Some Day My Prints Will Come [PHOTO THREAD] (spoiler things and die)

Sheri

Look at those angles. I've got a thing for slants lately. Don't worry, I'll grow out of it.

Have at thee, photo threaders!

PHOTO THREAD ETIQUETTE

Spoilers.

Do us all a favor. Don't post your images in spoilers. This is an image-based thread in an image-based forum. We came here expecting to see images.

If you have a huge panorama that will break our h-scroll, do not spoiler it; please link it (and feel free to post a scaled-down version). If you have a billion photos to share, do not spoiler them; please spread them among a few posts and a few pages (it also makes it easier for us to comment on them if we don't have to pick one out of a mass of photos).

We are a lazy bunch and do not like to click spoilers.

MKR

I give this thread 9 awesomes out of 10.

Sheri

Good enough for me!

MKR

Lord Of The Pants

Fire_Fox

Veritas

When I was at home last week cleaning out my closet I found some old photos I took when I was still using film.





I'm not certain but I think that must have been like 7 years ago.

anable

I haven't taken anything interesting in a while but I need to post to make this thread highlight.

So this is what you get:


And:

UnknownSaint

MKR those are both very out of focus.

Anable I love that second shot.

Veritas

I really have to ask you MKR. Are you actually executing ideas in your head with your photos. As in are those images that you planned out in composition or intent or are they random photographs because I really can never tell what if anything your photos are supposed to be about.

MEADONE

anable wrote: »

Ominous, gritty, cinematic (cinemascope and/or anamorphic-like aspect ratio), framing is pretty dead-on, which helps this symmetrical composition, I like it a lot. It reminds me of something outta Andrjez Munk's "The Passenger." Great job.

anable

Thanks guys. I kinda just picked that at random out of my flickr box. I'm glad it captured the mood so well.

foursquareman

Here's to the new photo thread:

Jonis

erisian pope

Posting two pics so I can "subscribe" to the thread. I am pretty happy with the cat portrait (It's my mom's kitty) but in the other pic I wish the birds were to the left of center so they would be flying into the frame instead of on their way out.

MKR

Veritas wrote: »

I really have to ask you MKR. Are you actually executing ideas in your head with your photos. As in are those images that you planned out in composition or intent or are they random photographs because I really can never tell what if anything your photos are supposed to be about.

There's intent and planning behind them.

With the sunglass shot I was experimenting with lighting, and with the outlet shot I was trying to get the "D:" face in an interesting way.

"Trying" and "experimenting" being the operative words. :P

Aparently both are failures.

TetsuKatana

A few rainy day shots at my friend's house while working on some cars.











Crits are welcome. ;-)

anable

MKR wrote: »

Veritas wrote: »

I really have to ask you MKR. Are you actually executing ideas in your head with your photos. As in are those images that you planned out in composition or intent or are they random photographs because I really can never tell what if anything your photos are supposed to be about.

There's intent and planning behind them.

With the sunglass shot I was experimenting with lighting, and with the outlet shot I was trying to get the "D:" face in an interesting way.

"Trying" and "experimenting" being the operative words. :P

Aparently both are failures.

First, I'm going to have to assume that both of these pictures were taken in less than ideal light. That's most likely the reason they came out blurry like that. Standard indoor lighting is horrid for photography. With the glasses shot, I'm sure there was ambient sunlight, but not enough to allow the picture to come out crisp. The sensor on your camera (or any camera for that matter) is complete garbage compared to your eyes. Just because you see it, doesn't mean the camera will capture it.

Both of your shots suffer from too much background noise. If the sunglasses shot was supposed to be about lighting, then the laptop it's sitting on is just a distraction. If the outlet one is supposed to be about the face, then the plugs above it, the plugs in the background, and -to a lesser extent- the plug coming into the shot, are all distractions. Keep your subject in mind and make sure nothing in the picture pulls your eyes away from them.

Finally, your white balance is off in both of those shots. I'm not saying mine is aways accurate, but there seems little artist merit in not balancing them for these shots.

I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm sure no one here is. Just some friendly advice. Keep on experimenting.

MKR

Will do.

MEADONE

erisian pope wrote: »

but in the other pic I wish the birds were to the left of center so they would be flying into the frame instead of on their way out.

Honestly, the birds have such little visual impact here due to their scale in the photo that unless their grouping was incredibly dynamic
(e.g. )
their position isn't going to look like anything more than arbitrary no matter where they are in the frame.

Nice lighting and crisp focus on the kitty though.

Fire_Fox

So I brought my camera to work to take some pictures:



Then when I got home I sat in my car for a little bit and these delightful creatures parked in the tree right in front of me.

JAmp5

Still yet to get a good scanner but more B&W film

UnknownSaint

I really dig all of those except for the second and second to last.

saltiness

Jonis wrote: »

I really like this shot, Jonis. I like the simple geometry you have going on and the composition is perfect. I also like the muted colors and that small amount of lens flare helps to bring the contrast down just a little which further ties all the color together.

saltiness

JAmp5 wrote: »

Still yet to get a good scanner but more B&W film

I like the diagonals you have in this one, Jamp. Are you scanning from negatives or from prints?

JAmp5

scanning from really bad prints made by the lab, the house scanner can't deal with negs :P I'll print the better ones when I get some time in the dark room, thanks for the comments guys!

CP

Tetsu, I like the texture and color in your wrench photo

Here's some shots from around the lab today. I was bored, and wanted to play with my new camera (Pentax k10D)










Crits and comments please, I know some of them are kind of grainy, unfortunately, I didn't have the best lighting

Dark Moon

I like the second last the most, even though it's one of the grainier shots. All the others could benefit with more text in focus - especially the ones where the text nearest to the lens or sitting on a 3rd line is out of focus. The second shot could really, really benefit from this, with text a third from the left of the frame and by far the most readable being completely out of focus. Glad to see another K10D user!

If you do want to shoot at ISO1600 on your K10D, though, I'd invest in something like Noise Ninja. It's really nice to have for higher ISO stuff. Also be sure to be spot on/slightly overexposed when shooting at high ISO on your K10D, as if you have to push the exposure in PP with high ISO you'll notice some vertical banding like you see in your very first shot.

thebovrilmonkey

Posting mainly for the blue dot, but I might as well put a photo in here too...



I'm kind of happy with it as far as an exercise in dark field photography goes, because I reckon the edges of the glass are lit up ok.
But it's not level and it really shows how much I need to work on reducing noise and learning photoshop, so it gets a kind of 'meh' grade from me.

Crits?

Goshinga

Hi!



Is the crop too weird? The original image was horribly composed so I revised it a bit. Not sure if it came out normal.



A sculpture over at MoMa. Easily my favorite thing there.



Once I graduate HS this year I'll be heading to college, where apparently I'm to spend two years dabbling in film. I imagine there's a LOT less room for error, as you can't fix improper exposure and what not through Photoshop. Any tips on the transition from digital to film?

bombardier

Actually I think film has a higher dynamic range than digital so you could say there's more room for error.

randomguy

Goshinga wrote: »

Hi!
Is the crop too weird? The original image was horribly composed so I revised it a bit. Not sure if it came out normal.

The crop is not so much weird as it is awkward. Not sure the style that you were looking for. Overall it looks like a cool pic due to the left and the mushrooms looking like a horde of screeching bats. Up to you on which direction you are going, if you are trying to make the center the main focus, then the width of the crop has to be better.

Also, if that is your favorite sculpture at the MoMa. I can already tell you have issues.

Tini

Goshinga wrote: »

Once I graduate HS this year I'll be heading to college, where apparently I'm to spend two years dabbling in film. I imagine there's a LOT less room for error, as you can't fix improper exposure and what not through Photoshop. Any tips on the transition from digital to film?

I'm in the same boat, I'm really looking forward to not knowing anything. But, hey, that's what learning is for!

anable

I bought a ton of lighting equipment and my new lens is in the mail. No more excuses gents. I'm starting a 365 when my stuff comes in.

fogeyman

Tini wrote: »

Goshinga wrote: »

Once I graduate HS this year I'll be heading to college, where apparently I'm to spend two years dabbling in film. I imagine there's a LOT less room for error, as you can't fix improper exposure and what not through Photoshop. Any tips on the transition from digital to film?

I'm in the same boat, I'm really looking forward to not knowing anything. But, hey, that's what learning is for!

[OT]Hooray for second semester seniors![/OT]

And just to say something on topic: once I get my camera (I really hope I get it next week, though I've been saying this for a while), I plan to make full use of my senioritis and take many, many photos. At which point I'll start posting in this thread.

Sushisource

CP, I really dig that shot of the little hose/tube/braid thing. Then again, I'm a sucker for shallow DOF and shiny things.

Holy crap I'm a senior too. Man, that's a demographic I didn't really expect to see in a photo thread.

UnknownSaint

Weird, I didn't imagine I would be feeling old compared to you folks. (I'm 19, almost done with second year of college.) I am however taking a few film classes, and so far digital to film is pretty interesting. I'm excited about it, hopefully a good way to grow.

MEADONE

JAmp5 wrote: »

Still yet to get a good scanner but more B&W film

In both of these my eye is being drawn right out of the frame. I really wish there was a point of interest in either of the to draw my eye back in to spend some more time with each photo. The "Jesus Saves" sign in the 3rd one does a good job of this.

MEADONE

bombardier wrote: »

Actually I think film has a higher dynamic range than digital so you could say there's more room for error.

I would say not being able to see the result of your photo immediately is going to be the most challenging and exciting part of shooting film, and you shouldn't be depending on fixing exposures in photoshop in the first place, so I would really disregard that concern, but like bombardier said, film has a higher latitude anyhow and you can do a lot in processing B&W.

erisian pope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_versus_film_photography#Dynamic_range

As of early 2008, many current DSLRs offer a dynamic range that is as wide or wider than film such as the Canon 5D[4], 30D[5], 40D[6], Nikon D40[7], D40x[8], D80[9], D200 [10]), and Sony A700[11] CCDs such as Fuji's Super CCD, which combines photosites of different sizes, have also addressed this problem with a gain of a much as 3 stops of range, but this has been at the expense of decreased actual resolution.

Digital's catching up!


EDIT - not all sources agree!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

Digital has more dynamic range than film

http://www.weddingphotousa.com/wedding_articles/film_vs_digital_for_wedding_photography.htm

From a technical aspect film has a wider dynamic range than digital

Sheri

UnknownSaint wrote: »

Weird, I didn't imagine I would be feeling old compared to you folks. (I'm 19, almost done with second year of college.) I am however taking a few film classes, and so far digital to film is pretty interesting. I'm excited about it, hopefully a good way to grow.

I graduated from college in May

Thanks for making me feel ancient, dudes.