How do I art? [PHOTO THREAD]

anable

In this thread, we post photos!

All photos are welcome, though most people post with the intention of receiving criticism so that they can become better photographers. Please do not spoiler your photos as that defeats the purpose of the thread.

For photography newbies:
What type of camera should I buy?
This can't be answered the same for every person. There's little difference in the photo quality between most major brands (Canon, Nikon, etc) so it comes down to price and personal preference. Make sure your camera lets you control settings like shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and preferably lets you capture images in RAW format. Other than that, get a bit of hands on time and see how the camera feels to you. Also remember that if you're buying an SLR, camera bodies come and go but lenses usually last while. For this reason it might be worth it to buy a cheaper body and spend a bit extra on some lenses.

Speaking of lenses, which ones should I buy?
Most kit lenses are a good starting place, though you'll begin to find them more limited once you're more comfortable with your camera. A good entry level prime lens for Canon cameras is this little guy. Other than that, you'll probably want to pick up a telezoom lens with a macro feature. This should get you set for a long while.

Any good books/sites I should read?
Lots of people recommend Understanding Exposure or the first Ansel Adams book. Don't bother buying any book that tells you how to use your specific camera model. All of that information can be found in your user's manual.

How do I become awesome at arting?
The best advice I can give is: keep taking pictures. That being said, don't just randomly point your camera at something and hit the shutter button. Stop for a moment to think about why you're taking this picture. What are you trying to show people? Is the current lighting/angle/etc going to help you show that? If so, proceed. If not, adjust your settings or body to capture it another way.

Resources/Tools:
Lightroom - Awesome software for managing your photo collection and editing RAW files.
LR Mogrify - Unfortunately Lightroom doesn't have a border option so use this tool. It also does watermarks and the like.
Canon Firmware Update - Unofficial firmware update that allows more options one some Canon cameras.
Strobist - Fantastic source on getting into off camera lighting. Don't be put off by initial complexities. It'll come.
Flickr - A free photo hosting site. Also has a pro option if you like. There's also a PA flickr group.
Phorumr - If you're using flickr and Firefox, this script auto generates the code you need to paste into the forum.
Photoshop Pyramid - Helps regulate your daily dose of Photoshop.
A DIY plexiglass frame - Nifty.
DIY Bokeh - A neat DIY to getting bokeh shapes.

There's also a great write up from Pope:

Spoiler:

Some Photography Stuff

Types of Lenses:

Prime Lens - A lens with no “zoom.” While this might limit composition choices, it also usually means the lens is “faster” (meaning can achieve larger apertures, usually 2.8 and larger (2.0, 1.8, 1.4, 1.0, etc). The wider the aperture, the more light gets in and therefore the faster the shutter can be which is why primes are considered faster.

Zoom Lens - Any lens that can span a range of focal lengths. For example: 18mm-55mm. There are zooms in every category (normal, telephoto, wide, and macro).

Telephoto Lens - A lens that makes objects in the photo appear larger than they were to the naked eye. This is akin to being “zoomed in.” These lenses are comparable to physically moving closer to the subject. Some distortion can occur in the form of “compressing” the distance between objects.

Normal Lens - A lens where objects in the photo appear to be the same size as when seen by the naked eye. This lenses do not change your perceived distance from the subject.

Wide Angle Lens - A lens that shows a wider field of view than the naked eye. This is comparable to being further from the subject. Some distortion can occur (with a fisheye being an extreme example). Foreground objects appear disproportionately larger than background objects.

Macro Lens - A specialty lens that allows focusing on objects MUCH closer than with other lenses. Favored for all closeups (insects, flowers, etc).


Other Terms:

DOF - DOF stands for Depth-of-Field or Depth-of-focus. This describes how much of the shot is in focus (a plain perpendicular to the lens).

