Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

Touchdown Pope! posted:


I like this, though I wish it had either less foreground and/or less sky. The gradient in the sky is pretty, as is the deep shadow, and you definitely don't want to lose them, but the subject could be made more prominent by cropping a little more tightly.

quote:


For this one I am especially interested in how I should crop it, because I think it is too big (it is a huge stitched panorama but it doesn't show with the flickr resolution). I want to bring out the snow on the mountains.
Other than, again, cropping parts of the sky, I don't think there's a whole lot you can crop here. I'd play with masks and curves to bring out the snow, if that's what you want, though really think it's quite fine as it is. The two focal points of the image seem to be the boat on the right, and the yellow-brown rock formation on the right, which balance the picture nicely.


Here's two of mine (the first being a crosspost from SAD):


Bay by Victor's adorable world of pixels
(Interesting note, the above picture is taken at around 1pm. God bless Danish winter sun, barely rising above the horizon.)


Unjoy by Victor's adorable world of pixels
I really like this photo, though I've no idea what's happening with the top of his head there.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

Gazmachine posted:




Weird and overprocessed?



Massive cliche.



Kinda dull.


So I'm feeling positive about them. Anyway, yes, further deconstruction / destruction and tips would be great.

The problem is, I find classic landscape quite boring and I always try too hard to do something different. Except none of these are particularly different.

#1. I don't think the processing is over the top, other the fact that you seemed to have pushed the recovery slider way too hard. If you look at the clouds, parts of them are blown out - which is fine in itself - but the parts that are blown out aren't white but are this murky shade of grey, which you should avoid. I also think the composition could have been a lot more interesting, if you had tried to align the lamp-posts to the pillars of the gate. Moving so that the the concrete path is right in the center in the image (and its lines converge in the middle of the image), would have also yielded a stronger image. Everything is almost symmetrical, but not quite, which is driving my brain crazy. Sometimes this can be desirable, but I don't feel this is one of those times. Overall, I think out of the three pictures you posted this is your strongest one (just push the recovery slider back a little bit, please).

#2. Yeah, it's a huge cliche, but it's well executed. The road is nice and centered. The tree provides a good frame for the couple. The light is nice, and the colors are warm, which suits the image. I can almost see this being a poster for a romantic comedy. Like a picture of a waterfall at low shutter speed, or a suset over the ocean, you won't be breaking any artistic ground, but you'll still get something pretty.

#3. This picture, along with a huge collection of pictures of door-frames, benches, etc, mentally goes into a file I call "pictures that do nothing for me, but seem to have some following, which I will leave alone".


My turn. I took some photos on Christmas day, when I went for a walk with my father and my uncle, I'd like to get some critique on. The first was more of a snapshot, and I'm not terribly happy with the framing, but looking at it a little later, I noticed a single seagull in the sky, which really endeared the picture for me.



A Walk by Victor's adorable world of pixels


This is my dad. Hi, dad.

Father by Victor's adorable world of pixels

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

KidDynamite posted:


IMG_0348 by turb0charged4g63, on Flickr

Here's a photo from a random shoot I showed up too. It's my first real shooting with a DSLR after I got a T3i with the kit lens for Christmas. This is probably the only shot I really like from the whole thing and would like to work on. I know now to set my auto-focus point myself and in the center. Not sure what else I can change in this image and also how I shoot because it's been a really long time since I took a photo class. Thanks P-A-D thread.
Technically: it seems slightly underexposed, the white balance is wrong, and the picture is noisy. Seeing as you shot with the kit lens, the white balance is the only thing's "your fault". Kind of. The kit lens isn't well suited for indoor shooting as it's rather slow (edit: that means letting little light in), and there's nothing you can do other than bumping up the ISO (which results in noise). Looking at the EXIF data, you shot at ISO 6400, which I guess is the maximum for the Rebel T3i (it's the max for my T1i), so there isn't much more you could have done. I would have pushed the shutter speed down to around 1/50, to gain a little extra light, but my hands are steady. I would have also tried to zoom out to 16mm, so I can open the aperture to 3.5. Portraits generally suffer from wide angles, but I find that candid pictures (which is what this looks like), generally do not (google 'perspective focal length portrait' if you're not sure what I'm talking about). Practice holding your camera (elbows tucked in, breathe out when pressing the shutter speed), and figure out what the minimum shutter speed is before you get camera shake. You can trivially fix the white balance in Photoshop, Lightroom, and probably Canon's RAW editing utility, which I've never used. Your exif data shows you've set it to manual. If I were you I'd just set it to auto and forget about it forever. If the camera software gets it wrong, it's easily fixed in post-processing, and the camera usually does an okay enough job.

All in that said, though, good for you for not using the popup flash.

Compositionally: it's just not a very interesting photo. The dude's hand is cut off awkwardly. The angle isn't very interesting. The interaction between the two isn't very interesting. Even if everything was technically perfect, it would be a mediocre snapshot at best. The girl is pretty, but that's pretty much it, and as a photographer, that's not something you can take credit for.

As per the OP, why don't you tell us what you think makes this photo good?

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

Trambopaline posted:


Lighting Test by trambopaline, on Flickr

Me playing around with a home made snoot and my flashgun, can't decide if I like the shot or not, and would humbly submit it to goons.

I don't like the fact that your face is obscured. If the focal point of the picture is somebody's body, that should be because their pose, clothing, body type, is interesting or unusual. Seeing the photo with no context, the first thing I think is, "self-portrait of somebody who feels insecure about how they look". I might be way off, here, it's just the first thing that pops into my mind.

The pose is nothing to write home about, if anything it feels a little awkward, and everything else is just as bland. The blackness at the top of the photo doesn't really serve any purpose, I don't like the harsh shadows, nor the fact that you are standing in front of what appears to be a door. Even the lighting isn't that interesting; it's a snooted flash aimed directly at the subject. I hope this didn't come off as too harsh, I just don't like the photo very much :shobon:

Bottom Liner posted:

Yeah, how the hell are you lighting those or getting that lighting from the ambient?

EDIT; To expand on my thoughts of them, I agree with the sentiment that they look almost artificial, like museum models. They're just so clean, I don't know if it hurts or helps more. I feel like wild exotic animals shouldn't look so pretty, they lose some of that feral nature about them.



Thanks for the ideas. I agree, 10 and 11 definitely connect, though I didn't think about that until a few days afterwards. I'm already starting to see some trends (just finished day 17) and I'm eager to see the end and how themes develop further.

Day 15
A landscape. I'm terrible at this.

Day 15 by David Childers, on Flickr



Day 16
A luthier.

Day 16 by David Childers, on Flickr



Day 17
My grandmother.

Day 17 by David Childers, on Flickr
15. I'm not sure what you were going for here. I feel like there's nothing bad about the photo, and I find it mildly aesthetically pleasing, but there's nothing to really draw me in. It would have been a really strong photo, if instead of landscape it was wildlife, or a portrait, set in the same location. A single person, dressed in a contrasting color, walking around the trees on the left, would have really made the photo. Then again, I'm not the biggest fan of landscape, so what do I know?

16. I like the lighting, but it doesn't seem to blend well with the rest of the picture, so it almost looks like your subject has been pasted in the photo. I also don't like how cluttered the background is. My attention is continually drawn to that bright thing to the left of the door, then the fire extinguisher, and then all over the place. I get that you were trying to have him in his natural habitat, so to speak, but maybe have him sit on a chair with just a few instruments and tools around him?

17. I really like this. The window light is very pleasing, the facial expression of your grandma just radiates happiness and content, the styling of the room really compliments your subject - it's immediately obvious it's your grandma's room (try for something similar with the luthier). The only thing I would change about that photo, is that I would remove everything on that stand except for the lamp and maybe a book or two, and then I'd add a little bit of light to it.



Here are three photos of mine, I've posted before but never got any critique on.


House by Victor's adorable world of pixels
My self critique: I like the van and the person walking on the right, and how the photo is split into three. I'm unsure about the ratio of grass:building:sky. I don't have enough sky to make it 1:1:1, though I'm not sure that would be the most pleasing composition anyway. I feel like somebody will tell me the grass in the foreground shouldn't be filling up half the frame, but I just can't bear cropping it.



Cemetery by Victor's adorable world of pixels
Tried to do low-contrast+split toning look. I'm not sure if it works or if I like it. I also can't tell if this is interesting at all.



Bay by Victor's adorable world of pixels
This is probably one of my favorite photos I've taken in a while. I should have really stepped down, to get that tree on the left be a little sharper.

Cockwhore fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Feb 3, 2012

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

Bottom Liner posted:



day 36 by David Childers, on Flickr
Not sure it works as a diptych (it's supposed to be a diptych, right?), but I love the right one. The lack of shadows kind of makes the left one look a little too 2-dimensional.


rio posted:



the pretzel industry was not as exciting as Tom had imagined by cadence440, on Flickr

Does this work? I should have just walked up to the guy, but I thought he would have woken up. Also a good lesson that I need to bring my camera bag with me so I have an appropriate lens all the time!

This is fantastic. If it wasn't for the cluttered background, I could have mistaken this for a woot fatigue photo. (is he still around?)

e: to elaborate a little, it's not just the guy's expression, though it certainly contributes. I think that pretzel stand, with its cartoonish colors, and strangely regular lines, could be a strong subject in itself. If you're not averse to digital manipulation, I think it'd be interesting to knock out that distracting background, and place the stand on a mall hallway.

Cockwhore fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Feb 16, 2012

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

Criminals by Victor's adorable world of pixels

...still getting the hang of the whole 'camera' and 'light' and 'post-processing' thing

TsarAleksi posted:

Editing a few pictures from my last trip.





Not much to be said about the first one; it seems absolutely flawless. The light is great, the expression is great, the post-processing is great, and while I'm not sure you were responsible for the styling, it's also great.

As to the second one, I wanted to say it's a bit too saturated, but the more I look at it, the less I'm convinced that's the case. It actually seems to kind of compliment the energy of the children. Maybe decrease it just a tad?

Bottom Liner posted:

I really like this one. It feels off, almost creepy, in a good way. I expect something to be hiding in that window, but maybe that's because I've been watching some horror films lately.


I'm jealous. It's a good shot, but I'm not crazy about the perspective of the camera. I would like to see it higher off the ground looking you more in the eye instead of looking up. This might help give a bigger sense of scale by showing more of the background and less of the sky. Just a thought. The lighting is good, and has a straight forward adventure editorial feel.


Here are a few I like from this week


day 32 by David Childers, on Flickr


I tried layering lighting with a long exposure. I wish I had gotten the back trees more to really add that extra depth. Oh well, the owl is cool.

day 35 by David Childers, on Flickr

Self portraits are hard, especially with no tripod or remote shutter release.


day 36 by David Childers, on Flickr

Already commented on your self-portrait, but as a small follow-up, I partly agree with whoever said it's awkward as a diptych due to the different lighting, but I'll add that the different sizes of the two pictures upset my internal sense of balance. So there's that. I'll also reiterate that I think the one on the right is incredibly strong, and is being weighed down by the format you chose to present it in.

Regarding day 32, I love the concept, but I find that the strings really compete for attention with the model. That's fine in itself (they're interesting, and an important part of the picture), but they're out of focus, and I want the things I'm supposed to be looking at to be in focus. The light is really fantastic, and this is one of the few pictures, where I don't mind not being able to see the subject's face.

Day 35 I feel is the weakest of the bunch. I agree completely with you that brighter trees in the background would have helped the picture a lot - that was my first thought before I read your comment. I also didn't immediately notice the owl. Have you considered a much tighter crop? Something like this (but less crude and lovely):

would get rid of the bushes in the foreground, and make the fill a larger part of the frame, while also making sure it's not in the middle of it (like it is with the original image).

Cockwhore fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Feb 20, 2012

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Cockwhore
Jul 10, 2005
a quintessence of dust

The style - split toned, low contrast shots of pretty girls in various degrees of undress - reminds me a lot of shots I'd see in Vice magazine, or other similar hipster-ish mags I see lying around trendy cafes.

In particular, I really like the first shot. The window light is flattering and the the blown out window doesn't at all detract from it. The background is just the right amount of messy and compliments the model's sexy-yet-casually-sloppy appearance (I have no problem believing that's her apartment.

I like the last picture the least. I can't quite put my finger on it - I think it has something to do with the background competing for attention. All the sloping lines make me a little uneasy. Maybe if your camera was at 90° to the wall, I'd feel better about it, though if the framing was too perfect it might detract from the 'casual snapshot' vibe you have going on (which I like). I also wish I could see some more detail in her top; I don't like how it's not true black, and at the same time has almost no detail either.

Great job, overall though.




Snow by Victor's adorable world of pixels


Transcriptomics by Victor's adorable world of pixels


Like a hawk by Victor's adorable world of pixels

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply