|
is there some flare or a light leak vertically through the tree in this one? i like it though all of these are great i like this one, but i think a little further back (or a little wider lens) would take it up a notch imo have you tried this one in black and white? could look good too Twenties Superstar posted:this is true of course and i dont really care if anybody else likes the photos. as has been pointed out they are meant to be likeable. i agree, they're all just so 'safe'
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:is there some flare or a light leak vertically through the tree in this one? i like it though Yeah, the reel fell out of the tank just after I finished developing, before stopping, so I think it's related to that. Not on any other frames, but I dig the accident.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 04:44
|
|
|
I looked through the judges of that competition and one of them particularly stood out to me, not because they stood out from the pack but because of how perfect of an example they are of the strive for mediocrity that 20s is talking about - the judge has a new book out whose aim is to be a coffee table book. That's it. That's what these people ultimately want, they want their photos printed in a generic coffee table book that no one will actually look at more than once, if that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 05:21
|
|
|
cerious posted:that fuckin garbage is placed almost too perfectly though, did you put it there? How dare you For actual content:   
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 06:22
|
|
|
That's because they do it professionally and there's three ways to make money doing landscape photos: sell books, sell calendars, run workshops (and guess which option has made no money for 1.5 years now). Landscape photography is dead as a career option and they're making it work anyways. The value of traditional landscape photos comes up in here at least once a year and I don't think there's much left to be said about it, other than pointing out that this particular contest had its first run this year and has the requirement of entries to have minimal alterations. I would think most in here would be favorable towards lightly processed photos getting recognition, even if they consider the topic to be uninspired.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 06:53
|
|
|
Twenties Superstar posted:what if aesthetics are the subject I wholeheartedly agree that this is possible, and thoroughly enjoy many such photographs. I had hoped that discussion would lead to this, but felt it too great a step in a single post. Similarly, photographs of intangible subjects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 07:29
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 07:54
|
|
|
good stuff  
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:nothing lays beneath them - there is no message, there is no higher truth, they tell me nothing new. are parking lot photos really telling you anything new though? banality is almost as played out a theme as beauty. personally i can enjoy both kinds of photo when they're done well and find both boring when they're not
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
Megabound posted:Blackhawk, everything is green. drat really? I'll have to calibrate my monitor again. I can see the green now that you mention it though, probably overlooked it when I was tired editing or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:46
|
|
|
Blackhawk posted:drat really? I'll have to calibrate my monitor again. I can see the green now that you mention it though, probably overlooked it when I was tired editing or something. I thought it was on purpose and didn't mind it... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 23:57
|
|
|
ImplicitAssembler posted:I thought it was on purpose and didn't mind it... To be honest I was a bit 'screen sick' when I was editing those photos (kinda like motion sickness) while I was editing them so maybe I was subconsciously making them sickly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
The photography gods blessed me with thick fog the other day.  Wafflecopper posted:are parking lot photos really telling you anything new though? banality is almost as played out a theme as beauty. personally i can enjoy both kinds of photo when they're done well and find both boring when they're not This does make me question if the people who prefer to take photos of banality live near any kind of notable natural geography, or if they live in a kind of midwest purgatory. Cacator fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Nov 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
Tempting fate with the line of comments above.   
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 20:41
|
|
|
Is that the sand hills? Because it looks like it! I spent a few days there this summer and it's gorgeous there. Tough to photograph though.. those windmills are just about it. There were some cool sections with dead trees I should have explored it but it was like 100 degrees and I couldn't handle being in the sun that long. Next time though! Also, too much private land. There was a feature I really wanted to visit but it was privately owned and fenced off. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 21:21
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Is that the sand hills? Because it looks like it! Yep, McKelvie National Forest specifically. I've been hunting there for a few years and it's one of my favorite places in the country for it's unique vastness.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 21:22
|
|
|
   [
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 21:35
|
|
|
charliebravo77 posted:Yep, McKelvie National Forest specifically. I've been hunting there for a few years and it's one of my favorite places in the country for it's unique vastness. I spent my time down at the Bessey unit, highly recommend. Just look at that arc! There's gotta be something fun that could be done with it (if it wasn't private land). https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9523039,-100.4494386,668m/data=!3m1!1e3
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 22:29
|
|
|
its tired to say but its a real shame that the risk / reward is so skewed for a little bit of fence hopping down there
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
The word Trespassing has its basis in the word "three" in french, so if you only go on that property twice, it doesn't count as trespassing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
It's only trespassing if you're in the Trespas area of France. Otherwise it's just sparkling breaking-and-entering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
   
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
Yeah I quite like this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
Turning 3d space into 2d geometry is always rad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
thanks
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
 2017
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2021 22:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 05:15
|
|
|
Ric posted:
this rules
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 06:43
|
|
|
Don't really have anything of value to add to the discussion, but some great work since I last checked in. Here is some random stuff from the archives, because I crave attention and validation.    
