Really? I think that is the weakest one. Plus the model has a problem that I like to call "awkward hands" where the model's hands never look natural because of the posing.
I think the last one is the best but her hand also looks odd there. If she was grasping the metal rather than looking like she is holding it up that would be better IMO. The face looks a tiny bit bright in that all the skin looks very flat with no texture but take that with a grain of salt as this monitor is not calibrated.
The first one has interesting shadows but generally you don't want those falling directly on the model's face. If she moved forward so that shadow was on her hair it would look a bit better.
I shall soon have my Europe pictures up BUWHAHAHHahahahah. Then you can see my non-people work and mock me for it.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm going to dissent and say there is nothing interesting about it. The subject matter is not made interesting or saved by the processing / vignetting.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm going to dissent and say there is nothing interesting about it. The subject matter is not made interesting or saved by the processing / vignetting.
I do think it's funny that the woman on the cell phone has an expression on her face as if there actually was a crazy half feline/half man riding a BMX. The picture seems too clear to be a holga.. processing for the vignette or some other "toy" camera?
@Astorite: Second would make a good headshot for some sort of article. Enough room on the left for text.
So I'm strongly considering ditching all my Pentax digital gear and moving to a Canon system. I can probably get back almost exactly what I paid for most everything in my kit (yay for buying cheap and used) which would leave me with ~$2.5k to buy a Canon digital system. Used 5D, 17-40 f4, 50mm prime and 85mm prime would give a good landscape to portrait range of 17-85mm while I save my pennies for a 70-200 of some sort. I have a solid Pentax film system and a steady supply of cheap film/free chemicals to tide me over while I locate and buy everything above used. Keeping in mind that I'd like to eventually start shooting weddings and already love landscape work: Someone, talking me out of/into it!
Obilex, the punchy saturation/contrast that seems particularly heavy around the rider's head is so different from the rest of the shot I was rather convinced the head was PSed in, until I saw all these other comments not mentioning it. Tone down whatever localized adjustments you have in that area and it's a moderately interesting shot. Vignette is too heavy for my tastes.
Astorite, I'm with CC on this one. Inconsistent WB in the series also causes her skin colour to fluctuate a bit much for my liking. The wide angle distortion in 3 really isn't doing her any favours, either. 2 is a good headshot but has too much dead space - like BladeX says, it looks like there's text missing from the left hand side.
I went out to shoot the downtown skyline during Earth Hour 2009 only to find that it didn't change, at all, during the hour. Gave me another chance at a plain skyline shot, though - it's hard when your tallest building is tiny.
Astorite: The biggest thing for me is they don't pop out as say, "modeling" shots. If you tweaked the PP a little maybe I'd change my mind. What CC/DM said about the skin tones is right on, and it's something I think everyone struggles with a lot. Google "correct skin tone curves layer" as there's a formula you can use to correct the variation.
CC: Welcome back! Can't wait to see the pictures. I love Europe because of course, the grass is greener.
DM: Once I found out about the 5D 17-40 4L combo it made me want to beat myself over the head for switching to Nikon. I'd say skip the 50 at first and get the 85 1.8, then see if you need that gap filled. Wait, aren't you the one always pushing people towards Pentax? I guess you finally have contracted envy like the rest of us .
Well, Pentax Canada just raised the prices of all their gear some 60-100%, meaning to replace the DA*50-135 f/2.8 I bought for $650 used ($900 at the time new) would be a cool $1800 + tax new now. This does not bode well for Canadian camera stores continuing to stock Pentax products. I'm perfectly happy with my K10D, but I'm afraid the company may either go under or cease production of new cameras/lenses, and want to sell while my lenses still seem to be worth more than I bought them for. Well, that and the AF speed issues and the no FF body and no plans for a FF body and high ISO noise…
Yeah, I caught the envy. Skip the 50mm? Really? I realize the 17-40 can get close to 50mm on the long end, but the cost of 1.5 stops seems pretty damn steep.
Oh fucking great, my 24mm F/1.4L is busted. I can hear an element moving inside and it doesn't focus right.
Ugh. It's under warranty and there's no damage to it from the outside, so I should be ok. Still annoying because I have to do a shoot on Saturday. :x
Dark Moon: The 5D would suit the kind of work I've seen you do, and it would suit it quite well at a reasonable price. You should have very acute coverage in the range you've mentioned, and, for the money, it's a pretty killer combination.
That being said, I'm glad you're sticking with Pentax for film. I just shot a roll of Tri-X through my 67 this afternoon, and it's good to know I'm not the only one roaming these boards with some solid old Pentax gear.
I got a new Tokina 11-16 2.8, but it's been snowing out every day. I decided on a flower picture just because I've never done one. 2 minute exposure light painted with a keychain LED. I need to use an opaque vase that reflects light next time...
Dark Moon: The 5D would suit the kind of work I've seen you do, and it would suit it quite well at a reasonable price. You should have very acute coverage in the range you've mentioned, and, for the money, it's a pretty killer combination.
That being said, I'm glad you're sticking with Pentax for film. I just shot a roll of Tri-X through my 67 this afternoon, and it's good to know I'm not the only one roaming these boards with some solid old Pentax gear.
Good to hear! The more I consider it the more I'm getting set on the 5D. The full frame advantage is huge, and you can't get an FF Nikon for anywhere near the cost of a used 5D. Being a Pentax man, I'm also pretty fond of primes, which Nikon isn't too sweet on.
I will definitely keep my LX for film work, though. I love that little camera, and with my university photo club providing damn near free film and completely free chemicals (along with a lovely dark room) it will continue to see a lot of action even after I have a hot new digital body. Have you scanned any shots out of your 67 yet? For some reason I thought you had a Bronica - did you, or am I crazy?
nO, thanks for the tutorial. I might have to set something like that up for a portfolio shoot I have this Saturday.
dagook - Lovely light painting! Regarding the vase, you might be able to get faux rim lighting by painting from an angle nearly perpendicular to the camera right next to the vase - which would look rather neat and highlight the shape of the vase nicely (without filling it with white, distracting light like an opaque one would).
Thanks enormously for the crits, and for pointing out the search for skin tone correction. I didn't even think about the girl's hands, honestly; I need to get more used to directing the model. I'm gonna try with another shoot this Friday, so I'll keep you guys' comments in mind.
Dagook: I think it came out nicely even with the see-through vase; it's got a nice fade-to-black look that makes it all that more surreal. The whole thing does seem to be leaning a bit to the right, which actually makes it seem like its falling in space.
NeedOptic: Neat setup, been thinking about building something similar for a while. I bet with a bit more time and some larger PVC mixed in you could make it collapsible too.
I had enough time to process a single photo last night. WOO!
I like how it looks on my home monitor but I'm not as happy with it on my work monitor so I might consider revising it later but here is quick attempt numero uno
Park Guell in Barcelona:
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
edited April 2009
Finally got around to processing some pictures I took a couple of weeks ago.
Also, I learned an important lesson when shooting in public. Either don't get seen taking pictures, or make sure you ask people if it's ok.
Dark Moon: The 5D would suit the kind of work I've seen you do, and it would suit it quite well at a reasonable price. You should have very acute coverage in the range you've mentioned, and, for the money, it's a pretty killer combination.
That being said, I'm glad you're sticking with Pentax for film. I just shot a roll of Tri-X through my 67 this afternoon, and it's good to know I'm not the only one roaming these boards with some solid old Pentax gear.
Good to hear! The more I consider it the more I'm getting set on the 5D. The full frame advantage is huge, and you can't get an FF Nikon for anywhere near the cost of a used 5D. Being a Pentax man, I'm also pretty fond of primes, which Nikon isn't too sweet on.
I will definitely keep my LX for film work, though. I love that little camera, and with my university photo club providing damn near free film and completely free chemicals (along with a lovely dark room) it will continue to see a lot of action even after I have a hot new digital body. Have you scanned any shots out of your 67 yet? For some reason I thought you had a Bronica - did you, or am I crazy?
You are crazy! I've got a Mamiya RB67, which is what you were probably thinking of, as well as a Pentax 67. Unfortunately I don't own a scanner, as I have full and free access to a fully stocked darkroom when I need to make prints, but I'm looking to pick up something on the cheap for digitizing my slides and negs for web use. I've been looking at the Epson V500 and the Canon Canoscan 8800F, but I haven't really been looking that hard.
Even though I'm a Nikon (Digital) shooter, you're right on in your assessment. And, even though I need the speed offered by my current set up, the 5D is at a killer price right for a great body and definitely has me looking wistfully over the other side of the fence.
Uncle I was wondering if you had any comments on that park guell shot or the PSing on it (since you do more outdoor stuff and seem to be pretty good at processing such things).
