The [PHOTO THREAD] is too hot to keep one name!

saltiness

tmccool: Those contact sheets are awesome. Very clever idea.


Here are a couple from this week.

Prospicience

Forbe! wrote: »

Quality. Not quantity. :{

Yeah I know, I was just bracketing quite a bit. That and taking a bunch of photos for HDR and panoramas. That and I took pictures just about every day for 3 hours for over a week and a half. Mainly just experimenting with a ton of different stuff since I don't get too much time to experiment let alone go shoot photos.

Salti I'm lovin' that second one , really like the halo type effect the sun created around her. That and the warm colors in the background look really beauteeful.

And thanks everyone for the comments on the spider/man photo.


TMccool: Man I bet you could get some bad ass full print collages with those along a wall or something. :^:

An-D

These are all done with a Kodak Easyshare Z710.


(Taken on Western Carolina University campus)



(City is Baltimore)


Woo for amateur-ism. Critiques welcome!!

Sheri

I love that you guys put warnings on bug photos now.

altmann

Veritas: I think she's beautiful, i like the eyes actually but that's me.

2ndly: Anyone live around DC want to go and shoot stuff with our cameras and neat stuff like that? The photographers I've meet are not my type and prefer to go to bars mostly... I want to go out shooting.

3rdish:

Took these 2 recently:


Fall in Northern VA



Some abandoned building.

I've not been happy with my pictures recently I need to get out more.

EDIT: Problem with flickr is it's either too small or too big but it's all good. Edited em down.

Sheri

altmann, consider resizing them down a bit more for posting. Scrolling to see the whole image is generally pretty distracting.

Also I'd come hang out, but I don't live up there anymore.

Veritas

No kidding altman, I was up in Northern Va all summer

arod_77

Just a few snaps of a friend. They aren't as well planned as I usually like, but she is a model and makes me uh...nervous.

spacerobot

I took this picture several weeks ago at the "trail of history" historical re-enactment near Richmond, Illinois. I thought it was a cool subject, but I feel like the bright sun takes away from it a little bit. I was also unsure about what to do with the people in the background watching.. do they take away or add to the feel of the jugglers? If they take away, what should I have done instead?



After a class assignment taking portraits, I really enjoy taking these. This one was rather spontaneous, but I was trying to work with the flash on my camera. I tried putting a kleenex over the flash to diffuse it, and it seemed to work ok. Any other suggestions on the flash or composition?



And finally some leaves at White Pines State park in Oregon, Illinois. I liked the way it was holding the water


edit: and I wanted to throw in, I LOVE your pictures veritas. I wish I could take some like that.

BadAssMonkee

Jeak wrote: »

BadAssMonkee wrote: »

Or perhaps any internet websites that do the same as these books but are free?

http://www.berniecode.com/writing/photography/beginners/

is quite a good beginners guide. It covers all the real basics in a single, very concise article.

and try going here after http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/

Thanks.

tofu

I'm not particularly satisfied with my B&W conversion of this photo, am I crazy or does anyone have some suggestions?

erisian pope

The person blends in a lot with the dark layer of rocks. Can you adjust red/blue/green amounts in the BW conversion to separate the dude from the rocks more?

saltiness

Toaster

Prospicience

saltiness wrote: »

Toaster

That is the coolest looking toaster shot, very iPod'ish. I'm gonna start wearing a toaster around now.
Being critical though I'd say the only thing that bothers me is how crisp the bottom edge of the toaster is when the rest of the edges are really soft. Not a big deal though, contrast in it is excellent.

Nucsh

Salt - I saw this and immediately started thinking of the weirdest things I could take shots of in a studio. Obviously, a toaster would not be the first on my list of normal things. I like it, though.

I love the fall, and I finally found some time to get outdoors to take a walk.





Caution: buzz

(ohms)Crunchy

saltiness wrote: »

Toaster

This is what went through my mind:

1.) That's a sweet looking cellphone.
2.) What the hell is that in the middle?
3.) Strange looking cellpho---
4.) Oh, it's a toaster.

Sheri

erisian pope

Sheri - YUM!

saltiness

Thanks for all the comments on the toaster. I was really trying to make it a desirable toaster, just like one of those slick cell phone or music player product shots.

Veritas

ooh thank you spacerobot - something that might help for the future, something you can do for the jugglers in addition to the wide angle shot, get into close and try to fill a good portion of the screen with just one of them, it could cut out a lot of the crowd, and you might get a bit better exposure from it with less sky. Also for your portrait, nice job with the kleenex, the lighting is very soft and certainly doesn't scream out on-camera flash to me. The portrait is a little soft on the focus but it doesn't exactly hurt it either.

Salti - That toaster kicks some ass man. I hear iToast will be really big this christmas! :winky:

tofu

I fiddled with the B&W conversion and I re-cropped it, I like this version much better.

Jeak

Sheri wrote: »

A Lie

Nice, but it needs white balancing. Also, you've cropped the corner of the cake off. It would also probably be better if the strawberries were in focus as their colour draws the eye to them more than the cake.

spacerobot: The major problem with the jugglers is that they and the background are both in focus. If the audience were blurry the jugglers would jump out much more. It's also a pity about the tree in the background. Good shot otherwise.

Sheri

Jeak wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

A Lie

Nice, but it needs white balancing. Also, you've cropped the corner of the cake off. It would also probably be better if the strawberries were in focus as their colour draws the eye to them more than the cake.

Thanks, but it's pretty true to color, the corner could stand to be included but I don't think the cropped edge detracts considering that it's such a close crop, and no, I don't think it would be better with the focus on the strawberries. I took one with the focus there, and this one was better. The focus is the cake, so the cake is in focus.

EDIT: I suppose I could try fiddling with the WB a bit when I get home.

I'm not saying I think it's perfect, but the things you've pointed out are not things that I think are issues.

arod_77

Its weird, I just found out my Dark-Room tech teacher is named "Sherry"

Close enough.

Are you secretly a 60-something year old women teaching community college?

Sheri

If I were, I'd spell my name correctly!

arod_77

Sheri, the other Baldwin brother.


When I transfer up to Gainesville you are getting me access to the secret Disney underground, right?

Sheri

Sure

It's called the Keys to the Kingdom tour.

It's $60.

Plus a $20 finder's fee for me.

arod_77

As usual, you are about as much fun as a wet sponge.


I see how it is.

Sheri

Wet sponges are great

You can slap people in the face and it'll stick and slide down and hilarity

Jeak

Sheri wrote: »

Jeak wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

A Lie

Nice, but it needs white balancing. Also, you've cropped the corner of the cake off. It would also probably be better if the strawberries were in focus as their colour draws the eye to them more than the cake.

Thanks, but it's pretty true to color, the corner could stand to be included but I don't think the cropped edge detracts considering that it's such a close crop, and no, I don't think it would be better with the focus on the strawberries. I took one with the focus there, and this one was better. The focus is the cake, so the cake is in focus.

EDIT: I suppose I could try fiddling with the WB a bit when I get home.

I'm not saying I think it's perfect, but the things you've pointed out are not things that I think are issues.

I'd then suggest cropping more from the left next time. As it stands you've just cut the tip off the side, it looks accidental.

arod_77

Sheri wrote: »

Sure

It's called the Keys to the Kingdom tour.

It's $60.

Plus a $20 finder's fee for me.

Are you on staff at a certain park, or do you just sort of freelance around all the Disney Properties?

Im' actually going to be there again a few days during New Years.

Sheri

arod_77 wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

Sure

It's called the Keys to the Kingdom tour.

It's $60.

Plus a $20 finder's fee for me.

Are you on staff at a certain park, or do you just sort of freelance around all the Disney Properties?

Im' actually going to be there again a few days during New Years.

Uh, neither. I work in Youth Group Program Sales.

arod_77

Sheri wrote: »

arod_77 wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

Sure

It's called the Keys to the Kingdom tour.

It's $60.

Plus a $20 finder's fee for me.

Are you on staff at a certain park, or do you just sort of freelance around all the Disney Properties?

Im' actually going to be there again a few days during New Years.

Uh, neither. I work in Youth Group Program Sales.

Youth Groups.

Yuck.

erisian pope

Not high-art, but here's what the aperture of my 50mm/1.8 looks like!



I think it's pretty neat.

spacerobot

So on that last portrait I posted of the girl with the cat, I thought I had used a flash with a kleenex over it. I just went back and checked the properties and apparently I didn't use a flash on that one. I was so proud of myself too... I feel like such a sham.

Aneurhythmia

Sheri wrote: »

If I were, I'd spell my name correctly!

Alcohol is an acceptable substitute to the chick from Twin Peaks.

Aneurhythmia

Jeak wrote: »

I'd then suggest cropping more from the left next time. As it stands you've just cut the tip off the side, it looks accidental.

The WB probably does need a tiny bump. The strawberries are too low in frame to really work as a primary focus, but a deeper DOF might have worked out for this.

I absolutely disagree with you on the cropping. It reads as significant and intentional, and the form has solid weight in the framing of the image.

erisian pope

I did a ghetto-macro solution: I mounted the 50mm on my camera, then held my 17-35 in front of it (reversed). I know I can buy a step-up-ring and then a ring that reverses the threads so that I can actually mount my lenses like this for real, but at the moment I just held them together.

Using this, I shot pics of a sewing needle:

Aneurhythmia

It might require tighter cropping - there's a lot of negative space there, but I'd like to see how that vignetting falls on a subject that fills more of the frame.

erisian pope

It's funny (if you don't think things through in advance) - the size of viewable area (aka the size of the vignetting) is a result of the aperture I shoot in.

I shot a couple of my tape-dispenser just now, and the first was at f/22 for maximum DOF ... the vignetting filled 85% of the entire frame with solid black. I reshot at 1.8 and the image fills the frame. I'll post them both (both are awful pics) for curiosity's sake in a moment.

EDIT:

F-22


F-1.8