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
I don't know if this is even the same thread anymore but someone was talking about b&w that I didn't reply to yet, so - Yeah go ahead and set your camera preset to black and white, but keep your viewfinder preview (if you are on mirrorless or shooting with the lcd) on the default color. You're looking for different things when you are shooting black and white vs color, and having that handed to you in the viewfinder practically guarantees that you will rely on that crutch. - Shoot raw, of course. - Shoot lots - If you're shooting color and it's not looking good, converting it to b&w to try again is a bad practice. Again, shoot for b&w when you are shooting for b&w, and shoot for color when you are shooting for color. Try again, and do better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 03:28
|
|
|
Wild EEPROM posted:- Yeah go ahead and set your camera preset to black and white, but keep your viewfinder preview (if you are on mirrorless or shooting with the lcd) on the default color. You're looking for different things when you are shooting black and white vs color ... I am curious, what are those "different things"? And why is a bw preview so bad? Aren't your eyes the color preview? Doesn't a bw preview (screen) + color preview (eyes) work as a quick confirmation if the scene works in bw? And plenty of native black and white cameras generate a bw preview on the lcd, which does not seem to stand in the way of people shooting nice pictures with them. So I don't think that a bw preview in the viewfinder is a big crutch. But I agree with your other points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
 DSC_0035  DSC_1608  DSC_1687
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
theHUNGERian posted:I am curious, what are those "different things"? And why is a bw preview so bad? Aren't your eyes the color preview? Doesn't a bw preview (screen) + color preview (eyes) work as a quick confirmation if the scene works in bw? And plenty of native black and white cameras generate a bw preview on the lcd, which does not seem to stand in the way of people shooting nice pictures with them. So I don't think that a bw preview in the viewfinder is a big crutch. It lends itself to looking through the viewfinder to see the scene instead of looking with your eyes, knowing the scene will be good them taking the photo. The same way some people walk around with the eyepiece glued to their eye because they don't know what they're framing will be like because they rely to heavily on being able to see through the lens instead of learning and practicing to see what your lenses cover.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Megabound posted:It lends itself to looking through the viewfinder to see the scene instead of looking with your eyes, knowing the scene will be good them taking the photo. The same way some people walk around with the eyepiece glued to their eye because they don't know what they're framing will be like because they rely to heavily on being able to see through the lens instead of learning and practicing to see what your lenses cover. I don't disagree, but I don't see why a bw viewfinder = "bad" while color viewfinder = "the one and only right way". What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 21:54
|
|
|
It encourages you to look through the viewfinder to check if your black and white works instead of thinking about it and trusting it is going to work before taking the photo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
ive lost track of this conversation also but in general i think nurturing a sense of what your tools can do before you pick them up and use them will make you better and more efficient at doing so. an interesting comment made above regarding photography and the transformation from 3d to 2d (re bobmarleysghosts excellent photos). the idea of translation is essential to photography i think and being able to intellectually grapple with the transformation that occurs between reality and print before you put the viewfinder up to your eye is for me a big part of "the work" of photography
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
As my body doesn't let me have color in the viewfinder and b&w on the screen, I got a little plastic tool called a view catcher that does the same thing. Set it to the aspect ratio I'm interested in and squint through it.. is faster than swinging the camera around too (because I keep my camera in my bag, carrying it in hand only enables me taking even more lazy bullshit shots). Whether I intend to upload as B&W or color doesn't play in to it, I feel like having B&W on the camera forces me to pay more attention to the light and lines which imo are the more important part of getting a scene. I feel like color distracts from that.. at least for me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
Looking through the viewfinder is bad now?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Megabound posted:It encourages you to look through the viewfinder to check if your black and white works instead of thinking about it and trusting it is going to work before taking the photo. I am saying that a bw viewfinder is not a bad thing. It is not necessarily better than a color viewfinder, but I don't see how it hurts. How is my statement contradicting yours? I used a bw camera (which only has a bw viewfinder) extensively for bw astro work, and not once did I feel that it was hurting me.  I even used a bw viewfinder, imaged through L, R, G, B filters, and generated a color image, also without feeling that the bw viewfinder was holding me back.  At the same time, I don't want to die on this hill, so gently caress it, do what works for you, because it is clearly working. Edit: Is still love all you dorks. theHUNGERian fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Nov 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
The original question was about developing an eye for black and white, which means walking around, looking at the colour world and knowing that a thing will look good in black and white. No one was saying don't do what works for you, but if your goal is to look at the world with your eyes and know what's going to work then I think it is a quicker route to that. No one said it's a bad thing, it's a thing that may get in the way of your learning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2021 01:27
|
|