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)

12526272931

Posts

  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jake! wrote: »


    IMG_3047.jpg

    8-) I really like this one.

    edit: the rear wheel might be a little too close to the frame, but it's not that big a deal.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    btw- what lens / camera is that? looks like handheld?

    needOptic on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    POPE FLOOD

    IMG_6228.jpg

    IMG_6221.jpg

    IMG_6227.jpg

    IMG_6209.jpg


    And this is more about an amusing event in reality (the leaf is impaled on the leaves!) and not really a particularly awesome pic:

    IMG_6230.jpg



    Crits and comments are always appreciated! <3 you all!

    erisian pope on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Not a fan of flower shots because they bore me ... but they're very nice pictures. :o

    I do like the slight trace of a web on the b/w one.

    I also would suggest you use a thicker black border or a thicker white border. Two borders of contrasting colors take away from the image more than give.

    needOptic on
  • saltinesssaltiness Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    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?
    The documentary was awesome, definitely worth seeing. I don't know if it can be rented.

    saltiness on
    XBL: heavenkils
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    pope: The colours are rather dull in those shots. The flowers themselves look pretty awesome, but they could use a big boost of colour (other than the black and white one, ofcourse). The last one is probably the best as is, though even that could use a bit of a boost I think.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The first and fourth are the best, Pope. I disagree about the colors though, I think they are good the way they are - nice and subtle - not necessarily in your face with oversaturated yellows. I however also disagree with nO about the spiderweb, which I find distracting.

    UnknownSaint on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Alright, I'm going to change what I said slightly. The colours could use a boost on the second picture. It just looks dull to me. The backround colours are very nice, but the faded yellows on top of them just don't hold up. The third one though, is just about right actually.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • Lord Of The PantsLord Of The Pants Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I like flowers. :)

    I'd agree with the boost in colour, only if you don't think it's cheating.

    Lord Of The Pants on
    steam_sig.png
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I might disagree a bit on boosting the color EP. I think it gives the pictures a sort of antique look, plus just about every color flower picture has the vibrant colors look. I kinda like the subtle colors of the pictures, makes them stand apart more than other flower pics... this could just be me though.

    Edit: wish me luck, doing my first "work" shoot tonight for the lady who does my acupuncture. Very nervous, pics soon to come!

    Prospicience on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    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.

    Oh no, I agree with all that (aside from the part where you suggest that I claimed my photos were the best - I didn't, and wouldn't). My issue was with the complete lack of any constructive criticism in your post.

    There's caustic helpful, and caustic asshole. You weren't the fomer, and you were coming very close to the latter.

    MKR on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    You know what would be really awesome? If you two, you know...didn't do this anymore. That'd be super nice.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Your proposal is fair, and I accept.

    :)

    MKR on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    With my second post I got less caustic and more helpful...yes? :x

    It's so hard to be nice... grrr.

    needOptic on
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    With my second post I got less caustic and more helpful...yes? :x

    It's so hard to be nice... grrr.

    I made a point of using past-tense. :P

    MKR on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    Jake! wrote: »


    IMG_3047.jpg

    8-) I really like this one.

    edit: the rear wheel might be a little too close to the frame, but it's not that big a deal.

    I enjoy this picture as well, but I couldn't tell you why. It just strikes me as...really nice....

    anable on
  • anableanable North TexasRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    saltiness wrote: »
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    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?
    The documentary was awesome, definitely worth seeing. I don't know if it can be rented.

    Netflix has it.

    anable on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yet sadly they don't ship to Canada. All is well, though - my local video store carries the film and I will be picking it up shortly. I ended up not going to the exhibit today due to a lab that went grossly overtime, so I'll try to make it later this week. I did get to go to my first club meeting for a local photo club, though, which was neat. We're going to the zoo this Saturday as a group to harass the frozen animals with flashes and shutter noise.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I've never gotten anything printed in a store before, how should I go about color proofing my photo? What about minimum resolution? How good do poster sized enlargements usually look?

    tofu on
  • PhilthePillPhilthePill Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    A bit loud with the background, and obviously the stupid white dot in the centre middle annoys me, but for some reason I like this one:
    IMG_4211.jpg

    Unfocused Self Portrait. Wish I had a straight black background.
    IMG_4243.jpg

    PhilthePill on
    I'm gonna sing the DOOM SONG now. DOOMY doom domm doom doom doom doom doom doom doomy doom-doom...
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    tofu wrote: »
    I've never gotten anything printed in a store before, how should I go about color proofing my photo? What about minimum resolution? How good do poster sized enlargements usually look?

