Baron Dirigible wrote: »
Takeyama I by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Baron Dirigible wrote: »
Japan was really nice. Not just for all the sights and scenery, but also for the little things that made the country vastly more pleasant -- brilliant public transport, extended opening hours for shops and restaurants, and everyone dressed so very nicely. I live in a big city but it feels like the sticks compared to Tokyo. And there were so, so many places to shop for camera gear, but I was being good (and short on luggage space).
Have you been?
CommunistCow wrote: »
Overly blue with too much contrast / not enough fill in the shadows.
electricmeat wrote: »
Baron and muninn,
Yes, the sharpening is stark when it's posted here. I recently felt I didn't quite know enough about sharpening, so I did a little reading. I have a better understanding of how it works in LR now, but I think I'm in the "a little new knowledge can be dangerous" phase of it. I'm getting a little too fancy with it. It was an overcast day, muninn, and I avoided saturating the colors too much to compensate. I'm trying to keep the tones in my photos even these days and probably erred towards that approach in that shot.
Muninn, your propane tank shot works on several levels. I like the light/dark contrast from left to right. The placement of the tank is very good and I like the way it's processed. I like the grain. The abandoned building covered in ivy doesn't grab me like the propane tank does. I like the technique and the slight sun-flaring at the top. I guess I can't quite figure out what the subject is and what I should be looking at.
Baron, there's a bit of dissonance between the color of the umbrella and the color of the shingles. I'm not very good at spotting color problems, though. I don't think the colors are wrong or off. It seems that you were going for a bit of a leading line with the road but, like muninn's building photo above, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be looking at.
Soggybiscuit, you did a great job. Focus is key when you're shooting 1.4 and you nailed it here. The cat's nicely framed by the box and the tones seem to match. Strong shot.
Baron Dirigible wrote: »
@electricmeat and @muninn, thanks for the thoughts. I've re-edited the shot and the new version is thus:Hand made by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Nothing dramatic, and maybe not even an improvement, but the original had a green cast in the shadows that this version makes very apparent.@electricmeat, I have a real problem with taking more casual street photography, because I'm never sure where / how to emphasise a subject -- often I'm focused on the scene itself, as in the mood / atmosphere. I believe at the time (this was taken about a month ago) I was trying to emphasise the street-side signage and iconography -- those ice-creams in particular were everywhere. I wasn't trying to do anything with the road, that's just unfortunate framing on my part. I have a lot to learn about composition!
Also, re: sharpening, I've lately begun using unsharp mask in Photoshop, as what seems a necessary step in digitising negatives. I don't know if LR gives the same options, but it seems to work wonders in PS at the expense of getting very unrealistic, very quickly. It's also made me think more in terms of 'contrast' than 'sharpness'.@Soggybiscuit, I'm more of a dog person, but that shot looks good to me! Hope you have fun with that lens -- I'm a big fan of the 50mm focal length.
muninn wrote: »
Electric, I agree that my building shot lacks focus. As soon as I have developed it I wished I had a model standing in from of it. But in general I was interested in showing the reclamation of a building by nature. Probably should have gone a bit wider. Maybe a wider square crop.
Speaking of square, soggy, did you entertained the idea of making your photo a square crop? I think that stuff with strong central subject look good in a square, but then again I seem to have squares on my mind. Like electric said, well done on nailing the focus. I might have added a bit mode contrast and reduced the very light yellow tint (mixed lighting?), but thats a matter of taste. Very cool picture.
Rockwater wrote: »
Note: I was informed the focus was supposed to be the food, so my penchant for razor-thin depth of field resulted in sharp plates and slightly blurry subjects.
electricmeat wrote: »
Maybe the key to casual street photography is including people? I'm a big fan of Shoot Tokyo and that guy's casual street shots often have people in them. In your photo, it's almost like you've created a set or staged background and you're waiting for something or someone to show up. When I take street photos, I actively try to avoid including people, so my advice is a bit hypocritical. Maybe we both need to let some human beings into our street shots?
Regarding PS and Unsharp, PS is still unknown territory for me. I told myself that I'd master LR before moving onto PS. I *might* be getting to the point where integrating PS into my workflow makes sense. I'd also be lying if I said that PS didn't intimidate me a little. LR does have some relatively sophisticated sharpening tools. There's a Masking slider that can help control where sharpening is applied. But it doesn't have the fine control of Unsharp. I want to start dipping toes into the HDR, Panoramic and Blending worlds and that will require PS. Once I get into it, I'll probably also figuring out Curves in PS instead of using LR's Contrast sliders.
The Sakura photo has great light. Did you warm it a little? I think it's right, but I'm curious.
bsjezz wrote: »
soggybiscuit, with your last two i feel like both are actually overexposed. in 'invaders' we lose the searching quality of the beams of light coming through the trees, because even the stuff outside of those beams is illuminated muddily over the long exposure; in 'campfire' detail is lost by a searing point of light in the centre, and attention moves from that into the colourful and perfectly exposed - but incredibly boring - foreground. this is one where i'm drooling over the 1.4 lens' potential - get it right up around that fire and the people there, to capture the scene intimately. long exposure is hard because you're looking at large windows of time and "enough light, good enough!" isn't actually good enough - you need to hit the sweet spot of exposing your subject while retaining some of the scene's natural darkness.
Soggybiscuit wrote: »
Thanks! Invaders is entirely my fault (I believe); I messed around with it in post processing too much. I'll post the original tomorrow (it's on another computer).
As for Campfire, you think I should get closer for shots like that? That's something I'll try for sure next time. I'm fairly new to this and I'm doing it to learn something new. I'm still not the best at picking my shots. That being said, please provide criticism; I can't get better at it unless people tell me what they think!