|
Just got into photography and had a fun weekend with a photographer friend. 
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2018 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
huhu posted:Sometimes the feedback is great, sometimes it's this. I think you're confusing this with not being great.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 04:36
|
|
|
 I haven't really done any portrait photography before, and am obviously terrible at posing people. Looking for help and input.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Downside: Got assaulted Upside: What better excuse to explore self-portraiture.  Any tips for making these better other than "Shoot a gently caress ton and hope it's in focus?" I'm using a tripod and remote. Megabound fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Mar 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 13:04
|
|
|
Yond Cassius posted:Man, that's rough. What happened if I may ask? Got rolled trying to buy some weed. He decided it'd be best to choke me to the ground, kick me in the head, and make off with the cash. I wish he stole my phone too. The one time my fancy phone security subscription could have come in use. It's been reported to the police and thankfully in Australia the Queensland government will pay to fix my teeth up under a victims assistance program.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2018 14:38
|
|
|
I was pleasantly surprised with how this candid portrait of my wife came out. This is her in in her natural state: naked, in bed, on her phone.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 10:14
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2018 08:57
|
|
|
 
Megabound fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Nov 4, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2018 13:37
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2019 11:36
|
|
|
um excuse me posted:If y'all want to keep the forum active, you probably shouldn't scare off people who enthusiastically share their work. If they don't want help from you, don't cram it down their throats. You can push people away by helping too much. If you kill their enthusiasm you kill their drive to become better and then it doesn't matter how valid your point is. It's the reason I mostly only lurk. It's been the same few people causing this issue for years and it's a shame. As a realtively new poster to the Dorkroom, about 2 years now, I'm grateful for a community that'll tell me I'm poo poo and I think it's improved my photography dramatically, as well as always pushing me to get better. I don't feel like it's gatekeeped, and I don't feel like I've been poo poo on for not following an unwritten set of rules you seem to believe exist. You just seem very unwilling to take criticism and engage in a conversation where you feel attacked, when it's just a culture of bluntness.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2019 09:54
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2022 12:55
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:I like how intimate and familial the second image is. Thanks kindly, it's probably my favourite portrait I've taken, and I'm glad that feeling comes across to others. Megabound fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Jun 1, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2022 05:29
|
|
|
Cool with nudity but link it please. Spoilering still downloads the image which can he troublesome for those browsing at work.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
I don't see what her nudity brings to the scene. Why is she nude?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 05:56
|
|
|
They feel horny because the only thing interesting about the photos is that she's naked. The posing is awkward, especially in the photo where she's on a log holding her neck in an odd position, the lighting is uninteresting and flat. They're just, boring photos of a nude lady.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
Exactly, how else would you know?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2022 21:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2023 11:31
|
|
|
His editing takes away from the contrast
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Hello Mr Bones
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2023 12:46
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:lol it’ll be my editing. I’ve set my camera to not go below 1/500 so shake is not an issue Why 1/500th? You're leaving a lot of usable shutter speed on the table there. Rule of thumb with film cameras with no stabilization was you can hand hold easily as the reciprocal of your lens length. So you should really be able to get down to 1/125th with no issue at all, get some depth of field back in so you don't need to miss focus when it goes for the necklace instead.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2023 23:18
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:it’s just an observation, based on who seems to like my work. in photo circles most of the time my work is ignored rather than critiqued anyway That's because you are terrible at taking critique so I stopped trying
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:not sure if this rule of thumb extends .. like you saw that 1:1 above .. the lens is so sharp with such good resolution, I haven’t tested it but I suspect at 1/125 it’s gonna be introducing some shake that might not be noticeable on film. I could be wrong of course (unlikely, you know me) It won't, it'll be fine. There's nothing special about your digital sensor. If you'd see shake on your camera you'd see it in film. quote:do you mean, shoot slower so can stop aperture down a bit? or just stop down aperture anyway? Exactly this, if you don't want to touch your ISO you can slow your shutter speed so you can stop down your aperture to get a bit more depth of field. Half to a full stop would help out in that situation significantly.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:hmm usually yeah I don't have a risk here, I just wide open because I am a basic bitch This is why your photos are soft, lenses sharpen up significantly once you get even 1 stop from full open
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 05:28
|
|
|
Full open is a last resort for me. If I have enough light and I want separation I'll still go 1 stop down from full open. If there's not enough light, and I have to drop my shutter to the limit of hand holding then I will shoot full open.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
Try it, take a photo of a subject at you're usual distance, stop down 1 stop and take the photo again. You'll see a marked difference in sharpness all over the frame. It'll give you a better position to work from for your editing. You're also not arguing with me here, you're arguing against physics. In lenses this is called diffraction. An f/3.5 lens will be softer at f/3.5 than an f/1.8 lens and f/3.5 due to how light interacts with the very edges of glass elements. Megabound fucked around with this message at 07:29 on Oct 17, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 07:07
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:ok i’ll take your word for it and give it a shot, I’ve got two shoots tomorrow. I can accept having a less shallow depth of field could benefit me in certain situations You are running into diffraction issues in that raw yes. It's overall not particularly sharp, not the best you could be getting out of a modern lens. I don't scan at particularly high resolution as I don't use web stuff as deliverables, but this print is from 35mm film, it's been enlarged from 36x24mm to 406x304mm and was shot on a 45mm f/2 lens with available light on a lens that is like 40 years old. Probably like f4 or f5.6 and it is sharp edge to edge with good micro contrast. Because you are shooting wide open you're not getting edge to edge sharpness and you're not getting that defined contrast that adds to the perceived sharpness of an image, diffraction is killing it.    You don't need to stop down far, 1 stop is OK. 2 stops would be even better. You'll still keep your shallow depth of field, especially cause I know you shoot exclusively with a 135mm lens, but you'll get better definition across your entire image.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 09:07
|
|
|
Like, I get you're doing this work for clients. I don't know if you've reached out to them to build your portfolio or they've reached out to you because they like your style or a mixture of both, but I'd be very interested in what they'd say if you presented a couple of the different edits you've been given. If you're happy and they're happy then whatever, job done. But I hope you take a few of the things that we've been talking about here and try to apply them, even just testing out on friends, family and pets.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 17, 2023 09:15
|
|
|
Bringing my piss jug to the shoot to create tones and vibes
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 10:35
|
|
|
We were posting edits in another thread but yeah, I went in a completely different direction.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2023 21:28
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:
I like this last one more than mine, shows me that editing my landscapes is a very different skill set to editing portraits.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 01:43
|
|
|
Lifted blacks to mimic old prints is a false nostalgia for cheap drug store prints that have been stored in lovely conditions. It's a shortcut to a collective ideal about the past and is a technique most commonly used to hide technical inability. Part of why I rally so hard against Echi's use of it is that the underlying photography there is worth editing and presenting without that crutch.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
p0stal b0b posted:I dig these two in particular, a nice couple of moments captured. Really? The first one looks like a stock photo to me e: I want to clarify, I don't think it's bad. It's a well executed candid shot, but it looks corporate to me. Megabound fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Oct 24, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2023 07:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2023 21:34
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It's impossible to tell when you're shitposting and when you're doing it earnestly. That's on you. Plenty of people have engaged with you seriously (myself included) and we're met with the same energy as when you claim to be joking. It's a defense mechanism
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:22 |
|
|
Interactions with Ecchi are often antagonistic because of this:big black turnout posted:This forum is small enough that reactions to a poster are going to change based on previous interactions. I think there's a reason it is the way it is in this case He knows what he's doing and he can take it. He's often said he's not a "photographers photographer" and is pretty often intentionally antagonistic to his detractors, and we back. Ultimately his photos get commented on by people because we see something in them but do not agree with the style in which their edited and shot, I think he understands that, and we understand that we have very different values and desire different outcomes for our photography. Slotducks posted:Better based on what? Your own personal tastes? Like this specific art can be solely objective in nature? Don't confuse elitism with opinion. There are many photographers that I think are bad that other people think are good, and there are photographers that I think are good that other people think are bad. That's fine, we express our opinions on art here and those opinions aren't a truth, the important part is the discussion behind why we hold these opinions. This is something that bellows bought up earlier, the style in which the editing is done is a broad appeal to a certain instagram demographic that fetishises a "old film look" that a lot us think is just a "bad print look" that's so often used to try an elevate a mid photo. Saying it's "bad and not good" comes off as dismissive for sure but the discussion had already been had about what informs that opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2023 23:47
|
|