[IceEnclosure]

Thanks guys, and yes they're dark, I wanted to change the mood a bit. : )

I was sitting at the drawbridge waiting for boats to pass so I could get to work. I wasn't in the "sunny-happy" mood that the sun was providing at the time.

[Jawbone54]

Ice, I love the photos, but I think the B&W would stand out a bit more and pull ahead of the color version if you adjusted the curves, bringing the whites up a bit. It needs just a bit more contrast.

Shoot, forget curves. Just do a little Ansel Adams dodging and burning, focusing on the two boats.

[Mastrap]

[IceEnclosure]

Is this your extended-dynamic range work? nice detail.



edit: I seem to remember you mentioning something about this(a sort of HDR technique you were using), but I looked through the thread and didn't see anything. Maybe not

: |

[Mastrap]

It's all done in Aperture, carefully lifting the shadows and recovering blown out areas. It also lead to a hyper-sharpened look.

[ARENA]

more at: Sergio Recabarren G.

[IceEnclosure]

awesome!

[mdc]

I finally got my new camera so hopefully I'll be able to post some photos sometime.
I quickly took this one last night when I was testing out the D300 at ISO3200.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by mdc 

I finally got my new camera so hopefully I'll be able to post some photos sometime.
I quickly took this one last night when I was testing out the D300 at ISO3200.

Wow, not bad, huh? I'd love to see that shot at 100% so I could "pixel peep" and check out the noise/details. The D300 almost made me switch. If the update to the 5D isn't significant, I'm going to start saving up for a D3 a year or two down the road.

I have no critique for your photo. I just like it. Nice, dramatic lighting.

One from a senior shoot: (sorry for the borders/branding)



Her set is here.

[IceEnclosure]

shirtless garbage men, crazy.

I want a D300 like, bad.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by ARENA 

more at: Sergio Recabarren G.

Great stuff as usual, Sergio.

I wish the sunset shot wasn't quite so purple on the left side, but I think that's more of a personal preference, and not a critique. A lovely shot, for sure.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

'd love to see that shot at 100% so I could "pixel peep"

Me too.

and check out the noise/details.

Yeah, uh, that’s my reason too.

*shifty look*

[Jawbone54]

Here you go...from THE GREAT JOWLING EXPERIMENT:

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Wow, not bad, huh? I'd love to see that shot at 100% so I could "pixel peep" and check out the noise/details. The D300 almost made me switch. If the update to the 5D isn't significant, I'm going to start saving up for a D3 a year or two down the road.

I have no critique for your photo. I just like it. Nice, dramatic lighting.

One from a senior shoot: (sorry for the borders/branding)



Her set is here.

I am not a fan of this shot. I don't like the look on her face, it doesn't flatter her. Composition is well done, but the levels are way overblown. Darks are too dark and lights are too light. very little detail.

I like this shot from the shoot much better:

[mdc]

Here's a link to flickr and a full size of the shirtless garbage man.

[Nivag]

Originally Posted by mdc 

Here's a link to flickr and a full size of the shirtless garbage man.

Oops, This page is private.

do we need to be a flickr buddy?

[mdc]

Strange, it's set to public.

Try this link, and then see if you can view all sizes.

[Oisín]

They both work just fine here …

[analogika]

i'm sure they would.

[Nivag]

Originally Posted by mdc 

Strange, it's set to public.

Try this link, and then see if you can view all sizes.

Works now for me. It's impressive for a ISO3200 shot at night!! Cheers for showing it

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by analogika 

i'm sure they would.

Four minutes? That’s even faster than I’d predicted!

[Timo]

Originally Posted by analogika 

i'm sure they would.

I lol'd

[imitchellg5]

I am in no way a professional photographer, but here's a photo that I took earlier this year, just a snapshot. I really like it. It's a 2007 Lamborghini Murcielago (sp I think).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

I am in no way a professional photographer, but here's a photo that I took earlier this year, just a snapshot. I really like it. It's a 2007 Lamborghini Murcielago (sp I think).

