|
FistLips posted:And for more content of my own - I've posted a picture of her before, but I took a new one that I'm a bit happier with: I'm not sure if the darkening on the left side of her face is intended but it throws off the image a bit. Otherwise I like it a lot.  Winter Morning by jkostashuk1, on Flickr I really gotta figure out why Acdsee Pro is loving with my Tags
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Geektox posted:The branches here formed a neat little archway, but I'm not sure I pulled this off. Focused on the wrong thing, maybe. You did, should be focused on what can be seen through the branches and not the branches themselves. The archway should be a smaller portion of the picture as well.  Transit in Red x by jkostashuk1, on Flickr Something a little different, taken on transit. Stupidly didn't bring my regular camera with me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
grack posted:
There's nothing about this that really jumps out at me, so it kinda scans as a snapshot. She's there, and I'm looking at her, but the photo itself isn't directing me in any way as a viewer. grack posted:
I don't know if it's just me, but the contrast in the foreground seems way too high, you're crushing the trees into blackness and killing the detail. Maybe loosen it up a bit.  lit blossom by difficult listening on Flickr  fingers 2 by difficult listening on Flickr  landscape by difficult listening on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
grack posted:You did, should be focused on what can be seen through the branches and not the branches themselves. The archway should be a smaller portion of the picture as well. Is this a friend/someone you know? While I'm a big proponent of street photography and the freedom to do that, I consider it a bit different when you're inside a skytrain. I'm having difficulty finding the words to explain why but when you're captive sitting there on your morning commute I think it does seem like a slight invasion of privacy. The fact that the person isn't doing anything interesting almost makes it seem more creepy to the randoms on the train since 'why would this guy want her photo' kind of thing. I'd be curious to know if I'm in the minority with that opinion. Aside from that, as the above poster mentioned it does feel like kinda a snapshot, I definitely find myself trying to figure out what the feature was of the individual that motivated the photographer to capture that image. What is she holding? It looks like more boots but clearly she's already rocking some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Is this a friend/someone you know? While I'm a big proponent of street photography and the freedom to do that, I consider it a bit different when you're inside a skytrain. I'm having difficulty finding the words to explain why but when you're captive sitting there on your morning commute I think it does seem like a slight invasion of privacy. The fact that the person isn't doing anything interesting almost makes it seem more creepy to the randoms on the train since 'why would this guy want her photo' kind of thing. I'd be curious to know if I'm in the minority with that opinion. I asked, all she said was "go nuts". I dunno, I found her interesting. If the goonmind doesn't, well, live and learn.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
grack posted:I asked, all she said was "go nuts". Oh if you asked then yeah fair enough. Was that on expo line by chance? You see more leather on the expo line. I live by columbia stn with a hundred other goons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
VelociBacon posted:Oh if you asked then yeah fair enough. Was that on expo line by chance? You see more leather on the expo line. I live by columbia stn with a hundred other goons. Yeah, coming back from downtown. Stupid rear end me forgot my camera (this was taken with the cell)
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 03:12
|
|
|
grack posted:I asked, all she said was "go nuts". If she had more expression the photo would have more to say. Right now she's sitting in a chair not looking at the camera. Is it still considered street photography if you pose the subject? If she was standing in the door way (contrast against the red) or enjoying her music there'd be more to work with. I watched indoor dirtbike racing a few weeks ago. There was plenty of action which made it fun to shoot, but it was hard to focus on one rider/jump with a and the racers were only a few laps each.  SNTL8235 by BHlavka, on Flickr  SNTL8261 by BHlavka, on Flickr  SNTL8792 by BHlavka, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 07:08
|
|
|
Gullous posted:If she had more expression the photo would have more to say. Right now she's sitting in a chair not looking at the camera. The first photo is great, it has a great sense of action and is well-composed. The third photo is probably the weakest, I can't really make out who's who and there's very little sense of depth to the photo. I went to some friends' band's show. The lighting was very hard to work with, and I haven't done much stuff in low-light. The M9 starts losing detail really fast and has crazy amounts of noise at anything above ISO 1000.    I can never decide on the contrast when stuff is in black and white.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
Geektox posted:
The second isn't bad, but much of the expression is being killed by noise/noise reduction. The first is okay, you captured the expression of the woman twirling the scarf well but the two badly out of focus band mates really mess with the picture, especially the one with the accordion on the left. The third is ruined by having the woman's face shadowed, and the 3/4 perspective makes her limbs look out of proportion.  Snowy X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr Edit: VVV It's a corridor for a natural gas pipeline, so I'm sure it's something to do with maintenance access or similar. grack fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Feb 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
That road is awesomely dumb. Makes a great picture, but why the gently caress does it kink like that? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
They probably didn't want to remove a fallen tree or something and paved around it. —OR— It was designed by Mario Kart Map makers
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Marshmallow Blue posted:They probably didn't want to remove a fallen tree or something and paved around it. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
 Fisherman by jkostashuk1, on Flickr Uh... thanks guys. Here's some people fishing. I thought the lines in the boardwalk made a nice pointer to the fishermen and the woman on the bike.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Gullous posted:
The first is great, excellent subject and the blurred bikes in the background give a sense of depth. Catching the bike right in the middle of the jump is damned good. The second isn't bad but it's kind of a flat picture. There's a decent sense of movement, though. The third is really difficult to figure out. It took me about 5 minutes to realize that there were 5 starters, not 4. A bit of a confusing picture. If you were able to get a better angle from the line of racers so each individual was more easily recognized it would work better.  Bald Eagle X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 20:56
|
|
|
grack posted:
This is so  it hurts, very cool! Is it a crop? It feels like it's zoomed in all the way on a digital image. I like the colors and the framing is well done too. I wish that stick wasn't right on the Eagle's head, but I don't know how easy (or possible) it would be to clone it out. Pedestrian Walk by jpitha, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:
Excellent symmetry, nice colours, good range of tones. A+++ would look at again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:This is so Very cool! You took this with a phone? What sort of post-processing did you run on it? I can never get the perpective right when I'm using my phone. It's always skewed this way or that. grack posted:
The skin tones are super dark. You can't make out any details, and it would've been better if you took this closer, I think. I saw some rocks by a river, so I took some pictures of them. It's always a bummer when a thing looks cool in real life but you don't quite get it right in the photo.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
I know the feeling. Some better light or a more interesting background might have improved things. Or a little kid trying to stack more rocks, you know, give it more of a story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
Geektox posted:Very cool! You took this with a phone? What sort of post-processing did you run on it? Yup! Galaxy S3. Ran it through Lightroom 5. (the auto straighten is magic) I used a preset that made it a little film-ish but then I dialed it back because the preset definitely subscribed to "sliders to the right == ART"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Marshmallow Blue posted:They probably didn't want to remove a fallen tree or something and paved around it. Could also be property line issues. Boundary lines can get weird for no apparent reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Shampoo posted:This is so Ha! Fooled you - it's in  Seriously though, there's a nesting pair of Bald Eagles at a nearby lake, someone mentioned they were back early this year so I dug out the old E-510/70-300MM combo. I've got a couple more including a great one of the eagle eating. Shampoo posted:
This is really well done. The symmetry, the lines, the colors. Awesome pic
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 07:32
|
|
|
grack posted:
 Geektox posted:I saw some rocks by a river, so I took some pictures of them. It's always a bummer when a thing looks cool in real life but you don't quite get it right in the photo. This one's tough because you've got that branch pointing right at your rocks, it takes attention away from them. If you'd angled yourself more to the left and got down lower, so that the branch wasn't in the shot, I wonder what it'd look like then. Shampoo posted:
 I've got an 11 month old kid, so I've been boring the absolute poo poo out of my wife and facebook ever since he was born; it's time to start boring the poo poo out of PAD for a while.   
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
jackpot posted:This could be a lot more interesting with just a little bit of cropping (optional) and some levels adjustment (needed). First I'd crop out of some of those trees on the left so that your road takes up a little more of the frame. Also, I'd play around with your contrast/whites/blacks levels a lot - there's a ton of room for you to make your whites whiter and your blacks a little blacker. As it is now your snow and sky are both a really drab grey, and you can play with the contrast a lot before you'll start to lose much detail. Maybe something like this: Thanks for the feedback. I've generally been pushing the contrast on the B+Ws a little further but Geektox has been continually complaining about it so I thought I'd tone it down a little. Good to know I'm on the right track, at least. jackpot posted:I've got an 11 month old kid, so I've been boring the absolute poo poo out of my wife and facebook ever since he was born; it's time to start boring the poo poo out of PAD for a while. The first two don't do a lot for me, they just come across as snapshots because the kid is just staring at the camera. The third is much more interesting. Well framed and it shows some personality. The green backdrop also provides some contrast that's sorely missing from the first two pictures.  Pretty Pollution X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr Almost straight OOC besides a little bit of cropping. Decided to try having the tree a little closer to the centre this time. Terrible pollution does make for some lovely colours. grack fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Feb 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
grack posted:Thanks for the feedback. I've generally been pushing the contrast on the B+Ws a little further but Geektox has been continually complaining about it so I thought I'd tone it down a little. Good to know I'm on the right track, at least. Oh wow, you have uncovered a phenomenon I've heard about, but never seen in the wild: Red channel clipping. The light is not blown out traditionally, but the red in those clouds was so bright and so saturated that only _that_ channel in the file was blown out. The sort of think that a normal aggregate histogram wouldn't even catch. Aside from that technogeekery, it's a very pretty sunset. You seem to do the same sort of thing that I do when I shoot skies (and then beat myself up over later) in skating the bottom of the frame right along the dark skyline. I see the tops of a couple of trees, but I'd rather see either more or less. Was there something ugly down there you were trying to frame out?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
thetzar posted:Oh wow, you have uncovered a phenomenon I've heard about, but never seen in the wild: Red channel clipping. The light is not blown out traditionally, but the red in those clouds was so bright and so saturated that only _that_ channel in the file was blown out. The sort of think that a normal aggregate histogram wouldn't even catch. I know the red channel went a little funky, but I decided to leave it. Same thing happened with an earlier pic I posted. And yes, there are some horrifically ugly factory buildings just below the horizon in this pic. Unfortunately framing lower also loses the bright yellow at the bottom of the image. grack fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Feb 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
grack posted:
These trees are really not doing anything for me and in this case the sky is probably interesting enough to stand on its own. The silhouette isn't really telling me anything, which it needs to be doing in a photo like this. It's just kind of a shapeless blob that's blocking my view of the sunset.  the vision by difficult listening on Flickr  the oasis by difficult listening on Flickr  the best seat in the house by difficult listening on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
jackpot posted:
First one, I like a lot. There is a difference with kids between having attention and just having eyes on the camera - you got a good look here. It is engaging. Being on the same level as the kid is a good view. The setting is nice too. I don't know if you planned this but I particularly like how the grey of the shirt is the similar to the grey of the background and the face has some of the same tones as the grass. That color swap is really fun to look at. The second one, I like the least. It looks messy - the clothes, the leaves on the ground, the way he is sitting. The look on his face is also kind of eh. The square crop doesn't do it for me. The third one is good - the composition, contrast and everything is good but I am just like, why is this kid sitting there? Looking up and out of the frame is a nice way to have the viewer move their eye around. -------  IMG_6053 by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr  IMG_6014 by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr  IMG_5995 by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
rio posted:
The first one the right hand really needs to be in focus. It's a big bright spot in the middle of the frame that draws the eye away from what is in focus, the piano keys. The framing is otherwise nice. It took me a while to figure out the second one is a set of wind chimes. Err, it's not really interesting. The third is too dark, and I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish. A little hint?  RedDoor by jkostashuk1, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:24
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I've got an 11 month old kid, so I've been boring the absolute poo poo out of my wife and facebook ever since he was born; it's time to start boring the poo poo out of PAD for a while. I'm a fan of the first, it communicates a lot about that day and what the kid was up to. The lighting is awesome, but it's not on his face. It'd be a 10/10 pro shot with his face lit up in that warm light. The expression in the 2nd shot makes it clear he was just plopped down, and he's not cool with it. The composition isn't super interesting, either. The 3rd is nice, his curiosity makes for a great photo. The background has enough detail to steal some of his thunder, but then it's cropped before you can see what he's looking at. I'd try to isolate the subject more, or show the environment he's interacting with. grack posted:
I recognize that tree from your earlier post. I'm a fan of this composition vs your old shot:  RedSunset by jkostashuk1, on Flickr If I was going to print the new shot, I'd edit out the tips of the other trees, but otherwise I dig it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 18:58
|
|
|
rio posted:
Really like the first one. The blured hand gives a sense of movement, the in focus keys of being the target of that movement. It's quite compeling. The colours are also warm and nice. Second doesn't really work for me. It's quite abstract but the subject isn't that interesting, and the oval shapes of the lights on both sides is throwing me off a litte bit. Third is also nice. Love the texture you got in the sky and the contrast between the mostly blue, cold scene with the yellow band from the sunset. The only thing that bothers me a little is how I can't understand if the fountain is just that small stub or if it goes into the shadows... Maybe a small change of angle or some light dodge/burning to suggest it? grack posted:
I like the colours and the simmetry with the lamps on the top and the small things on the bottom on both sides, they're not equal but they provide a good balance. If feels just a little bit out of level, did you check that? I'd also like to see the bottom of the door. Right now I think that the empty top is a little unbalanced with how I can't see where the door ends. I've been loving around with double exposures. First some girl shots from the internet (because I can't get any to be naked for me har har) and them some urban scenes on top. After that I "scanned" the film using just a sheet of common paper as difuser to get some texture going. I'm not sure if they work or just look like pretentious art-student crap. Third is from a sculpture by Liliana Porter which was one of the most amazing pieces of art i've seen, scanned the same way. Linked due to  DSC08019 por Primosky, no Flickr DSC08001 por Primosky, no Flickr  DSC08034 por Primosky, no Flickr Primo Itch fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I've been loving around with double exposures. First some girl shots from the internet (because I can't get any to be naked for me har har) and them some urban scenes on top. After that I "scanned" the film using just a sheet of common paper as difuser to get some texture going. I'm not sure if they work or just look like pretentious art-student crap. Third is from a sculpture by Liliana Porter which was one of the most amazing pieces of art i've seen, scanned the same way. You might want to link the first two, they're rather .They both just kinda look pretentious but then I'm not really a fan of double-exposure stuff in general. The third one has a lot going on, and I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to be looking at. My eye goes to the big dark thing behind the woman because that's where the most contrast is, but I don't think it's supposed to since that doesn't seem to be anything in particular.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:I've been loving around with double exposures. First some girl shots from the internet (because I can't get any to be naked for me har har) and them some urban scenes on top. After that I "scanned" the film using just a sheet of common paper as difuser to get some texture going. I'm not sure if they work or just look like pretentious art-student crap. Third is from a sculpture by Liliana Porter which was one of the most amazing pieces of art i've seen, scanned the same way. While not badly done, all three kind of suffer from the same issue which is not having a strong enough subject to anchor the rest of the image. The first image the woman's face needs to be brighter and her body darker because it pulls the eyes in to the bottom third of the picture. The second is a little better in this regard but I don't think the buildings make a good backdrop with the model. For the third, I agree with Arcsech - the thing that draws the eye is the kinda big black thing right behind the woman because it sticks out. I have no idea what it is and what it's supposed to be in context with the rest of the image, though.  The Old Farmstead X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr grack fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:22
|
|
|
grack posted:
I like the composition of this one, that road just draws your eyes up from the bottom of the picture to the barn. I think it's maybe a tad overexposed, though. The barn roof just kind of blends in with the sky, and you've lost some detail where the tree branches meet sky. Got a picture of a swan at the wildlife refuge the other day. I can't really decide if leaving the picture as-is is too empty, or if it works to the photo's advantage:  Whistling Swan by venusian-weasel, on Flickr From a snow squall a few weeks ago. I was trying to capture how the trees faded into the background in the snow. Does it work as is or have I pushed the brightness a little too far?  Whiteout 2 by venusian-weasel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
grack posted:
I also think perhaps something could have been done with the priority seating sticker. Either make it obvious she doesn't give any fucks or else get it somewhere where it can be cloned out easily. It's a little distracting as-is. grack posted:
If it weren't for that bench-thing on the left I would say you should have stepped left to get the bicycle lady to line up under the left-most pole and that would have helped with the distribution of people. As it is I don't think her and the clutter next to her adds much to the photo, I'd almost crop her third of the photo out and tighten it up a little on the bottom as a result (and crop the right quarter or so to remove the second pole). -- As perhaps demonstrated by my "critique" I am at the less experienced end of the spectrum in the hobby. The only shots I have that I like are from the iPhone but they have helped me get enthusiasm for the hobby so there's that. Here's a couple I like but am not sure how to improve/process. Because they are of insects (inches away from my smartphone lens) my ability to compose was limited but I think I got pretty lucky. Any tips for this kind of photography is appreciated because they were definitely really fun shots to take. I recently got an S110 but I may end up trading up into a starter DSLR territory.  
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
These are both quite decent for macro shots but you need to crop waaaay tighter because in both instances the backgrounds detract from the subject. Another idea would be to shoot with a wider aperture to separate the subject better.  In to Winter X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr grack fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Mar 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
grack posted:These are both quite decent for macro shots but you need to crop waaaay tighter because in both instances the backgrounds detract from the subject. Another idea would be to shoot with a wider aperture to separate the subject better. I like the framing and the shot but I feel like the blacks are just a bit too black and detail gets lost - drawing my eye into it. I guess the contrast was increased to help with the B&W effect but I wonder if backing it off a bit or raising your shadows slider a touch might help bring some detail back.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
It's not black and white.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
grack posted:It's not black and white. On my monitor (at work, but it's not a lovely monitor) it looks black and white to me. Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:20 |
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:
The first one the framing is fine, you can tell it's a swan because the shape is very distinctive. However I don't think it really works because there's so little detail on the bird's body. Second could use more contrast because you've essentially got a black and white photo with no black or white. I think the idea is well captured, though.  The Mask X by jkostashuk1, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 5, 2014 22:51
|
|