If it wasn't for the expression on your face I'd feel that the vampire would stop me on the street with his pal Stacey London to give me fashion advice. I'm really not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. That's good - I didn't want these series to be very serious. The character is a little flamboyant. I've two other shots in my head, just need time to pull them off....

Aldo: The first shooter didn't do a good job of that if that's what he was trying to do. This. I don't think it's a matter of one person wants one thing and another wants something else. There is a distinct line between snapshot and fine art photography. I'm curious to see what you come up with Cow. Also, can you link some of your old guides that you referenced? I think the OP could use another revision as it's been something like a year since I put it together.

If it wasn't for the expression on your face I'd feel that the vampire would stop me on the street with his pal Stacey London to give me fashion advice. I'm really not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. That's good - I didn't want these series to be very serious. The character is a little flamboyant. I've two other shots in my head, just need time to pull them off.... Well cool, that's how the character came off to me, so what you envisioned was conveyed to the viewer.

Aldo: The first shooter didn't do a good job of that if that's what he was trying to do. This. I don't think it's a matter of one person wants one thing and another wants something else. There is a distinct line between snapshot and fine art photography. I'm curious to see what you come up with Cow. Also, can you link some of your old guides that you referenced? I think the OP could use another revision as it's been something like a year since I put it together. This is what I have saved: My write up on making a subject interesting: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=164 Pope's writeup on making a subject interesting / thinking before shooting: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...postcount=1171 Uncle Long nature photo writeup: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=755 my fashion writeup: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=102 my fashion setup post w/ pictures http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=446 my image workflow writeup: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=714

The auto focus motor is acting up in my canon ef 35/2.0. I'm going to go check out how much it costs to repair...anyone have a vague idea? edit: damnit their service number is only open during normal business hours.

So here are the last photos my 35/2 took before dying: and as I said in the post on the last page here are the 'snapshot' versions of the same place: Spoilered for snapshot suckyness Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler

Too bad it's acting up. I love 1 and 2. 1 makes me feel very cold though... damn winter on its way!

CC: love the colour and texture of those, pity about the leaves in the foreground in one but they don't spoil the image. http://climate-swoop.appspot.com/map Shots for a friend's album, with the setup spoilered; Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler Spoiler: show spoiler hide spoiler

Cow: did you go to that corn maze at the gardens in denver? I've been wanting to go there all month... *jealous*. Aldo: on the whole topic last page about snapshot/good picture, I know cow already reinforced what he was trying to get across. But, the whole idea of showing the two shots is that there are better ways to show, say those fancy lights. Than just whipping out your camera and taking the shot at eye level with absolutely no emphasis on what the subject is supposed to be. I honestly can't tell what the guy is trying to show in that "snapshot" example, and I think that's what cow is trying to say? nO: really like that shot, only thing that's bugging me is that really dark shadow angle thing on your neck. My eyes seem to shoot almost directly at that first (well either that or your freaky eyes haha). Jake: last shot is tops man, love how soft the background is compared to the sharpness of your lady friend. I think my rebel is finally dying on me, and in rough financial times... awesome. I am trying to win a 50d at a local competition though, so that would be excellent.

Cow: did you go to that corn maze at the gardens in denver? I've been wanting to go there all month... *jealous*. My gf's roomate had free tickets to Anderson Farms out in Erie. Honestly I've never been to a corn maze / pumpkin patch before so I had no idea what it was going to be like. I probably would have enjoyed it more if I wasn't still recovering from being horribly sick all last week.

Time to pick a good Halloween Party http://www.flickr.com/photos/lautermilch/collections/

I saw this, and immediately my mind invented a story for the scene and motives for the (very interesting) subjects. I think this is an excellent street photograph. Ton of energy and character, and rather decent composition for something that must have been spur-of-the-moment! The overexposure is a damned shame, but... it still comes off well, in my opinion. Edit: in case it's not obvious, I'm referring mostly to the blown highlights on the back of the observer's shirt.

For Jake's street photos I'm going to have to agree with Gilrain, that one is my fave. I'd also like to thank Jake for the setup shots as I'm a pretty visual learner. I also like CC's posts on snapshots vs. isolating the subject, etc for a better shot and the corn shots are a nice surprise coming from mostly a fashion/portrait photographer, I like them. I feel that I'm going to have to scrap my wine glasses project for now as I don't have the needed equipment or anything in the house to substitute or any money. Thanks to everyone for the links, I've got them bookmarked for when I've got the equipment!

thanks guys Bladex: You can use tracing paper to diffuse light, white card to bounce, and any old household lamp for lighting. Sure, you'll need a longer exposure time and to white balance, but you can do the kind of shot you're going for for nothing. Better crop (the last made it look like there were only 20 or so people walking down the road, there were hundreds ;))

CC: There isnt that much difference, in my mind, between the corn snapshots and great shots you posted. They all have clear thematic subject on display, its just that the "good shots" have better post processing and lack compositional mistakes. But in general, I dont find the difference that great. But it is all subjective, as you said.

I am interested in what you're discussing, CC - keep the dialog going. Also this trend towards photo'ing one's light setup is rad. Please everyone who shoots with strobes, keep it up. I have nothing to offer on this topic as I don't really do lighting. I have a single flash I sometimes use in a ringflash setup, but that's about it. Normally I shoot available light only. I'm not some fanatic, I am just cheap. In other news - everything I am shooting lately is crap. That is all.

CC: There isnt that much difference, in my mind, between the corn snapshots and great shots you posted. They all have clear thematic subject on display, its just that the "good shots" have better post processing and lack compositional mistakes. But in general, I dont find the difference that great. But it is all subjective, as you said. The idea was to show how to isolate a subject or take the same subject and make it look more interesting. Do you think the snap shot photos are as interesting and good as the 'good shots'? Even with some post process on the snapshot photos I don't think they would be good. To me the former shots show thought behind them and some technical skill, the latter show that I was at a corn maze and had a camera.

CC: There isnt that much difference, in my mind, between the corn snapshots and great shots you posted. They all have clear thematic subject on display, its just that the "good shots" have better post processing and lack compositional mistakes. But in general, I dont find the difference that great. But it is all subjective, as you said. The idea was to show how to isolate a subject or take the same subject and make it look more interesting. Do you think the snap shot photos are as interesting and good as the 'good shots'? Even with some post process on the snapshot photos I don't think they would be good. To me the former shots show thought behind them and some technical skill, the latter show that I was at a corn maze and had a camera. Dammit, I had a big post written up, and the internet ate it. The first two shots are interesting not because of their subject matter, corn, but due to unusual point of view and perspective, as well as technical execution. The Snapshots on the other hand, seem to deal less with corn, but with the vastness of the environment, which is much more interesting concept to me than a static subject matter. Pictures fail to represent it well, but I feel that there is a germ of an idea in those photos, that with better forethought and execution could be great. My point is that it is dangerous to attribute lack of thought to a given photo, as such things are quite easily mis-interpreted, and what works for one person, might not for another. It is quite possible that you werent trying to capture the ideas I attributed to those snapshots, but that doesnt make them devoid of substance. Terry Richardson made a fortune of taking party snapshots, and while a lot of people decry his work on the Belvedere ad campaign, I personally find it very interesting (and I am sure I am not the only one). A lot of times lack of fidelity, structure or subject isolation in a picture could be very well illustrating a point or a more ephemeral aspect of a scene, and it is easy to loose a forest for the trees, or whatever the old adage claims. But yeah, there is a lot of bad pictures out there, I just thought your throwaway pictures werent as bad or devoid of substance as you claimed they are.

Terry Richardson made a fortune of taking party snapshots, and while a lot of people decry his work on the Belvedere ad campaign, I personally find it very interesting (and I am sure I am not the only one). A lot of times lack of fidelity, structure or subject isolation in a picture could be very well illustrating a point or a more ephemeral aspect of a scene, and it is easy to loose a forest for the trees, or whatever the old adage claims. But yeah, there is a lot of bad pictures out there, I just thought your throwaway pictures werent as bad or devoid of substance as you claimed they are. I FUCKING HATE Terry Richardson and his clone Juergen Teller. I guess if you find that style of photography interesting and good then we have no common ground to discuss from. I can say that there was no thought behind the snap shots I took because I took them and really didn't put much if any thought into them. It is of course harder to say that about other people's photos, but remember as we have discussed many times before in here the end product is all you get. If it doesn't look like someone put thought into a photo I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. The final image speaks for itself.

For those playing at work: Do not GIS "Terry Richardson".

Terry Richardson made a fortune of taking party snapshots, and while a lot of people decry his work on the Belvedere ad campaign, I personally find it very interesting (and I am sure I am not the only one). A lot of times lack of fidelity, structure or subject isolation in a picture could be very well illustrating a point or a more ephemeral aspect of a scene, and it is easy to loose a forest for the trees, or whatever the old adage claims. But yeah, there is a lot of bad pictures out there, I just thought your throwaway pictures werent as bad or devoid of substance as you claimed they are. I FUCKING HATE Terry Richardson and his clone Juergen Teller. I guess if you find that style of photography interesting and good then we have no common ground to discuss from. I can say that there was no thought behind the snap shots I took because I took them and really didn't put much if any thought into them. It is of course harder to say that about other people's photos, but remember as we have discussed many times before in here the end product is all you get. If it doesn't look like someone put thought into a photo I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. The final image speaks for itself. Oh, we definitely have different tastes and approaches to photography I agree with you about the end product being what counts. The thing is that it is a double edged sword. I dont give a crap if Richardson flails his arms around while pressing the shutter release indiscriminately, if I see a photo of his I like, I dont care how much thought and planning went into it. You did your best Richardson impersonation, and I found a lot of substance in your snapshots. So if we throw away all the extraneous information about your lack of forethought or care at taking those photos, and I find them structured and meaningful, are they still to be considered snapshots? If we are to use only the picture as a frame of reference, WYSIWYG, we cant backtrack later to claim that someone didnt put thought into taking a photo, therefore delegating it to some arbitrary category of failed photos. I dont think we can claim the intent, subject of the work, or effort needed to accomplish it, a category for judging it, as it is a very mercurial territory.

Terry Richardson made a fortune of taking party snapshots, and while a lot of people decry his work on the Belvedere ad campaign, I personally find it very interesting (and I am sure I am not the only one). A lot of times lack of fidelity, structure or subject isolation in a picture could be very well illustrating a point or a more ephemeral aspect of a scene, and it is easy to loose a forest for the trees, or whatever the old adage claims. But yeah, there is a lot of bad pictures out there, I just thought your throwaway pictures werent as bad or devoid of substance as you claimed they are. I FUCKING HATE Terry Richardson and his clone Juergen Teller. I guess if you find that style of photography interesting and good then we have no common ground to discuss from. I can say that there was no thought behind the snap shots I took because I took them and really didn't put much if any thought into them. It is of course harder to say that about other people's photos, but remember as we have discussed many times before in here the end product is all you get. If it doesn't look like someone put thought into a photo I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt. The final image speaks for itself. Let's go ahead and throw out there that not everyone appreciates all art. Okay, that's great. But while people like Richardson try to blur the line between snapshot and capital A-art, to ignore the fact that the vast, vast majority of fine photography rules also happen to be classic painting techniques (rule of thirds, atmospheric perspective, etc) ignores that there is a very strong, very old common foundation in what we perceive as a "pleasing" image. I don't think anyone here is attempting to catalog what makes every possible photograph okay. Cow is just aiming at the low hanging fruit, which is where most people that want to be better photographers need to start.

You did your best Richardson impersonation, and I found a lot of substance in your snapshots. HAHA that was not even close to a Richardson impersonation. If I wanted to impersonate him I would have used a disposable camera with on camera flash and made sure it overexposed the foreground like crazy. I would have also probably had someone either half naked, in a costume, or beaten up in the photo.

I'm a little late on this one but its still funny.

/snip Interesting version: For those of us who do a lot of strobe work we should try and take photos of the setup we used for specific photos like I did in this post: http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showp...&postcount=446 Who's with me? Dude CC you are awesome... i love that shot it took me a few minutes to be like "ooooh!" and yeah. just amazing. and your wheat photos too: just awesome. edit: oddly, it makes me feel like i am down there on the moving sidewalk. its trippy and awesome.