Project Mayhem: If you can afford it, I would go for the XSi. I have the XTi, and I do like it a lot, but I messed with the XSi in best buy and it has some nice features I wish I had and (from the little I played with it) it was nice to have image stabilization come on the kit lens. Though I suppose if you just got the right lens to stick on the XTi you could get that.
Man, I am getting lazy or possibly distracted. I totally forgot to edit out the leaf-bits in my second photo (the ones that intersect the top of the image). Ugh! I'll edit and replace it shortly.
Jives, I am still digesting your picture. I tend to shy away from pictures of death/dead animals, but mainly because it's a powerful topic that I am not comfortable with standard methods of conveyance (some people show the ridiculous, like Dali's skull made of nude women; some people overwhelm you with it like the bone cathedral or that woman photographer who held the two dead birds to her eyes (forget the name); etc).
More than 75% of your frame is blurry. In a way I think that helps carry the image, but I think perhaps the top 15% of the frame being all blur then the next ~15% being so filled with blur (the bird is only starting to enter the frame at this point) maybe a little too much. My eye wanders around this area a pretty long time before 'finding' the bird. On the other hand, some of the wandering is good, that's what makes the sudden discovery of the bird a powerful experience. The blanket of ice (obviously) is key, as it further obscures the bird (and suggests a 'blanket' like the bird is sleeping, and it has other effects, too), but I digress .... I think there's a fine line to find between too much room for the eye to wander before finding the bird and the right amount. I think you have too much, but I could not make a good suggestion on how much to crop off to achieve the right amount. The leaf-stem intersecting the bird's head is not ideal, but I am not surprised you didn't move it (touching it might be kinda gross, and also might disturb the mud).
So I am not sure the picture could ever achieve what it sets out to achieve, but it's pretty damn close, and it's quite effective nonetheless.
I hope you don't mind my long-winded and possibly too know-it-all critique. I am talking out of my ass and I know it, even if my paragraph doesn't communicate that. Anyway, that's my thoughts.
I was going through my portable hard drive trying to organize things(hahaha), and ran across a few pics I hadn't seen in awhile. (Probably for a good reason...:-P)
And, since this thread has been (mostly) light hearted:
MAD LIB!*
Everything else sucks because they need _______ contrast to give it more _______. If you _______ it so it is _______ it won't be so distracting. The subject is also _______ in _______ qualities to really give the viewer something to latch on to. You also cropped _______ to close to the _______. If you adhered to the rule of ______ it wouldn't look so boring. Also stop sucking at ________. Yours truly <irate photo critiquer>
Your words:
Thirds
Defining
Contrast
Lacking
Photography
More
Level
Saturation
Less
Interest
Punch
Rotate
Subject
Frame
*kind of but not really.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I really like this. The gray-tones are terrific and the DOF does a nice job of subject/background separation. Very nice.
Sexy as fuck.
Here's one o' mine done with a Nikon d80:
I'm not sure all that negative space works for me, personally...I think it would've worked better if you had a flash or something you could've popped in, depending on how long the actual distance was between you and the water, and you and the buoy.
Does Kodak still do good stuff? I think their Kodachrome brand died, but they probably still have some quality film.
Really, even bad film has a great look to it when the images come back, and every brand's gonna look different, and tastes will differ from person to person. I say grab a variety of brands on the cheap and go experiment.
Macro detail of rainwater on my car window. Macro because of the little patterns nature has made with the water.
Sunrise over Cobh Harbour, taken through our apparently very dirty and scratched (?!) sliding door. The reason I didn't take a photograph outside is that I was sleeping, got thirsty enough to be woken, got up to get some water and I saw that. It was cold and I was still undressed so I wasn't going to go out the front door with the camera. Still, it was a lovely sunrise, so I had to snap it - through the sliding door. I just think the oddness of it all gives it a lovely texture.
St. Colman's Cathedral, here in Cobh. Was trying to get across the awesome impression you get every time you approach the building, and look up.
The statue at the top of the column at Hero's Square, in Budapest.
The only recent one is the sunrise, all the others I have just plucked from various photography folders on my hard drive and posted up onto DeviantArt today.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
That rain detail picture has absolutely no reason to be this big. It's of horribly low quality and all pixelated.
Well, yeah, I had to do a tiny bit of zooming to get the detail. And it's not about the clarity of the picture, it's supposed to highlight the patterns the rain is making in tiny drops. I don't have a true SLR and I can't swap my lens out for a macro one, so I have to make do.
Rohan on
...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.
My roommate informed me he dropped my Camera, with my 17-40 F/4 L on it, which was like $700. My pride and joy.
The UV filter is shattered, and won't come off the camera. I am not sure how to tell if the lens itself is still good. Any ideas? I'm fucking freaking out here.
