Nostregar: it's good that you're getting up close, and trying to fill the frame etc. I like the colours on the second one too. Unfortunately the second two don't really have a subject, but aren't uniform enough to be just a nice texture, and the squirrel has large areas of dead space that don't really add anything.
Prop: Cheers, love the mountainside by the way. I took a similar shot myself this week, though yours is better
Anable: Cheers, I figured a black border would really overpower those.
Jake!: 2&4 are lovely, I'm with nO: love the lines. I do really love the range of contrast. How it goes from really high contrast in the bottom of the pics and moves to less and less because of the clouds/fog.
*Edit: oooo just noticed the kids in #3, I like it more now haha.
Squab: Both those shots are excellent, I'm going to disagree with the others on the contrast and blue though; I really like the tone/mood of the portrait. I would go as far to say you got the "pimp ass" shot fo sho.
Pope: you and your pretty bokeh.
Box: Cool shot, but it looks like you boosted the contrast and saturation a little much (shadows that aldo pointed out)?
Click for largey.
Did ya use a polarizer for that? It doesn't look like an ND grad from what I can tell.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Did ya use a polarizer for that? It doesn't look like an ND grad from what I can tell.
Nope no polarizer, no filters at all actually, just my 10-20mm Sigma with the hood on. I upped the contrast just a scooch in CS3's RAW editor but that's it.
Jake: new ones are amazing man. Love the fog rolling in. On the one you cropped... I honestly I like them both (cropped and uncropped), I know that doesn't help much but it's the truth. I'm with nO on the last silhouette though, not doing much for me.
Oh the photo thread. I love to look at the photos but I've never posted any of my own. Hopefully I will sometime!
Anywho, I was hoping to get some feedback on the cameras that I recently received. My grandfather gave them to me, they were his treasures when he was younger. One is a Nikomat FT N with a couple of lenses: a 1:1.2 55mm, a 1:4 200 mm, as well as some magnifying screw on ends that take some really cool semi-macro shots (I think anyway).
The other is a Nikon FE with a semi-complicated lens that I haven't spent much time with. I don't see any clear markings but I think it may be a 1:4 70mm. Not sure.
I've mostly been using the Nikomat and I love the pictures that it takes. I don't have a scanner so I can't share any, but I hope to get to the school photo lab soon.
I've tried to do some research on my own regarding these cameras but I can't find much, and everyone in here is so knowledgeable and nice that I thought I'd ask
I was inspired by WhatToThink's pics. I got new batteries for my old camera today and thought I'd play around.
i don't really have any good photo editing software. i wanted to make the buttons stand out more. Awell, enough silliness. I should be studying for finals in the morning.
ACsemperfi on
If you wait til the last minute to do something, it only takes a minute to do.
anable, love the initial lion shot from last page. The second one of the cub in the latest set is way stronger than the one posted last page, though - it’s great.
Jake, the Scotland shots are fantastic. Colour me jealous. The second and fourth are definitely my favourites, though I can’t tell what the second one is a photo of. On the second set, the B+Ws are just amazing. Would you consider a slightly shorter crop on the very first shot? There’s a bit too much sky for my liking, but aside from that it’s excellent. Ditto nO’s comments regarding the silhouettes.
Box, how sickeningly festive :P. You’ve reminded me that I really ought to put up the tree before Christmas day. The black void is a bit distracting, but as your black level appears really really high, you can probably fix that just by dropping it a bit.
Pope, the background in that one is actually fairly distracting. Normally your backgrounds complement the subject really nicely, but that one overpowers it fairly easily.
Prosp, what a lovely mountain. Have to love the contrasty Sigma 10-20. Love the surprise perspective shift when you spot the people. I’d be interested to see how the crop nO suggested works - I bet it’d look great, especially with a nice border.
Nostregar, nice catch with the squirrel. I chased one around our legislative building grounds for an hour a few weeks back, but never got near enough for the full frame portrait I wanted. The aply titled bush shots are rather dull, though.
WhatToThink, while those are fine photos, they’re getting marred by that hideously garrish signature. I’d scrap the signature entirely. It won’t stop an image thief but really turns me off of your shots. The DOF seems a bit narrow in every instance to no particular end, with the most blatant offender the last shot - why are the nearest tuning pegs out of focus, while the ones falling off the edge of the frame are? It doesn’t make much sense.
ACsemper, you were using a built in flash to the left of the lens, correct? Don’t do that. Your first frame is half wildly overexposed and the other half slowly shifts to underexposed. The second frame is properly exposed at the nearest point to the camera, but everything else is underexposed. Both are seriously lacking in saturation, as well. Composition is pretty funky in both cases too, but best deal with the glaring technical errors first. Keep
shooting!
I'm rather excited for having my finals done (two tomorrow, two Thursday, one next Monday), as I'm shooting a Christmas concert, two separate models on two separate occasions, a starscape night an hour or two out of town and some street stuff downtown over my two weeks of holiday. Whee! Anyone have any cool photo stuff they're getting/buying themselves for Christmas? I'm hoping for a nice camerastrap, a la a BlackRapid RS strap.
anable that first shot is ace but it seems a little overexposed in the middle. I guess you were going for high contrast to emphasize the light banding but even then I suppose it would be nice if the actual subject itself had more detail in it, especially since the other half of the subject is kind of dark, it makes it confusing to read anything at all in the end.
The third one isn't really that striking to me, but I think it's slightly out of focus? Maybe it just has waay too shallow dof.
The first, second and fourth are brilliant though. I like the landscaped version of that lion cub portrait especially, it seems to fit a lot better (Although I know the first one had him looking down instead so landscaping it would have been weird).
anable - I like them all. #2 (cub) is a nice image but doesn't feel "arty" (which is not to its detriment, I love the diagonal and how it reinforces the cub's movement) but #3 does (and I love it). #4 is a very nice static portrait. I am not a huge fan of the chicken, but it's not a bad shot (I just feel the others overpower it).
EDIT- New pope-pics:
EDIT EDIT - that "5" in the bottom right corner of #2 is distracting. >:-(
Oh crap - I meant to comment on those (Jake's fog photos), too.
While I like #s 1 (both crops) and 2, I find the place on the tree in #3 where the distant horizon intersects is distracting. I think maybe if you had laid prone on the ground and shot much more upwards at the tree then the horizon would intersect below the foliage-bearing branches and reduce the distraction. The sun in #4 causes the silhouette to not be completely black and consequently it seems washed out in some places (it's almost like nearly-invisible lens-flare is involved) - maybe a masked layer to darken only the figure would be good?
I dunno - always take my crits with a double-serving of salt.
So this weekend I rushed a project because the people I was originally going to do it on bailed out. It was an assignment for my Photojournalism class. Basic assignment rules: horizontal shots, interesting person, interview (just their voice), and had to be about a minute long.
So this weekend I rushed a project because the people I was originally going to do it on bailed out. It was an assignment for my Photojournalism class. Basic assignment rules: horizontal shots, interesting person, interview (just their voice), and had to be about a minute long.
pope: cheers, I agree. I really wanted to get something good out of those fog shots, because it looked so beautiful. Oh well. Also, I love that second lens shot, although I wish we couldn't see the lens itself (just the glass).
wampamagi: the first shot is an interesting idea, but I think you need to find an interesting bit of rock.
A few more from Scotland and then I'll shut up, promise!
I know this shot has issues, but look, count the seagulls!
@wampanagi: I like the slow shutter shot of the stream, everything looks like goo instead. That last shot has a bit of visual tension though with the tall distant building and the overhanging cables, though.
@Jake: That last shot is win, and I like the first one a lot too, though it could do with some cropping at the top maybe? The white foggy stuff is kind of distracting.
Also guys is it possible for shutter speed to affect the depth of field? So far everything I've done and experienced says no but today I just noticed something while working on a couple of mediocre shots.
f4 at 40mm at 1/100s shutter at ISO 400
f3.8 at 38mm at 1/50s shutter at ISO 200
The depth of field in both images is clearly very different. I was roughly the same distance away when I took both shots. Oddly enough it's the shot that's at f3.8 that seems to have a larger depth of field. Or does the distance between me and the subject matter that much in this case?
EDIT: Eh, might as well post something that I want to anyway. Fooling around with the tablecloth at dinner. Not sure whether the ultra high contrast in the second version works, it's almost blinding to me personally but I can't get back any highlight details without making it look weirder.
Sonic - the distance and the aperture are what matter most. In the second shot you appear to be further back and your focal length is wider (barely, it's true) but each of these can increase the DOF. Especially since you appear to be quite close to the subject, any changes in distance have more effect (the closer you are the more effect a small change has, from what I think I've experienced). I'll try to take some test shots today to verify.
I like those fabric shots, the movement in the fabric is interesting.
Wampamagi - I like the first one a lot. I like the colors and composition both. The second one doesn't stand out. The tonalities are nice, but I don't get a feel for a subject. #3 is better but I wish you had crouched a little lower so the trolly cables wouldn't overlap the cityscape so much (crouching would raise them as your camera angle would be more upwards).
Jake! - the berries shot is interesting due to the frost on the red. Composition could be tweaked a little. I'm not sure I like that it's dead in the middle.
Has anyone ever looked into some type of structured class bullshit online? Preferabbly free. I know there's little challenges here and there, but I'm talking more about constructive training,etc.
Also - any book recommendations beyond the basics?
Jake! - the berries shot is interesting due to the frost on the red. Composition could be tweaked a little. I'm not sure I like that it's dead in the middle.
Has anyone ever looked into some type of structured class bullshit online? Preferabbly free. I know there's little challenges here and there, but I'm talking more about constructive training,etc.
Also - any book recommendations beyond the basics?
Checkout kelby training online. A lot of that stuff is basic, but some of the classes are cool. I could watch Joe McNally talk about strobes for hours.
Practical Composition by Axel Bruck - this is the best book on photography composition I have seen yet, but it's out of print so only available used (and at ~$7, it's a steal!)
wampamagi: the first shot is an interesting idea, but I think you need to find an interesting bit of rock.
A few more from Scotland and then I'll shut up, promise!
i dont really post alot anywhere but i these! It's been so long since ive been to loch ness and if i knew it was snowing up north i probably would have went although it maybe still is....:)
next time your in scotland you should go to Glen Etive and Glen Coe! You would get some amazing shots there. Particularly in the winter there's this really narrow passage you have to drive through between glen etive and glen coe that has these HUGE icicles everywhere and when you come out the other side there's a huge frozen waterfal! it's like that every year without fail anyway enough scotland ranting...
Oh and I totally forgot to post these, this was a while back when I was trying to shoot random plants and stuff in the garden:
@An-D : Both shots are composed pretty ok (the first one seems focused wrongly though) but the colour cast in the first one is too much. Personally I think both shots would work a lot better in b&w. Also that second one has that ugly thing sticking from the top and maybe needs more space where the guy's looking.
Practical Composition by Axel Bruck - this is the best book on photography composition I have seen yet, but it's out of print so only available used (and at ~$7, it's a steal!)
These are all the instructional books I have aside from Ansel Adams' book #2 (The Negative). I recommend them all, and ESPECIALLY the first one.
Exzellent - added to mine wiszh listen, jah! I've got both of the Ansel Adams' books ( #1 and #2 ). They are very good and some "basic" stuff is actually very useful even for someone who thought they knew stuff about apertures, time values, etc.
I really like where goes into some philosophy over the approach to photography. Good reads.
I just found my dads ancient Canon AE-1 camera from 1976. It has a couple of nice glasses with it. This thing is fucking VINTAGE and I can't wait to find a new battery for it.
The color one is more interesting to me, but the white balance seems to be a scootch off (too much magenta?). But that's being really picky. Still though, I vote color.
NappuccinoSurveyor of Things and StuffRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I'm not really a fan of either... It seems to cluttered and there is no focus point, unless you wanted us to focus on the white pedal which is being crossed by a cord.
That said, i do like the orangeish highlights that the rolled up pantlegs get. Maybe try the photo over again to work that idea into the photo better?
The color one is more interesting to me, but the white balance seems to be a scootch off (too much magenta?). But that's being really picky. Still though, I vote color.
I vote color as well. I would go black and white if the main focus of the picture is very well defined and strong. Here the kick ass lighting is one of the main attractions, so getting rid of it would be a waste.
The color one is more interesting to me, but the white balance seems to be a scootch off (too much magenta?). But that's being really picky. Still though, I vote color.
I vote color as well. I would go black and white if the main focus of the picture is very well defined and strong. Here the kick ass lighting is one of the main attractions, so getting rid of it would be a waste.
Exactly, stage lighting is great. This is why I get infuriated when I see concert picks with a flash used (on camera at least).
Especially the jerks that get paid for it.... *grumble grumble*
I'm not really a fan of either... It seems to cluttered and there is no focus point, unless you wanted us to focus on the white pedal which is being crossed by a cord.
That said, i do like the orangeish highlights that the rolled up pantlegs get. Maybe try the photo over again to work that idea into the photo better?
For that I'm going to have to wait till next year. This was a yearly tradition of a local band.
But yeah I wish I had moved the wire and increased the DoF.
Posts
Prop: Cheers, love the mountainside by the way. I took a similar shot myself this week, though yours is better
Anable: Cheers, I figured a black border would really overpower those.
went to Loch Ness too;
alternative view (not crop)
not sure if either of these particularly work;
Here a couple of photos I did for my photo class...hope ya enjoy!
This is probably one of my favorite pictures I have taken.
Oh btw, I use a Nikon D80 with the kit lens if that means anything
Did ya use a polarizer for that? It doesn't look like an ND grad from what I can tell.
The silhouette does nothing for me.
Nope no polarizer, no filters at all actually, just my 10-20mm Sigma with the hood on. I upped the contrast just a scooch in CS3's RAW editor but that's it.
Jake: new ones are amazing man. Love the fog rolling in. On the one you cropped... I honestly I like them both (cropped and uncropped), I know that doesn't help much but it's the truth. I'm with nO on the last silhouette though, not doing much for me.
My Portfolio Site
Anywho, I was hoping to get some feedback on the cameras that I recently received. My grandfather gave them to me, they were his treasures when he was younger. One is a Nikomat FT N with a couple of lenses: a 1:1.2 55mm, a 1:4 200 mm, as well as some magnifying screw on ends that take some really cool semi-macro shots (I think anyway).
The other is a Nikon FE with a semi-complicated lens that I haven't spent much time with. I don't see any clear markings but I think it may be a 1:4 70mm. Not sure.
I've mostly been using the Nikomat and I love the pictures that it takes. I don't have a scanner so I can't share any, but I hope to get to the school photo lab soon.
I've tried to do some research on my own regarding these cameras but I can't find much, and everyone in here is so knowledgeable and nice that I thought I'd ask
http://abitofgeek.blogspot.com
i don't really have any good photo editing software. i wanted to make the buttons stand out more. Awell, enough silliness. I should be studying for finals in the morning.
Jake, the Scotland shots are fantastic. Colour me jealous. The second and fourth are definitely my favourites, though I can’t tell what the second one is a photo of. On the second set, the B+Ws are just amazing. Would you consider a slightly shorter crop on the very first shot? There’s a bit too much sky for my liking, but aside from that it’s excellent. Ditto nO’s comments regarding the silhouettes.
Box, how sickeningly festive :P. You’ve reminded me that I really ought to put up the tree before Christmas day. The black void is a bit distracting, but as your black level appears really really high, you can probably fix that just by dropping it a bit.
Pope, the background in that one is actually fairly distracting. Normally your backgrounds complement the subject really nicely, but that one overpowers it fairly easily.
Prosp, what a lovely mountain. Have to love the contrasty Sigma 10-20. Love the surprise perspective shift when you spot the people. I’d be interested to see how the crop nO suggested works - I bet it’d look great, especially with a nice border.
Nostregar, nice catch with the squirrel. I chased one around our legislative building grounds for an hour a few weeks back, but never got near enough for the full frame portrait I wanted. The aply titled bush shots are rather dull, though.
WhatToThink, while those are fine photos, they’re getting marred by that hideously garrish signature. I’d scrap the signature entirely. It won’t stop an image thief but really turns me off of your shots. The DOF seems a bit narrow in every instance to no particular end, with the most blatant offender the last shot - why are the nearest tuning pegs out of focus, while the ones falling off the edge of the frame are? It doesn’t make much sense.
ACsemper, you were using a built in flash to the left of the lens, correct? Don’t do that. Your first frame is half wildly overexposed and the other half slowly shifts to underexposed. The second frame is properly exposed at the nearest point to the camera, but everything else is underexposed. Both are seriously lacking in saturation, as well. Composition is pretty funky in both cases too, but best deal with the glaring technical errors first. Keep
shooting!
I'm rather excited for having my finals done (two tomorrow, two Thursday, one next Monday), as I'm shooting a Christmas concert, two separate models on two separate occasions, a starscape night an hour or two out of town and some street stuff downtown over my two weeks of holiday. Whee! Anyone have any cool photo stuff they're getting/buying themselves for Christmas? I'm hoping for a nice camerastrap, a la a BlackRapid RS strap.
The third one isn't really that striking to me, but I think it's slightly out of focus? Maybe it just has waay too shallow dof.
The first, second and fourth are brilliant though. I like the landscaped version of that lion cub portrait especially, it seems to fit a lot better (Although I know the first one had him looking down instead so landscaping it would have been weird).
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
My Portfolio Site
EDIT- New pope-pics:
EDIT EDIT - that "5" in the bottom right corner of #2 is distracting. >:-(
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
While I like #s 1 (both crops) and 2, I find the place on the tree in #3 where the distant horizon intersects is distracting. I think maybe if you had laid prone on the ground and shot much more upwards at the tree then the horizon would intersect below the foliage-bearing branches and reduce the distraction. The sun in #4 causes the silhouette to not be completely black and consequently it seems washed out in some places (it's almost like nearly-invisible lens-flare is involved) - maybe a masked layer to darken only the figure would be good?
I dunno - always take my crits with a double-serving of salt.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I still have the Canon EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS available. Pm me if interested.
Nostregar - I like your squirrel better. DoF, mmm.
Sorry for the URL, I don't know how to embed it..
http://ramirez2.tripod.com/index.html
That's awesome. Excellent assignment and well pulled off. Really gives me an insight. Some very nice angles for the shots,too.
Shit. More work like this in this thread.
Just chiming in to say this is my walk around lens and I love it.
Fuzz - Neat project. Nice collaboration between the interview and the images. Good stuff.
Taken at Umsted State park in NC, slowed shutter speed.
Taken in San Fransisco, on a trip for my sisters wedding.
Also shot in San Fran, trying to highlight the transportation aspects.
wampamagi: the first shot is an interesting idea, but I think you need to find an interesting bit of rock.
A few more from Scotland and then I'll shut up, promise!
I know this shot has issues, but look, count the seagulls!
@Jake: That last shot is win, and I like the first one a lot too, though it could do with some cropping at the top maybe? The white foggy stuff is kind of distracting.
Also guys is it possible for shutter speed to affect the depth of field? So far everything I've done and experienced says no but today I just noticed something while working on a couple of mediocre shots.
f4 at 40mm at 1/100s shutter at ISO 400
f3.8 at 38mm at 1/50s shutter at ISO 200
The depth of field in both images is clearly very different. I was roughly the same distance away when I took both shots. Oddly enough it's the shot that's at f3.8 that seems to have a larger depth of field. Or does the distance between me and the subject matter that much in this case?
EDIT: Eh, might as well post something that I want to anyway. Fooling around with the tablecloth at dinner. Not sure whether the ultra high contrast in the second version works, it's almost blinding to me personally but I can't get back any highlight details without making it look weirder.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
I like those fabric shots, the movement in the fabric is interesting.
Jake - Berries = yes. B&W Boat = yes!, mountain = yes!
Wampamagi - I like the first one a lot. I like the colors and composition both. The second one doesn't stand out. The tonalities are nice, but I don't get a feel for a subject. #3 is better but I wish you had crouched a little lower so the trolly cables wouldn't overlap the cityscape so much (crouching would raise them as your camera angle would be more upwards).
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Has anyone ever looked into some type of structured class bullshit online? Preferabbly free. I know there's little challenges here and there, but I'm talking more about constructive training,etc.
Also - any book recommendations beyond the basics?
Checkout kelby training online. A lot of that stuff is basic, but some of the classes are cool. I could watch Joe McNally talk about strobes for hours.
Practical Composition by Axel Bruck - this is the best book on photography composition I have seen yet, but it's out of print so only available used (and at ~$7, it's a steal!)
National Audubon Society Guide to Landscape Photography by Tim Fitzharris is inspiring and fairly informative while not being a textbook. Really focussed (duh) on landscape stuff.
Working the Light: A Photography Masterclass (Light & Land series) by Eddie Ephraums, Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite, and David Ward - This is cool - every photo is student-submitted, and each of the authors then critiques every photo in a semi-dialog like fashion. Very informative regarding concept, not as informative w/respect to specifics (for example, no charts of exposure equivalencies nor textbook discussions of aperture or ISO or whatever). But it's really really awesome.
Mastering Composition: Techniques and Principles to Dramatically Improve Your Painting by Ian Roberts - This is for painting, but dicsusses what works/doesn't work in 2-D flat graphics style artwork so the ideas translate into photography really well.
These are all the instructional books I have aside from Ansel Adams' book #2 (The Negative). I recommend them all, and ESPECIALLY the first one.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
i dont really post alot anywhere but i
next time your in scotland you should go to Glen Etive and Glen Coe! You would get some amazing shots there. Particularly in the winter there's this really narrow passage you have to drive through between glen etive and glen coe that has these HUGE icicles everywhere and when you come out the other side there's a huge frozen waterfal! it's like that every year without fail
@An-D : Both shots are composed pretty ok (the first one seems focused wrongly though) but the colour cast in the first one is too much. Personally I think both shots would work a lot better in b&w. Also that second one has that ugly thing sticking from the top and maybe needs more space where the guy's looking.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
Exzellent - added to mine wiszh listen, jah! I've got both of the Ansel Adams' books ( #1 and #2 ). They are very good and some "basic" stuff is actually very useful even for someone who thought they knew stuff about apertures, time values, etc.
I really like where goes into some philosophy over the approach to photography. Good reads.
or
What do you guys think? What makes a picture work better in colour or gray scale?
My Portfolio Site
That said, i do like the orangeish highlights that the rolled up pantlegs get. Maybe try the photo over again to work that idea into the photo better?
I vote color as well. I would go black and white if the main focus of the picture is very well defined and strong. Here the kick ass lighting is one of the main attractions, so getting rid of it would be a waste.
Exactly, stage lighting is great. This is why I get infuriated when I see concert picks with a flash used (on camera at least).
Especially the jerks that get paid for it.... *grumble grumble*
My Portfolio Site
For that I'm going to have to wait till next year. This was a yearly tradition of a local band.
But yeah I wish I had moved the wire and increased the DoF.