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)

12526272830

Posts

  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    So my first foray into film. Basic scans of my developed prints, though I'd like to just scan negatives next time. Also I wish flickr would have an auto size setting that is between medium and large. These are a bit too small, but the bigger option is a bit too big. Oh well, bigger shots can be found via my sig. Crits appreciated. Had a shit-ton of fun in this whole process.

    2311527646_4b5d65140f.jpg

    2311527642_193f88e4f3.jpg

    2311527628_45f3aaf648.jpg

    UnknownSaint on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    For your first time with film I'd say you did pretty damn good. I really like the first one. All around good shot. The second one...there's nothing wrong with it that I can see, infact it's actually pretty awesome, I'm just not all that interested in it. The last one is pretty much the same situation, except some of those swirly deals on the right are a bit distracting. All around good job, I'd say.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • JonisJonis Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    First is nice.

    Jonis on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Weird - the first was my least favorite of the three. As far as the third goes it was a tough call to crop it as it is right now. I thought about not including some of the out of focus curly little threads on the right, but if I had gone much more I would have lost too much of the downward sloping lines at the top.

    UnknownSaint on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Weird - the first was my least favorite of the three. As far as the third goes it was a tough call to crop it as it is right now. I thought about not including some of the out of focus curly little threads on the right, but if I had gone much more I would have lost too much of the downward sloping lines at the top.


    I'm with you - I don't like that it's vertical.

    I would much rather see a cropped / longer range shot focusing on the mountains and water. (Especially that nice fog / haze).

    I like 2 the most. Just because of those nice tones and texture. And a different composition.

    needOptic on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Oh, but for your first try with b&w - i think it's very nice.
    Did you develop yourself? Something I'd like to try eventually...

    needOptic on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah, the middle shot is awesome -- not emotionally moving, but aesthetically very pleasing to me. :^:

    Edit: nO, developing yourself is maybe the most fun and rewarding thing ever. I loved it, back in college. I'd move back to film in a heartbeat if I had a darkroom available to me, but I don't, and I don't have room or money for one myself.

    gilrain on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    gilrain wrote: »
    Yeah, the middle shot is awesome -- not emotionally moving, but aesthetically very pleasing to me. :^:

    Edit: nO, developing yourself is maybe the most fun and rewarding thing ever. I loved it, back in college. I'd move back to film in a heartbeat if I had a darkroom available to me, but I don't, and I don't have room or money for one myself.

    I bet. That's exactly my situation too. Add a business to that equation and you're out of time, too.

    needOptic on
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Man I wish I had a darkroom so bad. I had some of my best times in highschool back in photo class (that sounds pretty nerdy... or dirty I guess), really though I miss developing my own stuff a lot.

    One of my acupuncture pics from yesterday, crits would be much appreciated.
    acu_black_online.jpg
    the picture is for a treatment that works like a facelift, but is just a month of acupuncture to the face instead.

    Prospicience on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It's overblown.
    Arm is distracting.
    Nose casts a bad shadow.

    I like the composition.

    needOptic on
  • UberslugUberslug Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Hey guys, I took a few pictures through glass and I notice the colors are offset. On one side there's a blue outline and on the other there's a yellow outline. Is it possible to fix this in photoshop? I know about the distort/lens correction, but this is different.

    EDIT:

    Nevermind, I got it.

    Uberslug on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I'd crop it just below the hand/arm. It's slightly overblown, but if it's an advertising shot (like you imply) then keeping it brighter than normal is good. After the suggested crop, I'd like the composition and whatnot. I kind of want to see the whole head in frame, but it's not a dealbreaker.

    For advertising, though... maybe have the patient right-side up? It'd be a boringer composition, but maybe better from an advertising perspective.

    gilrain on
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Thanks a bunch for ze crits, I was a little afraid that I blew the highlights out too much. Didn't notice the shadow on the nose before shoulda taken one at the same angle on the other side. Actually not too happy with my shots but, wish I could have taken more I felt kinda rushed haha didn't want the needles in her face for too long. Thanks for the crits though, really help.

    Prospicience on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Prosp, I wouldn't mind it being so bright except that the bottom of her face (lip/chin area) is so bright that it almost seems to meld with her shoulder. That may be the result of post processing or it may have been like that in-camera. I wouldn't mind it, as long as we could still tell where her chin ends.

    I like the comp, and I wouldn't say that 'for advertising purposes' you should put it right-side up; in fact I'd urge you not to, since it seems more like an advertising shot with the unique angle.

    EDIT: But yes, crop out the hand. :)

    Sheri on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Shamelessly double-posting so I don't BOTP myself.

    Bay Area Renaissance Festival (BARF; yes, seriously, BARF), 3.1.08

    IMG_1408b1.jpg

    Also

    IMG_1433b1.jpg
    I know I wanna!

    Sheri on
  • burkhartburkhart Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    It's overblown.
    Arm is distracting.
    Nose casts a bad shadow.

    I like the composition.

    i like that you brought up lame conventions associated with photography today....

    and then showed shots of the bean.



    :...:

    burkhart on
    turnin' corners with mah pinky mang
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I agree with the arm and chin. It's definitely a load better without the arm in, though (as usual) I'd like to either see less or more of the head.


    I quite like the bean, it's only a cliche in that it's a landmark - most people I've shown my holiday snaps to have never even heard of it. Speaking of which, I took both of these on holiday last year, though I'm happy with the concept rather than the execution -

    DSC04577.jpg


    DSC04590.jpg

    and also a friend of mine in the living room, impromptu but I'm happy with how it turned out.


    george.jpg

    Jake! on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    Weird - the first was my least favorite of the three. As far as the third goes it was a tough call to crop it as it is right now. I thought about not including some of the out of focus curly little threads on the right, but if I had gone much more I would have lost too much of the downward sloping lines at the top.


    I'm with you - I don't like that it's vertical.

    I would much rather see a cropped / longer range shot focusing on the mountains and water. (Especially that nice fog / haze).

    I like 2 the most. Just because of those nice tones and texture. And a different composition.

    There is no water and no haze in that one - it's salt flats and fields of volcanic rock. I preferred the vertical, though I have a digital pano of the same view that I'm really quite fond of. And yes, I developed everything and etc etc.

    Thanks for the feedback though!

    UnknownSaint on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri - First is nice though a little busy. The flowers and ribbon on the left side, with the cannon background and whatever is sticking out of the bottom right are a little distracting. The pole can stay. Second is nothing special aside from being slightly humorous. Reminds me of how much I'm tempted to shoot the sign for Big Wang's Chinese Restaurant whenever I go to Hollywood.

    Jake! - That last one is well lit - I like it. Just straight flash?

    UnknownSaint on
  • 2 Marcus 2 Ravens2 Marcus 2 Ravens CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Shit, well...basically everything UnknownSaint just said, except replace the Wang sign with the one I found on the door of my Enlish room.
    snow044a.jpg
    (Terrible picture, don't bother telling me so) Best part is, I'm pretty positive this teacher is a lesbian. Max yuks, yo.

    Oh, and Jake! I would have really liked that second one if the kid was on the other side so he was in the light and not the shadow. You're right, the idea was pretty rad though.

    2 Marcus 2 Ravens on
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Cheers Marcus, like I said the bean ones need reshooting! Pity I'm now 6,000 miles from it. Saint: It's all in the eyes;
    it's done using a ring flash and a fisheye, a few inches away. That's why the background is so dark (although I'd be lying if I said I hadn't had to do a bit of editing to get it uniformly black, mostly though it's as it came off the camera).

    It's a nice effect, the focus is extremely sharp, you get amazing texture and by only lighting the ring from the top you get shadows in the normal places, they're just gentle, they don't obscure the detail.

    ps. I like the sunshade

    Jake! on
  • needOpticneedOptic Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    burkhart wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    It's overblown.
    Arm is distracting.
    Nose casts a bad shadow.

    I like the composition.

    i like that you brought up lame conventions associated with photography today....

    and then showed shots of the bean.

    :...:

    And? O_o

    I thought I did title that post "from our little photo outing" or something like that. Not going to defend the originality of the shots, but the bean is an interesting subject. First shot of the damn thing I took, btw.

    needOptic on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    needOptic wrote: »
    burkhart wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    It's overblown.
    Arm is distracting.
    Nose casts a bad shadow.

    I like the composition.
    i like that you brought up lame conventions associated with photography today....

    and then showed shots of the bean.

    :...:
    And? O_o

    I thought I did title that post "from our little photo outing" or something like that. Not going to defend the originality of the shots, but the bean is an interesting subject. First shot of the damn thing I took, btw.
    Also, "lame conventions"? Like, uh, proper exposure and minimizing distractions? Yeah, fuck the old guard! :P

    gilrain on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jake! wrote: »
    I agree with the arm and chin. It's definitely a load better without the arm in, though (as usual) I'd like to either see less or more of the head.

    (snip)

    and also a friend of mine in the living room, impromptu but I'm happy with how it turned out.


    george.jpg

    God I really like this a lot, but funnily enough, I think it has the same (but opposite) problem of the acupuncture shot that Prosp posted -- the hair melds into the background. However, in this case it's not due to over/under exposure, and I actually think it works.

    I do think it needs a bit more room at the bottom, the chin is too close to the edge of the photo for my tastes.

    Love the lighting. Just more evidence to me that I should buy a ringflash. They're just so awesome.

    Sheri on
  • gilraingilrain Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    I just realized what the shot reminds me of: Amelie! Her expression looks like that girl.

    gilrain on
  • erisian popeerisian pope Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri - #1 is a nice portrait. The focus is a tiny bit soft in the eyes but I like the comp, colors, etc. :^:

    erisian pope on
  • Jake!Jake! Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri: I agree on the chin, although I think it still works. By the way, you don't need to buy a ringflash to get that kind of lighting, you just need a pair of scissors, some tracing paper, a crapload of tinfoil and about an hour of free time.

    ghettosuperflash.jpg

    Jake! on
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah I keep seeing the DIY stuff. I'd much rather just buy a ringflash, personally.

    Sheri on
  • Mr_AnonymousMr_Anonymous Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Jake I agree with everyone else, that portrait is amazing. My girlfriend has similar colouring I'd love to try this with her. As Sheri said though, I think due to the hair melding so well into the background on top, the picture needs a little dark space under the chin as long as the neck isn't doing anything weird. Saying that though, it's a damn good photo either way.

    EDIT: Also, I like the name of your flash. Very gangstah.

    Mr_Anonymous on
  • AneurhythmiaAneurhythmia Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    gangstah
    Get out.

    Aneurhythmia on
  • foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    gilrain wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    burkhart wrote: »
    needOptic wrote: »
    It's overblown.
    Arm is distracting.
    Nose casts a bad shadow.

    I like the composition.
    i like that you brought up lame conventions associated with photography today....

    and then showed shots of the bean.

    :...:
    And? O_o

    I thought I did title that post "from our little photo outing" or something like that. Not going to defend the originality of the shots, but the bean is an interesting subject. First shot of the damn thing I took, btw.
    Also, "lame conventions"? Like, uh, proper exposure and minimizing distractions? Yeah, fuck the old guard! :P

    I think what burkhart is saying, is that nO just rattles off a list of guidelines, as if he didn't actually take time to look at the photo as it was intended.

    The first thing that came to my mind was 'that looks like an ad' and that is what was intended. So it works. For my tastes, it seems no one cares about the artistic merit of a shot, as long as it's properly exposed, and there are no distractions, it must be good. I think opinions on artistic merit should come first.

    foursquareman on
  • VeritasVeritas Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Yeah I dont know what the fuck that means foursquare. Looking like an ad doesn't mean it would make a good ad. Things like composition, exposure, foreground elements, background elements, and possible distractions are all part of it.

    Artistic Merit doesn't count for shit without applying good skill and technique. The Photo isn't bad but like with anything we post here it can be improved upon and is open to critique. If I take an artistic shot of a pitch black room and its judged based on that concept its still a shitty photo of nothing.

    Veritas on
  • ProspicienceProspicience The Raven King DenvemoloradoRegistered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Veritas wrote: »
    Yeah I dont know what the fuck that means foursquare. Looking like an ad doesn't mean it would make a good ad. Things like composition, exposure, foreground elements, background elements, and possible distractions are all part of it.

    Artistic Merit doesn't count for shit without applying good skill and technique. The Photo isn't bad but like with anything we post here it can be improved upon and is open to critique. If I take an artistic shot of a pitch black room and its judged based on that concept its still a shitty photo of nothing.

    Well put, and I don't know why yall are banging on nO after I clearly agreed with his crit and said that it was something I was afraid was wrong with the picture (he also wasn't the only one that pointed it out). I posted it here to get any type of crits and while his crit was indeed short, it was to the point and I understood it.

    The part I bolded is exactly the reason I posted it here, hell I believe lots of people post their stuff here for that same reason. Unless nO were to say something to the effect of, "it blows balls, go home and suck one" I don't think it justifies bein' all anti-needOptic'y.

    Edit: For the record I was going for a little bit of blown out look, but I definitely went overboard with it. Kinda going for the peaceful heavenly look and instead I got "I'm in the tanning bed and my flesh is burning off" look.

    Prospicience on
  • foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Veritas wrote: »
    Yeah I dont know what the fuck that means foursquare. Looking like an ad doesn't mean it would make a good ad. Things like composition, exposure, foreground elements, background elements, and possible distractions are all part of it.

    Artistic Merit doesn't count for shit without applying good skill and technique. The Photo isn't bad but like with anything we post here it can be improved upon and is open to critique. If I take an artistic shot of a pitch black room and its judged based on that concept its still a shitty photo of nothing.

    A photo doesn't need to be correctly exposed to be a good photo, in my opinion. Photography isn't a science, it's an artform.

    foursquareman on
  • Dark MoonDark Moon Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Veritas wrote: »
    Yeah I dont know what the fuck that means foursquare. Looking like an ad doesn't mean it would make a good ad. Things like composition, exposure, foreground elements, background elements, and possible distractions are all part of it.

    Artistic Merit doesn't count for shit without applying good skill and technique. The Photo isn't bad but like with anything we post here it can be improved upon and is open to critique. If I take an artistic shot of a pitch black room and its judged based on that concept its still a shitty photo of nothing.

    A photo doesn't need to be correctly exposed to be a good photo, in my opinion. Photography isn't a science, it's an artform.

    Of course a photo has to be correctly exposed. It is ridiculous to claim otherwise. Of course, 'correct exposure' needs to be defined properly - which is, the exposure that is correct for the photograph you want to take. So if you want a photo to be two stops too dark, the correct exposure will show as two stops underexposed on your light meter. There is no 'artistic merit,' whatever the hell you want that to mean, if the image isn't taken properly.

    Oh, and nOs critique was spot on.

    Dark Moon on
    3072973561_de17a80845_o.jpg
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    It really was.

    I have an idea, though. When you're defending something that has technical faults that are not conducive to the shot as a whole, don't play the 'art is subjective!' card. It makes you kind of look like a horses ass. It's also completely not helpful to anyone.

    UnknownSaint on
  • foursquaremanfoursquareman Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    My favourite shots in these threads are the Holga ones. For me, sometimes the faults enhance the photo.

    Art is subjective. I'm sorry if that makes me look like a horse's ass. Anyway, I'll shut up now.

    Here is an older photo of mine:

    2088642870_6226380a5c.jpg

    foursquareman on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    My favourite shots in these threads are the Holga ones. For me, sometimes the faults enhance the photo.

    Art is subjective. I'm sorry if that makes me look like a horse's ass. Anyway, I'll shut up now.

    I agree with you. But using that argument to defend technical faults that don't contribute to the photo is not right. Unless you can come up with some good reasons as to why what nO pointed out helped the shot.

    UnknownSaint on
  • MustangMustang Arbiter of Unpopular Opinions Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    Sheri wrote: »
    God I really like this a lot, but funnily enough, I think it has the same (but opposite) problem of the acupuncture shot that Prosp posted -- the hair melds into the background. However, in this case it's not due to over/under exposure, and I actually think it works.

    Christ I thought you were going to say it didn't work for a second there and I was going to have to lose all respect for your photographic critique, crisis averted. :)

    Jake I'm really loving the stuff your posting on here, you've got a great eye for composition and light.

    Mustang on
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    edited March 2008
    The photo is great, but does it need to be quoted every time someone is going to talk about it? There are three instances of it on the page. Come on.

    Edit - Totp. Unintentional but convenient.

    UnknownSaint on
This discussion has been closed.