My roommate informed me he dropped my Camera, with my 17-40 F/4 L on it, which was like $700. My pride and joy.
The UV filter is shattered, and won't come off the camera. I am not sure how to tell if the lens itself is still good. Any ideas? I'm fucking freaking out here.
Dude! That sucks!
That's the primary argument I have heard against leaving a UV filter on all the time (which people to to protect the lens). I am so sorry to hear it happened to you! One Austin photog I met had that happen and he used pliers to grab the filter and unscrew it and his lens was ok. Maybe that can work for you? Maybe also a little WD-40 or maybe that generic 3-in-1 oil to lube it up first? I really don't know any great ways to get that off.
That so so so sucks. I hope it ends up being ok. I don't suppose you have homeowner's or renter's insurance and have the camera and lens on it. I don't suppose your roommate has oodles of money or is offering to help you handle the cost of replacement.
My roommate informed me he dropped my Camera, with my 17-40 F/4 L on it, which was like $700. My pride and joy.
The UV filter is shattered, and won't come off the camera. I am not sure how to tell if the lens itself is still good. Any ideas? I'm fucking freaking out here.
L's are built like a brick shithouse. I say this, primarily to use the word though. I've dropped my 24-105mm, and it works fine, although from the sound of it, yours took a harder tumble.
Also, personally I'd still keep a UV filter on there, even if you have to saw it off later, it's still better to have some protection for the glass.
ps. I'm mad busy like long, sorry for lack of commenting
Ok, i might have asked this question before, but I have been searching for an answer everywhere and I just cant find it. Basically, I adore how preview on a mac renders my NEF files, but for the love of god, I cant replicate it in lightroom. Anyone has any tips?
OK lens is fine so whew. took it to the local camera shop with a repair center, guy got the filter off, said the lens was fine and i got a new filter.
Also, just thought this would be useful to some of you who shoot RAW, it's a native RAW thumbnailer/viewer for windows, so your raw files are basically treated and as easy to look at as JPEG files:
OK lens is fine so whew. took it to the local camera shop with a repair center, guy got the filter off, said the lens was fine and i got a new filter.
Also, just thought this would be useful to some of you who shoot RAW, it's a native RAW thumbnailer/viewer for windows, so your raw files are basically treated and as easy to look at as JPEG files:
So this is kind of what I am trying to emulate or strive towards. It looks very manufactured and refined but with multiple light sources you will always get some funny shadows which don't bother me at all. Sorry for the small size but do the shadows bother you in that photo?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
Jives, I am still digesting your picture. I tend to shy away from pictures of death/dead animals, but mainly because it's a powerful topic that I am not comfortable with standard methods of conveyance (some people show the ridiculous, like Dali's skull made of nude women; some people overwhelm you with it like the bone cathedral or that woman photographer who held the two dead birds to her eyes (forget the name); etc).
More than 75% of your frame is blurry. In a way I think that helps carry the image, but I think perhaps the top 15% of the frame being all blur then the next ~15% being so filled with blur (the bird is only starting to enter the frame at this point) maybe a little too much. My eye wanders around this area a pretty long time before 'finding' the bird. On the other hand, some of the wandering is good, that's what makes the sudden discovery of the bird a powerful experience. The blanket of ice (obviously) is key, as it further obscures the bird (and suggests a 'blanket' like the bird is sleeping, and it has other effects, too), but I digress .... I think there's a fine line to find between too much room for the eye to wander before finding the bird and the right amount. I think you have too much, but I could not make a good suggestion on how much to crop off to achieve the right amount. The leaf-stem intersecting the bird's head is not ideal, but I am not surprised you didn't move it (touching it might be kinda gross, and also might disturb the mud).
So I am not sure the picture could ever achieve what it sets out to achieve, but it's pretty damn close, and it's quite effective nonetheless.
I hope you don't mind my long-winded and possibly too know-it-all critique. I am talking out of my ass and I know it, even if my paragraph doesn't communicate that. Anyway, that's my thoughts.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I have seen prosipience and Sheri's photos on flickr and they're great. There are some fantastic shots here of the fog and snow.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
And, since this thread has been (mostly) light hearted:
Couple photos from Sacramentos Run To Feed The Hungry annual chairty thing:
Nature around the office:
Weirdo:
MAD LIB!*
Everything else sucks because they need _______ contrast to give it more _______. If you _______ it so it is _______ it won't be so distracting. The subject is also _______ in _______ qualities to really give the viewer something to latch on to. You also cropped _______ to close to the _______. If you adhered to the rule of ______ it wouldn't look so boring. Also stop sucking at ________. Yours truly <irate photo critiquer>
Your words:
Thirds
Defining
Contrast
Lacking
Photography
More
Level
Saturation
Less
Interest
Punch
Rotate
Subject
Frame
*kind of but not really.
