PHOTOGENOCIDE

Aneurhythmia

Not how this thread works.

Phonehand

It is now

StudioZEL

Sorry. Didn't know.

Sheri

StudioZEL wrote:

Sorry. Didn't know.

Did you try, like, reading the thread?

scarlet st.

Sheri wrote:

StudioZEL wrote:

Sorry. Didn't know.

Did you try, like, reading the thread?

Would you have bothered?

I know I don't.



































8)

Tini

WTF?

You had to bring fucking 4chan into this, didn't you!?




RAWR! LOLS. I need to take pictures more often. :roll:

Staleghoti

I need some fuckin batteries

hopefully my mom will bring some home

JAmp5

And why pray-tell do you not have rechargables?

scarlet st.

Try an expression

As it is that is a fairly meaningless portrait.

JAmp5

I'm going for nonchalance

erisian pope

I think that's really awesome, JAmp. It's young, hip, edgy, etc. It could be the cover to some sort of indie magazine, could advertise some product (if the same pic had headphones or an ipod or whatever young, hip, edgy product you wished to market). In short, it looks professional without looking boring or blah.

Sheri

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Staleghoti

I should get rechargables, I got some the X-mas I got my camera but one of them was fucked and I never used the 3 that remained, I dunno why, I probably could have.

Now I think that charger and the batteries are long gone. I've just been using large strips from Costco since then.

april__29

some pretty crap rain pictures on the buss, not happy with the blur but stupid bus was going and it was a whim pic taken before i got off the buss but the colours turned out ok i think

scarlet st.

Sheri wrote:

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Agreed, I did like that.

I'm just so used to having to be a dick in the AC that all I did was criticize.

Sheri

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Agreed, I did like that.

I'm just so used to having to be a dick in the AC that all I did was criticize.

Compared to the rest of the AC, this thread is fairly dick-free.

Except when I'm around. My dick is HUGE.

scarlet st.

Sheri wrote:

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Agreed, I did like that.

I'm just so used to having to be a dick in the AC that all I did was criticize.

Compared to the rest of the AC, this thread is fairly dick-free.

Except when I'm around. My dick is HUGE.

Wide angle shots only

Abracadaniel

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Agreed, I did like that.

I'm just so used to having to be a dick in the AC that all I did was criticize.

Compared to the rest of the AC, this thread is fairly dick-free.

Except when I'm around. My dick is HUGE.

Wide angle shots only

PANORAMAS

Sheri

Smart Hero wrote:

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

scarlet st. wrote:

Sheri wrote:

JAmp5 wrote:

I'm going for nonchalance

You should go for a shave.

Great lighting.

Agreed, I did like that.

I'm just so used to having to be a dick in the AC that all I did was criticize.

Compared to the rest of the AC, this thread is fairly dick-free.

Except when I'm around. My dick is HUGE.

Wide angle shots only

PANORAMAS

A million shots stitched together.

(ohms)Crunchy

That's what she said.

Sheri

A lot of your photos lack a distinct focus -- there's too much in the shot, and too much in focus. It's both a compositional problem and a DOF problem.

Also, you've got a few crooked horizons. And lots of lens flare.

And what's with the chips?

(ohms)Crunchy

Sheri wrote:

A lot of your photos lack a distinct focus -- there's too much in the shot, and too much in focus. It's both a compositional problem and a DOF problem.

Also, you've got a few crooked horizons. And lots of lens flare.

And what's with the chips?

Yeah, I don't know enough about Photography to be as good as you or Jamp. I just have some crappy Digital camera and I just did the classic "point and click" maneuver.

And Doritos are amazing.

Sheri

(ohms)Crunchy wrote:

Sheri wrote:

A lot of your photos lack a distinct focus -- there's too much in the shot, and too much in focus. It's both a compositional problem and a DOF problem.

Also, you've got a few crooked horizons. And lots of lens flare.

And what's with the chips?

