@Prospicience I really dig the road shot. Have you tried maybe dropping the exposure value of the road itself a bit, to give more prominence to the mountains and the sky? Might produce moodier picture, if you are into that kind of thing. @bsjezz I really want to photoshop that bird to a different spot in that cloud lands picture. :biggrin: Are all these spots local to you? I really dig them. This would be a really cool series documenting that town. The suburban architecture juxtaposed against badass nature landscapes. Especially in that "instant nostalgia" style you have. Maybe publish a zine or a small book? I would buy it!
Anyways, a little while ago I took a picture of a chair with my big camera. Its fun to look at all the detail in it (like the stitching and embroidery of the chair). I am impressed with the technology available 50 years ago. It certainly out-resolves my D800 by a large margin. But the resolution isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things... so this picture is fun only for unhinged people like me.
@muninn that's a sweet shot, pixel-peeping or no. maybe I'm also unhinged, though -- I've spent way too much time looking at neat details that would only otherwise be noticeable in a huge print.
have a trip coming up, so impulse-bought an olympus xa rangefinder on internet groupthink recommendation. also like nine rolls of film, which is going to be massively overkill considering it took me over a month to shoot a single roll of 35mm on a loaner camera last year. excited to play around with the smaller format, though.
@bsjezz I really want to photoshop that bird to a different spot in that cloud lands picture. :biggrin: Are all these spots local to you? I really dig them. This would be a really cool series documenting that town. The suburban architecture juxtaposed against badass nature landscapes. Especially in that "instant nostalgia" style you have. Maybe publish a zine or a small book? I would buy it!
cheers, man! the most recent shots have been from a two week trip to visit family in canada, so not our current local area (by an ocean or so) but my partner's hometown. i suppose it's fresh enough to be inspiring still, but not so new that you're misjudging what's interesting: a good place to be for photographs!
what sort of 35mm did you get a hold of, @Baron Dirigible? maybe we could trade a couple when you come up... and good buy on the little XA, compact rangefinders are the best fun
I ordered four rolls of HP5+ with the camera, just to make shipping worthwhile. Then I popped in to Vanbar last week and got some Portra 160 and FP4+. It was actually a really last-minute decision, so I wish I'd had the time to order some more interesting (and faster!) film. Be keen to do a trade if any of that takes your fancy, though!
I'll be taking my Hassy up too -- recently bought some 10+ year expired Astia and tungsten-balanced Portra 100 from another forum, so keen to see how that turns out.
@Baron Dirigible, do you have spare of fp4+? i'd like to try a really fine grain film with my caffenol. i guess all i've got that you might be interested in is portra 400, or some expired 800 junk
@Baron Dirigible, do you have spare of fp4+? i'd like to try a really fine grain film with my caffenol. i guess all i've got that you might be interested in is portra 400, or some expired 800 junk
I'd be happy to trade a roll of fp4 for some portra 400 or a pint, whichever you think is fair.
Just got back from a week long vacation, took a shit-ton of photos so I'll slowly be dumping over the next couple weeks.
@munnin I tried the re-edit darker and I'm in love, not sure why I didn't go that route to start, it's on my other computer so I'll post it later. Thanks for the suggestion!
One from my trip. This is done from a pull-off viewing area in Utah, so I'm sure this shot's been done to hell, but I still like it nonetheless. Heck of a view.
uploaded this one from my phone for the first time through flickr. Made it really noisy, and not quite as bright as I wanted. Something About the Desert by Prospicience 101, on Flickr
olympus xa trip report: this thing is heaps of fun but I have a suspicion it is massively overexposing. using my rudimentary sunny 16 skills, there's no way I'd need 1/125 shutter speed wide-open on 800 speed film in broad daylight.
oh well: I've already blown a bunch of shots because I opened the film back before it was all wound, and then for my second roll the camera decided to stop closing the shutter. not sure how I fixed that.
like the look of that first shot, @Prospicience, but I'm waiting to see it on a proper monitor. looks very sharp on this screen, which could just be Flickr being Flickr.
Watch out for the self-timer on the XA -- I had a couple and they both wound up with something bad happening after I tried self-timer mode. (I think they got stuck in that mode, but I'd have to get one out and put in a new battery to be sure). Great cameras otherwise, though.
olympus xa trip report: this thing is heaps of fun but I have a suspicion it is massively overexposing. using my rudimentary sunny 16 skills, there's no way I'd need 1/125 shutter speed wide-open on 800 speed film in broad daylight.
oh well: I've already blown a bunch of shots because I opened the film back before it was all wound, and then for my second roll the camera decided to stop closing the shutter. not sure how I fixed that.
like the look of that first shot, @Prospicience, but I'm waiting to see it on a proper monitor. looks very sharp on this screen, which could just be Flickr being Flickr.
Were you shooting at 1/1000th of a second at f/16? Or were you actually shooting at 1/125th f/16?
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Watch out for the self-timer on the XA -- I had a couple and they both wound up with something bad happening after I tried self-timer mode. (I think they got stuck in that mode, but I'd have to get one out and put in a new battery to be sure). Great cameras otherwise, though.
I haven't tried that mode yet, so I'll steer clear -- thanks!
@CommunistCow, I was shooting f2.8 @ 1/125 -- which seems highly unlikely to me. Googling suggests non-standard batteries (LR44 vs the suggested SR44) can affect the meter, but that seems related to the discharge profile as it ages, and these are fresh batteries. Otherwise the meter might be working perfectly fine and the shutter-speed indicator needle might be slow. In any case there's not much to be done till I get a roll processed. Fair chance it all works out, especially as I'm shooting colour negative film with good latitude.
@Prospicience i am in love with "something about the desert" - i'd love to see a cleaner version of it. when you say uploaded via your phone, did you get it there through something like eye-fi? i had the same problem to be honest, no photo processing apps i found had any compression or quality options
@Baron Dirigible i have a feeling on that unit it's the needle. when i had a crack at it it didn't seem to go much higher than 1/8 or so, even when pointed to the (admittedly dull) pub lights. still, was surprised it didn't have a manual shutter speed option... maybe i've just been spoiled by my little ricoh. even if it's way uglier.
@Baron Dirigible i have a feeling on that unit it's the needle. when i had a crack at it it didn't seem to go much higher than 1/8 or so, even when pointed to the (admittedly dull) pub lights. still, was surprised it didn't have a manual shutter speed option... maybe i've just been spoiled by my little ricoh. even if it's way uglier.
Yeah, that's my feeling too. The shutter doesn't seem to be opening too long even at the slower speeds. I'm just leaving it at f8 and infinity and not worrying about anything till I get the shots back.
Was good catching up! And I do like those dodgy dev shots -- the first in spite of the defects, though I think the second is the stronger for them.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
Yeah, that's a fun one; I agree with Enc also really like the lines in that last one.
@bsjezz yeah transferred over to my phone via the EOS app on the iphone through the 6D's wifi. Usually get cleaner photos, but I think it actually might just be sharpened too much, creating a lot of noise. Added a computer edited version to 500px you can view here.
And here's one of a barn I shot once before in the fall and had to stop off again when it snowed a couple weeks ago because dang. Typical Colorado Spring by Prospicience 101, on Flickr
I recently spoiled myself and bought a Nikon D5200 with a 18mm-140mm super kit zoom lens. Shortly after that, I picked up a 35mm prime lens secondhand from a friend. I am loving it. I've wanted a good camera for years, but the prices on them was far beyond what I could afford. Now that I have steady work AND I actually had to do a lot of product photography for said job, I could justify the purchase!
Here are a few pictures I have taken with it so far. Very little editing was done on the bulk of them, though I did just do some corrective cropping before this post (some of them were slightly tilted). All photos taken during a long drive around the Olympic Peninsula, via Highway 101.
by Hood Canal:
(zoomed)
From Port Townsend:
(zoomed)
(zoomed)
(not zoomed, just for comparison)
Ruby Beach (Washington coastline):
(zoomed)
(zoomed)
Somewhere south of Ruby Beach:
(not zoomed - check out that barrel distortion on the horizon!)
Lake Quinalt - made it there right before sunset:
These are just a handful of the 50-some images I posted to my Facebook, which are also just a handful of I dunno how many photos were actually taken.
Have I mentioned that I love living in Washington? And also zoom lenses? I WANT A BIGGER ONE. GUYS STOP ME FROM BLOWING MY MONEY ON MORE LENSES AHH
I am totally gonna rent some sometime soon to test out. I'm actually planning another trip to the coast next weekend, and I'm gonna try my hand at some nighttime photography. I attempted it using the 18-140 lens (bad choice, not a fast lens), but having no real idea how to use the camera in manual mode and change the settings to make it work for night sky shots, they didn't turn out so well. (Unedited: 1 - 2; Edited: 1 - 2)
I really enjoy everyone's photos by the way, but I rarely comment 'cause I don't feel like I have much to contribute! I don't plan on being a ~serious photographer by any means, but I am excited to start getting into the medium. I would be thrilled by any feedback advice you have to give me.
I WANT A BIGGER ONE. GUYS STOP ME FROM BLOWING MY MONEY ON MORE LENSES AHH
yeah uhhhhh good luck with that :P
really glad you're enjoying your camera! some quick thoughts: first, that shot with the barrel distortion looks like it was taken wide, since barrel distortion is a side-effect of wide-angled lenses (fish-eye lenses treat it as a feature). a number of your shots with back-lit subjects lose foreground detail in favour of getting a "correct" exposure for the entire shot, which is definitely something you can improve with a bit of book-learning about metering, exposure compensation, and exposure in general.
for this shot in particular, the foreground has been under-exposed in order to keep the sunset exposed properly, which I think is the wrong choice in this instance. it would be far better to expose for the foreground and see the detail of the person you're shooting, rather than the (admittedly pretty) sunset behind her. depending on your camera, there'll be a few different modes for metering, and your manual should go some way to explaining the differences between them. you should also be able to adjust "exposure compensation", which basically means asking your camera to under- or over-expose the scene based on what's actually in it. (in this case, you'll want to over-expose, thus blowing out the background, but increasing detail on the foreground subjects.)
regarding lenses: what are you looking to get out of a new lens? 18–140 should offer plenty of range for anything besides specialist uses (super-wide fish-eye photography, or bird-watching / aviation / sports photography). I'd suggest experimenting within the range offered and see where you'd want to invest in a good, fast prime to cover your most-used focal length.
really glad you're enjoying your camera! some quick thoughts: first, that shot with the barrel distortion looks like it was taken wide, since barrel distortion is a side-effect of wide-angled lenses (fish-eye lenses treat it as a feature).
If by wide, do you mean...closer to the 18mm measure than the 140mm? I'm not really up on a lot of the terminology yet. I'm still not really good with why lenses are named the way they are.
for this shot in particular, the foreground has been under-exposed in order to keep the sunset exposed properly, which I think is the wrong choice in this instance. it would be far better to expose for the foreground and see the detail of the person you're shooting, rather than the (admittedly pretty) sunset behind her. depending on your camera, there'll be a few different modes for metering, and your manual should go some way to explaining the differences between them. you should also be able to adjust "exposure compensation", which basically means asking your camera to under- or over-expose the scene based on what's actually in it. (in this case, you'll want to over-expose, thus blowing out the background, but increasing detail on the foreground subjects.)
I actually quite like the effect you described as they appear in these images; I enjoy the contrast of silhouettes against the background. In the sunset photo, I was more concerned about the sun's glare not completely obliterating the figure in the middle than having her details visible. That said, there will be times I'd like the reverse more, and I DO need to learn more about altering the exposure and its focus. From what I remember, most of these pictures were taken in Auto setting, as I was more focused on playing with the lens. I tried taking more night shots recently and finally figured out how to change some of the settings on manual, so I'm getting there...slowly.
regarding lenses: what are you looking to get out of a new lens? 18–140 should offer plenty of range for anything besides specialist uses (super-wide fish-eye photography, or bird-watching / aviation / sports photography). I'd suggest experimenting within the range offered and see where you'd want to invest in a good, fast prime to cover your most-used focal length.
I don't really need another lens (I just like zooming in on things really far away <___< It's ridiculously fun and I wanna go further!), though the 18-200 is the best within a reasonable price range. Of course, I don't know anything about how the quality compares. Does a bigger telephoto lens create worse barrel distortion when shot wide? Is storage a problem? At what point does weight become too much of an issue for an average-quality tripod? How fast can a lens be for darker photographs, and at what point does it become prohibitively expensive?
@CommunistCow, I was shooting f2.8 @ 1/125 -- which seems highly unlikely to me. Googling suggests non-standard batteries (LR44 vs the suggested SR44) can affect the meter, but that seems related to the discharge profile as it ages, and these are fresh batteries. Otherwise the meter might be working perfectly fine and the shutter-speed indicator needle might be slow. In any case there's not much to be done till I get a roll processed. Fair chance it all works out, especially as I'm shooting colour negative film with good latitude.
Wow, with iso 800 that is probably 8 or so stops overexposed.
Prosp, I really like the barn shot.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
@CommunistCow, I was shooting f2.8 @ 1/125 -- which seems highly unlikely to me. Googling suggests non-standard batteries (LR44 vs the suggested SR44) can affect the meter, but that seems related to the discharge profile as it ages, and these are fresh batteries. Otherwise the meter might be working perfectly fine and the shutter-speed indicator needle might be slow. In any case there's not much to be done till I get a roll processed. Fair chance it all works out, especially as I'm shooting colour negative film with good latitude.
Wow, with iso 800 that is probably 8 or so stops overexposed.
Sorry, I had a brainfart and said shooting when I meant 'getting'. I'm probably still going to end up with a bunch of overexposed shots if the shutter speed indicator was accurate (especially the roll of Portra 160 I was metering at 100), but hopefully not 8 stops. For the most part I bracketed a bunch of shots between f8 and f22 so we'll see how the exposures turn out.
If by wide, do you mean...closer to the 18mm measure than the 140mm? I'm not really up on a lot of the terminology yet. I'm still not really good with why lenses are named the way they are.
Yeah -- you labelled that shot as "zoomed" but it looks like it was taken at 18mm.
I don't really need another lens (I just like zooming in on things really far away <___< It's ridiculously fun and I wanna go further!), though the 18-200 is the best within a reasonable price range. Of course, I don't know anything about how the quality compares. Does a bigger telephoto lens create worse barrel distortion when shot wide? Is storage a problem? At what point does weight become too much of an issue for an average-quality tripod? How fast can a lens be for darker photographs, and at what point does it become prohibitively expensive?
All good questions, which deserve better answers than I could provide before my morning coffee.
And a picture. Fairly happy with how this turned out, though I wish I'd been able to get more space above the tree. Tree and water by rstop bstop, on Flickr
If by wide, do you mean...closer to the 18mm measure than the 140mm? I'm not really up on a lot of the terminology yet. I'm still not really good with why lenses are named the way they are.
Yeah -- you labelled that shot as "zoomed" but it looks like it was taken at 18mm.
Yeah, that was an error. It wasn't zoomed at all.
In my understanding, full zoom photos can have the reverse effect from barrel distortion, pincushion?
And a picture. Fairly happy with how this turned out, though I wish I'd been able to get more space above the tree. Tree and water by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Should be fairly easy to add more sky in photoshop, since its just a gradient.
I don't really need another lens (I just like zooming in on things really far away <___< It's ridiculously fun and I wanna go further!), though the 18-200 is the best within a reasonable price range. Of course, I don't know anything about how the quality compares. Does a bigger telephoto lens create worse barrel distortion when shot wide? Is storage a problem? At what point does weight become too much of an issue for an average-quality tripod? How fast can a lens be for darker photographs, and at what point does it become prohibitively expensive?
I wrote out a longer response to this, but I think probably the best thing is to read a lot of camera sites (or even wikipedia) to get an understanding of how zoom lenses, telephoto lenses, and aperture works. (Note that "telephoto" is not a synonym for "zoom", and refers instead to physical properties of a lens in question.)
Otherwise, I guess the answers come down to "it depends". Weight and cost especially. Tripods should have specified weight limits, but remember that attaching a very long lens, or angling the camera up / down, may change the centre of gravity. As far as "prohibitively expensive" -- well, there's a 70–200 f2.8 lens for about $2000 that seems an industry standard bit of kit, so I guess it depends on how you view that figure. Realistically you're not going to see lenses much faster than 2.8 on the long end, simply because the aperture is a function of focal length and the lenses themselves need to get much, much bigger to accommodate the wider opening.
Some more photos, clearing out the backlog before I get my rolls back from the Sydney trip: Mini by rstop bstop, on Flickr
You guys know I'm not a big fan of deadpan photography (is that the term you guys would use or is there another one?). Could someone walk me through and explain the merits or meaning behind this photo? With the first and third one I can see some subject and composition even if I don't find it interesting. The second one I'm struggling to find the purpose or meaning behind it.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
- you can't separate a shot wholly from its context or its medium. we know baron shoots film, where it's viewed (on Flickr or wherever) is probably in a film pool. so it's natural to appreciate the skilled colour reproduction on an idiosyncratic, high grain film stock. i reckon it was hard work to get those deep greens and the light tones on the wooden waste right. it's also highly distinct within that context - soft, retrograde instagram portraits and the arse end of hipsters looking into landscapes
- i agree that the composition is not effective but the subject is valuable. i like the theme of decay and deconstruction generally - it appeals to a modernist sensibility and i see that here. the harsh daylight, waste pile, bins, garage door and contained fig tree all have tension with a distinctly Australian romanticism represented in the hidden umbrellas and the shot's title. how was there even a pub there to begin with, in this charmless place? why? why did it fail? and yet somehow i already know this story, perhaps because i am australian
You guys know I'm not a big fan of deadpan photography (is that the term you guys would use or is there another one?). Could someone walk me through and explain the merits or meaning behind this photo? With the first and third one I can see some subject and composition even if I don't find it interesting. The second one I'm struggling to find the purpose or meaning behind it.
Well, first, I'm just some dude on the internet, not Stephen Shore or William Eggleston. It shouldn't really be a surprise if my work doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny and I can't really blame you for not liking it, especially since reactions here and elsewhere have been basically "eh".
That said --- I did still take the photo and I do still like it, myself. I've been drawn to scenes of detritus recently and found this an interesting scene. I enjoy the tree as a framing device, the green palette moving further into the picture from the tree to the cloth to the bins, the umbrella in the background a sign of what used to be there. I would have liked more interesting lighting. A more talented photographer might have waited, or come up with a more interesting composition, or realised the shot needed to be in B&W, or not taken the shot at all. I'll take this as further drive to improve all of those things in my own photography.
Which is all to say I like it, I can see why others may not, and my reasons for liking it aren't really that highbrow that I feel comfortable defending it. Please don't feel you have to add "I don't like deadpan" as a qualifier when critiquing my work -- I think all shots have to work on some level above personal taste, and this clearly didn't make it.
(@bsjezz, that pub used to be my work local and I can't say it will be missed)
First shots back from my Olympus XA! Suspect it is over-exposing slightly -- the roll of Portra 160 I got back, metered at 100, is kicking my arse getting the colours right. Also I suspect my film holder needs adjusting for focus distance. Anyway. I'm back in love with Ilford HP5 again. Believe these were all metered @ 800:
met this handsome chap in sydney Sports Bar by rstop bstop, on Flickr
... who doubted this shot would come out, and while I reckon this is passable, it was the best of three shots taken in that bar.
There are a handful of aesthetics that you should be aware of when determining whether or not a photograph is considered deadpan, or if you are planning on creating your own series of deadpan photographs. Most commonly, the subject is in the center of the image, and the photographer is looking at the subject straight-on. . . . . it is simply pictured exactly as you’d see it if you walked right up to it in real life.
Now, in real life, the shadows wouldn't be that dark, you'd be able to see the rest of the payment part of the machines, etc -- so this is a lot more interpretive than strict 'deadpan' would like you to do, whereas the outside ones with the pub / etc are much 'flatter', which is how the real world tends to look to your eyes under normal circumstances.
You guys know I'm not a big fan of deadpan photography (is that the term you guys would use or is there another one?). Could someone walk me through and explain the merits or meaning behind this photo? With the first and third one I can see some subject and composition even if I don't find it interesting. The second one I'm struggling to find the purpose or meaning behind it.
Well, first, I'm just some dude on the internet, not Stephen Shore or William Eggleston. It shouldn't really be a surprise if my work doesn't stand up to even the most basic scrutiny and I can't really blame you for not liking it, especially since reactions here and elsewhere have been basically "eh".
That said --- I did still take the photo and I do still like it, myself. I've been drawn to scenes of detritus recently and found this an interesting scene. I enjoy the tree as a framing device, the green palette moving further into the picture from the tree to the cloth to the bins, the umbrella in the background a sign of what used to be there. I would have liked more interesting lighting. A more talented photographer might have waited, or come up with a more interesting composition, or realised the shot needed to be in B&W, or not taken the shot at all. I'll take this as further drive to improve all of those things in my own photography.
Which is all to say I like it, I can see why others may not, and my reasons for liking it aren't really that highbrow that I feel comfortable defending it. Please don't feel you have to add "I don't like deadpan" as a qualifier when critiquing my work -- I think all shots have to work on some level above personal taste, and this clearly didn't make it.
(@bsjezz, that pub used to be my work local and I can't say it will be missed)
First shots back from my Olympus XA! Suspect it is over-exposing slightly -- the roll of Portra 160 I got back, metered at 100, is kicking my arse getting the colours right. Also I suspect my film holder needs adjusting for focus distance. Anyway. I'm back in love with Ilford HP5 again. Believe these were all metered @ 800:
..image snip...
Thanks for the explanation. I like #2 in this set and number one would be better IMO if it had more texture in the cliffs it kind of got lost in all the blacks.
I do feel like I need that qualifier a lot of the time. It is one of the reasons I haven't commented in this thread very much lately. I'm not really the intended audience, but there are many other people in this thread that enjoy that type of photography. I think it is unreasonable to make a photo appeal to absolutely everyone. You could shoot for making it appeal to a large group of people, but you also have to consider the style and how popular that style is in general. I don't know outside of this forum how well this style is received in general.
In math-y terms if you are shooting in X style and say 30% of people generally like that style, it is going to be hard to get 60% of people to like a photo in a style they aren't interested in. From another photographer standpoint they might be able to comment on basic compositional and technical elements. As for a non-photographer audience IMO people seem to make real quick snap decisions on if they like a photo. It seems like often times it has little to do with the technical skills and more to do with that person's interest in the subject. Back when I was doing local fashion photography I was working with designers who were making weird or ugly clothing. I rarely had control over the clothes and makeup. I could take a photo that I felt was rather technically proficient in the lighting department and composition department. Then when asking someone if they liked the photo they would often say "I hate that dress" and then just quickly move on to another photo.
I like that last one more than some of the others, because it's _not_ deadpan..
Now, in real life, the shadows wouldn't be that dark, you'd be able to see the rest of the payment part of the machines, etc -- so this is a lot more interpretive than strict 'deadpan' would like you to do, whereas the outside ones with the pub / etc are much 'flatter', which is how the real world tends to look to your eyes under normal circumstances.
Fair point! I admit I misuse the term a fair bit. Glad you like the photo, terms be damned.
I do feel like I need that qualifier a lot of the time. It is one of the reasons I haven't commented in this thread very much lately. I'm not really the intended audience, but there are many other people in this thread that enjoy that type of photography. I think it is unreasonable to make a photo appeal to absolutely everyone. You could shoot for making it appeal to a large group of people, but you also have to consider the style and how popular that style is in general. I don't know outside of this forum how well this style is received in general.
I feel like we've had this discussion before. Obviously I don't intend to shoot photos that appeal to everybody (if my photos weren't evidence enough) but within the context of this forum I feel we're all at least interested in photography, and can judge photos based on their composition and visual grammar rather than the subject matter.
(Actually, I just remembered, we did have this discussion, a little while ago, re: photogenic subjects. Which ties in with your own experience shooting fashion.)
@tynic, I much prefer that square crop. Composition works nicely.
One more, and I'll stop spamming this thread for at least a few days. This is, so far, the only colour shot I'm happy with. I'm thinking Portra 160 doesn't handle overexposure as well as Portra 400, which I regularly shoot @200. I'm getting very little dynamic range and a green cast in the highlights. Here's to hoping my roll of Cinestill 800 comes out alright. Fence by Rohan Bassett, on Flickr
[edit: oh look, flickr uses your real name when posting links now. that's new.
oh my god, that's a Noggin the Nog boat (so viking, rather than elven). I am flabbergasted to see that in the real world, given that it was in its second and final run as a kids show when I was a kid and that was a fairly long time ago.
Nogmania is amazing and everyone should read it; here's a page with an appearance by Nooka, who's the queen commemorated on the boat above:
Posts
@bsjezz I really want to photoshop that bird to a different spot in that cloud lands picture. :biggrin: Are all these spots local to you? I really dig them. This would be a really cool series documenting that town. The suburban architecture juxtaposed against badass nature landscapes. Especially in that "instant nostalgia" style you have. Maybe publish a zine or a small book? I would buy it!
Anyways, a little while ago I took a picture of a chair with my big camera. Its fun to look at all the detail in it (like the stitching and embroidery of the chair). I am impressed with the technology available 50 years ago. It certainly out-resolves my D800 by a large margin. But the resolution isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things... so this picture is fun only for unhinged people like me.
have a trip coming up, so impulse-bought an olympus xa rangefinder on internet groupthink recommendation. also like nine rolls of film, which is going to be massively overkill considering it took me over a month to shoot a single roll of 35mm on a loaner camera last year. excited to play around with the smaller format, though.
cheers, man! the most recent shots have been from a two week trip to visit family in canada, so not our current local area (by an ocean or so) but my partner's hometown. i suppose it's fresh enough to be inspiring still, but not so new that you're misjudging what's interesting: a good place to be for photographs!
what sort of 35mm did you get a hold of, @Baron Dirigible? maybe we could trade a couple when you come up... and good buy on the little XA, compact rangefinders are the best fun
I'll be taking my Hassy up too -- recently bought some 10+ year expired Astia and tungsten-balanced Portra 100 from another forum, so keen to see how that turns out.
Ghosts of Herrling Island by jeremy-o, on Flickr
@Baron Dirigible, do you have spare of fp4+? i'd like to try a really fine grain film with my caffenol. i guess all i've got that you might be interested in is portra 400, or some expired 800 junk
I'd be happy to trade a roll of fp4 for some portra 400 or a pint, whichever you think is fair.
@munnin I tried the re-edit darker and I'm in love, not sure why I didn't go that route to start, it's on my other computer so I'll post it later. Thanks for the suggestion!
One from my trip. This is done from a pull-off viewing area in Utah, so I'm sure this shot's been done to hell, but I still like it nonetheless. Heck of a view.
uploaded this one from my phone for the first time through flickr. Made it really noisy, and not quite as bright as I wanted.
My Portfolio Site
oh well: I've already blown a bunch of shots because I opened the film back before it was all wound, and then for my second roll the camera decided to stop closing the shutter. not sure how I fixed that.
like the look of that first shot, @Prospicience, but I'm waiting to see it on a proper monitor. looks very sharp on this screen, which could just be Flickr being Flickr.
Were you shooting at 1/1000th of a second at f/16? Or were you actually shooting at 1/125th f/16?
@CommunistCow, I was shooting f2.8 @ 1/125 -- which seems highly unlikely to me. Googling suggests non-standard batteries (LR44 vs the suggested SR44) can affect the meter, but that seems related to the discharge profile as it ages, and these are fresh batteries. Otherwise the meter might be working perfectly fine and the shutter-speed indicator needle might be slow. In any case there's not much to be done till I get a roll processed. Fair chance it all works out, especially as I'm shooting colour negative film with good latitude.
@Baron Dirigible i have a feeling on that unit it's the needle. when i had a crack at it it didn't seem to go much higher than 1/8 or so, even when pointed to the (admittedly dull) pub lights. still, was surprised it didn't have a manual shutter speed option... maybe i've just been spoiled by my little ricoh. even if it's way uglier.
Three Views by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Black Spots by jeremy-o, on Flickr
A Darkness Over Main St. by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Was good catching up! And I do like those dodgy dev shots -- the first in spite of the defects, though I think the second is the stronger for them.
@bsjezz yeah transferred over to my phone via the EOS app on the iphone through the 6D's wifi. Usually get cleaner photos, but I think it actually might just be sharpened too much, creating a lot of noise. Added a computer edited version to 500px you can view here.
And here's one of a barn I shot once before in the fall and had to stop off again when it snowed a couple weeks ago because dang.
And rando Denver Airport shot.
My Portfolio Site
Here are a few pictures I have taken with it so far. Very little editing was done on the bulk of them, though I did just do some corrective cropping before this post (some of them were slightly tilted). All photos taken during a long drive around the Olympic Peninsula, via Highway 101.
by Hood Canal:
(zoomed)
From Port Townsend:
(zoomed)
(zoomed)
(not zoomed, just for comparison)
Ruby Beach (Washington coastline):
(zoomed)
(zoomed)
Somewhere south of Ruby Beach:
(not zoomed - check out that barrel distortion on the horizon!)
Lake Quinalt - made it there right before sunset:
These are just a handful of the 50-some images I posted to my Facebook, which are also just a handful of I dunno how many photos were actually taken.
Have I mentioned that I love living in Washington? And also zoom lenses? I WANT A BIGGER ONE. GUYS STOP ME FROM BLOWING MY MONEY ON MORE LENSES AHH
I am totally gonna rent some sometime soon to test out. I'm actually planning another trip to the coast next weekend, and I'm gonna try my hand at some nighttime photography. I attempted it using the 18-140 lens (bad choice, not a fast lens), but having no real idea how to use the camera in manual mode and change the settings to make it work for night sky shots, they didn't turn out so well. (Unedited: 1 - 2; Edited: 1 - 2)
I really enjoy everyone's photos by the way, but I rarely comment 'cause I don't feel like I have much to contribute! I don't plan on being a ~serious photographer by any means, but I am excited to start getting into the medium. I would be thrilled by any feedback advice you have to give me.
really glad you're enjoying your camera! some quick thoughts: first, that shot with the barrel distortion looks like it was taken wide, since barrel distortion is a side-effect of wide-angled lenses (fish-eye lenses treat it as a feature). a number of your shots with back-lit subjects lose foreground detail in favour of getting a "correct" exposure for the entire shot, which is definitely something you can improve with a bit of book-learning about metering, exposure compensation, and exposure in general.
for this shot in particular, the foreground has been under-exposed in order to keep the sunset exposed properly, which I think is the wrong choice in this instance. it would be far better to expose for the foreground and see the detail of the person you're shooting, rather than the (admittedly pretty) sunset behind her. depending on your camera, there'll be a few different modes for metering, and your manual should go some way to explaining the differences between them. you should also be able to adjust "exposure compensation", which basically means asking your camera to under- or over-expose the scene based on what's actually in it. (in this case, you'll want to over-expose, thus blowing out the background, but increasing detail on the foreground subjects.)
regarding lenses: what are you looking to get out of a new lens? 18–140 should offer plenty of range for anything besides specialist uses (super-wide fish-eye photography, or bird-watching / aviation / sports photography). I'd suggest experimenting within the range offered and see where you'd want to invest in a good, fast prime to cover your most-used focal length.
Wow, with iso 800 that is probably 8 or so stops overexposed.
Prosp, I really like the barn shot.
Yeah -- you labelled that shot as "zoomed" but it looks like it was taken at 18mm.
All good questions, which deserve better answers than I could provide before my morning coffee.
And a picture. Fairly happy with how this turned out, though I wish I'd been able to get more space above the tree.
Tree and water by rstop bstop, on Flickr
In my understanding, full zoom photos can have the reverse effect from barrel distortion, pincushion?
Should be fairly easy to add more sky in photoshop, since its just a gradient.
I love this picture quite a bit.
I wrote out a longer response to this, but I think probably the best thing is to read a lot of camera sites (or even wikipedia) to get an understanding of how zoom lenses, telephoto lenses, and aperture works. (Note that "telephoto" is not a synonym for "zoom", and refers instead to physical properties of a lens in question.)
Otherwise, I guess the answers come down to "it depends". Weight and cost especially. Tripods should have specified weight limits, but remember that attaching a very long lens, or angling the camera up / down, may change the centre of gravity. As far as "prohibitively expensive" -- well, there's a 70–200 f2.8 lens for about $2000 that seems an industry standard bit of kit, so I guess it depends on how you view that figure. Realistically you're not going to see lenses much faster than 2.8 on the long end, simply because the aperture is a function of focal length and the lenses themselves need to get much, much bigger to accommodate the wider opening.
Some more photos, clearing out the backlog before I get my rolls back from the Sydney trip:
Mini by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Beer Garden by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Rubble by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Not quite there yet. Might have to do some dodging and burning.
When coach told the team "it's do or die" he was being literal, to the dread of the 47 members of the Glensdale Mighty Mice.
You guys know I'm not a big fan of deadpan photography (is that the term you guys would use or is there another one?). Could someone walk me through and explain the merits or meaning behind this photo? With the first and third one I can see some subject and composition even if I don't find it interesting. The second one I'm struggling to find the purpose or meaning behind it.
i can't speak for @Baron Dirigible, but for me at least:
- you can't separate a shot wholly from its context or its medium. we know baron shoots film, where it's viewed (on Flickr or wherever) is probably in a film pool. so it's natural to appreciate the skilled colour reproduction on an idiosyncratic, high grain film stock. i reckon it was hard work to get those deep greens and the light tones on the wooden waste right. it's also highly distinct within that context - soft, retrograde instagram portraits and the arse end of hipsters looking into landscapes
- i agree that the composition is not effective but the subject is valuable. i like the theme of decay and deconstruction generally - it appeals to a modernist sensibility and i see that here. the harsh daylight, waste pile, bins, garage door and contained fig tree all have tension with a distinctly Australian romanticism represented in the hidden umbrellas and the shot's title. how was there even a pub there to begin with, in this charmless place? why? why did it fail? and yet somehow i already know this story, perhaps because i am australian
That said --- I did still take the photo and I do still like it, myself. I've been drawn to scenes of detritus recently and found this an interesting scene. I enjoy the tree as a framing device, the green palette moving further into the picture from the tree to the cloth to the bins, the umbrella in the background a sign of what used to be there. I would have liked more interesting lighting. A more talented photographer might have waited, or come up with a more interesting composition, or realised the shot needed to be in B&W, or not taken the shot at all. I'll take this as further drive to improve all of those things in my own photography.
Which is all to say I like it, I can see why others may not, and my reasons for liking it aren't really that highbrow that I feel comfortable defending it. Please don't feel you have to add "I don't like deadpan" as a qualifier when critiquing my work -- I think all shots have to work on some level above personal taste, and this clearly didn't make it.
(@bsjezz, that pub used to be my work local and I can't say it will be missed)
First shots back from my Olympus XA! Suspect it is over-exposing slightly -- the roll of Portra 160 I got back, metered at 100, is kicking my arse getting the colours right. Also I suspect my film holder needs adjusting for focus distance. Anyway. I'm back in love with Ilford HP5 again. Believe these were all metered @ 800:
Cliff by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Rocks by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Froth by rstop bstop, on Flickr
I'm continuing my attempt to document every inch of the south-west coastal path, seems like
niccarey, on Flickr
met this handsome chap in sydney
Sports Bar by rstop bstop, on Flickr
... who doubted this shot would come out, and while I reckon this is passable, it was the best of three shots taken in that bar.
and now some deadpan!
Pay Station by rstop bstop, on Flickr
(from here)
Now, in real life, the shadows wouldn't be that dark, you'd be able to see the rest of the payment part of the machines, etc -- so this is a lot more interpretive than strict 'deadpan' would like you to do, whereas the outside ones with the pub / etc are much 'flatter', which is how the real world tends to look to your eyes under normal circumstances.
Thanks for the explanation. I like #2 in this set and number one would be better IMO if it had more texture in the cliffs it kind of got lost in all the blacks.
I do feel like I need that qualifier a lot of the time. It is one of the reasons I haven't commented in this thread very much lately. I'm not really the intended audience, but there are many other people in this thread that enjoy that type of photography. I think it is unreasonable to make a photo appeal to absolutely everyone. You could shoot for making it appeal to a large group of people, but you also have to consider the style and how popular that style is in general. I don't know outside of this forum how well this style is received in general.
In math-y terms if you are shooting in X style and say 30% of people generally like that style, it is going to be hard to get 60% of people to like a photo in a style they aren't interested in. From another photographer standpoint they might be able to comment on basic compositional and technical elements. As for a non-photographer audience IMO people seem to make real quick snap decisions on if they like a photo. It seems like often times it has little to do with the technical skills and more to do with that person's interest in the subject. Back when I was doing local fashion photography I was working with designers who were making weird or ugly clothing. I rarely had control over the clothes and makeup. I could take a photo that I felt was rather technically proficient in the lighting department and composition department. Then when asking someone if they liked the photo they would often say "I hate that dress" and then just quickly move on to another photo.
Would you consider doing a square-ish crop here and removing some of the right side? I think that might make it a little more clean.
edit: yeah, that's better - leads the eye more
I feel like we've had this discussion before. Obviously I don't intend to shoot photos that appeal to everybody (if my photos weren't evidence enough) but within the context of this forum I feel we're all at least interested in photography, and can judge photos based on their composition and visual grammar rather than the subject matter.
(Actually, I just remembered, we did have this discussion, a little while ago, re: photogenic subjects. Which ties in with your own experience shooting fashion.)
@tynic, I much prefer that square crop. Composition works nicely.
One more, and I'll stop spamming this thread for at least a few days. This is, so far, the only colour shot I'm happy with. I'm thinking Portra 160 doesn't handle overexposure as well as Portra 400, which I regularly shoot @200. I'm getting very little dynamic range and a green cast in the highlights. Here's to hoping my roll of Cinestill 800 comes out alright.
Fence by Rohan Bassett, on Flickr
[edit: oh look, flickr uses your real name when posting links now. that's new.
also I live in Hippieland so i probably shouldn't have been surprised to find an elven boat outside my house when I woke up this morning
niccarey, on Flickr