|
 Clementi by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
This is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:
drat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
 Over the lake by francography, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
Somewhere Stephen Malkmus smiles and he isn't sure why...
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
bellows lugosi fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Please tell me why my pictures are bad. I mostly take pictures of things that look neat and/or pretty but I feel like I have no eye for what makes a picture "good."    bonus cell phone pictures:   more (album)
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Cerekk posted:Please tell me why my pictures are bad. I mostly take pictures of things that look neat and/or pretty but I feel like I have no eye for what makes a picture "good." You have three elements competing for attention here. I think your intention may have been to show the bridge across the terrain, but the bridge isn't prominent enough in the composition. Instead there is just some rocks, some water, and a bridge. If you could have changed your viewpoint to have the bridge straight center instead of kinda angled into a corner, it might have worked. The colors are definitely good, and the rocks or water by themselves might also have made a good picture. What is the point of the foreground here? When you put a person into the corner like that, the rectilinear distortion of a wide-angle lens makes them look weird. Avoid doing that. Why did you not walk closer to the edge here? You could perhaps have avoided clipping the middle isle that way. Try focusing on a specific thing in each picture. I like making landscapes that pick out a detail and highlight it in a context, rather than "just showing it all". Try using a longer focal length, 135mm is probably my favorite landscape lens. If the sky is boring, a long lens also makes it easier to avoid that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
Is this Rt 66?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
Cool.  I haven't gone and "made photos" since moving to LA, just passing stuff with my cellphone, which I curse for sucking and then go home and do photoshop on. Not having internet at home is leading to some interesting stuff w/r/t processing, at least I think. I had probably 6 curve layers and several gradient/overlay layers (5-10% opacity) on the last one I posted (all masked to various parts). In the end I think it worked pretty well to get the feel of the mist it was shot in combined with the degradation in my vision lately (at night especially, lots of haloing and bloom). 365 Nog Hogger fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 26, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Dren fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Cerekk posted:Please tell me why my pictures are bad. I mostly take pictures of things that look neat and/or pretty but I feel like I have no eye for what makes a picture "good." Good on you for requesting feedback I think you can definitely spot a pretty scene, but are maybe still developing your visual vocabulary for how to capture it. That's great IMO, in that you're putting yourself in a great position to take some good photos, it might just be a matter of trying some different things while you're there. It might also be helpful to look through some other photos you admire, and try to pick out exactly what you like about it. I think your biggest are of growth for the landscape stuff is probably working on composition, so what do you like about the photos that really strike you? What is it about the composition that feels good and balanced? Are there layers (I mean foreground, middle, background) that complement each other? Does your eye naturally move through the photo? The bridge shot is getting there, but I'd personally like to see more space (compositionally) to the top left of the bridge. The crater lake picture is an interesting one to consider as well. The image feels pretty imbalanced to me—weighted heavily to the right side of the picture. The woman is also both distorted and running off the page, which wouldn't necessarily be bad if she wasn't such a focal point. (Similar to your bridge shot.) In a scene like this, I'd try to think through what you want to emphasize, and then work the composition accordingly. Maybe it's the woman staring out at this beautiful scene – if so, give her a little breathing room compositionally. A couple other general comments: - It's very tempting to shoot landscapes super wide, but it could be a good exercise to shoot more at medium or telephoto focal lengths. - There's a decent amount of layering in the bridge picture, but other than that, I don't see a lot of strong foregrounds. You could try getting a little lower, while making sure that the foreground still leads the eye into everything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
In the Crater Lake picture, I just liked how the red hair stood out in the blue scene. I see what the two of you are saying w/r/t the other faults with the picture though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 03:36
|
|
|
brandino posted:- It's very tempting to shoot landscapes super wide, but it could be a good exercise to shoot more at medium or telephoto focal lengths. Longer lenses have a great advantage. They capture a smaller field of view, and that makes it easier to control what goes into the frame and what doesn't. When compositioning landscapes, always consider every element in your frame and whether it really needs to be there. Take away as many elements as possible so you leave only the parts needed to tell your story. I'll write something for the other two pictures too, I guess. I hope you don't mind me re-interpreting your pictures with different crops. quote:But try using your hand or so to cover the left or right half of the picture. If you leave the right half, you get a picture of a very neat dead tree in the context of a beach. If you leave the left half you get a view over the sea with some interesting layered old trees in the foreground.   quote:A couple meters to the left or right, and then turning the camera either more towards the sea or more towards the forest on the coast, could probably have opened up for a more focused story. Even then, I think it is possible to remove the dead right-hand side without upsetting balance, as I tried with these crops:  
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
The Crater Lake picture is good don't let the critique you're getting make you think otherwise. Maybe the girl could've been a little more toward the center to get her away from the distortion but whatever, it's a nice picture. nielsm and Execudork both brought up trying a telephoto for landscapes. You can, but don't get caught up in that either. Telephoto, normal, wide, stitched panorama, or something else, any lens or method can take a good landscape photo. The important thing is that there is something interesting about the way the scene is arranged. The field of view provided by a particular lens is just a tool for arranging a scene a certain way. Still it's not the most important one, that's your feet or helicopter or car or drone or whatever gets you to where you need to be to get the shot you're after. Something you (anyone) could do to improve your shots is work a scene when you get somewhere. Try getting something interesting out of the same scene with a telephoto, a normal, and a wide. Walk around the scene and view it from all the angles you can, seeing if something else pops out to you. Look for interesting lines and things that might make an interesting photograph out of an otherwise dull scene. E.g. this Ansel Autisms post is great: That curvy curb starting from the bottom left is a very strong element that leads into the phone poles, which follow a similar curve. There's a symmetry there between the curve of the curb and the poles that is pretty pleasing even though the subject matter, phone poles and a curb, are mundane. The log picture and the bridge picture don't really do a lot for me. Log picture is cropped into a nonstandard aspect ratio and that is throwing me off right away. It looks like you took a picture that didn't work then tried to save it with a crop and all my brain can see is that the picture was a mistake. I'm stuck in my 3:2 box and I'm sorry. Bridge picture doesn't have enough bridge (there is great light on the bridge but like 2/3 of the picture is boring foreground). The beach picture has a ton of foreground and while it isn't really great to me it is a good picture, it looks nice, and I see what you were doing. edit: I totally agree with what nielsm is saying about trying to remove everything you don't need from a scene and his crops are pretty solid suggestions of different shots you might've taken while you were there if you'd worked the scene a little more. Dren fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Dec 27, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Dren posted:nielsm and Execudork both brought up trying a telephoto for landscapes. Dren posted:You can, but don't get caught up in that either. Telephoto, normal, wide, stitched panorama, or something else, any lens or method can take a good landscape photo. The important thing is that there is something interesting about the way the scene is arranged. The field of view provided by a particular lens is just a tool for arranging a scene a certain way. Still it's not the most important one, that's your feet or helicopter or car or drone or whatever gets you to where you need to be to get the shot you're after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Telephotos are awesome so you should get one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 08:29
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:This is a good idea - I'm going to have to try to remember this when I'm snowshoeing around the Rockies this weekend. Assuming my GF will let me fumble around with lenses in the middle of the trail while frostbite settles upon us. Maybe not the best situation to try this out in. Even in nice weather I usually carry a second body if this is the type of thing I'm going to try to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Dren posted:Maybe not the best situation to try this out in. Even in nice weather I usually carry a second body if this is the type of thing I'm going to try to do. So you can slit them open and use their intestinal cavity for warmth, right? Right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Long time since last post Costanera iluminado by Mijaeus, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:I did? I'm sure I said something like that at some point, but not recently. Anyway, yes, there's no reason to restrict yourself to Landscape = Wide, but every lens has its uses for landscapes. It's all about creative control and making a good image - using your own standards and taste. Where you gonna be? I'm in Evergreen, Co now. We just got 8 inches of snow, or so, and it's a great time to be in the rockies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
 Discount Liquor by rstop bstop, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 09:13
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Was the water really that still or is there some kind of exposure trick happening there? That's pretty amazing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Was the water really that still or is there some kind of exposure trick happening there? That's pretty amazing. it says 1.6 second exposure, so probably an ND filter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
The water was very still this morning and I used an ND8 filter to make it smoother in that wider angle photograph. The first image used no filter and it was shot in a dark sheltered corner which allowed the 1.3 second exposure. But I was struck by how still the water was before taking the picture and more so when reviewing it later on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
 Ladder Access by rstop bstop, on Flickr  Otter Fencing by rstop bstop, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
 Looking for feedback on this. Shot from a small plane in Vanuatu. I like the way the island/shallow water/deep water forms distinct rings. Have I overdone it on post? I boosted contrast and saturation a bit, but the water is already pretty crazy-blue there. Thanks in anticipation!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:it says 1.6 second exposure, so probably an ND filter. I'm genuinely amazed and impressed that you were able to extrapolate this from exposure data alone...and be correct! Beige posted:The water was very still this morning and I used an ND8 filter to make it smoother in that wider angle photograph. The first image used no filter and it was shot in a dark sheltered corner which allowed the 1.3 second exposure. But I was struck by how still the water was before taking the picture and more so when reviewing it later on. What would the second shot look like if you took it without a filter? Would the water have lots of blown highlights and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:What would the second shot look like if you took it without a filter? Would the water have lots of blown highlights and stuff? The whole photo would have likely been overexposed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:I'm genuinely amazed and impressed that you were able to extrapolate this from exposure data alone...and be correct! It was also shot at almost 9am (according to the exif), so it was just about the only explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
How's this? CSC_0520 by hynescules, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 08:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:26
|
|
|
Defiant Sally posted:How's this? Did you add the light rays in post? They look odd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
Pukestain Pal posted:Did you add the light rays in post? They look odd. Nope, this is exactly how it was taken. No post aside from a little auto tone in Lightroom.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Some alley poo poo. Patriotic by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:22 |
|
|
That looks like the most wholesome, friendly, least rapey alley ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 23:16
|
|