I Wanna Rock and Roll All Night and [PHOTO] Every Day

EggyToast

Yeah if you have a relatively high speed flash sync at a small aperture, your flash is going to meter itself and always try to be properly exposed, ignoring the rest of the picture. Or mix it up to get various levels of foreground/background. Basically, you set the aperture for your subject, which is illuminated by your flash, and then play with the shutter speed for your background exposure.

CommunistCow

erisian pope wrote: »

CommunistCow wrote: »

Pope that was a horrible joke. It wasn't even funny. o_O
Also I believe in your ability to make photos that are even worse if you try hard enough.

Yeah, it was pretty lame. But let's see you try to take bad pictures. It's tough!!

un-protip: Sit in chair. Aim camera downwards. Take picture of shoe.
Or take a picture of a dog/babby.

It would have been funny if you had a picture of the camera capturing your face as it hit the ground and made up some story about how the shutter went off when it landed.

erisian pope

CommunistCow wrote: »

erisian pope wrote: »

CommunistCow wrote: »

Pope that was a horrible joke. It wasn't even funny. o_O
Also I believe in your ability to make photos that are even worse if you try hard enough.

Yeah, it was pretty lame. But let's see you try to take bad pictures. It's tough!!

un-protip: Sit in chair. Aim camera downwards. Take picture of shoe.
Or take a picture of a dog/babby.

It would have been funny if you had a picture of the camera capturing your face as it hit the ground and made up some story about how the shutter went off when it landed.

Hahahaha!

mts

erisian pope wrote: »

Hahahaha!

thats the last time i ever make a good suggestion all thanks to you pope. you will rue the day! Rue!

_driftwood

Ahoy. I stand before you as a newcomer to forums.

First shot was Ilford FP4 shot in a 10"x8" large format camera.


Next one was shot on 120 Kodak Portra 160VC


This one's 35mm Ilford FP4 taped together and shot in a 5x4" large format.


& this last one's an advancement of the work that previous image belongs to, this time using 35mm and 120 colour transparency in a 10x8 large format. This one's rephotographed on a window so the quality isn't shit hot but scanning an image sixteen inches long is beyond my capacity haha.


I'm particularly interested in thoughts or suggestions about the last one as that's the work i'm currently developing. Thanks ya'll.

needOptic

I really like your work. Interesting and out of box approach on the last one, almost looks like an effect they sometimes use in video editing where everything is spliced together.

The pier shot is fantastic, IMHO.

anable

The film strips are an interesting idea but I'm not sure I'm sold on it yet. I'd like to see a few more compositions to see where you go with the idea. I like the first shot more so than the second.

needOptic wrote: »

The pier shot is fantastic, IMHO.

Indeed.

needOptic

erisian pope

@ Driftwood - the lighting in the first portrait looks a touch harsh. She looks like she might even be squinting a little. Still, it's a fine shot. That pier shot is incredible, though - a real show stealer.

@ NeedO - Nice clean shots. I prefer the BW profile over the color. In the color the fence and tree both feel like clutter but in the BW they don't. I'm not sure why that it. The grill shot is aces, though.

nO

--

Here's another recent flower shot. I sure do love me some flowers!

needOptic

erisian pope wrote: »

@ Driftwood - the lighting in the first portrait looks a touch harsh. She looks like she might even be squinting a little. Still, it's a fine shot. That pier shot is incredible, though - a real show stealer.

@ NeedO - Nice clean shots. I prefer the BW profile over the color. In the color the fence and tree both feel like clutter but in the BW they don't. I'm not sure why that it. The grill shot is aces, though.

nO

--

Here's another recent flower shot. I sure do love me some flowers!

Nice flower and good critique. I agree with you now that I looked at it again.

KAJed

WTH Is the line going down the diagonal on this shot? I've seen it before and it just creeped up again. I thought at first it was an issue with my 50mm but its happening on my kit lens as well. It's REALLY driving me nuts.

saltiness

Dirty sensor?

needOptic

that is weird. I would say sensor noise from wireless triggers, but usually it's horizontal.
Or your curtain is effed up.

KAJed

It's pissing me off... I AM using a wireless trigger for the record though. The sensor SHOULDN'T be dirty. I carefully blew it out with a blower and still nothing.

Edit : Trigger makes no difference.

I certainly hope its not something I need a service on... I don't think I have an extended warrant

KAJed

If i drop the amount of light in the from (from that side) it dissapears...

Longer exposures make it more pronounced too...

KAJed

ooops...double posted

Raijin Quickfoot

Doing some portrait work with my one month old, Morgan.



I know...BABIES BABIES BABIES. It's all I ever post...it's all I ever see!

mts

he looks kind of gray, maybe bump up the warmth?

Pope how did you make a ring a flash?

CommunistCow

Fashion show from saturday with some weeeird makup. Trying some different light setups with more shadow/rim light. Also processing on my new monitor is AWESOME.







setup for the first two shots:

Spoiler:

Cycophant

Raijin: I'm with mts, the skintone looks a bit off, particularly with that background.
CC: That makeup is pretty distracting, but I really like the lighting on that first shot.

Yay Northern Lights! This new 24-70 f/2.8 is perfect for it, too. I just wish we had some better foreground to shoot against.

CommunistCow

cycophant that first one is pretty sweet the second one is a bit distracting with the ghost faces especially the one that is really bright blueish.

erisian pope

mts wrote: »

Pope how did you make a ring a flash?

This guy on flickr used to have an instruction pamphlet, but he seems to have replaced it with a video. I used his instructions (havent watched the video).

This flickr discussion looks like it uses the same materials, but I only have a single flash.

Cecilsan

erisian pope wrote: »

mts wrote: »

Pope how did you make a ring a flash?

This guy on flickr used to have an instruction pamphlet, but he seems to have replaced it with a video. I used his instructions (havent watched the video).

This flickr discussion looks like it uses the same materials, but I only have a single flash.

Nice! I'm definitely going to try to make that once I think of how to reengineer it to use with my manual focus

KAJed

CC, I love the second one... but man that is some crazy makeup on the first.

mts

you should try painting that bat thingy/lighthouse with light if exposure time permitted. it would make it pop

erisian pope

Cecilsan wrote: »

erisian pope wrote: »

mts wrote: »

Pope how did you make a ring a flash?

This guy on flickr used to have an instruction pamphlet, but he seems to have replaced it with a video. I used his instructions (havent watched the video).

This flickr discussion looks like it uses the same materials, but I only have a single flash.

Nice! I'm definitely going to try to make that once I think of how to reengineer it to use with my manual focus

I use mine with my manual focus macro lens. The duct-coupler that comprises the part that the lens goes into is wide enough that I can stick one finger in and use that to adjust the focus ring. My lens is a Sigma 105 macro, and the focus ring is like 2.5" long which helps.

Raijin Quickfoot

I'm not seeing the gray at all. I think I need to adjust the gamma on this monitor.

erisian pope

I see the gray. Have you ever used a liquid cleaning solution on your sensor? Perhaps it's a streak that's left over. I know dirt on my sensor shows up better if I use a narrow aperture and shoot something bright - this seems to match your statement that if you drop the amount of light ...

What if you stop your lens down to f/22 or something and shoot an unfocused shot at the sky? If it shows up then then it's definitely something on the sensor screen.

KAJed

pope: Never used liquid on the sensor. I did ONCE use a swab on the mirror, but there is definitely nothing on the mirror. Those were shot at f/22. Someone at FM mentioned it might be a crack on the low-pass filter.

needOptic

Yeah, a crack actually sounds like something that could happen.

I still have several from the weekend:

Penpal

Cycophant the second one is aaaawesome





grab bag of recent stuff. I've got like 20 pages of this thread I need to catch up on

KAJed

I liek the last one Penpal...reminds me of Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind

_driftwood

anable wrote: »

The film strips are an interesting idea but I'm not sure I'm sold on it yet. I'd like to see a few more compositions to see where you go with the idea. .

Yeah, you're justified in that opinion like. It's something that needs more development certainly.

_driftwood

Some gorgeous work there, Penpal. Second to last one is my personal favourite, the pose in the one before that seems a little awkward. But still.

CommunistCow

Penpal wrote: »

This one is fucking awesome.
The one above it with the girl is pretty good too but her pose is a little stiff. Her feet are pointed inwards which is a bit awkward and the sky is too bright for my liking.

tynic

Penpal: I like all of them so much! but especially the first one. The wires lead the eye to unexpected places. Pity about that bit of curb on the bottom right.

Sheri

needOptic wrote: »

Lily

<3

Other good stuff in here, too. You all been behaving?

bombardier wrote: »

Dragging this up from forever-ago to agree with everyone that this is amazing. bombs, I would buy a print of this.

benz0rs

i know i'm a page too late, but on the salon portrait: yeah nO's is a bit white, and i almost predicted that he did it to illustrate a point.. then i read it on the post after, haha. I would say the original is a bit orangey, so it just needs to be toned down a little more. Usually, I find it best to go to extremities and then find the middle ground. That's just my way of distinguishing what I need to fix.

and thx for the responses on the macro shots! i need to try it out sometime.

needOptic

Benz - yep; all post processing (in my mind) should be done with a specific purpose.

Thanks Sheri.

Anyway, I'll keep spamming since I have some more shots from the shoot:

erisian pope

Love the lines on that, NeedO!

---

for a larger copy, click image to go to its flickr page then click "all sizes"