|
You don't need another lens, you need a clue 
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
grack posted:but whatever. The point is, think before you shoot. You clearly do not do this yet. It comes in time. Respect your loving elders.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
grack posted:
Even if the glass isn't noticeably crooked, the woodwork is. Also, those tall buildings on the right side of the picture are a little distracting.  Milk Sky by totalnewbie1, on FlickrI wanted to just shoot the gradient of the sky. I took it out the plane window and didn't have a hood or filter, which I wonder might have helped with the artifacts from the sun? I did tweak it a bit in LR because the picture as-shot was a bit washed out. I also rotated it 1 degree CCW because it looked a little crooked. Feels much better, now. (Unrotated version:  Milky Sky by totalnewbie1, on Flickr)
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
^^^^^ I like the colours, but I think you should get your horizont straight, it feels a little off. It also doesn't do much for me. the photo looks pretty, but there's nothing in the frame that moves me, that manages to keep my attention on the picture longer. Maybe you can get some stars to show with some editing? That would look great, the first thing I thought about when reading the name was "nice, going to see the milky way". Finally started to scan some negatives from january... I'm getting started in the whole post-processing thing, so comments regarding that are especially appreciated. Those are only levels, curves and some unsharp mask.  DSC08144 por Primosky, no Flickr  DSC08140 por Primosky, no Flickr  DSC08150 por Primosky, no Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:^^^^^ I like the colours, but I think you should get your horizont straight, it feels a little off. It also doesn't do much for me. the photo looks pretty, but there's nothing in the frame that moves me, that manages to keep my attention on the picture longer. Maybe you can get some stars to show with some editing? That would look great, the first thing I thought about when reading the name was "nice, going to see the milky way". Thanks for the comments. I was hoping it would get dark so I could get some stars but, unfortunately, it never did. Somehow. I guess that happens while flying the over-Alaska route during high summer. I didn't think about the Milky Way when I named it. I just thought the colors looked a little like actual milk (maybe because it was a bit more washed out as-shot, hah.) How can/should I level the picture in this case? There's no real sharp horizon, so do I just eye-ball it, basically?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 01:46
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Finally started to scan some negatives from january... I'm getting started in the whole post-processing thing, so comments regarding that are especially appreciated. Those are only levels, curves and some unsharp mask. Learn how to spot out dust on your scans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:
Dusted this would be dope as hell.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:
I really like this. The horizon of the clouds being so low in the frame make it feel huge. For me, I think it works better without it being darker/having stars. I'm a sucker for the shades of blue in the gradient of the sky you managed to capture, probably why I like it so much. I don't know if its the artifacts that you mention, or some marks on the cabin window you took it from, but about 1/3 of the way up in the centre I see what looks like finger prints/a hand print? Once you've noticed them its hard to not see them.  Rest by d4damson, on FlickrI found this amongst a bunch of motorcycle racing shots. All the gravestones were so old they either had no text any more or you couldnt make it out. The stained white headstone just caught my eye. I liked the detail in it compared to the others. I tried to make it feel a little hazy and muted, but I'm not sure it worked as well as I wanted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Pinny posted:
Please post a real sized photo. "Oops! You don't have permission to view this photo." from the thumb, appears to be underwhelming. Id give more of a indepth crit but its private in flickr. I can say that some gray junk at the bottom of the frame is very distracting and should be cropped out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
oops sorry, didn't notice it was private, should be public now
|
|
#
?
