Thanks Sheri, do you think it's interesting enough to submit for a class? Or do you think I should get one of the graffiti cartoons as the subject instead?
I really like those two pictures, especially the second one. The first one though, that storm drain/gutter is kind of distracting. Are they full statues, or just the heads of lions?
spacerobot on
0
SheriResident FlufferMy Living RoomRegistered Userregular
edited September 2007
I think the second one is a much better example of shallow DOF than the first.
This is my first post in the photo thread. I'm relatively new to photography but got a great chance to take some snaps when I travelled accross America for a month. I made some real rookie mistakes with my DSLR (Canon 300D), such as forgetting to change the ISO speed from 1600, resulting in some very noise photographs. I've managed to photoshop the hell out of them and end up with some that I really like, so I thought I'd post them here.
I'm not to sure on etiquete here, so if I've posted too many photo's at once let me know and I'll spoiler them.
Any C&C would be appreciated.
Broadway in San Francisco
Mono Lake near Yosemite
Mono Lake again
Yosemite
Golden Gate Bridge
Golden Gate Bridge again
An old train bridge along Highway 1
Some friends staring out accross the Pacific Ocean
Frontier Casino in Vegas that closed the day we were there... The Death of a Casino
Skyscraper in New York near Battery Park
Subway in New York
The View from our hostel
A friend waiting for our taxi
A friend at the World Trade Centre
Some more WTC
And WTC again
From the Staten Island Ferry
From the Staten Island Ferry again
The Bull and Finch in Boston
I know i've probably broken every cliche 'desaturated' rule in the book.
That Golden Gate bridge one makes me dizzy just looking at it :P
Most of the rest of them seem to be more Photoshop practice than photography practice. I do like that New York subway picture though. Looks like some Silent Hill promotional material. Very creepy.
That Golden Gate bridge one makes me dizzy just looking at it :P
Most of the rest of them seem to be more Photoshop practice than photography practice. I do like that New York subway picture though. Looks like some Silent Hill promotional material. Very creepy.
Indeed
the pictures aren't ugly, but that's only because you saturated and blurred to oblivion. Still, they're pleasant to the eye, so that's something.
Looks like a lot of post processing going on, I really like them although I'd be interested in seeing some of the normal pictures as well. The picture of the skyscraper in NY near battery park is pretty cool reminds me of something out of the Dark Tower series or something.
That Golden Gate bridge one makes me dizzy just looking at it :P
Most of the rest of them seem to be more Photoshop practice than photography practice. I do like that New York subway picture though. Looks like some Silent Hill promotional material. Very creepy.
So here's a question your post calls to mind. I am not asking this pointedly; this for me is more an exercise in concept (what am I doing, and why?) ... What is your goal when photographing? (I am asking anyone/everyone reading this forum.) Is it about literal photography? Is it about art? Probably you are not exclusively one versus the other; probably you try to blend the two, creating art via the tools that your camera and your post-processing (photoshop or a film darkroom with chemicals) provide you. But where do you draw your lines? Do you use color filters or are you a purist w/respect to color? Do you appreciate or even emulate highly stylized post-production like David Hill? Do you try to create embellished but plausible photos like are popular with some landscape photographers? Do you publish your pictures straight from camera? Or do you find a photograph to be the starting point rather than the final product as you strive to create utterly unreal imagery?
I personally think this is entirely subjective and personal: we all surely have unique answers. But I think it's fun to ask myself about what I am trying to accomplish with my photography, and what I do / don't feel is in-line with my goals. So far my answer is as refined as "I want to make pretty pictures." :-/
I want photography to portray an object as beautiful as possible.
Unless its for journalism, then I want photography to portray an object as clear as possible. I would say "true", but you know, relativism, everyone looks at the world through his own eyes etc etc.
What about photographing something other than an object? What if you want to photograph an interaction or a feeling? We've all seen this picture: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/ny_kiss_toc.jpg ... for me the picture isn't merely the literal interpretation of the objects (people) but is really about the feeling.
Heck, let's take a look at your sig. That is a terrible picture as far as literal interpretations go, but it also conveys feeling, and in that vein I enjoy it a lot. Let's pretend I shot a picture at a similar location using my Powershot SD550 (a point-n-shoot digicam). What I would end up with would be in focus, crisp and have saturated colors. What if I then photoshopped it and blurred it some, added a little noise, desaturated it, etc. What if what I ended up with looked like your sig? What's better: the more precise literal shot, or the more moving stylized shot?
This is my first post in the photo thread. I'm relatively new to photography but got a great chance to take some snaps when I travelled accross America for a month. I made some real rookie mistakes with my DSLR (Canon 300D), such as forgetting to change the ISO speed from 1600, resulting in some very noise photographs. I've managed to photoshop the hell out of them and end up with some that I really like, so I thought I'd post them here.
I'm not to sure on etiquete here, so if I've posted too many photo's at once let me know and I'll spoiler them.
Any C&C would be appreciated.
Broadway in San Francisco
I really like this one, a lot more than the others.
Ponge, I have nothing against going completely all-out on post-processing, but the majority of those shots really don't "fit" the post-processing you gave them. You took shots that would otherwise convey any emotion besides depression and turned them into essentially the same thing. Let the shot itself dictate how you post-process it, and you'll enhance the effectiveness of the photo rather than ruining it.
bread of wonder on
Long distance runner, what you standin' there for?
Man, fuck. On my ride to school this morning I cut cut off by some idiot tourists and wound up slapping my pack into a light pole as I went by. I got to the studio and went to take some shots with my 50mm f/1.4 and the thing won't focus at all, not even manually. There goes $350.
Man, fuck. On my ride to school this morning I cut cut off by some idiot tourists and wound up slapping my pack into a light pole as I went by. I got to the studio and went to take some shots with my 50mm f/1.4 and the thing won't focus at all, not even manually. There goes $350.
Man, fuck. On my ride to school this morning I cut cut off by some idiot tourists and wound up slapping my pack into a light pole as I went by. I got to the studio and went to take some shots with my 50mm f/1.4 and the thing won't focus at all, not even manually. There goes $350.
Damn. No repair option in a situation like this?
Yeah actually there is I think. Apparently I can send it in to Canon and pay maybe $200.
What about photographing something other than an object? What if you want to photograph an interaction or a feeling? We've all seen this picture: http://www.indiana.edu/~rcapub/images/ny_kiss_toc.jpg ... for me the picture isn't merely the literal interpretation of the objects (people) but is really about the feeling.
Heck, let's take a look at your sig. That is a terrible picture as far as literal interpretations go, but it also conveys feeling, and in that vein I enjoy it a lot. Let's pretend I shot a picture at a similar location using my Powershot SD550 (a point-n-shoot digicam). What I would end up with would be in focus, crisp and have saturated colors. What if I then photoshopped it and blurred it some, added a little noise, desaturated it, etc. What if what I ended up with looked like your sig? What's better: the more precise literal shot, or the more moving stylized shot?
Hadn't thought about it like that. You're absolutely right.
oh and fyi: my sig is just a screenshot taken from Youtube. I was watching the White Stripe's latest clip and figured that it would make a neat sig. :P
I dunno if I am right. I just think it's neat to think about how I see photography and art. White Stripes video, huh? :P Well it's definitely interesting to look at cropped like that.
Man, fuck. On my ride to school this morning I cut cut off by some idiot tourists and wound up slapping my pack into a light pole as I went by. I got to the studio and went to take some shots with my 50mm f/1.4 and the thing won't focus at all, not even manually. There goes $350.
Damn. No repair option in a situation like this?
Yeah actually there is I think. Apparently I can send it in to Canon and pay maybe $200.
Ok, I found a tech at my school who thinks he can fix it for around $20. I took this accident as a reminder that I need more than one fast prime lens because that's pretty much all I shoot with so I went ahead and ordered a Sigma 30mm f/1.4 and Canon 85mm f/1.8 to complete my tool set.
The 'Bull and Finch' is the original 'inspiration' for Cheers the sitcom. It doesn't look anything like the tv series but the writers apparently drank there before writing the show. They have a gift store and Cheers inspired menu etc.
Then theres another purpose built Cheers bar (which we didn't go to) that is a replica of the studio bar, but has a big glass wall. So yeah, you can sit in Norm's chair.
the pictures aren't so bad, but they seem under-exposed, or like you brought the brightness way down. Was that intentional?
Also, the water tower... why the slanted angle? Sometimes that works, sometimes not. Here, i think it's unnecessary.
It could be my monitor... or your monitor. They're looking pretty well exposed to me anyway, but then I have the brightness of my macbook pro all the way up, I think. That could be it.
As for the water tower... I don't know how to explain it really. I just like it. I think I took a few straight on, and they just didn't look as good to me.
Posts
I really like those two pictures, especially the second one. The first one though, that storm drain/gutter is kind of distracting. Are they full statues, or just the heads of lions?
It's a full-body crouching liony-thing.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
This is my first post in the photo thread. I'm relatively new to photography but got a great chance to take some snaps when I travelled accross America for a month. I made some real rookie mistakes with my DSLR (Canon 300D), such as forgetting to change the ISO speed from 1600, resulting in some very noise photographs. I've managed to photoshop the hell out of them and end up with some that I really like, so I thought I'd post them here.
I'm not to sure on etiquete here, so if I've posted too many photo's at once let me know and I'll spoiler them.
Any C&C would be appreciated.
Broadway in San Francisco
Mono Lake near Yosemite
Mono Lake again
Yosemite
Golden Gate Bridge
Golden Gate Bridge again
An old train bridge along Highway 1
Some friends staring out accross the Pacific Ocean
Frontier Casino in Vegas that closed the day we were there... The Death of a Casino
Skyscraper in New York near Battery Park
Subway in New York
The View from our hostel
A friend waiting for our taxi
A friend at the World Trade Centre
Some more WTC
And WTC again
From the Staten Island Ferry
From the Staten Island Ferry again
The Bull and Finch in Boston
I know i've probably broken every cliche 'desaturated' rule in the book.
Most of the rest of them seem to be more Photoshop practice than photography practice. I do like that New York subway picture though. Looks like some Silent Hill promotional material. Very creepy.
the pictures aren't ugly, but that's only because you saturated and blurred to oblivion. Still, they're pleasant to the eye, so that's something.
+1 on Cheers!
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
So here's a question your post calls to mind. I am not asking this pointedly; this for me is more an exercise in concept (what am I doing, and why?) ... What is your goal when photographing? (I am asking anyone/everyone reading this forum.) Is it about literal photography? Is it about art? Probably you are not exclusively one versus the other; probably you try to blend the two, creating art via the tools that your camera and your post-processing (photoshop or a film darkroom with chemicals) provide you. But where do you draw your lines? Do you use color filters or are you a purist w/respect to color? Do you appreciate or even emulate highly stylized post-production like David Hill? Do you try to create embellished but plausible photos like are popular with some landscape photographers? Do you publish your pictures straight from camera? Or do you find a photograph to be the starting point rather than the final product as you strive to create utterly unreal imagery?
Here's an essay I found a little bit interesting (if not a little light) discussing these same kinds of questions: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/abstraction.shtml
I personally think this is entirely subjective and personal: we all surely have unique answers. But I think it's fun to ask myself about what I am trying to accomplish with my photography, and what I do / don't feel is in-line with my goals. So far my answer is as refined as "I want to make pretty pictures." :-/
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Unless its for journalism, then I want photography to portray an object as clear as possible. I would say "true", but you know, relativism, everyone looks at the world through his own eyes etc etc.
Heck, let's take a look at your sig. That is a terrible picture as far as literal interpretations go, but it also conveys feeling, and in that vein I enjoy it a lot. Let's pretend I shot a picture at a similar location using my Powershot SD550 (a point-n-shoot digicam). What I would end up with would be in focus, crisp and have saturated colors. What if I then photoshopped it and blurred it some, added a little noise, desaturated it, etc. What if what I ended up with looked like your sig? What's better: the more precise literal shot, or the more moving stylized shot?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Tokyo Tower on my old DiMage Z6 (I wish I would have had a tripod):
Seattle at PAX (too dark?):
Damn. No repair option in a situation like this?
Yeah actually there is I think. Apparently I can send it in to Canon and pay maybe $200.
oh and fyi: my sig is just a screenshot taken from Youtube. I was watching the White Stripe's latest clip and figured that it would make a neat sig. :P
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Those look like they'd mess you right up!
Also Ponge, you're epic
Dear satan I wish for this or maybe some of this....oh and I'm a medium or a large.
Wait! Cheers actually exists? Can you sit in Norm's seat?
The 'Bull and Finch' is the original 'inspiration' for Cheers the sitcom. It doesn't look anything like the tv series but the writers apparently drank there before writing the show. They have a gift store and Cheers inspired menu etc.
Then theres another purpose built Cheers bar (which we didn't go to) that is a replica of the studio bar, but has a big glass wall. So yeah, you can sit in Norm's chair.
Staleghoti - Is epic good?
the pictures aren't so bad, but they seem under-exposed, or like you brought the brightness way down. Was that intentional?
Also, the water tower... why the slanted angle? Sometimes that works, sometimes not. Here, i think it's unnecessary.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
It could be my monitor... or your monitor. They're looking pretty well exposed to me anyway, but then I have the brightness of my macbook pro all the way up, I think. That could be it.
As for the water tower... I don't know how to explain it really. I just like it. I think I took a few straight on, and they just didn't look as good to me.
The Blog of Shame -- Misadventures in Ruby
flickr
some photos of this abandoned house named "devils cabin" near my place.
maybe a little too dark, couldn't get it right >.<
fun with lights
aaand not sure which of these I like more:
or
Crits always a warm welcome
Edit: yikes my borders are nasty, will fix that when I have some more time.
My Portfolio Site
The Blog of Shame -- Misadventures in Ruby
flickr
Taken on my Canon Powershot SD550 and no post production other than resize and add borders. Thoughts? Opinions? Critiques?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Go to SE++ (i know it's scary there) and chime in on the "Norther VA MEETUP" thread.
It'd be nice to meet some of you.
-A
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Been pulling together a portfolio of sorts. Some of the pictures I've taken lately that I'm a bit more fond of.
Edit: Oops. Thumbnails. I'll have to find the full size URLs. New host and all.
I'm inclined to say hot diggity.