The Photography thread!

[Andy Capp]

The photo looks fine.

If you don't capture it IN CAMERA then its not a real photo.

Adobe is the death of photography.

I try to make my pics work on their own without anything more than cropping, so I agree, but I don't see a lot wrong with a few basic edits like balancing the lighting a bit. And I also think I don't take as many really striking pics as those who do more processing of their images. It's the age-old purist's tradeoff dilemma, innit?

 

[boingyman]

Some new pics, lemme know what you think.

This second one isn't especially brag-worthy to me since it is a bit washed out and lacking detail on a couple of petals on my screen, but I like it a lot anyway.
Same goes for this one, which, although it lacks the detail in the petals, contains glorious detail elsewhere.

But this is all building up to a few pics I think are really good, which I will post a little later when I have more time. Regarding the first pic, I will repost a better, full resolution version. I erred with that one. When you see it you will understand.

Bottom shot is overexposed; looks like you used flash and it blew out the flowers. Overall poor use of light, bad composition and framing. Besides practice, some kind of interest in plants/flowers or part of a set of photos pick something better to shoot.

 

[fdswer]

Some Bison picks. Now stuff is opening up around here I can get back to work.

 

[Andy Capp]

Bottom shot is overexposed; looks like you used flash and it blew out the flowers. Overall poor use of light, bad composition and framing. Besides practice, some kind of interest in plants/flowers or part of a set of photos pick something better to shoot.

Of course, I admitted it wasn't the best picture when I posted it. I guess I'm just a little more fascinated by the interesting detail in it than most. Hopefully you'll like the ones I intend to post later a bit more.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Your better off using a reflector with those kinds of shots rather than a flash which beyond blowing highlights is likely to give a washed out appearance.

I'd say your exposure comp down 2/3rds of a stop at least if your using any kind of automation as well. Bringing up the brightness of the rest of the image shouldn't be s problem but blowing the highlights like that is probably unrecoverable.

Actually one of the things film does arguably have a bit of an edge on still, B&W anyway can give you more leeway with highlights. This shot of sea spray was pretty much white when I originally scanned it....

 

[Andy Capp]

Bottom shot is overexposed; looks like you used flash and it blew out the flowers. Overall poor use of light, bad composition and framing. Besides practice, some kind of interest in plants/flowers or part of a set of photos pick something better to shoot.

So, firstly, any comment on the other 2 pics?
Second, do you like this better (honest question)? Incidentally, please note, all I'm doing before posting these is a quick crop and no image processing. Either way, more coming soon

 

[rj144]

I try to make my pics work on their own without anything more than cropping, so I agree, but I don't see a lot wrong with a few basic edits like balancing the lighting a bit. And I also think I don't take as many really striking pics as those who do more processing of their images. It's the age-old purist's tradeoff dilemma, innit?

This belief that using PS to process pics is not artistically welcomed is a load of horse crap though. Film photographers edited things all the time in the dark room. Here's a before and after of Ansel Adams shot:

In fact, he was famous for doing these zone calculations (not his photo though) on how to process the images:

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.co...-before-photoshop-ansel-adams-and-james-dean/

How you see the shot is different than how someone else sees, the sensor sees it differently, the monitor sees it differently... so to say it should be how you naturally see it is even an ambiguous statement.

 

[rj144]

Some Bison picks. Now stuff is opening up around here I can get back to work.

All are nice, but this one is awesome.

 

[fdswer]

This belief that using PS to process pics is not artistically welcomed is a load of horse crap though. Film photographers edited things all the time in the dark room. Here's a before and after of Ansel Adams shot:

In fact, he was famous for doing these zone calculations on how to process the images:

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.co...-before-photoshop-ansel-adams-and-james-dean/

How you see the shot is different than how someone else sees, the sensor sees it differently, the monitor sees it differently... so to say it should be how you naturally see it is even an ambiguous statement.

Photo editing has been around since people have been taking photographs but for some reason the film hipsters forget about it. I still use film but there are just some situations and environments where you need a modern camera to get what you want because film wouldn't work.

 

[fdswer]

All are nice, but this one is awesome.

Thanks man, its not always easy getting close up portraits of wildlife.

 

[Andy Capp]

This belief that using PS to process pics is not artistically welcomed is a load of horse crap though. Film photographers edited things all the time in the dark room. Here's a before and after of Ansel Adams shot:

In fact, he was famous for doing these zone calculations (not his photo though) on how to process the images:

https://whitherthebook.wordpress.co...-before-photoshop-ansel-adams-and-james-dean/

How you see the shot is different than how someone else sees, the sensor sees it differently, the monitor sees it differently... so to say it should be how you naturally see it is even an ambiguous statement.

