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)

12526283031

Posts

  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Mustang wrote: »
    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.

    I took it at night because I was picking up someone at the airport that evening. :P

    tofu on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    anable, I'm loving that first one. It looks like one of those scratch away picture deals.
    The wall and ceiling are a bit grainy, but that's forgivable because more light likely would have ruined this shot.
    As for the second one, there is a light spot on the far left and the far right that are bothering me. Get rid of those, and it'd be quite nice as well.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    This is a super old picture, but I feel like posting it anyways. Actually, I think this was the very first "artsy" picture I took with my very first digital camera. I was likely twelve years old and surely I didn't know the meaning of cliche.
    n514019982_385070_7560.jpg

    This one is a bit more recent. Again, not overly original, but it creeps me out so I like it.
    n514019982_385071_8269.jpg

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Ooooo I like those two Marcus, very nice, the tones in the first one make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    Mustang on
  • PilcrowPilcrow Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Because sometimes you just need a little cute...my niece.

    smile_tongue_small.jpg

    Pilcrow on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    There's some type of distortion line going on there Pilcrow. It's about mid frame coming from the right side. I've refreshed so I don't think it's on my end. Also, it seems out of focus a bit. I like the expression though.

    anable on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Focus isn't to bad, but using an ultra shallow DOF like that I always aim to get the eyes. Unfortunately AF will always go for the closest subject, being the tounge in this instance. Still a pretty shot though.

    Mustang on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    This is a super old picture, but I feel like posting it anyways. Actually, I think this was the very first "artsy" picture I took with my very first digital camera. I was likely twelve years old and surely I didn't know the meaning of cliche.

    piano

    This one is a bit more recent. Again, not overly original, but it creeps me out so I like it.

    doll

    That first shot is pretty awesome for you only being 12 years old. I'd probably be happy with that if I took it tomorrow.

    The second one is creepy and that's about all I know to say about it.
    As for the second one, there is a light spot on the far left and the far right that are bothering me. Get rid of those, and it'd be quite nice as well.

    I went ahead and uploaded a fixed version. I agree that the little light blip was distracting.

    anable on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Mustang pretty much nailed it. I've lost plenty of otherwise good shots to the exact same thing. That one is especially soft though.

    UnknownSaint on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu - The colder shot with more hill showing is just peachy. I'm curious: Why are the lights in the sky different in both shots? At first I thought they were just different exposures, but both contain that straight streak on the far left hand side that seems to indicate they're both the same shot with different PPing.

    anable - I'm really digging the rain shots. Rain is by far my favourite weather-type and I am missing it terribly, what with it being -40 for the past few months. You have made me lust for summer that much more. (Only quibble, and it's a tiny one, is the little white mass on the bottom left hand corner of the 2nd shot. It's not really obvious on the forums, but viewed on black it really pops out and could easily be removed.) Otherwise I'm a big fan.

    Marcus: Neat if it were current but amazing for 12 years old. The second shot is indeed really creepy, though I'd like to see the entire doll in frame instead of having a good part of the dress fall off.

    About the focussing issues: I don't trust my auto-AF point setting at all. Centre focus point and, if need be, recompose after focus lock has been achieved never steers me wrong. With the kind of use my new MF only lense is getting I'm actually starting to prefer manually focusing to the point where I'm considering eventually buying a proper split prism focusing screen. Somewhat related note: Does anyone know if it's possible to easily remove viewfinder dust? I've got a tiny speck in my viewfinder that I'd love to remove if possible, but I don't want to go to any lengths or put any parts of my camera in harm's way by doing so.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It's just on the viewfinder? Or inside somehow? Can of compressed air usually does the trick for all of my viewfinder dust.

    Also your avatar is slightly less creepy now. Whoo.

    UnknownSaint on
  • Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    My apologies for the clicheness.
    2307309800_5872ab1c4b.jpg
    2306507991_d914e0a1c3.jpg

    Lord Of The Pants on
    steam_sig.png
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    We can't all have crudely drawn smiling pigs under our forum names. We'd frighten newcomers.

    The dust is in the body somewhere. I've checked my mirror and it appears to be spotless, so I'm thinking it might be hidden behind my focusing screen somehow. I'm not entirely sure how anything behind the focusing screen assembly works, though, so I'm tentative to go blowing air in there with the focusing screen out.

    I'm not sure if you know this, but just in case - never, ever, ever, ever use compressed air inside the actual camera body. The canned stuff has a few nasty chemical that are released along with the air that tend to freeze plastics on contact and can do major damage (ruin) a sensor if they come into contact with it and the speed the air from a real air compressor will come out the nozzle at is great enough to damage the delicate internals of your camera as well. External use is okay, I guess, but you'd save a pile of money by just buying a rocket blower and using that instead.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    We can't all have crudely drawn smiling pigs under our forum names. We'd frighten newcomers.

    The dust is in the body somewhere. I've checked my mirror and it appears to be spotless, so I'm thinking it might be hidden behind my focusing screen somehow. I'm not entirely sure how anything behind the focusing screen assembly works, though, so I'm tentative to go blowing air in there with the focusing screen out.

    I'm not sure if you know this, but just in case - never, ever, ever, ever use compressed air inside the actual camera body. The canned stuff has a few nasty chemical that are released along with the air that tend to freeze plastics on contact and can do major damage (ruin) a sensor if they come into contact with it and the speed the air from a real air compressor will come out the nozzle at is great enough to damage the delicate internals of your camera as well. External use is okay, I guess, but you'd save a pile of money by just buying a rocket blower and using that instead.

    Yeah, I use the can just for external stuff, but the actual air compressor at my school's photo lab is tuned down so it's not super high pressure, though I still wouldn't use it to clean inside the camera. And that's weird about the dust behind it, I'm not even sure that makes sense with the construction of a camera.


    Lord - I'm not really sure what you see in the second shot. Shallow DoF plus texture doesn't always make for an interesting subject, especially when presented in a fairly normal manner. Macro-level stuff or a unique angle do that kind of thing a bit more justice.

    UnknownSaint on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Thanks for the comments!

    LotP
    I'm going to have to agree with UnknownSaint. The second one is falling flat for me. The main subject isn't very interesting, and I'm not entirely sure it could be captured in a way that makes it very interesting. Not bad with the DoF, and I actually really like how the shed roof looks in the backround, but the backround on a picture like this shouldn't be more interesting than the subject. Also, I think it might be a little bit underexposed or something. You're likely trying to keep it all toned down for effect or something, but a dark backround with a grey foreground is a bit much.
    As for the eye picture, I quite like the eye itself. Everything around it is a bit hard to look at, though. Sorry if I'm being a bit mean, I'm just not very big on either of those shots.

    anable
    That is much better, though there's still a bright spot on the right that's kind of bothering me. Part of the structure that's more illuminated than the rest, perhaps? Cutting that might shorten the width too much though, and I don't think it's a huge deal. Aside from that one small thing, I really like that picture!

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I need some advice on this shot. This cat belongs to a friend of mine. It's really old, and they think it's going to die soon. He asked me to get a few pictures, and this is my favourite one. That being said, I'm pretty damn sure I want to retake this picture if I can, but I can't figure out what's bothering me. The paw and ass had to be cut a bit to get the framing of the top and right correct, but I think that might be the problem. Any ideas?
    Tiger_the_Cat_by_TheMagnumDash.jpg

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri wrote: »
    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. :)

    Lovely shot. Menacing even.

    Do you have the original raw file for this? I'm thinking theres a way to fix it even better.

    And I'm with you on the +1/3 or +2/3 of exposure in most scenarios. The 40d has an AMAZING quantity of detail in the highlights and usually pictures (with a proper curve adjustment) come out with an eerie almost-HDR feel.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Those eyes are really creeping me out. I dig that shit.

    Sheri - if you don't have an original raw... throw that shot into photoshop, create an gradient oval mask around her face, and fill an linear burn layer with black. It doesn't bother me that it's a little blown..it bothers me that it's too bright.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh, and MKR - fine, be offended. You've been told by various members (my caustic asshole persona aside) that your photos are flat, dull, and uninteresting. (not all, just some)

    You then proceed to tell us that there is a thought / idea behind them. Fine.

    It's not working.

    We're trying to tell you to change shit up.

    Light / composition / subject most importantly.

    I'm not saying each picture should have so much insight that you need to sit back for a week and absorb the universe defining wisdom in it. Some should document, others should just entertain the eye, yet others - reveal things we miss in our daily rush.

    For example your picture of the bulb - it's a bulb like I see it every day... Poorly lit, without color.
    A bulb CAN be an interesting subjct.

    Here - look at this blog:
    http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/06/developing-idea-part-one.html

    You might say you don't have that flash setup. Fine. Get a table lamp, drop it on the floor, point it up, and light the bulb from behind... that's still more interesting.

    Anyway... we're all here to learn. If you post a lame picture in this thread and say it's a good picture, someone will call you out. Not that it's supposed to deter you from posting.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    first drag

    jotautas25th%20%2836%20of%2093%29.jpg

    and a little group portrait with almost no friggin light (handheld, IS on. Note how an insanely low shutter allowed the glasses to be sharp, but the people moved a little)

    jotautas25th%20%2859%20of%2093%29.jpg

    Technically both pictures aren't perfect imho... then again, they're more of a documentary kind for an event.

    needOptic on
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Hey Tofu,

    Next time you're out there, take 3 shots of that bridge, like... at +/- 2 ev on each one. We're talkin, one under-exposed a bit, one fairly evenly and one super over exposed and I'll make an HDR for ya. Seems like a neat subject. You could even do 5 exposures to more evenly cover the range.

    Just a thought.

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

    "Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"

    signature.png
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The face in the first picture is a little blurry for my liking, and that one hand is crazy, but other than that I'm really liking the picture. It's an excellent capture. The imperfections on the second one are a bit more easily forgivable because of the low lighting, but I find the picture to be less interesting.
    You're right, they're both flawed, but if their purpose is to be more of a documentary type dealy, then I'd say it's a job well done.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The face in the first picture is a little blurry for my liking, and that one hand is crazy, but other than that I'm really liking the picture. It's an excellent capture. The imperfections on the second one are a bit more easily forgivable because of the low lighting, but I find the picture to be less interesting.
    You're right, they're both flawed, but if their purpose is to be more of a documentary type dealy, then I'd say it's a job well done.

    I agree with you.

    I somewhat like the imperfection in the first one because it shows motion - her pulling her head back right after lighting up and taking a puff.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    chicagoAndrew%20%2856%20of%2090%29.jpg

    needOptic on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Well that's creepy.

    UnknownSaint on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Which photo you talking 'boot?

    needOptic on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The motion blur would be a bit more effective if there was something else in the picture that was more clear to make up for it, I think. Either way, it's still a good shot.

    And this new one..I can't decide if it's funny or sad or a little bit frightening. Either way, I really like it. It's my favourite of the past..several.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    yeah... the even weirder part was his mother who stood behind him and kept telling him what to point the camera at...

    D:

    needOptic on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    Which photo you talking 'boot?

    I suppose my comment would be appropriate for either.

    Yours. With the little person.

    UnknownSaint on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I don't think it's a little person :lol: It's a fat little kid... his mom was with him.

    Either way, I'm glad that's the feeling it provokes. 8-)

    needOptic on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Now I'm starting to feel bad for the kid. Shit, that really is a good picture.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I have an issue with the people in the background... but nothing I could do about it.

    I was walking by these people next to an intersection, kneed down, and shot a couple of shots and the light turned green. A fleeting moment, I guess.

    needOptic on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    So there's an Edward Burtynsky exhibit at the local art gallery that I'm going to see today. I just thought I'd share that so you can all be jealous of me for a little while.

    Marcus - I'm not offended by the cropping on the cat. You chop off some important bits but the focus is so clearly the face that it doesn't seem to matter. I like.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I need some advice on this shot. This cat belongs to a friend of mine. It's really old, and they think it's going to die soon. He asked me to get a few pictures, and this is my favourite one. That being said, I'm pretty damn sure I want to retake this picture if I can, but I can't figure out what's bothering me. The paw and ass had to be cut a bit to get the framing of the top and right correct, but I think that might be the problem. Any ideas?

    A few general comments, some personal, some technical; I think the major issue is the deep shadow on (his) left eye, it's disconcerting, you could fix this by reflecting some light back in from the right. The fur is blown out down the side of the face, and possibly on his back too. I think his paw and tail could do with either staying in completely or being cropped more, and a different colour blanket would work better against the background (assuming you can control the cat enough to fix that kind of thing!). Also, putting more distance between the cat and the wall, and having the cat's body in focus would give his back end texture, and getting rid of the second blanket that's cutting through his outline. There's vignetting at the top of the image, looks like you're shooting in sunlight onto a matt wall, which is a bugger for getting flat colour. Oh, and there appears to be a hair on the lens, bottom left, although it could be on the cat...

    I'm not saying these are all big issues, just what I can see.

    A few snowy ones;

    IMG_2988.jpg


    IMG_3047.jpg

    also, whilst we're posting pictures of that bridge, I can jump over it.

    DSC04425.jpg

    Jake! on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Marcus (re: cat) - I like it. You might look at how blue the whites are. It's not bad, and it compliments the blanket he's on, but it's not entirely natural looking either. Adjusting your white balance a little might improve the image some (minor minor tweak).

    erisian pope on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jake!: Thanks for the advice. Some of the set up things (like the blanket colour) were out of my control, since this cat is unmovable. However, if I can get out to shoot some more while the thing is still alive, I'll see what I can do.
    Also, I really, really like your second shot. I know this isn't constructive criticism, but I can't really find anything worth criticising. There is a lot of shadow on her face, but I don't think it's a bad thing. I'd put that one on my wall.

    erisian pope: I see what you mean. It looks kind of nice that way, but I'll try it without and see if I like it better. Thanks!

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • tinyfisttinyfist Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    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.



    I agree, you've just opened my eyes to a whole new world of mounting!

    tinyfist on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh wow, that's hella cheap too. I think I might have to look into this.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    So there's an Edward Burtynsky exhibit at the local art gallery that I'm going to see today. I just thought I'd share that so you can all be jealous of me for a little while.

    Burtynsky is amazing. Have you seen the documentary about him?

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    saltiness wrote: »
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    So there's an Edward Burtynsky exhibit at the local art gallery that I'm going to see today. I just thought I'd share that so you can all be jealous of me for a little while.

    Burtynsky is amazing. Have you seen the documentary about him?

    Not yet. I figured I'd view the exhibit first before taking it in. At least, that's my reasoning for missing the multiple public viewing it's been given at my uni and at the gallery itself. Have you seen it? What did you think? Do you know if it's rented at most major video stores or am I going to be grabbing it from the internet?

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
This discussion has been closed.