|
KidDynamite posted:Yeah I really see now I failed to capture something good in the shot. It's not apparent but the dude is sticking his tongue in her ear that's why I liked it her reaction. I'm new to portraits as when I was in high school I stuck to inanimate objects. I guess I have a lot more reading to do in the portrait thread. My end goal is to start shooting boxing and MMA. Warning: The following advice is from someone who's getting back into the SLR game after a long hiatus. Don't get discouraged - this place has a high standard and even pictures bordering on great get nit-picked. Cockwhore (delightful name!) covered the technical stuff pretty well. I'd put a fast prime 35 or 50mm next on your shopping list if you're going to be doing more shoots like this. Compositionally, a few things could have made the shot better: Stepping a few steps to the right would have got the guy's face in the shot, maybe with his tongue visibly in her ear. Such a comical situation, along with the girl's reaction, might have been the golden shot you saw in your mind. We're assuming the bottle isn't covering her face at the time of course. You're basically on the wrong side of the event. You'd probably feel self concious jumping to the right and shoving a camera in their faces during a semi-private moment, but keep snapping around your friends and they'll get used to you doing it and you'll get more comfortable doing it. Getting closer to the subjects or cropping tight to their faces would get rid of superfluous detail. The picture is about the guy's action and the girl's reaction to it. Everything else is noise - especially considering their body language isn't telling us much and the environment isn't particularly exciting. Try cropping some of the pics you took that night - you will probably find improvements. Good luck! (edit) Also keep in mind that candid shots are very hit and mostly miss. You can increase the percentages with skill and practice, but in the end you'll end up with a lot of crap shots. truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Jan 10, 2012 |
#
¿
Jan 10, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:
I like the shot - it could be the cover of a an album (vinyl, not cd). From an amateur's point of view, I think it lacks some vertical interest, although that may be in my minds eye I cannot un-see a bus stop sign behind the pair. I also think the guy's shoes ruin the look a bit. I don't know if it's a staged shot or not, so there wasn't much that could be done if it wasn't a staged shot. rio posted:
I really like the first two - not sure the last one does anything for me. The banana lights are framed very well - good choice to cut the bottom and top rows in the middle. Love the colours of the second one and the simple objects in it draw the eye from the lights to the bird and then the moon - it's definitely my fav of the three. Maaaaaybe the pole could be straighter in the frame, although I only just noticed it after looking at it for a while. I can see what you were trying to do with the light bugs but it's not very compelling to my eye. truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
I too found the magenta to be a bit much, and I too loved the shot otherwise. The lighting is very nice - a good realisation of a vision.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:
I like this a lot. The depth of field makes it look like a photo of a diorama - a little bit uncanny-valley, which is interesting to me, although I'm probably the only one who sees it that way (edit - proves how much I don't know yet - I jest found out about tilt/shift stuff). My dad's into scale models and I used to flick through his magazines and look at all the dioramas in them. The warmth and saturation of the lighting is something I like, as well as the blacks. I took a sneak at day 13 - so cute! Dradien posted:So, I just got my T1i a couple days ago I have been messing around with it, waiting for my tripod, case, and new lens to come in. The focus seems a little soft - not sure if it's the lens or the 1/4 second exposure that blurred it a little as you pressed the button. I'm assuming you had it resting on something and wasn't handheld? truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jan 24, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
omgitsdave posted:Fog rolled in this evening, so I met up with a friend to take some shots. This is my first attempt at shooting long exposures at night (well, and anything other than pets and the wife). I am happy with the results I got, especially this image in particular. Looking for some feedback on what direction to take this. Fog is pretty much the opposite of contrast, so by increasing the contrast, upping the blacks or sharpening in your post (I'm guessing this is what you did) you'll naturally lose some fog effect. Perhaps you could experiment by selectively masking off things like the street sign and the railings and increase their contrast whilst leaving the background fog as originally shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:Here are a couple recent photos that I want some critique on, particularly the processing. It seems to be a direction I've been unconsciously going in lately with my photos and I'm really fighting myself as to whether I like it or hate it. I'd love a second and unbiased opinion. Does it look bad? Fake? Gimmicky? Good? I like them, although I can see them being mistaken for paintings. They remind me of formal painted portraits actually, which gives the subjects a certain air of nobility.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
Dradien posted:It's been said many times before, but the tiger one is just...striking. I think you really capture the "majestic" feel about them. Looking to clean for a wild animal or to "staged" is obviously a personal feel. I just felt awe while looking at that. Such a nice capture Quick and dirty manipulation to illustrate St Fu's suggestions (sans mist):  You could have zoomed in further with that lens you had too, to reduce the need for cropping so much to achieve the result St Fu suggested. I guess when looking at people's great works, we only see what's in the frame - we rarely get to see what's left out of the frame, which is just as important. (edit) Rambling story. I remember the first time in was in the US on business, I was driving the back way on some country roads between counties in Wisconsin. I saw a red barn and silos in a field of corn and I thought to myself "Man, that's pretty". Coming from Australia it seemed a bit quaint. Then I drove past another red barn and silos and I thought "Man, what are the odds?" After the fifth, sixth, seventh, nth red barn and silos the novelty had worn off. They sure love their corn up there. truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 11:52 on Jan 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2012 11:43
|
|
|
Freaquency posted:I think the rocks work fantastically for your foreground. They drew my eyes there right away, then I followed along the water all the way up through the horizon. There's definitely an implied sense of motion that goes a long way to making this a really nice photo. I also like how the glare off of the water is positioned right at the meeting point of the two streams; it makes for a sharply defined delta there that I feel really adds something to the photo. The first one I really like, except there's nothing sharp in the image. I don't know if it was intentional or not. I feel the "shake well" on the top of the can should be in sharp focus. Either there's nothing in focus or your exposure of 1/25 was too long, causing camera shake. Upping the ISO to 400/800, increasing aperture or using a tripod would have helped with this. The second one I liked on initial glance but there's not much to bring the eye back. Again, I feel there should be something sharp there. Maybe the top part of the frame (the window) is unnecessary and more of a feature could be made of the silhouettes and the coloured light. It's intriguing - what am I looking at exactly? Did you take some more shots of this from different angles/distances? The third is ok. It is a bit cliche, but as you say, baby steps. You should be making stuff for yourself primarily. I think the diagonals work reasonably well and the layers created with the DOF almost add another diagonal in the 3rd dimension. Perhaps a bit more DOF would have had more of the blossoms in focus, but then the effect would have been reduced on the background branches. Hope I've been helpful.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Dandy Cheddar posted:Here's my first picture that isn't just a snapshot of my pets or random practicing etc. I thought it owuld be fun to light a hot wheel on fire and have a little lego man staring at the fire. I know next to nothing so I would appreciate criticism on all aspects from exposure, to composition etc. It's a direct ripoff of Slinkachu's miniature concepts so keep in mind that it was just a way for me to practice and create a subject that was slightly more photo-worthy than my 15 year old dog. I like that. There are some issues, but the overall feeling of it is pretty good. Your exposure in regards to lighting is spot on. It's a pity the guy's shadow isn't a bit more noticeable, as it would have made a strong element. Negatives: Looking at lego man's feet, he appears to be standing with his back to the flames, which is going against what you said you wanted him to do. When I first looked at the photo I saw a guy looking at a fire with alarm. After I noticed his feet I can't unsee a guy getting robbed at gunpoint. If his legs were angled he could have been running away from the flames, but as it is it's weird. The depth of field is too small - you can't make out the hotwheels at all and it could have just been a cardboard cutout. This is a mistake I've been trying to get myself out of. Saying that it still works for me, but more depth of field would have helped it. I guess a flame exposed for a full second to use the smaller aperture wouldn't look very good anyway, but bumping the ISO up a bit would have given you a bit more aperture to play with. (edit) In retrospect I don't think you'll get much of a DOF increase anyway with that lens. truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Feb 6, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I think one of the reasons it is not optional to give criticism here is because that is part of the process. Learning to disect, discuss, and think about what makes a photo good and bad is important for developing your own eye and skill. Don't feel bad about your level of knowledge or skill, that's not what is important, your opinion is still valid as an active viewer of the photos. You can point out the strong points, talk about things you would change, or say something just doesn't work for you, all are ok. That's reassuring to hear, even though it's spelled out in the OP. I've been putting some input in from a newbie's perspective, but it's hard to tell if it's welcome on occasion. Sometimes I wish people would critique me on my critiques. The last thing anyone wants is to have people rolling their proverbial eyes at some noob trying to school them in poo poo they have very little understanding of, which is why I try to keep my technical advice to people near my level and just give emotive reactions to those who have obviously been doing it a while. I do wish this thread was a little more active - it's very informative to see what other people think of shots, how they see something that I wouldn't see. I add that to my knowledge and it becomes so obvious when I see it down the track some time. drat NIGGA posted:
Going on from others have said, I will say in terms of composition the lines are quite pleasing. A little less exposure, whilst adding a tad of fill light in post, might give you a better result. Bottom Liner posted:That's an intriguing compliment. I'm generally torn on Brooke's photos one way or another, either the pose or the processing, but she's fantastic regardless of my opinion. I'm working in realm that's not quite as dark as her stuff, combining more natural portraits with conceptual fantasy-ish themes, but with a "happier" feel I guess. I completely agree with the lighting on the first. I shouldn't have added the fill from the right, but that ended up being the best pose so I'm torn there. I've enjoyed your 365 journey so far. Do you feel you've gained a lot so far? I actually like the lightness of the model in the first one. She's meant to have an ethereal air about her, no? I think it's hard to capture that without resorting to some tacky post-added halo effects. Her expression doesn't work for me though; it's hard to tell what sort of expression a woman of the forest should greet you with whilst sitting in a nest, but I'm pretty sure that's not it. Then again, the more I look at it, the better it becomes. It really is a beautiful image - I prefer it to number two, which seems to be everyone else's favourite. Number three's legs look like they're from an autopsy slab, but apart from that I really enjoyed the shot. Pity you told everyone how it was done  eggsovereasy posted:Here are a couple cross posts from SAD. I like the first one. What I like most about photography is the way it gets you to explore paths you just wouldn't go down normally and leading you to find intimate, unexplored places with some small measure of delight. This shot exemplifies this feeling in a nutshell. I'm kinda torn on the processing, but I'm trying to overcome my early prejudices against "hipster" presets and the like. Anyway, in the spirit of sharing, I present something that I'm not sure about. I'm seem to be drawn to simple, geometric images, so I like it, but I'm wondering if it's compelling at all to anyone else. This is of the bars in the security door casting large shadows onto the flyscreen behind it. It's from the sun reflecting off of a window, through another window and onto the inside of the door - an event that doesn't happen very often. I didn't crop this one - just messed around with some curves and such.  Pimp my fly screen.jpg by dj stevens, on Flickr Whilst I've been trying to get away from stupidly small DOFs, I stepped it down to f1.8 again for this shot. Whilst this gave me the bokeh I was after on the 35mm DX lens, I noticed some distinct purple fringing on some high contrast parts of the image. Another lesson learned! I'll also add this one:  DSC_0711.jpg by dj stevens, on Flickr It's one I took a few weeks back shorty after I got my camera. It could be a little straighter, but the architecture was kinda wonky as it was.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
AceClown posted:#2. This is not a bad image at all but as a stand alone photo It's not very compelling. I'm assuming this is a dog/horse track and where I think this would work is as a series showing the track in full swing at race day and then the run down quiet nature of a place like this on off days. Technical stuff, it seems a bit close, I'm imagining a nice gable end above the doors thats just begging to get in frame and the white door on the left is suffering by being cut in half, but then I don't know what else would be in frame if you did that so I could be dead wrong. Processing wise it looks a bit flat on the BW conversion, but thats an easy fix with a contrast adjustment, notice how there's no true white in the image? Thanks - that's very helpful, particularly your comments on there being no true white in the image. I guess I was trying to be faithful somewhat to the original tones and atmosphere, which was early morning and overcast, but unless it's in a series or some other kind of context, trying to do that is a bit silly, as all the person viewing the image is seeing is a dull grey panel. I guess the other lesson I learned is to take some more time at a scene, even if it means missing out on other places later in the day. I have some shots with the gables and roof in them, but they were taken with so much upwards angle, I'm even going to try and apply any vertical distortion adjustments (which is what I did to the shot I posted and it's why some of the original shot is cropped out). Robot Jelly posted:I like abstract images and this one just jumped right at me. What grabs me is all the different patterns on a single plane and then the monotone of the foreground over the colorful background. My only complaint is all the dust breaks up the pattern a little, but I don't know what you could do about that. I think it's hard to give criticism on abstract works but I wanted to let you know at least someone digs it. Thanks for your kind words. Yeah, the dust is very noticeable - you should see it in full crop! I kinda like it though, but if I ever come across that again I might give it a quick wipe. The dust is handy in the actual mesh of the fly screen though - it catches all the light. I like your portraits, and like others here I think the first one is the strongest. She's a beautiful woman, which helps. I flicked through your flickr - is it safe in assuming that you're fairly new to portraits? There are plenty of cool abstract shots from some time ago, some of which I have zero idea of what they are.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2012 09:11
|
|
|
rio posted:That looks great to my somewhat untrained eyes. The contrast helps establish the pattern, and the bokeh reinforces it too - how did you do that? What is that lighter white bokeh that corresponds with the overlaps of the metal? Firstly I'll explain my mysterious fly screen - here's a link to a close crop of the original which will probably be more illuminating: http://i.imgur.com/U6Quk.jpg The "lighter bokeh", if I get what you're trying to say, is just the sun shining on the material of the flyscreen. There is a gap between the bars and flyscreen of about 5mm. The dark areas of the flyscreen are caused by the shadows cast by the bars; the sun was at a very oblique angle to the door. It looks weird because the shadows are larger than the lit up bits, which is counter intuitive. As to your picture - there isn't really much there in that shot to work with. The main interest of the picture are the cool white trees and the little island of white where they stand, which is what I think you were looking at - you had great image of these in your head but you failed to capture it I would say. I kinda like that there is a distant repetition of these trees to the right of the frame. I've taken the liberty of fiddling with it (let me know if you want me to remove these)maybe more of what you had in mind, maybe not. Regardless, I've fixed up the nasty colour flares, which is fairly simple to do. I've also increased contrast and deepened blacks and shadows to highlight the main attraction of the picture. Crop one:  Crop two:  I'm not crazy about any of them - perhaps someone with more experience can add to this. Really, I think you needed to get much closer to the interesting white trees with some narrower depth of field to hide the uninteresting suburbia. I know you didn't want to get your gear wet, but the isolated rain in that pic just doesn't look good - if it was even across the whole frame it might have looked cool, and the only way to do that would be by getting closer to the trees; perhaps angling the camera up through the branches, rim lighinting the snow on the branches. truncated aardvar fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Feb 10, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
What did you have in mind when you were taking it? What were you trying to capture? I think this is another case of your mind's eye presenting a cool photo opportunity but due to lack of experience you were blinded to the fact that there really wasn't much of a photo there to begin with. I've been there many times. I can understand why some film people say that shooting with film sharpens you quicker, because you are forced to think through a scene before even taking the lens cap off. For me the biggest issue is the dark, long-lens-compressed, underexposed background of that hillside. Crop that out to just above the small (electric?) fence and you'll improve the picture straight away and it will get rid of most of those lines from the foreground fence. Also crop out those obnoxious sticks coming in from the left of frame. Whilst you shouldn't rely heavily on cropping and should learn to compose in frame, it's a handy tool to help you learn what works and what doesn't. For an exercise I'd also suggest reducing exposure a tad in post, increase contrast a bit and then play with blacks and fill light. What program do you use for post and do you shoot in RAW? In reality though, I just don't think there's a decent shot from where you were standing. The lovely piece of machinery is begging to have some shots taken of it from much closer, with a reduced depth of field to blur the background somewhat. As it stands, even with a crop, the foreground clutter combined with the lack of any lines to draw you into the picture just doesn't work. I'd also suggest a getting a Flickr account so we can see how you shot things and what you shoot them with. What I'm doing is trying to start with really simple scenes and see which ones work for me and which ones don't. Less is sometimes more. Try and replicate what other people have done. Lots of shutter time will help you. Knowing what doesn't make good pictures is part of knowing what will make good pictures. I'll leave you with some salient words from Bryan Peterson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlcZu1CtS4o&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2012 08:39
|
|
|
rio posted:
That's classic. Good catch - the photo definitely tells a story, which in my opinion is more important than technical details. I do prefer the second one. The kiosk acts as a frame for the picture, so you could have shot/cropped even tighter than that if you wanted to. The only things I'd suggest is after you caught that one, you should have stuck around to improve the angle. I mean look at him - I don't think he's going to chase you. I'd have tried a low down crouching angle and, as you say, getting right close to him. Getting closer or using that longer lens you didn't have would have enabled you to reduce the DOF a bit, isolating him - the background is a little distracting. BigEast55 posted:I went out hiking the other day (50 in Upstate NY in February is really odd) and took a few pictures but I feel like they are lacking something, I wish I could have waited to go out a few hours for sunset, but the park closed too early There's not much going on in the first one and as you say, coming back during the "golden hour" may have improved things. I have some botanical gardens I'd like to shoot around me, but they all open and close during daylight - it's frustrating. I guess it reduces vandalism. Getting the camera a lot closer to the ground may have added some interest. A little extra contrast might make it pop a bit too. The colour of the second and third are good, as well as the texture, but the DOF is a bit narrow, f/9 might have been more appropriate - bump up the ISO if you have to. The narrow DOF may be a preference of yours of course, but personally I'd try and get a bit more in focus. Also moss is a very cliche, first thing I do when I get a camera kind of thing, but I do like a good moss picture. Perhaps you should try some macro stuff - you seem to have a leaning towards that? I'll add that I looked at your stream - "cold ducks" made me laugh. There seemed to be a turf war between the ducks and the seagulls going on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 10:55
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:
Well, from my limited experience, self portraits are a bitch. I actually think the horizontal lines work well. The horizon is a bit busy on the right side, but I think the fact that there's OMG steam coming out of a building makes up for it. It's probably not like you could wait until the clouds moved I'm guessing. Were the speedlights together? Just wondering why you didn't separate them to fill in your other side. Were they used with diffusers? (not a critique, just trying to learn). Did you have stands? (they don't seem terribly high). I do find the blue jacket a bit jarring. Love the post, especially the saturation of the browns. I'm slowly working my way through the post thread - I'm hoping you have some words of wisdom in there as I've been a fan since coming into this corner of goondom Xerxes17 posted:Today I decided to finally get of my arse and take a few photos. My reasoning being that the best way to learn how to swim is to throw oneself into the sea. Firstly, I'd say you have to get off auto mode. It may not make your shots any better initially, but if you get an understanding of how exposure works, you can begin to think like a camera and be able to work with your tools better. Read "Understanding Exposure" - http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposure-3rd-Photographs-Camera/dp/0817439390/ref=pd_sim_b_1 The first one almost works. I'm not sure if the trees work there but I see what you were trying to do. I guess it's better to have the trees there than to have just their shadows in scene. #2 - The birds are too centred. There's a time to have things centred and there's a time to stick with the rules of thirds. I think in this case the latter would have been more appropriate. #3 - I like the tone, but the composition isn't very compelling at all. #4 - The strongest of the four. You probably needed to take a couple of steps back to ensure you didn't cut off the tire and the top of that clock tower. Taking those extra five-ten seconds in the view finder makes a big difference. Be aware that some view finders aren't accurate to the final image, so give yourself some extra room to crop if need be.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2012 13:48
|
|
|
Ambihelical Hexnut posted:Thanks for the insights and such. In regards to environmental conditions and such, it goes to show that imagination, problem solving and compromises are essential for shooting in non-controlled conditions.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
dukeku posted:I'm a sucker for retail shots, but I think with this one you could have done a little better providing some context. By putting her right in the middle you're forcing the composition to be about her, when I think it's really more about her and the space she's occupying. Maybe I'm nuts. I definitely get a lonely vibe from these. The fact that it seems so clean negates the desolation feeling they might have conveyed, but it seems like everyone was abducted. It evokes images, especially with the processing, of those towns and vehicles used in nuclear bomb tests in the 50s. I don't know what this is what you were going for but that's my take away from those. Perhaps some shots obviously taken from the middle of the street will enhance that - the feeling that there's so little going on that it's possible to just be in the middle of the street. The truck I like the most - I've found it difficult to get compelling shots of the sides of vehicles, so it's good to see one here. It's pretty much the perfect balance between blending in with it's environment and also sticking out. -------- I revisited some shots of a forklift I took some weeks ago and delved once more into b&w (or in this case kinda sepia). Thoughts on contrast, sharpness, etc would be appreciated.  DSC_1143.jpg by dj stevens, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2012 12:09
|
|
|
Yeah, not a fan of the comp myself, but I was standing on my head kinda! Plus I was a bit rushed, because I was at work and had things to do. It does make a good backdrop though. Actually I posted this one mainly in an exercise in processing b&w after my last post in this thread had some good points made about it I wanted to work on. Thanks for your comments.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 13:37 |
|
|
I haven't been here in a while, but I like to contribute...Dread Head posted:I actually prefer the second one - it evokes images of the timeless sea. There are enough focal points to provide some interest, but it's not too busy and you can just "be" in the scene, if you know what I mean. whaam posted:
I like that - I think you've done well in your foray into "flatness". I think the composition works very well. Personally I would have been a bit more traditional and framed/cropped out some water from the bottom but as it is the whole thing is enigmatic. I love uncluttered pictures so this is right up my alley. I also like the juxtaposition between the high contrast and the low contrast elements. I wish I could point out some negatives, but for me it's great. There are boundless ways in which you could have treated this scene and a lot of them would have been good but it's nice to have some variation in the collection. How do you feel about the shot? Are you encouraged to explore this avenue a bit more? rcman50166 posted:
It's hard to be depressing when the scene seems so inviting. The FOV you used and the distance to the subject makes it seem like I'm sitting next to him and we're settling down for a cosy evening. Perhaps some more stark lighting would have presented a less pleasant scene, as well as a wider angle lens or coming back from the subject to show that he's actually sitting alone, with some bare bar either side of him. I do like the tones, but it doesn't reach your intended vision, unless of course you have an aversion to dark, cosy bars. Man_of_Teflon posted:
The first two don't do much for me. I think the scene is a little too cluttered to be interesting. I prefer the second crop. I'm not sure what I don't like about the colour, but I don't like it - too much blue perhaps? I like the city scene - the way the cars come out of the dark canyon into the brighter light of the open city makes it for me. I think the saturation is fine. The portrait is great!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 13:18
|
|