Yes, please don't misunderstand me. When I used the term purist to describe myself, I didn't intend it as any sort of self-righteous high-horsing, despite the literal definition of the term. I'm a mental case so I really don't want to alter anything unless I really have to. But then as often as not I would rather just leave it and try to take a better one next time. Speaking of which, if you would be willing to critique the last 2 sets I posted I would appreciate it.

 

[fdswer]

Yes, please don't misunderstand me. When I used the term purist to describe myself, I didn't intend it as any sort of self-righteous high-horsing, despite the literal definition of the term. I'm a mental case so I really don't want to alter anything unless I really have to. But then as often as not I would rather just leave it and try to take a better one next time. Speaking of which, if you would be willing to critique the last 2 sets I posted I would appreciate it.

Nothing wrong with that and it's a good way to learn instead of relying on editing to get the composition and other stuff. Learning how to get the picture as close to what you want with the camera will make you a lot better overall I think.

 

[scorpipede]

took my new carmera out and here some pics from local gardens.

Do people get angry that you're chillin in their gardens?

 

[Smokes]

Do people get angry that you're chillin in their gardens?

Haha. I meant the Local botanical Cumminty garden. Its a city run space.

 

[Andy Capp]

Ok @Andy Capp , I see you are quite enthusiastic with photography.
I like some of your photos. You said you wanted advice, so I'll try to give you some. Notice that it is my personal opinion and not some undeniable truths.

Our friend @rj144 pointed out that you may benefit from a better camera and I absolutely agree. Key points with a mirrorless/dlsr camera would be better (and interchangeable!) optics, bigger matrix and the ability to set preferences (iso, shutter speed, diaphragm, focus, etc) manually.

But regardless of the camera, composition is probably the most important factor that makes a photo good. You need to learn to set the main object and its surroundings in such a way that the viewer sees things the way you want them to. Regarding your photos, you may want to look at those aspects:
-General composition. There is no single golden rule here, but with theory and practise you will learn to place objects in your shot in such a way that it helps the viewer to see the beauty of the shot and focus on its main idea.
-Point of view. Usually if you see something and just shoot from your height, it is not going to be very interesting. Don't shy away from finding the most suitable angle for your shot. Sometimes you may even have to get dirty while doing it.
- Getting rid of "dead pixels". Generally you should try to make your shots look good without cropping them, but in some cases it's very much needed. For example, on the photo below you caught an interesting shadow, but most of the picture is just plain boards.


I would advise you to hit the search engines for composition tips (just don't become another mindless adept of the rule of thirds!), then try to apply your new knowledge. If you like the results, start the search for a better camera. Which optics to get would depend on what you prefer to shoot.

I have yet to take your advice on searching out composition tips, but I will. In the mean time, please feel free to check out my more recent pics and see if they might be better. The one with the badly washed out petals is what it is, ignore it if you see fit.

 

[rj144]

Yes, please don't misunderstand me. When I used the term purist to describe myself, I didn't intend it as any sort of self-righteous high-horsing, despite the literal definition of the term. I'm a mental case so I really don't want to alter anything unless I really have to. But then as often as not I would rather just leave it and try to take a better one next time. Speaking of which, if you would be willing to critique the last 2 sets I posted I would appreciate it.

The pic of the purple flower is much better. Keep going...

 

[ssBaldy]

Some new pics, lemme know what you think.

This second one isn't especially brag-worthy to me since it is a bit washed out and lacking detail on a couple of petals on my screen, but I like it a lot anyway.
Same goes for this one, which, although it lacks the detail in the petals, contains glorious detail elsewhere.

But this is all building up to a few pics I think are really good, which I will post a little later when I have more time. Regarding the first pic, I will repost a better, full resolution version. I erred with that one. When you see it you will understand.

A lot of detail is lost in the bright areas of those photos.3rd is the worst in this aspect, but the proiblem is present on all of them. I think the 3rd picture also has the most potential to be good since it doesnt show the flower exactly how I would see it just looking down on it. Also the bokeh effect is there.
Were those shot on a phone?

 

[ssBaldy]

So, firstly, any comment on the other 2 pics?
Second, do you like this better (honest question)? Incidentally, please note, all I'm doing before posting these is a quick crop and no image processing. Either way, more coming soon

Yes, this is better. No detail lost. Foreground and background are separated nicely.
You need to experiment more with focus and composition, don't rush the process and take your time. If you find an object you like and have time, try shooting it from different angles and focus on different parts of it. For example with this flower focusing on the point of its pestle could have been interesting.

 

[rj144]

And some around town

What camera did you get?

 

[Smokes]

What camera did you get?

Olympus Mark 2.

First mirrorless. Loving the lightweight. Bought 40-300mm lens to but think this camera is best for Street and Macros than birding, sport or Landscape.