DeviantART|Flickr
Brain asplode.
So, there are few things better than just taking the camera out all damn day and getting plenty of shots. PHOTO DUMP TIEM!
Having snowy mountains like an hour away from my crazy desert landscape ROCKS.
Sexy as fuck.
Here's one o' mine done with a Nikon d80:
I like quite a few of these.
I'm not sure all that negative space works for me, personally...I think it would've worked better if you had a flash or something you could've popped in, depending on how long the actual distance was between you and the water, and you and the buoy.
I'd like to run some black and white film through it, but I know nothing about film. What are the good brands?
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
Really, even bad film has a great look to it when the images come back, and every brand's gonna look different, and tastes will differ from person to person. I say grab a variety of brands on the cheap and go experiment.
I like some of the Ilford stuff. HP5 has given me good result...that's ISO 400. Tri-X has given me alright results too.
Macro detail of rainwater on my car window. Macro because of the little patterns nature has made with the water.
Sunrise over Cobh Harbour, taken through our apparently very dirty and scratched (?!) sliding door. The reason I didn't take a photograph outside is that I was sleeping, got thirsty enough to be woken, got up to get some water and I saw that. It was cold and I was still undressed so I wasn't going to go out the front door with the camera. Still, it was a lovely sunrise, so I had to snap it - through the sliding door. I just think the oddness of it all gives it a lovely texture.
St. Colman's Cathedral, here in Cobh. Was trying to get across the awesome impression you get every time you approach the building, and look up.
The statue at the top of the column at Hero's Square, in Budapest.
The only recent one is the sunrise, all the others I have just plucked from various photography folders on my hard drive and posted up onto DeviantArt today.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Now, my stuff got BOTP'd back on the last page. Anyone up for quoting it and critiquing?
Well, yeah, I had to do a tiny bit of zooming to get the detail. And it's not about the clarity of the picture, it's supposed to highlight the patterns the rain is making in tiny drops. I don't have a true SLR and I can't swap my lens out for a macro one, so I have to make do.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
Lots of images, will critique as soon as I'm done troubleshooting this damn ESX problem.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Just to share, because I don't put much of my work stuff up here:
And then a few others:
I've been doing some winter camping:
edit: one more
Just in case you're curious, I spend the nights under the stars sleeping in a snow cave.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Do bears ever chew your face off?
And how does one deal with losing a face or say an arm?
Bears are usually pretty good about just leaving you alone. And this time of year they're either hibernating or really slow.
At any rate, I still have my shotgun whenever I do wilderness hikes.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Kickass. Just in case of zombies.
My roommate informed me he dropped my Camera, with my 17-40 F/4 L on it, which was like $700. My pride and joy.
The UV filter is shattered, and won't come off the camera. I am not sure how to tell if the lens itself is still good. Any ideas? I'm fucking freaking out here.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Dude! That sucks!
That's the primary argument I have heard against leaving a UV filter on all the time (which people to to protect the lens). I am so sorry to hear it happened to you! One Austin photog I met had that happen and he used pliers to grab the filter and unscrew it and his lens was ok. Maybe that can work for you? Maybe also a little WD-40 or maybe that generic 3-in-1 oil to lube it up first? I really don't know any great ways to get that off.
That so so so sucks. I hope it ends up being ok. I don't suppose you have homeowner's or renter's insurance and have the camera and lens on it. I don't suppose your roommate has oodles of money or is offering to help you handle the cost of replacement.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
L's are built like a brick shithouse. I say this, primarily to use the word though. I've dropped my 24-105mm, and it works fine, although from the sound of it, yours took a harder tumble.
Also, personally I'd still keep a UV filter on there, even if you have to saw it off later, it's still better to have some protection for the glass.
ps. I'm mad busy like long, sorry for lack of commenting
Marlee
Alcorn State Football
I like the tilt in Marlee. Can we see bigger?
Also, just thought this would be useful to some of you who shoot RAW, it's a native RAW thumbnailer/viewer for windows, so your raw files are basically treated and as easy to look at as JPEG files:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=D48E808E-B10D-4CE4-A141-5866FD4A3286&displaylang=en
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
For thumbnails it's ok, but as far as viewing goes - nothing beats picasa.
This is not my photo but an example I am using:
http://cdn.purevolume.com/cdnImages/crop_345x235/Artist-9079472-aa.jpg
So this is kind of what I am trying to emulate or strive towards. It looks very manufactured and refined but with multiple light sources you will always get some funny shadows which don't bother me at all. Sorry for the small size but do the shadows bother you in that photo?
Some random ones from my flickr I like still:
edit: spoilered for hugeness.