Yeah, I don't know enough about Photography to be as good as you or Jamp. I just have some crappy Digital camera and I just did the classic "point and click" maneuver.

And Doritos are amazing.

Well, they are amazing, but you should eat them instead of photographing them. XD

But do you see the difference between, say, the Pringles shot (which I don't 'get,' but it's compositionally much more sound) and the first shot? In the Pringles shot, there is a definite focus. It's a tube of Pringles on. . . sunflower seeds? I dunno. But in the first shot (and a lot of them), there's a whole lot of stuff, and all of it in focus, so it's boring because there's nothing to look at because there's so much (mundane stuff, to boot) to look at. If that made any sense.

(ohms)Crunchy

Sheri wrote:

(ohms)Crunchy wrote:

Sheri wrote:

A lot of your photos lack a distinct focus -- there's too much in the shot, and too much in focus. It's both a compositional problem and a DOF problem.

Also, you've got a few crooked horizons. And lots of lens flare.

And what's with the chips?

Yeah, I don't know enough about Photography to be as good as you or Jamp. I just have some crappy Digital camera and I just did the classic "point and click" maneuver.

And Doritos are amazing.

Well, they are amazing, but you should eat them instead of photographing them. XD

But do you see the difference between, say, the Pringles shot (which I don't 'get,' but it's compositionally much more sound) and the first shot? In the Pringles shot, there is a definite focus. It's a tube of Pringles on. . . sunflower seeds? I dunno. But in the first shot (and a lot of them), there's a whole lot of stuff, and all of it in focus, so it's boring because there's nothing to look at because there's so much (mundane stuff, to boot) to look at. If that made any sense.

Yeah, it did make sense.

Phonehand

Don't pay attention to Sheri. She always needs to have something out of focus or she freaks.

Shazkar Shadowstorm

Nucsh wrote:

Veritas wrote:

Some pictures from St. Thomas and St. John

...[/img]

I too have taken this photograph.


I am absolutely in love with Trunk Bay and hope to go back within the next few years, funds permitting.

Right now I'm broke though, soooo...

Oh man. I went snorkeling there back like.. when I was 15 or something.

I want to go now.

Sheri

Phonehand wrote:

Don't pay attention to Sheri. She always needs to have something out of focus or she freaks.

Please don't invalidate actual critiques with snarky comments. That was genuine (and good, if I may say so) advice.

Shazkar Shadowstorm

It's really sad because for my first semester at college my parents were like, leave your camera at home for the first semester till you get used to things so you don't break it/lose it/ruin it/fail school.. =/ Considering they did pay for half of it and it was mad $$$ that's reasonable. And looking at the state of my room now I'm not surprised...

So it's at home and the only time I've taken pics was when I went home for thanksgiving break. So lame.
I feel so out of practice. Even though I sucked before anyway

So I guess when I'm done with finals I'll go take 1 million photos and post half and you guys can tell me I am a failure, and why, and then maybe I can go not be a failure. It'll be fun!

Gafoto

Yeah, those photos just aren't interesting Crunchy.

scarlet st.

Gafoto wrote:

Yeah, those photos just aren't interesting Crunchy.

k not gonna wait for them to load on this connection then.

Aneurhythmia

scarlet st. wrote:

Gafoto wrote:

Yeah, those photos just aren't interesting Crunchy.

k not gonna wait for them to load on this connection then.

Yeah, seriously not worth it, especially considering how many there are.

erisian pope

But don't lose heart, Crunchy.

Take Sheri's advice and work on composition. Play with the idea that you're taking a picture of something, work out what that something is for each picture, and get creative about how to maximize that something's essence. It looks like your camera is suitable (the pics are nice and clear, no noise that I can see) and you're not taking blurry photos of people with their heads halfway out of the picture (holiday snapshots), so what's left to work on is the artistry. You can do it!!



And I'm turning into a goddamned pep-rally over here.

scarlet st.

Fuck you, EPope!

That's, uh, that's cheering you up, right?

Phonehand

Sheri wrote:

Phonehand wrote:

Don't pay attention to Sheri. She always needs to have something out of focus or she freaks.

Please don't invalidate actual critiques with snarky comments. That was genuine (and good, if I may say so) advice.

Saying there is a 'problem' with his work because he isn't using a shallow depth of field isn't really good advice. Some people prefer to shoot that way.

erisian pope

Phonehand wrote:

Sheri wrote:

Phonehand wrote:

Don't pay attention to Sheri. She always needs to have something out of focus or she freaks.

Please don't invalidate actual critiques with snarky comments. That was genuine (and good, if I may say so) advice.

Saying there is a 'problem' with his work because he isn't using a shallow depth of field isn't really good advice. Some people prefer to shoot that way.

That's a small part of what she said, dude. And really, what she said the problem was was that there is no conceptual focus to the images. Suggesting a change in DOF is a small part of the suggestions she made for ways to correct that.



EDIT: I think what might confuse you is that Sheri used the word 'focus' in 2 ways in her 2 posts. (1) focus like DOF like blurriness versus crispness (she stated that in most of the pics EVERYTHING is in focus) but also (2) focus like the subject of the photo, like what the photographer focussed our attention onto (here she states that the pictures don't seem to have a focus).

Sheri

erisian pope wrote:

Phonehand wrote:

Sheri wrote:

Phonehand wrote:

Don't pay attention to Sheri. She always needs to have something out of focus or she freaks.

Please don't invalidate actual critiques with snarky comments. That was genuine (and good, if I may say so) advice.

Saying there is a 'problem' with his work because he isn't using a shallow depth of field isn't really good advice. Some people prefer to shoot that way.

That's a small part of what she said, dude. And really, what she said the problem was was that there is no conceptual focus to the images. Suggesting a change in DOF is a small part of the suggestions she made for ways to correct that.



EDIT: I think what might confuse you is that Sheri used the word 'focus' in 2 ways in her 2 posts. (1) focus like DOF like blurriness versus crispness (she stated that in most of the pics EVERYTHING is in focus) but also (2) focus like the subject of the photo, like what the photographer focussed our attention onto (here she states that the pictures don't seem to have a focus).

Pope is correct.

Phonehand

I disagree. A lot of them are landscape shots so there shouldn't be a single focus. And I think the ones that weren't were pretty clear. I especially think the last few work well as they are. Also, I didn't see it as advice so much as 'this is how you should be shooting.'

erisian pope

Composition is what I feel is the biggest part of photography - at least for me. The technique in the photo is nice, but what is it a picture of? What's it for? Why should the audience look at it? What am I telling them? What do I want them to look at first? Second? Longest?

These kinds of questions plague me, and I don't feel particularly good at using them to compose my shots yet. But when I look at photos that move me I can see some of how this kind of thinking/planning (or possibly happy accident) helped that picture be what it is. I think it's composition more than technique that seperate snapshots from 'real' photography (what an elitist phrase, but it was the best I could come up with).

Now I think technique is important - a greatly composed pic that's blurry is ruined (unless the blurriness is part of the composition) just like shooting that awesome shot and later realizing your camera's in low-res mode and you have a 2"x3" landscape shot of a birch forest, but masterful technique on a boring picture is still boring.

blah blah blah

</rant>

Staleghoti

Crunchy


I like your bat house

erisian pope

I think composition is important in landscape photography, too. Very important. To imply that it isn't is pretty silly in my mind.

And I think we'll have to agree to disagree about Sheri's post. You and I read it different. Maybe her tone was too matter of fact and not gentle enough for your taste, but I do think she was offering constructive criticism and not merely bashing. Either way, we've each stated our take on her post. I am gonna bail on defending anything and instead hope that Crunchy takes it as constructive criticism and takes her suggestions to heart, as I think he has basic technique covered and I think he could stand to work on composition.