|
Forum: Photo Critique
06-15-2010, 08:26 AM
|
| |
Thanks for your help. I will have a play around with it!
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
06-13-2010, 08:36 AM
|
| |
Jason - thanks very much. It does have more impact in your version. What exactly did you do to it? I'm no PP expert myself...
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
06-08-2010, 02:10 AM
|
| |
This reminds me a bit a exhibition I went to a few weeks ago, of a guy who'd taken pictures of people watching TV, some of them young children or babies. The expressions on the people's faces were pretty rapt. I think he'd put an HD camera behind the screen, filmed the models throughout the movie they were watching, and then taken stills from it.
Robbie Cooper, Immersion
Anyway, not really a critique, but I thought it might be interesting.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-03-2010, 01:49 AM
|
| |
I don't know if this site has been posted already, but it covers the situation in the UK:
I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist
They have a little print out and keep 'Bust Card' that lists your rights in the event that you're challenged by the filth.
|
|
Forum: Video Recording and Processing
05-30-2010, 01:29 PM
|
| |
Surely you meant utterly awful?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
05-30-2010, 03:50 AM
|
| |
Cameras aren't evolving into cell phones. Human beings are evolving into cell phones and cameras. Soon, they're going to be able to implant chips in our brains, so you can make a phone call just by thinking it. You'll also be able to take pictures of things by blinking in their general direction, and then eject a 400dpi colour-calibrated print from your arsehole.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-28-2010, 06:38 AM
|
| |
I'm not a fan of the poreless, waxwork skin thing at the best of times, and on a child I think it looks outright sinister. So I think they're both overdone, but that's a totally subjective, emotional reaction.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-27-2010, 09:22 AM
|
| |
It's hard to tell with these small pics, and zooming in on such small, low-res pics is going to make them look awful regardless. But at a glance they don't look horrible to me. I think they're quite nice, actually.
Using .jpg at a low quality level can introduce visible noise, as can resizing the image... at least I think so, based on my limited understanding of the topic.
But honestly, with the original image at ISO 100, noise shouldn't have been an issue.
But maybe we're not talking about the same thing... what do you mean when you say 'grain'? I assumed you were talking about digital noise, which many people think is analogous to film grain (it isn't.)
Cute baby.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-18-2010, 01:55 AM
|
| |
It's PP, actually - I just mentioned it off the cuff - so you're probably not interested, but it's a way of copying small parts of the image onto another part of the image... in this case I guess you'd use some of the sky to cover the branch.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-15-2010, 02:01 AM
|
| |
Since everyone else is being nice about this photo, I'm going to make some criticisms. ;)
Personally, I don't think it's exposed terribly well. The foreground is under-exposed, all the detail in the left edge is lost in shadow and the figure is also underexposed. The sky, on the other hand, is over-exposed so the detail in the clouds is blown out. However, the fact that you were shooting down a shadowed avenue of trees, straight into a patch of daylight sky made this a pretty tricky exposue to get right and some compromise is inevitable. If it were me, I think I might have tried metering for the green and just let the sky blow entirely.
Compositionally, the tangle of branches in the foreground and the one that enters the frame in the upper right third are jarring. I recommend that you at least clone out the branch that appears to be skewering the poor kid's head.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
05-04-2010, 07:14 AM
|
| |
I'm absolutely the last person qualified to offer criticism on anyone's photography, but I found the photo interesting so here's my tuppence worth:
1) I find the two patches of sky (is it sky?) on either side in the upper section of the image quite distracting. Is there anyway you can burn them in to make them darker? At the moment they're the brightest thing in the picture...
2) It seems off axis. Could you rotate and crop so that the lines through the centre of the image (i.e. those least affected by the lens distortion) are absolutely vertical in relation to the frame?
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-30-2010, 01:33 AM
|
| |
In answer to a question from Icywarm (in the album comments, rather than in this thread) here's the colour version of this same shot...
 |
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-28-2010, 06:51 AM
|
| |
I saw this tractor apparently abandoned on some moorland, so I went and took some pictures of it. Here's a black & white conversion of the one I liked best. Opinions?
 |
|
Forum: Photo Critique
04-28-2010, 06:00 AM
|
| |
FWIW, I don't think the fact that the stitching isn't 'neat' is an issue, at all. It reminds me a bit of Hockney's 'Joiners'. Maybe you could try not 'framing' it at all, let it spill out, be even 'messier'.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-29-2010, 11:07 PM
|
| |
Istanbul is huge and full of stuff. You could easily spend your entire few days there without ever leaving the 'Old Town,' but there's just as much to see in other areas of the city. I would recommend that you buy a good guide book and decide what attractions sound most appealing to you. And definitely buy a good, detailed city map.
