Through the Looking Glass [PHOTO THREAD]

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

foursquareman: I'm sure that second picture is supposed to be over-exposed, but I think it's too much. The top left corner is hard to look at, and my eyes keep getting drawn back to that spot. I do like the capture, however, I just think that it's a little too blown out.

Sheri

On one of the last days of the Epcot Flower and Garden Festival, I finally decided to check out the butterfly tent.



I have about 199 more just like this.

Virum

Nice work, Pilcrow.

Not really doing anything for me Sheri.

Sheri

'S'cool

Virum

Now I like that one a lot better.

yalborap

Virum wrote: »

Now I like that one a lot better.

Definitely. Feels quite a bit more dynamic.

Might I ask how you got that shot? Macro lens, zooming in, something else?

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

Sheri, you do wonderful things with colour. Bright and vibrant, but never too much. God damn you make me jelous sometimes.

mully

i like that photo, but to me, the colour of the flowers are trumping that poor butterfly, they also seem to be, to my untrained dumb-eye, more in focus than the butterfly. so i automatically look there first.

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

mully wrote: »

i like that photo, but to me, the colour of the flowers are trumping that poor butterfly, they also seem to be, to my untrained dumb-eye, more in focus than the butterfly. so i automatically look there first.

True enough. The butterfly not being entirely in focus is likely to blame for the most part, and a wider DoF would take care of it, but I like the left wing being blurred like that. Also, the backround and plants would likely be more in focus as well, which would likely make it worse.

Edit: The more I look at it, the more I don't care about the focus. It's great the way it is.

Also, that is one awesome new av, Mully.

Aneurhythmia

MKR, you're not allowed to selectively color anything for the next two years.


Sheri, that background is so smooth that I want to lick it.

foursquareman

Marcus and His Band Of Mysterious Disco Ravens wrote: »

foursquareman: I'm sure that second picture is supposed to be over-exposed, but I think it's too much. The top left corner is hard to look at, and my eyes keep getting drawn back to that spot. I do like the capture, however, I just think that it's a little too blown out.

Thanks! Yeah, I did overexpose it on purpose, but I probably over did it :oops:

verpakeyes

I went hiking today, and I tried to take the advice given, and focus alot more on individual photos. These are the fruits of that labor, these, and a whole bunch of images I am stitching together into panoramas.















P.S.
Sheri that is a gorgeous picture.

Pilcrow

Verpakeyes I want to get closer to those red flowers, have them framed more prominently. It's the only object of interest in the shot. For your angle, however, the composition is pretty good. The aphids on the yellow flower are an interesting detail. I also enjoy the desert wildlife. The view in your third shot is inspiring, though I wonder how much more interesting your landscapes would be at dawn or dusk, or in long exposures taken at night? The contrast here is fairly harsh and the textures are flat, which is a shame given your beautiful surroundings. I was skeptical of the "go out and find the right light" line until I really set out to take more pictures around sunset this week. I've been rejuvenated, creatively speaking. I fell in love with shooting again. I think it would be sweet to take a morning hike this week to somewhere gorgeous and cool. I'll do it if you'll do it, and you can prove me wrong or right.

Lucian

I just purchased the Canon 40D. These pictures were taken using the kit lens (28-135mm f3.5-5.7)





When the weather gets better, I'll be going on some scenic hikes and really see what I've purchased.

Right now I'm looking for a wide-angle lens. I have no clue where to buy one or even what lens is good. I'm not looking to tear off my other arm and leg, nor sacrifice my first born child for it. I want a good lens for taking scenic pictures. Does anyone have any suggestions?

Pilcrow

More pictures at last. Trees are almost as bad to post as pets?







In case anyone has wondered -- I love the 5D. Completely worth it. The viewfinder is bright and clear, and working with a full 35mm frame is lots of fun.

Sheri

yalborap wrote: »

Virum wrote: »

Now I like that one a lot better.

Definitely. Feels quite a bit more dynamic.

Might I ask how you got that shot? Macro lens, zooming in, something else?

Thanks (you two)

Got it with the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at the very closest I could focus.

Marcus and His Band Of Mysterious Disco Ravens wrote: »

Sheri, you do wonderful things with colour. Bright and vibrant, but never too much. God damn you make me jelous sometimes.

Thanks!

mully wrote: »

i like that photo, but to me, the colour of the flowers are trumping that poor butterfly, they also seem to be, to my untrained dumb-eye, more in focus than the butterfly. so i automatically look there first.

I can't help the colors of the flower.

The flowers look 'more' in focus because they aren't as wide. The far wing is thrown out of focus, but the body and most of the near wing (and, because they are on the same plane, the flowers) are right on. Actually, on second glance, the back row of flowers are also out of focus, being on the same plane as the far wing, so it's not really an issue at all, I think.

I could selectively turn down the intensity of the flowers, I suppose, but that feels like cheating, since that's not what my eye saw. The photo isn't just the butterfly -- the butterfly is interacting with the flowers. They're two parts of a whole. So I don't really care if the eye is drawn to one or the other first.

t MKR - Don't ever do that again.

t Annie - Please do not lick your monitor.

This may not have worked, I'm not sure:

McLovin

So I just upgraded from the Sony A100 to the Sony A700...and then bought the 24mm wide angle and the CARL ZEISS PLANAR T 85mm (motherfuckers!) lens to add to keep my 50mm prime company....

Did I say Carl Zeiss 85mm? I know I know, lens don't make the photo....but....

Hey, I'm in Afghanistan, I'm allowed to treat myself, right? And oh the pictures I shall take....

bombardier

Went to an old apothecary today, more coming, mostly of humourous old meds, but I liked this one a lot.

Edit: fixed slant and glare.

anable

McLovin wrote: »

So I just upgraded from the Sony A100 to the Sony A700...and then bought the 24mm wide angle and the CARL ZEISS PLANAR T 85mm (motherfuckers!) lens to add to keep my 50mm prime company....

Did I say Carl Zeiss 85mm? I know I know, lens don't make the photo....but....

Hey, I'm in Afghanistan, I'm allowed to treat myself, right? And oh the pictures I shall take....

Sweet. I can't wait to see what you show us. I still remember your last batch fondly.

bombardier wrote: »

Went to an old apothecary today, more coming, mostly of humourous old meds, but I liked this one a lot.

A real apothecary? Or at some type of museum/themepark?

I love the mood of the picture but the door frame is slanted!

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

bomb: Agreed. I like the mood, but the slant is bothering me. And that little glare, or whatever that white stuff near the bottom is. Overall, still kickass.

pilcrow: Holy shit. That first one is the best forsure. The backround is absolutely amazing. The second one might be a little too bright...maybe. I don't know, I think I take that back. The last one, I really can't make up my mind about. The backround is very nice, but the leaves are a little too dark. The silhouette of the tree needs to be more or less I think. As it stands, I can see a bit of detail, but it makes me want to see more. If that was completely blacked out, I guess it'd solve the problem as well, but it wouldn't save the leaves..Either way, great stuff!

McLovin: Hurry up and show me some pictures. Your last batch was fantastic, and so I can't wait to see what you can do with better gear.

bombardier

It used to be an actual apothecary, but it's more of a museum now. Anyways, I tried fixing the slant as best as possible, things get really difficult when shooting architectural stuff with a full frame 24mm and keeping it straight in some way. Also removed the 'glare' which is just a reflection of something on the other side of the door.

Here's another one that's more 'photo-y'...



Edit: gaaaaaah



Edit 2!: the rest are here if you're curious to look at all the funny old meds: http://iseenothing.com/photos/apothecary/

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

Much better, and I like the shelf one as well. Very "photo-y" indeed.
That looks like a pretty rad place to check out.

erisian pope

Hey dudes! Some great photos on the last few pages. That's right, I'm talkin' to you (points vaguely at everyone here).

Prospicience

Man, I wants me some Healing Oil.

altmann

Memorial Day shots: (golden gate nat'l Cemetary)

Cycophant

Anyone who uses Lightroom that can help me out with this?

I used to use my laptop, where I don't ever remember running into this problem, but it was sent away, so now I'm storing all my photos on my desktop. I've loaded up Canon's DPP program, but I still much prefer using Lightroom to do most of my actual touch-ups and adjustments (plus the workflow is way easier).

Problem is, I'll load up a RAW file in DPP, and it'll look maybe half a stop underexposed. If I load the same, unaltered RAW file into Lightroom, it'll look half a stop overexposed. I'm not sure which one's more "correct", and frankly it doesn't matter, I can adjust either one enough to get the exposure correct. But I'm concerned there's such a huge difference between the two programs.

I assume it's something to do with color profiles and the like, only because the whole "color profile" thing is nothing more than witchcraft in my eyes due to my lack of knowledge.

Can anyone shed a bit of light on this?

Altmann: Nice photos. I'm particularly fond of the first two. The halo in the first shot adds a nice effect, and the pole works well to lead the eye to the subject. The second one I like just due to its simplicity, but also that the exposure seems pretty spot-on, and the DOF is just right (which I seem to be really picky about in photos for some reason).

bombardier

Does the histogram look different between the two programs?

erisian pope

bombardier wrote: »

Does the histogram look different between the two programs?

My thought, too, was to look at the histogram to perceive "real" exposure.

Perhaps you are shooting with your camera in a color-profile that one of the two applications doesn't support? I have my camera set to shoot in sRGB, but perhaps you're using a different setting? It's all I can think of. I haven't installed my Lightroom yet so I haven't experienced your issue.

Pilcrow

Altmann, I like all those shots, but the third and fourth are very moving. Excellent.

2 Marcus 2 Ravens

altmann: Those last two? Oh my God.

anable

Alt: I could have sworn I commented on those pictures, but apparently my message got lost in the void. In any case! The last two are indeed awesome as others have suggested. I've been on a symmetry kick lately though so I can't help but wonder what the last one would look like lined up either directly behind a row or directly between two rows. Either way, great stuff.

contraband

I've driven by that graveyard many times, Altmann, but I've never been on its property. Your pictures are very powerful indeed; the site itself is just unbelievable.

Sporked

A couple I took the other day.

A neat plant thing.


Bored at 230a.


Also:

Dark_Side

All right, I hate to be that guy here, but that 4th shot from Altman...I'm just not feeling it. The differing lines in the picture keep trying to draw my eye all over, it's a bit jarring. But loving the third shot.

I haven't been able to photo much lately, so I decided I would stop off and briefly hike a small portion of the Pacific Crest Trail on my way home from the job site today. I....really have to work on dealing with harsh daytime light, the photos I got were pretty washed out, obviously auto setting the camera just isn't going to do it. Not wanting to call the whole thing a wash, I dicked around in gimp to try a liven up the shots. Not too sure how successful I was. Anyway, crits certainly welcome.

Tried to make the shot look old and vintage.


I found this cool meadow, but was struggling to find an interesting way to photo it. This ended up a bit false colored when I went in to add some life to the shot through GIMP.


Shadow down the center kind of ruins it.

yalborap

So, I went on a photo journey today. Spent a good 3 hours out and about, got some nice images, including one I absolutely love.



^ It's kinda cheesy and really generic, but I saw the bottle there and just kinda ran with it.



^ there's the shot I love. It's just absolutely epic looking to me.



^ Was experimenting with the highest settings on my camera, got this generic shot.



^ And while I forgot my tripod and it was too bright out for a really long exposure, I still got this nice one.



^ And then I just like this shot, even though it's a little flawed compositionally.

So, yeah. Thoughts?

MKR

Sheri wrote: »

t MKR - Don't ever do that again.

I'm not exactly sure what you think I did wrong with that, but this response is awfully rude. I did nothing different from what others have done for me: make a suggested alteration to an image with an example.

Pilcrow

A couple more trees. I'm on a kick.





I took some headshots yesterday; I'll put them up for critique when I finish processing later today. Not my strongest area, but I think some turned out pretty well.

Sheri

MKR wrote: »

Sheri wrote: »

t MKR - Don't ever do that again.

I'm not exactly sure what you think I did wrong with that, but this response is awfully rude. I did nothing different from what others have done for me: make a suggested alteration to an image with an example.

It's also awfully rude to go around editing other people's photos without at least asking them first. I don't think I've ever edited and reposted a photo without first asking the person if I could.

Also, selective coloring is, in most situations, terrible. And I believe you even said it didn't really work (which I went back to verify only to find the post gone, hmm), so it's not like you were offering a suggestion to make it better, you were just like, 'Here, I edited someone's image!'

It was a response to both your editing of my photo, and the way you edited it.

EDIT: I'm not trying to impose rules or whatever, but it struck me as glaringly rude, so I responded not to do it again.

erisian pope

Pilcrow - I am enjoying these recent pics. I like the out-of-focus areas matching the in-focus areas. The repetition is good. In the second one in your latest post the blown-out highlights on the flower kinda detract from the pic in my opinion.

MKR

Responding to perceived rudeness with rudeness?

Bleh. And no, I said "I don't know that it did much." Take it how you will, but I had good intentions, and to me it seemed like you were taking a nice big dump on those good intentions.