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)

12527293031

Posts

  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Thanks, guys!

    She's not really supposed to be anybody -- except for 'the crazy toothless lady.' She's one of the characters that wanders around the festival. She was entertaining a group of small girls when I shot it.
    gilrain wrote: »
    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.

    Actually, the opposite is true, at least for my camera. I've read that the 40D is pretty susceptible to noise, even at lower ISOs, if you underexpose. So if you underexpose and then bring it up, you're stuck with noise, whereas if you overexpose and bring it down, you won't have the noise. Granted, that isn't really the case here, since it's blown, but for my other shots, I generally go one stop over if I'm having trouble exposing. :)

    To be honest, the reason I added the point about the blown hat was because I really didn't want to hear a bunch of posts that said 'The hat is blown,' like I wasn't aware. Of course I'm aware, and I like it anyway (and apparently you guys do, too, yay). It wasn't a mistake (trust me, I do that enough on my own and I just hide those where you guys can't seem 'em), I wound up taking about six shots at three/four different exposures, most with the hat more properly exposed, but this was the one that worked.

    By pointing it out, I guess I made it a topic of discussion. That's okay, too. ;)

    Sheri on
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I really like the shot, Sheri, but I feel like the hat is distracting. Is there any way you could crop the picture down so less of the hat was visible? It's not really necessary to see the whole hat and body, anyway, because the facial expression is the focus.

    You could also crop out those heads at the bottom.

    EDIT: Oh, and I've read that the 40D is great with noise--that noise is great at lower ISOs and acceptable at even 1600.

    fogeyman on
  • PilcrowPilcrow Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    I really like the shot, Sheri, but I feel like the hat is distracting. Is there any way you could crop the picture down so less of the hat was visible? It's not really necessary to see the whole hat and body, anyway, because the facial expression is the focus.
    The face in ensemble is the focus. Her costume frames the face and provides context. Cropping more of it would do the shot an injustice.

    Pilcrow on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    fogeyman wrote: »
    I really like the shot, Sheri, but I feel like the hat is distracting. Is there any way you could crop the picture down so less of the hat was visible? It's not really necessary to see the whole hat and body, anyway, because the facial expression is the focus.

    You could also crop out those heads at the bottom.

    EDIT: Oh, and I've read that the 40D is great with noise--that noise is great at lower ISOs and acceptable at even 1600.

    I'm not sure I agree. Cropping the hat out would really cause the shot to lose a sense of balance. I would, however, like to see the shot without the heads at the bottom.

    anable on
  • PilcrowPilcrow Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    anable wrote: »
    I would, however, like to see the shot without the heads at the bottom.
    Why? To isolate her as just a crazy lady? Again, they provide context -- like sheri said, she was entertaining kids. I'll bet she doesn't look like that all the time; showing the top of the kids' heads humanizes a subject that could all-too-easily become an amusing object.

    Pilcrow on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Pilcrow wrote: »
    anable wrote: »
    I would, however, like to see the shot without the heads at the bottom.
    Why? To isolate her as just a crazy lady? Again, they provide context -- like sheri said, she was entertaining kids. I'll bet she doesn't look like that all the time; showing the top of the kids' heads humanizes a subject that could all-too-easily become an amusing object.

    Honestly, I just saw her as a crazy lady. Blurs at the bottom didn't indicate to me that she was entertaining anyone directly. I can barely even tell what the blurs are and they just seem distracting to me. I just don't know if you can crop that high and still retain the balance the picture has now.

    anable on
  • fogeymanfogeyman Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    After trying to crop part of the hat out (I never meant to have it all cut out) and the heads, I think it's best the way Sheri posted it.

    fogeyman on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Incidentally, you guys are right about shooting overexposed versus underexposed -- if you're shooting in RAW. In JPEG, if you blow out the highlights, there is zero way of getting the detail back. If you underexpose, it's much easier to recover the detail. I forgot almost everyone shoots in RAW, here. :)

    I'll be joining your ranks in April, when the EOS 450D comes out.

    Pilcrow: I crave more black in your photo. As is, it looks like it was taken a long time ago -- maybe that's the intention? Edit: and also, despite you just talking about us overemphasizing correct exposure versus creative exposure, I think the completely blown-out upper-left does nothing for the image in either case. That shed is a promising subject, though. To me, looks like it just rained, which means the colors would be saturated -- might be interesting to see in color?

    gilrain on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    2304764359_854c169564_o.jpg

    tofu on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu, I think that is lovely.

    EDIT'd for BOTP:
    tofu wrote: »
    2304764359_854c169564_o.jpg

    Sheri on
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I, too, think it is lovely. Though that black mass in the left corner is obscuring the otherwise fantastic view.

    Uncle Long on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I believe that is a hill.

    Sheri on
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I believe that is an accurate assessment. I also believe it is obscuring the brightest point and makes me wish tofu had climbed said hill to get the shot.

    Uncle Long on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Gorgeous shot. Print and frame for the wall. Uncle Long's probably right - it could use either a little more hill (enough to make it a noticeable foreground and give it some depth) or no hill, but it's not overly distracting and doesn't take much away from the photo.

    Sheri, I know you've already gotten plenty of love for the crazy lady, but I'd like to insert my love too. The blown out highlights frame the face wonderfully, and cropping out the kids would require you to take too much width out of the shot to maintain a proper aspect ratio. I like it the way it is.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Uncle Long wrote: »
    I believe that is an accurate assessment. I also believe it is obscuring the brightest point and makes me wish tofu had climbed said hill to get the shot.
    Would if I could have, I need to buy a full sized tripod one of these days.

    I was thinking about leaving more of the hill in the picture, I haven't decided yet.

    tofu on
  • Uncle LongUncle Long Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu wrote: »
    Uncle Long wrote: »
    I believe that is an accurate assessment. I also believe it is obscuring the brightest point and makes me wish tofu had climbed said hill to get the shot.
    Would if I could have, I need to buy a full sized tripod one of these days.

    I was thinking about leaving more of the hill in the picture, I haven't decided yet.

    I think you should give it a shot. Honestly, it's a great piece. My gripe is just kind of that uh...hair in the throat after a really good meal, sort. I'd like to see it if you have another version with increased hilliness.

    Uncle Long on
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri wrote: »
    anable wrote: »
    Sheri wrote: »
    anable, you've used this phrase a few times now and I have no idea what you're talking about when you say 'black clipping'

    Clipping?

    I'm pretty sure that my terminology is completely off. I've never taken a photography class or even read a book on it. All of my terminology is from the internets. Please feel free to correct me at any point. That particular term I just stole from Veritas:
    Veritas wrote: »
    It feels like your blacks are clipped a little too far.

    What I mean (and I think he does as well), is that the black levels are pushed up. Basically moving the "Black" slider in Lightroom to the right.

    Lightroom GUI

    Alright. . . seems like a strange term to me. I'm not sure how 'clipped' follows that. But now that I've asked, now I know! Thanks.
    Clipping is when the signal gets pushed off the histogram.

    Digital images store data by assigning numbers - each number has a specific value and the more of them the more accurate your image. Example is 0-255; 0 being black, 255 being fully whichever primary in RGB. If you shift the existing data to the right (brighter), it has to be clipped. If you moved everything over 40 units then all the values from 215 and on are clipped at 255 because it is impossible to be brighter than the bit depth your format has.

    It's a lot like overexposing an image - everything beyond the brightness of pure white is clipped to pure white.

    So in theory, if you shift color information to the right, then all the blacks are eventually clipped to a certain value, perhaps a dark grey instead of black. I've never heard "clipped" used for anything other than highlights though, usually you "crunch" blacks.

    Virum on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That reminds me - I wanted to quiz you guys on ball heads. I currently use a Velbon pan'n'tilt that I hate far more than a man should ever hate an inanimate object and am looking to upgrade to a decent ball head. Does anyone have any suggestions on a midsize ballhead? I doubt I'll use the one I pick up for anything longer than 300mm, so with a 710g body and at most a 1kg lense I wouldn't need a ballhead with a rating above ~3.75kg. I'd like to keep it under $100 as well.

    I'm currently thinking of either a Manfrotto 486 or a Manfrotto 488RC2. I'm leaning towards the latter for the slightly higher load capacity and the built in bubble levels. Thoughts?

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    That reminds me - I wanted to quiz you guys on ball heads. I currently use a Velbon pan'n'tilt that I hate far more than a man should ever hate an inanimate object and am looking to upgrade to a decent ball head. Does anyone have any suggestions on a midsize ballhead? I doubt I'll use the one I pick up for anything longer than 300mm, so with a 710g body and at most a 1kg lense I wouldn't need a ballhead with a rating above ~3.75kg. I'd like to keep it under $100 as well.

    I'm currently thinking of either a Manfrotto 486 or a Manfrotto 488RC2. I'm leaning towards the latter for the slightly higher load capacity and the built in bubble levels. Thoughts?

    I use the 486. It's a great, fast head. It's very easy to switch positions with only one knob. The only downside is it does droop a bit after tightening with a long imbalanced lens but it's pretty easy to compensate for, or you could just use a tripod collar on the lens and it won't droop.

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    How long of a lense are you talking? I have an old metal 70-210mm that's damn near the same weight as my body that I'd be using a fair bit - if it would droop I'd probably want to take the next step up. Also, do you ever find yourself wishing for a bubble level? I've never had one so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    How long of a lense are you talking? I have an old metal 70-210mm that's damn near the same weight as my body that I'd be using a fair bit - if it would droop I'd probably want to take the next step up. Also, do you ever find yourself wishing for a bubble level? I've never had one so I'm not sure how useful it would be.
    I assume it'd be convenient, but with as easy as it is to correct angles in post, it'd never be a huge selling point with me -- just a nice bonus.

    gilrain on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    My tripod has a bubble level built into it and I never, ever, ever pay attention to it.

    Sheri on
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    How long of a lense are you talking? I have an old metal 70-210mm that's damn near the same weight as my body that I'd be using a fair bit - if it would droop I'd probably want to take the next step up. Also, do you ever find yourself wishing for a bubble level? I've never had one so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

    It'll be fine with a 70-210. I've used a 70-200 f/2.8 IS on it which is a pretty heavy lens and the drooping wasn't a problem especially when using the lens collar.

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • VirumVirum Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    [D]o you ever find yourself wishing for a bubble level? I've never had one so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

    I use it all the time on my video tripod, but I don't have one on my still camera one. Nor do I recall ever wanting it...

    Virum on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I had a bit of a bird adventure yesterday. And by that I mean it was nice weather so I went to the lake and took some pictures.

    My favorite of the batch:
    2305318447_231d346e5e_o.jpg

    I'm looking for some feedback on this picture. I personally think it has some charm to it, but I get the feeling others will disagree:
    2305318263_e8ec748a35_o.jpg

    And two more:
    2305318595_07209077ec_o.jpg

    2305318777_6796962d67_o.jpg

    anable on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The QE2 came into dock yesterday and we thought we'd pop down for a look. Horrible midday Australian sun and horrible postcard-like photo's, I know this ain't great but it was the best of a bad bunch.
    qe2smai9.jpg

    I like the last one Anable. The second one not so much, the gulls tend to blend into the background, I feel it would work better in colour.

    Mustang on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Thanks for all the suggestions on the tripod. I'll probably grab the 486 once my tax refund comes in.

    anable: I really like the last two. The antiqued look of the 2nd last works really well, and the final shot is just a really solid image. The first would be great, but the subject is really out of focus. The second is better, but I think you might've boosted the contrast a bit too much - it's actually difficult to view it's so contrasty.

    I fiddled with more self portraiture last night. My focus was on continuing to work on isolating subjects through lighting, which I think went pretty well. I also managed to replace my creepy avatar with one of the new images.

    2306120946_32e9561ca7.jpg

    2306121506_5e3c70f12b.jpg

    Let me have it!

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Mustang wrote: »
    The QE2 came into dock yesterday and we thought we'd pop down for a look. Horrible midday Australian sun and horrible postcard-like photo's.

    What's wrong with postcard-like photos?

    anable on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh don't get me wrong, not all postcard photo's are horrible, but you do tend to see a trend of Generic Postcard Photo No. 2165 happening with a lot of them.

    Mustang on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    anable: I really like the last two. The antiqued look of the 2nd last works really well, and the final shot is just a really solid image. The first would be great, but the subject is really out of focus. The second is better, but I think you might've boosted the contrast a bit too much - it's actually difficult to view it's so contrasty.

    Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from on that. When I lower the contrast though, it just doesn't seem like an interesting picture any more for some reason. Does it make any difference when you view it on black? I'm not sure why I like it....

    anable on
  • PilcrowPilcrow Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu, the shot is really lovely. Very nicely composed. The hill in the foreground brings rhythm, balance, and perspective to a shot where the infinite focus, though beautiful for capturing distant detail, could have blunted the scale of the scene. It also lends visual weight to an image that would've been dominated by the darkness of the right side.
    Pilcrow: I crave more black in your photo. As is, it looks like it was taken a long time ago -- maybe that's the intention? Edit: and also, despite you just talking about us overemphasizing correct exposure versus creative exposure, I think the completely blown-out upper-left does nothing for the image in either case. That shed is a promising subject, though. To me, looks like it just rained, which means the colors would be saturated -- might be interesting to see in color?

    I was lovin' me the creamy grays, and the sense of isolation of place brought on by the piercing white sky. It hadn't rained but in color you would notice better how, despite using the lens hood, the light flared in this shot. I suppose if I wanted to tweak the image further I would dodge the building on the right to isolate the shed a little more, though I already added a little vignetting effect to narrow the visual weight. This shot is heavily tweaked and already falls well outside the bounds of strictly depictive photography.

    Pilcrow on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    anable wrote: »
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    anable: I really like the last two. The antiqued look of the 2nd last works really well, and the final shot is just a really solid image. The first would be great, but the subject is really out of focus. The second is better, but I think you might've boosted the contrast a bit too much - it's actually difficult to view it's so contrasty.

    Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from on that. When I lower the contrast though, it just doesn't seem like an interesting picture any more for some reason. Does it make any difference when you view it on black? I'm not sure why I like it....

    It's certainly easier to view on black, but I'd still like to see it with slightly less contrast on the web. It might be perfect printed like it is, though, with the printer always robbing a little contrast from the image on the screen.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • burkhartburkhart Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    anable wrote: »
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    anable: I really like the last two. The antiqued look of the 2nd last works really well, and the final shot is just a really solid image. The first would be great, but the subject is really out of focus. The second is better, but I think you might've boosted the contrast a bit too much - it's actually difficult to view it's so contrasty.

    Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from on that. When I lower the contrast though, it just doesn't seem like an interesting picture any more for some reason. Does it make any difference when you view it on black? I'm not sure why I like it....

    It's certainly easier to view on black, but I'd still like to see it with slightly less contrast on the web. It might be perfect printed like it is, though, with the printer always robbing a little contrast from the image on the screen.

    burn the ground a little darker and you're set

    burkhart on
    turnin' corners with mah pinky mang
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I like the wider angle on this shot better.

    Thoughts?

    2305645969_a90fd3855f_b.jpg

    Colder!

    2305691497_578125787c_b.jpg

    tofu on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yes much better tofu. To be perfectly honest, I've seen this shot a bajillion times, every photographer who lives in or visits SF takes this shot (and always at night for some reason, never morning, afternoon or twighlight, why is that?).

    Anyway this is the first time i've seen the city in frame and I like it, maybe just because it's different, but I still likes it.

    Mustang on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That looks epic, Tofu. I wish there were more lights on the far shore, but I guess there's not a whole lot you can do about that.

    anable on
  • SushisourceSushisource Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The veggie isle has some mad colors up ins.

    2305736461_2bb3431f19.jpg
    http://flickr.com/photos/90465672@N00/2305736461/

    Sushisource on
    Some drugee on Kavinsky's 1986
    kavinskysig.gif
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu, I like the color of the first wide angle one, but the corrected slant of the bridge in the colder one

    So uh, straighten the bridge in the colder one and that's the one for me.

    Sheri on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    This has been a very photogenic weekend for me.

    Rain action:
    2306634318_ee22163603_o.jpg

    Carport action:
    2306221495_4912c7c17d_o.jpg

    anable on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The veggie isle has some mad colors up ins.

    2305736461_2bb3431f19.jpg
    http://flickr.com/photos/90465672@N00/2305736461/
    I like photos of produce. I bet that would look better taken head-on, with the surrounding store cropped out. That'd also take care of the DOF. Veggies gotta be crisp! :)

    gilrain on
This discussion has been closed.