Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[PHOTO] Bells! Batman Smells!

145791031

Posts

  • MordarionMordarion Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Thanks for the feedback. I'll consider the change in navigation. I hesitate to use layers of thumbnails (in a subgallery there are thumbnails for navigating the pics in that gallery, so to re-add the mainpage's thumbnails would be ... odd (possibly).

    Putting something (sig?) bottom right - do you mean on mainpage or on everypage? What if someone naviates with smaller resolutions? Should I still worry about that at all, or is that a concern of the past?

    I think on every page it would look cool. I'm only bringing it up cause I'm running at 1280x1024 and there's a bout 500px of empty space the right. The inclusion of the graphic would be primarily for higher resolution folks and completely innocuous in terms of navigation. I believe there's a way to explicitly position things at a certain (x,y) using CSS and suppress scroll bars. If you did it that way, the higher res folks could see the graphic and the lower res folks wouldn't even know it was there.

  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Well dudes - I made my DIY ringflash. It's pretty ugly, and I need to work on (1) increasing the reflectivity inside it and (2) possibly adding a second diffuser to the outside (both to even out the light some). But here it is:

    IMG_7661.jpg

    IMG_7659.jpg

    IMG_7657.jpg

  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Guys - I updated my online photo gallery today. I would love some feedback. Here are my areas of concern:

    1. Speed - Is the slight delay upon loading each sub-gallery a deal-breaker or is it acceptable?
    2. Front Page - Is the overall aesthetic of the front page pretty decent?
    3. Navigation - Works? Flows ok?
    4. Subgallery Content - Are the topics for each gallery ok?

    Things to keep in mind: The site is not intended for commercial purposes at all - I won't be selling my photos in the forseeable future. This is supposed to be a webspace to showcase some of my better work, not unlike a physical art gallery, so the aesthetic is an attempt to be minimal and merely to show the images.

    I would really appreciate any/all feedback you guys might have to offer.

    www.mchristianphotos.com


    EDIT: Fixed URL

    I think the site is great. I personally didn't feel the issues that Mordarian had. The bottom right is kinda empty but I realize that not everyone is on a giant monitor like I am. I would, however, like the see the main images higher resolution. They feel a bit small right now. Not so small that you can't make out details though so maybe I'm just being picky.

    Also, let's see some shots with that new flash.

  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Anable, thanks for the feedback!

    The cat pics I posted above are with the flash (but not with the new ringflash I made. Here are a couple with the ringflash. As soon as I have a chance I will get out and make some real photos of some non pet-related stuff.


    IMG_7658.jpg


    IMG_7653.jpg


    EDIT: There's a little bit of a learning curve to using a flash. I've been so accustomed to shooting with available light only that it's tough to think about where to put light and how it will affect a photo. It may be a bit before I really can maximize the benefit to a real flash.

  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Pope: On the site, I think the layout works great, didn't load too slowly for me either. Probably my only qualm would be the sections on the left: the text kinda gets lost being half in the border and half on the picture of the thumbnail. I'd say either have it in the picture or out on the border. Heck even below the thumb would probably work too.

    And hey, pets are good test subjects and I loves me some ring flash shots so it doesn't bother me.

    Some christmas/new years photos from me,

    3157318065_233510e3c4.jpg

    3157317889_22abd4838a.jpg

    3157244773_c07c545a7c.jpg

    3158074758_e21021577a.jpg

    Pfffffffffflickr ||Steam: IamBic || Bnet: IamBick#1264
  • BoxBox Registered User
    edited January 2009
    New years ever party,
    3.jpg

  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Guys - I updated my online photo gallery today. I would love some feedback. Here are my areas of concern:

    1. Speed - Is the slight delay upon loading each sub-gallery a deal-breaker or is it acceptable?
    2. Front Page - Is the overall aesthetic of the front page pretty decent?
    3. Navigation - Works? Flows ok?
    4. Subgallery Content - Are the topics for each gallery ok?

    Things to keep in mind: The site is not intended for commercial purposes at all - I won't be selling my photos in the forseeable future. This is supposed to be a webspace to showcase some of my better work, not unlike a physical art gallery, so the aesthetic is an attempt to be minimal and merely to show the images.

    I would really appreciate any/all feedback you guys might have to offer.

    www.mchristianphotos.com



    EDIT: Fixed URL

    You don't have any verbiage at all. Maybe you have SOMETHING to say? The site is ok. Nothing POPS at me. What's the purpose of the site? That's my question. It's hard to judge. If it was just a "place to put some of my photos online" then it functions as such. As a marketing tool you're lacking stuff like information about you, pricing etc.

    My Flickr. My Fruitfucker computer and my Annarchy computer. See my PAX 2006/07/08 Flickr sets

    "Look at that subtle off-white coloring, the tasteful thickness of it... Oh my God, it even has a watermark."
  • ProjeckProjeck Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
  • muninnmuninn Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    NeedOptic, that last picture of the little fella is simply amazing.

    I have been in a bit of a rut lately and havent been taking that many pictures. Brought my camera to the new years eve party, but the lighting was horrible, and I went there to have fun ... so I didnt shoot that much.

    Obligatory x-mas ornament wankery

    3159271090_ce34cd53b2.jpg

    I take too many pictures of this woman

    3159271390_ecc2fedcdb.jpg

    3158439323_0aa770ff37.jpg

  • FlyingmanFlyingman Registered User
    edited January 2009
    nO: nicely lit man

    Here is something I have cleaned up and re-released, shot about 2 years ago (I think) on my old D50.
    arthouse600.jpg

    PAsig-1.gif
  • JonisJonis Registered User
    edited January 2009
  • muninnmuninn Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Jonis, thats a comfy couch looks comfy. Is it a product shot? The couch seems to be standing at a weird angle to the wall, as you can see it aligns with the picture frame and the candle holders, but the bottom of the picture has an uneven amount of floor. It could have been lens distortion, and can probably fixed with a transform tool.

    Flyingman: great atmospheric shot, but I would fix the barrel distortion, as the composition seems to rely quite a bit on the shapes of rectangles. A little bit more light would make it better I think, but I guess there could be nothing done about it. Makes me think of bladerunner.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Anable, thanks for the feedback!

    The cat pics I posted above are with the flash (but not with the new ringflash I made. Here are a couple with the ringflash. As soon as I have a chance I will get out and make some real photos of some non pet-related stuff.


    ...ring flash photos...

    EDIT: There's a little bit of a learning curve to using a flash. I've been so accustomed to shooting with available light only that it's tough to think about where to put light and how it will affect a photo. It may be a bit before I really can maximize the benefit to a real flash.

    Ick it looks like you really need to put a lot more diffusion at the bottom and maybe try and add some extra reflectivity because damn the light at the top is at about 2 stops darker than the light at the bottom.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    needOptic wrote: »
    Happy new year's, folks.

    Documenting the evening. Don't want to spam here, if anyone is interested in more from the set -
    http://flickr.com/photos/needoptic/sets/72157611961290219/

    We're About to Have Lift Off

    What is he doing?


    3156311353_a6b1f73232.jpg



    3157092620_229681aac5.jpg

    I think these are the only two good photos on the last page. The top one I would crop off at least half of the woman's back on the left. The bottom one looks good I might crop off a very very tiny amount on the left. Was this one done with an omni-bounce on a flash or did you bounce it off the ceiling and photoshop the "vignetting"?

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Cow, clearly you and I will never agree because the wide angle with the kid is A++++ and clearly the best of the whole set (in my humble opinion).

    Also the one with through the arm is one of the weaker shots imho....the subject is too far away, and she's pulling a weird face, plus awkward legs whoah crotch on the right.

  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Cow - no flash. I am in favor of looking for existing light situations opposed to strobes. Just fast glass and a little bit of work in Lightroom.

    If I'm taking pictures of a party everything is dynamic. There's not time to set anything up, nor do I want to.
    And I agree with Virum - the boy's portrait is the best shot in my eyes, too. Most of the pictures are to "document" the event, I'm fortunate that the kid shot turned out the way it did.

  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Sledding!

    camsled.jpg

    milesled.jpg

    lusled.jpg

    XBL: heavenkils
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Salt -

    1) Can't see the person - he's aligned with the horizon and practically disappears.
    2) I like this the most - any way to get the camera even lower? Or was it on the ground?
    3) Is that a strobe ? :)

  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Yeah I wanted to get lower on the first but that wasn't possible, plus I didn't really know where the guy was going to end up. They all have strobe, the last one also has the sun pointing at the camera. I was also very drunk while shooting these - not that it's a good excuse.

    XBL: heavenkils
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    ha...unfortunately, drunkenness usually results in poor creativity and performance.

    I figured with the strobes, just wasn't sure if that was the sun or the strobe.

  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Virum wrote: »
    Cow, clearly you and I will never agree because the wide angle with the kid is A++++ and clearly the best of the whole set (in my humble opinion).

    Also the one with through the arm is one of the weaker shots imho....the subject is too far away, and she's pulling a weird face, plus awkward legs whoah crotch on the right.

    The subject is making a silly face is the POINT of the picture. Thus the caption of "what is he doing?".

    Also I disliked the kid picture because I have a general hated for pictures of kids and flowers. This one is better than most but it is such a wide angle that the kid's head looks super bulbous compared to his tiny feet/lower body.

    Salti I like the sledding shots. Especially the last one. Good flash work.

    needOptic: There isn't much set up needed (read: none at all) with a detachable flash on the top of the camera pointed at a 45 degree angle or almost straight up with an omni bounce on it. Even so I do like the lighting you capture in that photo.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    needOptic: There isn't much set up needed (read: none at all) with a detachable flash on the top of the camera pointed at a 45 degree angle or almost straight up with an omni bounce on it. Even so I do like the lighting you capture in that photo.

    Edit: Cow - you got that right about the face. If a picture is "pretty" - that's great. If it tells a story, even a little one - it's a benefit.

    True, haven't thought of a detachable flash. I think it's safe to agree that it's a matter of preference and goals.
    Some things aren't achievable with glass alone, others with flash.

  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited January 2009
    Also I disliked the kid picture because I have a general hated for pictures of kids and flowers. This one is better than most but it is such a wide angle that the kid's head looks super bulbous compared to his tiny feet/lower body.

    But the kid almost looks like an adult in that picture because of his body proportions.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Salt, I'm digging all of those sledding shots. Though I agree with nO about the horizon issue in the first shot, it's still my favorite because of the intense sense of motion.

  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Those shots would be ridiculous fun if he could shallow up the DOF to isolate the snow and "driver".

  • bombardierbombardier mr. mully Vancouver, BCSuper Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited January 2009
    needOptic wrote: »
    needOptic: There isn't much set up needed (read: none at all) with a detachable flash on the top of the camera pointed at a 45 degree angle or almost straight up with an omni bounce on it. Even so I do like the lighting you capture in that photo.

    Edit: Cow - you got that right about the face. If a picture is "pretty" - that's great. If it tells a story, even a little one - it's a benefit.

    True, haven't thought of a detachable flash. I think it's safe to agree that it's a matter of preference and goals.
    Some things aren't achievable with glass alone, others with flash.

    I am a fan of avoiding flash if at all possible, but then again I have never really given them a lot of use.

  • sonictksonictk Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    saltiness the 2nd and last shots are brilliant, love the snow sprays.

    Also yea nO about the second batch of film shots I posted: that's why I said the first batch was about the only shots worth posting :P But I think I personally still like the 2 birds on wires and the sea shot though. I dunno, I have a weakness for anything minimalist.

    Also nO about the xmas shots I think the last 4 portraits are the best. The balloon one has the annoying tv in the background (yea setting up shots is ridiculously hard in that kind of situation I know), the 432 shot is a little underexposed methinks and doesn't portray its meaning very well since it focuses on the one woman smoking and shooting through the gap in the arm has all the extra stuff as virium said, leg sticking out and random person on the right.

  • NostregarNostregar Registered User
    edited January 2009
    img1196moddedresizedft2.jpg

    Took remarkably few tries to get the cat to sit still.

    Spoiler:
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    bombardier wrote: »

    I am a fan of avoiding flash if at all possible, but then again I have never really given them a lot of use.

    Why the fuck haven't you been posting? Lazy bastard. Take that fat 200mm out for a walk, will you? :)

  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanks for the crits guys. I have to disagree with you though, nO - drunkeness doesn't result in poor creativity, merely poor execution!

    XBL: heavenkils
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User
    edited January 2009
    saltiness wrote: »
    Thanks for the crits guys. I have to disagree with you though, nO - drunkeness doesn't result in poor creativity, merely poor execution!

    True. Bad choice of words. :)))) Although I would say other methods of intoxication might lead to even better creativity as compared to good old booze.

  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    As much as I love to get intoxicated, I always get sloppy with my pictures as a result. But practice makes perfect, right?

  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Personally, I think the 'what is he doing' shot is a nice idea that doesn't work in the execution, too much clutter, the dof is too shallow, and the girls are badly framed. Also, the toddler looks great, and the distortion adds rather than detracts. Might clone those feet out either side though.

    jonis: I like the couch, although I think the left side could do without the table.

  • JonisJonis Registered User
    edited January 2009
    Jake! wrote: »
    Personally, I think the 'what is he doing' shot is a nice idea that doesn't work in the execution, too much clutter, the dof is too shallow, and the girls are badly framed. Also, the toddler looks great, and the distortion adds rather than detracts. Might clone those feet out either side though.

    jonis: I like the couch, although I think the left side could do without the table.

    Thanks, I agree. I wanted the sides to be symmetric but I accidentally overexposed that goddamned candle so its distracting, I think.

  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Gualala, CA

    whip.jpg

    XBL: heavenkils
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Jonis wrote: »
    Jake! wrote: »
    Personally, I think the 'what is he doing' shot is a nice idea that doesn't work in the execution, too much clutter, the dof is too shallow, and the girls are badly framed. Also, the toddler looks great, and the distortion adds rather than detracts. Might clone those feet out either side though.

    jonis: I like the couch, although I think the left side could do without the table.

    Thanks, I agree. I wanted the sides to be symmetric but I accidentally overexposed that goddamned candle so its distracting, I think.

    I think the problem is more that the table is cut in half.

  • anableanable Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Thanks anable.

    Also, I found an old Epson Stylus 1270 printer on the side of the road. I had to run the head cleaning program about 20 times but it works great - had full ink in it too.

    XBL: heavenkils
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    Salti - Good shot. Is the vignetting intentional(ps) or just coincidental?

    Also is that actually a whip, rope, or tree branch or something. Did you photoshop it to make it longer and or blur the end of it?

    bombardier - I use off camera flash a LOT but thats because I am doing set up portraits and fashion shots. If I were doing more candid stuff of friends I would avoid flash more too, but I rarely, if ever, do that sort of shooting.

    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited January 2009
    I added a little vignetting to the corners although I'm not sure if it works.

    The whip is a piece of kelp. I added 3 feet or so to the end of it to help with the composition.

    XBL: heavenkils
145791031
This discussion has been closed.