Also I was wondering if anyone has a method for blending things of different brightness. For example in that shot I did some exposure bracketing to get the sky nicely exposed and the foreground wall nicely exposed. I then put the bright foreground in a layer and hid all and then used an overly large brush to paint in the areas I want to show. Then once I'm done with that I change it back to black and still use a large brush to go over the areas that I made too bright (such as the sky) but didn't want to. I repeat this process till I get the edges looking ok, but I'm still a little annoyed by the edges not looking perfect. I would usually change the opacity of the foreground down a bit to blend better with the background but the two images didn't line up perfectly and thus with a lower opacity it looks kind of blurry. I'm considering just using a single image and doing a curves layer on the foreground and doing the same thing with the brush blending on the layer mask so I can do the opacity adjustment to blend it better.
This method seems to work better than using smaller brushes or trying to use selection tools, but I was wondering if anyone had any better methods.
Edit: In other news I learned you can't do HDR without using a tripod because the images don't line up exactly which I figured the software would have a method of rotating the images or something to make it line up.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Sure, it's a nice shot. The problem that you mentioned is the primary issue. You've got about 60% of the most interesting detail in the shot flattened out by shadow. Chances are you didn't have a strobe set up to balance the lighting, so now you've got to do it in post-processing. Keep playing around with your fill light and I think you'll have it. Also look at adjusting color channel luminance and see if that doesn't bring out some vibrance in the foreground.
The perspective is interesting, I'm guessing you were using a wide angle, seeing as how your foreground object is taller than that tower in the background. The only problem is that you've got the tower right where I'd have put it, but you've also get that little incongruous bit of architecture pitted in the bottom left hand corner, which I'm sure is interesting when you're there, but it takes my attention away from the more prominent aspects the longer I look at it.
Also, and this you have less control of, the lighting on the tower is far more dynamic. This plays into that original problem you mentioned with the shadows, but it more or less inverts the focus of the piece from that foreground archi. to the tower in the background, when all other compositional details, the lines as well as the wide angle perspective, maintain that the foreground should be the focus, or, go the opposite way and darken those shadows and crop a little closer to really accentuate that tower (second suggestion is a new one and I'm not sure if it would turn out). The only real solid solution for that, at least from what I can tell from the photo, would be to wait until the sun was in the other part of the sky, or control the lighting on your own.
All in all, I look forward to seeing what else you shoot this way.
So I'm strongly considering ditching all my Pentax digital gear and moving to a Canon system. I can probably get back almost exactly what I paid for most everything in my kit (yay for buying cheap and used) which would leave me with ~$2.5k to buy a Canon digital system. Used 5D, 17-40 f4, 50mm prime and 85mm prime would give a good landscape to portrait range of 17-85mm while I save my pennies for a 70-200 of some sort. I have a solid Pentax film system and a steady supply of cheap film/free chemicals to tide me over while I locate and buy everything above used. Keeping in mind that I'd like to eventually start shooting weddings and already love landscape work: Someone, talking me out of/into it!
Do it. Getting a 5D was the best camera decision I ever made. The big bright viewfinder is worth it alone. My 20D always gave me trouble with manual focusing and composing because of how small and dim the viewfinder was. Now I just don't think about my camera anymore, it does what I need it to do and it does it easily. Also, having lenses work at the field of view that they were designed for is awesome. I've found new love for my 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 is spectacular on the 5D.
saltiness on
XBL: heavenkils
0
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
So I'm strongly considering ditching all my Pentax digital gear and moving to a Canon system. I can probably get back almost exactly what I paid for most everything in my kit (yay for buying cheap and used) which would leave me with ~$2.5k to buy a Canon digital system. Used 5D, 17-40 f4, 50mm prime and 85mm prime would give a good landscape to portrait range of 17-85mm while I save my pennies for a 70-200 of some sort. I have a solid Pentax film system and a steady supply of cheap film/free chemicals to tide me over while I locate and buy everything above used. Keeping in mind that I'd like to eventually start shooting weddings and already love landscape work: Someone, talking me out of/into it!
Do it. Getting a 5D was the best camera decision I ever made. The big bright viewfinder is worth it alone. My 20D always gave me trouble with manual focusing and composing because of how small and dim the viewfinder was. Now I just don't think about my camera anymore, it does what I need it to do and it does it easily. Also, having lenses work at the field of view that they were designed for is awesome. I've found new love for my 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 is spectacular on the 5D.
Haha everyone is moving to the 5D lately. It is so gorgeous.