    If you can, get a printer profile for the specific printer being used. Costco provides the profiles for all their printers at their sites, which is just peachy. If not, it's usually a safe bet to work in sRGB or, if you know for certain that the printer being used at your place can take it (really high end ones will), aRGB. Minimum resolution at most printer places is 300ppi (which they will print at 300dpi) and your prints will look like crap if you go below that. Ask your printer what you should be using for their specific printer. If they can do 360dpi, you might as well output to 360ppi (if you have the MP). From your ppi you can derive whatever resolution is required to get good looking photos. Be sure to maintain your aspect ratio as well - if your camera works in 3:2 you aren't going to be printing any 10x8"s without cropping.

    As for big enlargements, it really depends on what you find acceptable. I upsampled a 10MP image to a 24x16" print at 300dpi recently and it looks damn good even close up. I wouldn't want to go much larger that that, though, unless the image was only going to be viewed from afar due to the loss in quality caused by the enlargement. If you do decide to enlarge your photo be sure you use the correct image resize algorithm (if using Photoshop) - the correct algorithm is indicated in the menu as being 'best for enlargements.'

    I usually indicate that I don't want my colours autocorrected in the lab, as that kind of correction is designed with making family snapshots look good and can really ruin any 'creatively processed' prints you get made. I recently made a rather large mistake and sent in some images for printing at 240ppi (default that comes out of my camera) and forgot to indicate no colour correction. Thankfully this was only a trial run to see how some processes worked in print, but the results were just atrocious. With different prints from the same series coming out with different colour correction values and 240ppi looking just nasty (~800 000 missing dots in a 4x6" image will do that) the entire run was a complete write off, though I was thankfully still able to use the prints for their original intention.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    anable wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    Jake! wrote: »


    BIKE

    8-) I really like this one.

    edit: the rear wheel might be a little too close to the frame, but it's not that big a deal.

    I enjoy this picture as well, but I couldn't tell you why. It just strikes me as...really nice....

    Cheers guys, it was a really nice evening. I'd actually gone to a gig but outside was more interesting. I'd also meant to go out into the countryside next morning, but I ended up having a meeting, and by the time I got out the snow had already pretty much disappeared.

    Jake! on
  • altmannaltmann Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Hey this is a photo thread I thought?

    2298499860_75f0f25cc0_b.jpg


    2290947197_930ee56dbb_b.jpg


    Commentary on the colors of the 2nd one (winchester mystery house) would be nice. I don't know why, but I had an issue where it looked better in photoshop than on flickr. Meh.

    altmann on
    Imperator of the Gigahorse Jockeys.

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

    signature.png
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That upper left corner ruins the picture. SHould have gotten up earlier. :)

    Also - why is it tilted to the right?

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Actually...no... I was wrong. It's not what I don't like. I like "parts" of the picture and I think it would have been much better if you focused on elements instead of trying to fit everything into the shot.

    The fountain.

    The trees / bushes.

    Elements of the building.

    All interesting subjects that get garbled up.

    needOptic on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Altman - the entire picture is tilted slightly to the right. I would consider cropping it in a little and rotating the cropbox to the right a little bit to bring the picture up to being a little more level. As far as colors go - what color profile are you working in when in photoshop? If it's AdobeRGB then when you save it and view it on the web the colors will change. You might re-open the file in photoshop and see if it does better by working in SRGB. I also think the house's colors are kinda flat as compared to the greenery in the foreground. It might be worthwhile to create an adjustment layer, mask out everything but the house, and up the saturation a little.

    Compositionally, I agree with nOptic. There are many many elements there and they compete for my eye. It's hard to tell what is interesting in the picture.






    My grandmother passed away last month. I went up to her place this weekend to help my mom sort through stuff and prepare to put the house on the market. I also got to collect items that I was flagged to inherit, including my grandfather's photo stuff. I now own a Canon AE-1 film camera with a 50mm/1.8 lens, a 200mm lens (forget the aperture, I think it's 2.8) and a wider lens. I hope to eventually actually put this camera to use. I also inherited some B&W negatives from 1911 that I will be scanning and sending out to the family. I also inherited a Kodak Vigilant Six-20 (ca 1939-1949) - one of those old cameras where the lens is on an extendable bellows (look at the picture I posted). There's another old bellows-lens camera and one more "regular" camera. I'll google them later and figure out what they are. The Kodak appears to work (I dont have film yet) but the shutter fires pretty smoothly. I am pretty exceited!

    erisian pope on
  • VeritasVeritas Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Damn thats pretty nuts sounds like a lot of fun to try those out. When I get some expendable cash I was thinking about picking up an old AE-1 see if anything I've gained by using digital could translate to film.

    Veritas on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The first of my 4 new cameras:

    KodakVigilant_1.jpg

    KodakVigilant_2.jpg

    KodakVigilant_3.jpg

    KodakVigilant_4.jpg

    erisian pope on
  • JonisJonis Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    That's a beauty.

