Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

«‹›140 »

StarkingBarfish: Jun 25, 2006; Novus Ordo Seclorum

siloxr posted:

On the attached image, I've got my first real attempt at doing a composite image. Light was really crappy when I went out -- really overcast. It wasn't a full on sky swap. I cut out the original sky and put it in another layer, then used it as an overlay to the sky I cut from another image on a much better day. This caused me a lot of fun as I got to spend around an hour playing with masking and levels to finally get rid of the random bit of dark gray in the left close to the horizon (I ended up not even masking, just sliding up the black point of both the blue channel and the RGB channel) and to be frank, I'm still not sure if it works. I don't think I have it looking fully realistic, but erring more on the side of "overcooked" than the "put in new sky".

I think you've done a nice job here- my only comment is around the grey rock it looks on my monitor like it's got some haloing- maybe it's a tiny bit oversharpened or a bit too much of the clarity slider? It's barely noticeable so don't sweat it.

Edit: Actually, it might just be that there's more white cloud around the rock than elsewhere. If I were making a composite here I'd probably leave a bit more blue around that rock, but that's subjective.

For my own, here's a sunset shot of the philly skyline. I waited to catch the patco in the lower right corner, but I had to crop close to it as there's another streetlight to the right I wanted to get rid of. I didn't do much to the image except a bit of split toning, sharpening and clarity, but I'm on the fence about whether it's overprocessed. Opinions?

img_0001 by barfish, on Flickr

StarkingBarfish fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 19:08

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 20:19

Skizzzer: Sep 27, 2011

siloxr posted:

Thank you. I'm not sure if that's a focus problem or the fact that I took that at f/3.5. I had just received my 10-22mm and was all about WIDE OPEN APERTURE ALL THE TIME NO MATTER WHAT. I'm not sure where the focal point was, but I think it tried to on the ice in the lower left. Since, I've learned it's not really a great idea to roll with the aperture quite that wide for landscapes--the whole idea generally being to have as much as possible in focus.

That said, I do kind of struggle with focus in general because I'm not particularly sure if I have my OVF in focus. There's a disturbingly large range through which I can roll the diopter adjustment wheel and see absolutely no changes. I think I need to see an optometrist.

On the attached image, I've got my first real attempt at doing a composite image. Light was really crappy when I went out -- really overcast. It wasn't a full on sky swap. I cut out the original sky and put it in another layer, then used it as an overlay to the sky I cut from another image on a much better day. This caused me a lot of fun as I got to spend around an hour playing with masking and levels to finally get rid of the random bit of dark gray in the left close to the horizon (I ended up not even masking, just sliding up the black point of both the blue channel and the RGB channel) and to be frank, I'm still not sure if it works. I don't think I have it looking fully realistic, but erring more on the side of "overcooked" than the "put in new sky".

I just started but when I take my landscape shots I try to shoot them at f/16 - it's been working for me so far (I hope).

The picture's really nice but the water doesn't seem to match the sky. I don't think I would've noticed it if you didn't say it was a composite, but the shades of blue and grey in the water makes it more obvious that there was a different sky that day. And it's hard to tell but the line of the rock in the foreground and the sky seems too... stark? I don't know, Starkfish put it better than I did.

I got two new lenses from my dad on Friday and went out over the weekend to try them out:

sandcut (1 of 3) by badmountain, on Flickr

This one was a random shot on my 35mm - not sure how I feel about it:

sandcut (2 of 3) by badmountain, on Flickr

This one was my first time using Photoshop in conjunction with LR. I did some stuff with layers (not too sure exactly what cause I followed a tutorial on youtube half-heartedly) because I wanted the water to look smoother, and combined the sky from a shorter exposure of the same shot. The stark colour difference between the sky and water looks weird to me, and I don't know if you can tell but I had to copy paste the small log in the midground because it moved between shots and there was some ghosting.

Sandcut by badmountain, on Flickr

I think I'll stick to LR for the next while because this was a lot of work on my old laptop and there's a similar shot on my flikr that I did with LR and adjustment brushes that looks pretty much the same.

# ? May 13, 2014 21:34

Redleg: Jul 7, 2003; What an odd looking.....Figurine

I don't think it looks over processed, I see color in the sky like that from time to time. It looks realistic and I also think it is interesting, particularly with the train where it is.

# ? May 13, 2014 21:35

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

iammeandsoareyou posted:

Well here goes for my first attempt at a critique. I like the mood the picture set with the light rays, but I feel like there is not enough separation between the dark background and the dark cross to make the cross pop. I think if you upped the exposure slightly it might pop more. Or if you are good with dodging and burning, dodging the background a bit might make the subject pop more. Also I think that the tree in the bottom right hand corner is a bit distracting.

And here is my first offering for critique. I liked this one because I don't see too many shot of the capitol dome with the lamps in the foreground, which is too bad because i think they are pretty cool structures. Unfortunately I think I cut their bases off at a bad place in an attempt to preserve negative space at the top of the dome.

CapitalWLamps by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

And this one I feel like should work because elements are there, but just doesn't somehow.

Girders by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

What's up back of the capitol buddy? The back is the best view of the capital.

Mine suffers from a blown out sky but oh well, it was just a quick iphone shot. I liked those lamp posts too. I'll have to check my archives to see if I took any with my real camera and how they turned out. I recall trying to get something working with the lampposts in it but not being very happy with the results. Looking at the iphone shot the problem probably was the sun being too high and blowing out a huge section of the sky.

You were at 26mm on your 18-55, could you have gone wider to get the lamp posts, the sky, and the plaza all in the shot? As it is the shot feels like it's been chopped off at the bottom, seeming to scream for a bit more foreground. Something else you might have tried if you'd had a longer telephoto was to back wayyyy down that walkway and try to include the lampposts that way. This guy did that and the results aren't amazing but I think a better shot with the same idea could be pulled off https://www.flickr.com/photos/toshio1/11456831156.

The sky isn't your friend here either. I'm sad to say that the sky in yours is drab and uninspiring.

Are the girders in Georgetown? I think I know that spot. Anyway, I feel like the leafless trees in the background are a distraction from the clean lines of the girders.

edit: and since I am posting poo poo from DC here is a shot from Union Station that I really like

Dren fucked around with this message at 22:24 on May 13, 2014

# ? May 13, 2014 22:19

iammeandsoareyou: Oct 27, 2007; Nothing to see here

Dren posted:

What's up back of the capitol buddy? The back is the best view of the capital.

Mine suffers from a blown out sky but oh well, it was just a quick iphone shot. I liked those lamp posts too. I'll have to check my archives to see if I took any with my real camera and how they turned out. I recall trying to get something working with the lampposts in it but not being very happy with the results. Looking at the iphone shot the problem probably was the sun being too high and blowing out a huge section of the sky.

You were at 26mm on your 18-55, could you have gone wider to get the lamp posts, the sky, and the plaza all in the shot? As it is the shot feels like it's been chopped off at the bottom, seeming to scream for a bit more foreground. Something else you might have tried if you'd had a longer telephoto was to back wayyyy down that walkway and try to include the lampposts that way. This guy did that and the results aren't amazing but I think a better shot with the same idea could be pulled off https://www.flickr.com/photos/toshio1/11456831156.

The sky isn't your friend here either. I'm sad to say that the sky in yours is drab and uninspiring.

Are the girders in Georgetown? I think I know that spot. Anyway, I feel like the leafless trees in the background are a distraction from the clean lines of the girders.

edit: and since I am posting poo poo from DC here is a shot from Union Station that I really like

Thanks for everyone's input on the capitol shot. I think the consensus on that one is that the cropping is off and the clouds are distracting. Looking at the files from that day I think I am just going to have to go back and re-shoot it before I transfer out of DC. There is a lot going on back there anyway that I did not get the first time. I like the telephoto idea.

As for the girders, you are correct that is Georgetown and your comment on the trees puts the finger on an element that kept bothering me about where that shot never seemed to come together. I am pretty basic with post-processing, but I might experiment with some removal tools in photoshop and see if I can't get them out.

And I really like that Union Station shot. Honestly the only nitpick that I can come up with is that might be a little stronger if you could shop out the guy who is sitting half way in the wall and maybe the first guy's suitcase. Pretty much everything else in the picture really works for me.

iammeandsoareyou fucked around with this message at 00:29 on May 14, 2014

# ? May 14, 2014 00:24

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

iammeandsoareyou posted:

Thanks for everyone's input on the capitol shot. I think the consensus on that one is that the cropping is off and the clouds are distracting. Looking at the files from that day I think I am just going to have to go back and re-shoot it before I transfer out of DC. There is a lot going on back there anyway that I did not get the first time. I like the telephoto idea.

As for the girders, you are correct that is Georgetown and your comment on the trees puts the finger on an element that kept bothering me about where that shot never seemed to come together. I am pretty basic with post-processing, but I might experiment with some removal tools in photoshop and see if I can't get them out.

And I really like that Union Station shot. Honestly the only nitpick that I can come up with is that might be a little stronger if you could shop out the guy who is sitting half way in the wall and maybe the first guy's suitcase. Pretty much everything else in the picture really works for me.

Thanks for the compliment. I looked up the thing I tried with the lamp posts. Basically I just went all wide angle nutjob trying to squeeze them in. I do not recommend it, it looked stupid.

It's unbalanced, the lamp post is getting crushed by the wide angle distortion, there's a dude w/ a suitcase in it because it was just a test shot, that small fence really throws things off... blech. Someone better than me or who spent more time might be able to get it to come out nicer but I think one of the other views would be better. Something else you might try is one like this where you catch the reflection of the dome off of that glass in front of it:

I imagine I was at the edge of where the glass ended, so it may not be possible to get the reflection of the entire dome in the glass. Which is kind of a shame because the shot would work much better for me if the whole dome was reflected. Maybe I wasn't at the edge of the glass though, check it out.

# ? May 14, 2014 01:35

siloxr: May 11, 2014

StarkingBarfish posted:

I think you've done a nice job here-[snip]haloing- maybe it's a tiny bit oversharpened or a bit too much of the clarity slider? It's barely noticeable so don't sweat it.

Edit: Actually, it might just be that there's more white cloud [snip] but that's subjective.

Awesome, thanks. I think the haloing might have come from using feather with my selection. That's a hard enough line that I probably could have gotten away with just letting Ps do its thing. The clarity slider might be the cause too as the sky was really gray. I'll have to go back and play some more with it. Thank you for pointing it out.

quote:

For my own, here's a sunset shot of the philly skyline. I waited to catch the patco in the lower right corner, but I had to crop close to it as there's another streetlight to the right I wanted to get rid of. I didn't do much to the image except a bit of split toning, sharpening and clarity, but I'm on the fence about whether it's overprocessed. Opinions?

img_0001 by barfish, on Flickr

The processing in this one doesn't bother me a bit. I like that there's a sense of tonal balance even though the warmer colors are in less than 1/3 of the shot (the brightness of the warms versus the flat, dominance of the cool tones)--which is very fitting with the whole encroaching night of a sunset thing. That said, I don't think you're quite vertical with the bridge support. I'm not sure what should take precedent here because the skyscrapers appear to be vertical to my eye, but as the bridge is much closer, I think it might have more of an effect on viewers...at least it does on me.

Skizzzer posted:

I just started but when I take my landscape shots I try to shoot them at f/16 - it's been working for me so far (I hope).

From the reading up I've been doing, you might actually be better off stepping down to around f/8 (depending on your lens. Supposedly around f/16, you generally start seeing softness because of diffraction (the theoretical maximum resolution for f/16 is half that of f/8). I'm not sure I have a good enough eye to tell unless I'm pixel peeping (and even then it's generally a wash), but I do know there are websites where you can find the sharpest aperture for whatever lens you're using.

quote:

The picture's really nice but the water doesn't seem to match the sky. [snip] better than I did.

Firstly, thank you for your thoughts. Yeah, I need to figure out what to do with the water/play with it some more. As for the sky/rock, it was actually pretty stark of a line to begin with. Looking at it again, I believe you and Fish are making really good points about leaving more blue around it instead of backing it with white.

quote:

sandcut (1 of 3) by badmountain, on Flickr

I think I would have liked to see more depth of field on this one to see the texture of the spokes as well. I think you have enough subject separation just with the prominence in the frame and position of the center post. I get the feel too that the wheel is at a slight angle to the camera. It's a conservative and fairly standard framing, but I think it works for this image. It still might be a fun subject to go back and experiment with, especially if you play with lighting too.

quote:

sandcut (2 of 3) by badmountain, on Flickr

I think you might have ran into the same problem I did with my skyline...there's a bit of softness/haloing on the right side of the log that makes it pop out from the scene. If you feathered the selection, you might want to pull back on that. Personally, I like it: you give something interesting to look at in the foreground, there's decent balance to the composition, and generally a solid sunset shot. I'd add though that you've a leading line that leads out of frame (the waterline to that other log/whatever)--nothing horrible, just something to keep an eye out for.

quote:

Sandcut by badmountain, on Flickr

I don't particularly care for this one which is mostly because I don't tend to care for this kind of long exposure shots of water, so weigh anything else I say about it with that in mind. The silhouetted coastline combined with the the color shift of the skyline make those look like two entirely separate images. I think if you had some falloff to the full blackout of the trees on the coastline, it would tie it together better. It does have a rather apocalyptic feeling to it with what could be cable coiled up (are those roots?) with some sci-fi mist rolling over them and that driftwood for me easily slips into being bones, especially with the bits of red in the rocks. The clouds look like the smoke from a tire fire being blown aggressively off scene left. Oh, on clouds, see that sort of U shape in the top of the treeline? There's some blue gray there that I think is where you missed some clouds in your selections.

...would do more but work calls.

# ? May 14, 2014 02:43

StarkingBarfish: Jun 25, 2006; Novus Ordo Seclorum

siloxr posted:

Awesome, thanks. I think the haloing might have come from using feather with my selection. That's a hard enough line that I probably could have gotten away with just letting Ps do its thing. The clarity slider might be the cause too as the sky was really gray. I'll have to go back and play some more with it. Thank you for pointing it out.

Eh, like I said- looking at it again I don't think there's really that much of an effect. I still think it's a really nice job.

siloxr posted:

The processing in this one doesn't bother me a bit. I like that there's a sense of tonal balance even though the warmer colors are in less than 1/3 of the shot (the brightness of the warms versus the flat, dominance of the cool tones)--which is very fitting with the whole encroaching night of a sunset thing. That said, I don't think you're quite vertical with the bridge support. I'm not sure what should take precedent here because the skyscrapers appear to be vertical to my eye, but as the bridge is much closer, I think it might have more of an effect on viewers...at least it does on me.

Thanks- when cropping I deliberately rotated the skyscrapers a bit to get them level- I also kept an eye on the bridge's cables. The stone supporting towers are kinda trapezoidal- is it those that are looking off to you? One thing I was aware of is the way the highway at the bottom isn't parallel: I found that was making me want to rotate the image more than was needed to get the verticals right.

# ? May 14, 2014 04:06

Soopafly: Mar 27, 2009; I have a peanut allergy.

Dren posted:

I imagine I was at the edge of where the glass ended, so it may not be possible to get the reflection of the entire dome in the glass. Which is kind of a shame because the shot would work much better for me if the whole dome was reflected. Maybe I wasn't at the edge of the glass though, check it out.

I like the sun behind the dome here, but I want something to kind of pop out at me, be it the detail in the building or the reflection in the glass. The scene is really cool, but it seems like the sky is where my eye goes instead of all the interesting things in the foreground.

Gradient by soopadoop, on Flickr

# ? May 15, 2014 18:12

Skizzzer: Sep 27, 2011

siloxr posted:

[great advice]

Thanks a lot man I really appreciate the critiques. That was my problem with the last pic too - it looks like two completely different pictures. Those things you call roots are a type of kelp I believe; they kinda look like alien tentacles.

# ? May 15, 2014 18:44

Wafflecopper: Nov 27, 2004; I am a mouth, and I must scream

Magic Hate Ball posted:

dying light by difficult listening

This one isn't grabbing me. There's a lot of blurry out-of-focus flowers and the one that's in focus is partly hidden behind something that isn't. It's also a bit lost amongst the other flowers, perhaps if you managed to get it catching some light or got closer so it filled more of the frame it'd pop more. The big white blobs in the centre-right are also very distracting.

quote:

the peaks by difficult listening

I like this one a lot. Nice clean symmetrical lines and the building has a cool gritty texture to it. The light isn't too warm which is good as I don't feel warmer light would suit the imposing grey monolithic building. The lines lead the eye into the cloud which seems to be bursting up from behind the building and is framed nicely by the blue sky. Awesome.

Castle Point Sunrise 5 by ejtors, on Flickr

# ? May 18, 2014 10:45

thetzar: Apr 22, 2001; Fallen Rib

Wafflecopper posted:

Castle Point Sunrise 5 by ejtors, on Flickr

I find the composition here simple and effective, but the photo is somehow lacking something for me. I like the color and tone, but the main focus � the lighthouse � appears to be blown out. I do rather wish the reflection in the pool, since you put so much emphasis on it, was either better defined, or less. A tripod and a long exposure might have done well here.

Interestingly, I enjoy the shot more when viewing the full-size flickr page, instead of the small version posted in line here. The wide FOV does help to draw one in.

Here's one from me that's also in the portraits thread. As I said there, "I've started playing around with selectively applying color temperature, which I picked up from this guy, who is way better than I am." This was also a quick shoot which reenforced to me just how bad at directing a subject I am. This is a co-worker who I stole five minutes from for the shot. I'm generally introverted, and I find my taking pictures of people to be something of an imposition -- so I try to move as quickly as possible, not bothering to give much direction or try too many things. This is something I know I need to work on. The results of this shoot were a dozen exposures that were all -almost- there. If I had taken more time then, I think I could have gotten better results and more engagement from my model.

Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr

# ? May 18, 2014 17:29

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

Wafflecopper posted:

Castle Point Sunrise 5 by ejtors, on Flickr

The lighthouse is disconnected from the foreground and tiny. It kind of looks like a toy or a small scale model + a perspective trick. I like the idea of the reflection but the shot would be more effective if the lighthouse had more presence and that might have meant giving up on the reflection.

thetzar posted:

Here's one from me that's also in the portraits thread. As I said there, "I've started playing around with selectively applying color temperature, which I picked up from this guy, who is way better than I am." This was also a quick shoot which reenforced to me just how bad at directing a subject I am. This is a co-worker who I stole five minutes from for the shot. I'm generally introverted, and I find my taking pictures of people to be something of an imposition -- so I try to move as quickly as possible, not bothering to give much direction or try too many things. This is something I know I need to work on. The results of this shoot were a dozen exposures that were all -almost- there. If I had taken more time then, I think I could have gotten better results and more engagement from my model.

Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr

You went much more subtle with the different color temperature of light for your subject than the guy who you cite as your inspiration. I like the grit and the texture present in the wall and on the hoodie. Not sure what you were going for with your model that you didn't feel like you pulled off.

# ? May 19, 2014 02:49

Magic Hate Ball: May 6, 2007; ha ha ha!
you've already paid for this

beethoven by difficult listening on flickr

lamp (portrait) by by difficult listening on flickr

flower portrait (2) by difficult listening on flickr

Wafflecopper posted:

Castle Point Sunrise 5 by ejtors, on Flickr

I get what you're going for here but I don't think the lighthouse is notable enough to have the image devoted to playing off its reflection, which feels almost distracting, if just because the reflection is so small. I much prefer this photo, because it allows the beach landscape and the lighthouse to integrate - it feels like a feature of the landscape in a much more natural way. The color and tone of all the photos are superb, though.

# ? May 20, 2014 03:41

mAlfunkti0n: May 19, 2004; Fallen Rib

Soopafly posted:

Gradient by soopadoop, on Flickr

I love this ... the colors .. oh the colors. I am a sucker for gradients too.

# ? May 20, 2014 17:10

iammeandsoareyou: Oct 27, 2007; Nothing to see here

Soopafly posted:

I like the sun behind the dome here, but I want something to kind of pop out at me, be it the detail in the building or the reflection in the glass. The scene is really cool, but it seems like the sky is where my eye goes instead of all the interesting things in the foreground.

Gradient by soopadoop, on Flickr

I really really like this as well. The way the colors stay consistent around the corners really ties it together. For the sake of finding something to nitpick, I think it would have worked even better with a night sky behind the building.

For my contributions

Storm in black and white digital

X100Storm by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

Black and white film that I screwed up while developing. I think it has a cool spooky feel to it, but I would love others opinions before I sink any more time into post processing it.

YourInCorcosaNow by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

And finally a tunnel.

tunnel2 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

iammeandsoareyou fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 20, 2014

# ? May 20, 2014 23:24

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

iammeandsoareyou posted:

tunnel2 by noonebutme2010, on Flickr

I think this one needs some people in it. It's got near- and far-distance, but nothing interesting in the middle.

# ? May 23, 2014 12:19

whaam: Mar 18, 2008

Wafflecopper posted:

Castle Point Sunrise 5 by ejtors, on Flickr

There's something about the contrast between the rock and the pale blue sky that is making this feel washed out to me. Not sure if that makes any sense but that's just how I'm seeing it. It's perfectly exposed but things feel a bit too bright, maybe just the time of day and the harsh light. The reflection turned out great, and it looks really great as a pocket of blue in all that rock, the light and sky is just throwing me.

Something about this photo feels off to me. I was pleased with the result when I was shooting then got back and didn't like it nearly as much looking at it on the screen. It's barely been touched in post but I can't see what would help it out. The only thing I can think that is dragging it down is the composition seems weak? This was at 70mm so I couldn't really move around and frame it very well, the only thing I can think to help would be to crop out some of the water in the foreground. In the viewfinder I thought it would work as a very simple 3-layer image with oranges on top, browns in the middle and blue on the bottom, but I think that isn't working since the island doesn't span the whole middle and the "blues" got pretty orange from the reflection.

# ? May 23, 2014 20:31

Neowyrm: Dec 23, 2011; It's not like I pack a lunch box full of missiles when I go to work!

whaam posted:

There's something about the contrast between the rock and the pale blue sky that is making this feel washed out to me. Not sure if that makes any sense but that's just how I'm seeing it. It's perfectly exposed but things feel a bit too bright, maybe just the time of day and the harsh light. The reflection turned out great, and it looks really great as a pocket of blue in all that rock, the light and sky is just throwing me.

Something about this photo feels off to me. I was pleased with the result when I was shooting then got back and didn't like it nearly as much looking at it on the screen. It's barely been touched in post but I can't see what would help it out. The only thing I can think that is dragging it down is the composition seems weak? This was at 70mm so I couldn't really move around and frame it very well, the only thing I can think to help would be to crop out some of the water in the foreground. In the viewfinder I thought it would work as a very simple 3-layer image with oranges on top, browns in the middle and blue on the bottom, but I think that isn't working since the island doesn't span the whole middle and the "blues" got pretty orange from the reflection.

This is strongly reminiscent of PC game "Dear Esther" for me. Was this taken in the Hebrides?

# ? May 23, 2014 20:46

Thoogsby: Nov 18, 2006; Very strong. Everyone likes me.

Dren posted:

edit: and since I am posting poo poo from DC here is a shot from Union Station that I really like

The color of the ceiling bricks is fantastic in this.

# ? May 23, 2014 20:49

whaam: Mar 18, 2008

Neowyrm posted:

This is strongly reminiscent of PC game "Dear Esther" for me. Was this taken in the Hebrides?

Not Scotland but Nova Scotia (new scotland). Very similar landscapes here.

# ? May 23, 2014 20:57

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

whaam posted:

There's something about the contrast between the rock and the pale blue sky that is making this feel washed out to me. Not sure if that makes any sense but that's just how I'm seeing it. It's perfectly exposed but things feel a bit too bright, maybe just the time of day and the harsh light. The reflection turned out great, and it looks really great as a pocket of blue in all that rock, the light and sky is just throwing me.

Something about this photo feels off to me. I was pleased with the result when I was shooting then got back and didn't like it nearly as much looking at it on the screen. It's barely been touched in post but I can't see what would help it out. The only thing I can think that is dragging it down is the composition seems weak? This was at 70mm so I couldn't really move around and frame it very well, the only thing I can think to help would be to crop out some of the water in the foreground. In the viewfinder I thought it would work as a very simple 3-layer image with oranges on top, browns in the middle and blue on the bottom, but I think that isn't working since the island doesn't span the whole middle and the "blues" got pretty orange from the reflection.

Maybe you'd like it better if you fixed the vignetting? The composition does feel unbalanced. If that's what's bothering you then cropping out some of the water like you suggested would put the island closer to the bottom where it will feel more settled and probably result in a composition that feels more balanced.

Thoogsby posted:

The color of the ceiling bricks is fantastic in this.

Thanks, it's from that afternoon light reflecting off of the sidewalk. That corridor looks fairly drab in comparison at other times of the day.

# ? May 23, 2014 21:55

grack: Jan 10, 2012; COACH TOTORO SAY REFEREE CAN BANISH WHISTLE TO LAND OF WIND AND GHOSTS!

whaam posted:

There's something about the contrast between the rock and the pale blue sky that is making this feel washed out to me. Not sure if that makes any sense but that's just how I'm seeing it. It's perfectly exposed but things feel a bit too bright, maybe just the time of day and the harsh light. The reflection turned out great, and it looks really great as a pocket of blue in all that rock, the light and sky is just throwing me.

Something about this photo feels off to me. I was pleased with the result when I was shooting then got back and didn't like it nearly as much looking at it on the screen. It's barely been touched in post but I can't see what would help it out. The only thing I can think that is dragging it down is the composition seems weak? This was at 70mm so I couldn't really move around and frame it very well, the only thing I can think to help would be to crop out some of the water in the foreground. In the viewfinder I thought it would work as a very simple 3-layer image with oranges on top, browns in the middle and blue on the bottom, but I think that isn't working since the island doesn't span the whole middle and the "blues" got pretty orange from the reflection.

You hit it right, water's not very interesting but the sky is. Putting the horizon a little lower would help.

Three Shoppers by jkostashuk1, on Flickr

grack fucked around with this message at 06:01 on May 25, 2014

# ? May 25, 2014 05:47

lollybo: Dec 29, 2008

grack posted:

Three Shoppers by jkostashuk1, on Flickr

I think there's a little too much at the edges around this photo which takes away from the focus of the shot, which is the 3 women walking through. However overall it is a good composition.

Here's a night shot of a festival in my city, captured by hand. I had trouble capturing the photo with the iso and exposure time that I wanted without camera shake ruining it. Do most of you all use monopods or tripods? I am thinking about getting a monopod with a bearing head.

Atlanta Jazz Festival by kgao1989, on Flickr

Here's a spontaneous portrait I took.

IMG_3234 by kgao1989, on Flickr

# ? May 25, 2014 15:14

murp: May 30, 2007

lollybo posted:

I think there's a little too much at the edges around this photo which takes away from the focus of the shot, which is the 3 women walking through. However overall it is a good composition.

Here's a night shot of a festival in my city, captured by hand. I had trouble capturing the photo with the iso and exposure time that I wanted without camera shake ruining it. Do most of you all use monopods or tripods? I am thinking about getting a monopod with a bearing head.

Atlanta Jazz Festival by kgao1989, on Flickr

Here's a spontaneous portrait I took.

IMG_3234 by kgao1989, on Flickr

#1 Definitely would try this again with a tripod.

#2 This would be a lot better if your subject was in that patch of sunlight behind her.

Here's some beach stuff from a trip this weekend.

DSC_9353 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9300 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9250 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

# ? May 26, 2014 17:31

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

murp posted:

Here's some beach stuff from a trip this weekend.

DSC_9353 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9300 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9250 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

I like the first two, they're nice and well composed. The second one is especially nice.

The third one is interesting but for whatever reason I'm just not feeling it. That might just be me though. What technique did you use?

Also, I looked through your stream a bit and you should post some of those abandoned amusement park shots over in the landscape thread. I liked this one but there were a bunch that were good.

DSC_9412
by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

# ? May 26, 2014 17:50

murp: May 30, 2007

Dren posted:

I like the first two, they're nice and well composed. The second one is especially nice.

The third one is interesting but for whatever reason I'm just not feeling it. That might just be me though. What technique did you use?

Also, I looked through your stream a bit and you should post some of those abandoned amusement park shots over in the landscape thread. I liked this one but there were a bunch that were good.

DSC_9412
by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

Thanks! I posted some in the urbex thread.

The ferris wheel picture was made by covering the lens and panning the tripod every ~2 seconds during a 20 second exposure. Honestly, i'm not sure if I like it that much either.

# ? May 26, 2014 18:35

Skizzzer: Sep 27, 2011

lollybo posted:

Here's a night shot of a festival in my city, captured by hand. I had trouble capturing the photo with the iso and exposure time that I wanted without camera shake ruining it. Do most of you all use monopods or tripods? I am thinking about getting a monopod with a bearing head.

Atlanta Jazz Festival by kgao1989, on Flickr

I've never used a monopod but I would definitely recommend a tripod is you're planning on pictures like that. There's some blurriness and the festival scene is underexposed. I like the composition though.

murp posted:

Here's some beach stuff from a trip this weekend.

DSC_9300 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

This is so pretty! The chick with the pose and the colour of the sky makes it look GTA Vice City or something. The multiple ferris wheel shot doesn't do much for me either.

Tried taking shots of the meteor shower on Friday, but sadly, no meteors here:

Meteor Shower Attempt-2.jpg by badmountain, on Flickr

Raptor Sanctury with Adam-2.jpg by badmountain, on Flickr

I screwed up a lot trying to take a picture of this insect, and tried making something out of it in post. Whaddayall think?

Chives.jpg by badmountain, on Flickr

# ? May 27, 2014 00:02

mAlfunkti0n: May 19, 2004; Fallen Rib

Skizzzer posted:

Meteor Shower Attempt-2.jpg by badmountain, on Flickr

I like this photo, just not the distracting glow at the left lower corner. Other than that, I really like the feel of it. Where was it shot?

My wife and I went out for a hike yesterday. Since I bought my X-E1 I enjoy taking it with me and have found a love for photography again. Too bad I am not all that great, so tell me what I can do better! The one thing I did not like about this one is the diagonal tree in the foreground. As always I feel like I need to hurry, which I am slowly working on ignoring.

# ? May 28, 2014 15:48

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

mAlfunkti0n posted:

My wife and I went out for a hike yesterday. Since I bought my X-E1 I enjoy taking it with me and have found a love for photography again. Too bad I am not all that great, so tell me what I can do better! The one thing I did not like about this one is the ~~diagonal tree in the foreground~~ enormous foreground subject that occupies nearly the entire photo. As always I feel like I need to hurry, which I am slowly working on ignoring.

ftfy

Seriously though if you take a picture and find that you don't like it because there is a huge tree in the way try moving. Take ten steps to your left to get the tree totally out of the frame. Take five steps to the right to try and work with the tree by framing the path under it. Walk past the tree and switch to a wide angle to get a similar composition relative to the woman and the position of the sun and see if that works out. Or cut the tree down and go back to where you were originally. Sometimes there isn't a better vantage point to be found and that's ok, some pictures don't work out exactly perfect for whatever reason (in this case a huge tree) and it's perfectly fine to like them anyway.

# ? May 28, 2014 18:09

mAlfunkti0n: May 19, 2004; Fallen Rib

Dren posted:

ftfy

Seriously though if you take a picture and find that you don't like it because there is a huge tree in the way try moving. Take ten steps to your left to get the tree totally out of the frame. Take five steps to the right to try and work with the tree by framing the path under it. Walk past the tree and switch to a wide angle to get a similar composition relative to the woman and the position of the sun and see if that works out. Or cut the tree down and go back to where you were originally. Sometimes there isn't a better vantage point to be found and that's ok, some pictures don't work out exactly perfect for whatever reason (in this case a huge tree) and it's perfectly fine to like them anyway.

Oh I know. I found this in post (seriously). It was my favorite from yesterday, I just need to take my time rather than feel rushed. I know this sounds insane, but perhaps it's what I need to work on most .. if I don't see the massive tree in the way.

mAlfunkti0n fucked around with this message at 18:22 on May 28, 2014

# ? May 28, 2014 18:19

xzzy: Mar 5, 2009

I find it really hard to think about that stuff while shooting, especially when the sun's orientation is part of the scene and conditions change rapidly. I get caught up in the scene as I'm experiencing it and completely forget that taking a picture of it doesn't necessarily result in a good photo. Since digital is cheap it's still worth taking the picture, snapshots are still a good thing because memories are nice. But it is disappointing to sit down at home and find out the work of art you thought you created isn't quite that great.

It gets better with experience I guess but it's still pretty frustrating. Hiking and enjoying nature is easy, bringing it back home in a camera is hard.

# ? May 28, 2014 18:26

Dren: Jan 5, 2001; Pillbug

Yeah thinking like the camera is tough. I agree with this:

xzzy posted:

Hiking and enjoying nature is easy, bringing it back home in a camera is hard.

I find it especially hard to take a pleasing shot of the woods. There's some people on here who do a nice job of it though.

# ? May 28, 2014 18:36

nielsm: Jun 1, 2009

mAlfunkti0n posted:

My wife and I went out for a hike yesterday. Since I bought my X-E1 I enjoy taking it with me and have found a love for photography again. Too bad I am not all that great, so tell me what I can do better! The one thing I did not like about this one is the diagonal tree in the foreground. As always I feel like I need to hurry, which I am slowly working on ignoring.

On the contrary, I think the diagonal tree makes this photo. Without it there wouldn't be anything of interest at all, the remaining trees are just boringly upright and nowhere near dense enough to form a texture. Your wife (I assume) in the corner is also not drawing attention in any way and easily gets lost.
The sun through the leaves just adds a neat background, further accentuating the tree trunks.

I think an improvement of the photo could have been moving a bit to the right, to place the diagonal tree more in the middle to balance it out. That could also have allowed your wife to stand in a position (in the photo frame) closer to the diagonal stem which could then help draw attention to her being present.

# ? May 28, 2014 19:19

beep-beep car is go: Apr 11, 2005; I can just eyeball this, right?

xzzy posted:

I'm experiencing it and completely forget that taking a picture of it doesn't necessarily result in a good photo.

This for sure. It's super hard for me too. Good experiences don't mean good photos all the time.

quote:

Since digital is cheap it's still worth taking the picture, snapshots are still a good thing because memories are nice. But it is disappointing to sit down at home and find out the work of art you thought you created isn't quite that great.

Once I made that leap, I feel my photography got a lot better. Now I basically have two libraries, one of photos that I'm trying to take to make art, and one of photos to remember something or have a souvenir of a place or event.

quote:

It gets better with experience I guess but it's still pretty frustrating. Hiking and enjoying nature is easy, bringing it back home in a camera is hard.

I sure hope it gets better with experience! :sigh:

# ? May 28, 2014 20:48

thetzar: Apr 22, 2001; Fallen Rib

murp posted:

#1 Definitely would try this again with a tripod.

#2 This would be a lot better if your subject was in that patch of sunlight behind her.

Here's some beach stuff from a trip this weekend.

DSC_9353 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9300 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

DSC_9250 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr

The first one is quite pretty with great colors, but does nothing special for me. It's a pretty sunset beach shot. The third one... I GET it, I'm just not sure why. The second one I really dig. I'm not really certain just why � we've all seen sunset silhouettes before. The progression of figures works well for me here, though � there's just enough depth to the scene. The composition works; pyramid of figures leading down to the sun. Please, please edit out that bird hovering near the one person's forehead, though.

Today I have a flat building shot from the window of my dentist's office; and a setup shot for a portrait series I did with a number of other photographers for a community thing. The full set isn't ready to be released yet, but this was a friend I did tests shot with.

thirty rock by thetzar, on Flickr

Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr

# ? May 31, 2014 01:14

Putrid Grin: Sep 16, 2007

David Pratt posted:

I think this one needs some people in it. It's got near- and far-distance, but nothing interesting in the middle.

I do slightly disagree. Most things are more interesting with people in them, but in this case you could emphasize the abstract geometry of the structure. Maybe zooming out a bit to show the dark surroundings a bit more, and emphasize the shape of the tunnel with a square crop. Just a thought.

thetzar posted:

thirty rock by thetzar, on Flickr

I love this one. Reminds me of some of the work of Michael Wolf.

And here is one of mine:

_DSC9920 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr

# ? May 31, 2014 07:31

Entenzahn: Nov 15, 2012; erm... quack-ward

thetzar posted:

thirty rock by thetzar, on Flickr

This is nice. Obviously B&W is a popular choice for architecture because it emphasizes the patterns and your picture ticks of all the boxes in that regard. Good contrast too. I think it's not straight though. Only slightly so, but with a grid-like structure like this it kinda jumps out. Would crop to straighten, but cool pic otherwise.

thetzar posted:

Untitled by thetzar, on Flickr

Background, hair and clothing of your subject all have approximately the same greyish-brown color. I'm not solid on portrait photography, but my gut says I'd have either shot somewhere else, made sure there was more backlighting and/or reflected some more light on his right half. It works at his left, where he sets apart from the background quite well, but that's far on the edge of the picture. In the middle his right side is in the dark just where the background brightens up and becomes better lit than his shoulder.

Putrid Grin posted:

_DSC9920 by Stingray of Doom, on Flickr

I'm not sold on the composition. A lot of background and blur, only one point of information smack dab in the mittle. I'd try cropping some of that empty space in the bottom and right parts of your picture. Not really sure about using B&W here either, but whatevs. There's so much black that I'd probably make the brights just a tad brighter to balance it out.

Not as busy at work anymore, time to dust off my old March-May photo stock so I can finally get back out and shoot.

# ? Jun 1, 2014 15:22

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Entenzahn posted:

This is pretty boring. A reflective curved surface can be interesting as part of a bigger composition but I don't think it's enough on its own (unless it's that loving bean statue everyone photographs).

Entenzahn posted:

This is the best of the three. Nice texture. Interestingly contradicts the critique you yourself gave in the same post.

Entenzahn posted:

There's way too much going on here. Lots of lines going in different directions with no flow to it. The most obvious flaw is the imperfect framing of the boat by the poles - you should probably have walked forward until it was contained within them, or gotten them out of the way altogether.

# ? Jun 2, 2014 12:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2024 20:19

Johnny Reb: Mar 9, 2013

Been a while, lovelies. I've been working on taking better photos, hopefully I succeeded a little.

I went on a camping trip where we had a bonfire, so I decided to experiment with long exposure. This one turned out the best of the bunch, I think.

This is yesterday morning at the camping site. I really like the way the mist showed up with the exposure length.

A horseriding instructor.

StarkingBarfish posted:

For my own, here's a sunset shot of the philly skyline. I waited to catch the patco in the lower right corner, but I had to crop close to it as there's another streetlight to the right I wanted to get rid of. I didn't do much to the image except a bit of split toning, sharpening and clarity, but I'm on the fence about whether it's overprocessed. Opinions?

img_0001 by barfish, on Flickr

I don't think it's overprocessed, I'd try to take out that car in photoshop, though. And it seems a tiny bit noisy. Otherwise it's beautiful.

Johnny Reb fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Jun 2, 2014

# ? Jun 2, 2014 16:44

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

«‹›140 »