Yea I was fine with my 10d out in Europe because I was less worried about a camera worth 300-400 dollars than my 1,500 dollar camera. There were a few times when I wish I had the 5d because I had to shoot at high ISO but the peace of mind was worth the trade off.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Haha whoa. Both of those seem really far from the normal stuff I'm used to seeing on these forums. I dig em both especially the one by Muninn. I love the DOF on it. The highlight areas make it look like a 3d rendering.
I'm actually liking that quite a bit Salti, very different and very... angelic? Angels wear scarves right?
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE 5D, AAAAACK I WANT ONE.
salti, that is a really awesome look. As always, I have quibbles. White lines on the right side of the frame and just above the figure - distracting and easily removed. I also really wish the girl had been positioned such that all of her scarf was in frame during every exposure, but that one’s not so easy a fix. Still a kickass image and a look I hope you develop further.
muninn, I dig that shot. Very much. Where did you shoot such a collection of statues?
Prosp, love the first shot. I’m not feeling the second. Too much shadow in the face, no detail in the dress, weird expression on the model and way too much needlessly dead frame. Third is better, but it still feels a bit awkward with her being clipped off at the knees. If you had gotten a bit higher and aimed down more, you could’ve captured the whole model and the background at only the cost of the unlit bit at the top of the current shot. Is that a really old house with shifted doorframes, or is it wide angle distortion causing none of the doors to line up? Your central verticals are vertical but the horizontal portion of the middle doorframe is a good 1° off horizontal. This doesn’t really bother me - it lends itself to the creepy setting of the shot - but I’d be interested in how it was accomplished.
Some new film stuff. I believe I scanned these negatives before they had time to flatten post-drying, so they’re not as sharp as I’d like. At web sizes, though, they’re not too bad. Forgive the black/white bars on the edges of some frames - I got lazy when scanning and forgot to fix my laziness afterward. I'll replace them with properly cropped images soon.
I'm quite conflicted about this next one. Did I get the dark, horror-ish look I was going for, or is it just a black blob running at my heavy-black-clipping mother?
The statue image is ... conflicting. Which is good. Made me go back and look at it multiple times.
Moon - the through the block one is neat, and the snowy street. The inside shot with the black blob I don't get.
So a local photog is selling a 1DMkII with 14k clicks on it for $875USD/$1100CAD. This is $400CAD under the going price for a 5D in decent shape as well as under the going rate for a 1DMkII in town. How big of a step sideways would that camera be compared to a 5D?
nO, cool texture. What's up with the date/graphic?
So a local photog is selling a 1DMkII with 14k clicks on it for $875USD/$1100CAD. This is $400CAD under the going price for a 5D in decent shape as well as under the going rate for a 1DMkII in town. How big of a step sideways would that camera be compared to a 5D?
nO, cool texture. What's up with the date/graphic?
Get the 5D. It's the right camera for you. The allure of the pro body is understandable, but the pros of the 5D for your style and what I've seen so far will far outweigh any advantages offered by the mkII. If it was the 1ds mkII, then perhaps there might be some more consideration, but it's not.
Posts
this is great.
Really? I think that is the weakest one. Plus the model has a problem that I like to call "awkward hands" where the model's hands never look natural because of the posing.
I think the last one is the best but her hand also looks odd there. If she was grasping the metal rather than looking like she is holding it up that would be better IMO. The face looks a tiny bit bright in that all the skin looks very flat with no texture but take that with a grain of salt as this monitor is not calibrated.
The first one has interesting shadows but generally you don't want those falling directly on the model's face. If she moved forward so that shadow was on her hair it would look a bit better.
I shall soon have my Europe pictures up BUWHAHAHHahahahah. Then you can see my non-people work and mock me for it.
I'm going to dissent and say there is nothing interesting about it. The subject matter is not made interesting or saved by the processing / vignetting.
Kidding!
I do think it's funny that the woman on the cell phone has an expression on her face as if there actually was a crazy half feline/half man riding a BMX. The picture seems too clear to be a holga.. processing for the vignette or some other "toy" camera?
@Astorite: Second would make a good headshot for some sort of article. Enough room on the left for text.
Obilex, the punchy saturation/contrast that seems particularly heavy around the rider's head is so different from the rest of the shot I was rather convinced the head was PSed in, until I saw all these other comments not mentioning it. Tone down whatever localized adjustments you have in that area and it's a moderately interesting shot. Vignette is too heavy for my tastes.
Astorite, I'm with CC on this one. Inconsistent WB in the series also causes her skin colour to fluctuate a bit much for my liking. The wide angle distortion in 3 really isn't doing her any favours, either. 2 is a good headshot but has too much dead space - like BladeX says, it looks like there's text missing from the left hand side.
I went out to shoot the downtown skyline during Earth Hour 2009 only to find that it didn't change, at all, during the hour. Gave me another chance at a plain skyline shot, though - it's hard when your tallest building is tiny.
CC: Welcome back! Can't wait to see the pictures. I love Europe because of course, the grass is greener.
DM: Once I found out about the 5D 17-40 4L combo it made me want to beat myself over the head for switching to Nikon. I'd say skip the 50 at first and get the 85 1.8, then see if you need that gap filled. Wait, aren't you the one always pushing people towards Pentax? I guess you finally have contracted envy like the rest of us
Yeah, I caught the envy. Skip the 50mm? Really? I realize the 17-40 can get close to 50mm on the long end, but the cost of 1.5 stops seems pretty damn steep.
DM - That's a really sharp night shot, even at large size so kudos on that. And the exposure is pretty much perfect too. Just technically fantastic.
Ugh. It's under warranty and there's no damage to it from the outside, so I should be ok. Still annoying because I have to do a shoot on Saturday. :x
That being said, I'm glad you're sticking with Pentax for film. I just shot a roll of Tri-X through my 67 this afternoon, and it's good to know I'm not the only one roaming these boards with some solid old Pentax gear.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Full article here:
http://www.needoptic.com/articles/cheap-backdrop-stand.aspx
Good to hear! The more I consider it the more I'm getting set on the 5D. The full frame advantage is huge, and you can't get an FF Nikon for anywhere near the cost of a used 5D. Being a Pentax man, I'm also pretty fond of primes, which Nikon isn't too sweet on.
I will definitely keep my LX for film work, though. I love that little camera, and with my university photo club providing damn near free film and completely free chemicals (along with a lovely dark room) it will continue to see a lot of action even after I have a hot new digital body. Have you scanned any shots out of your 67 yet? For some reason I thought you had a Bronica - did you, or am I crazy?
nO, thanks for the tutorial. I might have to set something like that up for a portfolio shoot I have this Saturday.
dagook - Lovely light painting! Regarding the vase, you might be able to get faux rim lighting by painting from an angle nearly perpendicular to the camera right next to the vase - which would look rather neat and highlight the shape of the vase nicely (without filling it with white, distracting light like an opaque one would).
Dagook: I think it came out nicely even with the see-through vase; it's got a nice fade-to-black look that makes it all that more surreal. The whole thing does seem to be leaning a bit to the right, which actually makes it seem like its falling in space.
NeedOptic: Neat setup, been thinking about building something similar for a while. I bet with a bit more time and some larger PVC mixed in you could make it collapsible too.
Also, others seen this set? Linked two in particular: http://www.flickr.com/photos/laserbread/3226351837/in/set-72157612019716787/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/laserbread/3163793456/in/set-72157612019716787/
I like how it looks on my home monitor but I'm not as happy with it on my work monitor so I might consider revising it later but here is quick attempt numero uno
Park Guell in Barcelona:
Also, I learned an important lesson when shooting in public. Either don't get seen taking pictures, or make sure you ask people if it's ok.
This guy was not pleased at all.
You are crazy! I've got a Mamiya RB67, which is what you were probably thinking of, as well as a Pentax 67. Unfortunately I don't own a scanner, as I have full and free access to a fully stocked darkroom when I need to make prints, but I'm looking to pick up something on the cheap for digitizing my slides and negs for web use. I've been looking at the Epson V500 and the Canon Canoscan 8800F, but I haven't really been looking that hard.
Even though I'm a Nikon (Digital) shooter, you're right on in your assessment. And, even though I need the speed offered by my current set up, the 5D is at a killer price right for a great body and definitely has me looking wistfully over the other side of the fence.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
With the wall being so low, it completely throws my sense of scale off and he looks like a strange midget instead of a kid.
Also I was wondering if anyone has a method for blending things of different brightness. For example in that shot I did some exposure bracketing to get the sky nicely exposed and the foreground wall nicely exposed. I then put the bright foreground in a layer and hid all and then used an overly large brush to paint in the areas I want to show. Then once I'm done with that I change it back to black and still use a large brush to go over the areas that I made too bright (such as the sky) but didn't want to. I repeat this process till I get the edges looking ok, but I'm still a little annoyed by the edges not looking perfect. I would usually change the opacity of the foreground down a bit to blend better with the background but the two images didn't line up perfectly and thus with a lower opacity it looks kind of blurry. I'm considering just using a single image and doing a curves layer on the foreground and doing the same thing with the brush blending on the layer mask so I can do the opacity adjustment to blend it better.
This method seems to work better than using smaller brushes or trying to use selection tools, but I was wondering if anyone had any better methods.
Edit: In other news I learned you can't do HDR without using a tripod because the images don't line up exactly which I figured the software would have a method of rotating the images or something to make it line up.
The perspective is interesting, I'm guessing you were using a wide angle, seeing as how your foreground object is taller than that tower in the background. The only problem is that you've got the tower right where I'd have put it, but you've also get that little incongruous bit of architecture pitted in the bottom left hand corner, which I'm sure is interesting when you're there, but it takes my attention away from the more prominent aspects the longer I look at it.
Also, and this you have less control of, the lighting on the tower is far more dynamic. This plays into that original problem you mentioned with the shadows, but it more or less inverts the focus of the piece from that foreground archi. to the tower in the background, when all other compositional details, the lines as well as the wide angle perspective, maintain that the foreground should be the focus, or, go the opposite way and darken those shadows and crop a little closer to really accentuate that tower (second suggestion is a new one and I'm not sure if it would turn out). The only real solid solution for that, at least from what I can tell from the photo, would be to wait until the sun was in the other part of the sky, or control the lighting on your own.
All in all, I look forward to seeing what else you shoot this way.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Do it. Getting a 5D was the best camera decision I ever made. The big bright viewfinder is worth it alone. My 20D always gave me trouble with manual focusing and composing because of how small and dim the viewfinder was. Now I just don't think about my camera anymore, it does what I need it to do and it does it easily. Also, having lenses work at the field of view that they were designed for is awesome. I've found new love for my 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8 is spectacular on the 5D.
Stop it. I can't afford a 5D right now.
Stop it.
Do it. The 5d will love you and make your whole world better. *chants slowly* 5555d 55555d 55555d
I'm happy with the 1000D...
I'm happy with the 1000D...
*curls up into a ball and rocks back and forth*
Yea I was fine with my 10d out in Europe because I was less worried about a camera worth 300-400 dollars than my 1,500 dollar camera. There were a few times when I wish I had the 5d because I had to shoot at high ISO but the peace of mind was worth the trade off.
Although seriously, from what I've read and seen of the 5D to add on to everyone else's coments Dark Moon, you can't go wrong with the 5D.
Is that just a ridiculous amount of painting with light?
Yup. Actually painting with flash so I could get the scarf frozen. I think I popped the flash about 200 times for that one.
STOP TALKING ABOUT THE 5D, AAAAACK I WANT ONE.
More from this weekend.
My Portfolio Site
muninn, I dig that shot. Very much. Where did you shoot such a collection of statues?
Prosp, love the first shot. I’m not feeling the second. Too much shadow in the face, no detail in the dress, weird expression on the model and way too much needlessly dead frame. Third is better, but it still feels a bit awkward with her being clipped off at the knees. If you had gotten a bit higher and aimed down more, you could’ve captured the whole model and the background at only the cost of the unlit bit at the top of the current shot. Is that a really old house with shifted doorframes, or is it wide angle distortion causing none of the doors to line up? Your central verticals are vertical but the horizontal portion of the middle doorframe is a good 1° off horizontal. This doesn’t really bother me - it lends itself to the creepy setting of the shot - but I’d be interested in how it was accomplished.
Some new film stuff. I believe I scanned these negatives before they had time to flatten post-drying, so they’re not as sharp as I’d like. At web sizes, though, they’re not too bad. Forgive the black/white bars on the edges of some frames - I got lazy when scanning and forgot to fix my laziness afterward. I'll replace them with properly cropped images soon.
I'm quite conflicted about this next one. Did I get the dark, horror-ish look I was going for, or is it just a black blob running at my heavy-black-clipping mother?
Oh, and this image was taken three days ago.
I hate this city.
Moon - the through the block one is neat, and the snowy street. The inside shot with the black blob I don't get.
I'm messing with textures, still.
nO, cool texture. What's up with the date/graphic?
Get the 5D. It's the right camera for you. The allure of the pro body is understandable, but the pros of the 5D for your style and what I've seen so far will far outweigh any advantages offered by the mkII. If it was the 1ds mkII, then perhaps there might be some more consideration, but it's not.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Dear god the sheep are attacking!