@ CC - so far my weirdest referrer was a french blog dedicated to the flying spaghetti monster. Other than that, some "ball-joint doll" site has a flickr api built-in so people can search flick creative-commons items from that site and someone clicked on some of my flowers from there. When I went to the site and saw it was about dolls I was seriously WTF for a bit. Regarding your weird results, I seriously cannot craft a search on those words that leads to any of your pics. So very weird!
@ Balsamic - I would prefer a low-end (possibly used) DSLR (or Micro 4/3 system) camera over a big-ass point-and-shoot like this Fuji (which I know nothing about). The biggest problem with a camera like the one you linked is that the photovoltaic elements (the "pixels") are going to be close together because that will (I am assuming this) use the same small chip that's in a point-and-shoot camera. The closer the pixels are to each other the more their electromagnetic fields can interfere with each other. This leads to graininess, and whatever the camera does to reduce graininess also reduces sharpness. It's a bad trade-off. A DSLR has a larger chip, and tends to create images that can be sharper with better colors than a point-and-shoot.
I also prefer Nikon and Canon because they are the 900-pound gorillas of the industry. That means that if you buy DSLR then they have the widest selection of lenses (both brand and off-brand) but it also means their sensors are cutting edge as they do their own R&D and have a lot of money to put into that. Lens selection is a good factor to consider because even if you can't afford many lenses today, they are investments that last for years and years, so buying a brand that offers a good selection means that 5 years from now you have many many choices instead of few. Sony is another big name with good products, and Olympus and Pentax get a lot of good credibility. In the micro 4/3 market Olympus and Panasonic seem to be the biggest names.
keh.com and adorama.com and B&H are all reputable dealers who sell used (KEH does so exclusively) with highly respected rating systems (condition should be as good or better than the rating indicates).
I bought my camera (Canon EOS 20D) used a couple years ago from a local camera store - a great option if your city has one (more expensive than online, but local in case there are any issues that need addressing) and have bought 2 of my 4 lenses used: one from a forumer from a Texas photo forum - someone with a reputation at stake and the other from craigslist where I had the option to test the lens before buying.
Anyway, let me repeat my suggestion to get a camera with removable lenses if you really want to get into photography. That will give you so much more flexibility in what you do and what capabilities you have available - it's really worth it. For the record, I am merely a hobbyist who does this for fun. I've never sold a picture nor tried. DSLRs are not just for pros.
@ Projeck - Really dig #s 1 and 3. #2 has a lot of very bright stuff in the frame (the top and the left side) and they hurt my eyes. I can see it was really bright and exposing the dude was tough. That's not actually D.M.C. is it?
nO: Looks like there are a few things pros can pick out from your beer shots, but to the amateur eye they are quite beautiful and impressive.
Cow: I don't know if you're the type to play with textures and stuff in your pp, but I think it could be interesting if you went that way with your fog shot. And I actually like your bright white + blue shot, but I wish I could see the orange thing well enough to tell what it is.
It's nice to see peoples' setup shots because they're not as crazy elaborate as I would have assumed. I guess it's all in the details.
Are baby pictures worse than making no contribution at all? I'm not ready to commit to an external flash, so I picked up this thing called a Light Scoop and it does surprisingly well when used within the confinements of what it was made for (bouncing off fairly close, light colored walls and ceilings). Results of the first few days of practice with it:
edit: If anyone's interested in the Light Scoop, look here:
Their website is here http://www.lightscoop.com/. It's just a bit of plastic with a mirror in it, but it's a very cheap way to make your on-camera flash a whole lot more useful. I picked mine up for $20 with free shipping from Adorama. It slides into your hot shoe and makes your camera look something like this:
I did this too for another shoot a long time ago except we used olive oil. I would think that olive oil is easier to get off than crisco. 500w hot light in a home made soft box off to camera left.
Uh did you fail at quoting me or something? Also wth does the link have to do with anything?
As for the baby pictures I second bombs. Please stop PSing baby eyes to be crazy glassy orbs. (Without prompting, my gf called the eyes of the baby "very intense")
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
They were pretty crazy, glassy, and orby to start out with. This baby has giant eyes. His parents call him Bug because of them. I did push the contrast and make them blue (they are blue in real life). I didn't switch them out for somebody else's eyes, make them bigger and rounder, and add my artificial reflections, etc.
I'm flipping back and forth now and I see what you guys are saying. I might dial it down some, but the parents love the shots so I'm torn. Being the makers of the baby really ups their chances of liking any pictures of him though. Here he is with eyes untouched:
How would you guys crop this image (if at all)? Also: grayscale y/n?
A little background -- I'm taking hundreds of photos of the city centre of Pondicherry, India. It's my goal to spot French heritage and these pillars are a great example. Unfortunately I couldn't just barge in, because it's the private property of the Shri Aurobindu Ashram and they're not very keen on people who are uninterested in their spiritual mission.
I dislike this ashram, they own about 300 buildings in town and they have painted them all gray. I asked around why the hell they would pick that colour over the original colour (either creamy yellow or white) but it seems to be done for no other reason than to get some uniformity in. It's not like gray is an important colour in their views or anything. I asked a local heritage foundation if they would try and convince property owners to leave their buildings in the original colours, but they said they already had trouble convincing people not to destroy 300 year old palaces, the paint job is the least of their concerns.
How would you guys crop this image (if at all)? Also: grayscale y/n?
A little background -- I'm taking hundreds of photos of the city centre of Pondicherry, India. It's my goal to spot French heritage and these pillars are a great example. Unfortunately I couldn't just barge in, because it's the private property of the Shri Aurobindu Ashram and they're not very keen on people who are uninterested in their spiritual mission.
I dislike this ashram, they own about 300 buildings in town and they have painted them all gray. I asked around why the hell they would pick that colour over the original colour (either creamy yellow or white) but it seems to be done for no other reason than to get some uniformity in. It's not like gray is an important colour in their views or anything. I asked a local heritage foundation if they would try and convince property owners to leave their buildings in the original colours, but they said they already had trouble convincing people not to destroy 300 year old palaces, the paint job is the least of their concerns.
i like the tones of it as it is with the contrast between the tan and the bluish columns. for cropping maybe cut down some of the wall so that it is more even all around. i would leave some in though
i like the tones of it as it is with the contrast between the tan and the bluish columns. for cropping maybe cut down some of the wall so that it is more even all around. i would leave some in though
yeah take a little off the sides. there isn't that much on the top as it is. i think the square crop or slightly rectangular would work well. like pope said, give it a whirl and see if it sucks
I did this too for another shoot a long time ago except we used olive oil. I would think that olive oil is easier to get off than crisco. 500w hot light in a home made soft box off to camera left.
Uh did you fail at quoting me or something? Also wth does the link have to do with anything?
As for the baby pictures I second bombs. Please stop PSing baby eyes to be crazy glassy orbs. (Without prompting, my gf called the eyes of the baby "very intense")
I'm guessing fake ad account.
EDIT: nevermind on the smarter, it literally is a quote from your post on the first page. I thought they had typed something photo related to trick people into clicking the link.
Anybody have constructive criticism for me? Babies kind of look like aliens. Do my photos of that baby make that baby look more like an alien than usual? I dunno, maybe. If so, how do I fix that? Process the photos differently? Back up and get the baby's whole body to take some focus off its alien-like head? I understand some people here don't like photos of babies, but people out there in the world want photos of their babies and I am not opposed to taking some and trying to make them decent. Along with simply admiring the photos you guys put up, I also come here to try to improve myself.
If the photos are too terrible to even talk about, then I'm fine dropping it and moving on. Thanks guys.
Pinch I don't mind them really. The processing definitely adds to the alienness of them. Careful posting babies makes CC hungry. I do find them a little too bright and the eyes a little soft but overall they're interesting if only because of that babys strange look.
Pinch - I don't really shoot people except as for family snaps, so these're a little out of my personal range of experience. Focus is good, color palette is muted (an aesthetic many enjoy, but one that seems pretty "edgy" for a baby in my mind, especially as a snapshot - this same look but used on a 20-something dude or chick makes a lot more sense to me) ... all in all I have no quibble with your processing or general technique (aside from possibly finding processing to be an odd choice for the subject). As fine-art I think the baby as a subject needs something more (Anne Geddes is the one obvious example ... shudder ... ) - it's a very literal photo without any sort of message or concept.
I dunno what you're going for, so it's hard to suggest what would be better/worse. For me I think the color thing is the biggest thing unless you want to make art, then I have no idea how to advise you.
Thanks a lot KAJed and pope. I had completely avoided flash up until now because I only have my on-camera, so this was my first attempt at using it. I'll play around with the processing, keeping your comments in mind, but will probably keep the results to myself so this thread can move on to someone/something else .
edit: I wasn't going for any artsy statement, so don't put any thought to that. I wanted some practice with flash + Light Scoop, and hoped for some photos for the parents that were beyond the quality of the snapshots they are able to take themselves.
I wasn't going for any artsy statement ... I wanted some practice with flash + Light Scoop, and hoped for some photos for the parents that were beyond the quality of the snapshots they are able to take themselves.
I think you achieved this just fine. The photo doesn't have that washed out, weird, stark look that on-camera flash photos sometimes get. For photos for family you might consider a more traditional color palette with the skin tones going a bit more towards pink. Still, for experimenting with flash it's fine stuff. CC and NeedO may have stuff to add - I keep my flash use to a minimum so I'm no great resource on that.
Your cropping tangents can be pretty annoying. There have been a few in other photos, but in this one the top of your ear and bottom eyelid are what's doing it.
Pinch: The first baby shot is better than the second one. The composition on the second one has me confused, and, to be blunt, a person shot from that angle, with a limp neck and an unengaged expression, looks dead. I'm also not convinced the colors work with the subject.
Aldo: I think it would be a stronger composition if you had gotten the bottom of the door. The tangent between the corrugated tin and the top of the pillars is a bit confusing, as well. Pretty interesting, though.
nO: Love the reds, not sure about the crop. I also think that if you're going to have that much glare on the glasses you might as well go all the way, if possible. It's striking, but I'm not sure what it's showing me. How did you set up the light on this shot?
CC: I love those colors. Very striking. I'm considering updating from CS4 to CS5 but I'm not sure content aware is worth the $200. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you get a chance to work with it.
Muncie: I totally agree with you there. I might just go back to that place to see if the door's open again, but I'm afraid that won't be the case.
It's quite annoying to take pictures here anyway, it's about 10 degrees celcius hotter on an average day than during a heatwave back in the Netherlands and I really have to plan out my way through town so that I can cover as much terrain as possible without straying too far away from places to rest or autorickshaw stands.
I'm looking to add a second speedlight to my kit and I have some questions for you strobists out there. When you're doing multi flash setups, how often do you manually set your flashes compared to letting TTL handle it?
I'm asking because I have a D60 which will not act as a wireless commander. Currently I use an Elinchrom Skyport to fire an SB-600. Setting the flash manually has not been a quick process, but this could be due to my inexperience.
My plan is to pick up an SB-900. I may pick up a flash commander, too, as it would allow me to use TTL, and sell the Skyport receiver and transmitter. By the end of the year I'm going to pick up a used D3 or D700, which from what I understand, will act as a wireless flash commander.
*Edit: Apparently I've stumbled onto as, Mr. Strobist calls it, a Ford vs Chevy debate.
The ability to work in TTL and vary flash settings remotely are not addressed by Pocket Wizard. That said, most remote light shooting is static and set-and-forget, meaning that the lights work fine in constant, manual settings without the need for adjustment. (Hey, you are almost certainly using stationary light stands.)
CLS wins, hands down.
(Bolding mine)
So what about you guys? Personally, how do you, or don't you, use the Nikon CLS or Canon equivalent in your shoots? Especially you, CC, since you seem to be working with live people in the middle of busy events.
Cow - I dig the triptych and the simplicity of the shots. The middle doesn't fit as well as the other two.
I was gonna say this. I love the light/color/sky in the leftmost image - that is the best part overall for me.
Projek - the second shot is a tad over-saturated for my tastes, but I like the processing in the first one. Both shots feel a little lacking subject-/composition-wise. Van-next-to-wall possibly has promise, but ask yourself what in the image attracted you, and what else is in the image that isn't in the list of what attracted you (does the grass play a part in your vision? the remote building? the fence?) Then ask yourself if there was a different angle or distance from which you could have shot to focus on the elements you most wanted for the image and to exclude ones that you don't need.
In the Furniture picture I like the composition more, but I feel like I've seen the shot plenty of times (ha! This coming from the flower guy...) I'd encourage you to also think about what you want to show people ... not just the item(s) but what about the item(s) interests you and how can you communicate that to the audience while adding a bit of your personal flavor to it. How can you make your picture stand out? I don't pretend that this isn't a current struggle for me; I'm not some guru who knows how to do this stuff ... this is one place that I'm currently trying to grow/change. But your pictures seem ready for this level of analysis/planning.
As always, take all my thoughts with a healthy serving of salt.
NY Times is asking people all over the world to all take a picture at the same time on Sunday, May 2nd at 15:00 UTC (here in Central time in US that's 10am). I'm going to do it - you all should join me. Once the picture is taken they ask you to upload it and they'll make a mosaic out of everyone's images. (They ask for pretty high-res: I think 1000 pixels minimum on the long edge - maybe 5mp?).
Anyway I think it'll be cool. It'd be rad if PA Photogs do it.
CC: I love those colors. Very striking. I'm considering updating from CS4 to CS5 but I'm not sure content aware is worth the $200. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you get a chance to work with it.
I have a student version of cs2 and you can only upgrade at the lower price($200) from 3 versions prior. So I pretty much have to upgrade now. So if I were you I would wait until CS7 before you upgrade.
Note: You can only upgrade from a student version to a regular version they don't have a "student upgrade" because the student version is so cheap to begin with.
Cow - I dig the triptych and the simplicity of the shots. The middle doesn't fit as well as the other two.
I was gonna say this. I love the light/color/sky in the leftmost image - that is the best part overall for me.
Yea I couldn't find / didn't have an image that would go well in the middle but I didn't really want to do a diptych with those two images. So I shoe horned that one in.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Cow - I dig the triptych and the simplicity of the shots. The middle doesn't fit as well as the other two.
I was gonna say this. I love the light/color/sky in the leftmost image - that is the best part overall for me.
Yea I couldn't find / didn't have an image that would go well in the middle but I didn't really want to do a diptych with those two images. So I shoe horned that one in.
As a triptych I actually like the, what is that, a hydrangea? I like that in the middle because it visually creates a miniaturizing effect on the two trees. Those are trees, right? But since there's no ground or other landmarks around the trees, I like fact that it makes the viewer do a double-take. By themselves it looks like two trees with sky background, which is pleasant, but with the flower in the middle it changes it overall.
Along similar lines I've started using http://www.flickrleech.net/ to browse the explore by day pages. It puts all the images onto a single page so you don't have to deal with paging.
nO: As for the texture photo it has great composition and colors but I think the tone of the hands make them look almost a bit sickly and old rather than "I'm an assassin". Also the wedding ring seems a little out of place for similar reasons. Maybe I'm missing the intent but it looks like a take on the Hitman video game / movie which is known for the white shirt and bold red tie:
Eggy: I have no idea what type of plant it is. The picture was from some flowers on a tree, if that helps any. Even with the shoe-horning I was trying to use that photo / middles image to add some color and perspective difference to the triptych. I was considering using this older picture with an appropriate crop in the middle, but I'm not if it would have been better or worse:
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
nO: Really like your last texture pic, but I agree with cow: the first thing I thought when I saw that last night on flickr was that your hands looked really old. Other than that though I really like the post (as usual) on that pic.
CC: really like the triptych on the last page. And the framing on that leaf right above is great. Only comment would be maybe try a different crop? The left side seems a bit heavy/bland to me. As usual though, that's being a bit picky.
You might make a layer-mask to include all the background then try a curves adjustment-layer to increase contrast in the background some - there are some interesting colors there are all washed out and muted right now. I wouldn't go crazy, but some more pop in the background might be nice.
You caught terrific light on that rockface in the foreground.
Thanks for the comments. I agree about the hands - to be honest didn't think of that shot as part of the hitman series, but more of a texture thing. Really liked the way the skin / leather / tie played together. But i agree, on a conceptual level it would be better the way you guys said it.
Also - re: the cliff - the composition is a bit stale. It's dead smack in the middle. You have some cool negative space - should have used that and moved the rock all the way into the left bottom corner.
Posts
I really like that lime shot, cow!
edit: one more
@ Balsamic - I would prefer a low-end (possibly used) DSLR (or Micro 4/3 system) camera over a big-ass point-and-shoot like this Fuji (which I know nothing about). The biggest problem with a camera like the one you linked is that the photovoltaic elements (the "pixels") are going to be close together because that will (I am assuming this) use the same small chip that's in a point-and-shoot camera. The closer the pixels are to each other the more their electromagnetic fields can interfere with each other. This leads to graininess, and whatever the camera does to reduce graininess also reduces sharpness. It's a bad trade-off. A DSLR has a larger chip, and tends to create images that can be sharper with better colors than a point-and-shoot.
I also prefer Nikon and Canon because they are the 900-pound gorillas of the industry. That means that if you buy DSLR then they have the widest selection of lenses (both brand and off-brand) but it also means their sensors are cutting edge as they do their own R&D and have a lot of money to put into that. Lens selection is a good factor to consider because even if you can't afford many lenses today, they are investments that last for years and years, so buying a brand that offers a good selection means that 5 years from now you have many many choices instead of few. Sony is another big name with good products, and Olympus and Pentax get a lot of good credibility. In the micro 4/3 market Olympus and Panasonic seem to be the biggest names.
keh.com and adorama.com and B&H are all reputable dealers who sell used (KEH does so exclusively) with highly respected rating systems (condition should be as good or better than the rating indicates).
I bought my camera (Canon EOS 20D) used a couple years ago from a local camera store - a great option if your city has one (more expensive than online, but local in case there are any issues that need addressing) and have bought 2 of my 4 lenses used: one from a forumer from a Texas photo forum - someone with a reputation at stake and the other from craigslist where I had the option to test the lens before buying.
Anyway, let me repeat my suggestion to get a camera with removable lenses if you really want to get into photography. That will give you so much more flexibility in what you do and what capabilities you have available - it's really worth it. For the record, I am merely a hobbyist who does this for fun. I've never sold a picture nor tried. DSLRs are not just for pros.
@ Projeck - Really dig #s 1 and 3. #2 has a lot of very bright stuff in the frame (the top and the left side) and they hurt my eyes. I can see it was really bright and exposing the dude was tough. That's not actually D.M.C. is it?
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Whooooa...
Cow: I don't know if you're the type to play with textures and stuff in your pp, but I think it could be interesting if you went that way with your fog shot. And I actually like your bright white + blue shot, but I wish I could see the orange thing well enough to tell what it is.
It's nice to see peoples' setup shots because they're not as crazy elaborate as I would have assumed. I guess it's all in the details.
Are baby pictures worse than making no contribution at all? I'm not ready to commit to an external flash, so I picked up this thing called a Light Scoop and it does surprisingly well when used within the confinements of what it was made for (bouncing off fairly close, light colored walls and ceilings). Results of the first few days of practice with it:
edit: If anyone's interested in the Light Scoop, look here:
Uh did you fail at quoting me or something? Also wth does the link have to do with anything?
As for the baby pictures I second bombs. Please stop PSing baby eyes to be crazy glassy orbs. (Without prompting, my gf called the eyes of the baby "very intense")
I'm flipping back and forth now and I see what you guys are saying. I might dial it down some, but the parents love the shots so I'm torn. Being the makers of the baby really ups their chances of liking any pictures of him though. Here he is with eyes untouched:
and touched up, for easy comparison:
A little background -- I'm taking hundreds of photos of the city centre of Pondicherry, India. It's my goal to spot French heritage and these pillars are a great example. Unfortunately I couldn't just barge in, because it's the private property of the Shri Aurobindu Ashram and they're not very keen on people who are uninterested in their spiritual mission.
I dislike this ashram, they own about 300 buildings in town and they have painted them all gray. I asked around why the hell they would pick that colour over the original colour (either creamy yellow or white) but it seems to be done for no other reason than to get some uniformity in. It's not like gray is an important colour in their views or anything. I asked a local heritage foundation if they would try and convince property owners to leave their buildings in the original colours, but they said they already had trouble convincing people not to destroy 300 year old palaces, the paint job is the least of their concerns.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
http://kaileyjoanette.co.nr
I'm guessing fake ad account.
EDIT: nevermind on the smarter, it literally is a quote from your post on the first page. I thought they had typed something photo related to trick people into clicking the link.
If the photos are too terrible to even talk about, then I'm fine dropping it and moving on. Thanks guys.
http://kaileyjoanette.co.nr
I dunno what you're going for, so it's hard to suggest what would be better/worse. For me I think the color thing is the biggest thing unless you want to make art, then I have no idea how to advise you.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
edit: I wasn't going for any artsy statement, so don't put any thought to that. I wanted some practice with flash + Light Scoop, and hoped for some photos for the parents that were beyond the quality of the snapshots they are able to take themselves.
I think you achieved this just fine. The photo doesn't have that washed out, weird, stark look that on-camera flash photos sometimes get. For photos for family you might consider a more traditional color palette with the skin tones going a bit more towards pink. Still, for experimenting with flash it's fine stuff. CC and NeedO may have stuff to add - I keep my flash use to a minimum so I'm no great resource on that.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Doing a dpchallenge thing every week now... so here's where i ended up this week.
Aldo: I think it would be a stronger composition if you had gotten the bottom of the door. The tangent between the corrugated tin and the top of the pillars is a bit confusing, as well. Pretty interesting, though.
nO: Love the reds, not sure about the crop. I also think that if you're going to have that much glare on the glasses you might as well go all the way, if possible. It's striking, but I'm not sure what it's showing me. How did you set up the light on this shot?
CC: I love those colors. Very striking. I'm considering updating from CS4 to CS5 but I'm not sure content aware is worth the $200. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it once you get a chance to work with it.
It's quite annoying to take pictures here anyway, it's about 10 degrees celcius hotter on an average day than during a heatwave back in the Netherlands and I really have to plan out my way through town so that I can cover as much terrain as possible without straying too far away from places to rest or autorickshaw stands.
I'm asking because I have a D60 which will not act as a wireless commander. Currently I use an Elinchrom Skyport to fire an SB-600. Setting the flash manually has not been a quick process, but this could be due to my inexperience.
My plan is to pick up an SB-900. I may pick up a flash commander, too, as it would allow me to use TTL, and sell the Skyport receiver and transmitter. By the end of the year I'm going to pick up a used D3 or D700, which from what I understand, will act as a wireless flash commander.
*Edit: Apparently I've stumbled onto as, Mr. Strobist calls it, a Ford vs Chevy debate.
(Bolding mine)
So what about you guys? Personally, how do you, or don't you, use the Nikon CLS or Canon equivalent in your shoots? Especially you, CC, since you seem to be working with live people in the middle of busy events.
Cow - I dig the triptych and the simplicity of the shots. The middle doesn't fit as well as the other two.
Projek - the second shot is a tad over-saturated for my tastes, but I like the processing in the first one. Both shots feel a little lacking subject-/composition-wise. Van-next-to-wall possibly has promise, but ask yourself what in the image attracted you, and what else is in the image that isn't in the list of what attracted you (does the grass play a part in your vision? the remote building? the fence?) Then ask yourself if there was a different angle or distance from which you could have shot to focus on the elements you most wanted for the image and to exclude ones that you don't need.
In the Furniture picture I like the composition more, but I feel like I've seen the shot plenty of times (ha! This coming from the flower guy...) I'd encourage you to also think about what you want to show people ... not just the item(s) but what about the item(s) interests you and how can you communicate that to the audience while adding a bit of your personal flavor to it. How can you make your picture stand out? I don't pretend that this isn't a current struggle for me; I'm not some guru who knows how to do this stuff ... this is one place that I'm currently trying to grow/change. But your pictures seem ready for this level of analysis/planning.
As always, take all my thoughts with a healthy serving of salt.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
In case you didn't know but might be interested: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/about-3/
NY Times is asking people all over the world to all take a picture at the same time on Sunday, May 2nd at 15:00 UTC (here in Central time in US that's 10am). I'm going to do it - you all should join me. Once the picture is taken they ask you to upload it and they'll make a mosaic out of everyone's images. (They ask for pretty high-res: I think 1000 pixels minimum on the long edge - maybe 5mp?).
Anyway I think it'll be cool. It'd be rad if PA Photogs do it.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I have a student version of cs2 and you can only upgrade at the lower price($200) from 3 versions prior. So I pretty much have to upgrade now. So if I were you I would wait until CS7 before you upgrade.
Note: You can only upgrade from a student version to a regular version they don't have a "student upgrade" because the student version is so cheap to begin with.
Yea I couldn't find / didn't have an image that would go well in the middle but I didn't really want to do a diptych with those two images. So I shoe horned that one in.
As a triptych I actually like the, what is that, a hydrangea? I like that in the middle because it visually creates a miniaturizing effect on the two trees. Those are trees, right? But since there's no ground or other landmarks around the trees, I like fact that it makes the viewer do a double-take. By themselves it looks like two trees with sky background, which is pleasant, but with the flower in the middle it changes it overall.
I'll have to keep that in mind myself.
Another image from the shoot on the weekend that I kinda liked after I noticed all the cool textures.
edit: I just installed a new flickr extension for chrome and I'm loving it. Automatic lightbox, view on black links, navigation with keys, exif info shortcut, and more.
https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/fhaledancjhefginmkkondfjpnkhdglh
Along similar lines I've started using http://www.flickrleech.net/ to browse the explore by day pages. It puts all the images onto a single page so you don't have to deal with paging.
nO: As for the texture photo it has great composition and colors but I think the tone of the hands make them look almost a bit sickly and old rather than "I'm an assassin". Also the wedding ring seems a little out of place for similar reasons. Maybe I'm missing the intent but it looks like a take on the Hitman video game / movie which is known for the white shirt and bold red tie:
Eggy: I have no idea what type of plant it is. The picture was from some flowers on a tree, if that helps any. Even with the shoe-horning I was trying to use that photo / middles image to add some color and perspective difference to the triptych. I was considering using this older picture with an appropriate crop in the middle, but I'm not if it would have been better or worse:
CC: really like the triptych on the last page. And the framing on that leaf right above is great. Only comment would be maybe try a different crop? The left side seems a bit heavy/bland to me. As usual though, that's being a bit picky.
My Portfolio Site
What post production improvements would people suggest on this photo?
I actually worked at work on Saturday. Also I went out on a date with a real life girl.
Can you like, permanently break the forums?
You caught terrific light on that rockface in the foreground.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Also - re: the cliff - the composition is a bit stale. It's dead smack in the middle. You have some cool negative space - should have used that and moved the rock all the way into the left bottom corner.