Focal Length - The size of a lens. Controls how “zoomed in” or “zoomed out” the picture is. On a 35mm camera a 50mm lens is pretty ‘normal’ and an 85mm lens is a short ‘telephoto’ and a 20mm lens is ‘wide.’ On a lower-end SLR a 50mm is a little bit telephoto.

Crop Factor - The ratio of size of the field of view between various cameras and compared against a 35mm film camera as the baseline. A typical digital SLR has a crop factor of 1.6 (meaning the field of view of the digital chip is smaller than a 35mm film frame). This affects the field of view offered by lenses. For example, a 50mm lens on a typical Digital SLR (DSLR) would be the equivalent of an 80mm lens on a 35mm film camera. A 200mm lens on a typical DSLR would be the same as a 320mm lens on a typical 35mm film camera.

Aperture - The aperture is the size of the opening of the shutter when it fires. It is measured as a fraction (so that 4.0 really means 1/4.0 and 16 means 1/16 and 1.8 means 1/1.8). The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. The wider the aperture, the smaller the DOF and the more light that gets in so the faster the shutter needs to be set.

Shutter Speed - How fast the shutter fires. Conventional wisdom dictates that a camera can be handheld at a shutter speed equal to 1/x where x is the focal length of the lens. For example, if shooting with a 100mm lens, you can handhold the camera up to 1/100 sec. Anything slower (1/50 sec, etc) would need to be balanced on a tripod or monopod or other stabilizer.

ISO - How sensitive the chip is to light. The higher the ISO, the faster the shutter can be set at. ISOs over 200 can start to introduce digital noise (comparable to film grain) with more noise coming from higher ISOs.


Exposure:

There are 3 major factors that affect proper exposure: ISO, Shutter Speed, and Aperture. Adjusting any of these factors affects exposure unless compensated for by either of the other settings.

For example, take the “sunny 16 rule.” The sunny 16 rule is a generalized rule of thumb for achieving proper exposure in sunny conditions. It states that you set the shutter speed to 1/ISO (ie - if using ISO 200 then set the shutter to 1/200 sec), then set the aperture to 1/16 (f-16 or f/16). So a proper exposure would be ISO 200, 1/200 sec, F/16.

Now if you wanted to change the shutter speed because you are using a 300mm lens and don’t have a tripod you could set the shutter to 1/400 sec. This would unbalance the above equation, so you could then compensate by raising the ISO to 400. Now you have ISO 400, 1/400 sec, F/16. Both this setting and the one above give the same exposure.


Depth of Field:

Depth of field is affected by two details: aperture and distance between the camera and the subject. Of these, aperture is the factor that gets manipulated most often when trying to change depth of field. The wider the aperture, the smaller the depth of field. When a lens is “wide open” (using the widest possible aperture, the smallest number) is has the smallest DOF. This is useful for blurring backgrounds and drawing focus where you want it. On the other hand, the smallest possible aperture (anywhere from F/16 on most lenses to F/22 or even F/45 on some lenses) gives the longest DOF. This is most useful in landscape photography where the ideal is to have ALL of the scene in focus.

Distance between camera and subject becomes an issue when shooting Macro photography specifically. When the lens is w/in mere inches from the subject then even a “normal” aperture like F/5.6 can yield a small DOF (a scant couple millimeters). To get all of a macro subject in focus it is usually necessary to shoot a F/8 or F/11 or smaller. This results in slow shutter speeds (see above) unless additional light is brought in (ie - from a flash). Slow shutter speeds increases the chance for motion blur (especially on a breezy day or when the subject is animate, ie a butterfly).

saltiness

Just to nit-pick Pope's info part of the OP about aperture:

Aperture - The aperture is the size of the opening of the shutter when it fires. It is measured as a fraction (so that 4.0 really means 1/4.0 and 16 means 1/16 and 1.8 means 1/1.8). The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. The wider the aperture, the smaller the DOF and the more light that gets in so the faster the shutter needs to be set.

