Oh I have discovered something really lovely about this A7, I already knew about the adaptors for Canon, Nikon lenses but just found out that Leica R lenses (nice and cheap compared to the M lenses) work perfectly according to a number of sites with an adaptor. Think i'm gonna do a bit of shopping
apologies in advance for further nothing baby photos. i'm testing out my mobile workflow with the new smartphone - xperia z1 compact. (don't believe the hype, people: smartphones take a photo in a pinch, but the quality is still far from impressive. very smudgey / noise reduced, even in full light) anyway i use eye-fi to upload the pics from my x100 directly to my phone and have been using camera+ on the iphone for post-processing (which is awesome if any of you don't have it), but have had to switch to fotor for android. it's zippy, has most of the functions i need and i can get it done in 5 minutes when i take a good shot.
Gotta be honest, I much prefer your first shot to your second, @bsjezz. I assume you mean "compressed" in terms of tonal range -- as there's some significant banding around the window there -- but the composition also feels off, and it feels very oppressive, for want of a better word. The subject doesn't seem very clear and the darkness in the corner draws too much attention.
Link your flickr, @Ziggymon! Is that shot straight out-of-camera? The colours seem a bit "off" but I can't pinpoint why -- think it's the building on the right having a blue tint while the left-hand side seems much brighter and more vibrant. Keep shooting and experimenting, it can take a while to find your groove but when you do you'll be amazed by how much better your camera can get in your hands.
Gotta be honest, I much prefer your first shot to your second, @bsjezz. I assume you mean "compressed" in terms of tonal range -- as there's some significant banding around the window there -- but the composition also feels off, and it feels very oppressive, for want of a better word. The subject doesn't seem very clear and the darkness in the corner draws too much attention.
Link your flickr, @Ziggymon! Is that shot straight out-of-camera? The colours seem a bit "off" but I can't pinpoint why -- think it's the building on the right having a blue tint while the left-hand side seems much brighter and more vibrant. Keep shooting and experimenting, it can take a while to find your groove but when you do you'll be amazed by how much better your camera can get in your hands.
Yeah, the colours are off, For some reason Lightroom kept changing the colours on the Raw file when I first loaded it and made it look a little less vibrant. I have no idea why? I tried to compensate that by adjusting the exposure post processing but its still a bit off. However its very close to how the shot looked from the camera.
Thank you. Im going to try and get out over this next week and really get experimenting on what this thing can really do.
... meanwhile I just got a roll of Provia back and I'm considering giving it all up and going to live in a cave. My "long" exposures weren't nearly long enough and while I can sort of make details out on a lightbox, my scanner is only picking up highlights and noise. Grr. I love shooting film, I really do, but the lows can really get you down.
@Ziggymon, RAW files are generally fairly flat compared to the OOC JPG. It's been a while since I've touched LR but I remember the vibrancy slider can be very drastic. Someone else could probably be more helpful.
Gotta be honest, I much prefer your first shot to your second, @bsjezz. I assume you mean "compressed" in terms of tonal range -- as there's some significant banding around the window there -- but the composition also feels off, and it feels very oppressive, for want of a better word. The subject doesn't seem very clear and the darkness in the corner draws too much attention.
yep, you're right about the darkness in the corner being a bit of a distraction. it does have a bit of a dark and grimy tone, which is not really what i was going for. but then maybe that's what makes it interesting to me, i'm not sure.
@bsjezz That first picture is not very flattering at all. It looks like it was done with a semi-wide angle very close up. Or maybe it is just the super close up that is not doing any favors.
I don't have much room to talk since I also just posted a picture of one of the most common subjects ever.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
yeah, as i say. they're more or less nothing photos i was using to test out what sort of processing i can get done with my phone. (having a kid also.plays havok with your sense of objectivity)
Speaking as a person without kids I would say most, if not all, newborns are not very photogenic. When they are almost a year and you throw some cute hats / props, a good background, and a lot of photoshopping then they start to be more cute. IMO.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Maybe this is the wrong attitude to have but I don't believe subjects need to be "photogenic". Things don't have to look nice to make a nice shot. I think one of the roles of the photographer is to render her subjectivity as a work in its own right, free from our own perceptions of the subject. Elements unique to photography -- composition, lighting, colour -- are more important, to me, than the intrinsic beauty of the subject.
Especially when the subject is a baby and the purpose is documentation, not necessarily beauty or glamour.
(Maybe I'm just saying what everyone already knows and using too many words to do it...)
no, you're right. my role isn't to take glamour photos, i don't care about that. a photo should be a document of reality; sometimes style is required to add layered meaning to that document, sometimes the process adds style, but at its heart i seek (perhaps vainly) a sort of authenticity. that's why i don't mind a baby photo being oppressive, or clinical; a child's first days is very clinical, at least the way we experienced it, and sometimes being a parent feels oppressive. if these ideas come out, i don't feel like it's photographic failure, unless it's totally contradictory to the purpose. more important of a failure are blown highlights, missed focus, and awkward composition. which i also struggle with plenty!
... meanwhile I just got a roll of Provia back and I'm considering giving it all up and going to live in a cave. My "long" exposures weren't nearly long enough and while I can sort of make details out on a lightbox, my scanner is only picking up highlights and noise. Grr. I love shooting film, I really do, but the lows can really get you down.
The charts I found for Provia don't recommend compensation for anything below two minutes ... I think it was just underexposed, probably as a result of dodgy metering.
Maybe this is the wrong attitude to have but I don't believe subjects need to be "photogenic". Things don't have to look nice to make a nice shot. I think one of the roles of the photographer is to render her subjectivity as a work in its own right, free from our own perceptions of the subject. Elements unique to photography -- composition, lighting, colour -- are more important, to me, than the intrinsic beauty of the subject.
Especially when the subject is a baby and the purpose is documentation, not necessarily beauty or glamour.
(Maybe I'm just saying what everyone already knows and using too many words to do it...)
[edit: "unique" is maybe the wrong word. Central?
I would say it is the "wrong attitude" to have it is just a different style/preference. Personally I like the style where you try to make everything as beautiful as possible. I'm not trying to document the world around me like a journalist because at least the things I'm able to document I see on a consistent basis. Capturing those things without any added flare or interest doesn't really make me want to look at those photos. This is why I often harp on the "find interesting subjects you don't normally see or shoot common subjects in an uncommon way." The style you guys go for is just not my cup of tea and that is why I have been a bit less active in this thread recently. I don't feel like I have much to add other than I don't like this. I don't like this. I don't like this.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
adding flare and interest is crucial, but that's not always the same thing as beautification. a photograph can have narrative interest, for example, create a sense of drama or tension; for me that's a zillion times more interesting than spot-corrected photoshop 'beauty'.
adding flare and interest is crucial, but that's not always the same thing as beautification. a photograph can have narrative interest, for example, create a sense of drama or tension; for me that's a zillion times more interesting than spot-corrected photoshop 'beauty'.
I'm confused are we still talking about the baby photo? If so, I see really no flare, interest, narrative, or emotion in that photo. Maybe you have an emotional connection but as an outside viewer I do not. And you obviously understand that are less than objective because it is your kid.
As a point of clarification, I still think photos of things like grizzled old men can be still be beautiful.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I don't want to come across as maintaining a harder stance on this than I am, and I also don't think our beliefs are too far apart, personal taste notwithstanding. I just oppose this idea that subjects need to be beautiful in order to make a nice photo.
That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going all-in on the inverse, arguing that bins and vending machines are better subjects than models and castles -- but they could be, and as a photographer I do find them a more compelling subject, if only because they're naturally more challenging to make interesting.
adding flare and interest is crucial, but that's not always the same thing as beautification. a photograph can have narrative interest, for example, create a sense of drama or tension; for me that's a zillion times more interesting than spot-corrected photoshop 'beauty'.
I'm confused are we still talking about the baby photo? If so, I see really no flare, interest, narrative, or emotion in that photo. Maybe you have an emotional connection but as an outside viewer I do not. And you obviously understand that are less than objective because it is your kid.
As a point of clarification, I still think photos of things like grizzled old men can be still be beautiful.
dude, the first thing i said about the baby photos was that they were 'nothing' photos. i shared them because i want to talk about the process of using a phone while on-the-go to do a bit of post-processing. that's the interesting thing, because, you know, the fuckin' future! it's here! if you want to keep bringing up how they're crap and my baby's actually an ugly buttface and not as beautiful as a histographically corrected sunflower, i'm not going to stop you, but you're missing the point there.
what we're talking about now isn't workshop-grade baby photos in an amatuer photography community, but trends and ideals in photography as an artform. it's apparent to me that it's incredibly easy to present HDR-images, be it through an instant filter, an automatic camera function, or painstaking digital processing. because of this, that sort of image may well be someone's version of beauty but for me it's not engaging and not interesting.
this is a circular, subjective argument and one that could go on forever. i'm sure we've had it before to the same level of passive hostility, so i apologise for being stubborn about it all. maybe i should just post some flickr streams i like to end on a concrete note
heh. i'm a highschool teacher: it takes more than animated discussion to rile me up. which is to say i enjoy this sorta sparring.
edit: i promise i will post some photos though, i'm wandering into town later to pick some stuff up and will finish off my current roll. they'll probably all suck.
I don't feel like I have much to add other than I don't like this. I don't like this. I don't like this.
Thats the CommunistCow I know and love.
Since the dawn of the Photo thread, CC was there to tell people that their stuff sucks. Its a tradition. And its fine to have different point of views presented. Otherwise it will turn into SA dorkroom circle jerk over "deadpan" photography.
i had never heard of the term 'deadpan' photography before @muninn mentioned it, but i feel more than warranted in filling it up with my photos, if only because i don't capitalize my 'i's
and nah, i was thinking about adding some portra to my last order of cheap expired film... but i flaked out trying to get the whole thing (with international shipping) under a hundred bucks. i'll need to buy new colour chemicals soon as well and the budget is shrinking
Always willing to do a bulk order, if that helps any. Shipping is a real issue. A friend of mine from work is thinking about getting into film and I'm looking forward to being able to combine orders for maximum thrift and less chance of pissing off the mailroom. Not that I don't have enough to use up as-is, but Ektar is nowhere near as versatile as Portra 400.
I also have a bunch of B+W to use up, but I only want to use that if I'm home developing, and I still haven't found a good way of discarding used fixer.
As far as deadpan goes, I still don't know if my photos qualify as "deadpan", or what constitutes deadpan. It seems in many ways the photographic equivalent of "postmodern literature", at least in terms of how it's understood. I'd talk more on this but it's getting late.
I really like this one. Being off center doesn't bother me too much either.
@CommunistCow I really like your sunflower, but did you consider a tighter crop? And i really like the post on the flower itself, but it does look a tiny bit overdone.
hmm. hadn't thought about centering the stems, as the iris itself sort of leans to the right and draws attention that way. i checked it out in photoshop and it probably does look a little better nudged to the right.
edit: the boat sticking out of the left edge of the frame really irks me
I kind of like it. I feel it helps weigh down that side of the frame so it feels more as if the bird is flying into the empty unknown. The one on the right I could maybe do without, as it feels more of an imposition.
Oh man, things intersecting the sides of my frame like that drive me absolutely nuts. I get pretty aggressive with cropping to negate those issues.
I do sometimes as well, but it depends on the subject. In this case, it creates a nice balance, but it is a little distracting at the same time. Maybe just a tiny bit of space to the right would have been nice.
Also photo people, I haven't forgotten about the MIT courses. I've been pouring over them quite a bit over the last couple weeks when I have the free time. It seems the best course of action is going to be combining all the classes into one small course, because they're either VERY beginner oriented, or extremely book heavy. And while I wouldn't mind reading maybe a book or two, there is some serious reading going on. Some of the projects are slightly basic, but maybe we could all benefit from a return to basics? I dunno, anyways still kinda looking over them and going to look up some other online coursework from other schools, websites, etc. and see if we can put together something that might be a little more fun.
As an example, the only course that is more or less strictly photography... with maybe a little bit of philosophy thrown in (that is, without a lot of reading) focuses on: "Light, Detail, Poetics" as subjects.
I'm in the middle of editing a wedding I shot last week on the side of my normal work week, but will keep on it and hopefully have something up and ready so we can start next weekend.
'ground control' is a really challenging photo to me. at first i don't like it, and then i am super duper excited by how carefully it's framed, then i think the frondy frame is arbitrary and only obscures the subject, then it all reminds me of a star trek planet and i'm excited again. there's a lot that's incongruous about it, and that's not necessarily bad. i think what i like most about it is i could immediately identify who took the shot because it's very much of your particular style, @Prospicience. that's harder to achieve than it seems.
last couple from the ominous fog the other morning.
@prospicience I feel that the shot would work much better if the foliage framed the subject a bit better without intruding into the frame, and was darker or more out of focus. Otherwise it gets pretty busy.
@bsjezz I really dig this series, although all the dust really distracts from the experience. You have very nice gradients and then all that sharp white stuff all over.
Posts
37 Days by jeremy-o, on Flickr
edit: one more since this is a better photo, and better treated.
Midday Sun by jeremy-o, on Flickr
edit edit: that last one looks super compressed on a real screen. hmm.
Sunflowers from my garden.
sunflower by jeff25rs, on Flickr
So been playing around with the A7. I pretty much suck at Photography but I like this shot.
Link your flickr, @Ziggymon! Is that shot straight out-of-camera? The colours seem a bit "off" but I can't pinpoint why -- think it's the building on the right having a blue tint while the left-hand side seems much brighter and more vibrant. Keep shooting and experimenting, it can take a while to find your groove but when you do you'll be amazed by how much better your camera can get in your hands.
Yeah, the colours are off, For some reason Lightroom kept changing the colours on the Raw file when I first loaded it and made it look a little less vibrant. I have no idea why? I tried to compensate that by adjusting the exposure post processing but its still a bit off. However its very close to how the shot looked from the camera.
Thank you. Im going to try and get out over this next week and really get experimenting on what this thing can really do.
@Ziggymon, RAW files are generally fairly flat compared to the OOC JPG. It's been a while since I've touched LR but I remember the vibrancy slider can be very drastic. Someone else could probably be more helpful.
yep, you're right about the darkness in the corner being a bit of a distraction. it does have a bit of a dark and grimy tone, which is not really what i was going for. but then maybe that's what makes it interesting to me, i'm not sure.
Especially when the subject is a baby and the purpose is documentation, not necessarily beauty or glamour.
(Maybe I'm just saying what everyone already knows and using too many words to do it...)
[edit: "unique" is maybe the wrong word. Central?
Reciprocity failure?
I would say it is the "wrong attitude" to have it is just a different style/preference. Personally I like the style where you try to make everything as beautiful as possible. I'm not trying to document the world around me like a journalist because at least the things I'm able to document I see on a consistent basis. Capturing those things without any added flare or interest doesn't really make me want to look at those photos. This is why I often harp on the "find interesting subjects you don't normally see or shoot common subjects in an uncommon way." The style you guys go for is just not my cup of tea and that is why I have been a bit less active in this thread recently. I don't feel like I have much to add other than I don't like this. I don't like this. I don't like this.
I'm confused are we still talking about the baby photo? If so, I see really no flare, interest, narrative, or emotion in that photo. Maybe you have an emotional connection but as an outside viewer I do not. And you obviously understand that are less than objective because it is your kid.
As a point of clarification, I still think photos of things like grizzled old men can be still be beautiful.
That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going all-in on the inverse, arguing that bins and vending machines are better subjects than models and castles -- but they could be, and as a photographer I do find them a more compelling subject, if only because they're naturally more challenging to make interesting.
dude, the first thing i said about the baby photos was that they were 'nothing' photos. i shared them because i want to talk about the process of using a phone while on-the-go to do a bit of post-processing. that's the interesting thing, because, you know, the fuckin' future! it's here! if you want to keep bringing up how they're crap and my baby's actually an ugly buttface and not as beautiful as a histographically corrected sunflower, i'm not going to stop you, but you're missing the point there.
what we're talking about now isn't workshop-grade baby photos in an amatuer photography community, but trends and ideals in photography as an artform. it's apparent to me that it's incredibly easy to present HDR-images, be it through an instant filter, an automatic camera function, or painstaking digital processing. because of this, that sort of image may well be someone's version of beauty but for me it's not engaging and not interesting.
this is a circular, subjective argument and one that could go on forever. i'm sure we've had it before to the same level of passive hostility, so i apologise for being stubborn about it all. maybe i should just post some flickr streams i like to end on a concrete note
coolhandluke
kevko76
JUNKU NISHIMURA
athena-chant
Leigh Griffiths
edit: i promise i will post some photos though, i'm wandering into town later to pick some stuff up and will finish off my current roll. they'll probably all suck.
Underflow by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Water Route by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Undergrowth by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Thats the CommunistCow I know and love.
Since the dawn of the Photo thread, CC was there to tell people that their stuff sucks. Its a tradition. And its fine to have different point of views presented. Otherwise it will turn into SA dorkroom circle jerk over "deadpan" photography.
And here is a photo:
Masts by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Depth of Field by jeremy-o, on Flickr
how about that
really digging the colours of your most recent set, @bsjezz. did you ever get any portra? I think you'd enjoy using it.
and nah, i was thinking about adding some portra to my last order of cheap expired film... but i flaked out trying to get the whole thing (with international shipping) under a hundred bucks. i'll need to buy new colour chemicals soon as well and the budget is shrinking
I also have a bunch of B+W to use up, but I only want to use that if I'm home developing, and I still haven't found a good way of discarding used fixer.
As far as deadpan goes, I still don't know if my photos qualify as "deadpan", or what constitutes deadpan. It seems in many ways the photographic equivalent of "postmodern literature", at least in terms of how it's understood. I'd talk more on this but it's getting late.
The Tetons
Two Medicine Lake
I really like this one. Being off center doesn't bother me too much either.
@CommunistCow I really like your sunflower, but did you consider a tighter crop? And i really like the post on the flower itself, but it does look a tiny bit overdone.
Doesn't bother me, but it would look better being in the dead center. Not a hard fix but might result in a cramped right side with those ships.
one more digital one for now
The Best Morning to be a Gull by jeremy-o, on Flickr
edit: the boat sticking out of the left edge of the frame really irks me
I do sometimes as well, but it depends on the subject. In this case, it creates a nice balance, but it is a little distracting at the same time. Maybe just a tiny bit of space to the right would have been nice.
Also photo people, I haven't forgotten about the MIT courses. I've been pouring over them quite a bit over the last couple weeks when I have the free time. It seems the best course of action is going to be combining all the classes into one small course, because they're either VERY beginner oriented, or extremely book heavy. And while I wouldn't mind reading maybe a book or two, there is some serious reading going on. Some of the projects are slightly basic, but maybe we could all benefit from a return to basics? I dunno, anyways still kinda looking over them and going to look up some other online coursework from other schools, websites, etc. and see if we can put together something that might be a little more fun.
As an example, the only course that is more or less strictly photography... with maybe a little bit of philosophy thrown in (that is, without a lot of reading) focuses on: "Light, Detail, Poetics" as subjects.
I'm in the middle of editing a wedding I shot last week on the side of my normal work week, but will keep on it and hopefully have something up and ready so we can start next weekend.
Aaaand I guess I'll plop this here:
My Portfolio Site
last couple from the ominous fog the other morning.
Safe Harbour by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Mothership by jeremy-o, on Flickr
@bsjezz I really dig this series, although all the dust really distracts from the experience. You have very nice gradients and then all that sharp white stuff all over.
I finally shot more film: