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

Mustang

Noted and removed.

Sheri

foursquareman wrote: »

Something about this seems very. . . I'm not sure. Look at the power lines, they aren't lines, they're all jagged. It's like it's oversharpened or badly compressed. I do like the color and exposure, though.

Mustang wrote: »

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.

A disagreement about whether something works or not leads to a loss of respect for photographic critique? That's the second dumbest thing I've read in the past few minutes.

needOptic

Sheri wrote: »

A disagreement about whether something works or not leads to a loss of respect for photographic critique? That's the second dumbest thing I've read in the past few minutes.

I think he's being sarcastic, you feisty little dancing penis girl.

foursquareman

Sheri wrote: »

Something about this seems very. . . I'm not sure. Look at the power lines, they aren't lines, they're all jagged. It's like it's oversharpened or badly compressed. I do like the color and exposure, though.

Yeah, it's flickr's compression. I'm not always happy with how my images look after importing to flickr.

needOptic

Hah, I don't mind a little bit of nOptic hostility every now and then, keeps me on my toes.

Overall a pretty good argument you guys had while I wasn't here.

My personal opinion about corporate / promotional photography is that it has to be flawless. It's supposed to be a little too clean, too well composed, etc. There is little artistic merit in those photos because usually they're not supposed to evoke a lot of feeling, but rather portray a product or service in an appealing way.

That and only that is why I gave that list of crits. If it was a shot of a woman pierced with needles that had to evoke some feeling - like dread, pain, etc. - I would have never complained about the shadow or the arm.

Anyway, I'm a big fan of Phil @ photo.net. Most of his articles is where I've learned majority of what I have learned and I mostly agree with what he has to say on most subjects as far as photography goes.

Here's something I enjoyed reading recently:

When traveling, do you wait for fellow tourists to get out of the way before taking a picture? Why? If you're trying to communicate the experience of being in a place, aren't those mobs of tourists part of the experience? The more despoiled by tourism a place has become, the more important it is to capture a big tour group clogging a passageway.

Tourists as a subject
Let's consider this from another perspective. Suppose that you are offered a choice of viewing some photos of the Eiffel Tower that were taken in the 1930s. Would you rather see a photo containing tourists of the period or a photo of the tower by itself? The Eiffel Tower hasn't changed in any interesting ways since the 1930s, but tourists have. A photo captured at 6 am showing a deserted site before all of the other tourists showed up might have more value for a postcard or calendar, but it is a less interesting record of the experience people in the early 21st Century had at that site.

Full article here: http://photo.net/travel/tourists-as-subjects/

Sheri

needOptic wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

A disagreement about whether something works or not leads to a loss of respect for photographic critique? That's the second dumbest thing I've read in the past few minutes.

I think he's being sarcastic, you feisty little dancing penis girl.

Hey

Shut up

Sarcasm is hard over the internet

bombardier

That article will come in handy when I head to Poland, especially the (barf puke wretch) tour group portion of the trip. Oh well, at least it includes Auschwitz and the salt mines.

Mustang

Sheri wrote: »

needOptic wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

A disagreement about whether something works or not leads to a loss of respect for photographic critique? That's the second dumbest thing I've read in the past few minutes.

I think he's being sarcastic, you feisty little dancing penis girl.

Hey

Shut up

Sarcasm is hard over the internet

Not if your inherently sarcastic........like me!

Just remember if I say something dumb, I'm being sarcastic.........

and if I'm not being sarcastic, it's because I'm being dumb

needOptic

bombardier wrote: »

That article will come in handy when I head to Poland, especially the (barf puke wretch) tour group portion of the trip. Oh well, at least it includes Auschwitz and the salt mines.

Sweeeeet! When are you going? 8-) Visit my homeland, will you?


I'm flying out to Paris and then Nice / Monaco / Monte Carlo in like... a month.
I'm so psyched I'm going to die.

needOptic

Sheri wrote: »

Hey

Shut up

Sarcasm is hard over the internet

Everything you say is naughty, isn't it? I'm starting to catch on to you.

bombardier

All of June, pretty much. I'll be heading close to your homeland (old royal forests in the Northeast) but probably won't be leaving the country.

needOptic

bombardier wrote: »

All of June, pretty much. I'll be heading close to your homeland (old royal forests in the Northeast) but probably won't be leaving the country.

I hope you get murdered and your camera is taken from your cold bloody hands.

Filthy polak whore.

Edit: I'm jealous.
Edit2: I've been to Poland, btw.

Mr. Fahrenheit

*Edit* I can see on this monitor that there's an aura thing around this, ignore it.

fogeyman

That's really awesome, Fahrenheit.

A couple pics I shot at a nearby lake (please critique):

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

Mr. Fahrenheit: That's a kickass picture. At first I thought the hand was maybe a little too bright, or the violin a little too dark, but now I like it just how it is. Sorry, but I really don't have anything else to say about it. Good job!

fogeyman: The first one is pretty cool the way it is, but there's just too much sky in the other two. The second one has some cool stuff going on in it, but there's too much there. Are we aloud to crop other people's pictures here? Because I'm tired and don't feel like trying to explain myself, but this one is just too damn tempting to not do.



Now it's a little less cluttered. You've got the trees on the right, that metal junk on the left, and a big light in the middle. It's not a perfect crop or anything, so don't take it as such, I'm just trying to show you roughly what I would have done.

Edit: The contrast looks bumped on mine...I didn't do that. You can ignore that if you want.

needOptic

Mr. Fahrenheit wrote: »

*Edit* I can see on this monitor that there's an aura thing around this, ignore it.

8-):^:

altmann

Hey guys, since we're all basically nubs arguing on the internet about "art" and all that shit I thought I'd just throw a little of THE MAN into the equation.



THE MAN is Ansel Adams and I quote:

Ansel Adams wrote:

It is not my intention to present rules in these books, but guidelines that may serve the student in developing his abilities. It is similarly pointless for the reader to attempt to adopt a style of work from my examples. My work represents me, not "photography as it should be." It is much more important that the reader seek an understanding of the potentials of the medium, and let the issues of personal "style" and "creativity" emerge by themselves, as they inevitably will if properly nourished.

It must be said, however, that photography is partly a language, and the practitioner may not have the ability or desire to go beyond the conversation stage. A snapshooter can rely on automation for all he does with a camera, and need make no apologies for the pleasure he derives from his pictures. On the other hand an amateur (in the original sense of the word, i.e., one who participates for love of the medium) will develop more understanding and ability in proportion to the additional effort he expends.

Ansel Adams wrote:

The term visualization refers to the entire emotional-mental process of creating a photograph, and as such, it is one of the most important concepts in photography. It includes the ability to anticipate a finished image before making the exposure, so that the procedures employed will contribute to achieving the desired result. This much of the creative process can be practiced and learned; beyond lies the domain of personal vision and insight, the creative "eye" of the individual, which cannot be taught, only recognized and encouraged.

Both from a book that will blow your fucking MIND : Ansel Adams - The Camera (The Ansel Adams Photography Series 1).

needOptic

altmann wrote: »

Both from a book that will blow your fucking MIND : Ansel Adams - The Camera (The Ansel Adams Photography Series 1).

Good timing, altmann. I was just looking for some reading material.
Ordered both Book1 and Book2 (the negative) from Amazon.

:^:

8-)

Prospicience

Sweet I almost picked up the first one the other day (don't really know why I didn't) guess I'll have to go back and grab it.

altmann

get it. GET IT.

GET IT 1000X OVER.

I learned more in the goddamn intro than I did reading anything else. I used to think Ansel was sort of an over-rated kind of deity.

Now I just think he's a deity.


To stay on topic:

I took some of my (admittedly shitty) cross-processed stuff and converted to B&W. I really like them better this way.
Please let me know what you think:

erisian pope

The last two feel very tilted to me. I don't enjoy feeling off-balance like that. It might be chosen for artistic reasons, in which case it doesn't appeal to me for whatever that's worth. I like the first one the best, but I think the picture is a tad too contrasty for me both blacks and whites are blown out, with very little in the way of grays. Compositionally I like #1 and #2 a lot. I also don't really like the vignetting stuff. Is that due to your hardware? I think #2 is my favorite. The variety of textures in the various trees keeps my interest really well.

gilrain

I love the last two. The first one is kind of neat in that it's like a pathway through a sea of white nothingsness... Skin Deep is my favorite of the bunch, though, and I could see it in a gallery somewhere. Do the last two have to be crooked? I'd prefer them straight, but maybe it's an "artistic choice" or whatever. ;-)

Edit: dammit erisian, I was typing.

erisian pope

My nephew is a PUNK ROCKER

needOptic

there's something with the composition that's irking me.

needOptic

The arm + his head touching the border on the right.. i think that's it.

Sheri

erisian pope wrote: »

The last two feel very tilted to me. I don't enjoy feeling off-balance like that. It might be chosen for artistic reasons, in which case it doesn't appeal to me for whatever that's worth. I like the first one the best, but I think the picture is a tad too contrasty for me both blacks and whites are blown out, with very little in the way of grays. Compositionally I like #1 and #2 a lot. I also don't really like the vignetting stuff. Is that due to your hardware? I think #2 is my favorite. The variety of textures in the various trees keeps my interest really well.

The vignette is due to the Holga.

I agree with pope that the last two do feel very tilted -- but the third one isn't tilted, if you look at the house in the background. The last one, however, is tilted and that does bother me a bit.

alt, I saw these on your Flickr and I meant to let you know -- I love the B&W much more than the cross-processed color (what was it, green?). They almost look like B&W infrared. I like the effect, if not these particular shots.

t nO - This is just a pet peeve of mine, hun, but could you use the edit button a little more? We only get 50 pages to work with before someone's gotta make another one of these.

(Yes I am aware I made a shameless double post just two pages ago. XD )

needOptic

Sheri wrote: »

t nO - This is just a pet peeve of mine, hun, but could you use the edit button a little more? We only get 50 pages to work with before someone's gotta make another one of these.

(Yes I am aware I made a shameless double post just two pages ago. XD )

That's it, no more mister nice guy.

needOptic

So do I make a new one?
Edit: See what I did there? i didn't listen to you, I made two posts in a row! HA!

Sheri

Wait until bombsy comes by and locks this one

Or just do what I did and IM him and ask.

erisian pope

needOptic wrote: »

there's something with the composition that's irking me.

I think the frame is too far to the right - the eyes are the most interesting bit and they are close to the left side and looking left. It kinda traps me on the left side of the picture, rendering 2/3 of the pic kinda uninteresting (except that's where the hair is). That's what bugs me about it anyway. :-/

needOptic

That whore bombs isn't online. Damn it.

altmann

Just a comment on the "tiltedness" of the photos. That old bar thingy? It's practically falling over. It's not straight. My composition isn't perfect, that's for sure, and the vignetting is all done because of the camera. I think my monitor at work (where i converted them) is weird because i dont' get the blown out stuff like you mention. I'll look at home. It may be the contrast on the film, seeing as they're being converted to b&W from color. Here's a native black and white shot straight from the camera:



The thing I love about this camera, is the fucking lens is plastic. So you get this crazy sharpness in the middle and if you notice, the blurriness to vignetting on the edges. It's actually rather hard to get correctly composed shots. The viewfinder is useless and often times I'm holding the camera against my chest to make it steady (I haven't modded it for a tripod yet). The shutter is 1/100 or bulb and that's it. set F stop. Focus ring consists of 4 symbols, a man, 3 men, a group of men, and a mountain. It's just crazy fun.

Also, the shutter is a damn lever on the side. I think I need to set the camera on flat surfaces more to avoid the tilting bs.

Mr_Anonymous

Guys I just bought my first DSLR - A Rebel XTi. Had to share the excitement! :rotate:

Uncle Long

Hey, woot, my first DSLR was the Rebel XT. I'm expecting a Nikon D200 in the mail anytime now. The Rebel is a really decent piece of equipment, all in all.