    I got one of these yesterday (hotlinked)

    250.jpg

    Jonis on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jonis wrote: »
    That's a beauty.

    I got one of these yesterday (hotlinked)

    250.jpg



    Holy cow! ... what is it?



    EDIT - another flower pic (sorry, nOptic)

    IMG_6226.jpg

    erisian pope on
  • JonisJonis Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The point and shoot of 1900, a Brownie.

    Jonis on
  • TamTam Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jonis wrote: »
    The point and shoot of 1900, a Brownie.

    Wait, the original Polaroid?

    Tam on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    WOW. I have a brownie somewher, too, but it's a lot newer than that... It looks like it was called a Starflash

    erisian pope on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008



    EDIT - another flower pic (sorry, nOptic)


    Hey, it's all good. I might not be thrilled by the flower, but it's easy on the eyes. 8-) Besides, who's to say everyone is supposed to enjoy all types of photography.

    I stopped participating on some photo message boards because the only pictures that would get any kind of praise were:

    a) hot chicks
    b) photos taken by people with a high reputation
    c) hot naked chicks
    d) portraits of old people.

    Eff that. Fucking cliche photography.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh, hey, a woman!

    chicagoAndrew%20%2882%20of%2090%29mod.jpg

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    From last weeks photo-tourist-trip-tour.

    Yay, photographomanicatechnicks:

    chicagoAndrew%20%2870%20of%2090%29.jpg


    uhh..what's going on here


    chicagoAndrew%20%2869%20of%2090%29.jpg


    oooh, I has image!


    chicagoAndrew%20%2864%20of%2090%29.jpg



    Ahh, it's portrait, yes?

    chicagoAndrew%20%2833%20of%2090%29.jpg



    Yes, vegetarians can go suck it.

    chicagoAndrew%20%2815%20of%2090%29.jpg

    needOptic on
  • JonisJonis Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    WOW. I have a brownie somewher, too, but it's a lot newer than that... It looks like it was called a Starflash

    That camera is ridiculous. So cool!

    Tam wrote: »

    Wait, the original Polaroid?

    No, it's not instant. I meant P&S, like compact, as opposed to this:

    thegiantcamera.jpg

    Jonis on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    nOptic - I like the second pic a lot. I like the way the lines of the flooring are bent in the curved reflecty surface thing. I kinda wish those two legs on the far, far right edge of the pic weren't there. Still, the angles are fun. :^:

    erisian pope on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Thanks. And I agree... I didn't even see that crap. lol

    That should be an easy PS fix.

    needOptic on
  • tofutofu Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Dark Moon wrote: »
    tofu wrote: »
    I've never gotten anything printed in a store before, how should I go about color proofing my photo? What about minimum resolution? How good do poster sized enlargements usually look?

    If you can, get a printer profile for the specific printer being used. Costco provides the profiles for all their printers at their sites, which is just peachy. If not, it's usually a safe bet to work in sRGB or, if you know for certain that the printer being used at your place can take it (really high end ones will), aRGB. Minimum resolution at most printer places is 300ppi (which they will print at 300dpi) and your prints will look like crap if you go below that. Ask your printer what you should be using for their specific printer. If they can do 360dpi, you might as well output to 360ppi (if you have the MP). From your ppi you can derive whatever resolution is required to get good looking photos. Be sure to maintain your aspect ratio as well - if your camera works in 3:2 you aren't going to be printing any 10x8"s without cropping.

    As for big enlargements, it really depends on what you find acceptable. I upsampled a 10MP image to a 24x16" print at 300dpi recently and it looks damn good even close up. I wouldn't want to go much larger that that, though, unless the image was only going to be viewed from afar due to the loss in quality caused by the enlargement. If you do decide to enlarge your photo be sure you use the correct image resize algorithm (if using Photoshop) - the correct algorithm is indicated in the menu as being 'best for enlargements.'

    I usually indicate that I don't want my colours autocorrected in the lab, as that kind of correction is designed with making family snapshots look good and can really ruin any 'creatively processed' prints you get made. I recently made a rather large mistake and sent in some images for printing at 240ppi (default that comes out of my camera) and forgot to indicate no colour correction. Thankfully this was only a trial run to see how some processes worked in print, but the results were just atrocious. With different prints from the same series coming out with different colour correction values and 240ppi looking just nasty (~800 000 missing dots in a 4x6" image will do that) the entire run was a complete write off, though I was thankfully still able to use the prints for their original intention.

    Yea, I just don't want to spend 20 bucks and have it look like crap. What's the rule of thumb for enlarging photos in PS? How much is too much?

    tofu on
This discussion has been closed.