Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Oisín · Apr 30, 2009, 03:30 AM

Nice tracks. I don’t think the portrait format suits it, though. When I first saw it, only the top 40 or so per cent were visible, and that was actually a better shot, I’d say. More harmonious.

And if you could just sort of go back out there and straighten the part at the end where the tracks seem to turn left, that would be neat too. Just keep it going straight ahead for another half mile or so.

OreoCookie · Apr 30, 2009, 04:36 AM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I've seen one of those spider thingies elsewhere. I can't remeber where but I know I have pictures.

I've seen a few in Roppongi, Tōkyō, for instance.

mattyb · Apr 30, 2009, 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I've seen one of those spider thingies elsewhere. I can't remeber where but I know I have pictures.

The Tate Modern in London? Same artist.

ThinkInsane · Apr 30, 2009, 12:09 PM

Found it! The National Gallery of Canadia in Ottawa. I knew I had a picture.

ghporter · Apr 30, 2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Can't wait to see the dog, too.

Unfortunately, we're having yet another crappy weather day. Any suggestions for getting pictures of a gracefully moving dog on a crappy, ugly-overcast day?

Oisín · Apr 30, 2009, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by ghporter

Unfortunately, we're having yet another crappy weather day. Any suggestions for getting pictures of a gracefully moving dog on a crappy, ugly-overcast day?

Flash + gel.

Originally Posted by strobist.blogspot.com

Q: How did they get that overcast sky so neon blue?
A: Set the camera balance to tungsten, which renders the formerly neutral clouds blue. Underexpose the sky (to, say, a stop below medium grey) for more of an effect. Then, CTO-gel the flash lighting your subject to render the light hitting it as white and you have the effect.

ghporter · Apr 30, 2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Oisín

Flash + gel.

I need a better flash then. No way to gel the one I've got.

Oisín · Apr 30, 2009, 06:52 PM

This is the perfect excuse for some tech-lust appeasement, then!

harbinger75 · May 2, 2009, 12:15 AM

Originally Posted by Oisín

Nice tracks. I don’t think the portrait format suits it, though. When I first saw it, only the top 40 or so per cent were visible, and that was actually a better shot, I’d say. More harmonious.

And if you could just sort of go back out there and straighten the part at the end where the tracks seem to turn left, that would be neat too. Just keep it going straight ahead for another half mile or so.

I see what you're saying about the top portion of that photo. I, too, wished the tracks kept going straight when I was taking that photo. I actually didn't shoot any landscape-oriented photos of those tracks, sadly.

Railroader · May 2, 2009, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

I need a better flash then. No way to gel the one I've got.

Rubber bands and a gel sample pack from Roscolux. Fits just about any normal flash unit.

ghporter · May 2, 2009, 11:30 AM

Wow, that's creative! I am at the point where I need a flash that's up to working wellwith my Rebel XTi. I have a VERY old flash that I got when I first got into 35mm photography, and while it will "work" with the camera, it doesn't do everything it should because it doesn't seem to communicate effectively with the camera. More stuff to spend money I don't have on...

Oisín · May 3, 2009, 08:56 AM

Get a Lumopro LB120. It’s good, reliable, and—most importantly—cheap ($130).

harbinger75 · May 13, 2009, 11:42 PM

mattyb · May 14, 2009, 03:03 AM

Nice harbinger75, something about the colour though, can't describe it.

Noticed from your Flickr photos that you've used a Sony, a Canon SX10 and the Rebel - do you change camera alot or do you have loads of cameras? I'm very very tempted to trade in my recently purchased SX10 for a dSLR - really want to fool around with some prime lenses in low-light situations (the SX10 is NOT the camera for low-light).

- - e r i k - - · May 14, 2009, 10:04 AM

Yeah, it seems to be a bit wishy-washy in the mid part. I'd go over with the burn tool to fix up those mid tones and maybe add some punch to the shadows just on the mid-right section of the rocks.

harbinger75 · May 14, 2009, 11:48 AM

mattyb-

I've just upgraded cameras a lot here lately, and will actually do so again in a couple weeks. I'll end up using the Rebel as a backup camera when I go back to Nikon with the D3 (if things work out as currently planned).

mattyb and - - e r i k - -

Thank you for the critique about the shadows and color. I knew it didn't look totally correct to me, either, but until you mentioned burning the right side, it didn't click. I'm going to mess with this one a bit later to see if I can improve the contrast on that right side.

I've got a ton of photos from a recent Colorado/Utah trip, so I'm sure several will need the "treatment."

mattyb · 09:49 AM

Photos removed by mattyb 26 Dec 2009

Even though I'd sell both of my kids for a really good SLR with a nice fast lens, I've got to admit to really liking the movable screen on the SX10. SO easy to take low shots or shots over a fence when you can see what you're shooting.

mr. burns · May 19, 2009, 11:14 PM

San Jose flea market

Jawbone54 · May 20, 2009, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by mr. burns

San Jose flea market

You've tapped into my love for monochromatic candid photography.

I finally got a chance to edit some non-work-related photos...

Yes, clover is boring (and ugly), but it always feels cold between your toes, even in the summer, and that gets a thumbs up from me.

IceEnclosure · May 20, 2009, 01:53 AM

love that baseball kid shot!

Oisín · May 20, 2009, 04:28 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Yes, clover is boring (and ugly)

The plant itself may be (I wouldn’t know, I’m a faunistic analphabet that wouldn’t recognise clover if it drove past me in a bathtub on wheels), but your picture of it certainly ain’t.

Baseball kid is pure 1950s postcard material. Gorgeous.

mr. burns · May 20, 2009, 04:54 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

You've tapped into my love for monochromatic candid photography.

]

thanks, i'm working on a 10-image series. here's another. and yea that baseball shot has a very nice warm, nostalgic feel to it and the tilt of the camera really works well.

Oisín · May 20, 2009, 05:01 AM

^ I have a feeling I’ve seen that last one before. Is it an old one you’re (re?)posting now, or is it perhaps just very similar to another picture I must have seen somewhere? I’m sure I’ve seen that thing with the guy in the wheelchair in the foreground and a kid, semi-blurred, walking past him left-to-right in the background.

OreoCookie · May 20, 2009, 06:29 AM

Great shot of the little baseballer, Jawbone, how much did you have to tweak the colors?

Railroader · May 20, 2009, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Absolutely perfect shot. I can't think of a single criticism. I can feel what that kid is feeling. I normally am not too fond of your color processing work, but I really like this one.

I have been taking shots at my daughter's YMCA soccer games. This week I took my new 10-22mm and captured this shot. I really wish I wouldn't have cut off the feet. I have done zero post processing on it.

mdc · May 20, 2009, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

I have to agree with everyone and say that this shot is brilliant. Love it.

- - e r i k - - · May 20, 2009, 08:51 AM

You have certainly captured that Americana Nostalgia in that baseball shot perfectly.

If I were to bring any criticism to the table it would be that it's tilted just a tad too much to the left for my liking.

harbinger75 · May 20, 2009, 11:41 AM

The baseball player is gorgeous. I really like the angle, color and sense of pre-action.

Here's another:

Jawbone54 · May 20, 2009, 12:05 PM

Thanks, everyone. Here's my delayed response...

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Great shot of the little baseballer, Jawbone, how much did you have to tweak the colors?

Thank you much. I did very little in Lightroom, but did pull up the contrast a bit, warmed it up ever-so-slightly, then exported to Photoshop and used a vintage action, adjusted some of the opacities on several layers, then pulled the overall opacity down to 65%. In all, the process took about 2 minutes.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Absolutely perfect shot. I can't think of a single criticism. I can feel what that kid is feeling. I normally am not too fond of your color processing work, but I really like this one.

Thank you, sir.

Originally Posted by mr. burns

thanks, i'm working on a 10-image series. here's another. and yea that baseball shot has a very nice warm, nostalgic feel to it and the tilt of the camera really works well.

Yeah, I like that shot of yours a lot. Did I see it on Flickr or something before?

Originally Posted by Oisín

The plant itself may be (I wouldn’t know, I’m a faunistic analphabet that wouldn’t recognise clover if it drove past me in a bathtub on wheels), but your picture of it certainly ain’t.

Baseball kid is pure 1950s postcard material. Gorgeous.

You should really walk in some clover.

Thanks. I wanted that vintage look simply because every single time I watch my nephews play baseball, go to an MLB game, or even play catch with someone, it feels like I've stepped back into time. Any of you guys feel that same way?

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

love that baseball kid shot!

Originally Posted by mdc

I have to agree with everyone and say that this shot is brilliant. Love it.

Gracias.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

You have certainly captured that Americana Nostalgia in that baseball shot perfectly.

If I were to bring any criticism to the table it would be that it's tilted just a tad too much to the left for my liking.

I'd agree with you that 99% of the time, this is a bit too much tilt. I took maybe ten others from this angle, and while one in particular had the perfect composition I was looking for, the moment wasn't quite as nice, so I went with the tipsy one.

Originally Posted by harbinger75

The baseball player is gorgeous. I really like the angle, color and sense of pre-action.

Thank ya.

mr. burns · May 20, 2009, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Oisín

^ I have a feeling I’ve seen that last one before. Is it an old one you’re (re?)posting now, or is it perhaps just very similar to another picture I must have seen somewhere? I’m sure I’ve seen that thing with the guy in the wheelchair in the foreground and a kid, semi-blurred, walking past him left-to-right in the background.

yea i may have put it up before. i just wanted to show another from the series.

zipperzap · May 22, 2009, 01:49 AM

... I can see my house!

glideslope · May 24, 2009, 11:14 PM

moep · May 25, 2009, 02:31 AM

The Alfa Romeo pictured there was designed by Enzo Ferrari and won the Mille Miglia in 1936 - estimated worth around 7000000 € (~ 10 million USD).
He drove it like a maniac.

mr. burns · May 25, 2009, 07:45 PM

Jawbone54 · May 25, 2009, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by moep

I dig.

Railroader · May 26, 2009, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by moep

Since this is a critique thread, and not a gallery thread (which it seems to be turing into), I decided to pick this image. The other two are fine, but I think this one could have been much better with a lower composition angle. Also, I am not really picking up on a focal point of the image. Is it the car? Is it a part of the car? Is it the window? I think the depth of field is a little to large. And the color saturation could be a little bit more as well.

Please don't think I am picking on you, I am just doing what I set the thread up for. Critiquing and improving our art. And on that note... have at this image of mine I too today.

- - e r i k - - · May 26, 2009, 09:39 PM

It's very cute, but could do with a tiny bit of exposure boost.

IceEnclosure · May 27, 2009, 03:38 AM

and a napkin to clean up the drool.

- - e r i k - - · May 27, 2009, 05:41 AM

Skin tones also lean a bit towards the green side on my monitors.

moep · May 27, 2009, 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Since this is a critique thread, and not a gallery thread (which it seems to be turing into), I decided to pick this image. The other two are fine, but I think this one could have been much better with a lower composition angle. Also, I am not really picking up on a focal point of the image. Is it the car? Is it a part of the car? Is it the window? I think the depth of field is a little to large. And the color saturation could be a little bit more as well.

Please don't think I am picking on you, I am just doing what I set the thread up for. Critiquing and improving our art. And on that note... have at this image of mine I too today.

I just wrote a lengthy post and the forum logged me out after submitting (yay) — here’s the condensed version:

I’m grateful for any critique of course. I have a lot to learn when it comes to photography and appreciate any feedback, good or bad. I’ll also refrain from posting more than 1 picture at a time to avoid turning the thread into a gallery.

As for composition, from my understanding it is an art that’s hard to learn. When I shoot photos I usually go by my gut feeling and what might look good in the end. You either have the talent or you don’t. Or are there fixed rules that apply all pictures and can be learned from a book? If so, I’d be really thankful if you could point out some standard literature or good websites on the topic.

And that picture in particular… I sometimes feel like I’m overusing DOF after I have bought two decent Canon f/2.8 glasses. They produce gorgeous bokeh but in some pictures it just feels inappropriate. I thought that the window in the back looks interesting as a background for example.

Also, that particular picture was taken with the EF-S 17-55 kit lens at ~25mm and I believe the lens was wide open (have to check the EXIF when I’m at home). Stepping futher back was no option either because of a wall behind me.
Is there a third trick (besides aperture and focal length) I’m missing to produce the DOF effect?

Railroader · May 27, 2009, 08:15 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

It's very cute, but could do with a tiny bit of exposure boost.

Just over all exposure, or just brighten the lighter colors?

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure

and a napkin to clean up the drool.

Awww man, that's part of the whole appeal!

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Skin tones also lean a bit towards the green side on my monitors.

THAT, is what had been bugging me about this image. I couldn't pin point it, but the skin is just not right.

- - e r i k - - · May 27, 2009, 07:02 PM

Just the lighter colours. I'd also shave a bit on the top, left and bottom as there's a lot of empty space and compositionally move the eyes towards the upper third.

Here's an example of a crop and warming:

- - e r i k - - · May 27, 2009, 07:03 PM

Compositional tip: There should be more space in the direction the subject is looking, and less behind them.

mattyb · May 31, 2009, 06:47 AM

I found it very difficult to shoot the airplanes as they were flying, hardly got any non-blurry photos. Here is one of them.

Railroader · May 31, 2009, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Just the lighter colours. I'd also shave a bit on the top, left and bottom as there's a lot of empty space and compositionally move the eyes towards the upper third.

Here's an example of a crop and warming:

I posted the image in the original format. This was a picture from a photo shoot for some customers. The picture goes to its final crop when the customer decides what size image they want. An 8x10 will have the top and bottom closer to the subject and a 4x6 will be tightened up all around. I compose all of my portraits this way.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Compositional tip: There should be more space in the direction the subject is looking, and less behind them.

Not "tip", but opinion or suggestion.

harbinger75 · May 31, 2009, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I posted the image in the original format. This was a picture from a photo shoot for some customers. The picture goes to its final crop when the customer decides what size image they want. An 8x10 will have the top and bottom closer to the subject and a 4x6 will be tightened up all around. I compose all of my portraits this way.

Not "tip", but opinion or suggestion.

/agreed.

- - e r i k - - · May 31, 2009, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

Not "tip", but opinion or suggestion.

WTF is a tip then?

Railroader · May 31, 2009, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

WTF is a tip then?

A "tip" is a piece of advice. And your "There should be more space in the direction the subject is looking, and less behind them." is an opinion.

You can use that empty space however you want. I chose to center the subject in my picture to focus on the subject.

- - e r i k - - · May 31, 2009, 09:46 PM

So are you saying that composition is purely subjective?

Jawbone54 · 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

A "tip" is a piece of advice. And your "There should be more space in the direction the subject is looking, and less behind them." is an opinion.

A pretty good one though, to be honest. The rule of thirds and leading lines are so popular for a very good reason. This particular picture could benefit from their application.