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

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

rio posted:

Here is a random shot that was not planned out. I don't know if it is amateurish and trite or cool, and why it is one or the other. It is my iphone catching a reflection.

I love this! To be clear, the iPhone is in the photo, not taking the photo, yes? It's such a confusing image, but in a wonderful way. Very ... abstract.

rio posted:

Onwards - in your shot, perhaps what feels off is the focus. The buds in the lower right feel more in focus that what the viewer would consider to be the focus of the picture - the flower eyes. Still pretty cool, but I might defocus those buds to draw attention from that misfocus.

I'd agree with this. When I first looked at the image, I thought the film grain was just really distracting, but I think it has more to do with the focus.

Sweet digs by Krakkles, on Flickr

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 6, 2011

# ¿ Dec 6, 2011 14:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 05:58

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

CarrotFlowers posted:

I really enjoy both of these. The first one seems slightly off-level, but it could be my lovely monitor isn't level. The bright, saturated foreground blends nicely with the muted colours and contrast of the fog.

I love these as well. I disagree on the levelness of the first one - the trees are crooked. If you look at the man walking (ostensibly the subject?), he's vertical.

# ¿ Dec 12, 2011 20:09

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

rio posted:

About the lens, I might have just not said what I was trying to say clearly. He is looking for a defocused background on a portrait. 18mm for a portrait is not really that flattering usually, but will give him the largest aperture on that lens, so all I was saying is that he would either have to sacrifice the blur or a portrait-appropriate focal distance when using that kit 18-55.

But you're missing that focal length will also give you a blurred background. Extreme example, but here's f/4.8 @ 125mm:

DSC_0288-2.jpg by Krakkles, on Flickr

With low-end lenses, focal length is the way to get the blurry background. See: Canon S95. I don't know the specs for sure, but I can almost guarantee you're not going to get an aperture low enough on that kit sony lens to get that effect - but you will be able to get it with the length.

# ¿ Dec 18, 2011 20:33

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Dread Head posted:

I feel like there's a lot of nothing going on in this shot. The trees are too ... consistent? ... throughout the image, and the fog feels like it's just obscuring the edges, so there's no real object of focus.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2012 06:37

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Quite a cool concept! I feel like the framing is a bit odd - having the lego man at 1/3 from left with the car taking up the right 2/3 and/or centered around 1/3 from the right might present a stronger image.

The only other thing that bugs me is that you can see light coming through the lego man. Photoshopping that out and/or putting duct tape along the front of him to reduce it might help.

More depth of field may work too - you can't quite tell that it's a hot wheel burning, and that could go either way, I think.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 02:36

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

truncated aardvar posted:

(edit) In retrospect I don't think you'll get much of a DOF increase anyway with that lens.

Manual 50 1.7, I guess?

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 04:02

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Trambopaline posted:

Yeah fair enough. Better than indifference for sure. I was trying to go for the, hey look at me i've got an old camera, trying to make that the focus of the image, but i guess something just got lost in the translation.

I think in completely obscuring the face, you've made us think about that more than the camera. I'd say lighting the camera well and using (underexposure? ...not sure of right term here) to obscure yourself would work better.

# ¿ Feb 6, 2012 07:23

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

truncated aardvar posted:

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

Love the "color" and contrast, don't love the composition. I wish I could see the top and bottom, or failing that, the the space on the right and left were balanced.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2012 00:27

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

ohrwurm posted:

IMG_8982.jpg by Christopher.Wimbrow, on Flickr

Love this one. The colors look very nice together.

ohrwurm posted:

Sky too bright/harsh in this one? Also not too sure on the composition, maybe should have included more of the lower portions of the buildings?

IMG_9337.jpg by Christopher.Wimbrow, on Flickr

I like the composition, and I agree on the sky. I think the real problem to me is that the sky is blown out while portions of the building are dark shadows. Maybe try (+)Shadows(-)exposure on LR?

# ¿ Jul 10, 2012 21:02

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

I love this shot over in Low Effort:

aliencowboy posted:

I aspire to someday be this good.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2012 22:25

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

TheJeffers posted:

Untitled by TheJeffers, on Flickr

I feel like this is too tight on the left (the cut-off bumper is rather jarring). For what it's worth, I hate taking pictures of cars (despite being a total car person) mostly because it's a bitch to compose them well.

There's a really good composition somewhere near where this shot was taken, I think, but I'm not exactly sure where it is.

Also, jesus christ:

aliencowboy posted:

Love the colors, love the composition, love the lines of light formed by the railroad tracks.

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Sep 17, 2012

# ¿ Sep 17, 2012 02:50

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

geeves posted:

Jazz Sax by geeves, on Flickr

I love this. The player's head, specifically, caught me as a scrolled down, and I was wondering what the hell was going on. Then the sax comes in view, fully in focus ... it's perfectly the subject.

# ¿ Oct 3, 2012 04:52

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Mathturbator posted:

Does this have anything going for it?

I think it's quite pretty. A bit red on my screen, though.

# ¿ Oct 10, 2012 07:24

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Dr. Platypus posted:

DSC_4626 by rfelgenhauer, on Flickr

This photo was taken at a college party. These two guys were smoking in the corner all night, and I thought they made an interesting photo. I like how the guy on the right isn't really paying attention to the camera, and they guy on the left has a cool hat I find interesting. I think this was a more successful photo than the last one I posted on here.

Both this one and the one before are pretty snapshot-ish to me. The guy on the right could be interesting on his own, but I think you'd have to reshoot it to capture that - I can't see a decent crop of it.

# ¿ Dec 28, 2012 03:04

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

xenilk posted:

That's a pretty subtle edit. As other pointed out once you know it you can spot a few differences but otherwise I couldn't have told. Could you walk us through the process and about how long it took you approx.?

As for me, I'm starting to pitch ideas of doing makeovers in my hometown. Here's one I've done recently (I tried to clean the background of the one with the scarf as per the review I got here)

before-after by avoyer, on Flickr

Wow, that's the same girl? Impressive!

# ¿ Dec 28, 2012 05:07

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Druckman posted:

Travel by AllLightIsGood, on Flickr

In this shot I like the opposition of the car going to the left and the plane going to the right. I also feel that the verticals in the tree contrast with the implied horizontal motion of the car and plane as well as the horizontals in the clouds and the roadway. Is this just in my head?! Let me know what you think.

I see what you were going for, but it would be a much stronger image if you'd either frozen the car, or captured more motion. It looks like it's just blurry enough to be annoying, whereas more motion would've (potentially) made it interesting.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 03:31

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

smallmouth posted:

I like the first one best as well. Although mostly because I think her pose looks a lot more interesting.

I really like the use of negative space in the composition. The color in her eyes and nose are great. Looking at the larger pic, I wish the focus were more on her eyes.

Some faux-gothic bullshit from me. This is actually my crack at a composite, one for the building and one for the sky.

IMG_0731 by philip painter, on Flickr

What did the sky look like without the composite?

I gotta be honest, there isn't enough of the building to be interesting, and there's very little to no detail in the sky even with the compositing.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2013 20:32

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

It's really interesting, but I think that it's so dark that it stretches into the territory of just being confusing.

# ¿ Feb 11, 2013 07:06

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Edmond Dantes posted:

I just got back from Brazil:

_MG_3411.jpg by AxelDR, on Flickr

_MG_3457.jpg by AxelDR, on Flickr

_MG_3147.jpg by AxelDR, on Flickr

The third doesn't really do anything for me, but the first two are fantastic, particularly the first.

There's some interesting tension created by the angling of clouds and the statue, but not at all in a "oh god straighten your photo" way. If anything, I wish the sun was a bit less bright and the clouds a bit brighter, but it's quite good as is.

Krakkles fucked around with this message at 08:27 on Feb 20, 2013

# ¿ Feb 20, 2013 08:23

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

I think all three of those are fantastic, hands down.

The first, at first glance, no, I couldn't tell it was a bomb. After a sec, especially with the EOD patch, yeah, it was pretty obvious.

The second would be better if his eyes were in better focus, but it is very strong as is.

The third doesn't feel overproduced at all - I think the vignetting serves well to center focus on the soldiers center frame.

Incidentally, all three of these are now in my "desktops" folder.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2013 19:14

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Yeah, there's definite wisdom there. I know that my candid or unplanned shots have consistently improved based on practicing through planned or controlled shots - the experience lends itself to better technique.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2017 17:49

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Magic Hate Ball posted:

These are okayish. Your main problem is lack of focus. What are you trying to convey about these subjects? The first photo has beautiful tone, but it's essentially a picture of nothing. The photo of the flower is awkwardly framed, I find my eye drawn towards the big white area in the middle, which is essentially featureless. The potential point of interest, the tip of the blossom, is shoved way up towards the top. The bridge photo is kind of a dead picture. It's a collection of lines and a clutter of architectural structure. Bridges are tricky - like most public art, they're usually designed to look blandly nice, so a photo of a bridge usually just looks blandly nice, at best.

Take more photos!

The first, I feel a desire to see the people just a little bit better, a little brighter - it's a bit too dark there.
The third, I like it, but the framing would be better if a bit more of the sign was visible - the entire word, for example.

The second. Man. That's a great shot. The flag, the people, the sign that's just barely legible - you think you know what it says, but you can't really read it. The only thing that I would like better would be if the sign on the left were more interesting - the taped together, white back looks basic and mechanical, and not in an interesting way.

Your shots make me think of Santa Monica.

The Moon over the Plains by Nate H, on Flickr

# ¿ Jan 31, 2017 08:22

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

murk posted:

Why f/32 on this one?

I was hoping for depth of field, but especially now that you say that, that was perhaps excessive.

Would a larger aperture have been better?

# ¿ Feb 1, 2017 17:18

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

VelociBacon posted:

Yes, you get diffraction issues at those high stops, everything would have been in focus anyways at f/11 or so.

E: probably even f/8, remember how distance from sensor relates to DoF. You can use the extra light to lower the ISO (not that the shot looks noisy).

Ok, excellent to know. Thank you!

It probably would have also concealed the dust on the lens, which I'm now wanting to clean. Sigh.

# ¿ Feb 1, 2017 17:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 1, 2024 05:58

Krakkles: May 5, 2003

Magic Hate Ball posted:

This is okay. The colors seem a little muted, and I wish the darkness below the trees was a proper black because there's just the shades of some stuff down there that's distracting my eye.

Follow up question: I used Lightroom on my MBPr to edit this, and had the brightness on the screen all the way up. It looked black. My desktop PC shows what you're describing. Is there a way to adjust the MBPr to show correctly, or can I just not edit photos on there?

Magic Hate Ball posted:

1 and 3 are amazing. The second one has a little too much negative space - the shadows on the hand and phone blend a little too much.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2017 03:34

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