I drove passed a really awesome river in front of that mountain, but there was nowhere to stop for a few kilometers. The other shots are even more boring that I have of it. Oh well.
The blobbiness I can't really notice. I know what you're talking about and it's been more extreme in some other stuff I've done, but I think it's more from pushing the colours. Maybe the colour noise reduction too, since that's all I ever use, but that's on by default. Shrug.
Ok I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel now unless you want to see some pictures of a dinosaur museum.
Actually the last one posted I think is very meh. It looks like a very generic landscape with not much color. His other photos are way better.
PS I challenege you to a duel pope
For me, the image succeeds due to its simplicity (color and composition). The DOF including everything makes it sharp, and that matches the angles of the mountain itself. The colors work, however limited the palette is. The clouds look ephemeral while the mountain is stoic, and that further describes my concept of a mountain: unchanging. The whole image has this heavy, static, permanent feel that is another kind of parallelism for my concept of a mountain. Everything in the image supports a basic statement "this is a mountain" in a way that makes it feel really powerful to me.
I would compare it to a bird-in-flight shot where the photog pans with the bird, streaking the scenery. Or a surfing shot where the camera looks down the tube of the wave and there is no horizontal line anywhere. It's rare for me to see an image whose execution mirrors the tone or qualities of the subject. This image feels like that to me.
enjoying these bombs. Can I suggest you crop the second shot in that last post so you loose some of the water? I think you'd get a better comp without the wind-whipped water.
Actually the last one posted I think is very meh. It looks like a very generic landscape with not much color. His other photos are way better.
PS I challenege you to a duel pope
For me, the image succeeds due to its simplicity (color and composition). The DOF including everything makes it sharp, and that matches the angles of the mountain itself. The colors work, however limited the palette is. The clouds look ephemeral while the mountain is stoic, and that further describes my concept of a mountain: unchanging. The whole image has this heavy, static, permanent feel that is another kind of parallelism for my concept of a mountain. Everything in the image supports a basic statement "this is a mountain" in a way that makes it feel really powerful to me.
I would compare it to a bird-in-flight shot where the photog pans with the bird, streaking the scenery. Or a surfing shot where the camera looks down the tube of the wave and there is no horizontal line anywhere. It's rare for me to see an image whose execution mirrors the tone or qualities of the subject. This image feels like that to me.
With what shall we duel? Point-n-shoots at dawn?
No offense but this sounds like the biggest load of bullshit ever. It sounds like an art critique from an art class where the person just wanted to sound self important. If you were to give me a bunch of pictures of a body of water and mountains behind it and asked me to fit your description to the image the description was about I CERTAINLY wouldn't pick this one.
What the fuck is a "stoic" mountain?
Sto⋅ic/ˈstoʊɪk/ [stoh-ik]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the school of philosophy founded by Zeno, who taught that people should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.
2. Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive
If you really want to use the 2nd definition then almost every single inanimate object is impassive because its....inanimate
and we shall duel with disposables at dawn.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Actually the last one posted I think is very meh. It looks like a very generic landscape with not much color. His other photos are way better.
PS I challenege you to a duel pope
For me, the image succeeds due to its simplicity (color and composition). The DOF including everything makes it sharp, and that matches the angles of the mountain itself. The colors work, however limited the palette is. The clouds look ephemeral while the mountain is stoic, and that further describes my concept of a mountain: unchanging. The whole image has this heavy, static, permanent feel that is another kind of parallelism for my concept of a mountain. Everything in the image supports a basic statement "this is a mountain" in a way that makes it feel really powerful to me.
I would compare it to a bird-in-flight shot where the photog pans with the bird, streaking the scenery. Or a surfing shot where the camera looks down the tube of the wave and there is no horizontal line anywhere. It's rare for me to see an image whose execution mirrors the tone or qualities of the subject. This image feels like that to me.
With what shall we duel? Point-n-shoots at dawn?
No offense but this sounds like the biggest load of bullshit ever. It sounds like an art critique from an art class where the person just wanted to sound self important. If you were to give me a bunch of pictures of a body of water and mountains behind it and asked me to fit your description to the image the description was about I CERTAINLY wouldn't pick this one.
What the fuck is a "stoic" mountain?
Sto⋅ic/ˈstoʊɪk/ [stoh-ik]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the school of philosophy founded by Zeno, who taught that people should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.
2. Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive
If you really want to use the 2nd definition then almost every single inanimate object is impassive because its....inanimate
and we shall duel with disposables at dawn.
People make associations. That's part of what makes art so powerful. For pope, the image fit perfectly with what a "mountain" means to him. It probably sounds like art school talk because it is, but that doesn't automagically make it pretentious or incorrect. I think he articulated himself just fine. And not all inanimate objects are stoic. A piece of paper does not even come nearly as close to embodying the word as much as a mountain does. Even small rocks move from wind or water or what not. I have a hard time understanding why you would put all of those objects in the same category.
Unmovable would be a better word because a piece of paper is impassive when sitting on my desk. I think a piece of paper does come close to a mountain because I don't think stoic should be used to describe inanimate objects it is usually used to describe people or representations of people.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Unmovable would be a better word because a piece of paper is impassive when sitting on my desk. I think a piece of paper does come close to a mountain because I don't think stoic should be used to describe inanimate objects it is usually used to describe people or representations of people.
I have a hard time understanding why your explanation is any less "art student" than pope's. Or any more objective.
Unmovable would be a better word because a piece of paper is impassive when sitting on my desk. I think a piece of paper does come close to a mountain because I don't think stoic should be used to describe inanimate objects it is usually used to describe people or representations of people.
I have a hard time understanding why your explanation is any less "art student" than pope's. Or any more objective.
Taking this to pms to prevent thread clutter.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Man, if I had great landscapes around me I would totally take pictures of it, but all I have is flat land covered in trees..
Anyway, if anyone remembers I had an assignment to shoot a high school football game with a wide angle lens... yay...
This was pretty much my best picture, and as you can see it still has a few issues, mostly because of a small crop and high ISO. It was a very frustrating night, to say the least.
However, I did manage to take this picture (quick editing since it's just for fun)
I never noticed how awkward people look while playing sports until taking these pictures and several others of tennis and soccer. It doesn't look bad in motion but I've got tons of extra pics with people frozen in an awkward pose.
Also, I chased these two guys who were riding a two person bike to get a pic of them riding it.
I guess it turned out ok? I think I may have gone overboard on the sharpening..
color FTW. Also bombs, I like the 2nd one you have in the spoiler because it has the nice edge of the cliff on the right and you can see where the clouds are running into the mountain. I think that edge kind of acts like a leading line into the photo.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
So many fantastic shots! I'm late to the party but I'm gonna interrupt you all here, I'm ma let you finish but @Bomb, I just gotta say, I like the barren farm shot a few pages back as is.
Having been to Saskatchewan, all that negative space really shows how much of a lack of anything there is in that province.
I really like this picture. Took it in Savannah, GA a while back. It's got some crappy facebook compression on it at the moment. I'm gonna find my choice pics from England and this graveyard and try to post them later.
Yeah, horizontal works nice, bombs. I still like the b&w better. One and only one critique I have is it's hard to judge scale.
Edit..forgot piktors.
I'm a godfather now... here's the little guy. I have more but the pictures are more for the family without any artistic merit...at least this one comes with a pretty girl
needOptic on
0
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
edited October 2009
Alright, a while back I posted a macro shot to get some macro-specific advice. I took that advice, and here are my newer attempts. Some of these have several versions because I'm not sure which is better.
And yes, some of these photos have a lot of noise. What do I do about that?
And thank you for reading the OP. Please don't spoiler your photos. Go read the OP now. :arrow:
Noise is usually because of high ISO. If you have a point-and-shoot, it's probably automatically adjusting your ISO in low light conditions. Notice your brighter pictures have less noise.
And thank you for reading the OP. Please don't spoiler your photos. Go read the OP now. :arrow:
Noise is usually because of high ISO. If you have a point-and-shoot, it's probably automatically adjusting your ISO in low light conditions. Notice your brighter pictures have less noise.
Alright, unspoilered.
I was using the manual function for my camera on this, 300 or 400 ISO for most of those IIRC. I'll have to remember to note down my details next time.
Does anyone have any tips for taking pictures of people doing activities in daylight? Like, the other weekend was my school Sports Day, and a lot of the pictures I took ended up either WAY too dark or WAY too light, if it wasn't blurred >.< I figure the best would just to get more practice, but is there anything else I could keep in mind when I do this again?
I'd love to post some of my pics to get some critiques, but I feel really weird posting pictures of my middle school students on the internet.
Cokebotle - If you're using a point-and-shoot camera then there's not a whole lot that can be done. Try looking for shots that do not include such a dramatic amount of light and shadow at the same time (for example, if people are under a tree, try to get a shot of only the under-the-tree area).
If you're using an SLR, experiment with shooting with manual settings, and try ISO 100, Aperture F/16, and shutter speed 1/100 sec. That is the "sunny-16 rule" which is a rule-of-thumb for a good exposure in full midday sun.
You might also check and see if your camera is capable of auto-bracketing, a feature available on many point-n-shoot cameras. That is a feature that will take 3 shots instead of one, one at "normal exposure", one under exposed (by an amount that you specify, 1/3 stop or 2/3 stop or 1 stop, etc) and then one shot overexposed by the same amount. Using this you could increase the chances of getting properly exposed shots.
Also if you are taking pictures of a person in motion, for example playing soccer. You want to pan the camera with the person instead of holding it still to reduce blur...especially if you are shooting at 1/100th of a second.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
0
PasserbyeI am much older than you.in Beach CityRegistered Userregular
Suggestions for framing? My framing was a bit off (too centered) for my previous post so I tried to work with that more here. Other than the noise, how are they? Ok? Where else do they need work?
Posts
I'm hogging up this thread today.
This is Jasper lake. Apparently you can walk across it and only get wet up to your hips.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
The blobbiness I can't really notice. I know what you're talking about and it's been more extreme in some other stuff I've done, but I think it's more from pushing the colours. Maybe the colour noise reduction too, since that's all I ever use, but that's on by default. Shrug.
Ok I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel now unless you want to see some pictures of a dinosaur museum.
For me, the image succeeds due to its simplicity (color and composition). The DOF including everything makes it sharp, and that matches the angles of the mountain itself. The colors work, however limited the palette is. The clouds look ephemeral while the mountain is stoic, and that further describes my concept of a mountain: unchanging. The whole image has this heavy, static, permanent feel that is another kind of parallelism for my concept of a mountain. Everything in the image supports a basic statement "this is a mountain" in a way that makes it feel really powerful to me.
I would compare it to a bird-in-flight shot where the photog pans with the bird, streaking the scenery. Or a surfing shot where the camera looks down the tube of the wave and there is no horizontal line anywhere. It's rare for me to see an image whose execution mirrors the tone or qualities of the subject. This image feels like that to me.
With what shall we duel? Point-n-shoots at dawn?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
No offense but this sounds like the biggest load of bullshit ever. It sounds like an art critique from an art class where the person just wanted to sound self important. If you were to give me a bunch of pictures of a body of water and mountains behind it and asked me to fit your description to the image the description was about I CERTAINLY wouldn't pick this one.
Sto⋅ic/ˈstoʊɪk/ [stoh-ik]
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to the school of philosophy founded by Zeno, who taught that people should be free from passion, unmoved by joy or grief, and submit without complaint to unavoidable necessity.
2. Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive
If you really want to use the 2nd definition then almost every single inanimate object is impassive because its....inanimate
and we shall duel with disposables at dawn.
People make associations. That's part of what makes art so powerful. For pope, the image fit perfectly with what a "mountain" means to him. It probably sounds like art school talk because it is, but that doesn't automagically make it pretentious or incorrect. I think he articulated himself just fine. And not all inanimate objects are stoic. A piece of paper does not even come nearly as close to embodying the word as much as a mountain does. Even small rocks move from wind or water or what not. I have a hard time understanding why you would put all of those objects in the same category.
My Portfolio Site
I have a hard time understanding why your explanation is any less "art student" than pope's. Or any more objective.
Taking this to pms to prevent thread clutter.
mully says this mountain one is better and I think she's right. You can see the glacier in it too. WHAT SAY YE ALL.
Edit: well, actually I dunno. The first one has the vertical dropoff of it on the left... I wonder how well a merge would work. Hmm.
Edit: full size stuff is up now through Flickr for those that wanted wallpapers. :rotate:
Anyway, if anyone remembers I had an assignment to shoot a high school football game with a wide angle lens... yay...
This was pretty much my best picture, and as you can see it still has a few issues, mostly because of a small crop and high ISO. It was a very frustrating night, to say the least.
However, I did manage to take this picture (quick editing since it's just for fun)
I never noticed how awkward people look while playing sports until taking these pictures and several others of tennis and soccer. It doesn't look bad in motion but I've got tons of extra pics with people frozen in an awkward pose.
Also, I chased these two guys who were riding a two person bike to get a pic of them riding it.
I guess it turned out ok? I think I may have gone overboard on the sharpening..
Here, only needoptic is allowed to open this.
Would you happen to have a larger version of Jasper Lake? I'd love to use that as a wallpaper but my monitor is 1920x1080.
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Having been to Saskatchewan, all that negative space really shows how much of a lack of anything there is in that province.
SniperGuyGaming on PSN / SniperGuy710 on Xbone Live
I put up the biggest I could here, just click all sizes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wieclawek/3967540241/
Thanks BladeX, that's pretty much what I was going for with that shot.
Also why not combine the two cliff images for the best of both worlds?
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Edit: god damn that worked really well.
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Science!
Edit..forgot piktors.
I'm a godfather now... here's the little guy. I have more but the pictures are more for the family without any artistic merit...at least this one comes with a pretty girl
And yes, some of these photos have a lot of noise. What do I do about that?
Rose
Spider
Seeds (almost more of a motion shot)
Rosemary
Pink Azaleas
Thank you in advance!
Face Twit Rav Gram
And thank you for reading the OP. Please don't spoiler your photos. Go read the OP now. :arrow:
Noise is usually because of high ISO. If you have a point-and-shoot, it's probably automatically adjusting your ISO in low light conditions. Notice your brighter pictures have less noise.
Alright, unspoilered.
I was using the manual function for my camera on this, 300 or 400 ISO for most of those IIRC. I'll have to remember to note down my details next time.
Face Twit Rav Gram
If it isn't an ISO setting, then it could be digital zoom (which is always garbage) or just a not-that-great sensor on your camera.
I'd love to post some of my pics to get some critiques, but I feel really weird posting pictures of my middle school students on the internet.
If you're using an SLR, experiment with shooting with manual settings, and try ISO 100, Aperture F/16, and shutter speed 1/100 sec. That is the "sunny-16 rule" which is a rule-of-thumb for a good exposure in full midday sun.
You might also check and see if your camera is capable of auto-bracketing, a feature available on many point-n-shoot cameras. That is a feature that will take 3 shots instead of one, one at "normal exposure", one under exposed (by an amount that you specify, 1/3 stop or 2/3 stop or 1 stop, etc) and then one shot overexposed by the same amount. Using this you could increase the chances of getting properly exposed shots.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Suggestions for framing? My framing was a bit off (too centered) for my previous post so I tried to work with that more here. Other than the noise, how are they? Ok? Where else do they need work?
Face Twit Rav Gram