|
voodoorootbeer posted:Every time I try to shoot a geometry-centric type shot that depends on straight lines with my phone, I end up with a big old pile of perspective fuckup. Did you do any special correction or anything with this because it looks spot on? Nope, that's straight out of camera. My "trick" is to turn on the grid in the camera app and to make sure that the verticals line up with it, which usually involves raising or lowering the phone and/or walking forwards/backwards to change perspective, rather than tilting it. For example, I think I was holding the phone over my head for this shot.
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Going against the grain here but this one isn't working for me -- it's just too cluttered without a central place to focus/look. I agree with the "wide angle PJ" thing but in this case you have so much going on in flat light that it's hard to focus anywhere. This is always going to be a killer in the "pictures taken outside in a field" department. Great to see some stuff from you, Alex. I guess I'm unclear of what I'm supposed to be looking at. Is it the spray from the bow? Is there a hole in the ocean on the port side? I like the ominous nature of the scene. The grays throughout and the muted yellow and fading grays on the horizon really reinforces the choppiness of the ocean and the whitecaps. The rolling of the vessel adds some great motion as well. At first I found the out-of-focus structures in the foreground to be distracting, but the more I look at it the more I think you've done well to use what could have been very malignant to the scene. The inclusion of two girders (or whatever they are) reinforces their use as framing devices, and they help each other not be distracting.  How distracting is the burst of light off the sun that's going across the closer eruption of water? A couple questionable sources say it's not a big issue for them, but I'd like further opinions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:
I guess it doesn't really matter but once you mentioned it I couldn't unsee it. Just clone carefully.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 01:43
|
|
|
Leviathor posted:
Are you talking about the streak of light near the center left of the frame? I didn't really notice it either till I read your comment and started hunting. I like the picture though, but I dunno what you could do to get that to go away. So I took my new camera out for a bike race and night in the park yesterday, and it was FUN! Helps my friend's kids are photogenic as hell.  playground1 by Middleshoes, on Flickr  playground3 by Middleshoes, on Flickr  Bikes2 by Middleshoes, on Flickr Right after I took this one, thankfully I got up to grab some watermelon because three bikers totally skidded out and flipped over right where I was 5 seconds later. They were alright, but if I had stayed put taking photos they would have messed me up. I'm pretty happy with how they turned out, just wish the race had started a little earlier so I had more light but hey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2013 13:34
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Are you talking about the streak of light near the center left of the frame? I didn't really notice it either till I read your comment and started hunting. I like the picture though, but I dunno what you could do to get that to go away. Love the biker shot, wish you'd caught the full wheel and not had that just-enough-missing-to-notice bit. You avoided the most common pitfall with kid's portraits, and you shot on their level. You're right, very photogenic. The only problem is, they're only stand-out shots for people that know the kids. They're otherwise unremarkable, if well executed, shots. Example: I love this shot, if you know The Boy, it has a lot of personality. If you don't, it only stands out for the remarkable ability of this lens (120-300 f/2.8) to separate subject from background.  The Boy by torgeaux, on Flickr Now, for my own shot: I was just fooling around with my "new" 100mm non-USM macro. Really feel like the detail it allows added to the subject.  Aging Without Grace by torgeaux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:Now, for my own shot: I was just fooling around with my "new" 100mm non-USM macro. Really feel like the detail it allows added to the subject. Let the DOF and hairy detail stand on their own and give it a square chop -- no need to imply motion. crime fighting hog posted:Thanks, so did I, so I followed them when all three discovered it. First is stronger than the second - the repetition of shapes and variation of (faces? expressions? horse personalities?) keeps me looking at the frame. LargeHadron posted:These are cross-posted from the portrait thread. I'm trying out some new styles and I'd like to get some more feedback on them. I'm gonna disagree with the previous crit and say that the shallow DOF works well on both. I think I prefer the increased sharpness and clarity on him better than on her (probably an age thing) but I'd like to see more examples from both styles to get a better sense of it. Wasn't sure at first about the darkness of the shadows on her face, especially with the reduced contrast, but it seems to contribute well to the overall mood. Shooting with my phone more to complement my film stuff. All shot and edited on my S3. Bunch more on my Tumblr   
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
Followed you on tumblr. This image is awesome if you meant for it to be tilted. I can see you hanging this print and watching people lean as they view it. If you didn't mean for it to be tilted then don't admit it. crime fighting hog posted:
Nice job! It's a shame the bottom of the wheels are cut but it's still a strong capture. Some shots from a recent show.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
Oprah Haza posted:Followed you on tumblr. Ha, it was on a hill. This whole loving city is hills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
Really like the colours. What kind of post-processing you did here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Really like the colours. What kind of post-processing you did here? Brought up the shadows with curves on the photo editor on my phone. Most of these are pretty quick and dirty.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
scotty posted:
I get a really 'americana' vibe from this. I really, really like it, but I have a feeling I'd like it even more without that pillar (gas pump?) in the background. One from me - a part of a bridge close to work:  AJK_2362 by SAFistLips, on Flickr Edit: updated pic. FistLips fucked around with this message at 19:21 on Aug 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:Are you talking about the streak of light near the center left of the frame? I didn't really notice it either till I read your comment and started hunting. I like the picture though, but I dunno what you could do to get that to go away. These look good overall. In terms of critique, on the technical side it looks like you're getting way more grain than you ought to be seeing -- maybe your ISO was up much higher than I am supposing but these look like you're oversharpening or similar more than that they are grainy. On the first image, to me it's too tight -- it could be fun but the way that she's looking and the tight framing makes it look odd or like you captured a wayward expression. She's definitely a photogenic girl but I'm not sure you're wholly capturing it here. On the second, I think his expression and the framing work very well together. The bike race is a nice shot and I like the motion blur in the riders and the panning effect. However, the sharpening / grain / whatever it is is making the OOF racers look really odd. ... Some more from the last year.  Old City, Jerusalem  Outside of Dubai, UAE  Calvary
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
So I'm very new at this and just picked up an S100 to play around with. I've had a couple of opportunities to mess with it though so figured I would take the plunge and post a couple things here to be dissected. This one I messed with quite a bit in post processing to get the colors to stand out, and eliminate any light below the silhouette to bring the focus more onto the street light as the one source of light in the center of the picture. I think it worked reasonably well, and the contrast of the silhouette makes the sunset stand out more than it would otherwise.  I liked the combination of colors and angles here so tried to frame the picture with the support beams and pipes. I had another that lined the pipe to the left up more evenly with the frame, but since the beam at the top is somewhat slanted I liked this one better for the imperfection on the left as well. I hope that qualifies for self-criticism. I haven't ever used a camera better than a crappy little travel one before, although I took a lot with that one. And I don't know a whole lot about lens settings so far, but am trying to learn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
I like this one the best of the three shots. I feel like you could crop it down the sides to where it would just be him with the light shining on him and it would be an excellent shot. For me, the drum set being in shot seems unnecessary. I speak from personal opinion though, I am very uneducated when it comes to photography. I got a D5200 to do some video work recently and have been spending time taking photos again. I had no idea how much I missed having a nice camera.  I like this shot, I don't think I did much post processing on it. Maybe it would be beneficial if I saturated the colors a bit more?  I think I cropped this one poorly, perhaps I also should have done something more with the flowers in the background. 4/20 NEVER FORGET fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Nice colours, but the clouds are really noisy. High Iso or maybe something you did in post? I like the composition with the power lines, but the fact that the lamp isn't lightning anything feels a little bit unnatural to me. I'd try to use the vertical beam to frame the image. If it isn't straight at least avoid getting red and yellow on the other side of it thru cropping/straightening, unlike the bottom of your image. Again, nice colours, but this one feels way more snapshot-y than the first one. TsarAleksi posted:
Loving this. Film or Digital? I like the grain you got going there. ========== Was going thru old pictures, found this from one of my first rolls of film. Fixed a light leak in Photoshop, but I'd like some criticism. Should I maybe clone out the window on the left? What about composition/crop?  ICBS por primoitcho, no Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 04:02
|
|
|
scotty posted:
I'm a big fan of this one, the shadows over the faces make it feel anonymous, almost like they broke in for a prank or something. I tried to keep everything as low key in this photo as possible by adding a strong burn layer and boosting saturation.. I felt like the dead chicks should be the only thing that felt "alive" in it.  IMG_8964 by bighoits, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
TsarAleksi posted:Snap from work earlier this year. These are really hard to predict, and you are always inside and not looking for the best ones... This is huge. Love the color of the sky and the texture of the ocean as well. I don't really know what I'd experiment different with it, other than if this were a crop to maybe pan out a small bit and get more of the sky and line up the ocean on the thirds. But really this is just great. The focus fits the image. crime fighting hog posted:Thanks, so did I, so I followed them when all three discovered it. I like the relationship in this, as if they're sisters. The blond being in the middle is just great catch. Strongest of those you posted in my opinion. From a couple days ago:  My grandmother has alzheimer's and her husband is dying. This is her re-calling her pharmacy with a picture of her as a teenager behind her. I'm kind of conflicted because most of the photos I take of them is to just have pictures of and with them. For memories sake, because this will be one of my last experiences with them. Sometimes though, specially cause of my grandmothers condition, I get a bit more artsy-er shots and I don't know how I feel about them. Like they're too intimate to share or even exploitive. I don't know. Either way I hope they are good photos from a photography standpoint, cause I'm still learning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
Ars Moriendi posted:
I knew it was going to be her younger self before you mentioned it. This is telling a story with the minimum amount of information necessary and it's bloody fantastic. I don't think it's exploitative at all, but then she's not my gran.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 19:03
|
|
|
Agreed. If you were taking pictures of her in embarrassing situations or selling them as stock and not telling anyone, maybe. But when you remember her it won't be sitting next to her smiling, it'll be moments like this. And I think it's fine to put a little bit of yourself into those kinds of shots.
Huxley fucked around with this message at 20:15 on Aug 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
It's an amazing shot from a pure storytelling angle and it doesn't feel exploitative at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:It's an amazing shot from a pure storytelling angle and it doesn't feel exploitative at all. Echoing that comment, beautiful shot and story telling
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 21:40
|
|
|
crime fighting hog posted:So ultimately you didn't get what you were going for as mentioned before due to the different angle change. But I still like this one, because I instantly thought the babby was looking at the milk shake thinking "Oh god too much". crime fighting hog posted:Thanks, so did I, so I followed them when all three discovered it. Some of the subjects seem they are trapped, and it seems that with these images that what is missing doesn't really matter, but having the space there would improve the image. Also it seems that the horse running shot is way over-sharpened, seems like there's a halo around the horse where the fuzziness should be. You have a cool running horse shot, go with it. You don't have to try to hide the blurriness. I would suggest brightening it up a bit and toning down the sharpness. Anyway here's some still life stuff I've been working on.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 02:48
|
|
so things are picking up!
|
How Darwinian posted:
I like this as well, but maybe try cropping it so that the top beam/girder is out of the frame? I think it might look a little better without that cluttering it up in the top there. I'm trying to learn a little about flash/artificial lighting in general and saw a video on the history of still life photography a few days ago. Thought this turned out nice (my girlfriend's and my shoes):  skosko.jpg by SAFistLips, on Flickr The video I saw was from Ted Forbes's "The Art of Photography" which I recommend for everyone: http://theartofphotography.tv/
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 09:19
|
|
|
Wario In Real Life posted:It's an amazing shot from a pure storytelling angle and it doesn't feel exploitative at all. Third-ed, I think it's a wonderful shot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 11:18
|
|
|
notlodar posted:Anyway here's some still life stuff I've been working on. How did you get no shadows? Are the objects sitting on something transparent and being lit from below?
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
David Pratt posted:How did you get no shadows? Are the objects sitting on something transparent and being lit from below? For the cat food and the ring they are on translucent acrylic that is let from below, but for the tomato it's just on a stick that I photochopped out, I think I used was a single ring flash I made from a beauty dish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 22, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Was going thru old pictures, found this from one of my first rolls of film. Fixed a light leak in Photoshop, but I'd like some criticism. Should I maybe clone out the window on the left? What about composition/crop? I really love the way the stained glass looks in this picture. The lighting progression from left to right is fantastic. What really bugs me is the railing in the bottom right. It just feels out of place. As for the window on the left, I think it's fine. For whatever reason, it just seems like it adds balance to the picture, maybe from where the rail cuts into the stained glass on the right. If you were to do anything, I'd maybe rotate the image a little bit clockwise to level out the stained glass on the bottom. I would also experiment with turning the brightness down slightly in the rightmost two glass windows. They feel a little bright, so turning down the brightness might bring out a little texture. Turning them down too much though would make the picture too dark and interrupt the lighting progression. I'm not sure what I would have done to compose the shot here. The sun is just right on the stained glass where you are, but it puts the railings in the way. I'm not sure how centering the stained glass on the stairwell would have worked out with the lighting. There's no real inherent asymmetry to the stained glass, so the asymmetry of the railing doesn't have much to play off of. === Anyway, I was taking some postcard-style shots in downtown Springfield. Overall, I think I got the composition down on this one, but I'm not really sure about the lighting on Lincoln's face. It's got a dramatic quality to it, but on the other hand, you can't really tell who it is at a glance. Opinions?  Abe and Union Station by venusian-weasel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:Anyway, I was taking some postcard-style shots in downtown Springfield. Overall, I think I got the composition down on this one, but I'm not really sure about the lighting on Lincoln's face. It's got a dramatic quality to it, but on the other hand, you can't really tell who it is at a glance. Opinions? I know you said you were taking postcard style shots, but beyond not being flat center-composed, this looks like exactly the photo any random tourist with a camera would take if they wanted a picture of that statue/building. The dramatic lighting on the statue might work in an extreme close-up where the statue is filling most of the frame, but as a piece of a larger composition that has otherwise flat lighting it doesn't really add anything. I would even argue that it detracts as the point of the photo is just to provide visual information about that location and it's failing to do so by having the statue's face obscured. What is the point of dramatic lighting if there is no drama in the image? Lighting is only one element that helps to create the atmosphere of a photo and it's not enough for it to be compelling for its own sake, it needs to be congruous with the other elements (color, composition, shapes, subject matter, etc). A stark statue on a dull sunny day doesn't fit together, and it's not a drastic enough contrast to succeed through that either. The color and exposure are pretty pleasant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 23, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
I'm interested in opinions on post-processing and crop choice for this image (since that's basically all that's in my control) Here's the original:  wanghammer posted:I tried to keep everything as low key in this photo as possible by adding a strong burn layer and boosting saturation.. I felt like the dead chicks should be the only thing that felt "alive" in it. notlodar posted:Anyway here's some still life stuff I've been working on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Millionth-ing that this doesn't feel exploitative. Had she been asleep and drooling, perhaps, but it's a complete story in one frame. I didn't immediately think that she had Alzheimer's. It just seemed like it was chronicling the realities of aging (which it still does, just in a different way). TsarAleksi posted:
This is fantastic. The woman is close enough to get some detail, but you get to see her leaning up against that beautiful wall. Here are two of mine from this morning. I'm still saving up for a polarizer and ND filters, but I'm very thankful for Lightroom's gradated filter feature.  Windswept Sunrise by Mryuck88, on Flickr  Picture Frame Pier by Mryuck88, on Flickr Does anyone think this photo would be better if the sun was hidden behind clouds? I like the light, but thought this crop framed it better than the unedited shot showing more of the pier railing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:41
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I'm interested in opinions on post-processing and crop choice for this image (since that's basically all that's in my control) I like the processing, I would go with a wider crop though. 8x10 or wider instead of a square crop. Mr Yuck posted:Millionth-ing that this doesn't feel exploitative. Had she been asleep and drooling, perhaps, but it's a complete story in one frame. I didn't immediately think that she had Alzheimer's. It just seemed like it was chronicling the realities of aging (which it still does, just in a different way). I like the first one, the second one I'm not a fan of though. The pier is just too obviously not in focus for me, I would have liked to see you get the pier in focus and then stopped down further to keep the focus pretty solid out to infinity. Soft clouds are hard to notice, soft edges on a hard silhouette not so much. When in rome~  P8150218.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  P8200806.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr  P8200821.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Mr. Despair posted:I like the first one, the second one I'm not a fan of though. The pier is just too obviously not in focus for me, I would have liked to see you get the pier in focus and then stopped down further to keep the focus pretty solid out to infinity. Soft clouds are hard to notice, soft edges on a hard silhouette not so much. That bugged me as well. How far do I need to step down, though? I was already at f8.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
Probably closer to f/16 or f/22. As far down as you can stop before diffraction makes everything too soft for your taste.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I'm interested in opinions on post-processing and crop choice for this image (since that's basically all that's in my control) I like your original processing a lot. I tried a vertical 2x3 on the action (after leveling the horizon) and came up with this:  I think it tells the story well; sort of, "What's that flying seagull looking at? The running seagull? But what's he looking at?! Oh!" The only thing I don't like is the swathe of negative space between the gulls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Not a fan of the tighter crop. Either keep the square crop, as it works decently, or mess around with cloning out the background bird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
Ars Moriendi posted:
It's exploitative, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think it ultimately has a way of taking away from the story telling process. It might be difficult to show intimacy when you are already intimate with the subject. i.e. The narrative I get out of it is not necessarily the one you wrote in the first sentence. Photowise, maybe you could have shot wider, controlled the background a bit better, and just have been a bit more patient waiting for a better facial expression. Good photo though. Mr. Despair posted:
Here's some recent propaganda photos that I'm on the fence about, compositionally and emotionally.  I went for a dead weighted crop on where the hands are, but I think Im suffocating the photo. I can move my photo up and down, but not wider (thanks to some dumb jarring faces). And do the lack of faces of the subject hurt it too much, I compromised for more editorial of the finish instead.  Is the contrasting light too heavy handed and really just dead space?  Is the juxtaposition of everything visible, too subtle, or not existent?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
The Monk posted:
I like these photos. My only critique on the first photo is that my eyes are drawn to the 2:30:0 and I find myself spending more time wondering what it's for than appreciating the composition. I guess it could be easily made to look like it's turned off if you wanted to shop that out. The second photo is interesting in terms of setting and I like the lighting. It's too bad the one soldier is looking at the camera. I find the third photo is interesting as a display of the banality of the actual day to day life of a ~warfighter~.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
The Monk posted:It's exploitative, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think it ultimately has a way of taking away from the story telling process. It might be difficult to show intimacy when you are already intimate with the subject. i.e. The narrative I get out of it is not necessarily the one you wrote in the first sentence. Photowise, maybe you could have shot wider, controlled the background a bit better, and just have been a bit more patient waiting for a better facial expression. Good photo though. 2) It is strong as is but if you have the megapickles for it, cropping in on the X to avoid the dude looking at the camera could be a good crop. 3)I would lose some of the sky and go for more of a cinematic crop. There is just so much going on in the bottom half of the frame vs. nothing up top. The contrast doesn't work for me and is not justified.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
Please don't crop that photo so the soldier looking at the camera is gone. It will destroy the composition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
FistLips posted:
I think that compositionally this shot perfect in its simplicity. It focuses on that one shape, and the gradient of the sky in the background complements it really well, both in color and direction. Only thing is, and this may be more to do with my uncalibrated monitor, I'm seeing some banding/aliasing on the background... ----  IMG_1795.jpg by ArtisticPretensions, on Flickr I was playing around trying to diffuse the on-camera flash. It.. kinda worked.  IMG_1790.jpg by ArtisticPretensions, on Flickr I think I need a proper flash to do this right
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2013 11:57
|
|
