All babies should be killed. Especially ones with really creepy glassy photoshopped eyes. (Second Photo)
Do you mind editing your post and taking that part out? It's someones child, you immature dildoface. I don't mind a critique, or "crappy photoshop eyes", but that's offensive.
I expected this photo to be completely overexposed, with buildings being solid black. Film surprises me.
... I should probably trim these...
I think this one would look pretty interesting and minimalist if you cropped the bottom 1/5th or so of the photo. (Everything from the top of the red light down)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I like the pigeons Pope, but that first shot is pretty darn 'meh'. If you want to pair it up as a before and after you might want to make them both black and white.
That's true. The first is pretty much throwaway. I posted it for context for the second, which is like anti-arty so it was a silly thing to do. The second needs to stand on its own (and I feel like it does) so I dunno why I included the first. :-/
Its because you hate freedom. Honestly if the first one was zoomed in as much as the second and then made into the same tone and turned into a diptych it could work.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Do you think it could work like meh? or it could work like, that might truly increase goodness?
I think you could use the first photo like if you wanted to tell a story, but the second photo is good enough to stand on its own (but on its own it doesn't tell the story).
So um...yes increase goodness.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
this one is going to be the cover of the scope (paper here), and the next one is going to be on the inside
it was cold as balls out today! The pictures are of a woman here who is climbing Mount Everest in the coming months, she's already been up 5 of the 7 tallest mountains.
haha, yeah. The first one is going to be on the cover, which is colour, and the editor told me to lighten the colours because when they go to print, most colours look kind of garish. The second photo will be the header in the online article, so I adjusted the colours to my pref
I could see that, especially if it's a glossy cover. Although I personally like the 1st photo more because there seems to be more range of color. The 2nd looks like there's red, blue, brown, and white.
I braved the cold this weekend and got around town a bit. Had a couple interesting shots; here's two of them. The first is at a reservoir nearby; the other is in a conservatory.
Yea the first one has a good idea but not great execution. You can see the sidewalk, a plaque and a light poll in the background. That might be fine if you got the DOF shallow enough you couldn't tell what they were. Or just shoot with a steeper angle. If you are going to try and pose the person in such a way that they look like they are climbing you should just go all out and make it look as real as possible. The facial expression and pose don't look like she is actually climbing anything. Maybe if the ice axe was actually in something and she had an ice axe in her other hand too.
(Then again I'm a hard core climber and maybe the average person who doesn't climb wouldn't care.)
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I want to get a nice camera. I plan on using it for portrait and model reference on either the campus studios or in my own that I am making. I have no idea about anything related to photography, except for the year I worked at a small studio in my home town.
The camera I have been looking at is the nikon D90. My brother has one of these and it takes pretty nice photos. He doesn't use it for studio use though.
The D90 is solid. What's you're budget? I mean, I'd say if you're not beating it up often then you have little reason to go with the D300, seeing as how most of its premium features relate to ruggedness and AF speed. And the next step up would be a substantial bump in cash to the D700, then the D3s and the ultimate Nikon studio camera, the D3x.
Never tell a photographer their camera takes "good photographs". Of course, it is true, but some people get butt-hurt about that.
With that said, the D90 is a great camera that I've had a chance to handle. Also the D90 could most definitely be used for studio work simply because the limitation (beyond megapixels) of a camera like te D3 and the D90 is iso-performance, which is rendered pointless when you have full control of light in your studio.
ED!: That first photo has MASSIVE and IMO unsightly grain in the sky from whatever PSing you've done. It looks like you tried to do an HDR-like photo without the multiple exposures because the water and building don't have that level of grain. Nice shot otherwise. If you can I would go back with a tripod and bracket.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I know about the grain, and quite like it in these types of shots of mine. The grain is a consequence of using high contrast tweak-sliders and not using any surface smoothing; if you pop open the original file size, you will see that same "grain" in the textures of the buildings and the water. Because of the color gradient in the clouds/sky - it shows up more clearly - it is not present in the original file. And yes, it is a single RAW file ran through Dynamic Photo HDR, and tweaked in Photoshop.
Ed!, the grain is a pretty big turnoff for me in this image. I do tend to prefer very clean/smooth images and dislike visible grain in much of my work so I obviously have a bias. However, I've seen grain work in some images and kinda think there are two variables that affect how well it works (for me, and possibly for others): (1) quality of the grain and (2) content of the photo.
For (1) I would say that your grain itself is pretty good, unlike some digital grain where the individual pixels often have contrasting colors and look very ... noisy (as opposed to merely grainy) so you've got that going for you. But your grain is isolated to the clouds. That's partly due to how detailed the bridge and building are (any grain there is likely to be difficult to see) but the ocean itself is much smoother than the sky. This makes the sky kinda jump out and the image feels less cohesive to me as a result. You might play with duplicating the image onto a new layer, adding noise in photoshop (tweak the settings to match the clouds) and mask out the areas that are already grainy, so you add some grain to the areas that currently lack it. This might fix the anti-cohesiveness.
(2) I don't really think grain is as appealing in color-rich nature-centric photographs. This is really a matter of taste, but my favorite images that have grain tend to be either street/architecture shots or at least shots with muted colors (or even especially black and white), and are usually both. I have seen grain work in nature shots, but in general I prefer nature to be pretty and grain isn't pretty. Or, when a nature shot is not pretty, there's usually something gritty that conceptually matches the visual concept of grain. I just don't think clouds really are that something. Especially not pre-sunset clouds over the ocean.
ED! I must agree with others that the grain detracts from your photo. It is mainly due to such a clean exposure and tones of the photo clashing with the grain texture in the sky. If your photo wasnt as sharp, I dont think it would have been an issue.
Speaking of sharpness, here come more blurry, dirty and scratched photos from me:
Now I am not sure what I think about the direction I have been going in when it comes to my BW film work. I know that fidelity isnt everything in a photograph, but on the other hand at what point does it become a distraction?
Now I am not sure what I think about the direction I have been going in when it comes to my BW film work. I know that fidelity isnt everything in a photograph, but on the other hand at what point does it become a distraction?
At whatever point you think it starts detracting from your photos. Remember that photography is as much about your vision as it is about the viewer's interpretation. It's like asking when commas start detracting from a poem; it just depends on what the poet was trying to do. What are you trying to do with your BW film adventures?
Now I am not sure what I think about the direction I have been going in when it comes to my BW film work. I know that fidelity isnt everything in a photograph, but on the other hand at what point does it become a distraction?
At whatever point you think it starts detracting from your photos. Remember that photography is as much about your vision as it is about the viewer's interpretation. It's like asking when commas start detracting from a poem; it just depends on what the poet was trying to do. What are you trying to do with your BW film adventures?
These latest images are my favourite of all the images I've seen from you so far. You are using the very best feature of your medium which is to convey atmosphere. The degradation in image quality (either through motion blur or the treatment of your negatives) gives me the feeling of the images being physical objects and that they are historic and emotive.
What you are saying with this style is that pure, clean aesthetic is not important. If they were digitally perfect they would be distracting and we'd quickly gloss over the point of the image which is the content and meaning.
Anable: Didn't you post an image through a car window a few weeks back that was very abstract? That image had a similar feel for me.
Very refreshing stuff
*P.S Thanks guys! I'll try and shoot some more serious stuff now I know the camera works
Posts
Baby killer!
Penpal, I agree with others, this photo needs a touch of warmth.
Dark Moon, I really like it but something about the framing/crop bothers me. Have no idea what.
anyways, photos:
larger view on black
I expected this photo to be completely overexposed, with buildings being solid black. Film surprises me.
... I should probably trim these...
I think this one would look pretty interesting and minimalist if you cropped the bottom 1/5th or so of the photo. (Everything from the top of the red light down)
and one more:
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I think you could use the first photo like if you wanted to tell a story, but the second photo is good enough to stand on its own (but on its own it doesn't tell the story).
So um...yes increase goodness.
this one is going to be the cover of the scope (paper here), and the next one is going to be on the inside
it was cold as balls out today! The pictures are of a woman here who is climbing Mount Everest in the coming months, she's already been up 5 of the 7 tallest mountains.
I braved the cold this weekend and got around town a bit. Had a couple interesting shots; here's two of them. The first is at a reservoir nearby; the other is in a conservatory.
Yea the first one has a good idea but not great execution. You can see the sidewalk, a plaque and a light poll in the background. That might be fine if you got the DOF shallow enough you couldn't tell what they were. Or just shoot with a steeper angle. If you are going to try and pose the person in such a way that they look like they are climbing you should just go all out and make it look as real as possible. The facial expression and pose don't look like she is actually climbing anything. Maybe if the ice axe was actually in something and she had an ice axe in her other hand too.
(Then again I'm a hard core climber and maybe the average person who doesn't climb wouldn't care.)
The camera I have been looking at is the nikon D90. My brother has one of these and it takes pretty nice photos. He doesn't use it for studio use though.
So anyone that has used one, what do you think?
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
With that said, the D90 is a great camera that I've had a chance to handle. Also the D90 could most definitely be used for studio work simply because the limitation (beyond megapixels) of a camera like te D3 and the D90 is iso-performance, which is rendered pointless when you have full control of light in your studio.
For (1) I would say that your grain itself is pretty good, unlike some digital grain where the individual pixels often have contrasting colors and look very ... noisy (as opposed to merely grainy) so you've got that going for you. But your grain is isolated to the clouds. That's partly due to how detailed the bridge and building are (any grain there is likely to be difficult to see) but the ocean itself is much smoother than the sky. This makes the sky kinda jump out and the image feels less cohesive to me as a result. You might play with duplicating the image onto a new layer, adding noise in photoshop (tweak the settings to match the clouds) and mask out the areas that are already grainy, so you add some grain to the areas that currently lack it. This might fix the anti-cohesiveness.
(2) I don't really think grain is as appealing in color-rich nature-centric photographs. This is really a matter of taste, but my favorite images that have grain tend to be either street/architecture shots or at least shots with muted colors (or even especially black and white), and are usually both. I have seen grain work in nature shots, but in general I prefer nature to be pretty and grain isn't pretty. Or, when a nature shot is not pretty, there's usually something gritty that conceptually matches the visual concept of grain. I just don't think clouds really are that something. Especially not pre-sunset clouds over the ocean.
That's my $0.02. Do with it whatever you will.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
both of these are me just messing around on my friend's D60. they're alright
Muninn: Again man! That last building shot really does it for me, great tone and atmosphere.
Penpal: High quality stuff you're shooting there!
First film through a new camera (Nikon FM2n)
*with saltiness. this reads quite differently after jake's post...
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
The first one is framed perfectly. Great lines and shapes. Those tracks are a great find.
From my trip to Durango:
I feel like I couldn't make this picture come together the way I wanted. I think it was just too late into the sunset. Crits welcome.
Speaking of sharpness, here come more blurry, dirty and scratched photos from me:
Now I am not sure what I think about the direction I have been going in when it comes to my BW film work. I know that fidelity isnt everything in a photograph, but on the other hand at what point does it become a distraction?
At whatever point you think it starts detracting from your photos. Remember that photography is as much about your vision as it is about the viewer's interpretation. It's like asking when commas start detracting from a poem; it just depends on what the poet was trying to do. What are you trying to do with your BW film adventures?
These latest images are my favourite of all the images I've seen from you so far. You are using the very best feature of your medium which is to convey atmosphere. The degradation in image quality (either through motion blur or the treatment of your negatives) gives me the feeling of the images being physical objects and that they are historic and emotive.
What you are saying with this style is that pure, clean aesthetic is not important. If they were digitally perfect they would be distracting and we'd quickly gloss over the point of the image which is the content and meaning.
Anable: Didn't you post an image through a car window a few weeks back that was very abstract? That image had a similar feel for me.
Very refreshing stuff
*P.S Thanks guys! I'll try and shoot some more serious stuff now I know the camera works
Jamp, I posted one on new year's day, is this what you mean? If not, chalk it up to my ego that I immediately assumed you meant mine :-D
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Pope - Cool to see you sticking with the photo a day thing. Great find.
ED! watch your cropping. Shouldn't have let that reed go off the top of the frame.
A couple from a shoot yesterday. First is very mildly nsfw.