Never take the taxis; they're theiving bastards and they will screw you over.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
03-21-2010, 05:44 AM
|
| |
Thanks for posting this formula. That's a question I wanted to ask myself...
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-19-2010, 07:11 AM
|
| |
Thanks, that's good to know.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
03-19-2010, 01:40 AM
|
| |
When the Shake Reduction is turned is on and I'm using a teleconverter should I give the camera the focal length of the lens alone, or the focal length of the lens multiplied by the TC's magnification?
E.g. assume I'm using a 50mm lens mounted on a 1.7 TC. When I switch the camera on the SR system wants me to dial in the focal length of the length of the lens. Should that be 50mm, or 85mm (50*1.7), or something else?
Also, for the purposes of the SR what effect do extension tubes have? If I'm using the 50mm lens on a 31mm tube, should I tell the camera that it's a 50mm lens or an 80mm lens, or something else again?
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
03-08-2010, 03:17 AM
|
| |
I just bought a flash meter on eBay to use with my studio flashes (I've just started the process of setting up a 'home studio'.) It arrived today - picture attached - but didn't come with a manual and I'm wondering exactly how to use it. I can see how to set the ISO number, and I can see how to read-off an f-number for the given meter reading, but I can't work out which part of this dial (if any) corresponds to shutter speeds. Any ideas?
*Edit* I think I might have just worked out for myself why this is a stupid question. :o
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
03-04-2010, 03:22 AM
|
| |
'Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.'
- Samuel Beckett
Interesting thread, btw.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-04-2010, 03:00 AM
|
| |
Thanks a lot for all your feedback. FHPhotographer, I followed up some of the things you mentioned re B&W conversion and ended up spending about five hours last playing around with things. I had no idea that there were so many different techniques for it, or that you could exert such fine control... so thanks very much for that tip.
Anyway, I messed around - experimentally - with the image along some of the lines suggested above, and this is what I ended up with. God knows if it's an improvement, but I enjoyed myself. :D
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-03-2010, 01:07 AM
|
| |
That's interesting, thanks. What would you advise to do for B&W conversion? I just desaturated in GIMP. Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not that experienced.
I'm going to have another mess around with the crops.
Cheers!
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-02-2010, 11:09 AM
|
| |
Yeah, that's one of my problems with that image too.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
03-02-2010, 10:32 AM
|
| |
Here are a couple of the best shots from a shoot I did at the weekend. I'd had the idea in my head for a few days. I wanted to get the eroticism of the model's curves against the sterile and prosaic background of the tiles and the burned-out window. I always intended the images to be black + white, and was pleased to discover that they did, indeed, look better that way. (In fact, in colour these photographs look pretty bland.)
It took me a few trial shots to get the exposure right, so that skin was correctly exposed with the light through the window behind the model burned out... but other than that the hardest part was cleaning the bathroom so I could shoot in it.
There was a small, homemade reflector positioned directly behind her, although this made only a barely perceptible difference to the highlights on her arse.
I like the first shot better, it seems more fully realized. However, I wonder if the fact that her right arm just creeps into the edge of the frame is a problem and if it would be better to re-crop to remove it or even clone it out.
The second shot seems a bit more problematic to me. I like the cheeky glimpse of nipple, just out of focus in the upper right... but I made a posing error that prevented me from including the full curve of her breast in the final crop. Basically, I should have asked her to lift her arms above her head so that they were completely out of shot. As it was, I had to crop to remove them and thus loose the top of her breast. Overall, I think the curve of her body through this picture isn't quite right; I should have directed her to accentuate it a bit more.
There's some fringing on both of these images, which is uncharacteristic of this lens (Pentax-M 50mm f1.7) but given the contrast and the aperture (f4) I guess it was fairly predictable.
|
|
Forum: Welcomes and Introductions
03-02-2010, 09:10 AM
|
| |
Hi, I'm a newbie here. Based in Yorkshire in the UK, and using a K200D, (which I bought about six months ago,) and an ME Super which belonged to a family member and which I've rescued from storage. Here to learn, and to share my photos. This seems like a helpful and friendly community.
|
