|
Helen Highwater posted:Did a bit of a photo walk around the edge of Chinatown here. Really neat stuff. Although, the huge child is a little terrifying. Which Chinatown is this?
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 03:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
DorianGravy posted:Really neat stuff. Although, the huge child is a little terrifying. Which Chinatown is this? Bangkok, around the Sam Yan area and Chula Art Town. The main Chinatown area is a bit to the west of there, around Yaowarat Road.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2020 22:24
|
|
|
I was told Landscape thread takes anything and I don't know where to post my pictures in a daily thread so I'm posting em here. Hopefully this is the right place, because the other threads seem dead?    Today I really struggled with focusing with my range finder. If anyone could give any suggestions or drills to help me master the rangefinder it'd mean a lot. The range finder is why I lost out on the pastor shot I posted earlier this week because I'm learning how to use it. Please critique my pictures if possible. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
I see two different pictures here. Left is maybe a nice pleasant water shot with some fall colors. Right side is maybe a nice park shot with some colors, girl walking in there for some scale. I want to see more of the water scene to the left, and I want to see more where the girl is going to the right. Together my focus is pulled between the water and the girl walking and it ends up being a shot about nothing. Also just having such a large visual split between the left and right of the image is odd. I work this out of my stuff by keeping an eye on the thumbnail view while editing. If a glance at the thumbnail doesn’t seem like a single cohesive image something is may be wrong. This is a shot of somebody walking some dogs but the whole scene is smushed to the left and like 80% of the image real estate doesn’t really contribute to what’s going on. With objects in motion it’s often important to show where it’s going to and not just where it’s coming from. tk fucked around with this message at 03:34 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:31
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:
I love this and want to hang out on my wall
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 03:37
|
|
|
artsy fartsy posted:I love this and want to hang out on my wall Thank you. Sometimes I just like pretty pictures, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
tk posted:I see two different pictures here. Left is maybe a nice pleasant water shot with some fall colors. Right side is maybe a nice park shot with some colors, girl walking in there for some scale. I want to see more of the water scene to the left, and I want to see more where the girl is going to the right. Together my focus is pulled between the water and the girl walking and it ends up being a shot about nothing. The first one, I've got a pic of the water. I think the pic I posted could have been better reframed but that would take away from the trees. Here's a shot of the water.  The second one, I generally agree you need to show what's head rather than behind, but in this case I would disagree as I have placed the dogs behind to help further tell the story and set the scene. If the other dogs weren't there I would agree, but with them there I find it to be a balanced image and not lopsided. Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 04:15
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:The second one, I generally agree you need to show what's head rather than behind, but in this case I would disagree as I have placed the dogs behind to help further tell the story and set the scene. If the other dogs weren't there I would agree, but with them there I find it to be a balanced image and not lopsided. I'd be more amenable to this argument if the background dog was in focus, but as it is the one dog that is partially in focus has its face obscured by the tail of the other, slightly out of focus dog. There's nowhere pleasing for the eye to rest and in the absence of that you have a bunch of relatively interesting but out of focus stuff crammed into one side of the frame, and a bunch of even more out of focus nothing (boring trees and grass) in the rest of the shot. If you can't get focus right manually, I'd suggest using auto focus and/or a deeper depth of field. There's no shame in using auto settings, especially when you're still learning. Worry about taking interesting, well-composed shots first, master the technical stuff later imo. Wafflecopper fucked around with this message at 09:29 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 09:24
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I was told Landscape thread takes anything and I don't know where to post my pictures in a daily thread so I'm posting em here. Hopefully this is the right place, because the other threads seem dead? What do you like about these photos? Do they make you feel something? If so, what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 13:33
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I've got a pic of the water.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
 DJI_0234.jpg by Matt F, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 18:20
|
|
|
    Wafflecopper posted:I'd be more amenable to this argument if the background dog was in focus, but as it is the one dog that is partially in focus has its face obscured by the tail of the other, slightly out of focus dog. There's nowhere pleasing for the eye to rest and in the absence of that you have a bunch of relatively interesting but out of focus stuff crammed into one side of the frame, and a bunch of even more out of focus nothing (boring trees and grass) in the rest of the shot. If you can't get focus right manually, I'd suggest using auto focus and/or a deeper depth of field. There's no shame in using auto settings, especially when you're still learning. Worry about taking interesting, well-composed shots first, master the technical stuff later imo. Thanks, and I agree. I actually have been doing manual focus since I started. However, recently I got an X-Pro 2 and it uses a range finder, which is completely foreign to me. I'd much rather master the range finder than rely on af. Dren posted:What do you like about these photos? Do they make you feel something? If so, what? I like the Nathan's shot. I like how the cars are lit. Unfortunately it was a cloudy day. They don't make me feel anything. But the idea that a picture has to make you feel something is also ill founded. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 18:21
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:
I'm not sure how feasible it is on an X-Pro 2, but If your interest is in street photography type stuff I'd look to master zone focusing. quote:They don't make me feel anything. But the idea that a picture has to make you feel something is also ill founded. Maybe, but there should be something interesting. Why should I care about a woman selling stuff from a tent or people playing violins? For what it's worth, I think the rainy shot of the street and ferris wheel from the train window is good and does elicit feeling. Also, the definition of landscape here is pretty broad, but it isn't just a dumping ground for whatever. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Nov 14, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:They don't make me feel anything. But the idea that a picture has to make you feel something is also ill founded. you should probably work under the assumption that your photos should make you feel something for a while
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:They don't make me feel anything. But the idea that a picture has to make you feel something is also ill founded. Perhaps "feeling" was the wrong word. But you should be able to tell why you hit the shutter. If you can't articulate why the picture was taken, it's difficult to make the viewer care. FWIW, "Rainy Ferris wheel" and "Lone lady with autumn colors" are rich enough to tell a story, where I don't need a justification for why they were taken - I get them. But "Strings" is a mess in my opinion. "Farm stand lady" is literally just farm stand lady and while she's attractive, that's not a story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2020 23:06
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 01:23
|
|
|
Some of those shots should be in the street thread because their subjects are obviously not the landscape.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I like the Nathan's shot. I like how the cars are lit. Unfortunately it was a cloudy day. Were the subjects in the three photos I quoted underexposed on purpose? Perhaps the word “feel” didn’t connect with you. You took each of them for a reason, do you think they convey whatever it was that caused you to press the shutter? Further, if they don’t evoke a feeling on their own why post them without context for strangers to view? What could we possibly tell you about them that will be of any use beyond technical details like “focus properly and expose for your subject”? edit: Perhaps I am being a bit harsh. It is my belief that photography as a hobby should be done for oneself above all else. Did taking those pictures make you happy? Did looking at them? Did they accomplish some other goal you had? This is all that matters. You can’t even begin to ask for critique until you have settled those things with yourself. Dren fucked around with this message at 03:07 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
edited to a different thread Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
I like these. I want to sit on the beach in the second one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 03:52
|
|
|
Dren posted:Were the subjects in the three photos I quoted underexposed on purpose? I like underexposed, harsh lighting aesthetic and in my experience, Fuji cameras shine with a bit of under exposure. Also, I have the mindset of not editing too much beyond basics for ethical reasons. Eh. I only meant that sometimes, a picture doesn't even have to have meaning. Often, it serves merely a function. Take this image from an NYT article.  What meaning does it have? It documents the scene but as far as meaning, it's meant to serve as a function of a larger story. alkanphel posted:Some of those shots should be in the street thread because their subjects are obviously not the landscape. True enough. I asked a while ago where I could post pictures as most of the threads were dead. I'll make my own thread. Thanks. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 04:48
|
|
|
 Taken at Fort Boggy State Park, Texas artsy fartsy fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 04:52
|
|
|
that looks like it has a heavy blue cast in the shadows
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 05:17
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I like underexposed, harsh lighting aesthetic and in my experience, Fuji cameras shine with a bit of under exposure. Also, I have the mindset of not editing too much beyond basics for ethical reasons. 'meaning' and evoking feelings are not the same thing
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 05:20
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:that looks like it has a heavy blue cast in the shadows Yup! I like blue/purple shadows a lot. eta: Also just realized what I posted looks a lot less sharp than it should, I assume because of imgur? Any recommendations for an alternative? Should I just set up a flickr account? artsy fartsy fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 05:59
|
|
|
artsy fartsy posted:just set up a flickr account
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 06:23
|
|
|
Cool, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 06:35
|
|
|
This photo is also bad. Maybe it illustrates something in the article or is just a part of aesthetic experiment. If a photo can't stand on its own then you need to provide the context for the critique. You're right photos don't need to have a meaning or evoke a feeling but there should be a reason someone would want to look at them. Otherwise what is that point of taking them except just to fill up space on cloud storage somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
It’s a fine street photo but I wouldn’t put it in the landscape genre. Without the people it would be a nice scene.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 08:08
|
|
|
 Inner City Park by Cacator, on Flickr  Feel Real by Cacator, on Flickr Cacator fucked around with this message at 09:22 on Nov 15, 2020 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 08:49
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:This photo is also bad. I don't think it's bad at all. It works visually and, especially in a journalistic context, it's completely obvious what the focus is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
i still don't love it but you are right there is a much clearer intention to it than i initially gave it credit for ill blame it on looking just on my phone first thing in the morning
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 12:51
|
|
|
Cacator posted:
This is so lovely, i just wish the bright light spot was gone
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 14:37
|
|
|
Cacator posted:
Nice   Last ones I promise.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 14:46
|
|
|
No, keep posting horizon shots with neat sunlight. They're cool. Allow me to attempt to contribute to the theme.. with less water because that's life in the midwest. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 14:54
|
|
|
Jupiter Jazz posted:I like underexposed, harsh lighting aesthetic and in my experience, Fuji cameras shine with a bit of under exposure. Also, I have the mindset of not editing too much beyond basics for ethical reasons. Ethical reasons? That sounds interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 15:07
|
|
|
PETJ: People for the ethical treatment of JPEGs
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Dren posted:Ethical reasons? That sounds interesting. I am going to guess that he just wants to document what he sees. For example, if there is a strong blue overcast, whites will appear blue, and he would not edit that in post. And as long as he isn't photographing a bride with that mind set (leaving the dress/teeth not white), I am cool with minimal editing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2020 16:56
|
|