As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

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

1232426282931

Posts

  • RankenphileRankenphile Passersby were amazed by the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, Moderator mod
    edited March 2008
    Sheri wrote: »
    Rank, how long have you been lurking this thread?

    That is so creepy.

    meh, I pop in once in a while. I tend to check out other people's drawing threads more often that this one, as photography ain't really my boat. I don't know enough about it to have much of an opinion, just enough to know to keep my dumb ass shut.

    Couldn't help but crack that joke there, though.

    Rankenphile on
    8406wWN.png
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    chicagoAndrew%20%2831%20of%2090%29.jpg

    I really like this shot, nO. My only problem with it is the railing or whatever that is at the bottom. It's too close to the edge of the frame.

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • PhilthePillPhilthePill Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    So, I'm doing this thing as a sort of going-away present to one of my highschool teachers, seeing as he was a really great guy and I became close friends with him. I thought an arrangement like this of the people who spent time with him would be a nice remembrance:

    facescopyzp4.jpg

    I agree with previous posts - the first 6 have a bit more character because they're not dead on straight - it gives a bit more LIFE to the people you're shooting if they're doing something slightly different.

    That being said, I really like the idea, and the arrangement - obviously you maybe need to move people depending on where they're looking - but just keep fiddling until you're happy, it shouldn't take too long.

    PhilthePill on
    I'm gonna sing the DOOM SONG now. DOOMY doom domm doom doom doom doom doom doom doomy doom-doom...
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    saltiness wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    chicagoAndrew%20%2831%20of%2090%29.jpg

    I really like this shot, nO. My only problem with it is the railing or whatever that is at the bottom. It's too close to the edge of the frame.

    Thanks. You're right, actually. I might be able to crop it a little tighter vertically.

    needOptic on
  • TrenchMouthTrenchMouth I went nuts.Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    There are some great photos in this thread. I thought I would chime in and at least contribute a little something. I enjoy comments critical or otherwise.

    479563437_cebec342b9.jpg

    The obvious issue here is that the subject is the center of the image, which I could adjust with some cropping I suppose. It was very dark out and from where I was standing I couldn't actually see the boat. That is a 15 sec exposure. I use Adobe Lightroom for the post capture editing.

    TrenchMouth on
    Someone else is gonna come and clean it up.
    Someone always does.

    Tumblr
  • PhilthePillPhilthePill Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah I find the foreground distracting trenchmouth. Pulls the attention away from the awesomeness of the subject. Dunno if that's just me though. Maybe if you just cropped it so you lose that first sand bump.

    Also the tilted horizon. But maybe that's what you're going for.

    PhilthePill on
    I'm gonna sing the DOOM SONG now. DOOMY doom domm doom doom doom doom doom doom doomy doom-doom...
  • scarlet st.scarlet st. Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I want Lightroom back... only have it on my desktop.

    scarlet st. on
    japsig.jpg
  • VeritasVeritas Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Personally I like the foreground being visible in most landscapes I think it lends some much needed context to the image however I agree that that first small hill of sand is a bit distracting and perhaps a bit too close to the camera to achieve the desired effect. I do so enjoy pictures of boats in undesirable situations so not half bad. I would fix the horizon at least but I do like the composition, generally speaking centering an object is not always preferred but I don't find it necessarily being bothersome either at least in this shot.

    Veritas on
  • TrenchMouthTrenchMouth I went nuts.Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah I find the foreground distracting trenchmouth. Pulls the attention away from the awesomeness of the subject. Dunno if that's just me though. Maybe if you just cropped it so you lose that first sand bump.

    Also the tilted horizon. But maybe that's what you're going for.

    I see exactly what you are going for and I agree. Imma give that a shot later. I have a small tripod that is worth fuck all when used on thick grass or in the sand, so in that image i am actually resting my camera on my Moleskine.

    TrenchMouth on
    Someone else is gonna come and clean it up.
    Someone always does.

    Tumblr
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I picked up my mounted prints today and I vaguely recall someone expressing some interest in Gatorfoam, so I've taken photos and given observations!

    It's a really hard backing that feels quite a bit like particle board. It's dark black/grey in colour and has really sharp looking edges with no extraneous particles left over from the cutting. I'm really satisfied with how it looks, but instead of writing 2000 more words I'll just post some pictures. The cost to get this 24"x16" print backed was $15 CAD.

    Front view:

    2300961583_62fa01c204.jpg

    Side view:

    2300961855_becc87fca4.jpg

    In normal lighting the side isn't as speckled looking, but rather a uniform dark grey - the flash lighting really brought out a strange texture here.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • McLovinMcLovin Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Listen to Cassino. I don't know if anyone like Northstar, but they were probably one of my favorite bands ever. When they broke up, Nick and Tyler, the two main songwriters from Northstar, moved to Nashville and wrote amazing songs as Cassino. Seriously, they're awesome.
    www.myspace.com/cassinoband


    Anyways, on to pics. I was at their show, I took pictures. Had to jack the ISO way up. Also, got CS3 and a lot of "For Dummies" books. Some post-processing attempts. Destroy me.

    2292655127_66edf39883.jpg

    2293440252_8ca5171468.jpg

    2293438894_1800b6dec6.jpg
    I don't know why, I think MTV unplugged when I see this. Like the colors trigger me thinking about old school Unplugged.

    2293437630_8348238bc7.jpg
    If E.T. played the bass he'd have his glow-y finger going all like "Bow bow bow ba bow bow bowmp" and everyone would be all like "aaaaawwww yeah boyeeee"

    2301003265_90ea3fc57b.jpg
    check 1. check. check 1. check 1-2. check. testes. testes. 1-2-3.
    But seriously, this is Erin McCarley. It behooves you to check her out. She's going to be HUGE. Seriously, she opened the show with two songs, me, my girlfriend, and her husband were like the only people there. What?!

    McLovin on
  • leonchoppinleonchoppin Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    No turning back
    leave the world troubles behind

    http://leon5080.deviantart.com/art/No-turning-back-78797767

    leonchoppin on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    No turning back
    leave the world troubles behind

    http://leon5080.deviantart.com/art/No-turning-back-78797767

    I have no idea what you're doing, but post that as an image, not a link.

    Also, I've never listened to Northstar, but someone turned me on to Cassino and I love them. Those are some pretty decent shots, but outside of my love for the band, they're pretty generic. It does speak very unplugged to me though.

    Edit: That's awesome that you got to see them live. I'm a bit jealous.

    anable on
  • McLovinMcLovin Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    anable wrote: »
    No turning back
    leave the world troubles behind

    http://leon5080.deviantart.com/art/No-turning-back-78797767

    I have no idea what you're doing, but post that as an image, not a link.

    Also, I've never listened to Northstar, but someone turned me on to Cassino and I love them. Those are some pretty decent shots, but outside of my love for the band, they're pretty generic. It does speak very unplugged to me though.

    Edit: That's awesome that you got to see them live. I'm a bit jealous.

    It was so awesome. They played at this bar/grill and literally, there was maybe 25 people there. Like me and Nick hung out and had a beer and talked for a long time. I deploy to Afghanistan in less than a month, and before I left I knew I had to see Cassino. It was a Tuesday night. Amazing.

    McLovin on
  • PhilthePillPhilthePill Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    McLovin wrote: »
    But seriously, this is Erin McCarley. It behooves you to check her out. She's going to be HUGE. Seriously, she opened the show with two songs, me, my girlfriend, and her husband were like the only people there. What?!

    Didn't check out the other one, but this girl is completely awesome, and not only cause she's gorgeous.

    A few photos are a little noisy - 3rd one especially, and the last one is cool, but the speaker in the foreground is distracting. But hey, you probably knew that already.

    PhilthePill on
    I'm gonna sing the DOOM SONG now. DOOMY doom domm doom doom doom doom doom doom doomy doom-doom...
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    I picked up my mounted prints today and I vaguely recall someone expressing some interest in Gatorfoam, so I've taken photos and given observations!

    It's a really hard backing that feels quite a bit like particle board. It's dark black/grey in colour and has really sharp looking edges with no extraneous particles left over from the cutting. I'm really satisfied with how it looks, but instead of writing 2000 more words I'll just post some pictures. The cost to get this 24"x16" print backed was $15 CAD.

    Front view:

    2300961583_62fa01c204.jpg

    Side view:

    2300961855_becc87fca4.jpg

    In normal lighting the side isn't as speckled looking, but rather a uniform dark grey - the flash lighting really brought out a strange texture here.


    VERY nice. 8-) I'll have to call around and find a shop around here that does that.

    Thanks for the images.

    needOptic on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I'm going up to SF later today, does anyone have any suggestions on some good, safe spots for nightscapes?

    tofu on
  • Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    McLovin wrote: »
    It behooves you to check her out. She's going to be HUGE. Seriously, she opened the show with two songs, me, my girlfriend, and her husband were like the only people there. What?!

    I like the shots, but the lights in the bass player distract me. Bassplayers need to be treated with reverence. :)

    It took me like 5 minutes to work out what that sentence meant. I'm like, you're going out with a girl with a husband? That's so open...and...creepy! :)

    Lord Of The Pants on
    steam_sig.png
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    candles.jpg

    bulb-1.jpg

    And now, for something completely different:
    antenna-1.jpg

    MKR on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The first two are pretty dull both a composition and exposure sense. The 2nd in particular looks underexposed by almost a full stop.

    I'm really digging the third, though. I first thought it was some sort of giant flag hanging off a building, but now I see that it's just a really clever shot of a satellite receiver. My only issue is the pin being ever so close to the edge at the top of the frame. Otherwise very nice job.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I see what you mean. I think I'll try something different with the candles, and get a wider shot of the receiver tomorrow.

    MKR on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Have you considered lighting them? That might provide some nice dramatic lighting, which is an excellent way to compensate for duller subjects.

    Be careful with the receiver shot - the reason the shot works so well is because of the way the lighting gradient on the top of the box and the grey nothingness beyond mimics the view up a tall building on an overcast day. Even if you can't come up with 'the same shot but wider', I still like this one a lot.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I don't care for any of them. They're all dull, boring subjects that provoke 0 thought.
    Do you ever stop to think why you take a picture? Or just shoot away because it's digital and it doesn't cost money to develop?

    If you're trying to achieve something - let us know. Say, like sheri, with her lighting setup and the smoke. The subject itself isn't original, but she had a goal in mind when she set it all up and It all came out great.

    edit: and I know I sound like an ass. Sorry. I don't mean to offend you, I just think it's better if you hear the truth instead of a lie with sugar on top.

    needOptic on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I legitimately like the third. The other two are lacking, yeah, but the third caught my eye. So no, I don't have any lies in my post and they contain only my regular serving of sugar.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    I don't care for any of them. They're all dull, boring subjects that provoke 0 thought.
    Do you ever stop to think why you take a picture? Or just shoot away because it's digital and it doesn't cost money to develop?

    If you're trying to achieve something - let us know. Say, like sheri, with her lighting setup and the smoke. The subject itself isn't original, but she had a goal in mind when she set it all up and It all came out great.

    edit: and I know I sound like an ass. Sorry. I don't mean to offend you, I just think it's better if you hear the truth instead of a lie with sugar on top.

    It does offend me as I seem to be the only poster that takes flak for posting something like this where the goal isn't immediately obvious (if there is any goal). And this is the third time I've been fussed at over it.

    I could believe that you didn't mean to insult if not for this:
    Do you ever stop to think why you take a picture? Or just shoot away because it's digital and it doesn't cost money to develop?

    I'll accept that you spoke without thinking and regret it, but not that no insult was intended.

    edit: Those sentences are weakly composed and a rough read as I'm annoyed and can't be bothered to do a proper edit.

    MKR on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    MKR, although needOptic is known for being rather caustic, his criticism is accurate. Those shots are flat and uninteresting. You may have had some purpose, but it doesn't come through in the photos -- they look like you snapped some objects around your house without thought to composition, lighting, or exposure. It's not so much an insult as that we know you can do better. :)

    Edit: as Dark Moon noted, the last does show some promise from an optical illusion angle, but still needs slight composition tuning and better exposure or at least levels-tweaking.

    I will now risk retribution criticism by posting a photo -- it's only fair. :P

    The below was basically to test my new tabletop tripod, bought because my little P&S camera only approaches good IQ at ISO80, which means indoor and low-light shots are around 1/5 second.

    2303501666_20156d8a09.jpg

    gilrain on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    gilrain wrote: »
    MKR, although needOptic is known for being rather caustic, his criticism is accurate. Those shots are flat and uninteresting. You may have had some purpose, but it doesn't come through in the photos -- they look like you snapped some objects around your house without thought to composition, lighting, or exposure. It's not so much an insult as that we know you can do better. :)

    I will now risk retribution criticism by posting a photo -- it's only fair. :P

    The below was basically to test my new tabletop tripod, bought because my little P&S camera only approaches good IQ at ISO80, which means indoor and low-light shots are around 1/5 second.

    2303501666_20156d8a09.jpg

    Kill it with fire! Oh wait...

    And I get that they're dull, but that's not the point. His post was devoid of constructive criticism. I did think about every single one, and every shot I've taken. Same with the posts preceding the other two incidents where I've been asked the same question. Telling me "They're all dull, boring subjects that provoke 0 thought." doesn't contribute anything. I've received caustic crits before and took the advice. His post was just plain caustic.

    MKR on
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Gilrain:

    I really like the subject. The only criticism I can really offer is that I'd like the focus to be shifted towards the band a bit more. It's the most vibrant patch of color in the piece so that's where my eye is going to be drawn. It looks like there is a diagonal line from the upper left hand corner of the band to the bottom right and the lower half is a bit out of focus while the top half seems pretty right on. Other than that, maybe a tighter crop; but that's something I'd have to see to pass any sort of judgment on. It may be better just the way it is.

    MKR:

    I don't think he means that every shot needs to have its own special meaning in the way that you're thinking. When I shoot sports for the newspaper I have to take rapid shots. I don't have time to compose every piece and frame the things the way I like because they are simply moving too fast and are constantly changing. I will take a large number of shots of the same subject. In my mind I am still taking the shot with a purpose, however. Take all of the shots of single jump shot and you can see what I was trying to do. While each shot, on it's own, may not have had a certain purpose, the overall purpose is still present. And, I do certain things to make sure the shots come out a certain way; I focus on a face or a player and try to trap the action without losing all of the background, for instance. I think what nO is saying is that some of your shots really do look like you just kind of thought "hey, this would be neat," and snapped a shot. What you're not asking is "why is this interesting? And, how can I make the reasons for this being interesting apparent in the way that I take the overall work?"

    That's not to say that what you're doing is without merit. I don't happen to like any of the ones you posted; though the third is certainly the most interesting. It is interesting because it looks as though you were trying to capture a certain view of the world that would otherwise go unnoticed. While, on the same note, it shows that you have some maturation left in your thoughts regarding composition, lighting, post-processing etc and so on.

    Also, I know that every shot I take is not going to mean something, and sometimes I'm just snapping and something comes up after it. But, the fact that you posted something for criticism makes me think that you consider these shots to have some merit. If, for some reason, these are just shots you've taken without thought to their presence, then why would you bother putting them up here? Can you tell me what you were going for?

    Uncle Long on
  • burkhartburkhart Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    oh my

    burkhart on
    turnin' corners with mah pinky mang
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    They looked interesting to me, and thought I might post them here to see if anyone agreed. That's the thought. I can't say why they looked interesting -- the scenes just caught my eye when they fell in to my field of view.

    I did consider the light and composition, which is why you see these and not the four others that didn't look right to me.

    Edit: That aside, there was already a lengthy discussion on what sorts of photos can be posted here. Even if I hadn't given any thought to them, they would still fit, though I probably wouldn't have posted them.

    MKR on
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh, I hope I didn't come across as saying that they were somehow outside of what is "okay" to post; that's not at all what I meant.

    What made these shots better than the ones you didn't post? I'll bet if you can answer that you can make the shots you took even better than the ones you already posted.

    Uncle Long on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Uncle Long wrote: »
    Oh, I hope I didn't come across as saying that they were somehow outside of what is "okay" to post; that's not at all what I meant.

    What made these shots better than the ones you didn't post? I'll bet if you can answer that you can make the shots you took even better than the ones you already posted.

    I didn't know until Dark pointed out the issues with them. :P

    I go and shoot things with the "rules" of photography in mind, and post what looks good here for input. Every time I post, I learn more, and the next set improves. This set looks bad relative to what I've posted before because I deviated entirely from what I normally do. I'm sure as I experiment more and get feedback, these deviations from the norm will end up better from the start. :)

    MKR on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    While the rules are good to keep in mind, especially as you start, the important bit is to understand the reason behind them so you can apply the method and not just pigeonhole your stuff into looking the same.

    UnknownSaint on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    MKR wrote: »
    Uncle Long wrote: »
    Oh, I hope I didn't come across as saying that they were somehow outside of what is "okay" to post; that's not at all what I meant.

    What made these shots better than the ones you didn't post? I'll bet if you can answer that you can make the shots you took even better than the ones you already posted.

    I didn't know until Dark pointed out the issues with them. :P

    I go and shoot things with the "rules" of photography in mind, and post what looks good here for input. Every time I post, I learn more, and the next set improves. This set looks bad relative to what I've posted before because I deviated entirely from what I normally do. I'm sure as I experiment more and get feedback, these deviations from the norm will end up better from the start. :)

    MKR, I really think that it would do amazing things for you to play with light some. Not just natural light. Take a table lamp or something, pick and interesting object, and then play with the two until something clicks. I say this mainly because I feel like a lot of your shots have very poor lighting. Basically just a room light and that's it. You could have the most interesting object in the world, and it would look boring under those conditions.

    Also -and this is probably blasphemous to say- but I feel like quite a few of your shots could do with better post processing. Experiment with black and white shots, play with white balance, and tweak the saturation levels. Half of my pictures look completely average until I play with them in Lightroom. *queue photojournalist's head exploding*

    One more thing: get outside! All I remember you posting are pictures from inside. Go to a park or lake or downtown or something.

    anable on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Florida Renaissance Festival 2.23.08

    IMG_1051b1.jpg

    I am aware of the obvious fact that the hat is blown out, and feel it does not ruin the photo, as it was the only way to expose for her face (I didn't have my flash on me, and even if I did, I didn't have time), which really is the whole point. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work, but I like it. :)

    Sheri on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That's....what is that? Nice capture. The expression is priceless.

    anable on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, that's a good shot! For photojournalist-type stuff, imperfect exposure is fine in order to correctly expose the important areas. Flip through the Smithsonian or suchlike, and you'll be surprised at how many not-quite-properly-exposed images you see.

    And that's what this shot reminds me of, actually -- a photo I'd see accompanying an article about said festival.

    Edit: as an aside, when I don't have a lot of time to spend worrying about exposure (as at a festival), I set my camera to a permanent -1 stop exposure setting. This is because it's way easier to tweak an underexposed photo than a blown out photo. In the case of your photo, though, you'd've had to blow out the hat in post anyway to get the face right, so it wouldn't've mattered.

    gilrain on
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I really dig that shot sheri. Who in the world is that supposed to be though? She almost looks like she's made out of wax or something.

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I really dig that shot sheri. Who in the world is that supposed to be though? She almost looks like she's made out of wax or something.
    "Good day, my name is Lady Ettie." :lol:

    gilrain on
  • PilcrowPilcrow Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That's an all-time fantastic shot, Sheri. One of the finest in the thread. Boy am I jealous.
    This is because it's way easier to tweak an underexposed photo than a blown out photo.

    Ah, so?

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

    This article talks about how digital sensors pick up light and how to maximize resolution vs. noise. Learning to push my exposure towards highlights, appropriately, without blowing them out, has given me better results than aiming for conservative, peak-in-the-middle-of-the-histogram exposures.

    "correct" exposure is one aspect of composition. For me the very first thing I have to consider before I critique an image is the intent and theme of the image. If marginally "incorrect" exposure serves the purposes of the shot, I would be very hesitant to isolate that as a primary aspect of my critique, i.e. "this would be a great shot if the exposure weren't..." etc. Many of the criticisms leveled at the shot of the polar bear in this thread were classic examples, to me, of over-arching applications of a "rule" -- the blacks and whites were blown, yes, but to excellent effect -- "a polar bear in a blizzard" is the artist's honored description for a blank piece of paper. I know I keep using that particular shot as an example but I was genuinely baffled by how it was almost written off because the exposure range was so wide. Sheri's shot is another excellent example, as are many, many of the shots in National Geographic, etc -- grainy shots at high ISO with poor contrast range that illustrate a subject gorgeously. As I said, I think technical criticism has to be approached in light of the shot's and artist's apparent intentions -- which means developing a sensitivity for the finer points of composition such setting, subject, subtext, allusion, perceived commentary, etc.

    But here is a picture I took!

    old_timey_barn.jpg

    Pilcrow on
This discussion has been closed.