The light is way too harsh, there's very few photographers who get good shots in the mid-day sun and desert mid-day sun is the worst of the worst.
I'm honestly a bit of a fan of the harsh light, but I can see how not everyone would be.
Think the composition and such works well enough, though? I can't really control the sun, so I might as well worry more about the bits I can control in my effort to improve.
The light is way too harsh, there's very few photographers who get good shots in the mid-day sun and desert mid-day sun is the worst of the worst.
I'm honestly a bit of a fan of the harsh light, but I can see how not everyone would be.
Think the composition and such works well enough, though? I can't really control the sun, so I might as well worry more about the bits I can control in my effort to improve.
All those photos look rather flat, you should definitely try another time of day. If that fails, try different post-processing methods and see what you come up with. Play around with curves and try to get some nice contrast going.
Will do. I'll also have access to a flash soon, so I'll tinker with it once I've got it running and see if I can't make some more interesting shots with it.
I've been taking photos for a while (pretty much entirely digital), and while I come up with some decent shots from time to time, I just don't feel like I'm hitting any sweet spots, or consistency... and generally find other people's photographs much more awesome than my own. Is that an uncommon feeling? Am I just psyching myself out? (I am happy to accept that I truly suck, if that be the case.)
I tried an experiment recently to try and focus strictly on the image itself, realizing that for my photography, I am the most important piece of equipment. So this experiment was done with my iPhone, no post-processing, and an exact number of photos (no delete/reshoots, no select M from N).
I tried to be more careful about my shots (especially considering the iPhone's lack of zoom, low res, and inability to focus at close range), but I'm just not finding "my theme" or consistency in my work. Of those 25 photos in that experiment, I'm loving maybe 3-5 and liking perhaps 10, but the rest just don't grab me.
Couple of the shots I liked the best from this experiment:
I suppose I like better the photos from my D50 where I have flexibility in control and better res, etc., but that doesn't really change the issue that I'm still not finding what grabs me.
And..... yay for harsh midday sun and boring american suburbia:
I think this is actually my favorite shot of yours - ever. The composition is good and the zig-zagging fences, silly trees, kids toys and tacky lawn furniture are hilarious and just so typical. The perfect blue sky and green grass top it all off. The only thing I would change if it were my shot would be to crop out the left sixth or so of the image because it gets a little boring over there with the blankness of the tree and bare lawn.
saltiness on
XBL: heavenkils
0
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Yeah I gotta say optic, for harsh mid-day sun, it doesn't look that harsh, you kicked the shit out of shit light.
Yeah, you did GOOD. It doesn't quite seem your usual style, but it's quality work all the same.
Have any of you used the 'CTR-301' wireless flash triggers? I've heard that they're about as good as you can get from an Ebay Hong Kong special from some other sites, but I'd love to hear some personal opinions from you guys, since I can't exactly afford Pocket Wizards.
I really really need a wide wide angle lens.
Took this with my friends kit lens because I am a sad broke man. This is the New River Gorge bridge, the third tallest bridge in the world and quite impressive. I took the (terrifying) drive down the old road to this view.
This needs about ten times more love. The lack of contrast in the trees creates a soft, velvety texture which is echoed everywhere in the image aside from the bridge. And even it is softened and framed perfectly by fog at both ends.
It's just a gorgeous, well-thought-out, well-captured shot. My favorite in several pages. I feel like it froze and transmitted to me what must have been a pretty breath-taking moment. And that makes it a successful photo.
I want to see it huge. On my wall.
:^:
Edit: just clicked through to the original. At full size, it almost looks a little too softly focused, and some detail is lost to that combined with grain. I still think it's a great shot, but that might hinder it from making a nice, large print.
Yeah I gotta say optic, for harsh mid-day sun, it doesn't look that harsh, you kicked the shit out of shit light.
Man, this sounds like something the Angry Video Game Nerd would say. The new Angry Photography Nerd: "He kicked the fucking shit out of that shit light! Mid-day sun's just a shit load of fuck!"
I like this image, are you sure you did not use any filters or was there any post processing done? I find it hard to believe that you did not get any over exposure.
hmxmoss - I think you're on a good track. It sounds like you are working at thinking about your photography and I think that's an important aspect. I agree with you that the human taking the picture is the most important element. I have found that what helped me grow in my ability to create interesting photos (I like to flatter myself :-)) was largely time/effort. I have more of a concept now than I used to about what constitutes an interesting photo, and that's a result of taking thousands and thousands of pictures and for the most part doing so with conscious intent. The other important element for me in developing my ''eye" was/is critiquing photos. I critique my own when I sit at my computer and look at them, and I critique others' works here and on a couple other forums. Trying to reason out what appeals to me in someone else's picture helps me learn to think about, design, etc my own photos.
Gafoots - I love the bridge shot, too. It's exceptionally good.
needO - I like the crazy-saturated suburban shots. If you crop 1/6 off of the one shot, you'll lose the joint in the fence where it changes angles. This might detract some, so if you try it, pay attention to that. Foliage shot is swanky, too. Is your vignetting due to the larger sensor (non-APC / full-frame sensor)?
Kworn - all of my shots have post processing. I use Lightroom exclusively and curve the shit out of them... that being said, however, my post processing here was used to flatten the shot and bring up the saturation. Midday shots won't be blown if you expose properly and on a good sensor RAW files can recover a lot of highlights and shadows. I also used a polarizer to deepen the sky.
Pope - yep, full frame sensor and the 24mm wide open. The Mark I 24mm has some serious vignetting shot wide open... and I really like it.
So what do you guys think of the new signature below?
...it's the same as before - a horizontal strip?
This was the previous one:
I wanted to put in more of my recent work and some of my political stuff. Can you guys tell the person on the right is Zach Braff (from Scrubs and Garden State). One of my friends couldn't tell so I'm considering replacing him with a picture of hilary clinton or michelle obama.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Kworn - all of my shots have post processing. I use Lightroom exclusively and curve the shit out of them... that being said, however, my post processing here was used to flatten the shot and bring up the saturation. Midday shots won't be blown if you expose properly and on a good sensor RAW files can recover a lot of highlights and shadows. I also used a polarizer to deepen the sky.
Pope - yep, full frame sensor and the 24mm wide open. The Mark I 24mm has some serious vignetting shot wide open... and I really like it.
Right, I am switching my camera to RAW. Starting to get fed up with overexposure.
I have Photoshop 7, is it easy to fiddle with the contrast/Exposeure etc in Photoshop? I use Photoshop rarely only for resizing bordering and B+W stuff. I like to take a picture and keep it as is, in it's purest form or else I feel like I am cheating somehow o_O
Kworn - all of my shots have post processing. I use Lightroom exclusively and curve the shit out of them... that being said, however, my post processing here was used to flatten the shot and bring up the saturation. Midday shots won't be blown if you expose properly and on a good sensor RAW files can recover a lot of highlights and shadows. I also used a polarizer to deepen the sky.
Pope - yep, full frame sensor and the 24mm wide open. The Mark I 24mm has some serious vignetting shot wide open... and I really like it.
Right, I am switching my camera to RAW. Starting to get fed up with overexposure.
I have Photoshop 7, is it easy to fiddle with the contrast/Exposeure etc in Photoshop? I use Photoshop rarely only for resizing bordering and B+W stuff. I like to take a picture and keep it as is, in it's purest form or else I feel like I am cheating somehow o_O
Photoshop has options like exposure, levels, curves, brightness/contrast etc. Just think of a RAW file as a film negative you are developing and it won't feel like cheating! Yes it's best to get in the habit of getting a good exposure in camera but if you fuck it up a bit at least you know you can fix it afterwards.
Commie - The one guy in the knit cap doesn't visually match the other images. You might consider re-processing the image to match or maybe selecting a different image.
Right, I am switching my camera to RAW. Starting to get fed up with overexposure.
I have Photoshop 7, is it easy to fiddle with the contrast/Exposeure etc in Photoshop? I use Photoshop rarely only for resizing bordering and B+W stuff. I like to take a picture and keep it as is, in it's purest form or else I feel like I am cheating somehow o_O
You might be able to get the RAW plugin for 7, still. Not sure though, but check Adobe's website.
Oh shit, I forgot that 7 needed the Photoshop Camera Raw & JPEG 2000 plug-in bundle. Since I'm bored at work I tried searching Adobe's site for you and couldn't find it. Doing a Google search brings up a bunch of reviews for it and some sites that can't be mentioned here. Was it originally a purchase or a free download?
EDIT: Oh well with CS I can't see it being a problem as long as your RAW updates are up to date enough to include your camera model.
Right, I am switching my camera to RAW. Starting to get fed up with overexposure.
I have Photoshop 7, is it easy to fiddle with the contrast/Exposeure etc in Photoshop? I use Photoshop rarely only for resizing bordering and B+W stuff. I like to take a picture and keep it as is, in it's purest form or else I feel like I am cheating somehow o_O
You might be able to get the RAW plugin for 7, still. Not sure though, but check Adobe's website.
It's your choice whether you keep an image as it comes out of camera or modify the hell out of it.
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
It's your choice whether you keep an image as it comes out of camera or modify the hell out of it.
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
I think I'd be a bit concerned if someone's post-processing work flow included created a new layer, pissed all over it, Created a new rape adjustment
It's your choice whether you keep an image as it comes out of camera or modify the hell out of it.
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
This this this.
I'm so sick of people who take a dogmatic approach to art and photography in particular and feel that using photoshop is some kind of crime in the image making process.
I think I'd be a bit concerned if someone's post-processing work flow included created a new layer, pissed all over it, Created a new rape adjustment
I'm 100% certain someone pissed on film at some point in time.
It's how we got sepia-tone, actually.
(cue someone going to wiki to prove me wrong on my poor attempt at a joke)
Edit: Here are some things. This place is hard to get to, so I kind of got boned on the weather and really have no idea if/when I'll be able to get back. It spends a lot of time under water.
And here are some things that are completely unrelated.
It's your choice whether you keep an image as it comes out of camera or modify the hell out of it.
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
This this this.
I'm so sick of people who take a dogmatic approach to art and photography in particular and feel that using photoshop is some kind of crime in the image making process.
I see use of Photoshop as being potentially akin to film developers adjusting their chemical solutions and their use of dodging and burning (Ansel Adams did a lot of this).
I say potentially because digital collages and manipulations on that level are (I think) part of why some people have that "straight out of camera" fascination.
I think I'd be a bit concerned if someone's post-processing work flow included created a new layer, pissed all over it, Created a new rape adjustment
I'm 100% certain someone pissed on film at some point in time.
It's how we got sepia-tone, actually.
(cue someone going to wiki to prove me wrong on my poor attempt at a joke)
I only considered it, in my defence.
Also, while I wouldn't say I'm sick of it, I do generally agree with saltiness and erisian pope; a lot of the tools you find in Photoshop came about from analogs in the traditional darkroom; brighness/contrast adjustments, dodging/burning, even unsharp mask (and apparently, same goes for some of the crazier ones, like solarization). I seem to recall reading something about Ansel Adams or some other revered photographer saying something along the lines of 90% of a photo comes from what's done in the darkroom.
That said, I do also think that it can become too easy for people to try to correct their mistakes in post-processing rather than take steps to avoid them in the photo itself; like nO said, in the end, all that matters is the final image, but getting good exposure, colour balance, composition, etc. from the beginning gives you more to work with, and thus a better final image.
It's your choice whether you keep an image as it comes out of camera or modify the hell out of it.
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
This this this.
I'm so sick of people who take a dogmatic approach to art and photography in particular and feel that using photoshop is some kind of crime in the image making process.
I see use of Photoshop as being potentially akin to film developers adjusting their chemical solutions and their use of dodging and burning (Ansel Adams did a lot of this).
I say potentially because digital collages and manipulations on that level are (I think) part of why some people have that "straight out of camera" fascination.
In my experience most of the people who are against photoshop simply don't know how to use it and believe that the computer is making all decisions and doing everything for you. So they see no parallels between traditional processing and digital processing. If they knew how to use it they would see that it's basically the same thing.
As for the whole "PS is cheating" thing, I think that its perfectly acceptable and is almost a necessity if you are going to compare your photos to anyone else's and try to improve. Pretty much all professional photography (except photo journalism) involves PSing of some kind to make your image the best it can possibly be. Also, what pope said about dark room work. The idea that you are trying to 'capture reality at the moment of exposure' is a lie in itself because the optics and basic properties of a camera aren't going to 'capture' reality the way you see it. A camera doesn't have the same dynamic range as an eye does. The same applies to DOF, view angle of a lens, iso/brightness, etc.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
That said, I do also think that it can become too easy for people to try to correct their mistakes in post-processing rather than take steps to avoid them in the photo itself; like nO said, in the end, all that matters is the final image, but getting good exposure, colour balance, composition, etc. from the beginning gives you more to work with, and thus a better final image.
I don't think the ease of corrections necessarily makes it cheating. Also you still have to know what you are doing with a camera to come out with a good final image. I've seen so many bad images over the years where a ton of PSing has been done on it but that doesn't save the image from sucking because the original photo sucked. I will admit I am guilty of doing that.
I like to think of it as icing on a cake. If you bake a cake right and get some good icing on it you make it even better. If you bake a potato and put some icing on it, it won't be very good.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
That said, I do also think that it can become too easy for people to try to correct their mistakes in post-processing rather than take steps to avoid them in the photo itself; like nO said, in the end, all that matters is the final image, but getting good exposure, colour balance, composition, etc. from the beginning gives you more to work with, and thus a better final image.
I don't think the ease of corrections necessarily makes it cheating. Also you still have to know what you are doing with a camera to come out with a good final image. I've seen so many bad images over the years where a ton of PSing has been done on it but that doesn't save the image from sucking because the original photo sucked. I will admit I am guilty of doing that.
I like to think of it as icing on a cake. If you bake a cake right and get some good icing on it you make it even better. If you bake a potato and put some icing on it, it won't be very good.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was cheating; I meant basically what you said--that it's easier can make it tempting for some people to be more careless in their photo-taking, thinking that Photoshop will save them from their mistakes and make the image better, when that's not always the case. I probably shouldn't have started "that said," in retrospect...
Posts
DeviantART|Flickr
...it's the same as before - a horizontal strip?
And it's a bit overexposed.
I'm honestly a bit of a fan of the harsh light, but I can see how not everyone would be.
Think the composition and such works well enough, though? I can't really control the sun, so I might as well worry more about the bits I can control in my effort to improve.
All those photos look rather flat, you should definitely try another time of day. If that fails, try different post-processing methods and see what you come up with. Play around with curves and try to get some nice contrast going.
Abstract
After the rain (well, during, really... ) Can't wait for my macro lens...
Some automotive stuff
The light was just fantastic (the cart the mustang and the BMW)
And..... yay for harsh midday sun and boring american suburbia:
I've been taking photos for a while (pretty much entirely digital), and while I come up with some decent shots from time to time, I just don't feel like I'm hitting any sweet spots, or consistency... and generally find other people's photographs much more awesome than my own. Is that an uncommon feeling? Am I just psyching myself out? (I am happy to accept that I truly suck, if that be the case.)
I tried an experiment recently to try and focus strictly on the image itself, realizing that for my photography, I am the most important piece of equipment. So this experiment was done with my iPhone, no post-processing, and an exact number of photos (no delete/reshoots, no select M from N).
I tried to be more careful about my shots (especially considering the iPhone's lack of zoom, low res, and inability to focus at close range), but I'm just not finding "my theme" or consistency in my work. Of those 25 photos in that experiment, I'm loving maybe 3-5 and liking perhaps 10, but the rest just don't grab me.
Couple of the shots I liked the best from this experiment:
I suppose I like better the photos from my D50 where I have flexibility in control and better res, etc., but that doesn't really change the issue that I'm still not finding what grabs me.
I think this is actually my favorite shot of yours - ever. The composition is good and the zig-zagging fences, silly trees, kids toys and tacky lawn furniture are hilarious and just so typical. The perfect blue sky and green grass top it all off. The only thing I would change if it were my shot would be to crop out the left sixth or so of the image because it gets a little boring over there with the blankness of the tree and bare lawn.
Have any of you used the 'CTR-301' wireless flash triggers? I've heard that they're about as good as you can get from an Ebay Hong Kong special from some other sites, but I'd love to hear some personal opinions from you guys, since I can't exactly afford Pocket Wizards.
This needs about ten times more love. The lack of contrast in the trees creates a soft, velvety texture which is echoed everywhere in the image aside from the bridge. And even it is softened and framed perfectly by fog at both ends.
It's just a gorgeous, well-thought-out, well-captured shot. My favorite in several pages. I feel like it froze and transmitted to me what must have been a pretty breath-taking moment. And that makes it a successful photo.
I want to see it huge. On my wall.
:^:
Edit: just clicked through to the original. At full size, it almost looks a little too softly focused, and some detail is lost to that combined with grain. I still think it's a great shot, but that might hinder it from making a nice, large print.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Man, this sounds like something the Angry Video Game Nerd would say. The new Angry Photography Nerd: "He kicked the fucking shit out of that shit light! Mid-day sun's just a shit load of fuck!"
Salti - I see what you mean about the left side. And yeah, suburbia and it's predictability amazes me in many ways.
I like this image, are you sure you did not use any filters or was there any post processing done? I find it hard to believe that you did not get any over exposure.