Aperture is not the size of the opening of the shutter, it's the size of the opening of the aperture - the shutter is a completely different mechanism and is part of the camera, not the lens. I'm guessing Pope knew this, just bad wording.

anable

Sheri wrote: »

Oh sweet Jesus this was just delivered by UPS:

Canon 24-70L f/2.8
Canon Speedlight 580EX II
Canon Speedlight 430EX
Two diffusers
One 5-in-1 22" reflector set
One UV filter for the aforementioned lens
One neckstrap

The FedEx guy just brought me two batteries

UPS all the way!

D: I want.

saltiness wrote: »

Just to nit-pick Pope's info part of the OP about aperture:

Aperture - The aperture is the size of the opening of the shutter when it fires. It is measured as a fraction (so that 4.0 really means 1/4.0 and 16 means 1/16 and 1.8 means 1/1.8). The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. The wider the aperture, the smaller the DOF and the more light that gets in so the faster the shutter needs to be set.

Aperture is not the size of the opening of the shutter, it's the size of the opening of the aperture - the shutter is a completely different mechanism and is part of the camera, not the lens. I'm guessing Pope knew this, just bad wording.

I was not aware of the distinction. So the "shutter" sits on the sensor always opens full and the aperture is another shutter like mechanism in the lens?

saltiness

anable wrote: »

saltiness wrote: »

Just to nit-pick Pope's info part of the OP about aperture:

Aperture - The aperture is the size of the opening of the shutter when it fires. It is measured as a fraction (so that 4.0 really means 1/4.0 and 16 means 1/16 and 1.8 means 1/1.8). The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. The wider the aperture, the smaller the DOF and the more light that gets in so the faster the shutter needs to be set.

Aperture is not the size of the opening of the shutter, it's the size of the opening of the aperture - the shutter is a completely different mechanism and is part of the camera, not the lens. I'm guessing Pope knew this, just bad wording.

I was not aware of the distinction. So the "shutter" sits on the sensor always opens full and the aperture is another shutter like mechanism in the lens?

The aperture is inside the lens and never fully closes. If you have a Canon you can mount a lens, stop down the aperture and press the DoF preview button while dismounting the lens and it will freeze the aperture inside the lens for you to see it. The shutter in an SLR is composed of two or more pieces which cover the sensor/film inside the camera body and open and close when you hit the shutter button.

There are some cameras that have the shutter inside the lens but I don't think any modern SLRs do.

Dark Moon

Prosp, I think the pose was passable and it was the framing that brings the shot down. Your head is level with the post at roughly halfway up the frame and both yourself and the post are a little too near the edges of the shot. To top it all off, those few pieces of very OOF grass seem really out of place. These three things together make for an image that's really uncomfortable to look at, even with that awesome backdrop. It's a cool setting if you're planning on a reshoot, though. Hopefully the clouds will comply and set themselves up so prettily again.

Long, that is a really lovely portrait. The backlighting and dust and that perfect lighting gradient in the background that helps tone down your colourful human backdrop - yum. Is the focus on, though? It's tough to tell on such a small image, but it almost looks like her shoulder is on the plane of focus, rather than the eyes. On smaller prints this shouldn't matter, but if you want to get it 8"x10" or larger it might become distracting - assuming I'm correct and the focus is off, that is.

My Pentax LX shipped. Ahhhhh! Even with shipping it came out to at least $100 under what it's worth, so I can even call it a sound investment. Image of my camera, taken by the shop I bought it from, before it shipped. I don't know about you, but that sure doesn't look like a 7+/10 on a rating system based entirely on external aesthetics (mechanics are guaranteed to be perfect).

This does bring up an interesting point, though: I don't know much about film. Slide vs negative, what brands and types to buy, etc. Anyone have any hints? I'd really like to hear opinions on mid-level B&W film in particular, as processing is so much cheaper and my dark room is locked in the photo club office at my summer-gripped university. I'll also run a roll of Velvia through it soon after I get it simply to see what all the fuss is about.

Oh, and if someone could sell me a cheap Pentax K 35mm f/2 that would just be peaches.

saltiness

I'm a fan of Ilford HP5 for an easy 400 speed B&W film. Ilford Pan F plus is a nice fine grain 50 speed.

anable

Dark Moon wrote: »

This does bring up an interesting point, though: I don't know much about film. Slide vs negative, what brands and types to buy, etc. Anyone have any hints? I'd really like to hear opinions on mid-level B&W film in particular, as processing is so much cheaper and my dark room is locked in the photo club office at my summer-gripped university. I'll also run a roll of Velvia through it soon after I get it simply to see what all the fuss is about.

My experience with film is zero so I could be completely off base with this, but my understanding is that with slides you can get Polaroidesque previews which seem infinitely awesome over negatives. I'm thinking of the camera that Burtynsky uses, so correct me if that's a camera function, and not a film function.

saltiness

anable wrote: »

Dark Moon wrote: »

This does bring up an interesting point, though: I don't know much about film. Slide vs negative, what brands and types to buy, etc. Anyone have any hints? I'd really like to hear opinions on mid-level B&W film in particular, as processing is so much cheaper and my dark room is locked in the photo club office at my summer-gripped university. I'll also run a roll of Velvia through it soon after I get it simply to see what all the fuss is about.

My experience with film is zero so I could be completely off base with this, but my understanding is that with slides you can get Polaroidesque previews which seem infinitely awesome over negatives. I'm thinking of the camera that Burtynsky uses, so correct me if that's a camera function, and not a film function.

You're thinking of a Polaroid back which may or may not (probably not) be available for Dark's camera. A Polaroid back basically replaces the part of the camera that normally holds a roll of film with a cartridge of large Polaroid film. So you can set up, shoot the scene with the Polaroid back to get an good idea of how the shot will look on film then shoot it with the film back when you've got what you want. It's a complicated and expensive way of having a preview of your shot like the LCD on the digital camera. It's especially useful when you're shooting medium or large format film where a roll or sheet of film is expensive and you want to make sure your lighting/framing is right before you fire off 10 frames.

anable

Awesome. Thanks for the clarification.

saltiness

And since everyone else seems to be getting new gear I guess I'll share what I'm doing.

Up until now I had been building my kit in preparation for a school grant I was supposed to get this fall in which case I was going to buy a 5D mkII assuming it was out by then. Well, the state education budget was cut and the grant program went along with it. So I had a 20D, 50 f/1.4, 17-40 f/4L, 28-70 f/2.8L and 70-200 f/4L. None of these focal lengths were ideal for my shooting style using the 20D but I was dealing with it until the 5D. Since that's not happening I decided to sell a bunch of stuff and start over. So I sold the 70-200, 28-70 and I currently have the 17-40 for sale on ebay.

So on Monday I ordered a Sigma 10-20, two Vivitar 285hv's w/stands, mounts, optical slaves, batteries, and umbrellas for each and two 4 stop neutral density filters for my Cokin holder and a roll of black wrap. That should all come tomorrow. Yesterday I ordered a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and tonight I bought a 100mm f/2.8 Macro. So I should have some new and exciting photos to share with you all in the coming weeks. I'm excited to finally get into macro shooting as I've wanted to for a while but never had the guts to buy the lens. And now I'll finally have a super wide angle.

Mr. Fahrenheit

Damn you kids and your crazy contraptions to graph photos.



This was done really late, and my water was shut off so I was only drinking what I could get from melting ice cubes.

Sheri

Love that wide, salti, and I'll bet you will, too

Dark Moon

saltiness wrote: »

anable wrote: »

Dark Moon wrote: »

This does bring up an interesting point, though: I don't know much about film. Slide vs negative, what brands and types to buy, etc. Anyone have any hints? I'd really like to hear opinions on mid-level B&W film in particular, as processing is so much cheaper and my dark room is locked in the photo club office at my summer-gripped university. I'll also run a roll of Velvia through it soon after I get it simply to see what all the fuss is about.

My experience with film is zero so I could be completely off base with this, but my understanding is that with slides you can get Polaroidesque previews which seem infinitely awesome over negatives. I'm thinking of the camera that Burtynsky uses, so correct me if that's a camera function, and not a film function.

You're thinking of a Polaroid back which may or may not (probably not) be available for Dark's camera. A Polaroid back basically replaces the part of the camera that normally holds a roll of film with a cartridge of large Polaroid film. So you can set up, shoot the scene with the Polaroid back to get an good idea of how the shot will look on film then shoot it with the film back when you've got what you want. It's a complicated and expensive way of having a preview of your shot like the LCD on the digital camera. It's especially useful when you're shooting medium or large format film where a roll or sheet of film is expensive and you want to make sure your lighting/framing is right before you fire off 10 frames.

Nah, Pentax didn't do a Polaroid back for any of their 35mm cameras. They probably have one for the 645, but alas I am not made of money and have yet to get my own pack mule to haul such a thing around with.

Thanks for all the tips so far regarding film. I'll likely pick up one roll each of several different types of cheap B+W film to see what catches my fancy, but I'd still like pick your brains. Does anyone hold any strong opinions on Kodak Tri-X 400? It's a silver halide film vs C41 film - what are the implications of this?

That is some slick stuff, salti. The Sigma 10-20 is gorgeous. May I ask what you chose to optically slave the 285s? Wein peanuts or something else? I have a single 285HV that I'm using as my on-body flash and would love to take it off body (wirelessly) for cheap.

Fahrenheit, you have a very unique style that I like very much. This one is great - yummy colours - but could do with a wider crop in the bottom right corner. Might you reconsider the 8x10 crop entirely, actually? I think it'd be much prettier as a 4x6 or even 8x20 (super wide angle crops look so neat, even if they are impossibly expensive to print).

saltiness

Dark Moon wrote: »

saltiness wrote: »

anable wrote: »

Dark Moon wrote: »

This does bring up an interesting point, though: I don't know much about film. Slide vs negative, what brands and types to buy, etc. Anyone have any hints? I'd really like to hear opinions on mid-level B&W film in particular, as processing is so much cheaper and my dark room is locked in the photo club office at my summer-gripped university. I'll also run a roll of Velvia through it soon after I get it simply to see what all the fuss is about.

My experience with film is zero so I could be completely off base with this, but my understanding is that with slides you can get Polaroidesque previews which seem infinitely awesome over negatives. I'm thinking of the camera that Burtynsky uses, so correct me if that's a camera function, and not a film function.

You're thinking of a Polaroid back which may or may not (probably not) be available for Dark's camera. A Polaroid back basically replaces the part of the camera that normally holds a roll of film with a cartridge of large Polaroid film. So you can set up, shoot the scene with the Polaroid back to get an good idea of how the shot will look on film then shoot it with the film back when you've got what you want. It's a complicated and expensive way of having a preview of your shot like the LCD on the digital camera. It's especially useful when you're shooting medium or large format film where a roll or sheet of film is expensive and you want to make sure your lighting/framing is right before you fire off 10 frames.

Nah, Pentax didn't do a Polaroid back for any of their 35mm cameras. They probably have one for the 645, but alas I am not made of money and have yet to get my own pack mule to haul such a thing around with.

Thanks for all the tips so far regarding film. I'll likely pick up one roll each of several different types of cheap B+W film to see what catches my fancy, but I'd still like pick your brains. Does anyone hold any strong opinions on Kodak Tri-X 400? It's a silver halide film vs C41 film - what are the implications of this?

That is some slick stuff, salti. The Sigma 10-20 is gorgeous. May I ask what you chose to optically slave the 285s? Wein peanuts or something else? I have a single 285HV that I'm using as my on-body flash and would love to take it off body (wirelessly) for cheap.

Fahrenheit, you have a very unique style that I like very much. This one is great - yummy colours - but could do with a wider crop in the bottom right corner. Might you reconsider the 8x10 crop entirely, actually? I think it'd be much prettier as a 4x6 or even 8x20 (super wide angle crops look so neat, even if they are impossibly expensive to print).

You don't want C41 at all if you're developing the film yourself. C41 is color negative process film (though they do make B&W versions of it) so you have to take it to a lab. You want B&W print film. Tri-X is a B&W print film. I'd recommend developing film yourself in your bathroom.

I got optical slaves because they aren't too expensive (2 peanutes for $40) and it's nice to work without wires, you can also just get a PC cord and do off-camera that way (I have one of those as well incase the slave doesn't work).

anable

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote: »

Damn you kids and your crazy contraptions to graph photos.

wire majig

This was done really late, and my water was shut off so I was only drinking what I could get from melting ice cubes.

Awesome, though I'm not sure that the...thing on the left contributes.

anable

Playing around with empty spaces:

Jake!

So it looks like whilst you guys were comparing the size of your digital equipment I was out taking photo's. I'd just gone out for a ride without the intention of taking anything as the forecast was awful. Fortunately I'd come straight from work so my camera was still in my bag. I thought these first three shots were going to be it for anything even half descent

Spoiler:

ps. I know some of these shots are a bit over-saturated, gonna sort that out but did most of this in iphoto..ugh

Jives

altmann

1. Saltiness, I'm in the market for a 17-40... What's a good price for a forum buddy? (not asking unfair prices, just saying, it'd be good to go back into our little community).

2. Jives, I like what you were able to do with that.

3. In the tradition of posting what we comment on, here's a kitty pic I took:



Color is weird because of fluorescent lighting. I tried (not hard enough) to fix the color balance.

Mr. Fahrenheit

Cats go in the meat drawer.

I decided to keep going with the blood thing



Gogo Batman, and Hellboy if we're on the subject.

anable

Jives wrote: »

srsly

Quite creepy. Two little things jumped out at me about the PS job though. Around the left (our right) eye, the pattern brush you used is a little too obvious. Also, you can see one of the strands of red that goes from the lips jumps to the nose, killing the makeup look.

Still! It's about 100x better than what I can whip up, so good job.

saltiness

Anable: Interesting shot, I've always had a soft spot for lots of negative space. My only gripe is that it seems too saturated.

Jake!: Awesome light you have in those shots. The second to last is my favorite, very idyllic.


_
Altmann, I've already got the lens up for auction on ebay otherwise I would offer it to you. You're welcome to bid on it with the random savages though. You can be sure it's one of the cleanest used ones out there.

Jives

anable wrote: »

Jives wrote: »

srsly

Quite creepy. Two little things jumped out at me about the PS job though. Around the left (our right) eye, the pattern brush you used is a little too obvious. Also, you can see one of the strands of red that goes from the lips jumps to the nose, killing the makeup look.

Still! It's about 100x better than what I can whip up, so good job.

thanks

I was getting frustated with how long it was taking after a while hence the crappy left eye

I might go back and change it later, Or just try again

CG Faggotry

I haven't taken a photo for six months. I hope I remember somewhat how to do it.

JAmp5

Jake! number 3! is hotness!

Uberslug

This is me, taken with a Canon EOS 10D and a 15 mm wide-angle lens.

anable

Uber, I'm not sure what you're going for with that shot. You've got a lot of noise in the background in the form of an open door to a dark room and an open door to a bathroom. The highlights seem blown out on your face and I'm not sure that the fisheye effect helps anything. Sorry, it's just really not doing anything for me.

saltiness

Fuck yeah, wide angle and lights came! More (better) pics to come soon.

Uberslug

saltiness wrote: »

Fuck yeah, wide angle and lights came! More (better) pics to come soon.

image

I see a controller lol

How much are lights?

saltiness

The strobes were 90 bucks a piece.

Jamp, are those glow sticks in the water there? It's an interesting shot but I'm not a fan of the color cast of the light on the trees.

MEADONE

A snapshot from my trip to Toledo, Ohio. This is my oldest sister at my grandmother's house. Shot at 1600 so excessive grain is a problem in this one.


I enjoy how her hair and skin tone meld so perfectly with the color scheme of the room, but then her dress is so vastly different.

spacerobot

Jamp- I really like the lights in that shot. Did you put those there or is it just like a flooded backyard? I would love to see other stuff done like that, with the lights underwater.

Salti- I like that shot a lot. I can't really pin one reason why I like it, but it just seems like a normal photo that has been made really interesting. Perhaps it's the combination of the wide angle and your posture? Kind of a cool perspective.

I went on vacation to Frisco, Colorado last week, and got to go on some great hikes. We were hiking on the ridge of this one mountain and my Brother in-law got way ahead, which made for a good perspective. 75mm f/4 100ISO 1/500th lightroom for darkening the mountains.

Veritas

Damn that is an amazing view. Great shot.

Edit:
Jamp that's an awesome shot reminds me of one that was featured on strobist several months ago but they used floods to light it.

Jake, loving those colors 1st 3rd and 5th shots are awesome.

Urian

Jake! wrote: »

So it looks like whilst you guys were comparing the size of your digital equipment I was out taking photo's. I'd just gone out for a ride without the intention of taking anything as the forecast was awful. Fortunately I'd come straight from work so my camera was still in my bag. I thought these first three shots were going to be it for anything even half descent

Spoiler:

ps. I know some of these shots are a bit over-saturated, gonna sort that out but did most of this in iphoto..ugh

Wow, where is this place? It looks beautiful.

saltiness

First shot using 8 stops of ND filters on the sigma. Further experimentation required.

Pilcrow

Fantastic shot Mr. Spacerobot! The sharpening is a little crunchy, but that's probably good?

My sister made this collage of my shots from the 4th of July, which I think I'm going to use as the splash page of my photography site --

bent

here's a holiday panorama I quickly stitched together earlier, came out suprisingly well considering the shots were taken from a boat:



and another er... vertical panorama?

...an uporama?

Jake!

Cheers guys, I appreciate the kind crits, crits all round!

Mr Fahrenheit: Like the second 'blood shot' more than the first. It would work better with more of the top right tube I think though, otherwise great.

CGF: That second shot seems really really posed. The texture, besides the texture of the foliage is more interesting than the path of subject

JAmp5: love the composition but I'd second the colours seeming a bit odd.

Uber: I'm with anable, not sure what you're doing there

saltiness: I agree with the crit about the controller, also I'd like to see you a bit closer to the camera. Also this is picky but maybe with the bikes facing towards you and your head intersecting the line of the ceiling?

love the second shot, the imperfections make it looks a bit like staring out of a space suit.

space robot: really wicked shot, love how your brother gives the landscape scale. It's a pity about the blow out at the top, is that cloud? Still you can't do anything about it without resorting to a bad crop. The only other thing I'd watch is trying to stop your lines converging, The tree line is almost in line with the rock your brother is standing on.

Urian: It's called Armscliff Crag and it's in West Yorkshire England...

JAmp5

Cheers for the comments, yeah it was a bit on the experimental side I'll admit and yup they're glowsticks lit with a flash (from all different angles) over a 30 second exposure.

Dark_Side

So here's a question, I was bored and trying to photo the lights in my bathroom in as interesting a way as possible. Did I hit my minimalist mark? Or is this just plain boring? Also..somebody recommend me a good Nikon wide angle lens, I really need one, and I can't quite justify throwing down the cash for a 12-24mm

anable

Dark - I'm a fan of the lighting, but not so much the subject. I personally would have like it better if you could have gotten the bulbs and the bare wall by itself. I mean, assuming minimalism.