Mr. Despair posted:

This is a shot I took a few months ago in the evening as some snow flurries were coming in. I like how there's a nice split down the middle between the incoming snow and the blue skies. I'm not sure which of these crops work better, or if I should try something else with this.


DSC_1259.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr


DSC_1259.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr

onezero posted:

This broke my brain as well. Incredible shot, and lucky to have so little wind. One question, the color blue is slightly different from the sky to the reflection...did you do some saturation adjustment on the water?

Augmented Dickey posted:

I want to do something with this one, but something just doesn't look quite right to me. Maybe i would benefit from a tighter crop?

Break Fast posted:

Speaking of noise, here is a photo I took some time ago.
It was a rather unfortunate day for shooting, since the sky was gray as.. something gray and had no emotion at all, but I liked the composition at the time.


Another shot in Canarian Islands national park.

Wafflecopper posted:

Landscapes are something I'm trying to get better at. I posted one in this thread a while back and it was critiqued (quite fairly) for having awkward composition. How is the composition in this one? Also it was obviously a cloudy day with flat lighting which I know isn't generally considered ideal for traditional landscape photography but I thought the mist and clouds gave a shot a kind of spooky, ethereal feel. However I did have to mess around with some graduated filters in lightroom to make the shot less flat. Did I pull it off?

Lake Manapouri 2 by euannz, on Flickr

liwet posted:

Another Drawing-a-Day resident here! I think this exchange thing is a pretty cool idea.


I love this. The contrast between the crispness of the foreground and the very painterly reflections in the water works really well. The water looks just like ink and salt washes, all blurred and spotted. Great palette, too, especially that mustard and teal, and the way the trees work as arrows towards the sheep.

TomR posted:

Here is a photo of mine.


2012-109 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr

aliencowboy posted:

1. This feels a little too weighted to the right because of where the hills fall off and the horizon being a little crooked. This is nitpicky stuff for the sake of being nitpicky. It's a landscape and it works. You do these well.

2. This one just seems like it's begging to have more dynamic range or a greater feeling of depth. Maybe dodge some of the highlights a bit more, especially in the background hills, it might help frame the tree better and pop some of the secondary focal points. As an optional homework assignment: after taking a shot like this, try doing it again, but spreading it over 4-10 photos and stitch 'em together (just to humour me!). Shots like this are just begging for MF/LF depth of field control.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I had some fun with a roll Portra 160 and my new FM2n



. .

fivre posted:

I tried wandering around at night to see how well I could do shooting wide open the whole time. I didn't get much that looks great full-size, but shrunken some are alright.

xenilk posted:

Team bride

IMG_4950 by avoyer, on Flickr

aliencowboy posted:

dukeku posted:

Trying out slides at night, metering is a little tricker than with print film.

Cacator posted:

Here's a few I took on a trip to Switzerland and exclusively used an X100:


Artistically Placed Tree by Cacator, on Flickr

tijag posted:

I figured out all my color issues and can now actually post something that looks like it did in Lightroom.


20120425-482.jpg by tijag, on Flickr

whereismyshoe posted:

LargeHadron posted:

No, but crop the left to make the trees even on both sides.

e: On second though, ignore me. I put my hand up over it to check and it looks funky like that. I thought you were going for symmetry (my word of the month, I swear), but I can see that it's probably not actually about that...

Voronoi Potato posted:

Thanks Torgeaux, I was wondering what he meant exactly and that makes much more sense. I'll keep posting here and hopefully I'll get better.



This is a picture of some fruit on my desk. I know the composition is bad but I don't really know how to make it better and still hold focus with such strong DOF. Is it possible to crop the picture in a more interesting way or should I keep trying to shoot it at different angles?

Oprah Haza posted:

Meh, haven't really shot much of anything at all lately.

CarrotFlowers posted:

I'm a big fan of your landscapes, always have been. I really like this one too. The colours are gorgeous, and the bridge is nicely exposed in contrast to the water. I do feel like it's been done a lot though. I know a lot of your other landscapes feel quite a bit more original to me, so while I think this is very pretty, I also think it was an easy picture for you to take so I'm not quite as impressed as I usually am.