Gafoots - I love the bridge shot, too. It's exceptionally good.
needO - I like the crazy-saturated suburban shots. If you crop 1/6 off of the one shot, you'll lose the joint in the fence where it changes angles. This might detract some, so if you try it, pay attention to that. Foliage shot is swanky, too. Is your vignetting due to the larger sensor (non-APC / full-frame sensor)?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Pope - yep, full frame sensor and the 24mm wide open. The Mark I 24mm has some serious vignetting shot wide open... and I really like it.
This was the previous one:
I wanted to put in more of my recent work and some of my political stuff. Can you guys tell the person on the right is Zach Braff (from Scrubs and Garden State). One of my friends couldn't tell so I'm considering replacing him with a picture of hilary clinton or michelle obama.
Right, I am switching my camera to RAW. Starting to get fed up with overexposure.
I have Photoshop 7, is it easy to fiddle with the contrast/Exposeure etc in Photoshop? I use Photoshop rarely only for resizing bordering and B+W stuff. I like to take a picture and keep it as is, in it's purest form or else I feel like I am cheating somehow o_O
Photoshop has options like exposure, levels, curves, brightness/contrast etc. Just think of a RAW file as a film negative you are developing and it won't feel like cheating! Yes it's best to get in the habit of getting a good exposure in camera but if you fuck it up a bit at least you know you can fix it afterwards.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
You might be able to get the RAW plugin for 7, still. Not sure though, but check Adobe's website.
EDIT: Oh well with CS I can't see it being a problem as long as your RAW updates are up to date enough to include your camera model.
Oops sorry i have CS :P
What matters to you at the end of the day? The idea / image you achieve or how you achieve it?
Personally I couldn't care less if your picture is on film, on digital, manipulated, raped, pillaged, photoshopped, or peed on. What comes out at the end of the process is what matters.
I think I'd be a bit concerned if someone's post-processing work flow included created a new layer, pissed all over it, Created a new rape adjustment
I'm 100% certain someone pissed on film at some point in time.
Add a bit of Poo to that
This this this.
I'm so sick of people who take a dogmatic approach to art and photography in particular and feel that using photoshop is some kind of crime in the image making process.
It's how we got sepia-tone, actually.
(cue someone going to wiki to prove me wrong on my poor attempt at a joke)
Edit: Here are some things. This place is hard to get to, so I kind of got boned on the weather and really have no idea if/when I'll be able to get back. It spends a lot of time under water.
And here are some things that are completely unrelated.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
I see use of Photoshop as being potentially akin to film developers adjusting their chemical solutions and their use of dodging and burning (Ansel Adams did a lot of this).
I say potentially because digital collages and manipulations on that level are (I think) part of why some people have that "straight out of camera" fascination.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I think this is the best one but it could definitely use some contrast bump on the trees.
Also I can tell that truck was/is used to carry gasoline. (woo chemical 1203)
I only considered it, in my defence.
Also, while I wouldn't say I'm sick of it, I do generally agree with saltiness and erisian pope; a lot of the tools you find in Photoshop came about from analogs in the traditional darkroom; brighness/contrast adjustments, dodging/burning, even unsharp mask (and apparently, same goes for some of the crazier ones, like solarization). I seem to recall reading something about Ansel Adams or some other revered photographer saying something along the lines of 90% of a photo comes from what's done in the darkroom.
That said, I do also think that it can become too easy for people to try to correct their mistakes in post-processing rather than take steps to avoid them in the photo itself; like nO said, in the end, all that matters is the final image, but getting good exposure, colour balance, composition, etc. from the beginning gives you more to work with, and thus a better final image.
In my experience most of the people who are against photoshop simply don't know how to use it and believe that the computer is making all decisions and doing everything for you. So they see no parallels between traditional processing and digital processing. If they knew how to use it they would see that it's basically the same thing.
I don't think the ease of corrections necessarily makes it cheating. Also you still have to know what you are doing with a camera to come out with a good final image. I've seen so many bad images over the years where a ton of PSing has been done on it but that doesn't save the image from sucking because the original photo sucked. I will admit I am guilty of doing that.
I like to think of it as icing on a cake. If you bake a cake right and get some good icing on it you make it even better. If you bake a potato and put some icing on it, it won't be very good.
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was cheating; I meant basically what you said--that it's easier can make it tempting for some people to be more careless in their photo-taking, thinking that Photoshop will save them from their mistakes and make the image better, when that's not always the case. I probably shouldn't have started "that said," in retrospect...
old film picture Tmax400 50/1.4 on my Pentax ME-Super