# submit a photo to the urban75 critics



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

The idea here is to generate constructive and interesting feedback.
- anyone may submit an original photo to this thread, but please don't enter  loads
- anyone may give their opinion, please do!

Would someone like to post a shot?


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Would someone like to post a shot?


Not really, but how about this shot! 

It really needs to be on a black background and be centered. Oh, and you may have to increase it's size - as when I view it in FireFox it's not at it's full size! But then that's not a criticism of the shot is it?

I won't take any criticism personally. Maybe   .


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Not really, but how about this shot!
> 
> It really needs to be on a black background and be centered. Oh, and you may have to increase it's size - as when I view it in FireFox it's not at it's full size! But then that's not a criticism of the shot is it?
> 
> I won't take any criticism personally. Maybe   .



Very strong shot, anthropomorphises (animal-pomorphises!?) the bridge. Reminds me of those walker-robot things in snow from the Empire Strikes Back! Lack of clouds is good, can't find fault, though agree a non-white background would be better. Flipping the photo left to right might be worth considering?


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Very strong shot, anthropomorphises (animal-pomorphises!?) the bridge. Reminds me of those walker-robot things in snow from the Empire Strikes Back! Lack of clouds is good, can't find fault, though agree a non-white background would be better. Flipping the photo left to right might be worth considering?


I'll assume that's complimentary then Alef! Hadn't seen the robot/transformer/ESB connection and I would have preferred to have some clouds in the back. As it was it was just a grey day. 

I just liked the nice round shape of the light in contrast to the industrial metal work.... but there you go!   

I was going to put the shot into another html page, to make it look better, but eventually couldn't be bothered. Sorry!


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

I'll submit this one because I'm not very sure about it. Was trying to do something similar to yours, wordie, but just don't think these pipes and bit of wall are interesting enough.


----------



## Crispy (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> I'll submit this one because I'm not very sure about it. Was trying to do something similar to yours, wordie, but just don't think these pipes and bit of wall are interesting enough.



Nice subject - I especially like the birds 

I'm no expert, but I think a lower angle of light would have helped in this one (if the path of the sun permits it!). With shadows to the side of each pipe, they'd stand out a lot more.

Maybe bring the camera round to the left a bit, and crunch the pipes closer together in perspective. Might need a crane to get you in the right place


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

(wrong forum, duh)


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 11, 2005)

ok i'm game for it here's my pic


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 11, 2005)

seems it's all about rivers, bridges...ha, well....Enter the Thames 
[SIZE=-2](im crap at photography, i just do it for self amusement)[/SIZE]


----------



## Corax (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm _very_ amateur.  Point'n'click, me.  I was pleased with this though.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Corax_U75/U75/Line.jpg


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> ok i'm game for it here's my pic



I see this as a shot all about composition, you could emphasize the backward Z shape more by cropping the sky down. My eye catches on the foreground pole and fence, so maybe needed to be worked more into the shot. Also probably work better in b+w since the colours aren't interesting (as with my entry).


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> seems it's all about rivers, bridges...ha, well....Enter the Thames
> [SIZE=-2](im crap at photography, i just do it for self amusement)[/SIZE]



Like it a lot. Though would definitely be better in b+w because it's strength is the shapes, textures and compositions, but the brown water is distracting. Perhaps needs a bit of contrast adjustment too. Look out for a competition theme on "sinking"!

(Entries coming in thick and fast now -- at least for such a usually slow forum -- need more critics please)


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Like it a lot. Though would definitely be better in b+w because it's strength is the shapes, textures and compositions, but the brown water is distracting. Perhaps needs a bit of contrast adjustment too. Look out for a competition theme on "sinking"!
> 
> (Entries coming in thick and fast now -- at least for such a usually slow forum -- need more critics please)


I'm liking all of them but "clapham on a sunny day" is my favorite. The colours work well and compsition is lovely.
I'd like to submit but don't have my own webspace. Can I just attach a file to a post instead?


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> seems it's all about rivers, bridges...ha, well....Enter the Thames
> [SIZE=-2](im crap at photography, i just do it for self amusement)[/SIZE]


Agree with Alef. Great composition and intrigueing subject. Would be better in B&W I reckon.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> I'll submit this one because I'm not very sure about it. Was trying to do something similar to yours, wordie, but just don't think these pipes and bit of wall are interesting enough.


I think you've confused yourself here Alef. You liked the angles of the top of the building as well as the blue sky and lamppost didn't you?. Problem is you quite liked the pattern of the pipes as well. Without knowing your circumstances - like how much freedom of movement you had, equipment restrictions etc, - I think you've got too much in the picture. 

I reckon you'd have done better getting closer to the pipes and cropped out the rest, making an interesting pattern come alive against the bricks. OR Tried to isolate the slightly strange angles of the roofline against the blue sky, leaving the pipes out of it altogether.

But then, what do I know?


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> I'm liking all of them but "clapham on a sunny day" is my favorite. The colours work well and compsition is lovely.
> I'd like to submit but don't have my own webspace. Can I just attach a file to a post instead?



Cheers, bee  

I think people avoid attachments to help keep down the server costs, but if it were a real problem surely editor & co would have disabled it? Go for it.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> ok i'm game for it here's my pic


Again, as with my critique of Alef's shot, I haven't a clue about how much freedom of movement you had or what your equipment was but if you'd moved a little to your left and panned the camera a smidgen to the right, you would have made the "Z" in the picture more obvious and lost the vegitation at the end of the bridge on the right, making the whole shot more graphic. 

A slightly higher angle would also have done a lot for this shot IMO.

However, that said there's a range of other pictures in your subject matter.

If you'd gone to the path on the bridge, there may have been some very graphic things going on with all those diagonal metal struts.

Of course it's only a subjective view and you might not have thought there was anything else in it. Not a problem. Nice bridge!


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> I think you've confused yourself here Alef. You liked the angles of the top of the building as well as the blue sky and lamppost didn't you?. Problem is you quite liked the pattern of the pipes as well. Without knowing your circumstances - like how much freedom of movement you had, equipment restrictions etc, - I think you've got too much in the piture.
> 
> I reckon you'd have done better getting closer to the pipes and cropped out the rest, making an interesting pattern come alive against the bricks. OR Tried to isolate the slightly strange angles of the roofline against the blue sky, leaving the pipes out of it altogether.
> 
> But then, what do I know?



I think you know a lot  Agree with your analysis: too much at once. "Keeping it simple" really is such a good rule of thumb. Might go back and try some more shots with that of wall of pipes since it's only a short walk from here...


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> I think you know a lot  Agree with your analysis: too much at once. "Keeping it simple" really is such a good rule of thumb. Might go back and try some more shots with that of wall of pipes since it's only a short walk from here...


Alef, if you're going for a walk, and you've got the chance to take something more than a compact digicam, see what you can do with a longer lens on both pipes and roof angles. See if you can't get a little higher on the pipes as well... Just a thought! (And hopefully you'll start another thread with the results of your trip....!   )


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Cheers, bee
> 
> I think people avoid attachments to help keep down the server costs, but if it were a real problem surely editor & co would have disabled it? Go for it.


Filesize is limited to 9.8k... Now I know why it's not such a good idea. I fiddled around with photoshop but can't get a decent enough pic that small! - I'll try and find some webspace.

thanks anyway


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> If you'd gone to the path on the bridge, there may have been some very graphic things going on with all those diagonal metal struts.
> 
> Of course it's only a subjective view and you might not have thought there was anything else in it. Not a problem. Nice bridge!



i took a couple of pics from the path on the bridge but the problem was the lighting, i'm gonna go back sometime and try and climb the fence to get a pic of the bridge from the rail track
something like this


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I'm _very_ amateur.  Point'n'click, me.  I was pleased with this though.
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Corax_U75/U75/Line.jpg



Don't underestimate what can be done with a simple compact!

Your picture captures a very relaxing mood. Although I haven't taken many, I like silhouettes of buildings with sunsets. Here, though, think you've got too much going on. The clothes line would work better either as a side detail or the central subject, here it's half and half. The aerial/lighting rod was probably impossible to avoid from where you were, but unfortunately I think it really distracts. The edges of the buildings frame the sides of the picture nicely.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> i took a couple of pics from the path on the bridge but the problem was the lighting, i'm gonna go back sometime and try and climb the fence to get a pic of the bridge from the rail track
> something like this


jeff, rather than trying to get the whole structure, try getting closer to the metalwork and look for patterns in there if you can. Often some very graphic shapes and shadows to be found.

Good luck and let us know what you get.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate what can be done with a simple compact!
> 
> Your picture captures a very relaxing mood. Although I haven't taken many, I like silhouettes of buildings with sunsets. Here, though, think you've got too much going on. The clothes line would work better either as a side detail or the central subject, here it's half and half. The aerial/lighting rod was probably impossible to avoid from where you were, but unfortunately I think it really distracts. The edges of the buildings frame the sides of the picture nicely.


I agree with your comments Alef. The washing would have looked better if it was isolated in silhouette against the evening sky.... OR the buildings would have made a good frame for the colours in the sky.

However, overall, it's a nice relaxing shot and good colours in the sky.


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

right - I hope this works:

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/postercontact/detail?.dir=9605&.dnm=a96d.jpg&.src=ph


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 11, 2005)

It does...where is it?


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> right - I hope this works:
> 
> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/postercontact/detail?.dir=9605&.dnm=a96d.jpg&.src=ph



Works, and you can avoid the ads by going to just the image:
http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/41e094f9zc4f80ce3/9605/__sr_/a96d.jpg?phdvwqCBc0.Stl4y

There's an emerging theme of the need for _simplicity_ in this thread. I'm not sure what your subject is here -- the lamp post stands out most but needs to be isolated away from the rest more. The building's ornate architecture is rather lost at the angle, though does fit in with the "olde" look with the street light. Maybe try a major crop losing the cars and the large window on the right to focus centrally on the lamp along with the edge of the building and the buildings in the backgrounds?


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

Alef,

This is my original shot, *but now in a sensible html page.*

Does it change your views at all?


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> It does...where is it?


it's in Geneva, Switzerland


----------



## Pingu (Jun 11, 2005)

I am afraid I am a bit of a point and click mercahnt too but I got this one today and would appreciate any tips on how to smarten it up a bit etc. obviously I cant do much about the sand etc unless I photoshop it

I have cropped out some of the grass etc she was not central and it looked a bit lopsided

picture



original


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Works, and you can avoid the ads by going to just the image:
> http://us.f3.yahoofs.com/users/41e094f9zc4f80ce3/9605/__sr_/a96d.jpg?phdvwqCBc0.Stl4y
> 
> There's an emerging theme of the need for _simplicity_ in this thread. I'm not sure what your subject is here -- the lamp post stands out most but needs to be isolated away from the rest more. The building's ornate architecture is rather lost at the angle, though does fit in with the "olde" look with the street light. Maybe try a major crop losing the cars and the large window on the right to focus centrally on the lamp along with the edge of the building and the buildings in the backgrounds?