Dread Head posted:

My summer solstice.

xzzy posted:

Are they making plans to rebuild it? I hate seeing old buildings fall apart.

sensy v2.0 posted:

IMG_9289 by like okay cool dude, on Flickr


IMG_8284 by like okay cool dude, on Flickr


IMG_8713 by like okay cool dude, on Flickr

The Clit Avoider posted:

Something about this just doesn't scan properly to my eyes. The composition is conventional, but I think with the colour profile and, the (shall we settle for uninteresting?) foreground, there's a large area in the picture that doesn't really do much. Part of the reason the foreground fails to draw attention is that it's quite small and almost seems as if the beach-head was included as an afterthought. The mountains are the obvious focal point, and are great, but I'd like to see the framing either 2 feet forward (cutting out the end of the beach-head, and just making the picture the tide and mountains) or 2 feet back and a looser crop (giving more top space, but also introducing more foreground). At the moment it feels a little too tight at the top and bottom and with the cool blue shade being the prevailing colour it doesn't quite work for me.

Leviathor posted:

My feeling is that it looks claustrophobic for such a grand scene. The lack of foreground and almost telephoto-like compression leads me to think this is a crop from the original 25mm framing.

Water and mountains would be the weaker option in my opinion. Getting lower to minimize the midground (while emphasizing the foreground) would be my default option.

Opening up the shadows might serve this well, too. The contrast in the foreground and water adds a lot of heft, and blending some brightness into the shadows will help that. (I just noticed my work monitor is dark to begin with, so take this with a grain of salt. I'll review it on my calibrated monitor at home later.)

Casu Marzu posted:

geeves posted:

Saturday by geeves, on Flickr

Falco posted:

This is fantastic. The foreground and sunset are great themselves, but throwing in some stars was a real stellar move. Do you usually try to nail hyperfocal focusing on shots like this? I haven't had great luck with that, but feel its the only way to get everything in focus.

geeves posted:

Actually getting a better shot of the stars would be what you can improve.. But you need the 85L to do so.

xenilk posted:

I'm curious but what are you not happy about?

David Pratt posted:

Since a couple of people mentioned this, I uploaded the b&w version without the split toning or contrast adjustment:


mushrooms - less post by fuglsnef, on Flickr

torgeaux posted:

Splash of Color by torgeaux, on Flickr


Beginning of the Ceremony by torgeaux, on Flickr

Pukestain Pal posted:

Photo I took a while ago, but went back and reprocessed it.

dopaMEAN posted:

Ribbon - 1 by dopameanie, on Flickr


PB2A0292 by dopameanie, on Flickr


PB2A0284 - Version 2 by dopameanie, on Flickr

dopaMEAN posted:

I think the next thing I'd like to figure out is how to adjust depth of field. From the brief primer my aunt gave me on the camera, it sounds like I could control how much of the background was in focus using this, but I can't figure out how to make it work yet. I should probably grab a photography book from the library, now that I'm thinking about it.

That photo is absolutely gorgeous- where did you take it?

rio posted:

I feel that while well executed, the wood in the foreground is not as interesting as the location itself, and I wish I were just looking at a straight up landscape featuring less water, the mountains/treeline and more sky. I also think that if you want to include the elements on the left of the photo that they should be more prominent. As they are now, it seems to be more of a distraction than an integral part of the composition.

-----


end of autumn by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

Casu Marzu posted:

Wide angles are cool. This building structure thing is cool. It would be nice if you could lighten up the darker portion of the structure to get a bit more texture out of it.

Shampoo posted:

DSC_0365-3 by jpitha, on Flickr

I spent entirely too long standing around waiting for a shot with no people in it. Naturally, I also spent entirely too long trying to straighten the lines in Lightroom, and I still think there could be more done to it. It was drat blue that day.

Edit: Dirty dirty sensor.

LargeHadron posted:

Here are a few of my own.


DSC03184 by LargeHadron, on Flickr


DSC03182 by LargeHadron, on Flickr


DSC03436 by LargeHadron, on Flickr

Dren posted:

I like the second one a lot because fog but you've pushed the blue and the green too much in the first one and it comes off looking a bit unnatural.