Jul 11, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Pinny posted:oops sorry, didn't notice it was private, should be public now Agreed with above that the chunk at the bottom (car roof?) is the only thing I can see in the picture. It just sort of sits down there drawing attention to itself like a wrong note. Blues, whites:  Barn by mattphilpott, on Flickr This fish's poor eye.   Sheepshead by mattphilpott, on Flickr  Stop by mattphilpott, on Flickr Huxley fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
Quote is not edit. E: Filling with something: Primo Itch posted:
This is really cool. Huxley fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:
This is loving brilliant, really feels like the puppet is alive (it is a puppet right?). Haven't been taking many pictures as of late and the few times I've had there's been nothing that has tickled me aside from this one, a little.  Untitled by ProWessler, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Ark posted:Haven't been taking many pictures as of late and the few times I've had there's been nothing that has tickled me aside from this one, a little. I actually rather like this; I've been admiring window-reflection-shots a lot recently, and I like what the umbrella's color is doing here. Huxley posted:This fish's poor eye. I wouldn't have noticed the eye if you hadn't pointed it out. I dig the angle and wideness of the shot. Dude seems quite intimidating. I took a couple pictures of my brother while I was on the west coast.  Mr Martin by thetzar, on Flickr  Mr Martin by thetzar, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
^^^ I definitely prefer the black and white version, it gives it a grittier feel. The color version hits me like a snapshot (albeit a well done one) but the black and white rendition tells a story. I'm a little disconcerted by him looking out of the frame, though. I wonder if it would look more balanced with him looking in the other direction instead.
Pellethead fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
Here's a quick "almost missed it" shot I got while learning depth of field adjustments. I'm happy with the composition in general and I got the depth of field just like I wanted. However, I'm annoyed that I didn't pull out more color and the feathers aren't quite as sharp as I would want. I am not super experienced, and was shooting aperture priority mode here so I imagine I need to override the shutter speed next time. It didn't help that this was a fairly long zoom and handheld. Early Bird by Gary Foster, on Flickr Pellethead fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jul 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
thetzar posted:I actually rather like this; I've been admiring window-reflection-shots a lot recently, and I like what the umbrella's color is doing here. The first one is much better. I like the B&w treatment, the expression, and the focus area. However, portraits in landscape orientation don't usually work for me unless you are showing some kind of action. Some quick shots I took of a friends car from this weekend. I keep feeling like I may have pushed the saturation a little too far when I look at these.  DSC_0803 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  DSC_0807 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr  DSC_0806 by Dingus Falcon, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Huxley posted:Blues, whites: The framing is off, and the shadows darken the building in a distracting way. Cropping just a few pixels off the bottom would get rid of the thin strips of window frame without taking away any of the purpose of the image. But even better would be to take a few steps to the right to eliminate the roof visible on the left edge. Better still would be to try (if possible) to get a different angle of light so the front of the building isn't cast in such hard shadows. I love the sky and clouds, and the white balance is great. And I'm a sucker for (what looks to be) New England ocean shacks.  922838_922838-R1-00-0 edit by majour333, on Flickr
majour333 fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 18:52
|
|
|
majour333 posted:
I would have liked to see something else besides geometry. More context would make this stronger.  DSC00317 by Ben Boshart, on Flickr  DSC00263 by Ben Boshart, on Flickr An impending storm at the Virginia Beach oceanfront.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Pellethead posted:Here's a quick "almost missed it" shot I got while learning depth of field adjustments. I'm happy with the composition in general and I got the depth of field just like I wanted. However, I'm annoyed that I didn't pull out more color and the feathers aren't quite as sharp as I would want. I am not super experienced, and was shooting aperture priority mode here so I imagine I need to override the shutter speed next time. It didn't help that this was a fairly long zoom and handheld. Yeah, a faster shutter speed would've helped with the blurriness. I know you said you like the composition but I think I would like the photo more if it was a bit more off-center, and that pole in the background is a little bit distracting to me cause of where it's placed. murp posted:
It does feel a bit over-saturated, but I've seen cars that colour and they do really pop out. I'm not experienced but it looks like these were shot midday? The lighting seems harsh. I like the contrast of the blue against the red bricks, makes the colour of the car stand out more. beneatsfood posted:
The first is more pleasing to me cause of the surfer in the foreground. How did you get that angle of the beach?  Sandcut by badmountain, on Flickr Yakitori by badmountain, on Flickr Cowichan Sunset 2 by badmountain, on FlickrThe last one I wish I squatted down or moved to the left more to get more separation between the branch and the forest. I took a bunch of just the lake and sky but they looked a little bland without something in the foreground.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
You should clone that branch out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
fuuuuuck okay
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
quote:
I would have closed up the aperture to get a deeper depth of field. I'm looking at a bit of interesting information that I'm missing out on because of a narrow DOF. you were at 500th of a second so you could have at least gone to f5.6 quote:
While most people would tell you to shop out the stick, it is the only aspect that establishes a foreground in the image.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I think he just means the lowest bit that sort of touches the trees. It can be a little offputting, I guess, because it almost looks like that branch is trying to pet the tree line or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
murp posted:The first one is much better. I like the B&w treatment, the expression, and the focus area. However, portraits in landscape orientation don't usually work for me unless you are showing some kind of action. I think the color saturation is actually just about right for that kind of subject. It really makes the car pop, which is what the photo should convey. I think your second shot is by far the strongest. The first leaves too much negative space, and to my eye it takes focus off the car. On the third I don't really see anything all that exciting about the front of the car. The rims aren't that interesting and the lines of the front quarter panel and hood aren't really all that dynamic. I don't know if the light would have allowed for it, but taking a straight on shot of the passenger side (U.S. orientation) of the car with the red brick wall as a backdrop would have really been a clean shot that made the car really pop. In an effort to be more disciplined I have been shooting film just lately. Tri-X 400  FlatTop by noonebutme2010, on FlickrTri-X 400  FlowerPods by noonebutme2010, on FlickrBW400CN  Rat Race by noonebutme2010, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Purchased a Rebel t3i earlier this month to learn photography. My wife found an article about a covered bridge 30 minutes from us so I figured it would be good for some practice. Spent the afternoon shooting her and my son, but out of about 400 pictures, only really liked about 20 of them. (Is that normal?) With the first I think I should have gotten rid of the graffiti on the bridge. I feel my son looks a little bit underexposed in the second one. Also, right behind him there is a 3 foot waterfall, but at the angle I shot it feels like you can barely tell it's there.  IMG_1131 by c.boz, on Flickr IMG_1370 by c.boz, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Huxley posted:
I would crop that a tiny bit, just to bring out the subject a little more. Other than that, I like the length of it, the slight fisheye effect really fits it. I got a new lens.  Image data says that was at 50mm, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't. Why it says anything is strange to me, because it's an unchipped Tamron 35-210. Got it for nothing by trading in a meh Tamron 28-200 at the camera store I work at.  I'm pretty proud of the crop job I did on this, and pretty happy at the detail my D600 retained in the crop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
boz posted:Purchased a Rebel t3i earlier this month to learn photography. My wife found an article about a covered bridge 30 minutes from us so I figured it would be good for some practice. Spent the afternoon shooting her and my son, but out of about 400 pictures, only really liked about 20 of them. (Is that normal?) Welcome to the world of photography. Shooting that many and getting only some that you're happy with is perfectly normal, especially when you're new and experimenting around to learn the camera. Over time you'll find that the number of "keepers" goes up, but it's still a good idea to share only the best of the best. On the first one I'm not distracted by the grafitti on the bridge. I didn't even notice it until you pointed it out. I think that black and white was a good choice on this one, it helps to emphasize the figure/ground thing you have going on with her against the water. Placement of her beneath the window and missing board (pointing down) is good too, leads the eye from the bridge to her. I would wonder about darkening the sky in the top right with a graduated filter in lightroom to pull the eye back down--it's kind of a 'hot' spot in the image. The second one I think would be much better if shot with a nifty 50. Even on the long end of the kit lens, shooting at f/5.6 doesn't provide a lot of separation between your son and the background--a wider aperture would help with that. Are you selecting the focus point or relying on the camera to select it? He also looks a little out of focus--I think I'm seeing more sharpness on the rocks behind him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Shellman posted:
Thanks for the welcome and input. I actually had the camera on auto (i know, bad) for the second picture. It was kind of frantic, with my wife standing just outside the frame just in case he decided to jump in the water.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Johnny Reb posted:
Posting again and still not contributing any of my own work cause I haven't edited anything recently. I really like this shot--the telephoto serves well to compress the perspective of the image and reduce it to a simple treatment of fields of color. It feels very balanced, and in addition to the simple forms you've got some nice diagonals in there crossing each other. Is the ball quite centered? Looks like the center of the image is a bit low and to the left of the center of the ball. It could be that shifting it slightly threw off the sense of balance because of the shadow, though. I'd like to see what else you could come up with playing with the telephoto effect to create abstractions of simple shapes and color.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Ark posted:This is loving brilliant, really feels like the puppet is alive (it is a puppet right?). Yeah, it looked really creepy and dead when it was in pieces. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Yeah, it looked really creepy and dead when it was in pieces. Could you turn the color temperature down on that (and maybe even the original shot)? They're very orange.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Johnny Reb posted:
Why are you proud of it? It's a boring centred composition, there's a line bisecting the subject's head, the frame is so tight to the subject there's no room for it to breathe, and it's square but should be landscape orientation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 14:34
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:Yeah, it looked really creepy and dead when it was in pieces. A bit shallow on the depth of field on this one for me. I grew and took pictures of a pretty nice looking Dahlia  White Dahlia by jmorris4371, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
Johnny Reb posted:I would crop that a tiny bit, just to bring out the subject a little more. Other than that, I like the length of it, the slight fisheye effect really fits it. I wouldnt be. Its boring and uninteresting. Doesnt invoke anything from me other than "delete this". Are you just impressed by your pixel count? Cool? No one else is. Its just a underwhelming snapshot. You should learn not to lean on your pixels for cropping and get in their tighter on your own by either zooming with your lens or feet. I too am curious why you are proud of this shot. Bubbacub posted:Yeah, it looked really creepy and dead when it was in pieces. Something about your WB and dof bothers me on this. It just seems poorly shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 16:49
|
|
|
Phummus posted:A bit shallow on the depth of field on this one for me. I think it's a pretty cool shot. My suggestion would be to off center the flower and set a smaller DOF to blur the background. As for my lizard, I'm a little pissed I didn't get him with a better background because I think it would have been a nearly perfect shot otherwise. The eye should have probably been closer to one of the rule of thirds intersections. Any other thoughts? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
huhu posted:I think it's a pretty cool shot. My suggestion would be to off center the flower and set a smaller DOF to blur the background. Why do you say that? Looks to me like a subject that's practically designed for a centered square crop.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
I think you should start to think about how light interacts with what we shoot. The bokeh isn't helping establish the kick rear end shot you know you can get. Establish some depth and scale. Shoot in RAW if you have that capability so you can have a bit more head room for adjusting exposures if you need to push it one way or the other.  IMG_6686 by Ben Boshart, on Flickr DSC00510 by Ben Boshart, on Flickrsome night time portraiture. The first one is an older one from my Rebel T3, and the second is from my A7.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
I really enjoy with capturing raw details, in my mind I am doing that thing you do to a wash cloth, twisting out every last drop of water (or in this case, sharpness). Like those old black and white photos of industrial stuff in a full page ad in a magazine. _DSC4419 by Duke of Medway, on Flickr _DSC4326 by Duke of Medway, on Flickr _DSC4333 by Duke of Medway, on FlickrD7000 with the '35mm' prime lens. I like it a lot, and would love to hear other methods of squeezing out that raw-detail of subject matter, normally non-humans!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 03:50 |
|
|
404notfound posted:Why do you say that? Looks to me like a subject that's practically designed for a centered square crop. I was contemplating whether to try and give critiques or just go "I'm new to this" and should have just chosen the latter. I see what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2014 14:28
|
|