Antihippy, those are all good tries. I think your main problem is that you're using a light source which is too small and that is giving you hard shadows and small, harsh specular highlights - these are both most apparent in the cupcakes and cherries. Try a bigger light source such as a softbox, umbrella or even bounce your light off of a big piece of white paper. You may also want to try a secondary light source to brighten up shadows. The mushroom especially could benefit from a secondary light source.
The first few look tasty! the last two look like they're made with a different setup, which is a shame. The last one could use a bit more light and contrast and the second to last one has that bit of whipped cream in the bottom right corner that looks a bit overblown on my screen and it could also use a bit more light, especially on the cupcakes themselves.
Also, is your signature a picture of the ill-fated Japanese hip-hop producer Nujabi? He's cool, I love his music.
It's Nujabes, but yes. :P He will be forever missed.
Yeah, I had some trouble trying to manipulate the lighting in some instances to get it to look right. Still have plenty to learn.
Antihippy, those are all good tries. I think your main problem is that you're using a light source which is too small and that is giving you hard shadows and small, harsh specular highlights - these are both most apparent in the cupcakes and cherries. Try a bigger light source such as a softbox, umbrella or even bounce your light off of a big piece of white paper. You may also want to try a secondary light source to brighten up shadows. The mushroom especially could benefit from a secondary light source.
Yeah, this not really an excuse or anything, but I'm currently using this setup with $6 lamps and I'm still learning how to properly utilise it to create the lighting I want. I might have to build a softbox for those lamps.
Also, got to go fishing the other day, and I took some nature shots to try my hand at B&W manipulation in photoshop. Also exploring capturing interesting tree shapes.
Do we have a camera hardware thread? I think I've come to a decision on what I want to pick up in a few months but I'd love to see if anyone has any suggestions as to something similar.
Do we have a camera hardware thread? I think I've come to a decision on what I want to pick up in a few months but I'd love to see if anyone has any suggestions as to something similar.
So I don't quite feel like springing for a DSLR yet and even the interchangable lens cameras are a bit more than I want to get into right now, so I've decided on the Fujifilm X10. Anybody around here own or use one?
So I don't quite feel like springing for a DSLR yet and even the interchangable lens cameras are a bit more than I want to get into right now, so I've decided on the Fujifilm X10. Anybody around here own or use one?
The upcoming sony rx-100 is supposed to be pretty sweet. I'm probably going to pick one up for travelling.
I'm just getting into photography but a friend has already asked me to take her daughter's senior pictures. I've told her that I'm making no promises as to quality, but honestly - if I snap 200 pictures there should be a few that are good, right?
Anyway, I was hoping for some feedback on what I consider to be some of my best portraits before I do this shoot. I really appreciate the feedback.
I'm just getting into photography but a friend has already asked me to take her daughter's senior pictures. I've told her that I'm making no promises as to quality, but honestly - if I snap 200 pictures there should be a few that are good, right?
Anyway, I was hoping for some feedback on what I consider to be some of my best portraits before I do this shoot. I really appreciate the feedback.
The EF compatibility is neat but...touchscreens? The menu on the Nex-5n is nearly impossible to navigate, especially with speed. Can't say I'm really sold, but I'd have to get my hands on it to really see how it matches up.
Edited the OP to include all of that fun info that I think should be in the first post of the photo thread. Didn't realise that Optic had neglected to put that stuff in there. Anyway, thought you guys would like to know that information is in there again in case you want to point new members towards the information there.
Guy Buying My Lens: This lens is broken -
Me: How's that now. . .?
GBML: Well see here; the focus ring is barely moving you see -
Me: Well what're you pointing at?
GBML: That tree over yonder. See? Now look when I focus on the bench behind it - barely moves!
Me: That tree is more than 7 feet away. Anything beyond that is treated at infinity so it's not going to move much. . .or so I've heard.
GBML: (mubles) Ah yes well. . .the pictures a bit fuzzy you know -
Me: (loads up a picture) Looks quite crisp to me.
GBML: I meant through the viewfinder.
Me: (trying to contain my vein popping) Do you want the lens or no?
GBML: Well with these "issues" not at that price; maybe if you came down a bit -
Me: Good day to ya.
Oh snap. I forgot that part. I did actually - they guy was like "Oh I know I know. . ." Really I think he just wanted any excuse to not buy my lens at the already heavily discounted price (no lens or rear caps). He was this really lens-ignorant guy and wanted me to take like 10 photographs at 5 different aperture settings and send them to him; I was like "Dude. . .do your own research on this lens." Admittedly, the camera I have has seen better days (and more frequent use/cleaning), but only a fool basis their judgement off of what they see through the viewfinder. I was just amazed; especially when everything was fine on his lens. He was like "I'm gonna have to spend X-Hundred dollars on cleaning alone!" That's when I had enough of my time being wasted.
I like #2 and #4, primarily for texture reasons. For #2, you could even look at reducing some of the detail on the leaves so it becomes more mysterious, but I like the high contrast between the path and the archway. For #4, the texture and feeling is great, although the dead space on the right I feel is a little overwhelming. Cropped just a little bit (to like 5x7) would improve it to my eye.
For #1 and #3, I'm not entirely sure what you're going for. I'm not sure where my eye should go in #1. For #3 I feel there's a conflict in the subject due to the interesting background and the strong focus on the life preserver. Both are technically sound but less interesting to me.
So I'm not just criticizing, here's also some pictures I took recently:
I have two good friends who are landscape photographers so I've been absorbing a lot of information about how they work. Still don't have a 5D, but that's not gonna change anytime soon.
@Uncle_Balsamic - that first one is really fun. The second one, I'm not really sure if I like the blown out light coming in, mainly because I think it looks accidental/exposure not really correct or that could be due to editing I suppose. The values on that last one are incredible though, textures, lines and composition are all really tight as well. GOOD JOB I SAY.
Gaf - you've been killing it lately man. Love all these new ones.
Mayhem- great portrait duder. Sorry to hear you lost your job, good things come out of everything though. And it's great to see you taking photos again.
@Gafoto I really love the first image. The splash of blue from the sky really gives the image contrast and offsets the warm oranges. Second one is so very flat and the 3rd one is kinda cool but the mountain with the sun on it seem to be the main subject of the photo and it is so small. I would suggest cropping that one down some.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
@Gafoto ...the 3rd one is kinda cool but the mountain with the sun on it seem to be the main subject of the photo and it is so small. I would suggest cropping that one down some.
You know I initially had the same thought. I actually edited this photo below first but then decided on the one with more sky. I felt like the light on Half Dome was nice, but not dramatic enough to warrant it taking up most of the image. I felt like the clouds had more color and texture in the wider angler view.
It's kind of impossible to take a non-cliche shot of Half Dome but I gave it a shot.
@projectmayhem Boy that photo sure does have a lot of lamp going for it. In all seriousness it isn't a bad idea having a busy photos, lots of similar colors and all, but when 20% of your pixels are blurry lamp it kind of ruins it.
@projectmayhem
In terms of color you need to shoot and sunrise and sunset. Especially when there's some amount of clouds in the sky (like in the first photo).
That first photo just doesn't look right though. Look at the edge of his left elbow. Looks to me like he was chopped into that scene. It's possible it's just some artifact of him being lit by flash since he obviously didn't get lit up like that from the sun in front of him. There's also weird artifacts on the right side of his head. Other things don't like right as well, like the fact that the scene appears to be shot with a wide angle lens but the kid was shot with something more normal or telephoto. Makes him look like he's 500 feet tall.
1. looks funny to me
2. once done processing and resizing a photo do an unsharpen mask. I usually do something like a radius of .2 to .3 pixels at 200-300% sharpening.
I need to get better at taking photos of things that are not people.
I'm not the best at nature photos but what I like to do is try and remove myself from the situation. I think to myself if I couldn't hear, smell, feel etc and could only see a 2d version of the scene would it still be interesting? Often times you get this amazing feeling from standing on some tall cliff/mountain that just doesn't translate through a photo. Also at least with this one try and avoid the 50% sky 50% ground with the horizon in the dead middle. The cliff/sea is more interesting to me so I think I would pan the camera down to capture more of that. The vignetting has also removed detail in the side of the cliff and forces the viewer to look in the middle of the picture where there isn't much interest.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
This is something I thought you guys might like to know about. You can get Photoshop CS6 for 250$ with the purchase of either, PS Elements, Premier Elements or Lightroom 4.
Posts
It's Nujabes, but yes. :P He will be forever missed.
Yeah, I had some trouble trying to manipulate the lighting in some instances to get it to look right. Still have plenty to learn.
Yeah, this not really an excuse or anything, but I'm currently using this setup with $6 lamps and I'm still learning how to properly utilise it to create the lighting I want. I might have to build a softbox for those lamps.
_DSC4342 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Also, got to go fishing the other day, and I took some nature shots to try my hand at B&W manipulation in photoshop. Also exploring capturing interesting tree shapes.
Fishing_day_070712_0068B&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0115B&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0125B&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0120B&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0129B&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0133edit by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Fishing_day_070712_0107b&W by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
The last one was a practice at trying to rescue a really badly shot photo.
I'm going to put some pictures in you.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
My Portfolio Site
My Portfolio Site
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
The upcoming sony rx-100 is supposed to be pretty sweet. I'm probably going to pick one up for travelling.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/23/canon-eos-m-mirrorless-camera/
My Portfolio Site
Anyway, I was hoping for some feedback on what I consider to be some of my best portraits before I do this shoot. I really appreciate the feedback.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
Anyway, I was hoping for some feedback on what I consider to be some of my best portraits before I do this shoot. I really appreciate the feedback.
Picture 1
Picture 2
Picture 3
The EF compatibility is neat but...touchscreens? The menu on the Nex-5n is nearly impossible to navigate, especially with speed. Can't say I'm really sold, but I'd have to get my hands on it to really see how it matches up.
Here's a couple recent pictures:
Me: How's that now. . .?
GBML: Well see here; the focus ring is barely moving you see -
Me: Well what're you pointing at?
GBML: That tree over yonder. See? Now look when I focus on the bench behind it - barely moves!
Me: That tree is more than 7 feet away. Anything beyond that is treated at infinity so it's not going to move much. . .or so I've heard.
GBML: (mubles) Ah yes well. . .the pictures a bit fuzzy you know -
Me: (loads up a picture) Looks quite crisp to me.
GBML: I meant through the viewfinder.
Me: (trying to contain my vein popping) Do you want the lens or no?
GBML: Well with these "issues" not at that price; maybe if you came down a bit -
Me: Good day to ya.
For #1 and #3, I'm not entirely sure what you're going for. I'm not sure where my eye should go in #1. For #3 I feel there's a conflict in the subject due to the interesting background and the strong focus on the life preserver. Both are technically sound but less interesting to me.
So I'm not just criticizing, here's also some pictures I took recently:
I have two good friends who are landscape photographers so I've been absorbing a lot of information about how they work. Still don't have a 5D, but that's not gonna change anytime soon.
This is one I really like but like anything, I could have done some things better with it.
Gaf - you've been killing it lately man. Love all these new ones.
Mayhem- great portrait duder. Sorry to hear you lost your job, good things come out of everything though. And it's great to see you taking photos again.
My Portfolio Site
Also fuck me, its almost depressing using 500px. I highly suggest everyone use it =p. The stuff people put on there can be down right amazing.
You know I initially had the same thought. I actually edited this photo below first but then decided on the one with more sky. I felt like the light on Half Dome was nice, but not dramatic enough to warrant it taking up most of the image. I felt like the clouds had more color and texture in the wider angler view.
It's kind of impossible to take a non-cliche shot of Half Dome but I gave it a shot.
@projectmayhem Boy that photo sure does have a lot of lamp going for it. In all seriousness it isn't a bad idea having a busy photos, lots of similar colors and all, but when 20% of your pixels are blurry lamp it kind of ruins it.
I can never seem to get anything close to those.
In terms of color you need to shoot and sunrise and sunset. Especially when there's some amount of clouds in the sky (like in the first photo).
That first photo just doesn't look right though. Look at the edge of his left elbow. Looks to me like he was chopped into that scene. It's possible it's just some artifact of him being lit by flash since he obviously didn't get lit up like that from the sun in front of him. There's also weird artifacts on the right side of his head. Other things don't like right as well, like the fact that the scene appears to be shot with a wide angle lens but the kid was shot with something more normal or telephoto. Makes him look like he's 500 feet tall.
A couple new photos:
I wanted to try taking some abstract blur shots by moving the camera instead shooting a moving subject.
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
Thoughts? (I'm not normally a selective colour guy but in this case someone had left red roses on the memorial so I thought it worked)
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
Oh man. If I could take pictures of a place that cool I would be taking pictures every day
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
I've been quickly running out of hd space since moving here
1. looks funny to me
2. once done processing and resizing a photo do an unsharpen mask. I usually do something like a radius of .2 to .3 pixels at 200-300% sharpening.
I'm not the best at nature photos but what I like to do is try and remove myself from the situation. I think to myself if I couldn't hear, smell, feel etc and could only see a 2d version of the scene would it still be interesting? Often times you get this amazing feeling from standing on some tall cliff/mountain that just doesn't translate through a photo. Also at least with this one try and avoid the 50% sky 50% ground with the horizon in the dead middle. The cliff/sea is more interesting to me so I think I would pan the camera down to capture more of that. The vignetting has also removed detail in the side of the cliff and forces the viewer to look in the middle of the picture where there isn't much interest.
http://view.bhphotovideo.com/v/3E350G/8E85D/N23J7X/PF9M6T/MAILACTION=1