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

scotty posted:

Clock Tower. by Scott LaChapelle, on Flickr

This is great, I love geometric/silhouettey stuff. The beam across the top is bugging me though - is it supposed to be horizontal? It's making it feel like the whole thing's listing to the left or on a slope.

scotty posted:

The Bay. by Scott LaChapelle, on Flickr

Another really nice shot. The only nitpick is that the post on the far left is cropped by the bottom edge of the frame. If this is deliberate, fair enough, but if it's not I'd try to keep the subject fully in the frame in a shot like that.

scotty posted:

Reflect, Reflect. by Scott LaChapelle, on Flickr

Lovely colours on this one. It seems to suffer from the same problem as the first. The symmetry isn't quite there and it feels like it's sloping to the left.

---

Used real smoke this time instead of flour/icing sugar. Incense didn't really work, so resorted to cigarette smoke :geno:

If you want to try this out I'd recommend a smoke machine.

303/366 - Tower of Smoke by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Oct 30, 2012 19:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 12:22

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Do you mean the one with the little figure in the crack in the doorway? That was amazing. It won one of the monthly competitions didn't it?

# ¿ Oct 31, 2012 10:35

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Ninja Woodchuck posted:

The plastic-y highlights on the dude in this one bother me ...

rio posted:

This owns. It it an action figure?

Yeah, it's a little white plastic dude painted black with a CD marker. Need to figure out a way to make him more matte, as the highlights are really giving away the scale and I wanted it to be as ambiguous as possible.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2012 12:13

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

sw1gger posted:

My contribution (from an ongoing surreal-y series I'm working on):

farewell by sumosteven, on Flickr

This is great! The lighting, the pose, the subtle smoke effect at the left, really dramatic. My only complaint is that the very cool tone has carried over to the skin. I'm guessing this is intentional, but if it's not maybe warming the skin up would give some good old orange/blue contrast.

Shampoo posted:

DSC_0063-3 by jpitha, on Flickr

I like the half-and-half composition of this, it feels balanced even though it's asymmetrical. The verticals could do with being straighter though. If you were to do this shot again without a tilt-shift lens, I'd suggest going back a couple of steps to get some extra room around the edges to play with when doing the straightening in post. The split-toning/low-contrast look is nice but could maybe be little more subtle.

311/366 - Vortex by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Nov 6, 2012 23:45

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Arcology posted:

The other issue I'm wondering about is whether I'm overdoing the post-production.

If you'd like some more focused advice, why not post a before/after image in the post processing thread and we can give you some specific pointers. It's hard to know what post was done (unless it's heinous, which yours isn't) without seeing the original.

# ¿ Dec 5, 2012 12:10

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

GratefulHume posted:

I really love this. Have you considered cropping out the head in the lower left background? It would focus the attention on the man's face which I think are the better part of the photo versus the bubbles.

This is a cross-post from this month's photo contest:

_DSC_1841_1 by gratefulhume., on Flickr

And this was from the same night. It was during the Gemind meteor shower, but I didn't have any luck catching a shooting star during the exposures

_DSC_1880_1 by gratefulhume., on Flickr

The first one is super red, was this a conscious decision? The horizon isn't totally level, is slanting up to the left, and the stars look slightly elongated. The rule is something like 500/shutter speed for your maximum before getting trails. There's no EXIF on flickr - do you remember the settings?

Second one is awesome, you really get a feel for what it would be like being outside that night, maybe quite cold because of the wind, maybe warmer due to the fact that palm trees grow there. Only criticism is the trunks don't look totally in focus, or maybe suffer from some camera shake.

DSCF0335.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF0325.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

360/366 - Football by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Dec 30, 2012 03:05

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Vlex posted:

- the horizon has a slant
- the bushes to the right add clutter
tl;dr I made a photo

For the horizon, press R to go into crop mode, then hold ctrl to get the ruler tool, and draw a straight line along the horizon to automatically rotate the image.

For the bushes, try cropping them out. Maybe a square crop on the left part of the image or a panoramic crop of the pond taking the bushes out from the top?

# ¿ Dec 30, 2012 03:08

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

App13 posted:

This photo was taken on a train moving slightly slower than the truck. I like how the fence post adds a bit of movement to the photo, but I'm not too sure how I like my conversion to B&W.

It strikes me as being a little too constrasty. There are a lot of blacks and whites, and not much in between.

# ¿ Jan 10, 2013 12:43

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

InternetJunky posted:

Trying a different take on some owl shots from yesterday:

In the first one I think it would be nice if the subject was lighter. On the other hand, if a pure silhouette is what you're after it's too light. The angle the bird appears to be flying (and looking) is in the direction of the empty space, which is always good

The second is lovely, although having the main subject right at the top of the frame creates a tension that makes you want to look back down the tree trunk. Maybe giving it some more headroom would ease this tension.

Some portraits:

Elfa pure loves popcorn by fuglsnef, on Flickr

364/366 - Rory by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jan 13, 2013 17:12

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Hypnotized posted:

IMG_8931 by Matt Roar, on Flickr

IMG_8894 by Matt Roar, on Flickr

IMG_8888 by Matt Roar, on Flickr

All three of these feel very dark, especially the top-left of the second one, although they clearly go from white in the sky to black in the shadows. I don't think they're too suited for looking at on a monitor since they lack definite subjects. I'm imagining them printed really big on a wall, so you can stand close and see all the details and really feel the place.

The third one's horizon seems slightly crooked.

teethgrinder posted:

Took it with a 70s manual Olympus lens. I like how despite it being predominantly reds and oranges, there's still a lot of contrast between the singer and the background lighting. Also proud of how sharp it is considering the lens. I'm not sure about the crop mostly. For some reason it generally looks better to me to give less headroom to musicians, disregarding the rule of thirds.

My girlfriend against a backdrop at a weird corporate prize party (that took place on Halloween):

I wish the logo was level, but I couldn't rotate it without giving her an extremely awkward lean. I'm not too worried about the colour cast overall as it was accurate to the overall lighting for the venue; I didn't think I could "fix" it without making it extremely ugly. I don't like it on her face, but at least her features are distinct.

The lighting is nice on the first one, and his eyes being closed makes it feel nice and intimate. It would be better if the microphone and stand wasn't covering so much of hist face though.

I wouldn't have realised the second one was in front of a backdrop if you hadn't mentioned it, I assumed it was an advertising photo since the composition really makes it look like she's in that plane. On closer look though, her face is in shadow and it's really grainy. Some flash might have helped, but then I guess the colour of the light wouldn't have matched the backdrop so well.

slardel posted:

IMG_2524 by s-bothun, on Flickr

I think this would feel more balanced if it was cropped a little more on the bottom left. If the intention is to include the tracks going off into the distance in front of the train carriage I'd have gone a bit closer and panned left. Also, it might just be the train track, but it feels like the horizon isn't straight.

quote:

IMG_2549 by s-bothun, on Flickr

This feels underexposed to me, there's little detail in most of the interesting bits like the buildings. I like the way your eye follows a zig-zag between the puddles but the empty ground as the main subject isn't very interesting and feels quite empty (not the good empty). Maybe it would have worked better in colour.

quote:

snack shack by s-bothun, on Flickr

This is the strongest of the three. The two signs are well-balanced and contrast nicely with the green in the rest of the image. It's a nitpick, but I'd have come in a little tighter on the right so the space between the signs and the telegraph pole line up perfectly in the centre of the frame.

Orion Over the Pond by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Museum Night - National Archives by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF0707.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Feb 16, 2013 21:15

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Phummus posted:

IMG_1431.jpg by jmorris4371, on Flickr

J�kuls�rl�n?

# ¿ Feb 20, 2013 16:51

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

cory ad portas posted:

IMG_9977 by noartificialcolors, on Flickr

IMG_9930 by noartificialcolors, on Flickr

I'd love to have less distracting green in this one too.

The first one is pretty lol. I think the lighting's fine on it, a bit flat, but better than harsh contrasty direct sunlight any day.
The second one would have a better flow to it if the chichen had turned its head to the right of the frame. As it is, it feels a bit weird having its face so directly pointing out, and it feels very centred overall.

If you want to make the green less distracting, try desaturating just the green. This is really easy in lightroom and should be easy enough to figure out in Photoshop or GIMP. For what it's worth, I like the contrast of the green and red as it is.

DSCF1007.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1008.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1009.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Mar 13, 2013 00:22

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Opals25 posted:

Here's one from an evening walk around my own neighborhood.

IMG_6981 by Opals25, on Flickr

And a couple of older shots;

IMG_2430 by Opals25, on Flickr

These are pretty nice. I like that the verticals are... vertical

First one, not much to say - nice colours, nice light.
Second one seems underexposed, and the cropping is very tight at the top, if you're including the statue it feels like it needs some headroom.

Matlock posted:

Even though the sky is blown (which isn't that much of a problem because there isn't very much of it), the underside of the bridge is still underexposed. If you're losing the sky anyway, expose for the main subject of the photograph. Echoing Magic Hate Ball - it would be a cool location for a portrait shoot, but without some foreground interest it's a bit boring on its own.

I've been lugging around a mirror recently. I don't think the out of focus foreground is working, and I probably should have tried to get back and foreground in focus:

DSCF1040.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1044.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Mar 18, 2013 13:58

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Casu Marzu posted:

I really like the idea of what you're doing, but with background completely obliterated, it's just kind of confusing to look at. Also, did you go in and selectively blur around the mirror? The edges seem really jarringly out of focus.

The edges of the mirror really came out like that, I was pretty surprised how fake it looked too.

Those first two are great, the first especially. Composition is spot on in both of them, the slow shutter works really nicely for the snow.

The third seems a bit underexposed, and the trees on the left aren't really balanced well by the open space on the right. I think a square crop, removing the trees, or panning the camera right may have worked better.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2013 11:43

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

The Monk posted:

I added some heavy vignetting and burning to give it a claustrophobic feel, but does it seem overproduced?

It seems like you already suspect you've overdone it and that's usually a good sign that you have. It's a great shot otherwise, the high contrast giving it a gritty, movie-like feel. The vignette is too much, especially in the top left - instead of focusing my attention to the centre the vignette itself draws my eye.

Firestarters and Searching for the firestarters by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Mar 24, 2013 23:19

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

The main elements of any photograph are shape (2D), form (3D), texture, and colour. If you make it monochrome you remove colour from that list and are working with the other three. What that means really depends on the photograph.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2013 11:39

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

LargeHadron posted:

DSC03436 by LargeHadron, on Flickr

No real critique really, just wanted to say this loving rocks.

Hotwax Residue posted:

This is great apart from it feels like it's tilting slightly to the right.

Dr. Garbanzo posted:

042.jpg by drgarbanzo, on Flickr

Like rio said, this is over-saturated. The contrast also seems a bit harsh. I know it feels sometimes trying to get the sunset to look like how you remember it and you end up cranking the saturation.

rio posted:

DSCF2644 by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

DSCF2903-Edit by Paul Hofreiter, on Flickr

I love the colours on the first one, and the not-quite-black blacks work really nicely. I wish there was more depth of field though, it feels like there's too much of the frame out of focus.

The second one I had to look at fullscreen to really get. I think it would be awesome printed out huge.

Bobsledboy posted:

_DSF0529.jpg by Bobsledboy, on Flickr

I would darken the bright areas around the lizard to really get it to pop out. Check William T Hornaday's tutorial in the post-processing thread for an example of what I mean.

Speaking of which, I've just been roughly following that tutorial for the past few hours on some wildlife pics I took when I was back in the UK the other week. How did I do?

DSCF1561.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1656.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1553.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Apr 29, 2013 23:08

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Better.

# ¿ May 3, 2013 01:18

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Drop Database posted:

Canal alongside the Philospher's walk, in eastern Kyoto

This is very flat tone-wise. You should try adjusting the levels to get some real blacks in there. The centred subject isn't working for this picture and makes the composition look rushed and ill-considered. A good general rule with moving subjects is to give them some space to move into.

Drop Database posted:

Ground zero in Hiroshima

This is underexposed, and again quite flat. I would push the exposure 2/3-1 stop and bump the contrast a bit. It's a very textural image so it may work better in black and white. The verticals of the building also seem to be leaning to the left a little.

Drop Database posted:

Kyoto again, Kinkakuji grounds

This is nice. Good composition with the repeating diagonals, and good tonal range with proper blacks and nice, bright greens.

The Shard by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1875.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1867.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 8, 2013 17:45

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Primo Itch posted:

HPS por primoitcho, no Flickr

This was taken with a Zeiss Ikon Nettar from 1949 and I'm always impressed with how sharp the glass on the little thing is. (Scan of the print)

Liberdade por primoitcho, no Flickr

I wish I had more shadow detail, but I was running this roll the night before at 1600 (Tri-x), so ended up losing detail when shooting it in the day with an ND filter

The Shard por primoitcho, no Flickr

A composite of 3 or 4 35mm shots with a 50mm...

The first one is brilliant, as KRock said the light and shadow is lovely, especially the reflection of the sunlit part on the tiles.

The second is a bit too contrasty for my tastes, and there isn't a strong enough figure/ground relationship to make the people stand out. Perhaps if it had been framed more to the right and taken a second earlier to get them against the lighter-coloured background.

The third feels quite snapshotty to me. I see what you're going for with the contrast of old and new, but the composition feels rushed. How about going for something less conventional like getting the shard to poke up between the spires of the church? I think a subject as iconic as that needs something more brought to it, since everyone's going to be taking the straightforward pictures of it. When I was in London recently I saw it through the plastic covering of an outdoor car park at Bourough Market, and I think it added a bit of atmosphere.

Fake Ken Rockwell posted:

Working on a new tone curve for street type photos (used in the bottom two). Having a tough time deciding if it's too much or not.

The light in that first one is gorgeous

The tone curve does seem a little too much to me, especially the dudes standing against the wall. The contrast between dark skin/white shirts and the dark wall/light pavement is the strongest part of this picture, and it's been de-emphasised by the tone curve.

DSCF2054.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1973.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1947.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 19, 2013 16:31

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

XTimmy posted:

The light on the eyes reminds me of a black and white noir movie, very nice. The rest feels a little underexposed, but maybe it has to be to make the contrast with the eyes work...

XTimmy posted:

The figure/ground relationship here is excellent, the bright trees behind her upper body framed by the dark leaves, and the bright patches of sunlight on the ground making her dark legs stand out.
The contrast does seem a little harsh though - the aforementioned figure/ground is strong enough naturally that it doesn't need to be overly accentuated.

XTimmy posted:

Again, the figure/ground is great. And I like that you can't see his eyes in this, makes it more mysterious.

INTJ Mastermind posted:

Venice-027 by The original David L, on Flickr

The telephoto compression's working really well on this one, bringing those faraway foggy hills closer definitely adds depth. The figure in the sea at the extreme left sort of breaks the frame line, I'd be tempted to clone them out or bring the crop in a little.

KingColliwog posted:

oiseau 1 version 2 by king colliwog, on Flickr

Very nice, I love how the splash of colour on the bird's wing matches the leaves, gives the picture a consistency. That he's looking to the empty space is nice too.

KingColliwog posted:

Quenouille by king colliwog, on Flickr

Far too much empty space in this one for my liking. Might be better suited to a square crop.

KingColliwog posted:

Clau by king colliwog, on Flickr

The colours are nice, the blues and greens working well together. Her jacket is a flat white sheet though, could do with a bit more contrast to give it some depth.

Fake Ken Rockwell posted:

That's great. The off-centre composition is just right, and the natural light is beautiful. I'd have rotated the camera a little to the right to get the horizontals to line up just right, though.

Fake Ken Rockwell posted:

It feels like the bottom of the staircase diagonal should intersect at the same distance from the edge of the frame as the top part. I also think there's something in what the previous poster said about taking a step back with this one.

Fake Ken Rockwell posted:

Lovely, great texture and a nice balanced composition. Did you try it in colour first, or was it always going to be a black & white?

DSCF1952.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF1902.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2125.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ May 23, 2013 14:58

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

The Sheriff Jake posted:

Did you crop your photographs to a custom aspect ratio? I was doing that a lot when I first started making photos and it and once I stopped and focused more on composition and framing the photos started coming out a lot better.

I used to do the exact same thing. I realised I needed to stop when I tried to get some prints made.

# ¿ Jun 3, 2013 00:36

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Casu Marzu posted:

Looks like you shot in the middle of the day. That's gonna make things flat as hell regardless what you do.

That's true, but as William T Hornaday has shown in his making-zoo-animals-look-loving-amazing tutorial, flat light can actually be a Good Thing if you're willing to put the time in afterwards to make your own light via dodging and burning.

In that shot I'd darken the gently caress out of the crowd to highlight the rider, then maybe do some more selective darkening to add a bit more depth to the horse.

# ¿ Jun 4, 2013 21:06

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Two experiments. Posting here not because they're amazing, but because I'd rather have some feedback and that's not allowed in the low-effort thread. Also I already posted some critique earlier :q:

I recently got a Canon Selphy dye-sub printer, and after the ink spool was done I took it apart. You're left with the bits of ink that weren't printed, so if you overlay the cyan, magenta and yellow you end up with a colour negative of the print. Tried to project it onto the wall but that didn't work (I guess you need a lens to focus the image).

Eventually got something working by using baking paper as a diffuser. The first is flash -> diffuser -> negative, the second is flash -> negative -> diffuser.

In the process I learned you can invert colours in Lightroom by inverting the tone curve :eng101:

Colour Negative - test one by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Colour Negative - test two by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jun 5, 2013 00:05

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Samolety posted:

_DSC0217 by Samolety, on Flickr

It looks like you've totally smashed the highlights in this one. Check your histogram, there will probably be a big spike on the right hand side. In digital photography it's wise to "expose to the left" - go for the brightest exposure you can without clipping your highlights. It's relatively easy (in RAW) to recover shadow details, but if your pixels are so bright they're > 1.0, there's no information left to recover.

# ¿ Jun 10, 2013 16:07

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

wanghammer posted:

IMG_8127 by bighoits, on Flickr

This is lovely, it tells a story about taking care of things, both insect and human :3 I love how the softness of the hands is contrasted with the sharp details of the bug. The central composition is okay, but have you tried a square crop on the left hand side?

efcso posted:

I would have panned this over to the right, so the butterfly is in the left of the frame. The light's pretty harsh, for close up bug photos it's sometimes good to use a flash to get more even light.

Leviathor posted:

If you're going for a purely documentary style, showing the event as it happened, then I guess you've nailed it

I see you shot it around sunset, seems like a good idea since it's given you nice diffuse light. Can't really find anything to complain about on this one, sorry!

DSCF2184.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2186.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2187.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jun 16, 2013 03:11

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

It's not required, but it's better if you critique someone else's work. No one is going to give you a hard time because you're inexperienced, we're all here to learn from each other.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2013 21:47

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Huntersoninski posted:

Last one:

Chickens on Fence by Hunter SA, on Flickr

This would have been better if the birds were more isolated. As it is, the one on the left sort of blobs onto the hay bale in the background. I'd have been tempted to keep the composition very similar - the fence aligned to the bottom works really well - but crouch down so the background is the sky.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2013 11:22

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

tropical posted:

Uphill by shaunckenny, on Flickr

Brighten by 2/3-1 stops, and lose the vignette. If it was centred on the subject then maybe, but it just looks off at the moment.

# ¿ Jul 2, 2013 12:10

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Definitely an improvement!

# ¿ Jul 3, 2013 11:35

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Marshmallow Blue posted:

AF is "cheating"

It sounds like you're going through the I-must-do-everything-for-myself phase. Which is good. But only as a means to learn how everything works, and to realise when is the best time to use certain things.

Manual focus is great when you're shooting something that your AF can't handle, or like a previous poster said, when everything's nice and still. For moving objects like that frog you would have been much better served by autofocus.

It's the same with manual exposure, perfect for certain things like night time long-exposures, but 99% of the time aperture or shutter priority is what you really need.

# ¿ Jul 11, 2013 17:52

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

rcman50166 posted:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

I love the way the rocks have the same colour and texture as the [crocodile|alligator], and the composition with the reflection is gorgeous.

rcman50166 posted:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

This is too dark and too blue. Make it brighter and warmer! Also you might want to clone out or darken the background elements in the bottom right after you've done that, as they may become more distracting.

rcman50166 posted:

Untitled by rcman50166, on Flickr

I can't really see what's going on here. Would have preferred to see the diver on the left from his front, looks like he's doing something interesting with some sort of pipe there.

DSCF2386.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2369.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2368.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jul 15, 2013 13:55

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

David Pratt posted:

DSCF2386.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2369.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2368.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

Quoting myself since I got caught at the end of the last page :colbert:

# ¿ Jul 16, 2013 18:10

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

voodoorootbeer posted:

As usual, you have an eye for geometry and proportion. The repetition in the second seems to work better thanthe third. I also prefer the less pronounced diagonals of the parking lines in the second. Do you have to do any special kind of perspective correction beyond Lightroom's lens profile to get everything straight? I can see myself going kind of nuts trying to get everything to line up.

I usually have to do a little rotation and some vertical correction. Or, I used to until LR5 got the auto-straighten stuff, which usually works perfectly for these type of shots.

voodoorootbeer posted:

five oh by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr

that composition with the zig-zags is perfect

# ¿ Jul 18, 2013 11:51

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

voodoorootbeer posted:

Reamer St. by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr

VERY ICY by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr

Love the subdued colour in these. The composition with the diagonals in the first is pretty nice, but not quite as successful in the second. Verticals in the second are also off, but I don't know if it was on purpose or not...

crime fighting hog posted:

IMG_5807 by Middleshoes, on Flickr

IMG_5783 by Middleshoes, on Flickr

IMG_5498 by Middleshoes, on Flickr

I hate how the balloon on the far left seems to be overblown but I can't think of what I could have done to fix it. What do you guys think?

The exposure looks fine to me, not sure what you think is "overblown". The first is stronger than the second, as the composition is better. It's straight on, and contains the balloons completely, whereas the second is at an angle and cuts into the balloon on the right.

Composition in the bass player pic is pretty nice, good diagonal with the guitar, good framing, and nice expression.

DSCF2406.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2405.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

DSCF2410.jpg by fuglsnef, on Flickr

# ¿ Jul 24, 2013 16:09

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

VelociBacon posted:

I feel like the first two are victims to somewhat overcast, bleak lighting, as well I'm not certain what the significance of the buildings are and nothing really grabs my attention. They don't seem dramatic in their setting, and I find the greenery in front of the buildings to detract from what I assume is a study of the geometric shapes within the subjects.

It's funny that you've picked out the very things I did on purpose. I'm trying to keep all the photos like this in diffuse light so that they all look the same and don't have differently-angled shadows. And I chose buildings with greenery in front of them this time as a contrast to the bare walls I've been shooting so far.

I can definitely see why they're not particularly striking to you on their own though, as the intention is to present them as a series. Hopefully the grinding repetition of exactly symmetrical walls with the odd bit of organic shape will be enough to stir something when they're all seen together. Who knows

# ¿ Jul 25, 2013 15:00

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Putrid Grin posted:

The girl seems a bit squished at the bottom of the picture. I would play with the crop to see if you can get a bit more balanced composition.

CONTRARY OPINION: It gives a good sensation of space and has a kind of asymmetrical balance.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2013 12:28

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Ars Moriendi posted:

My grandmother has alzheimer's and her husband is dying. This is her re-calling her pharmacy with a picture of her as a teenager behind her. I'm kind of conflicted because most of the photos I take of them is to just have pictures of and with them. For memories sake, because this will be one of my last experiences with them. Sometimes though, specially cause of my grandmothers condition, I get a bit more artsy-er shots and I don't know how I feel about them. Like they're too intimate to share or even exploitive. I don't know. Either way I hope they are good photos from a photography standpoint, cause I'm still learning.

I knew it was going to be her younger self before you mentioned it. This is telling a story with the minimum amount of information necessary and it's bloody fantastic. I don't think it's exploitative at all, but then she's not my gran.

# ¿ Aug 21, 2013 19:03

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

notlodar posted:

Anyway here's some still life stuff I've been working on.

How did you get no shadows? Are the objects sitting on something transparent and being lit from below?

# ¿ Aug 22, 2013 13:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 12:22

David Pratt: Apr 21, 2001

Drop Database posted:

IMG_1795.jpg by ArtisticPretensions, on Flickr

I was playing around trying to diffuse the on-camera flash. It.. kinda worked.

IMG_1790.jpg by ArtisticPretensions, on Flickr

I think I need a proper flash to do this right

It's certainly better than direct, undiffused flash, but since it's still straight-on it casts no shadows meaning the image lacks depth. If you only have your on-board flash, try putting a white card in front of it to bounce the light off the ceiling (or a nearby wall). This way you still get a diffuse light, but it's coming from a direction which will cast some (soft) shadows.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2013 13:56

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

«‹›3 »