Jake!: The lighting on all 3 are pretty damn good except there is a little bit of hotness on her forehead in the first one. I would try and pull that back with recovery in lightroom. The first one has a rather distracting background and doesn't really go with the outfit. I would try and remove it / darken it in ps. Also the towel/blanket she is sitting on seems very out of place. It seems like the floor was just uncomfortable for her to kneel on so you just threw something down for her. The veil and everything look a bit extravagant when compared to the towel. At the very least you could have made sure it was folded or placed neatly, or you could replace it with something completely different that matched the outfit better.
As for my photoshopping I'm still not spectacularly pleased with it but thats why I'm practicing and taking that PS class later this summer.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
how are you liking the D90 so far? i have a D40 and have been thinking of picking up a more capable camera myself, so i'm just reaching out for some other opinions. i'm not intending on replacing my D40, i think it's a great little camera for just kicking around with, but after some pretty extended use (i think i've had it since fall 2007) i have a good understanding of it's limitations and am ready to move on up!
Haven't had a chance to really start shooting with it yet. The transition almost feels like when I went from a point-and-shoot to the D40..."Wow, this thing has lots of settings and I have to figure out what they mean!" So far I've been the most impressed by how much better the D90 handles in low light. This is mostly due to the ability to let the ISO roam a bit higher. My D40 gave a decent image up to ISO 800, but pretty shotty above that. My D40 served me very well and I loved it, but once I got my D90 I sold the D40 and am almost certain that I will not be left in a place where I find myself missing it. The D90, for me, seems to be a full replacement of the D40 plus much more. Having LiveView is kinda neat, but I'm not sure how much use it will get once the novelty wears off. One definite downside to LiveView is that autofocus is super slow when using it, to the point that autofocus is probably unusable for shooting a moving subject in LiveView.
If you're at all interested in video, the D90's capabilities are limited compared to a real video camera, but if you have a good eye for it you can definitely get some damn good results. I've been watching the videos on Vimeo's D90 channel HERE.
My D40 served me very well and I loved it, but once I got my D90 I sold the D40 and am almost certain that I will not be left in a place where I find myself missing it.
If you can afford it I think its nice having a backup/extra camera. I don't want to carry around my 5d all the time so I leave my old 10d with the 18-55 on it in the trunk of my car. I have certainly taken a lot more pictures when I see something awesome instead of just thinking "I wish I had a camera right now". Of course this is a moot point if you always carry your main camera around with you.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I haven't put anything up in awhile. Mostly due to shaky internet but also due to a sheer lack of things I wanted to photo in Homer. I'm back in Wrangell now, so hopefully I'll be at it a little more often.
From "Parents Weekend" at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. We were walking through the campus library when I glanced down the stacks and saw this lady giving her little boy a leg-up to reach the water fountain. I have no idea who she is and I hope she didn't mind when I snapped this photo.
This shot really stands out for me. Interesting subject and composition. The colors feel a little weird though. I'm not sure if that's just the paint or the film or time of day or what.
I love the colors you got with this film. Great earthy tones, especially in that second shot, though I think it's the weaker of the two in terms of composition.
Pope: You always find interesting flowers. Thank you for not posting page after page of roses.
Pope: You always find interesting flowers. Thank you for not posting page after page of roses.
I second this. I generally hate flower pictures but yours are always pretty damn good.
Sadly I don't think that last one you posted works well in b&w. The picture doesn't have a lot of contrast or separation between the flower and the background.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Pope: You always find interesting flowers. Thank you for not posting page after page of roses.
I second this. I generally hate flower pictures but yours are always pretty damn good.
Sadly I don't think that last one you posted works well in b&w. The picture doesn't have a lot of contrast or separation between the flower and the background.
I was actually aiming for subtleties in the medium to light grays so I guess I was effective but perhaps that means the picture itself isn't as effective. That's good feedback, thanks.
I do wonder what it would look like if I printed it large (and then my fantasy, to make a negative from the digital file and then get a platinum print - I've always wanted to do that. Actually I want to try platinum printing for a subtle tonal range image then a silver-gelatin for a higher-contrast image - I love the way those printing techniques look!).
Pope: You always find interesting flowers. Thank you for not posting page after page of roses.
I second this. I generally hate flower pictures but yours are always pretty damn good.
Sadly I don't think that last one you posted works well in b&w. The picture doesn't have a lot of contrast or separation between the flower and the background.
I was actually aiming for subtleties in the medium to light grays so I guess I was effective but perhaps that means the picture itself isn't as effective. That's good feedback, thanks.
I do wonder what it would look like if I printed it large (and then my fantasy, to make a negative from the digital file and then get a platinum print - I've always wanted to do that. Actually I want to try platinum printing for a subtle tonal range image then a silver-gelatin for a higher-contrast image - I love the way those printing techniques look!).
Platinum, as well as Palladium, are fun and pretty easy. Similar to Cyanotypes but much more expensive for the chemicals. Kits can run up to $250 that make 25-30 8x10s. My girlfriend specializes in 19th Century photography (Wet Collodion and Platinum/Palladium) so we usually just get the 25ml bottles as we have plenty of the other supplies but they still run around $90 just for that.
I think what you meant to say is "immaculate artiste who in an ironic statement to the blind masses, fearlessly blends digital technology with the analogue aesthetic"
This is art bitches:
Pope, I think you do get very nice tonality in that flower picture, but as someone else said, the background bleeds into your subject. If it was a more uniform off-white background, it would work beautifully, I think.
After a long hiatus from photography due to several reasons, I want to begin again this summer.
Still rusty but this last one love the subject just the connection I had in that moment with her was incredible during the parade. Need to play with the photo more cause looks way to dark.
Cinco de Mayo parade
Horus on
“You have brains in your head. You have feet in your shoes. You can steer yourself any direction you choose. You're on your own. And you know what you know. And YOU are the one who'll decide where to go...”
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
Horus:
1: I think this needs more DoF and a more defined subject. The black is so black that instead of looking like the focus gracefully degrades on the right side, it looks muddy.
2: There seems like there was a good moment in the vicinity of the one in this image, but it isn't this moment. The engaged kids on the left are on the left side of the frame looking left off frame. Then there is the unengaged girl on the right. All the faces are underexposed, all that bright sky might be messing with your light metering so you might consider spot metering on the faces. All in all I think you needed to capture a better instantaneous moment with a tighter crop and a more defined subject.
3: Needs a tighter crop, also she is way underexposed.
I don't think I'd want to try shooting a parade in full manual mode, either. I used to try to shoot everything manual and it made me miss too many potentially decent shots. And by used to I mean until about 2 weeks ago. I've looked at EXIF data on photos from the better guys on here and it's almost entirely Aperture Priority which is what convinced me that it's okay to let the camera do the tedious work.
I'm sure there are lots of people out there who feel the camera cannot capture your artistic vision outside of Manual mode, and they are probably right, but I mostly do documentary type stuff and it's more important to capture a moment than it is to have a technically perfect photo.
Horus: I would play around with color temp in your 3rd shot, as the lady looks positively orange, which I assume is not accurate or flattering. I would bump up brightness and exposure as Muncie suggested.
And now we are back to my self indulgent "photography":
And now we are back to my self indulgent "photography":
Click for bigger.
Are you presenting these as a diptych? I'm curious what ties these together for you. I have some impressions, but I'm not sure how far I'm stretching for meaning.
Hey guys I'm looking to print my digital photos, what's a good printer for this? What should I look for in a good printer
I use Mpix.com; they're more expensive for the plain sizes but their larger sizes are cheaper, and their printing quality is much better than Snapfish or Shutterfly or a local quickprint place. They also ship everything flat, even big stuff, so you don't need to deal with uncurving any paper. Fast, too.
You weren't planning on using an inkjet printer, were you?
My wife has a small dyesub printer but it's so particular with color profiles and tends to mess up the color depth, so she typically wastes a few pieces of paper (which are custom for the printer) before she gets a good print. Use a professional printing service for now.
So I did a "fashion" show on friday which turned out to be swim suits rather than dresses that I was expecting. :?
Most of the girls looked really awkward when trying to pose standing up thats why pretty much all of the photos are from the girls laying down / sitting.
If you guys want me to spoiler these for semi-nsfw-ness let me know.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Hey guys I'm looking to print my digital photos, what's a good printer for this? What should I look for in a good printer
I use Mpix.com; they're more expensive for the plain sizes but their larger sizes are cheaper, and their printing quality is much better than Snapfish or Shutterfly or a local quickprint place. They also ship everything flat, even big stuff, so you don't need to deal with uncurving any paper. Fast, too.
You weren't planning on using an inkjet printer, were you?
My wife has a small dyesub printer but it's so particular with color profiles and tends to mess up the color depth, so she typically wastes a few pieces of paper (which are custom for the printer) before she gets a good print. Use a professional printing service for now.
No I aint gonna use a professional printer because I need these printed on demand
Hey guys I'm looking to print my digital photos, what's a good printer for this? What should I look for in a good printer
I use Mpix.com; they're more expensive for the plain sizes but their larger sizes are cheaper, and their printing quality is much better than Snapfish or Shutterfly or a local quickprint place. They also ship everything flat, even big stuff, so you don't need to deal with uncurving any paper. Fast, too.
You weren't planning on using an inkjet printer, were you?
My wife has a small dyesub printer but it's so particular with color profiles and tends to mess up the color depth, so she typically wastes a few pieces of paper (which are custom for the printer) before she gets a good print. Use a professional printing service for now.
No I aint gonna use a professional printer because I need these printed on demand
If you don't care about print quality then just go ask Consumer Reports about the best photo printer. Most of us here care about print quality so we send our prints out to labs and websites that do have quality printing.
Pope: I bought the genius 8x6 active area tablet and its alright. I'm still getting used to it. The only odd thing I have noticed is that if I have it plugged in my screen ratio is fucked up when I play bad company 2. It doesn't matter if i change the resolution at all it just stays fucked up.
>_>
<_<
o_O
Edit: This is kind of snap-shotty and I know its not a good picture but this was more of a "woah thats neat!" sort of thing. I looked in the sky and saw that the dark part of the moon was standing out from the sky quite a bit. So I decided to try and take a picture and see if I could get a picture of the sliver of the new moon with the black portion contrasting with the sky. After the first exposure I realized I was acutally getting some detail out of the dark part of the moon. Sadly I couldn't get a longer exposure to brighten up that part of the moon without getting some blur from it moving ever so slowly.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So I did a "fashion" show on friday which turned out to be swim suits rather than dresses that I was expecting. :?
Most of the girls looked really awkward when trying to pose standing up thats why pretty much all of the photos are from the girls laying down / sitting.
If you guys want me to spoiler these for semi-nsfw-ness let me know.
Is there a reason you choose to light these so flatly? I don't think it's working.
Mr Obersmith: would like to see some light on the silhouette, just to give it depth.
I really really like this one. I like the light everywhere except on the left part of her face. The shadow under the left eye combined with the brightness of her nose makes that stand out quite a bit from that side of her face. Its not terrible or anything I just think it could be a tad brighter behind her nose there. I do love the separation of the front part of her hair from the background. Did you use just a gridded/snooted strobe on the left side?
Salti: No not really. Combination of lack of time, interest, and space. I have a planned shoot next weekend with a 1930s high couture starlet look and a 1950s look that ISN'T based around a fashion show. So that should be a lot better plus I get mostly free run of a cabaret place to do the shoot in while its closed.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm sorry bombs all I can think after seeing that is "oh god it looks like its going to poop on her face" followed shortly by "man, that must be a lot messier than a pigeon".
I think the composition is a little off it would be much nicer if you caught the bird in the top left part of the frame.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
As for my photoshopping I'm still not spectacularly pleased with it but thats why I'm practicing and taking that PS class later this summer.
Haven't had a chance to really start shooting with it yet. The transition almost feels like when I went from a point-and-shoot to the D40..."Wow, this thing has lots of settings and I have to figure out what they mean!" So far I've been the most impressed by how much better the D90 handles in low light. This is mostly due to the ability to let the ISO roam a bit higher. My D40 gave a decent image up to ISO 800, but pretty shotty above that. My D40 served me very well and I loved it, but once I got my D90 I sold the D40 and am almost certain that I will not be left in a place where I find myself missing it. The D90, for me, seems to be a full replacement of the D40 plus much more. Having LiveView is kinda neat, but I'm not sure how much use it will get once the novelty wears off. One definite downside to LiveView is that autofocus is super slow when using it, to the point that autofocus is probably unusable for shooting a moving subject in LiveView.
If you're at all interested in video, the D90's capabilities are limited compared to a real video camera, but if you have a good eye for it you can definitely get some damn good results. I've been watching the videos on Vimeo's D90 channel HERE.
If you can afford it I think its nice having a backup/extra camera. I don't want to carry around my 5d all the time so I leave my old 10d with the 18-55 on it in the trunk of my car. I have certainly taken a lot more pictures when I see something awesome instead of just thinking "I wish I had a camera right now". Of course this is a moot point if you always carry your main camera around with you.
Anyway, here are these things.
Kodak Ektar 100
Portra NC 160
Fuji Acros:
Legacy Pro (Acros clone):
Nikon Digital
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
click the pic to go to the flickr page to see it bigger if you wanna
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Another chance moment caught in time.
This shot really stands out for me. Interesting subject and composition. The colors feel a little weird though. I'm not sure if that's just the paint or the film or time of day or what.
I love the colors you got with this film. Great earthy tones, especially in that second shot, though I think it's the weaker of the two in terms of composition.
Pope: You always find interesting flowers. Thank you for not posting page after page of roses.
I second this. I generally hate flower pictures but yours are always pretty damn good.
Sadly I don't think that last one you posted works well in b&w. The picture doesn't have a lot of contrast or separation between the flower and the background.
I was actually aiming for subtleties in the medium to light grays so I guess I was effective but perhaps that means the picture itself isn't as effective. That's good feedback, thanks.
I do wonder what it would look like if I printed it large (and then my fantasy, to make a negative from the digital file and then get a platinum print - I've always wanted to do that. Actually I want to try platinum printing for a subtle tonal range image then a silver-gelatin for a higher-contrast image - I love the way those printing techniques look!).
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Platinum, as well as Palladium, are fun and pretty easy. Similar to Cyanotypes but much more expensive for the chemicals. Kits can run up to $250 that make 25-30 8x10s. My girlfriend specializes in 19th Century photography (Wet Collodion and Platinum/Palladium) so we usually just get the 25ml bottles as we have plenty of the other supplies but they still run around $90 just for that.
Check out http://www.bostick-sullivan.com/ if you haven't already.
*edit*
Heres one I made using my Brownie
I think what you meant to say is "immaculate artiste who in an ironic statement to the blind masses, fearlessly blends digital technology with the analogue aesthetic"
This is art bitches:
Pope, I think you do get very nice tonality in that flower picture, but as someone else said, the background bleeds into your subject. If it was a more uniform off-white background, it would work beautifully, I think.
Still rusty but this last one love the subject just the connection I had in that moment with her was incredible during the parade. Need to play with the photo more cause looks way to dark.
Cinco de Mayo parade
― Dr. Seuss, Oh, the Places You'll Go!
1: I think this needs more DoF and a more defined subject. The black is so black that instead of looking like the focus gracefully degrades on the right side, it looks muddy.
2: There seems like there was a good moment in the vicinity of the one in this image, but it isn't this moment. The engaged kids on the left are on the left side of the frame looking left off frame. Then there is the unengaged girl on the right. All the faces are underexposed, all that bright sky might be messing with your light metering so you might consider spot metering on the faces. All in all I think you needed to capture a better instantaneous moment with a tighter crop and a more defined subject.
3: Needs a tighter crop, also she is way underexposed.
I don't think I'd want to try shooting a parade in full manual mode, either. I used to try to shoot everything manual and it made me miss too many potentially decent shots. And by used to I mean until about 2 weeks ago. I've looked at EXIF data on photos from the better guys on here and it's almost entirely Aperture Priority which is what convinced me that it's okay to let the camera do the tedious work.
I'm sure there are lots of people out there who feel the camera cannot capture your artistic vision outside of Manual mode, and they are probably right, but I mostly do documentary type stuff and it's more important to capture a moment than it is to have a technically perfect photo.
And now we are back to my self indulgent "photography":
Click for bigger.
yeeeaaaahhhh
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
Are you presenting these as a diptych? I'm curious what ties these together for you. I have some impressions, but I'm not sure how far I'm stretching for meaning.
those make me feel claustrophobic
I use Mpix.com; they're more expensive for the plain sizes but their larger sizes are cheaper, and their printing quality is much better than Snapfish or Shutterfly or a local quickprint place. They also ship everything flat, even big stuff, so you don't need to deal with uncurving any paper. Fast, too.
You weren't planning on using an inkjet printer, were you?
My wife has a small dyesub printer but it's so particular with color profiles and tends to mess up the color depth, so she typically wastes a few pieces of paper (which are custom for the printer) before she gets a good print. Use a professional printing service for now.
Most of the girls looked really awkward when trying to pose standing up thats why pretty much all of the photos are from the girls laying down / sitting.
If you guys want me to spoiler these for semi-nsfw-ness let me know.
No I aint gonna use a professional printer because I need these printed on demand
If you don't care about print quality then just go ask Consumer Reports about the best photo printer. Most of us here care about print quality so we send our prints out to labs and websites that do have quality printing.
Pope: I bought the genius 8x6 active area tablet and its alright. I'm still getting used to it. The only odd thing I have noticed is that if I have it plugged in my screen ratio is fucked up when I play bad company 2. It doesn't matter if i change the resolution at all it just stays fucked up.
>_>
<_<
o_O
Edit: This is kind of snap-shotty and I know its not a good picture but this was more of a "woah thats neat!" sort of thing. I looked in the sky and saw that the dark part of the moon was standing out from the sky quite a bit. So I decided to try and take a picture and see if I could get a picture of the sliver of the new moon with the black portion contrasting with the sky. After the first exposure I realized I was acutally getting some detail out of the dark part of the moon. Sadly I couldn't get a longer exposure to brighten up that part of the moon without getting some blur from it moving ever so slowly.
I mean at some point doesn't your photo have to come out of a printer?
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
chocolate sprinkles = pain in the arse.
Does anyone know any good solutions for linking a flickr gallery to your portfolio? I remember some discussion of it on here a while back.
Is there a reason you choose to light these so flatly? I don't think it's working.
I really really like this one. I like the light everywhere except on the left part of her face. The shadow under the left eye combined with the brightness of her nose makes that stand out quite a bit from that side of her face. Its not terrible or anything I just think it could be a tad brighter behind her nose there. I do love the separation of the front part of her hair from the background. Did you use just a gridded/snooted strobe on the left side?
Salti: No not really. Combination of lack of time, interest, and space. I have a planned shoot next weekend with a 1930s high couture starlet look and a 1950s look that ISN'T based around a fashion show. So that should be a lot better plus I get mostly free run of a cabaret place to do the shoot in while its closed.
I'm not sure what that means?
Also if you care you could try and bring it up a bit in PS with some dodge at about 2% on the shadows or maybe a curves/levels layer with a mask.
The most important question: does it come with printer profiles you can use in photoshop?
I think the composition is a little off it would be much nicer if you caught the bird in the top left part of the frame.
None of this stuff is new but I'm looking at older shots with fresh eyes and they don't look so bad now: