Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

«‹›3 »

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

rcman50166 posted:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

I like the colours in this, although the blue tinge to the left is slightly distracting. Have you tried cropping it so the little dude hits the bottom-right third? Saying that though, the bit of moss in the bottom right does lend the image some depth.

quote:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

This is nice, the depth of field works really well, and the spiral-shaped composition leads the eye nicely. It's not as sharp as it could be though, not sure if you missed focus or something moved, but the eye - the focal point of the image - is not totally in focus.

quote:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

Hard to think of a bad thing to say about this one, it's tack-sharp and the subject's nicely isolated from the background. Saying that, the background is competing a bit on brightness, maybe try desaturating or dimming it a little? Another thing might be the branch protruding out of the top of the bird's head, but that might also be helping the composition as it joins the diagonal line the tail is making.

Which of these works better? How can I accentuate the hikers?

P1070090.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

P1070087.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Nov 22, 2011 13:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:32

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Enigma89 posted:

The light really feels like it's in the way here. I would have composed it so that it's either in the top-right or the bottom-left, with the centre of the light hitting one of the third intersection lines. It would help the flow of the image if the light was in line with the road. At the moment it blocks it and feels awkward.

quote:

I like this, nice simple and geometric. The jaunty angle might be helping the composition, but I'd be tempted to see what it's like with the verticals vertical. I think it could do with a little more contrast too - get those white boxes really white.

quote:

I think this would be better if your subject wasn't centred. Perhaps try a square crop to get rid of the black area on the left.

I'm not sure why you think B&W is clich�... when it feels like the right thing to do, go for it! Some images are much better in B&W than colour.

I very rarely take portraits. This was done to commemerate this guy's Movember effort. I led him a merry dance through the office to try and find somewhere with decent light, but couldn't find anywhere without hard shadows.

Lemmy Purbrick 2 by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Dec 3, 2011 20:30

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

IsaacNewton posted:

The hand out of focus is a shame, but I bet he was moving it.

Yep. I kind of like the motion it gives the picture, but it could just be creator-bias.

# ¿ Dec 3, 2011 21:47

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

TomR posted:

2012-28 by Tom Rintjema, on Flickr

I like this a lot. It has a really grim and bleak feeling to it. Being towards the dark side of the value range helps with this I think. If I was processing it I'd have tried making the foreground a little bit lighter just to get some more detail in there, or perhaps making it even darker so it's a complete silhouette.

Axel Serenity posted:

On the first one the crop feels a little tight vertically, I'd like to see more empty space above her head.
The second one I probably would have gone a bit higher, there's something off to me about seeing someone from that low an angle.
Third one I wouldn't change, composition's great

I tried doing the whole low-contrast vintage split-toned thing. How did I do?

14/366 - Homemade Yoghurt Pizza by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jan 15, 2012 17:50

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

The first one is ok. I'd have tried looking down between the wheels for a symmetrical shot. The second one is great. The third one is a bit boring and doesn't have a strong subject. The grainy texture isn't enough to hold the eye - I'm more interested in the spring in the background but it's out of focus.

# ¿ Mar 9, 2012 23:13

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Soulex posted:

#1:
Chicken with something by Soulex, on Flickr
This turned out a tad darker than I thought. A little more cluttered too.

It's underexposed as you've said, and it's also in need of some straightening. I'd crop off the wine glass on the left, but that still leaves you with a fairly pedestrian photograph. I think it would have been more interesting if the people were the subject rather than the background.

quote:

#2:
Hole in the wall church by Soulex, on Flickr
I was blocked by a gate, so I had to squeeze and contort to get my lens through the grate at that level. I'm in Germany, and this was a hole in the wall church. There are at least 3 more in this city that are enormous.

This is quite nice. Perhaps a little underexposed though. I'd have been tempted to try either cropping the right-hand row of pews, or trying to get dead in the middle of them (which I understand you might not have been able to do because of the wall). I'd also have tried to get the top of the altar/dais/whatever at the back in fully, it feels cut off.

quote:

#3:
Guardian by Soulex, on Flickr
One of the entrances to the city.

I'd consider making this a square crop, with the tree trunks framing the tower. You might have to take a few steps to the right for this though. The statue seems ancilliary to and distracting from the main subject.

I just bought a speedlite and I have no idea what the gently caress I'm doing. Here's some test shots, tell me what I'm loving up!

If I was going to do this properly, I'd use a plainer background, but is the lighting itself ok?

80/366 - Josie by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Experimental

87/366 - Self Portrait by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 02:02

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Thanks for the advice dudes, guess things are going to be a bit artificial until I figure out how it all works.

# ¿ Mar 28, 2012 22:00

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

jwvgoethe posted:

_DSC0302 by jwvgoethe, on Flickr

This isn't Snapshot A Day, if you're going to post here and not give critique on other people's work (don't feel that you're not qualified, figuring out what you like and don't like about other photos makes you better at judging your own) then the least you can do is say what you think about the picture you're posting. Why you took it, what you think could be improved about it, and so on.

That said, your photo is ok, but could do with tighter cropping. The empty space at the top isn't adding much to the composition, and the out-of-focus woman on the left, while helping frame the subject, is a little distracting. The contrast also feels too high to me.

Hope you don't mind reposting your image, but I'd have cropped something like this:

# ¿ Mar 31, 2012 18:31

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Holistic Detective posted:

I agree with your thought's on the foreground, even if it was a bit closer in so you could see a bit more details on the ships. That would mean sacrificing more of that sky though. The rain (I think) falling on the left really makes the shot though, seriously dramatic weather.

Been experimenting a bit with triptychs lately:

Pretty happy with it but I wish there was a little more going on in the third shot.

I'd have put the third one in the middle. Since it doesn't have the texture of the other two I think it would be more balanced that way.

quote:

Wisteria by cadence440, on Flickr

This one needs more isolation of the subject, perhaps shooting it from a different angle getting it entirely against the sky or entirely against the wall. Having both in the background isn't working for me.

104/366 - Gratuitous Action Shot by fuglsnef, on Flickr

94/366 - Rory by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Kebabs by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Apr 23, 2012 01:21

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Mr. Despair posted:

A wild hippie strikes. by MrDespair, on Flickr

I like this a lot. I think the central composition actually works. We're losing a lot of detail on the torso though. Some fill light, or an adjustment brush to up the exposure there would help get some back. Also, maybe it's just me, but have you considered adding a bit of colour to the image? I rarely leave stuff purely greyscale, it's worth experimenting a bit with shadow split-toning in case there's a colour that better fits the mood of the image.

Since the cultural exchange is on the go I'm going to post some old stuff:

H�s by fuglsnef, on Flickr

61/366 - The Cause of, and Solution to, All of Life's Problems by fuglsnef, on Flickr

53/366 - Church Bells by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Apr 25, 2012 00:16

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Mr. Despair posted:

It was shot with black and white film, so there isn't much color to find, and adding color with split toning just looks weird to me. Nothing I've tried before, but I tried messing around with it in light room and couldn't get anything that I liked.

Here's a version with the levels tweaked a bit though. I still prefer the darker version myself, I think the bolder colors outweigh the detail in the sweatshirt (since there isn't much there).

In the edited version you've changed the image globally, so the contrast has suffered. I'd have made a mask of just the sweatshirt and reduced the contrast/upped the exposure on that, leaving the rest of the image alone because it already looks good.

# ¿ Apr 25, 2012 16:53

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Waarg posted:

Mine:

16/04 by waaarg, on Flickr
I like this shot but I'm not really sure why. I'm also not sure about the bus, the text seems a bit distracting.

I'm not sure it's the text in particular that's throwing this off, rather than the overall composition being a bit unstable. I think just the bus and the building might have worked because they've both got strong vertical lines, but the diagonals of the other roof are unbalancing it.

quote:

16/04 by waaarg, on Flickr
I think my above criticism of maxmars' photo could apply to this one, I'm not sure if the image is strong enough to stand without an obvious story.

I like this a lot. I don't know if it needs a story other than the bird sitting up there like a boss. It's got a nice strong diagonal leading from the bottom right to the top left that draws the eye through the frame to the subject. If I were to change anything, I'd clone out the poles in the bottom left.

Maker Of Shoes posted:

Should I clone out the crude in the water? I think I'm done shooting birds for now.

drink by jankyangles, on Flickr

Lovely colours, but yeah I think you're right: cloning out the specs in the water would definitely improve it. I'd have preferred the duck to be closer to the top right so he's swimming into the frame more.

I spent the last couple of hours mucking about with my flash, ended up using a one of those cardboard tubes whisky bottles come in as a snoot, worked a treat

I can't tell which one of these is better, please make my decisions for me!

Lit from above self portrait #1 by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Lit from above self portrait #2 by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Apr 28, 2012 22:37

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

doctor 7 posted:

IMG_4433 by Aidan R, on Flickr

Clone out that thing on the bottom right and the "63" on the top left, and it'll be much more symmetrical.

quote:

cecropiaagain by RReiheld, on Flickr

cecropia3 by RReiheld, on Flickr

Wow, these are both bang-on. Focus is sharp as gently caress and even though it's shallow it's on the right features so you don't notice it too much. On the second one I'd be tempted to increase the contrast on the fingerprint ridges, as at the moment that area is a featureless light blob and it doesn't sit well with the rest of the picture which has tons of detail.

My last two 366 project photos:

120/366 - Shipyard by fuglsnef, on Flickr

121/366 - Waterfall by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 1, 2012 22:57

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

the posted:

Interesting effect. However, are those lens flares added in post? They struck me as such which takes away from the photo. It looks like a lot of post was done on the photo in general, which isn't a bad thing necessarily, it's just that the water seems rather.. radioactive.

While you're right about there being tons of post on this - I upped the blacks until the bath at the bottom was invisible - the flares actually appeared like that. I was pretty surprised at the shape of them.

# ¿ May 2, 2012 22:24

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Cacator posted:

Clock Tower Graffiti by Cacator, on Flickr

This is pretty boring. Central composition, and it's just a picture of someone else's art. Fair enough if you're documenting street art, but as a photo it doesn't stand on its own.

quote:

Clouds over Luzern by Cacator, on Flickr

This seems underexposed to me. I understand you had to to get the god ray in as much detail as you did, but I'd be tempted to draw an exposure gradient across the bottom left of the picture to lighten it up. Either that or darken it completely so it's just a silhouette against the sky.

131/366 - Sunset on the beach by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 11, 2012 23:31

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

MrBlandAverage posted:

Took a drive up a rural state highway on a foggy morning. Skies not very interesting, but I like the fog in the first one.

Unusually, I like the central composition of these, they remind me of a kid's drawing of a house. And not in a bad way - little kids are loving masters of composition.

I'd have considered taking the first one at a different angle - a bit round to the right to get the road horizontal. I'd also have cropped out the dark bit in the bottom right. I don't think the boring sky is a detriment to the second photo, as it does a really good job of framing the house and gives it a really nice sharp outline.

quote:

Naoshima by Lon Lon Rabbit, on Flickr

Like MBA said, the exposure on this is fantastic - did you do much post?

More from my 366:

133/366 - Daffodils by fuglsnef, on Flickr

137/366 - Camera by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Not totally happy with the exposure on this but I'm not sure what else I can do:

143/366 - Glass by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 22, 2012 21:09

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

nielsm posted:

The exposure on the beads looks fine to me, I think it's the surface they are on that's the problem. It's a very sad gray here, either something lighter or darker would have worked better, I think. (Edit: Perhaps also the vignetting. See if you can decrease that.)
It's an interesting pattern.

Yeah I think you're right about the grey background. I was pressed for time and the big flat grey rock was the best thing to put them on. Next time I think I'll bring the beads back home and stick them on a black or white background.

The vignetting was the only way I felt I could get any contrast but perhaps it's a little aggressive.

# ¿ May 23, 2012 12:53

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Wooten posted:

I'd stick a gradient over the bottom-left of the image to darken it to the level of the background. It's so bright it's competing for my attention.

# ¿ May 26, 2012 19:15

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

krackmonkey posted:

_D7K0037.jpg by Trip Sixes, on Flickr

First, I would crop the roof out of the very top of the frame, it's not really adding anything. Second, I'd have gone with more depth of field, there isn't a strong individual subject (apart from the gearstick... maybe) so it doesn't make sense to have arbitrary parts near the door out of focus. Overall this feels a bit cluttered and loose compositionally.

quote:

lungs by Trip Sixes, on Flickr

This is more like it. The shallow depth of field helps here since we've got a detail to focus on. The composition feels quite tight, and I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing. I think maybe from a straight-on perspective this tight crop would have been better, whereas from the angle this is shot at it might have been better to pull back a bit.

quote:

Theories 1 by Trip Sixes, on Flickr

This has a lot of energy, but suffers from being a typical ambient-light-swirl band shot. The direct flash isn't great - if it's possible for you to get your flash off the camera and hold it at arm's length I'd try that. Lacking that ability I'd suggest bouncing off the ceiling to give the face of the singer some definition and depth, as the flat, straight-on light is flattening his features.

I just got a loan of Light: Science and Magic, and I'm trying out the dark field glass lighting technique.

148/366 - Whisky by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 27, 2012 23:43

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

alkanphel posted:

I think you're getting there but there's still a bit too much light spillage and the light accents on the glass body edges are a bit thick. Perhaps you can try adjusting the size/position of the black and white cards? More likely you'd have to make the black card much large I think.

Thanks, that's exactly the sort of feedback I was after

I had the black card standing on its short edge, so I'll try it on its long edge next time.

# ¿ May 28, 2012 14:40

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Augmented Dickey posted:

The first one is pretty boring apart from the sign. I'd have gone for a close-up on just the sign.

The second one is great though. Took me a while to realise what it was which is a cool thing to achieve in a photograph.

mr. mephistopheles posted:

I really like this series, but this one seems the weakest. It could do with being either a lot wider - as the composition's half-and-half - or a lot taller in a regular portrait orientation. As it is, it feels a bit squashed.

HookShot posted:

Suomenlinna Island by hookshot88, on Flickr

I love the colours in this. It might have been nice to take some straight-on shots to exploit the symmetry of the windows. Perhaps a little more empty space on the right-hand side for balance (but these are nit-picks).

Tried to get the sky looking like the Martian sky on this one:

155/366 - The Martian Surface by fuglsnef, on Flickr

153/366 - Sunset Nine Billion by fuglsnef, on Flickr

157/366 - Venus by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jun 6, 2012 02:17

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Kiri koli posted:

I find the purple sky distracting. I guess the sky could look like that sometimes with the right scattering, but most of the time Mars will have a yellowish/brown sky. That's extreme nitpicking, I know, but I just find that purple to be very artificial looking. The rest of the picture is good, though I get the sense that we've lost the scale of the mountains in the back. Where was it taken? It reminds me of Mauna Kea.

Looking at more pictures from the surface you're right. I had it in my mind that it was really pink but it's definitely more muted. It was taken in �ingvellir national park in Iceland.

# ¿ Jun 7, 2012 10:50

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

QPZIL posted:

Stalks by iantuten, on Flickr

This is pretty boring, it's a photo that's been taken a million times and it's not even a flower.

quote:

Candid Horse by iantuten, on Flickr

This is more like it, the bit of foliage in the foreground gives some good depth. The horse is super-crisp and nicely exposed and the whole thing is well composed.

quote:

Flower on a Grave by iantuten, on Flickr

This is suffering from a lack of contrast between the background of the rock and the subject. Not only that but the lighting on the rock is very uniform and flat. Maybe some dodging on the flower would help it stand out. I really like the geometric zig-zag of the composition, though it could be more uniform (crop the top a bit).

Happy summer solstice everyone

172/366 - Summer Solstice Sunset by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jun 21, 2012 14:51

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Metalslug posted:

The last beam by alangrainger, on Flickr

I like this a lot, but I also like this closer crop below because of the easily visible textures. Can anyone tell me WHY one of those is the better photo?

The last beam (detail) by alangrainger, on Flickr

The first one is better because the composition is superior. There is more negative space, and the eye flows more freely around the image. Your attention is first drawn to the top of the frame, then drawn down by the diagonal lines to the human subject.

In contrast, the second feels very squashed. As a nitpick, I'd line up the wall at the bottom with the image border and have the person not centered.

Wafflecopper posted:

A demolished house on the outskirts of the central city.

855A by euannz, on Flickr

Lovely texture here, shame the detail in the clouds is blown out, but the exposure of the main subject seems spot on.

quote:

Typical scenes from around the outskirts of the cordoned-off "red zone".

Gloucester St 1 by euannz, on Flickr

Since the converging vertical lines aren't really enough to induce a strong feeling of height, I'd suggest some vertical straightening to make the edges of the building parallel to the sides of the frame. It might be that you can't do this without cropping the top of the building, in which case I suggest keeping this sort of adjustment in mind when shooting tall buildings and going wider at the sides and the top to allow for the post-processing.

quote:

Manchester Street by euannz, on Flickr

Not much to criticise here, the composition is great. If anything I'd crop a little on the left to balance it.

175/366 - Epic Alex Silhouette II by fuglsnef, on Flickr

176/366 - Another misty morning by fuglsnef, on Flickr

183/366 - Attic by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jul 6, 2012 01:42

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Tone down the contrast/saturation a little, get rid of the vignette.

# ¿ Jul 30, 2012 11:59

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

fralbjabar posted:

On a line by fralbjabar, on Flickr

gently caress tha hatahs, this is awesome. Although it is a little too vignetted.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2012 14:07

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

drat NIGGA posted:

Strangers In The Night by DAMNNIGERIAN, on Flickr

Staying Along by DAMNNIGERIAN, on Flickr

Complementing Imperfections by DAMNNIGERIAN, on Flickr

1. The empty space on the left is a bit too much for me. It's a big, out-of-focus area with not much going on and it just feels too heavy. I'd be tempted to try a square crop.

2. The expression in this is great, he looks like a dude chilling out on a sofa. Not much to criticise technically.

3. Pretty good too. I wonder how it would have looked if you'd waited until the one on the left had turned its head so it was mirroring the one on the right? Looking at the title maybe that's not what you're going for. I do love symmetry a bit too much though

Santa is strapped posted:

Interesting double-up. She looks pretty forlorn on the left, and the shot on the bench makes you wonder if she's waiting for bad news, or to go into court or something weighty like that. The wall on the right almost lines up with the buildings in the background on the left - maybe stretch the left picture vertically a bit so they match up perfectly? </ocd>

Sovi3t posted:

20120907-IMG_8003.jpg by SacktapDeluxe, on Flickr
Spur of the moment, but I'm in love with the light. Does the hasty framing kill this photo?

Yes. The shadow at the bottom isn't helping. If you'd taken a few more steps to the left you'd have had the road as a nice leading line with one-point-perspective leading to the bright/dark contrast at the top of the frame.

225/366 - I'll Knife Ye by fuglsnef, on Flickr

229/366 - Mushrooms by fuglsnef, on Flickr

246/366 - Elfa in the Mist by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Sep 14, 2012 13:47

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

XTimmy posted:

I'm a little exhausted so if this comes across as overly picky don't sweat it, but can you justify the split toning? To me it's just an afterthought to an interesting angle, and being one of those anti-instagram-assholes I can't help but call it out on the unnecessary post processing.

I can't really justify it beyond I thought it looked nice. I have a print of it, and the purple is a lot less apparent than on the screen. The low contrast was deliberate so that you could see some detail on the inside of the big mushroom.

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

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 14:39

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Hotwax Residue posted:

Tried another night time landscape. I'm worried that it looks to much like day time. I tried making it darker and less blue, but it just didn't look right to my eyes and processing night photos isn't something I'm used to.

Remarkables at Night by Paul.Simpson, on Flickr

Definitely looks like night as you can see the stars. If you want it to look more night-timey you could try making the sky/water a darker blue. It'd be nice to see a version with the sky balancing out the water a bit more, like from the same position but portrait orientation.

# ¿ Sep 15, 2012 20:28

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Sovi3t posted:

I was shooting a clean metal sphere

I was wondering, didn't look like a fisheye but I couldn't quite figure out why. Love the shot by the way, made me smirk

Mannequin posted:

Keep your stupid ~~photos to yourself~~ comments in your pocket.

Fixed that for you.

David Pratt fucked around with this message at 14:07 on Sep 27, 2012

# ¿ Sep 27, 2012 14:04

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Pukestain Pal posted:

Dang, I don't know how I missed those doors. Thanks for that. Proof that a 2nd look is always good!

I love the colors, the contrast, the composition. It's all perfect. The only problem is that I think the horizon might be a TOUCH off. I really need to give some star photography a try soon.

Fenced In by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr

I like this, composition is nice, exposure is fine. I like that her eyes aren't covered by the fence wires.

The title and her pose are a little jarring though - "fenced in" suggests captivity, but she's casually brushing back her hair with one hand like it ain't no thing. I'd have though both hands on the fence or one by her side would have gotten the emotion over better.

P1110456.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

P1100957.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Sep 27, 2012 18:37

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

rio posted:

DSC09026.jpg by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

DSC09048.jpg by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

DSC09066.jpg by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

First one is awesome. The people, the god-rays, the buildings: the eye is just drawn along it very naturally.

The second one, I wish the people were bigger, or above the horizon, although if this was printed up really big they'd probably be an ok size.

Third - the dude fishing isn't really contrasting enough with his surroundings. If you'd taken it from a lower angle to have him mostly above the horizon it would be better. The clouds on this and the previous one are amazing looking and nicely exposed.

geeves posted:

Farsi Shoes by geeves, on Flickr

Clemente and 7th St Bridges by geeves, on Flickr

The first one is nicely composed, but I feel that it's using shallow-dof for the sake of it. Most of the picture is blurry with only the ball and the tips of the shoes in focus. This sort of composition would be better with everything in the foreground in focus.

The second one I don't like at all. The sky is nice, but none of the foreground silhouetted stuff looks good - there's too much of it and no clear subject. The bridge merges with the planter and the trees in the background and doesn't pop out well. I think a lower angle to get more of the bridge against the sky would have been better.

275/366 - Hiver Nomade by fuglsnef, on Flickr

271/366 - Movement by fuglsnef, on Flickr

268/366 - Bird and Road by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 5, 2012 14:05

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

WildFoxMedia posted:

IMG_9073.jpg by wildfoxmedia, on Flickr

This is great, especially the sprinkles in the background. I think the white of the background could be whiter. The shadow underneath is also a little off-putting - a larger or closer lightsource might help with that.

eggsovereasy posted:

The contrast is pretty strong in the first one, maybe a little too strong. The composition is nice and it feels well balanced, but there isn't much of a subject that interests me. It feels like maybe this is part of a series on a town - is it?

The second one also feels super contrasty, I'd like to see some more detail in the trees. Same feeling as the previous one regarding subject, it doesn't captivate me on its own but might make more sense as part of a larger whole.

278/366 - Geese by fuglsnef, on Flickr

P1110746.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

P1110764.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 8, 2012 21:48

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

El Laucha posted:

The idea seems so simple, but it looks very nice. It made me look up on how to do a double exposure using a Dslr, seems like I can't with my camera.

Triple exposure :eng101:

. If you want to do it after-the-fact, you can import the photos as layers in your image editor of choice and set the blend mode to screen I think. Or multiply. Something like that

# ¿ Oct 9, 2012 19:00

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

krackmonkey posted:

cloudbreak by Trip Sixes, on Flickr

briefly illuminated by Trip Sixes, on Flickr

The first one's great, but the composition on the second one isn't very good. I'd have taken a couple of steps to the left to get the tree more to the right of the frame, or gone lower to make the branches frame the tops of the buildings.

Mr. Despair posted:

hp5021.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr

hp5036.jpg by MrDespair, on Flickr

These are fantastic, great composition, lovely tonal range especially in the first one. The first could do with a human subject, probably standing at the end of the tunnel, and the second could do with more empahsis on its subject, perhaps by using a well-concealed strobe up in the pipes.

Shampoo posted:

SF (13 of 28) by jpitha, on Flickr

The colours are nice. The composition is boring though - bridges are done to death and you really need to think about making it look interesting and fresh if they're going to be your subject. The vignette is a bit over done, and looks quite artificial (I'm guessing it is since you mentioned Lightroom).

Speaking of Lightroom, Adobe have a fairly decent online tv station with a channel specific to Lightroom: http://tv.adobe.com/product/lightroom/
I recommend Julieanne Kost's videos, she usually says which keyboard shortcuts she's using as she goes through the tutorials which is really helpful.

286/366 - Icebergs on the Beach by fuglsnef, on Flickr

295/366 - Slitscan Experiment Five by fuglsnef, on Flickr

296/366 - Beams by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 23, 2012 00:15

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

TomR posted:

I would like to see the structure continue out of frame left. Great concept.

Good point. Next time I'm going to build a bigger model and use icing sugar instead of flour. Unless anyone knows a finer material?

# ¿ Oct 24, 2012 00:30

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

rio posted:

These all are great. What is going on with the second picture out of curiosity?

It's a candle flickering. You take a single column from each frame of the video and stack them left to right, so as you look across the frame you're looking across time instead of space.

# ¿ Oct 24, 2012 15:32

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Dread Head posted:

Both are pretty nice, technically well done, but also the kind of landscape shots you've seen a million times before. On the first one, are you using a grad filter? It looks like it's cutting into the cliff on the left making it look unnaturally dark.

The second could do with more foreground interest. Or less foreground and more sea - in a similar ratio to the first one. Also, there isn't much contrast in the middle, the rocks just smear into a white blob. The little rock pool on the right looks interesting, I'd have gone for that as a larger foreground element.

Pukestain Pal posted:

Maine Is Beautiful by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr

Appropriate title

Love the symmetry on this one. There's something about the not-quite-half-and-half composition that's bugging me though. Perhaps having the trees fill 2/3rds of the frame might be better (you can always crop).

297/366 - Office Timelapse Slitscan by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Tried icing sugar this time, but it still looks like snow. Going to use straight-up cigarette smoke next time, kicking myself for not thinking of that when I had it all still set up.

298/366 - The Doorway by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 25, 2012 22:56

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Neither, trying to make it look like dust catching in sunlight. But now I know how to make snow

# ¿ Oct 26, 2012 09:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 28, 2024 08:32

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Shannow posted:

Incence burner, confined space and a small fan to diffuse the smoke so it can't form wisps.

Genius, good excuse to get some incense too

# ¿ Oct 26, 2012 22:19

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > The Dorkroom > Photo a Day: Wherein You Read The OP, Like A Smart Person

«‹›3 »