not bad photos but a little grainy. I've found that you can shoot at lower ISOs when shooting concerts than you think, because there actually is a lot of lighting on the stage (if you're close).
not bad photos but a little grainy. I've found that you can shoot at lower ISOs when shooting concerts than you think, because there actually is a lot of lighting on the stage (if you're close).
Film grain is great. I love it. I don't think it should ever be viewed as a bad thing.
Sorry phone but i'm going to disagree. I'm not referring to "grain" i'm referring to "noise" which happens when the sensors essentially increase gain to improve low light or fast shutter shooting. I don't know anyone who shoots digitally that doesn't care about noise.
Film grain is different, and I would say it's not as bad as noise etc.
Sorry phone but i'm going to disagree. I'm not referring to "grain" i'm referring to "noise" which happens when the sensors essentially increase gain to improve low light or fast shutter shooting. I don't know anyone who shoots digitally that doesn't care about noise.
Film grain is different, and I would say it's not as bad as noise etc.
I don't understand the difference you are alluding to. In fact, you use the word grain to describe how digital noies is not grain. Could you elaborate?
I've always enjoyed the mood in Phonehand's photos and recognize that grain (or noise or whatever) is definitely a component of that. There's certainly a trend in digital photography now (from what I've seen) especially when shooting people, to achieve a surreal level of color saturation and to have maximum smoothness: a picture that is nearly glossy in its utter lack of noise/grain; skin tends to get airbrush treatments until it could be synthetic. Flickr is teeming with plastic-looking portraits, so I am certain that that's a look that's popular right now. But I don't always agree that a trend = superior technique. While it might be something that a viewer enjoys or dislikes, I think it's totally reasonable for a photographer to have a style that appeals to them even if it bucks current trends.
Noise is colourful is the main problem. It's sensor buckets false firing because they're oversensitive and it never looks good.
Film grain is different. It's textured and has a distinct aesthetic and sort of just fits in certain situations. It's not bright yellow and green pixels scattered across a shadow.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Film grain is a product of the emulsions on the film, usually higher ASA film has more concentrated emulsions which results in more noticeable grain but at the same time grain is also an ascetic of the film itself.
Noise, as has already been mentioned, is a negative ascetic of digital low light shots in which a sensor has misread or created elements that were not there because of its increased sensitivity.
So grain in an image is not necessarily a bad quality, noise most certainly is however there are varying amounts of acceptable noise in an image, also if the exposure was correct and the image doesn't need tampering likely the noise wont become too much of a negative in the shot, for example phonehand's shots. However had the need arised that he would have to drastically lighten one of the image the noise would become very apparent.
I had to find a good balance between ISO and exposure. And as far as I understand, some noise is impossible to avoid at higher ISOs. I will admit that I have had images where the noise was out of control but it doesn't bother me there.
Those are pretty good sueve. In the second one you have the horizon in the middle of the frame, which is generally not recommended for anything besides reflections. Maybe crop some of the sky out so you keep the depth with the trees in the foreground.
Those are pretty good sueve. In the second one you have the horizon in the middle of the frame, which is generally not recommended for anything besides reflections. Maybe crop some of the sky out so you keep the depth with the trees in the foreground.
sueve: I like the airplane. It's peaceful! The bottom one with the face is not so interesting, a little blurry but that's me.
Here's some I took out in DC over the weekend:
This was taken by placing my camera on the moving railing of one of those walkways (like a flat escalator) in the national gallery. It was so neat that I went back and forth like 4 times. I think the security guard was getting weirded out.
sueve: I like the airplane. It's peaceful! The bottom one with the face is not so interesting, a little blurry but that's me.
Here's some I took out in DC over the weekend:
Yeah I find the airplane one to be a really great wallpaper on my computer, cause it is really peaceful.
I like the one I quoted. Its very aesthetically pleasing to me, and I would like the flag one if the top flag pole wasn't cut out of the frame. Im a little ocd bout that kind of thing, and it bugs me to look at it. The tunnel one is really cool looking, love the blur.
I don't have a very expensive camera, and thus it makes taking blurry pictures really difficult. Alot of the camera is automated, so I have to edit on photoshop.
sueve: I like the airplane. It's peaceful! The bottom one with the face is not so interesting, a little blurry but that's me.
Here's some I took out in DC over the weekend:
This was taken by placing my camera on the moving railing of one of those walkways (like a flat escalator) in the national gallery. It was so neat that I went back and forth like 4 times. I think the security guard was getting weirded out.
I'm not even going to claim this is artistic or anything, but 2 mins ago I looked out my window and happened to have my camera with me
and I saw this:
That's artistic. The cab. Not my photo.
Okay, I re-did one old photo and I have a couple new ones.
Here's one version of a shot:
And here's another:
I'm not sure which I prefer. I think the first, although neither photo is perfect, I couldn't keep my hands completely steady for the slow exposures I had to take.
I think this one is kind of cool. It could have been better, but I think I like it. I've found I have a weird thing for power lines.
I like how the image sort of bends on this one.
Here's a can:
And here's a re-post of that building. At least, I think I fixed it. I think I fixed it, it seems way more saturated and much more contrasty in Photoshop.
Hrm.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
DrDizaster I dunno if it's the monochromatic mood of them or just the composition but they're just not catching my eye. I do really like 4 & 5. 4 has really nice contrast with the building/color/sky.
DrDizaster - read over this thread. There's a discussion in here about what color space you use. Once you are done editing and you save your PSD, concert it to sRGB color and fine tune the colors before saving your jpg for posting on the web. Also make sure you use "Save As" and not "Save For Web." If you do both of these, your photos on the web will much more resemble the ones you see in Photoshop.
DrDizaster - read over this thread. There's a discussion in here about what color space you use. Once you are done editing and you save your PSD, concert it to sRGB color and fine tune the colors before saving your jpg for posting on the web. Also make sure you use "Save As" and not "Save For Web." If you do both of these, your photos on the web will much more resemble the ones you see in Photoshop.
Check the embedded colour profile on the pic I posted. It's sRGB.
EDIT:
also, it's only the last one that is unnaturally desaturated.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Posts
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
The last one was rad because the bass player saw me and posed for me during a song.
That is a good one, it'd be pretty cool to e-mail it to him.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
not bad photos but a little grainy. I've found that you can shoot at lower ISOs when shooting concerts than you think, because there actually is a lot of lighting on the stage (if you're close).
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
I need to go out and shoot some more photos!
Film grain is great. I love it. I don't think it should ever be viewed as a bad thing.
Film grain is different, and I would say it's not as bad as noise etc.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
I don't understand the difference you are alluding to. In fact, you use the word grain to describe how digital noies is not grain. Could you elaborate?
I've always enjoyed the mood in Phonehand's photos and recognize that grain (or noise or whatever) is definitely a component of that. There's certainly a trend in digital photography now (from what I've seen) especially when shooting people, to achieve a surreal level of color saturation and to have maximum smoothness: a picture that is nearly glossy in its utter lack of noise/grain; skin tends to get airbrush treatments until it could be synthetic. Flickr is teeming with plastic-looking portraits, so I am certain that that's a look that's popular right now. But I don't always agree that a trend = superior technique. While it might be something that a viewer enjoys or dislikes, I think it's totally reasonable for a photographer to have a style that appeals to them even if it bucks current trends.
Anyway, these are my thoughts.
EDIT:
This is amusing and also illustrates part of my point: http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Film grain is different. It's textured and has a distinct aesthetic and sort of just fits in certain situations. It's not bright yellow and green pixels scattered across a shadow.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Noise, as has already been mentioned, is a negative ascetic of digital low light shots in which a sensor has misread or created elements that were not there because of its increased sensitivity.
So grain in an image is not necessarily a bad quality, noise most certainly is however there are varying amounts of acceptable noise in an image, also if the exposure was correct and the image doesn't need tampering likely the noise wont become too much of a negative in the shot, for example phonehand's shots. However had the need arised that he would have to drastically lighten one of the image the noise would become very apparent.
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Whadya think?
Sounds Good, Thanks!
Well, to keep up my momentum:
Here's some I took out in DC over the weekend:
This was taken by placing my camera on the moving railing of one of those walkways (like a flat escalator) in the national gallery. It was so neat that I went back and forth like 4 times. I think the security guard was getting weirded out.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Yeah I find the airplane one to be a really great wallpaper on my computer, cause it is really peaceful.
I like the one I quoted. Its very aesthetically pleasing to me, and I would like the flag one if the top flag pole wasn't cut out of the frame. Im a little ocd bout that kind of thing, and it bugs me to look at it. The tunnel one is really cool looking, love the blur.
I don't have a very expensive camera, and thus it makes taking blurry pictures really difficult. Alot of the camera is automated, so I have to edit on photoshop.
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
:^:
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
and I saw this:
That's artistic. The cab. Not my photo.
Here's one version of a shot:
And here's another:
I'm not sure which I prefer. I think the first, although neither photo is perfect, I couldn't keep my hands completely steady for the slow exposures I had to take.
I think this one is kind of cool. It could have been better, but I think I like it. I've found I have a weird thing for power lines.
I like how the image sort of bends on this one.
Here's a can:
And here's a re-post of that building. At least, I think I fixed it. I think I fixed it, it seems way more saturated and much more contrasty in Photoshop.
Hrm.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
DrDizaster I dunno if it's the monochromatic mood of them or just the composition but they're just not catching my eye. I do really like 4 & 5. 4 has really nice contrast with the building/color/sky.
My Portfolio Site
I'm pretty sure this one is crooked and it's really bothering me. :P
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Check the embedded colour profile on the pic I posted. It's sRGB.
EDIT:
also, it's only the last one that is unnaturally desaturated.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Isla Mujeres:
A section of a piece of clothing I recently bought.
Yes I do and uhhhh I live there too then
Corner of Jessie & Daly, right?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Wild
But Jubilee is like, South Osborne, isn't it? That's actually a good distance away IIRC
It's funny how many Winnipeggers we get here, actually.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH