Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

F-Stop In The Name Of Love [PHOTO THREAD]

1232426282932

Posts

  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    IMG_8696b1.jpg

    EDIT: Not dust. Glare from the lights. I swear it.

    Sheri on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Took a dust picture:
    dust.jpg
    Auto-leveled and sized down. I see the culprit, that big fat fucker on the top right.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Get it, Gafoots.

    Get that fucker.

    Sheri on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I'm currently investigating methods for cleaning my sensor that will not result in my getting more dust on it. I tried using a Q-Tip on the mirror once and that turned out horribly. Still have dust and streaks on the mirror from that experience. I am very very wary about putting more money into this camera since I feel like it is a moment away from some major button failure.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • bread of wonderbread of wonder Registered User
    edited July 2007
    microfiber cloth?

    bread of wonder on
    Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I'm gonna try the bulb once I get home this weekend. Until then I'm bored and have CS3:

    tanya.jpg

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    That is hypnotizing.

    foursquareman on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yeah, she's got scary eyes. They protrude out, like orbs.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • ImDrawingABlankImDrawingABlank Registered User
    edited July 2007
    That is hypnotizing.

    How much editing did you have to do to correct the colour on that if any? She's got nice eyes, it's a thing I'm having a hard time figuring out how to photograph well. What kind of settings were used? Mine never seem to focus properly, the eye's don't have the clarity they do in yours.

    ImDrawingABlank on
    lastfmml0.jpg
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    For that I just use the quick mask to select the eye and bumped up the saturation, that's it. Her eyes were already pretty vivd.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    The eye is placed incorrectly on the frame.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User
    edited July 2007
    I have heard only good things about the Sigma 150mm macro. Fredmiranda.com has a lot of good reviews of it I believe. Many Canon "L" glass owners speak highly of it over at the photo forum I go to.



    Gafoto, the passion flower shot is beautiful.

    Pirate Bob, I like that shot of the Tetons. I think would like it even more if you increased the contrast on the mountains themselves. Maybe a curves adjustment layer with a mask on it...

    erisian pope on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Thanks pope!
    ege02 wrote: »
    The eye is placed incorrectly on the frame.

    Where would you put it? I didn't think much about the shot when I was taking it, it was just a casual picture.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • JonisJonis Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Gafoto wrote: »
    Thanks pope!
    ege02 wrote: »
    The eye is placed incorrectly on the frame.

    Where would you put it? I didn't think much about the shot when I was taking it, it was just a casual picture.

    Yeah, I wasn't aware that a picture of an eye needed to have a certain composition.

    Jonis on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Perhaps it could be straight left to right or further to the left and up a bit.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • JonisJonis Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Maybe there is too much cheek. You could focus solely on the eye itself removing anything of the interesting elements of the rest of the face and just have an eye macro shot and it could be a great stock photo.

    Jonis on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I could but the photo isn't sharp enough. If I zoom in 100% it doesn't look so hot. I think it turned out pretty well, I might try to take another one of the subject.

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ege02 wrote: »
    The eye is placed incorrectly on the frame.

    :lol:

    Virum on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Gafoto wrote: »
    Perhaps it could be straight left to right or further to the left and up a bit.

    Placing the object of interest in the center is usually not such a good idea in terms of composition. Rule of thirds and all that. ;)

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • bread of wonderbread of wonder Registered User
    edited July 2007
    The rule of thirds isn't a rule. Originally, it fit right in with the "golden section" and other religious beliefs involving ratios, and it was widely believed that placing an eye at the exact spot where the grid lines meet would hold some sort of magical powers. It's nonsense. The rule of thirds is just a handy device to keep newbie photographers from placing their subjects in the middle of the frame all the time. A photo doesn't have to adhere to this "rule" to be considered interesting - there are no "rules" concerning composition.

    bread of wonder on
    Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
  • GrifterGrifter BermudaModerator mod
    edited July 2007
    The rule of thirds isn't a rule. Originally, it fit right in with the "golden section" and other religious beliefs involving ratios, and it was widely believed that placing an eye at the exact spot where the grid lines meet would hold some sort of magical powers. It's nonsense.

    So, tell me why I can pull a rabbit out of my hat whenever I want, then. HUH!?

    Grifter on
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Gafoto: Holy crap is that all dust speckles? Also, some advice on sensor cleaning: I had a photographer friend who had a special sensor brush. Apparently it's really a delicate thing to clean the sensor but he had this brush and it seemed to work fine. You might check something like that out. As for the eye, i think the color is neat on the eye but the fact that the eye looks so cool sort of makes everything else a little dull. I like the effect on the color though!

    Here are a few:
    463231925_5e9bd8ad84.jpg


    390390642_d24de24aae_b.jpg
    Tree.

    378790765_798fdd8f18_b.jpg

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    The rule of thirds isn't a rule. Originally, it fit right in with the "golden section" and other religious beliefs involving ratios, and it was widely believed that placing an eye at the exact spot where the grid lines meet would hold some sort of magical powers. It's nonsense. The rule of thirds is just a handy device to keep newbie photographers from placing their subjects in the middle of the frame all the time. A photo doesn't have to adhere to this "rule" to be considered interesting - there are no "rules" concerning composition.

    It's true, there are no "rules".

    But there are things one can do to unquestionably improve the attractiveness of a picture. Rule of thirds is one of them. Framing the photo is another. Use of lines to lead the viewer's eye to the object of interest is another. Having the object fill the frame diagonally (rather than horizontally) is another.

    Sure, a photo can still be interesting without them, but it won't be as interesting.

    In the case of the eye, I think it would look better if the empty space to the left and the top was cropped out.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    I like the third, altmann.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Am I the only person who doesn't think about compositional "rules" when they shoot photos and just take what looks good/interesting?

    Virum on
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    lolrules.

    ART IS SERIOUS BUSINESS AND HAS RULES THAT MUST NOT BE BROKEN.

    In my opinion, if it looks good, or if you like it, then it's good.

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
  • TiniTini Slippy PARegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I definitely have them in the back of my head and think of them while shooting but I don't use them as a definitive rulebook for taking my photos. Photography is all about breaking the boundaries of the past set rules and some other deep shit like that, haha.

    Tini on
    Do a barrel roll.
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    altmann wrote: »
    lolrules.

    ART IS SERIOUS BUSINESS AND HAS RULES THAT MUST NOT BE BROKEN.

    In my opinion, if it looks good, or if you like it, then it's good.

    I didn't say you must not break the rules.

    I mean okay, let's take a very simple one here: Do we all agree that 99.9% of the time, one should keep the focus on the object of interest in a picture? This is perhaps the simplest "rule" in photography. Can you break it? Sure. Should you break it? In my opinion, not unless it is deliberate and you know what you're doing and are going for a specific effect.

    I mean, by your standards, altmann, all the photos I have taken so far are "good" because I like them all.

    What nonsense.

    In any case, I thought the reason we're posting our pictures here is not to "show off", but to get constructive criticism. I offered mine and stated the basis of my opinion, i.e. rule of thirds. You may not agree with it and that is fine. I'm just trying to help.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ege i didn't really mean that as a slight on you, i meant it in general. While I don't follow "rules" I can agree that certain things can make a photo better and as a general guideline they help. I'm apologize for getting into a debate and you are right, we need constructive criticism.

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
  • bread of wonderbread of wonder Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Telling someone to follow a rule to get a perfect image isn't really constructive or helpful. I'm sure Gafoto is well aware of the rule of thirds - he's not exactly new to photography.

    Any shot I take has the potential to be a better shot than it is, but it won't get there by following some sort of rule. Sometimes the rule of thirds can make things look downright awful, and there are times when central composition is the best choice for a shot. It's all about having an eye for aesthetic and balancing that with what you're trying to communicate with the image. Personally, I think Gafoto's shot would look better with a more centralized composition. It's a little off-center now.

    bread of wonder on
    Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
  • GrifterGrifter BermudaModerator mod
    edited July 2007
    Really, I don't think it's that serious of a shot to have all this debate over it.

    Yes, there are some rules out there that can be followed. Yes, they can be broken sometimes. Yay! Everyone wins.

    Grifter on
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Telling someone to follow a rule to get a perfect image isn't really constructive or helpful.

    Define "constructive" then. Because my definition is "to help someone improve something or at something". And that is precisely what my suggestion is meant to accomplish. Whether it will or will not accomplish it is open for debate of course.
    I'm sure Gafoto is well aware of the rule of thirds - he's not exactly new to photography.

    That is why I was surprised. The picture has way too much empty, meaningless space to the left and to the top. If the person had wrinkles around the eyes, it could be interesting, as the wrinkles would serve as lines that lead the viewer's eye to the object of interest. That isn't really the case here, though. I found the empty space to be distracting and I think it takes away from the picture. That is why I suggested he crop it out.
    Any shot I take has the potential to be a better shot than it is, but it won't get there by following some sort of rule.

    It almost always will. If you focus more sharply on the object of interest, the picture will improve. If you blur the background, the portrait picture will improve. If you have color contrast between the background and the subject, the picture will improve. If you remove distracting elements from the background, the picture will improve. These are all "rules", and following them will almost always improve your pictures.

    The thing about "rules" is that they are proven ways to improve the way the photographer communicates the idea to the viewer. Sure, you can discover other ways, but that is neither here nor there.
    Personally, I think Gafoto's shot would look better with a more centralized composition. It's a little off-center now.

    And that would be your opinion. As I said, it is OK that we disagree.

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    hey pictures!

    361777068_a7a15635d5.jpg

    361776625_821088473f.jpg

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
  • bread of wonderbread of wonder Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Oh, really? Ok. So basically, follow the rule of thirds and all your shots will turn out absolutely spectacular? Give me a break. That's nowhere near constructive, it's trite. I can recite that in my sleep to anyone that feels like asking my opinion on their shots.

    I agree the composition of that shot can be improved, as it can on any shot you take, but saying the best way to do it is to follow a rule based on silly superstition isn't very helpful. This is advice given to just-starting-out photographers just to show them there's more options than centering things on the frame and hitting the shutter release.

    Also, as a side note - focusing sharper isn't a "rule." Using a wider aperture isn't a "rule." Can we tone down on these "rules," please? Rules are stuffy and thus restrict growth, and have no place in art.

    edit: alt, you didn't use the rule of thirds on those shots. -50 pro points.

    bread of wonder on
    Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
  • spacerobotspacerobot Registered User
    edited July 2007
    hello everyone, I have been following this thread for a few days now and I have to say there are some beautiful pictures here!

    I very recently got a Canon XT and have been playing around with it trying to become better at photography. Here are some of my better ones i've taken so far (all others are pretty bad pictures.) I would love some constructive criticism to help me become a better photographer as I am still very new to the hobby.

    Also, I would like to take pictures of people as they seem to make very interesting photos, but i've become hung up on the "creepiness" factor. I would like to go downtown and just photograph sites with people in them, but even amongst my friends when I try to take a picture of them (even after asking) I always get a "why do you want to do that? that's creepy." Is this something i'll always have to deal with if I want to take pictures of people? How do I get over that, will I just have to accept my fate of people thinking i'm creepy for taking pictures?

    I would love any advice. thanks!

    IMG_0036.JPG
    IMG_0041.JPG
    IMG_0193.JPG
    IMG_0206.JPG
    IMG_0116.JPG

    spacerobot on
    test.jpg
  • foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Great photos spacerobot. I really like the last one, with the flowers.

    I'm in the same position as you, new to photography. I have found reading photography magazines has really helped in terms of finding out the different techniques used to get better photographs.

    foursquareman on
  • GafotoGafoto Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Grifter is right guys, it's not that serious of a photo.

    If it was thinking more about it I'd compose the eye directly in the middle of the frame and do some touch ups from there. I usually will set my main subject off to the side very slightly (roughly using the thirds) except when the subject is totally alone (then I put it right in the middle or further off to the side).

    Gafoto on
    sierracrest.jpg
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Flying a kite.

    kites.jpg

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Oh, really? Ok. So basically, follow the rule of thirds and all your shots will turn out absolutely spectacular? Give me a break.

    I never said that.
    I agree the composition of that shot can be improved, as it can on any shot you take, but saying the best way to do it is to follow a rule based on silly superstition isn't very helpful.

    I never said that either. Stop putting words in my mouth.
    Also, as a side note - focusing sharper isn't a "rule." Using a wider aperture isn't a "rule." Can we tone down on these "rules," please? Rules are stuffy and thus restrict growth, and have no place in art.

    This is simply an opinion, and nothing else.

    My point stands: these "rules", or whatever you wish to call them, exist because they are proven (i.e. not "superstitious") ways of communicating the message to the viewer in a more effective manner. If you want to not follow them, fine. But don't give me shit for suggesting that you should.

    Let's just stop arguing, shall we?

    --

    Fucking smokers and their littering ways.

    920684255_518160c4ff_b.jpg

    ege02 on
    Medopine wrote: »
    Fuck that woman going "oh god oh no!!"

    It's nature, bitch
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Spacerobot: I like those. They are a great start (not to be mean at all!) just shoot a lot more and you'll get a better idea of what "works" for you. Everyone has thier own style. I'd say I like the night shot of the building with the lamp symbol on it. The bunny one lacks contrast but it's got a good layout. And I'd say the bottom one needs a little more contrast. I can't see the details on the flowers but the color is nice.

    Saltiness: I like this. She's cute and it's a good candid shot though if she was facing the other way i have the feeling the sun would make a some great colors on her hair. Overall i like it!

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
This discussion has been closed.