Those tiger shots are phenomenal. Were they shot from inside the enclosure or did you just have a great spot from an area open to the public? Either way, Roar! is awesome.
nO, the kid shots are great like usual. WB is pretty inconsistent, though - top two are very green relative to the bottom one, which is pretty much perfectly neutral. Just a mention in case you want to keep them as a set.
hey, first post! i've been working on starting to do photography/other art stuff more. here are some shots..
i do mostly live band stuff, i'm trying to do less of that and more other shit
canon xti
Dark - yeah, they're different approaches to post... was trying to get a cross processing type look on the two shots and the other is properly color balanced. :P Flowers! I'm not big on flowers, so I can't really comment
Sketch - you've got some nice shots in there. I like the truck, flare, and bridge.
your shots are gorgeous! that storm one looks like a painting. how do you usually decide when to make certain shots black and white? i feel like i'm really bad at that..
Oh, and here's the latest from me. I find that I take my photos and let them collect dust for a while before I have the courage to edit them. Thankfully an hour in Photoshop is actually a really fucking long time so I am able to crank a few out in a single morning. Just by chance they all happen to look left so I named the flickr set accordingly, whoops!
I love how the last shot of the dress is a wardrobe malfunction.
Wardrobe malfunction? Wha? I'm confused.
Not a giant fan of the crotch shooting in 1 and 2. At least in 1 it is less noticeable, but it also looks like it has a yellow/greenish tinge to it. 2 and 3 are very bright and vibrant and 1 just falls completely flat in terms of contrast and color when put next to them. The guy appears to be on a tennis court which I think you could have played with a bit more. If he is a tennis player and you were trying to capture that you should try and put him a little closer to the net or use a wider DOF so the net isn't so OOF.
On 2 the leg/crotch thing is a little unattractive. You could crop higher to get rid of that but you would get an odd crop on the hand. So next time just ask the model to move their leg down or cross their legs or something where you don't get a shot like that. I like the colors/brightness in this photo.
3 is pretty good. Some might complain about the bar through her head but is OOF enough that I don't think it is too much of a problem and it is in focus enough that you can tell it is a part of a bridge.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I don't know if this is a stylistic choice or not, but your white balance seems generally cold. For instance, on the last one your bride's dress is blue, not white. Bump it a little to the warmer side in post processing and you may like the look.
Been a bit busy getting married, but here are a few photos of my wife's wedding dress. dress door by jeff25rs, on Flickr
I love this one, CC. Great light, composition, color, everything.
XBL: heavenkils
0
Options
MaratastikJust call me Mara, please!Registered Userregular
A couple of shots from an airshow a while back. I couldn't quite get the second one to turn out to my liking. I think my CCD is just a little too noisy, coupled with not having the zoom I would like, so I ended up cropping it about as far as I could get away with.
Since photography seems to make us into programmers, scientists, chemists, and meteorologists, I was wondering if anyone can help me discern the differences between this memory card and this memory card.
I think it might just be a slight repackaging. Maybe. Anyone know for sure?
Anyone have experience with Crater Lake, OR? Or any other national parks in general I guess.
Gonna go up there this weekend, might make some stops in between (Lassan National Park). Just wondering which lens to take. Of the good lens I have a 17-55mm and a 70-200mm, both f/2.8. There is a second camera my GF has which has a kit lens (18-55mm 3.5-5.6). So I could attach the wide angle lens on that and the telephoto on my camera, but only if it's actually worth lugging around my 70-200mm, which I'd probably only do if I can get some good shots of animals, which I'm hoping there will be plenty of there. But there aren't that many animal shots from a quick googling except for a few squirrels, a bird, and some hairless primates which sorta makes sense since it's the scenery that people probably go there for. I think I also read that the thick vegetation might make a long lens not that useful either. Also if I'm probably only going to see squirrels, then I'm happy to just leave the lens at home since I can easily get squirrels at our local Golden Gate Park.
I guess the only thing that might really be worth using the long lens for is The Phantom Ship, though that's not actually high on my interests.
Any other advice would be appreciated as well. Will be bringing my polarizer, tripod, and flash in addition to the lens.
these are so ... crunchy. how do you accomplish this? Same with all of needOptic's on this page.
also do i need to go through a third party to post flickr images here
Log in. Go to the photo you want to post. Select Share-->Grab the HTML/BBCode-->select BBCode and the dimensions you want to post-->copy everything in the window where it says "Copy and paste the code below:" and paste it in a new message on any forum.
Anyone have experience with Crater Lake, OR? Or any other national parks in general I guess.
Gonna go up there this weekend, might make some stops in between (Lassan National Park). Just wondering which lens to take. Of the good lens I have a 17-55mm and a 70-200mm, both f/2.8. There is a second camera my GF has which has a kit lens (18-55mm 3.5-5.6). So I could attach the wide angle lens on that and the telephoto on my camera, but only if it's actually worth lugging around my 70-200mm, which I'd probably only do if I can get some good shots of animals, which I'm hoping there will be plenty of there. But there aren't that many animal shots from a quick googling except for a few squirrels, a bird, and some hairless primates which sorta makes sense since it's the scenery that people probably go there for. I think I also read that the thick vegetation might make a long lens not that useful either. Also if I'm probably only going to see squirrels, then I'm happy to just leave the lens at home since I can easily get squirrels at our local Golden Gate Park.
I guess the only thing that might really be worth using the long lens for is The Phantom Ship, though that's not actually high on my interests.
Any other advice would be appreciated as well. Will be bringing my polarizer, tripod, and flash in addition to the lens.
Thanks!
Well you seem to know what you will be shooting and what you like so it sounds like you should take the 17-55.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Anyone have experience with Crater Lake, OR? Or any other national parks in general I guess.
Gonna go up there this weekend, might make some stops in between (Lassan National Park). Just wondering which lens to take. Of the good lens I have a 17-55mm and a 70-200mm, both f/2.8. There is a second camera my GF has which has a kit lens (18-55mm 3.5-5.6). So I could attach the wide angle lens on that and the telephoto on my camera, but only if it's actually worth lugging around my 70-200mm, which I'd probably only do if I can get some good shots of animals, which I'm hoping there will be plenty of there. But there aren't that many animal shots from a quick googling except for a few squirrels, a bird, and some hairless primates which sorta makes sense since it's the scenery that people probably go there for. I think I also read that the thick vegetation might make a long lens not that useful either. Also if I'm probably only going to see squirrels, then I'm happy to just leave the lens at home since I can easily get squirrels at our local Golden Gate Park.
I guess the only thing that might really be worth using the long lens for is The Phantom Ship, though that's not actually high on my interests.
Any other advice would be appreciated as well. Will be bringing my polarizer, tripod, and flash in addition to the lens.
Thanks!
Well you seem to know what you will be shooting and what you like so it sounds like you should take the 17-55.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
these are so ... crunchy. how do you accomplish this? Same with all of needOptic's on this page.
What exactly do you mean by crunchy? Most of it is just playing with contrast and curves. When I exposed the image I balanced all the shadows and highlights by exposing in the middle. I shot Extar 100 which is a little contrasty but even the skies which were close to clipping I managed to pull some detail back.
Wellllll I guess I mean sharpness, but also contrast? not quite the same as punchy, but not far off.
There's just so much textural detail that it seems more rich than real life.
sort of like this? I don't usually pick out the individual hairs like this when I look at my cat.
I guess it is a combination of shooting medium format film, adjusting contrast to emphasize edges cost light and shadows, and a little bit of unsharp mask after downsizing.
Well you seem to know what you will be shooting and what you like so it sounds like you should take the 17-55.
I end up shooting longer photos in Western landscapes fairly often. Using something a little longer than normal can give a nice sense of scale. Wildlife photos are probably not going to be very interesting around Crater Lake though you might catch some interesting eagles and ospreys.
The weather has been very unstable in the Eastern Sierra for the past week which has produced...great photos!
Posts
nO, the kid shots are great like usual. WB is pretty inconsistent, though - top two are very green relative to the bottom one, which is pretty much perfectly neutral. Just a mention in case you want to keep them as a set.
More Sandilands photos!
Cypripedium acaule - Pink Lady's Slipper
Cornus canadensis - Bunchberry
i do mostly live band stuff, i'm trying to do less of that and more other shit
canon xti
disposable camera
argus c3
Sketch - you've got some nice shots in there. I like the truck, flare, and bridge.
Air & Water Show, Chicago by needoptic, on Flickr
Some Days it Rains by needoptic, on Flickr
I can has view! by needoptic, on Flickr
Storm is a Possibility by needoptic, on Flickr
After the Rain by needoptic, on Flickr
your shots are gorgeous! that storm one looks like a painting. how do you usually decide when to make certain shots black and white? i feel like i'm really bad at that..
I think for me it's one of those "does color add or detract from the shot" type of deals.
here are a few more band shots.
IMG_9803 by j0eb0t, on Flickr
IMG_0174 by j0eb0t, on Flickr
@Joebot great colours!
068
086
089
140 by Obersmith, on Flickr
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
dress window by jeff25rs, on Flickr
dress door by jeff25rs, on Flickr
dress couch by jeff25rs, on Flickr
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Kia by joshuanitschke, on Flickr
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
Please critique.
Lets by Kryscendo, on Flickr.
Look by Kryscendo, on Flickr.
Left by Kryscendo, on Flickr.
Wardrobe malfunction? Wha? I'm confused.
Not a giant fan of the crotch shooting in 1 and 2. At least in 1 it is less noticeable, but it also looks like it has a yellow/greenish tinge to it. 2 and 3 are very bright and vibrant and 1 just falls completely flat in terms of contrast and color when put next to them. The guy appears to be on a tennis court which I think you could have played with a bit more. If he is a tennis player and you were trying to capture that you should try and put him a little closer to the net or use a wider DOF so the net isn't so OOF.
On 2 the leg/crotch thing is a little unattractive. You could crop higher to get rid of that but you would get an odd crop on the hand. So next time just ask the model to move their leg down or cross their legs or something where you don't get a shot like that. I like the colors/brightness in this photo.
3 is pretty good. Some might complain about the bar through her head but is OOF enough that I don't think it is too much of a problem and it is in focus enough that you can tell it is a part of a bridge.
This one got cropped a bit for the actual album, but here's the shot before that
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
I love this one, CC. Great light, composition, color, everything.
I think it might just be a slight repackaging. Maybe. Anyone know for sure?
The Valley by joshuanitschke, on Flickr
The Valley 2 by joshuanitschke, on Flickr
Gonna go up there this weekend, might make some stops in between (Lassan National Park). Just wondering which lens to take. Of the good lens I have a 17-55mm and a 70-200mm, both f/2.8. There is a second camera my GF has which has a kit lens (18-55mm 3.5-5.6). So I could attach the wide angle lens on that and the telephoto on my camera, but only if it's actually worth lugging around my 70-200mm, which I'd probably only do if I can get some good shots of animals, which I'm hoping there will be plenty of there. But there aren't that many animal shots from a quick googling except for a few squirrels, a bird, and some hairless primates which sorta makes sense since it's the scenery that people probably go there for. I think I also read that the thick vegetation might make a long lens not that useful either. Also if I'm probably only going to see squirrels, then I'm happy to just leave the lens at home since I can easily get squirrels at our local Golden Gate Park.
I guess the only thing that might really be worth using the long lens for is The Phantom Ship, though that's not actually high on my interests.
Any other advice would be appreciated as well. Will be bringing my polarizer, tripod, and flash in addition to the lens.
Thanks!
Switch: US 1651-2551-4335 JP 6310-4664-2624
MH3U Monster Cheat Sheet / MH3U Veggie Elder Ticket Guide
maybe I'll just give up like a fiddly soundboard guy and push everything up to max
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
also do i need to go through a third party to post flickr images here
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
Mostly it is because I am wanting to take every fucking course, no matter how horribly mundane.
"How to scan photos and documents for home office." Sounds good to me!
Log in. Go to the photo you want to post. Select Share-->Grab the HTML/BBCode-->select BBCode and the dimensions you want to post-->copy everything in the window where it says "Copy and paste the code below:" and paste it in a new message on any forum.
Success
Heirloom 1 by helloIamAldo, on Flickr
Well you seem to know what you will be shooting and what you like so it sounds like you should take the 17-55.
Well you seem to know what you will be shooting and what you like so it sounds like you should take the 17-55.
What exactly do you mean by crunchy? Most of it is just playing with contrast and curves. When I exposed the image I balanced all the shadows and highlights by exposing in the middle. I shot Extar 100 which is a little contrasty but even the skies which were close to clipping I managed to pull some detail back.
There's just so much textural detail that it seems more rich than real life.
sort of like this? I don't usually pick out the individual hairs like this when I look at my cat.
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
I end up shooting longer photos in Western landscapes fairly often. Using something a little longer than normal can give a nice sense of scale. Wildlife photos are probably not going to be very interesting around Crater Lake though you might catch some interesting eagles and ospreys.
The weather has been very unstable in the Eastern Sierra for the past week which has produced...great photos!
Mount Agassiz from the summit of Picture Puzzle:
Sunset from Coyote Ridge: