only if we can have a thread dedicated to different post treatments of the goat man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:47
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:Only if we can have a thread dedicated to different post treatments of the goat man. The subtle "selenium" split toning you have done here really shows us the conflicted nature of a man that would show his colon to the entire world this way. I don't care for the blur added to the background it removes us from the grotesqueness of the scene and sterilizes the moment too much for my taste. HOW DARE YOU PHOTOSHOP OUT THE RING, don't you understand that that ring is the entirety of the message behind Goatse? Without that it's just a guy and his genitals being presented to us, we have no frame of reference. 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Dec 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
New game: Guess the famous photo based on the histogram.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Yours would be all bunched up around the "bad posts" section of the histogram. artistic choice!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 09:33
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:New game: Guess the famous photo based on the histogram.  Fake edit: Seriously that's a very famous portrait's histo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 09:38
|
|
|
Am I doing it right 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
Well that escalated quickly! Woa
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Mannequin posted:Note the gray skies, for instance, which are clearly intact -- not possible with a high contrast photo.  Turbine Mast by atomicthumbs, on Flickr 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 12:35
|
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:
You know the rules, histogram or 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2012 13:08
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 07:53
|
|
|
baby-assisted portrait 0O3O0355 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
 2013-6 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Shameless crosspost from PAD. A friend popped over last minute and we messed around a bit with some lighting but I couldn't find my lightmeter so some spots are really uneven but it was fun and my first time using off camera with my MF camera. I asked her to come without showering/makeup so I could work on my post processing, I think I did okay!    Whoops I mean    
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
 Raider Nation by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr  edit: home scanned Portra 
MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
I've been out of the portrait game the last few months due to the whole "new city" and "driving across Australia" dealio. So forgive me for this big post, I managed to rope an actor mate into posing for me.       And some colour.   I feel like an instagram kid using those borders, but I wanted to give it a real old feel what with the location and the glasses, what's the goon consensus? Too much? I don't know why but I find this really haunting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 03:02
|
|
|
XTimmy posted:
I like that one the best. You have a great connection and the colors are top notch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
xenilk posted:I like that one the best. You have a great connection and the colors are top notch. Agreed. Dude is very intense about his wine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
Paragon8 you don't have PMs but I have questions. I just got a test with an agency in London and I need your input. Reach me at mcmadcow at gmail dot com. In exchange, I'll buy you a pint. If any other London Dorkroomer emails I'll buy them a half-pint.  EDIT: 
McMadCow fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
I have electronically mailed you!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 05:26 |
|
|
First time taking camera out in a long time. Photographing people's not-smiling heads is the only thing that interests me right now. DSC02926 by LargeHadron, on Flickr  DSC02918 by LargeHadron, on Flickr  DSC02991 by LargeHadron, on Flickr  Untitled by LargeHadron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2013 20:50
|
|