[IMG]http://api.photoshop.com/home_69abd75e77e240408a41cd7bc6fc60fc/adobe-px-assets/f7114eb72e1942ab81bd0014456f8c86[IMG]

Do you want a critique?

[imitchellg5]

Go for it.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Go for it.

It has horrible jpg artifacting, far too much high ISO noise, many distracting elements, depth of field is too wide, the reflections are all blown out, and the only object of interest is dead center in the frame. The white balance is not bad.

Suggestions: open up your aperture and have elements in and out of focus, lower your shooting angle, use reflections to your advantage and try to place them away from the edge of the object of interests, frame your shot without so many distractions, and show a little more of the car to give scale.

This is not a thread for "snapshots".

[Railroader]

Slightly soft focus I know

[- - e r i k - -]

@RR:

It's a bit noisy and could have been much sharper. Not sure what's going on with the halos either. Tried saving it with oversharpening?

Shame, because it's a great photo composition and colourwise (although some more separation between the bird and the background colourwise would be nicer).

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

@RR:

It's a bit noisy and could have been much sharper. Not sure what's going on with the halos either. Tried saving it with oversharpening?

Shame, because it's a great photo composition and colourwise (although some more separation between the bird and the background colourwise would be nicer).

I don't understand the noise. It was taken at 400 ISO. It was handheld at 640mm 1/500th second, which is probably why it was soft. I also cropped it a little. The halo comes from upping the contrast in Adobe Camera RAW. A perfect example of how it is important to get the details right and you can't fix bad exposure in software.

Beautiful! I love the saturation and the shimmer in the water. The motion blur in the waterfall is excellent. That green is soooo DEEP! Looks like Eden.

The only suggestion I'd make is to possibly crop the glare/light on the right. But I'd hate to see anything lost in the top and bottom of the frame. Perhaps a square crop ratio?

[- - e r i k - -]

I toned down the glare in post quite heavily.

Here's a view from the outside:

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

It has horrible jpg artifacting, far too much high ISO noise, many distracting elements, depth of field is too wide, the reflections are all blown out, and the only object of interest is dead center in the frame. The white balance is not bad.

Suggestions: open up your aperture and have elements in and out of focus, lower your shooting angle, use reflections to your advantage and try to place them away from the edge of the object of interests, frame your shot without so many distractions, and show a little more of the car to give scale.

This is not a thread for "snapshots".

I don't know if you know this, but there are way to give constructive criticism without being intentionally rude and dismissive.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I don't know if you know this, but there are way to give constructive criticism without being intentionally rude and dismissive.

Agreed.
What you're suggesting, RR, isn't always (almost never) possible with a P&S. Depth of field is purely a personal decision IMHO. Large out of focus areas don't necessarily make a picture better. You don't need to use it just because you can.
The pic was probably taken at some car show where it's next to impossible to control those highlights completely. The cars are all extremely shiny and there's 1000s of Watts of light above them. I wonder how you would do it ?

That said, I would have cut off the black lower righthand corner and the top right one as well.

[IceEnclosure]

I have no idea how anyone can achieve that kind of artifacting. I've never experienced that on my P&S or heck even my webcam.

with a smile

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I don't know if you know this, but there are way to give constructive criticism without being intentionally rude and dismissive.

I was not being "intentionally" anything. The shot is pretty bad. I added pointers.

Why don't you show me how it's done instead of badly critiquing the critique.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Agreed.

How about critiquing it yourself then.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

What you're suggesting, RR, isn't always (almost never) possible with a P&S.

Then don't take such a picture and submit it to a critique thread.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

Depth of field is purely a personal decision IMHO. Large out of focus areas don't necessarily make a picture better. You don't need to use it just because you can.

I didn't say he should just because he can (or can't, which is it). I said the picture would ook better with a narrow DOF. It would eliminate the distractions and place focus somewhere in the picture.

Would you do a portrait with a wide or narrow DOF? Narrow obviously. How about a landscape shot? Wide, obviously.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

The pic was probably taken at some car show where it's next to impossible to control those highlights completely. The cars are all extremely shiny and there's 1000s of Watts of light above them.

Then don't submit a substandard shot to a critique thread and expect praise. Expect critiques and criticism.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

I wonder how you would do it ?

I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Goldfinger 

That said, I would have cut off the black lower righthand corner and the top right one as well.

That's it?!?! Seriously, is that a critique?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

I have no idea how anyone can achieve that kind of artifacting. I've never experienced that on my P&S or heck even my webcam.

with a smile

I don't know if you know this, but there are way to give constructive criticism without being intentionally rude and dismissive.

with a smile

[- - e r i k - -]

Stay focused people. This thread has undergone a cleaning once already.

[ghporter]

Ouch! Railroader, that one stung!

ON topic, now, I'm very curious how imitchell got that artifacting in the picture he posted. Was it sized with a crappy tool, was it blown up from a tiny detail? I want to know.

More on topic: erik, your grotto should look a little soft. It's a fantastic place (in the "fantasy" sense), so it shouldn't be all hard-edged. The colors are fabulous, the composition inviting, the setting magical. It's a wonderful picture of a fantasy spot. If that's not what you were looking for, then you missed it. But as art, it works just like it is. The outside picture is similar; it's a window from reality (the edges on the outer wall are sharp, but the grotto is still soft) into fantasy.

[- - e r i k - -]

Yup. I cranked up the colours to emphasise the fantasy aspect of it, so you are right on the money there Glenn!

[IceEnclosure]

taken tonight:

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

ON topic, now, I'm very curious how imitchell got that artifacting in the picture he posted. Was it sized with a crappy tool, was it blown up from a tiny detail? I want to know.

It was resized (shrunk) with Photoshop Express. The original size is 1.4 mb so I didn't want to post that in the thread. The original photo is here.

[IceEnclosure]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

It was resized (shrunk) with Photoshop Express. The original size is 1.4 mb so I didn't want to post that in the thread. The original photo is here.

Our point is, I think, that sizing down an image within it's current proportions will not created jaggies, especially with an Adobe product.

edit: It's an online app? weird. Never heard of it or used it before.

[ghporter]

Ahhh. I'll stay away from Photoshop Express then. Most of the pictures I've posted I've shrunk with Preview, and they've been pretty clean.

[Railroader]

Here's a crop from a photo I took this afternoon: [hosted at photoshop express]



Same picture after applying a brightness filter, resized, and a sharpness filter: [hosted at photoshop express]

[mdc]

Went down to the Brooklyn Bridge this morning. I missed sunrise because I had to wait 30 minutes for the train, but ended up getting some nice photos..



I did some adjustments to the colour and came up with the following.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by IceEnclosure 

taken tonight:

I really like this one. The blues and oranges in the sky really look good together.

[IceEnclosure]

Thanks! It was a crazy storm coming in from the north(left). You can see how thick it is in the lower left of that photo. The pink/orange on the right are distant clouds over the Atlantic getting shined? on by the sun setting in the west(behind me kinda).

Earlier in the day:





..and since my car died(!) I've been carpooling in this. It's like 1989 all over again:




the first one I should fix the horizon, not sure why I didn't do that. I kind of like it on the lifeguard one, and then for the Supra pic - there's a bunch of non-parallel horizontals in that photo(ocean, wall, street) though I wanted to keep the car's rake proper.

[Oisín]

Carpooling in a car that seats 1.3 person?

[IceEnclosure]

"hitching a ride"

-besides the fact that me and my buddies used to routinely stack 3 people in an '89 Supra Turbo back in the day. The two rear seats are useable for hot skinny females.

edit: and what gives? commentary on a comment? weak sauce!

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by mdc 

Went down to the Brooklyn Bridge this morning. I missed sunrise because I had to wait 30 minutes for the train, but ended up getting some nice photos..



I did some adjustments to the colour and came up with the following.

I am normally all for the Dutch tilt, but here it confuses me - especially the building in the background.
I like the original better than the manipulated version. I understand what you're doing there, but the image is so strong that it doesn't need help.

Overall I really like the image. Great capture. I wonder what he's doing right now.