Yep, you're right. I haven't actually cropped this at all so far. The cars should go. It might also need a little tilt to get the post straight.


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Though would definitely be better in b+w because it's strength is the shapes, textures and compositions, but the brown water is distracting. Perhaps needs a bit of contrast adjustment too. Look out for a competition theme on "sinking"!


cheers - will polish it up a bit.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

Pingu said:
			
		

> I am afraid I am a bit of a point and click mercahnt too but I got this one today and would appreciate any tips on how to smarten it up a bit etc. obviously I cant do much about the sand etc unless I photoshop it
> 
> I have cropped out some of the grass etc she was not central and it looked a bit lopsided
> 
> picture


Nice one Pingu... I love dogs me!

Couple of things I would suggest. First, wherever possible try to press the button when the dog's actually looking at you... much more involving.

Second, as you say, you can't avoid the sand, but why not go out with the intention of shooting some pics of her and _then_ you can avoid the sand. And if you choose a day that's less overcast than today, you'll get some more vibrancy in the colours.

Just my two pennorth!    But I still like the shot.... or am I biased by my love of furry friends?

_Pingu! Obviously my post crossed as you were editing yours. To be honest I prefer your original shot as a composition than the cropped version.... _


----------



## Pingu (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Nice one Pingu... I love dogs me!
> 
> Couple of things I would suggest. First, wherever possible try to press the button when the dog's actually looking at you... much more involving.
> 
> ...




thanks

its meant to be quite sunny here tomorrow so I will try to get some nice ones



lol just goes to show how little I currently know about photography


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Alef,
> 
> This is my original shot, *but now in a sensible html page.*
> 
> Does it change your views at all?



Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I think it's an excellent shot! And the new presentation reinforces the composition. My only disagreement is about your views on not liking the grey sky, I feel it's strength is that it stands out so boldly and clearly, if there were clouds they'd just detract. I see the round lamp as an interesting extra, but the "legs" and composition as the main subject.


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: I think it's an excellent shot! And the new presentation reinforces the composition. My only disagreement is about your views on not liking the grey sky, I feel it's strength is that it stands out so boldly and clearly, if there were clouds they'd just detract. I see the round lamp as an interesting extra, but the "legs" and composition as the main subject.


I was only joking Alef...    I like the shot too! You may be right about the clouds, but I still like the strength of the lamp's contrast to the starker, straighter, harder  forms of the metal work.... 

This thread has taken off hasn't it? Especially for a weekend! Good show all....


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 11, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> it's in Geneva, Switzerland



 I wondered whether it was London or possibly Leamington Spa


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> I wondered whether it was London or possibly Leamington Spa


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 11, 2005)

i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter! 
i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.

i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.   
they are all from one of my walks, all very point-and-click...

Direction Left
River Squad
Surveillance
Eye


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

Pingu said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> picture
> 
> original






			
				wordie said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> _Pingu! Obviously my post crossed as you were editing yours. To be honest I prefer your original shot as a composition than the cropped version.... _



My first instinct is to disagree, I prefer the tighter crop. But looking at it more I'd say it's really a matter of what you want the picture to be about. The original has a slightly unusual composition making the dog look particularly lonely. The cropped version is more about the expression which I find effective. Close up her eyes, eyebrow patches and mouth are more central which I think makes it more emotive. 

(Now wishing I still had a dog to take portraits of, why do they have to have such short life-spans?  )


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

I'm putting this one up as well - I made it as simple as poss IMO ...
ps: notice the rainbow?

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/postercontact/detail?.dir=af0c&.dnm=9531.jpg&.src=ph


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 11, 2005)

Doesn't work for me beekeeper, I get one of these...


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!
> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> ...


I like the first one (bridge) - maybe it would work well cropping more off the bottom to make it more 'widescreen'. But definitly a good pic with 'twist' (I find myself tilting my head when looking at it - but that's a good thing)!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Jun 11, 2005)

Bugger, that was meant to be a little red cross


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!
> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> ...



Cadmus, if what I have to say gives you food for thought, then I'm happy. But see what Alef has written in the post below yours to see just how subjective it all is. And thank god for that an all!

However, of your four new posts, I really like the first two, and particularly the first one. Again I can see that being even stronger in B&W. As I can the second image as well.

The third image I find too busy. I don't know what you want me to look at!

The fourth image I can see what you were trying to do but I think you've fallen between two stools. Perhaps if you'd gone closer to the reflection we might have been able to understand more about that building in it's very strange context (the reflection). As it is I'm distracted by a lot of the stuff going on around the birdbath. I'd have gone in closer and cropped out a lot of the garden surroundings. Oh and the colours look a bit washed out to me...


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> I'm putting this one up as well - I made it as simple as poss IMO ...
> ps: notice the rainbow?
> 
> http://www.worldofposters.com/ingo/


There's an image missing in that URL bee.....


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

Mrs Magpie said:
			
		

> Doesn't work for me beekeeper, I get one of these...


sorry about that! I've edited the msg and put a new link in.


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> There's an image missing in that URL bee.....


thanks! please check my poster again - I've changed the link.


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> ...This thread has taken off hasn't it? Especially for a weekend! Good show all....






			
				Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!


Very pleased this has taken of! I'm having a lot more fun studying and thinking about pictures than if were I doing the various chores waiting for me...




			
				Cadmus said:
			
		

> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> they are all from one of my walks, all very point-and-click...
> ...



The first one stands out for me, I love shots with strong patterns of lines. Needs more contrast, looking a bit washed out, do you have any photo software? If so, have a look at pulling the levels significantly darker and see what you think. If it were my picture I'd also be tempted to cheat the perspective and distort out the bottom of the photo to have straighter lines. 

Here's two of my pictures yours reminds me of, the second is heavily distorted with perspective:
Park fence 
Scaffolding


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 11, 2005)

Here is a picture from me, Baffled 

Feel free to comment folks; I am very thick skinned.

Hocus Eye


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Very pleased this has taken of! I'm having a lot more fun studying and thinking about pictures than if were I doing the various chores waiting for me...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your thread has really lit up my passion for photography again! After having studied design and photography nearly a decade ago I found myself neglecting my (now only) hobby until now! 

re. park fence: Very nice however I would prefer it cropped so we can't see the pathway on the bottom left. Possibly even the tree top left as then, nothing would distract from the structure...

re. scaffolding: Again, lovely subject but my eye gets drawn to the top left of the pic which is not very important to the whole image. Maybe crop even the sky on the left so the entire picture is full of scaffolding...


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Here is a picture from me, Baffled
> 
> Feel free to comment folks; I am very thick skinned.
> 
> Hocus Eye


That's a lovely subject! - How much better would it be without the bloody cooperate signs though...


----------



## wordie (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!
> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> ...



Further to my comments earlier Cadmus, and in the light of Alef's comment on the subject, here's a couple of ideas  on how you could adjust that first image of yours.

The top version is a brown duotone and the lower one has had the colours adjusted and enhanced. Hope you don't mind me playing around with them!


----------



## beekeeper (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Further to my comments earlier Cadmus, and in the light of Alef's comment on the subject, here's a couple of ideas  on how you could adjust that first image of yours.
> 
> The top version is a brown duotone and the lower one has had the colours adjusted and enhanced. Hope you don't mind me playing around with them!


I prefer the duotone as in the colour-version, the brickwork turnes purple/violet...


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Hope you don't mind me playing around with them!


oh, not at all. much better if someone skilled plays with them than me, eh? i've got loads of image editing software and used to play with it a lot a couple of months back, will go back to it soon. cheers


----------



## Cid (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> seems it's all about rivers, bridges...ha, well....Enter the Thames
> [SIZE=-2](im crap at photography, i just do it for self amusement)[/SIZE]



Like it, but (as others said) would be good B&W. Only other criticism I have is that it's very slightly tilted and would've worked better if it was completely symmetrical. Not a big thing really, just find it shifts the um... balance of the photo a bit (ie it feels slightly 'heavier' on one side. Or something). Try using a tripod or using horizontal (or vertical) elements of the composition to line it up.

Will put up a couple of my own at some point.


----------



## Cid (Jun 11, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!
> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> ...



Surveillance - as wordie said, too busy - but to go into a bit more detail: I'm not sure of the subject of this - the boy is a very strong element, but - because he's in shadow - doesn't draw attention nearly as well as the sunlit bits. The subject appears to be the couple in the centre facing us (specifically the man) - the boy and the man in the bottom left (as well as few others near the boy) seem to be watching this draws your eye there. Maybe this is what you intended, but in that case it would have been better to have more focus on him - a lower apeture and shutter speed might have helped. Anyway, I'm rambling - sorry.


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Further to my comments earlier Cadmus, and in the light of Alef's comment on the subject, here's a couple of ideas  on how you could adjust that first image of yours.
> 
> The top version is a brown duotone and the lower one has had the colours adjusted and enhanced. Hope you don't mind me playing around with them!



Well I couldn't resist joining in with Wordie and having a play around too! I think it works better darker, and have also done other tweaks:
http://www.alef.co.uk/photos/urban75/05/thebridge.html

Are we turning into the "submit a photo to the photoshop addicts" thread?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 11, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> That's a lovely subject! - How much better would it be without the bloody cooperate signs though...



That is what I thought when I was taking the picture but if you scroll the picture until those signs go off the top, then the picture loses impact.  

My feeling is that this is because they add a bit red and blue to the image and put the whole thing in the context of words in the street.  This is just a rationalisation of course.

Hocus


----------



## Corax (Jun 11, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Don't underestimate what can be done with a simple compact!
> 
> Your picture captures a very relaxing mood. Although I haven't taken many, I like silhouettes of buildings with sunsets. Here, though, think you've got too much going on. The clothes line would work better either as a side detail or the central subject, here it's half and half. The aerial/lighting rod was probably impossible to avoid from where you were, but unfortunately I think it really distracts. The edges of the buildings frame the sides of the picture nicely.


Thanks, all good comment.

You're right though, I had little choice over the shot.  It's between a pair of houses down the road, I can't get closer, and there's further obstructions either side as well.  It's a shame the washing didn't stretch all the way across, with no rod imo.

Nice thread.  I'm going to have to do some more pointing.  And clicking.


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Here is a picture from me, Baffled
> 
> Feel free to comment folks; I am very thick skinned.
> 
> Hocus Eye



I can't figure out what's going on! If the Sony and other signs were reversed and the phones4u wasn't then I'd assume the woman in the beige coat is to your back right and you're looking at her reflection in a shiny monument. Is the Sony sign being twice reflected? Ah, perhaps you're looking into a piece of art with mirrors on either side, so the Sony sign is actually to your right and reflected first into a side mirror then into this plaque?

It's a very cluttered photo, looks like about three exposures on top of each other. But because so much is going on and there's the whole reflection issue I think of this as a riddle, something to be solved, which I like.

Need a bit of levels adjusted, looking a tad washed out to me.


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

HocusEye, did you flip the image? My multiple mirrors idea is too complex. Perhaps the engraved lettering is reversed for some reason, and then it all makes sense if you flip it.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 11, 2005)

buttercup


----------



## mauvais (Jun 11, 2005)

Here's one from this week's holiday - I have some more, but need to sort through them, and this one stands out to me as being the best anyway.

Link

Photoshopped already to remove distracting debris and to sharpen it from the deliberately soft image direct from the camera. Taken with a D70, Sigma 70-300 APO II.


----------



## Paul Russell (Jun 11, 2005)

Hey, Alef this thread is very popular!

Here's a pic I took a few days ago:

http://www.paulrussell.info/june05/june05fs/S2545.html

I included my own critique of the photo within the photo...


----------



## alef (Jun 11, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Hey, Alef this thread is very popular!



This thread has significantly livened up my dull weekend kicking around here while Skim and other urbanites are having fun in ITALY!!  :jealous: 




			
				Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Here's a pic I took a few days ago:
> http://www.paulrussell.info/june05/june05fs/S2545.html
> I included my own critique of the photo within the photo...



Excellent! Perhaps posed street photography is underrated? All the blue in it makes it look a bit a jeans advert... well one that's gone wrong perhaps.

Paul, are you going to join in and wear the critic's hat?


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 12, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> Here's a pic I took a few days ago:
> 
> http://www.paulrussell.info/june05/june05fs/S2545.html


i luv ur site


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> buttercup


Beautiful, Teeps.

I know nothing about photography, but I love simple shots like this.  I suppose I feel that by capturing the beauty around us that most people pass by, it might persuade some to look around them a little more.

I need some sort of project to work on I think.  I have the attention span of a small spinach plant, so I tend to get half way through PS tutorials and then get bored if I haven't got a specific reason for learning it.  I've got all sorts of groovy ideas for things to do with PS, but ideas ain't worth a lot without execution, eh?


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i luv ur site


Nice'n'simple ain't it?

Don't want to derail - can anyone point me towards a thread advising on setting up a simple (free) site?  My xhtml is basic, but existent - and I'm getting annoyed with being tied to Photobucket's format.  Ta.


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

Are pet portraits allowed?   

Hey, it's a good shot, no?


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 12, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Nice'n'simple ain't it?
> 
> Don't want to derail - can anyone point me towards a thread advising on setting up a simple (free) site?  My xhtml is basic, but existent - and I'm getting annoyed with being tied to Photobucket's format.  Ta.



try here http://www.fotopic.net/


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> try here http://www.fotopic.net/


Thanks, but not what I'm after - I want more control than that.

I suppose I'm just looking for a free homepage...  

[/derail]


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 12, 2005)

*Explanation of my earlier picture*

Here is some information in response to the questions about my picture.  The picture is of a brand new 'sculpture' to be found in Exeter High Street.  It is a kind of pyramid which has mirrored faces upon which are engraved a series of riddles.  These words are written in mirror writing so that you have to read them in the mirror face opposite.  I think the whole thing is called 'Riddle'. 


I photographed the object the day after it was put there so it was new to me and to most of the people in the street looking at it.  I have to admit that I could not really work out the answers to the riddles.  I have not flipped the picture I just took the shot from close up and I was making a further riddle out of an existing riddle.  I wanted to show the faces of the mystified viewers.

To see the object in context here is another picture from further back. 

Hocus Eye


----------



## suzi (Jun 12, 2005)

land of the giant tulips 

this is probably my favourite photo that i took so far this year, i guess i could touch it up in photoshop but that's not really my thing. i'm crazy about kodak colour at the moment.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 12, 2005)

Great photos makes me realise that I have a great deal to learn so here's a couple for you to pick at.  

Pyramids of Clements 

On the Rack!! 

KoD


----------



## Crispy (Jun 12, 2005)

KeeperofDragons said:
			
		

> Great photos makes me realise that I have a great deal to learn so here's a couple for you to pick at.
> 
> Pyramids of Clements
> KoD



I really like the subject in this one, but I think the shot could be better composed. Those pyramids are surch interesting shapes, you should be able to make a picture containing just them and a background. Maybe elevating the camera, coming closer, or cropping more tightly might help. Maybe just wander round them, keeping an eye out for interesting patterns.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 12, 2005)

*window liquor*

I took this at the time with a plate infront of the lense, with the intention to convert it to B&W (never shoot B&W in digital), but I was quite happy with the way it turned out, I think I left the macro on by mistake.


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> I think I left the macro on by mistake.


Stunning, fiery stuff.

I'm sticking to compliments - I'll leave the critiquing to the _competent_ photographers.    

What's the deal with this macro thingy though?  If I leave it off, I notice when taking close shots, but when I leave it on, it seems to make bugger all difference to the normal shots (iyswim, which is doubtful as I've explained that so badly.   [ @self]).


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 12, 2005)

Crispy said:
			
		

> I really like the subject in this one, but I think the shot could be better composed. Those pyramids are surch interesting shapes, you should be able to make a picture containing just them and a background. Maybe elevating the camera, coming closer, or cropping more tightly might help. Maybe just wander round them, keeping an eye out for interesting patterns.



Thanx for that, I did take several angles but as these were on a roof it was impossible to keep the buildings out of it. Even cropping proved troblesome,  unfortunately I can't take any more as they were taken down when the building was sold

KoD


----------



## spitfire (Jun 12, 2005)

Here's a shot of a glider in a very strange place, just discovered www.flickr.com which seems a pretty cool place to host pix. I've only had two hours experience but it seems alright.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/33464223@N00/18885610/


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 12, 2005)

spitfire said:
			
		

> Here's a shot of a glider in a very strange place, just discovered www.flickr.com which seems a pretty cool place to host pix. I've only had two hours experience but it seems alright.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33464223@N00/18885610/



i like the curved structure of the hangar roof, maybe if you played with the levels in p/shop you could see more detail


----------



## spitfire (Jun 12, 2005)

yes, I see what you mean. Would be nice to get a bit more detail in the top corners. I'll give that a go, thanks.

BTW that's the roof of the Imperial War Museum, top floor. Funny old place for a glider.


----------



## alef (Jun 12, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one from this week's holiday - I have some more, but need to sort through them, and this one stands out to me as being the best anyway.
> 
> Link
> 
> Photoshopped already to remove distracting debris and to sharpen it from the deliberately soft image direct from the camera. Taken with a D70, Sigma 70-300 APO II.



Macro nature photography isn't really my cup of tea so I'm not a natural critic for this one, but will try. The composition makes this about both the frog and the flower, although I actually find myself looking at the black water a lot because it's so unusual! Presume this was taken at night, or near dark? The lighting is quite extreme, really bringing the objects out of the water. It's sort of a sweet picture with foreboding undertones... growing on me the more I look at it.


----------



## alef (Jun 12, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> I took this at the time with a plate infront of the lense, with the intention to convert it to B&W (never shoot B&W in digital), but I was quite happy with the way it turned out, I think I left the macro on by mistake.
> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/stuff/window.jpg



Another great Firky shot, remember this one well, it rightfully came in the top few for one of the monthly competitions last summer. I think it's an effect well worth playing with some more. Could try a face on the other side, though that might be too much at once.

Please join in and give some critiques, Firk, you've got a great eye for photography.


----------



## Firky (Jun 12, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Another great Firky shot, remember this one well, it rightfully came in the top few for one of the monthly competitions last summer. I think it's an effect well worth playing with some more. Could try a face on the other side, though that might be too much at once.
> 
> Please join in and give some critiques, Firk, you've got a great eye for photography.



Cheers, 

Yeah, I took the shot ages ago for the competition (can't recall the theme), but it was a happy accident, almost quite like the effect - I just don't really know what to do with it, and I'm not a fan of photographing people.

I'll stick some critque in, but I'm more of a gonzo snapper than a photographer


----------



## chriswill (Jun 12, 2005)

Here is a couple

Rhys


Josie


----------



## Corax (Jun 12, 2005)

Inspired by this thread, I went out and took a couple today.

Treeflare

Reach

Neither altered at all, although any tips on PS, and also getting the best from a quite basic cam (Olympus D390 - 2megapixel) gratefully received.  Guess I'll want to upgrade it at some point, but I'm sure I can get a lot more out of this first.  I'm poor at the moment anyhow, so it'll have to do.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 12, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Macro nature photography isn't really my cup of tea so I'm not a natural critic for this one, but will try. The composition makes this about both the frog and the flower, although I actually find myself looking at the black water a lot because it's so unusual! Presume this was taken at night, or near dark? The lighting is quite extreme, really bringing the objects out of the water. It's sort of a sweet picture with foreboding undertones... growing on me the more I look at it.


Cheers - no, an odd effect that, and I don't know how to replicate it. It was shot in the daytime, on a sunny day in some tropical flower gardens, and the area in question was neither particularly dark or bright. The EXIF says I used center-weighted exposure, but I think the main thing is the water was mucky and deep. Cheers for the feedback, glad you like it!


----------



## wordie (Jun 12, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> i like the curved structure of the hangar roof, maybe if you played with the levels in p/shop you could see more detail



No, no, don't play with anything. You don't need anymore details. That's a ***king top shot spitfire. Don't change a thing. If it's big enough print out a limited edition of say, 150, frame them with a simple black frame and sell each one at £149.95 on e-bay and at aircraft displays! 

Yes, I am being serious!


----------



## wordie (Jun 12, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Cheers - no, an odd effect that, and I don't know how to replicate it. It was shot in the daytime, on a sunny day in some tropical flower gardens, and the area in question was neither particularly dark or bright. The EXIF says I used center-weighted exposure, but I think the main thing is the water was mucky and deep. Cheers for the feedback, glad you like it!


What's happening in your pic mauvais is that the black water has isolated the leaves so that they appear to be floating in space, rather than water and that's what appears to have attracted Alef's eye... A nice effect, but personally I'm more taken with the clarity and detail of the flower (blossom) and the depth of field.

Interestingly enough, and it would be even more interesting to see the histogram, is how the highlights on the flower are on the verge of burning out, while the shadows, especially beneath the frog have all but disappeared.

[rant] One of my major complaints with digital as opposed to film I might add...... 

This image would have been unacceptable film quality 10 years ago, or badly printed/processed. Today, it's acceptable. Why?

(That's not a criticism of your shot mauvais....)   

[/rant]


----------



## wordie (Jun 12, 2005)

Where's squelch? I would have thought this thread was right up his strasse.

Even if no one understands him!   

Come on squelcher, it's not like you to be hiding under a bushel..... and your humour is always appreciated - if rarely understood! 

(It's the alchohol talking! Honest!)


----------



## Firky (Jun 13, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Inspired by this thread, I went out and took a couple today.
> 
> Treeflare
> 
> ...



I'd crop the bottom one (reach), to try and fine a better angle, perhaps crop out the trunk at the foot of the picture. 

The first one, I'd knock to B&W to make it more abstract, and perhaps see if I can pull some of the textures out in the leaves and bark a little. Trees always look like coral in black and white methinks.


----------



## Firky (Jun 13, 2005)

mrchriswill said:
			
		

> Here is a couple
> 
> Rhys
> 
> ...



Cute cat, but they're snap shots. Try lying down on your belly and getting down to cat eye level, then get close to josie, pointing the camera slightly up if you can to give the impression of height - be good if you consider the setting right, (you could just have the tops of the roofs and tv aerials in the background, or something.)


----------



## Firky (Jun 13, 2005)

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/south/adieu.jpg
adieu (this is actually one of my favourites)

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/may05/obscured.jpg
obscured


----------



## Xanadu (Jun 13, 2005)

It's not going to stand up to any critics, but I love this photo:

http://img117.echo.cx/img117/6786/pb2900356rh.jpg

Today I'm going to call it rocking thommy.


----------



## Corax (Jun 13, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/south/adieu.jpg
> adieu


I love that, especially the way the grafitti text's on the borders, but still competes with the chair for the eye's focus - probably because of the blank space where the eye naturally rests, I think.  It's exactly (some of) the kind of stuff I want to be taking.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 13, 2005)

Xanadu said:
			
		

> It's not going to stand up to any critics, but I love this photo:
> 
> http://img117.echo.cx/img117/6786/pb2900356rh.jpg
> 
> Today I'm going to call it rocking thommy.



I like this one. Simple colours and lighting and yet the picture manages to tell a story and lead the viewer almost into an aural atmosphere.

The light gives the image a very strong depth (dark foreground, medium tones in midground and light in the background). That's possibly exactly the effect the stage lighting director intended  

The semi-abstract quality leaves plenty upto the viewers imagination without getting lost.

The strong colour is very emotive. Again, perhaps the skill of the lighting director but, the moment has been captured with feeling.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 13, 2005)

mrchriswill said:
			
		

> Here is a couple
> 
> Rhys



I like this one lots. It's different to your usual cat shots. Firky may be right in saying it's a snap shot but, it's a bloody good snap shot. The lines lead the eye directly to the subject. The composition is unambiguous and very striking. The angle of view also gives the image an immediate quality. 

The spontanity of the photo is it's main appeal. Perhaps the lines in the wall were just a happy accident. It would be difficult to get the same result by staging the event.


----------



## Corax (Jun 13, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> The first one, I'd knock to B&W to make it more abstract, and perhaps see if I can pull some of the textures out in the leaves and bark a little. Trees always look like coral in black and white methinks.


Hmmm... I've given it a shot, and got somewhere-ish... but it looks very washed out now and I can't seem to find how to fix that....  any pointers good people?

Treeflare

I'm not sure it's interesting enough without that greeny light either to be honest.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 13, 2005)

what did you do to make it b&w?


----------



## Corax (Jun 13, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> what did you do to make it b&w?


Selected a bit of the flare, added a tint, inverted the selection and Shift-Ctrl-U in PS.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 13, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Hmmm... I've given it a shot, and got somewhere-ish... but it looks very washed out now and I can't seem to find how to fix that....  any pointers good people?
> 
> Treeflare
> 
> I'm not sure it's interesting enough without that greeny light either to be honest.



What program are you using? To knock the colour out in PS just use CTRL+U


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 13, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Selected a bit of the flare, added a tint, inverted the selection and Shift-Ctrl-U in PS.



i quite like it, just not so sure about the green cast on the sunburst mind you.


----------



## madzone (Jun 13, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Where's squelch? I would have thought this thread was right up his strasse.
> 
> Even if no one understands him!
> 
> ...



His hard drive's gone soft


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 13, 2005)

spitfire said:
			
		

> Here's a shot of a glider in a very strange place, just discovered www.flickr.com which seems a pretty cool place to host pix. I've only had two hours experience but it seems alright.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33464223@N00/18885610/



Spitfire

I like that glider picture a lot.  You have got a strongly defined symmetrical pattern as a frame over a simplified silhouette caused by the 'contre jour' lighting (coming straight at the camera).  The glider itself the central subject is assymetrical and the diagonal of the wing gives it a dynamic look.

If I was going to do anything it would be to crop about a centimetre and a half off the top so that two of the curved struts in the hangar met at the top middle edge of the picture forming a shape like a church window.  It would I think also enhance the horizontal aspect of the picture framing the glider better.

I also looked at some of your other pictures and liked the one of the two bi-planes.  The one behind seemed to fit into the space in the wings of the front one.  I would crop a bit of the left of the picture off so as to focus the eye on the above feature.

Hocus Eye


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 13, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> i quite like it, just not so sure about the green cast on the sunburst mind you.




s'what I thought, tis why I asked.


----------



## Chorlton (Jun 13, 2005)

i can only 'do' landscape....


and i can only 'do' quite obvious, uber-cheesy pics.... anyone got any tips for bringing a different slant to landscape stuff?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/chorlton/DSCF0026.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/chorlton/DSCF0075.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v426/chorlton/IMGP0213.jpg

all of these are straight out of the camera, no cropping and no effects, ideas welcome....


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 13, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> s'what I thought, tis why I asked.



<derail>
when you going for a fag?


----------



## Corax (Jun 13, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> i quite like it, just not so sure about the green cast on the sunburst mind you.


Fair enough.  Wasn't sure either.  I've played around with the levels instead, but it still looks a bit bleached to me:

Here


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 13, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> <derail>
> when you going for a fag?




just went... why?


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 13, 2005)

tp: call me!


corax: Aye, looks a little off skew... although some of that is probably down to JPEG compression.


----------



## Structaural (Jun 13, 2005)

There's some lovely photography on this thread.

I'm no photographer but i quite like this one of mine: local skatepark


----------



## spitfire (Jun 13, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> No, no, don't play with anything. You don't need anymore details. That's a ***king top shot spitfire. Don't change a thing. If it's big enough print out a limited edition of say, 150, frame them with a simple black frame and sell each one at £149.95 on e-bay and at aircraft displays!
> 
> Yes, I am being serious!



Wow, thanks. Very nice of you to say so. I was thinking of doing a big one for the house. I think it's only 640x480 in it's original form. Don't really know what the biggest I could get from that. There's a pro developers on my road. Might stick my head in.

Thanks again.


----------



## wordie (Jun 13, 2005)

spitfire said:
			
		

> Wow, thanks. Very nice of you to say so. I was thinking of doing a big one for the house. I think it's only 640x480 in it's original form. Don't really know what the biggest I could get from that. There's a pro developers on my road. Might stick my head in.
> 
> Thanks again.


That's a bit small for what I suggested, but still you could get some smaller prints framed and still sell them.... if you can be bothered! The pro printers will tell you what you can sensibly do with your original. Have fun and don't forget to go a shoot some more!


----------



## spitfire (Jun 13, 2005)

[wordie] Thanks for the encouragement, I'll get a few printed up, Will put one aside for you (FOC natch). I'll let you know when I've done 'em. BTW I like your bridge.

Hocus eye. Thanks for the tips I'll get stuck in. Had a look at your home page, really liked the close up texture stuff.

Thanks guys, you may have started some
thing here  .

http://www.flickr.com/photos/niallist/


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 13, 2005)

Saw this out the window at work

wind & steam 

KoD


----------



## Firky (Jun 13, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I love that, especially the way the grafitti text's on the borders, but still competes with the chair for the eye's focus - probably because of the blank space where the eye naturally rests, I think.  It's exactly (some of) the kind of stuff I want to be taking.



Thanks, 

I'm crap at taking shots of people, I should post some of them, but you've all seen them.


----------



## Firky (Jun 13, 2005)

edit: wrong thread, thought it was comp


----------



## LostNotFound (Jun 13, 2005)

teh portal of doom !


----------



## sajana (Jun 14, 2005)

Sensible thread.   

I am constantly at odds with my friends over my composition of potraits.the complaint is that i chop them up. 

here are some of them 

Siblings

Hello 

Woman 

Boy


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 14, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> teh portal of doom !



What's all that about?!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 14, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> Sensible thread.
> 
> I am constantly at odds with my friends over my composition of potraits.the complaint is that i chop them up.
> 
> ...



Nice photos, but a couple look a little like they have focused in the wrong place (ie not on the eyes of the person). Could be my vision mind, im boggle eyed


----------



## sajana (Jun 14, 2005)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Nice photos, but a couple look a little like they have focused in the wrong place (ie not on the eyes of the person). Could be my vision mind, im boggle eyed




yes, you are right. the last one especially. (actually i noticed it only after being pointed out.    thanks. hee hee, this thread _is_ making me learn photography!!)


----------



## wordie (Jun 14, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> Sensible thread.
> 
> I am constantly at odds with my friends over my composition of potraits.the complaint is that i chop them up.
> 
> ...


Well apart from the focus thing that has been mentioned, I don't think these are too bad as portraits actually. It may be that you're being criticised by people who are used to seeing happy snaps of people, rather than real, considered portraiture. I don't think there needs to be loads of space around a face to make it a portrait unless there is something in the background or context of the shot that is vital to the central character.

As barking said, if you can sort out the focus.... it must be on the eyes... then I think you've got some very acceptable portraits. The first one, Siblings  especially!

[tongue-in-cheek-mode] I hope you got the parents permission to photograph those underage people. I've been reading a thread in the General Forum the replies to which have been doing my head in..... [/tongue-in-cheek-mode]


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 14, 2005)

sajana said:
			
		

> yes, you are right. the last one especially. (actually i noticed it only after being pointed out.    thanks. hee hee, this thread _is_ making me learn photography!!)



I've done it before a good few times. There's nothing worse than having a lovely photo only to realise that the most inmportant part isn't in focus! I wouldn't worry about cropping parts of people out of the photo. People go on about rules of photography, and how to construct a photo, but the only real one as far as I can tell is that it works.


----------



## Corax (Jun 14, 2005)

Okay, let's see if there's any improvement...

Bolted
_(Levels tweaked)_

Drive
_(Levels tweaked)_

Bend
_(Cropped)_


----------



## alef (Jun 14, 2005)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> i can only 'do' landscape....
> 
> 
> and i can only 'do' quite obvious, uber-cheesy pics.... anyone got any tips for bringing a different slant to landscape stuff?
> ...




You 'do' them very well. I particularly like the first shot, captures a lovely mood of tranquility: still water reflecting a calm blue sky, clouds gently knocking over some mountains, and a complete lack of civilisation. The dog shaking itself is a nice little extra adding to the scene. Perhaps it could be cropped a bit better, the bottom/foreground is less interesting.


----------



## alef (Jun 14, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> There's some lovely photography on this thread.
> 
> I'm no photographer but i quite like this one of mine: local skatepark



Found this one hard to get into. At the moment it's some slightly unusual graffiti, a curved ramp, and a tree shadow all at once. Maybe capture a few skateborders around it to build up the scene? Or go the other way and focus on just one element? My $0.02 anyway.


----------



## alef (Jun 14, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Okay, let's see if there's any improvement...
> 
> Bolted
> _(Levels tweaked)_
> ...



Bend is good, strong composition. Classic b+w shot.

The others suffer from bright sunlight. It took me a while to realise that very sunny days aren't particularly good for photography. Sometimes you can do interesting thing with shadows, but often when it's too bright you get highlights burning out and people squinting. Overcast and evening indirect light are my preferences photograhy-wise.


----------



## Corax (Jun 14, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Bend is good, strong composition. Classic b+w shot.
> 
> The others suffer from bright sunlight. It took me a while to realise that very sunny days aren't particularly good for photography. Sometimes you can do interesting thing with shadows, but often when it's too bright you get highlights burning out and people squinting. Overcast and evening indirect light are my preferences photograhy-wise.


Thanks alef, all tips and experience gratefully received.

The sunlight wasn't as bright as it looks, but I'm having trouble getting much rich colour out of the camera, so tweaked the levels up.  You're right, the side effect to the lustre is a bit of an over-sparkly look...


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Jun 14, 2005)

Corax

I liked bend it has a good tone range & the shapes work well together

KoD


----------



## sajana (Jun 15, 2005)

Thanks wordie and Barking_mad. points appreciated.


----------



## jayeola (Jun 15, 2005)

A recent picture that I used to use as a desktop background. http://www.jayeola.org/Coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=7


----------



## Structaural (Jun 15, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Found this one hard to get into. At the moment it's some slightly unusual graffiti, a curved ramp, and a tree shadow all at once. Maybe capture a few skateborders around it to build up the scene? Or go the other way and focus on just one element? My $0.02 anyway.



cheers mate! much appreciated, I'm a bit clueless when it comes to composition of photography. Is this any better (I liked the curve of the shadow):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/BootyLove/skate02bw.jpg


----------



## spitfire (Jun 15, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> cheers mate! much appreciated, I'm a bit clueless when it comes to composition of photography. Is this any better (I liked the curve of the shadow):
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/BootyLove/skate02bw.jpg


 That's a nice shot. I think perhaps a touch more contrast might be good. Just to beef it up a bit.


----------



## LostNotFound (Jun 15, 2005)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> What's all that about?!



it's a pic from inside the sedlec ossuary, a church in the town of kutna hora in the czech republic

" There are remains of 40 thousand people [...] Decorated entirely with human bones by a half-blind monk "


----------



## spitfire (Jun 15, 2005)

" There are remains of 40 thousand people [...] Decorated entirely with human bones by a half-blind monk "


That is proper mental.

And a cool shot to boot.


----------



## alef (Jun 15, 2005)

jayeola said:
			
		

> A recent picture that I used to use as a desktop background. http://www.jayeola.org/Coppermine/displayimage.php?album=lastup&cat=0&pos=7



That's quite a clever use of a nice shot. I've heard of there being a 1:3 rule of thumb for composition, though I've never paid any attention to it. Just thinking about it since your picture has a nice balance with the bridge and "post-it" note.


----------



## jayeola (Jun 15, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> That's quite a clever use of a nice shot. I've heard of there being a 1:3 rule of thumb for composition, though I've never paid any attention to it. Just thinking about it since your picture has a nice balance with the bridge and "post-it" note.



why thank you. sheer luck. Took a snap, wanted a decent d-top and chose that one


----------



## suzi (Jun 15, 2005)

LostNotFound said:
			
		

> teh portal of doom !



geat shot, i've been there it's awesome.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jun 16, 2005)

Well I only have 3 photos on the web at the mo, and have no computer so can't upload any better shots... Here's the three:

discarded wheel

frozen puddle 

daffodil 

I know it was only meant to be one shot per person but others have submitted more than one so... so there.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 16, 2005)

madzone said:
			
		

> His hard drive's gone soft



fnaar_fnaar~! :::result=the taxpayers are gonna hv2pay4it! Aight!  

*resisting_resisting >>>on loads of fronts!


----------



## alef (Jun 16, 2005)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Well I only have 3 photos on the web at the mo, and have no computer so can't upload any better shots... Here's the three:
> 
> discarded wheel
> 
> ...



Discarded wheel has a lot going for it: interesting shapes, contrast of two predominant colours. My advice would be to emphasise these aspects even more. Should be able to boost the saturation of colours with Photoshop/Gimp some without looking fake. Perhaps the original angle could have been higher to reinforce the circle within the composition. But it is also a good photo as it currently stands. Though a minor distraction is the diagonal stick coming up in the foreground.

Frozen puddle I like even more, a very good "mystery" photo. Perhaps the title gives the game away too quickly, I really like the unusual angle and composition. Slight shame about the shadow on the right, but then these things are hard to avoid and I'm too much of a purist at times

Daffodil <rant> sorry but I really hate watermarks! Two reasons. Firstly they're often very distracting and become the main focus of attention in pictures. But also, to be honest, I think they're a bit egotistical and paranoid. Photos online are only 72dpi which is useless for printing, are they really so precious we have to deface them with our names? My thinking is that if someone copies a photo of mine then that's a mark or respect, and they're not going to be able to make any money due to hardly any resolution</rant>




			
				5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> I know it was only meant to be one shot per person but others have submitted more than one so... so there.



True, I'll change the first post.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jun 16, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Perhaps the original angle could have been higher to reinforce the circle within the composition. But it is also a good photo as it currently stands.


 I was actually thinking this earlier on, this morning. 




			
				alef said:
			
		

> Slight shame about the shadow on the right


I probably didn't notice it at the time and hardly noticed it until you pointed it out! Probably just some plant which I could have easily moved out of the way. I took this (and the one above) on an ecological survey so wasn't really thinking critically about the pics, just taking snapshots.




			
				alef said:
			
		

> Daffodil <rant>... </rant>


I agree...


----------



## wordie (Jun 16, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> fnaar_fnaar~!


Well stop it squelcher....

Start contributing to the thread...

You "may" and I use the word advisedly, have something to contribute if the past is any indication. All we have to do is translate what you write!


----------



## wordie (Jun 16, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Frozen puddle I like even more, a very good "mystery" photo. Perhaps the title gives the game away too quickly, I really like the unusual angle and composition. Slight shame about the shadow on the right, but then these things are hard to avoid and I'm too much of a purist at times.


Sorry, But I see no redeeming interest in this image at all. If that's a bit blunt for you 5T3R30TYP3 I apologise, but I can't see anything here! (Still interested in the Macro lens though.....   )



			
				alef said:
			
		

> Daffodil <rant> sorry but I really hate watermarks! Two reasons. Firstly they're often very distracting and become the main focus of attention in pictures. But also, to be honest, I think they're a bit egotistical and paranoid. Photos online are only 72dpi which is useless for printing, are they really so precious we have to deface them with our names? My thinking is that if someone copies a photo of mine then that's a mark or respect, and they're not going to be able to make any money due to hardly any resolution</rant>


I couldn't agree more. At 72dpi who's gonna steal it?.... And why? Porn I can sort of understand if you're a 300lb lump of lard and you want people to believe you're Brad Pitt, but a daff... Sorry again 5T3R30TYP3, it's my regular Thursday eve period....


----------



## wordie (Jun 17, 2005)

Well here's a challenge for all you snappers out there....

*Colour or B&W?*

The shot was 200 ISO, F 5.6, 1/640 sec, 16mm lens, 

Of course you can comment on the picture as well, but I'd like to hear what people think about the colour differences.

As you can see, neither image is virgin, and Photoshop has been used to enhance different features of each. But can you tell what? 

Obviously the sky in the B&W version has had some dodging and burning work done on it, but then so has the colour version!

Your thoughts and comments! 

Alef started this thread last weekend and it's been a great success IMO. So have fun with this image.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 18, 2005)

black & white - anyone who cant see it's the better photo is colour blind!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> black & white - anyone who cant see it's the better photo is colour blind!



Are you bar...oh!...yes you *are*!  


I'll get back to this...if i have toooooooooooooo! .....in the meantime where has _SZC's battery changing thread_ gone?


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

jimmy hill prolly got it deleted.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> jimmy hill prolly got it deleted.



how are the lice?  


we're you toooo naughty?


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

I dont have any lice 

and I dont think I was too naughty, dint post anything else on it.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> and I dont think I was too naughty, dint post anything else on it.



LOL...I reckons it was the other princess from the East then?...oooo errrr hit a tender spot eh?Whooooda thought it? 

Better zippit now then or this one'll will get binned...dum_di_dum...


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

yeah


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> seems it's all about rivers, bridges...ha, well....Enter the Thames
> [SIZE=-2](im crap at photography, i just do it for self amusement)[/SIZE]



I don't agree that it should be black and white; it looks good in colour.

The only flaw I see with it is that it's a little bit misaligned. It would have more power if the last stair before the water was straight and level in the shot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> I'm _very_ amateur.  Point'n'click, me.  I was pleased with this though.
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Corax_U75/U75/Line.jpg



It is nice; but silhouettes are a bit like cheating: it's hard not to take a nice silhouette photo, because of the light contrasts.

Now that you can do a good composition in silhouette, try your hand at fully lit shots.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> right - I hope this works:
> 
> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/postercontact/detail?.dir=9605&.dnm=a96d.jpg&.src=ph



Sort of a parallax effect going on here; I like the 'true' lines of the lampost vis a vis the altered lines of the buildings.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Alef,
> 
> This is my original shot, *but now in a sensible html page.*
> 
> Does it change your views at all?



Nice pic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Pingu said:
			
		

> I am afraid I am a bit of a point and click mercahnt too but I got this one today and would appreciate any tips on how to smarten it up a bit etc. obviously I cant do much about the sand etc unless I photoshop it
> 
> I have cropped out some of the grass etc she was not central and it looked a bit lopsided
> 
> ...




I like the original better. The cropped one: too little grass, too much dog.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Cadmus said:
			
		

> i like this thread - useful and informative, hooray for the thread starter!
> i can usually tell that the pic ain't good enough, but can rarely tell what's wrong exactly. this helps.
> 
> i'm posting a couple more but don't feel pressurised to comment on them...at least not immediately.
> ...



You're a good photographer. Either you've naturally got a good eye, or you've taken some training.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

beekeeper said:
			
		

> I'm putting this one up as well - I made it as simple as poss IMO ...
> ps: notice the rainbow?
> 
> http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/postercontact/detail?.dir=af0c&.dnm=9531.jpg&.src=ph



Is this a series?

I think this one would have benefitted from a little more sky to the left of the lamppost.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one from this week's holiday - I have some more, but need to sort through them, and this one stands out to me as being the best anyway.
> 
> Link
> 
> Photoshopped already to remove distracting debris and to sharpen it from the deliberately soft image direct from the camera. Taken with a D70, Sigma 70-300 APO II.



Looks like it was done in a studio.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOh JC2 you seem to know alot about photography...I've got this camera which has stopped working...I don't want to ruin the film and actually I'd like to get the camera working again. What do you think i should do? 

For wordie:: you'd hate me...more!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOh JC2 you seem to know alot about photography...I've got this camera which has stopped working...I don't want to ruin the film and actually I'd like to get the camera working again. What do you think i should do?
> 
> For wordie:: you'd hate me...more!



You could put it up your bum, remove the film in that dark space, then take the camera in to a camera repair store.


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It is nice; but silhouettes are a bit like cheating: it's hard not to take a nice silhouette photo, because of the light contrasts.
> 
> Now that you can do a good composition in silhouette, try your hand at fully lit shots.


Cheers JC for the comment JC.    

I can see what you mean about silhouettes.  Before this thread appeared, that was the best shot I'd taken.  After advice off here I've taken and posted a few more, received advice from alef and others (much 'preciated), and gone out shooting again.

along with others, are here

No silhouettes this time...

Any better?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> You could put it up your bum, remove the film in that dark space, then take the camera in to a camera repair store.



Tank you for that...obviously I would have never have thought of that. Oh silly me.. ThanX for that JC2.... you are great at giveing really god advice. And thank you too for not referring to the size of my dick or my income. You are the best. We must get together sometime. It would be great.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Well here's a challenge for all you snappers out there....
> 
> *Colour or B&W?*


Both. In b+w it's a very strong picture about texture, composition and sky. In colour those aspects become a bit less important and the green of the bridge itself is a central feature and works well. If absolutely forced to choose then the b+w has the edge, but I love colour photography. 

Occasionally in the past I would carry two cameras with each type of film and inevitably used the colour film more. Now having moved to digital there's just no point playing with b+w until the photoshop stage.




			
				wordie said:
			
		

> The shot was 200 ISO, F 5.6, 1/640 sec, 16mm lens,


For years I had no idea about f-stops, lens, etc. When I used manuals I just made sure the shutter was set to 1/64 sec or faster, lined up the meter, and that worked fine. Eventually I spent the time and read up a bit but I don't actually think it's ever helped my photography, I still rarely bother with setting a specific depth of field.

I tend to think of quoting technical facts in photography akin to DJs who go on about the specific Technics, headphones etc. In the end it's really the eye for the image or ear for the music that matters, anything else is minor details.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> along with others, are here


The colour fence stands out immediately as a great subject. Did you try a variety of angles and compositions with it? Deej (guy lying on grass with hand in front of face) is the other new one that grabbed my curiosity. I'm not personally into mixing colour and b+w together, although you have done a neat job of it (clean edges). I like the shot for the strangeness, telling some kind of story but left ambiguous. 




			
				Corax said:
			
		

> Johnny Canuck2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Disagree, it's not cheating. It's true that silhouettes lend themselves to photography, but that's no reason at all to avoid them. The challenge is do them really well. Similarly very photogenic themes are abandoned houses, cars, just about anything in this month's Decay competition, but that doesn't mean the photographers are cheating.

At the other end of the spectrum I think portraits, and people in general, are the trickiest subject and always worth a try. Even if you find it a bit intimidating I believe it's worth having a go, very rewarding capturing people.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> For years I had no idea about f-stops, lens, etc. When I used manuals I just made sure the shutter was set to *1.1/64* sec or faster, lined up the meter, and that worked fine. Eventually I spent the time and read up a bit but *2.I don't actually think it's ever helped my photography*, I still rarely bother with setting a specific depth of field.
> 
> I tend to think of quoting technical facts in photography akin to *3.DJs who go on about the specific Technics, headphones etc.* In the end it's really the eye for the image or ear for the music that matters, anything else is minor details.



1. woopsa daisy....homage to the f64group...what did they do then?
2.really?....i've always found the combination of film speed,aperture,shutter speed and even choice of lens tends to be quite important.
3.you are kidding aren't you? so if the details weren't provided and someone asked what lens was being used you'd be happy to that that was irrelevant.

Sorry mate but IMO you are not _wrong_ but somewhat mistaken in holding onto those thoughts.... bit like a dj (to carry on your analogy) pulling leads in and out of speakers,amp and decks...still mixing isn't it?  

In fact I'll put my head on the block...agin!...and say that the choices you make prior to taking the picture are the ones that make  great pictures...the difference between an image which will change someones life or there perspective of the World is exactly that....however happenstance like the shot was achieved the technical construct is the overiding reason that those who have the chance to observe the image and understand it do so is due to the fact that the photographer used he combination* of medium sesitivity, shutter, aperture and lens not content alone.


*whether empirically correct or not.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> Disagree, it's not cheating.......



JC2 said _a bit_ like cheating...i took that to mean that a lot of silhouette photography tends to come about because of incorrect expose...not because the snapper was interested in silhouettes...in fact the images(not the ones talked of here) tend to be recordes of shadows...I beieve IRRC the silouette was a precurssor/ran parallell to the beginnings of photography and the term has been in the last 50yrs or so become misappropriated...rather like me being modest here!  ....do you see what i mean?


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> 1. woopsa daisy....homage to the f64group...what did they do then?


I was simply working to the rule of thumb that anything slower was likely to be blurred. These days I just stick to automatic cameras or P mode.




			
				squelch said:
			
		

> 2.really?....i've always found the combination of film speed,aperture,shutter speed and even choice of lens tends to be quite important.


Honestly does little for me. Obviously if I was a commercial photographer it'd matter more, but as a keen amateur out to simply take good shots, maybe try to get a few in galleries from time to time, no it just doesn't matter enough to me.

I care about colours, composition, subject matter, lighting. Camera details just don't much bother me. Prefer cameras that easily fit in my pocket and feel solid in my hands, have a vaguely decent lens, that's all.




			
				squelch said:
			
		

> Sorry mate but IMO you are not _wrong_ but somewhat mistaken in holding onto those thoughts.... bit like a dj (to carry on your analogy) pulling leads in and out of speakers,amp and decks...still mixing isn't it?


 Two words: John Peel.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

Interesting response...can i have permission from a moderator to respond before someone interjects and starts calling me an arrongant cunt? And  bins the Thread via erase rather than to allow others to possibly learn something about the difference between professional and amateur photography? If any at all?


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Interesting response...can i have permission from a moderator to respond before someone interjects and starts calling me an arrongant cunt? And  bins the Thread via erase rather than to allow others to possibly learn something about the difference between professional and amateur photography? If any at all?


To keep this thread on topic I've started a new thread:
do f-stops, aperature and shutter really matter?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> To keep this thread on topic I've started a new thread:
> do f-stops, aperature and shutter really matter?



Therefore those things don't apply to a critique...interesting stance?  

interesting spelling + repetiton tooo mate!...think about it?


----------



## Gordon Gnu (Jun 18, 2005)

How about This.

Warning 2272x1704


----------



## Chorlton (Jun 18, 2005)

Gordon Gnu said:
			
		

> How about This.
> 
> Warning 2272x1704




very much like that - but i wold snip the lamp and its reflection on the left - leads the eye away from the subject IMO


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> For wordie:: you'd hate me...more!



  I don't hate you squelch! And I'm distressed that you might think that I do..... I just find it difficult sometimes to decipher your posts!

I have, on occasion benefited from your advice squelcher, and hope to again!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> And I'm distressed that you might think that I do.....



Don't be then...eh?  ,,,,jeeez even I don't understand that!!!!!


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Don't be then...eh?  ,,,,jeeez even I don't understand that!!!!!


See what I mean!


----------



## Soreenkid (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> I don't hate you squelch! And I'm distressed that you might think that I do..... I just find it difficult sometimes to decipher your posts!
> 
> I have, on occasion benefited from your advice squelcher, and hope to again!



have a few jars of scrumpy, and all will be crystal


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

Gordon Gnu said:
			
		

> How about This.
> 
> Warning 2272x1704


Sell it back to them as a postcard!    

I really like it actually, looks quite similar to Castleneud.  Is it on the Dordogne somewhere?

Ta for the comments alef.
I was restricted to that angle by distractions that I could only exclude from there.  I had options in terms of height, and liked that composition on the screen.  In retrospect, maybe I should click that button more and select my shot back in PS?  The fence was overshadowed at that time of day or the colours would stand out further.  It's not far from here, so maybe I'll go back on a sunny day.

Deej is actually a health services user I help support.  He was actually just having a catnap on a sunny day, but I thought the pose was interesting and could be interpreted various ways with no prior knowledge.  I think I broadly agree with you about colour and b&w (although not duotone), but I felt it worked in this instance for some reason, although I'm not sure why, technically speaking iykwim?  I initially tried it because it seemed the bright colours of the garden in sunshine biased the interpretation, but it wasn't interesting enough in purely B&W or duotone as there wasn't a wealth of shape or contrast.  I felt happy enough posting it as his face is naturally obscured, but gave him a random name anyhow.

I definitely think I could get in to this photography malarky.  I've been looking for a creative outlet for fucking years.  When I was at school I was the lead actor in the place for my final 2 years, and used to write what still stands up as passably good poetry.  Since entering the free world almost a decade ago though, I've learnt that amateur dramatics groups make me cringe, and the words have generally dried up.  Photography could fill that gap I think.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

foxglove


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

*Curious...*




			
				tribal_princess said:
			
		

> foxglove


What resolution was that image originally at TP (presuming it's been cropped)?

I have to scale everything I take down or the detail goes... that down to pixel count?

I like it btw.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> What resolution was that image originally at TP (presuming it's been cropped)?
> 
> I have to scale everything I take down or the detail goes... that down to pixel count?
> 
> I like it btw.



its been scaled down by 50% I do that to most of my images, reason one they would be too big and reason two they look better (I think anyway) resized. 

my cameras 5.3mp with a 21x optical zoom


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 18, 2005)

Another submission Doorway


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 18, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Another submission Doorway




direct linking not allowed lol


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Another submission Doorway


I like the font.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 18, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> direct linking not allowed lol



just changed it   Doorway


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

It's an interesting bit of architecture, and the half-open door adds an element of interest to the composition.  I'd crop out the office windows, as they're not things of beauty, and maybe play around with the levels to try and bring the brickwork into sharper focus.  imao.

Edit: And possibly I'd try and lose some of the detail inside the building through the doorway in order to draw out more distinct shapes.


----------



## Gordon Gnu (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Sell it back to them as a postcard!
> 
> I really like it actually, looks quite similar to Castleneud.  Is it on the Dordogne somewhere?



It is actually the Chateaux in samur which is in the Loire, went there last year camping (well we went all over France) but this was just a stunning setting. That pic was taken with an old Canon A80  I'm amazed i managed to keep it that still

Here's another from France

and another


----------



## Corax (Jun 18, 2005)

The second one particularly appeals.  It's a dynamic, rather than passive, moment captured neatly, well accompanied by the swathe of colour in the door.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Gordon Gnu said:
			
		

> How about This.
> 
> Warning 2272x1704



Nicely done, and I'll concede here that this is the sort of photography only possible with a solid grasp of exposure!


----------



## chooch (Jun 18, 2005)

Some lovely stuff on here 

Not the kind of photo I usually take, so never been able to decide whether I like this one or not:
0505


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

chooch said:
			
		

> Some lovely stuff on here
> 
> Not the kind of photo I usually take, so never been able to decide whether I like this one or not:
> 0505



It's ok, taken at a nice time of day for that warm glow (called "magic hour"). But not really sure what the main subject of the photo is? It definitely needs some levels adjusting, so I've "done a wordie" here:
http://www.alef.co.uk/photos/urban75/05/images/0505.jpg

Right half is the original untouched, left half quickly tweaked in Photoshop: auto-levels, auto-contrast, auto-colour, and a bit of unsharp mask.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Cheers JC for the comment JC.
> 
> I can see what you mean about silhouettes.  Before this thread appeared, that was the best shot I'd taken.  After advice off here I've taken and posted a few more, received advice from alef and others (much 'preciated), and gone out shooting again.
> 
> ...



When I started trying to be 'serious' about photography, I went out and took a bunch of silhouette shots that I was very proud of (still am, actually). I was going out with this graphic designer at the time; she said the same thing to me that I said to you. I was stung that someone was contradicting my artistic vision, but it made me branch out into attempting to take good pictures that weren't backlit.


----------



## Addy (Jun 18, 2005)

Linky 
straight from da fone innit!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Cheers JC for the comment JC.
> 
> I can see what you mean about silhouettes.  Before this thread appeared, that was the best shot I'd taken.  After advice off here I've taken and posted a few more, received advice from alef and others (much 'preciated), and gone out shooting again.
> 
> ...



I like the black and white fence one, also the colorized man lying on the grass. The one with the bollard in the foreground, bridge background has a neat light effect, almost like it has been somehow brightened by subracting elements from it. The bark one looks like a different developing process; do you do your own developing?

The tree with the sun looks like an infrared lens, which makes for interesting outdoor shots.

Looks like you've already done some non-backlight shots; sorry for my presumption.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> Tank you for that...obviously I would have never have thought of that. Oh silly me.. ThanX for that JC2.... you are great at giveing really god advice. And thank you too for not referring to the size of my dick or my income. You are the best. We must get together sometime. It would be great.



Now I'm curious; is your dick as big as your income?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Sell it back to them as a postcard!
> 
> I really like it actually, looks quite similar to Castleneud.  Is it on the Dordogne somewhere?
> 
> ...



I used to think that photography was a slacker's medium for creating art. All you have to do is get a couple of books, learn about f stops, and voila: instant art. I think I thought that art had to be toiled over, and also produced via some special dexterity in the artist, to be real art.

But I've seen so many bad photos taken by people with lots of books, and good cameras, etc, that I accept that the ability to frame a good pic, is artistic creation on a par with painting, etc.

This thread makes me want to dig in the trunk for my old Pentax, and start shooting again.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> just changed it   Doorway



Nice pic. You managed to keep detail clear inside the building, without overexposing the outside, even though the light levels would be different.


----------



## wordie (Jun 18, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> This thread makes me want to dig in the trunk for my old Pentax, and start shooting again.


So do it and enter the photo comp each month...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> So do it and enter the photo comp each month...



No scanner.


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> No scanner.


I've got one free to anyone who can collect it (London SW11). It's a Umax Astra 2100U, very basic, but is USB and can do the job of getting something online. No Mac OS X driver though. PM me if interested. </derail>


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 18, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> I've got one free to anyone who can collect it (London SW11). It's a Umax Astra 2100U, very basic, but is USB and can do the job of getting something online. No Mac OS X driver though. PM me if interested. </derail>



I wonder what it would cost to get it shipped to Vancouver?


----------



## alef (Jun 18, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I wonder what it would cost to get it shipped to Vancouver?


More than it's value. It's not even worth the effort of my finding a box for it! Look on eBay:
http://search.ebay.com/scanner_Scanners_W0QQfromZR3QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ3QQsacatZ11205


----------



## chooch (Jun 19, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> It's ok, taken at a nice time of day for that warm glow (called "magic hour"). But not really sure what the main subject of the photo is?


Yep. Neither am I  The silhouette on the left probably. The tweaking definitely improves it. Ta.


----------



## Corax (Jun 19, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> .... The bark one looks like a different developing process; do you do your own developing? ... The tree with the sun looks like an infrared lens...


No, all I've got to play with for now is a 2mp Olympus p'n's.  Slowly getting to grips with PS (Elements).  Ta for the feedback.


----------



## Pie 1 (Jun 20, 2005)

..


----------



## NoCoolNickname (Jun 20, 2005)

This is my first post in the photography forum, and first photograph submitted for criticism...so be kind!

At the moment I am just a point and clicker, so any criticism and advice is greatly appreciated.  Would this picture be better if you could see all of the trees rather than just the tops of some of them?  Are sunsets considered a bit boring?

The photograph was taken at Ashton Park in Preston, with a Kodak Easyshare CX6200 Digital.  A bit of cropping in photoshop but other than that the picture is as was.

link


----------



## zenie (Jun 20, 2005)

NoCoolNickname said:
			
		

> This is my first post in the photography forum, and first photograph submitted for criticism...so be kind!
> 
> At the moment I am just a point and clicker, so any criticism and advice is greatly appreciated.  Would this picture be better if you could see all of the trees rather than just the tops of some of them?  Are sunsets considered a bit boring?
> 
> ...



I really like this well done   

The colours of the sunset and the clouds add a bit of drama to the pic.

Maybe the tree on the left could do with a bit more 'trunk' but other then that a fine effort (I am no pro)


----------



## wordie (Jun 20, 2005)

NoCoolNickname said:
			
		

> This is my first post in the photography forum, and first photograph submitted for criticism...so be kind!
> 
> At the moment I am just a point and clicker, so any criticism and advice is greatly appreciated.  Would this picture be better if you could see all of the trees rather than just the tops of some of them?  Are sunsets considered a bit boring?
> 
> ...


This is really quite a nice shot. Nice colours - and no, I don't think sunsets are considered boring - they just need to be spectacular!

A couple of points. It looks to me as if the horizon (all the trees in this case) is not in sharp focus. They really should be! Second point. I would have tilted the camera up to get more sky and less black foreground. Third point. Ideally I would have tried to find something either in the foreground and middle distance to give more depth to the entire composition. And overhanging branch, leaves at the top or side of the frame, something like that. 

Looking at the rest of your pics I reckon the 2nd one with the silhouette of the person had really interesting potential... but it's not quite there.

You've got the person silhouetted off center so that's good, but you were taking a shot of them so got distracted to the potential of making more of the water reflection at bottom right. It's obviously a pool or canal, but there could have been a more interesting shot if you'd moved around to your right a bit (if possible) and maybe gone a little lower to isolate more of the person, again get more sky and reduce the dominance of some of those distant trees/bushes.

Just a couple of thoughts like...   

(And I might add, it's a lot easier to see what someone could/should have done in retrospect, than it is to actually make the call at the time!)


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 20, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> (And I might add, it's a lot easier to see what someone could/should have done in retrospect, than it is to actually make the call at the time!)



ladder or rope?   or can you get out of this yourself?


----------



## NoCoolNickname (Jun 20, 2005)

Thanks for both the comments so far, they were exactly what I was looking for.  Like I said I don't really know too much and am learning so advice is appreciated.

With regards to the comment on the black foreground, I did crop a lot of it out from the original picture, but kept the amount there is in so that the picture is split into three horizonal(ish) thirds.

The second picture is actually a statue of a man that I messed about with a bit in photoshop (new to photoshop too).  If you look at where black meets water you can see that it doesn't quite look right either; messed up a bit there.  I take on board your comments about better utilising the water but unfortunately the canal is much lower than the land, and the sky wasn't very attractive behind the figure.  Getting lower would definately have helped with the view.  Thanks to Zenie and Wordie.  Any semi-decent photographs I manage to take at the moment are probably down to luck as much as skill, so hopefully I'll be able to change that soon!


----------



## wordie (Jun 20, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> ladder or rope?   or can you get out of this yourself?


Cheeky bugger!


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 23, 2005)

night photography


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Jun 23, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> night photography




the house of le chat is rockin tonight!   


nice one tp   

shoot that baby garf!


----------



## sajana (Jun 23, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> night photography




the light captured in the picture is quite good. but the burning light in the corner (a street light? ) is quite distracting. if it could have been cut out, the reflection on the tripod could have been delightful


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 23, 2005)

I quite like it actually, orange and blue init, colour wheel stuff!!!  its so bright cus the exposure was long << wasnt using flash so it took aaaaages

it wouldnt have reflected so well on the tripod as the dude was cutting it out... (lights were behind it) the other reflections came from other lights from the way the canal curves round which was behind us


----------



## Structaural (Jun 23, 2005)

I shot this the other day - I mistakenly had the settings on night shot (slow aperture) but it doesn't look too bad - her face could be sharper. Any advice?

statue


----------



## alef (Jun 25, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> I shot this the other day - I mistakenly had the settings on night shot (slow aperture) but it doesn't look too bad - her face could be sharper. Any advice?
> 
> statue



You've nearly pulled off a fun trick of having the statue sharp and everything else appear moving. 'Statue walking' is a good title for it. Was your flash turned on? The highlights on the statue I find a bit distracting, though perhaps they're just from the sun. Maybe try this same idea a few more times and see if you can get it how you'd like it?


----------



## atomik (Jun 25, 2005)

Headed up Wearyall hill in Glastonbury to snap off a few pics of the holy thorn at sunset. This one ended up as my favourite. Taken on a 300D.

Holy Thorn


----------



## Cadmus (Jun 26, 2005)

Sunsets seem to be the thing...
This one is over Clapham but upside down. Seemed better that way, dunno why.

Clapham Sun Inversion


----------



## tangerinedream (Jun 27, 2005)

This is my favorite thing I've taken recently. It's not that stunning technically but I was pleased with the way it captured the atmosphere. 
5.30 am, Fleetwood.


----------



## spitfire (Jun 27, 2005)

"clapham sun inversion"

that's wicked that is


----------



## tangerinedream (Jun 27, 2005)

certainly is.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 28, 2005)

ok, I'm new to this forum too but have been taking pics for some time.

any comments about this? taken in Iceland - I'm rather pleased with it.....

Boat


----------



## atomik (Jun 28, 2005)

Excellent photo. I love it. Personally, I'd have been inclined to angle it slightly, but I guess you could argue taking it straight on makes for a more dramatic image. Personal taste I guess. Were you using a filter on that shot?


----------



## Corax (Jun 28, 2005)

That photo's rather charming.

A matter of taste, o'course, but I disagree about the angle personally.  If that hydrant wasn't there, yes.  With the hydrant though, the composition has a good feel to it that I think would be lost at an angle.

Good stuff.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 28, 2005)

Thanks for the feedback - quite encouraging. I kind of knew when I saw the situation that this was going to turn out to be a good one. No filters used but it was incredibly, incredibly bright and I had some Fuji Velvia 50 loaded so the colours were going to be rich.

I wish somebody had been walking from right to left at the time so that there would have been some symmetry/balance with the hydrant but c'est la vie.

I had a good read of some of threads and looking forward to some banter. Last boards I was on were devoid of any humour.................


----------



## atomik (Jun 28, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> Last boards I was on were devoid of any humour.................


*tumbleweed*


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 28, 2005)

atomik said:
			
		

> *tumbleweed*



I rest my case


----------



## atomik (Jun 28, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I rest my case


Curses! Foiled again!


----------



## Corax (Jun 28, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I wish somebody had been walking from right to left at the time so that there would have been some symmetry/balance with the hydrant but c'est la vie.
> 
> I had a good read of some of threads and looking forward to some banter. Last boards I was on were devoid of any humour.................


Too much symmetry's _nasty_.  I like it as it is.  Other than perhaps trying to bring the colour & texture of the reddish areas out a bit, I'd not change it a jot personally.

And if you expect me to be funny you can fuck off.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 28, 2005)

Corax said:
			
		

> Too much symmetry's _nasty_.  I like it as it is.  Other than perhaps trying to bring the colour & texture of the reddish areas out a bit, I'd not change it a jot personally.
> 
> And if you expect me to be funny you can fuck off.



I didn't expect it, nor did you manage to........cheeky fucker


----------



## Corax (Jun 28, 2005)

Bitch.


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 29, 2005)

That hurt. There was me thinking you're a friendly bunch as well.

Off topic, do any of you guys meet up? My Mrs (she suggested having a look on here) has been posting on here for years and we used to go to the unsound do's some time ago until we had kids?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 29, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> .... until we had kids?



And so the anarchy continues???    


*I'm risking horseflies and a deluge to post this _plein_air_!  


Why_oh_why_oh_why???


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 29, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> And so the anarchy continues???



easy tiger......normal service will resume, eventually.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 29, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> ......normal service will resume, eventually.



hook line and sinker...go on then crit my spawnage ...I'm perched on the bonnet on a car wathcing some gurlllly dl me abi_files....so do your stuff?....*ouch should be working really...runs to other PC to see if Wireless attached... ...runs back,....darn!...dunt!


----------



## Firky (Jun 29, 2005)

Overly saturated for me, poor lass looks like she's been tangoed.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Overly saturated for me, poor lass looks like she's been tangoed.



LOL>..nah thats prolly your monitor  settings>pr0n 70's stylee sRGB whaddeva_doooberry wotzit!  ,,,but then agin I know what you mean...I have  two monitors I have seen it on that seem fine to me***,,,,mmmm...will look again on another the evenin'...aight?  ,,,,ty 4 yr 1nput br0! ,,,seen N E kewlio 4nthr0 recents like?  


*Gawd i'm a bit toasted today

***oh my!...I may have cocked up...goes to check stufff!!!! 

runs in from rain!!!.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 29, 2005)

firky!!!!! pm me!!!!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 29, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> firky!!!!! pm me!!!!



Off topicc!!!??? meh! meh!meh!


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Overly saturated for me, poor lass looks like she's been tangoed.



I like it like that - suits the moody look. Then again what do I know.


----------



## pengaleng (Jun 29, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I had a good read of some of threads and looking forward to some banter.




yeh but you aint in 'the clique' izzzzzz jooooooo!!!!!


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 29, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> yeh but you aint in 'the clique' izzzzzz jooooooo!!!!!



oh no, certainly not. not sure about cliques, they usually have something to hide.


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 29, 2005)

> Robster970



that nice, rich blues. What did you take photo with (Make/Model)


----------



## wordie (Jun 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Overly saturated for me, poor lass looks like she's been tangoed.


Both my monitors reckon she's been tango'd too! Either that or you're an orange squelcher....


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 29, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> that nice, rich blues. What did you take photo with (Make/Model)



Nikon f80 with a sigma 28-105m lens. the blue saturation is down to the velvia film that was used. i like saturated colours.


----------



## boskysquelch (Jun 29, 2005)

wordie said:
			
		

> Both my monitors reckon she's been tango'd too! Either that or you're an orange squelcher....



*spits out dummy......Velvia is shite(j/k) and so are Sigmas(not!)...hoikes back into caravan to de_Tango for the Urb_clique....look at their bums!!!!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jun 29, 2005)

not so much a critic i'm looking for here as a possible solution to stop this happening http://tinyurl.com/dq6jk 

clearly the mark shouldn't be there any ideas what's causing it... it's the same regardless of which lens i use


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 30, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> ok, I'm new to this forum too but have been taking pics for some time.
> 
> any comments about this? taken in Iceland - I'm rather pleased with it.....
> 
> Boat



That is a superb picture.  I like the graphic quality that comes from taking it flat-on and also the saturated colour with a restricted palette - mostly blue and white with a bit of brown.  Is the Iceland sky normally that blue or did you use a polarizing filter?

Hocus Eye


----------



## Robster970 (Jun 30, 2005)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That is a superb picture.  I like the graphic quality that comes from taking it flat-on and also the saturated colour with a restricted palette - mostly blue and white with a bit of brown.  Is the Iceland sky normally that blue or did you use a polarizing filter?
> 
> Hocus Eye



On a clear day yes, very, very, very bright so the whites caused the metering to underexpose - hence the depth of blue you would normally only get with a polariser - in short no. Ta for the feedback though - nice to know others like the pic.


----------



## General Ludd (Jun 30, 2005)

Have yet to decide whether I love this photo or think that more of the fence should have been kept sharp.

http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ltk22/index.php?category=280605beachtrip&image=_DSC0646


----------



## alef (Jun 30, 2005)

General Ludd said:
			
		

> Have yet to decide whether I love this photo or think that more of the fence should have been kept sharp.
> 
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~ltk22/index.php?category=280605beachtrip&image=_DSC0646



Agree, think you need more of the fence sharp since it's the curving of the fence that's most interesting, rather than just the post on the left.


----------



## alef (Jun 30, 2005)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> ok, I'm new to this forum too but have been taking pics for some time.
> 
> any comments about this? taken in Iceland - I'm rather pleased with it.....
> 
> Boat



I'm an immediate fan of this shot, love it! I wouldn't want it tilted at all, like the composition exactly how it is. My only nitpick would be to have it all sharper, the fence and hydrant look a tad soft to me. And perhaps boost up the reds a bit too? But really, it's a stunner.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

battle of trafalgar re-enactment on wednesday, and yeah... its another B&W 

Colour is for the paint


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 1, 2005)

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs7/i/2005/178/5/2/Peekaboo_by_GarfieldLeChat.jpg

this one gwan do your worst...


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

You can't hot link from DA, muppetboy


----------



## atomik (Jul 1, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> You can't hot link from DA, muppetboy


Harsh but true


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 1, 2005)

You Cant Hotlink On DeviantART Dude!!!!


i think he means this picture... http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/19945540/


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 1, 2005)

read the FAQs durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 1, 2005)

tribal_princess said:
			
		

> http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/19945540/






I love her eyelashes...but the pickee is toooo big for 1024/768(the lappy I'm on)...looks poop_soft and fudgey...but the potential is there....


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 1, 2005)

the original was blurred hence the softness no edges


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

crit me


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 1, 2005)

i like it it has that old newspaper type image thing about it, however i think it'd be better in colour there's not enough contrast between the different fireworks explosions to warrent black and white imo


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

Its done in HDR in PS CS2, there's over 500,000 grey tones in that pic - get a better monitor or sort out ya profile


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

actually, HDR is probably the greatest feature Adobe have put in Photoshop.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-cs2-hdr-32bit.html?source=rss


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 1, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> Its done in HDR in PS CS2, there's over 500,000 grey tones in that pic - get a better monitor or sort out ya profile




hmm sorry but viewing at work with a standard monitor, for graphic on the web you have to consider what kit your audience may be using... however if you are going for a print verison then this would be a fine method of displaying your shot...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 1, 2005)

also reading the HDR thing you posted ould suggest you needed to have taken at least 3 but prefferably 5 or 7 shots all at different expousures in order for the effect to work ...


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 1, 2005)

non sequitur hdr is not for the web    problem with shooting fireworks is well... they're fast! This is actually three shots split seconds apart, taken on a tripod... as i'm sure you've just read 

dunno why you're telling me what I already know?!


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 1, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> hmm sorry but viewing at work with a standard monitor, for graphic on the web you have to consider what kit your audience may be using...



:thinks:  ,,, if you reduced *your* image size by half it would be considerably improved for the viewer.


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 1, 2005)

*smirk*


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 2, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> non sequitur hdr is not for the web    problem with shooting fireworks is well... they're fast! This is actually three shots split seconds apart, taken on a tripod... as i'm sure you've just read
> 
> dunno why you're telling me what I already know?!




cos if we are going to critic your work online then we need to see it in the best possible light in order to beable to comment.... so using s a process which will not show on a 72dpi screen would mean in order to get accurate comments you'd need to take round to each persons house or exibit it some where with good lighting condititions and get them all to come view it then pass comment on it i guess  

squelch are you suggesting i reduce the image slightly... i'm just not getting it your hinting at summit, i can tell <bright spark me>


----------



## alef (Jul 2, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> battle of trafalgar re-enactment on wednesday, and yeah... its another B&W
> 
> Colour is for the paint
> 
> ...



I think it's very  The melting effect of the fireworks is the strong point. Hadn't read about HDR before, though doubt I'll ever use it, interesting to learn.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 2, 2005)

It is worth experimenting with, I`ll upload some pictures later if I get time / away with it.

They're copyrighted now and no longer my property as such, but I`ll see if I can upload a nice big 14MB tiff or something at 300dpi 

(so garf can print it out and crit' it - hope your paper, monitor, and printer are all profiled   )


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 2, 2005)

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/June05/traf200.jpg


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 2, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> (so garf can print it out and crit' it - hope your paper, monitor, and printer are all profiled   )




sorry blud i'm not buying a £5000 printer to look at your onw shot


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 2, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/albums/June05/traf200.jpg




that's nto very black and white 

more noir et rogue


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 2, 2005)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> that's nto very black and white



and the script is not reaaaaaally in keeping with the content..graphically and demonstratively the shot feeeels curvy <<<the obvious! #whizzzzz__bang_pft<clues!..._and also the historical implication of the content on the text puts the given font an anachronistic feel_....saaaaaaaawt i awwt...give it a bit of curly my son!...Copperplate or somecurvysomesuch!...Regency woodbloock/lead font...like in 18th Century newspapers/posters?...do some research and see the type of type they were using back then/other type of type of stuff nautical historical jobbie...the 'given' is too Art Deco/1920's/Agatha Christie/Poirot/PG Woodhouse....I'm just saying sometimes you can't reinvent the wheel and that there are some things that work some tings that don't...aight?..ooooooooooooor go the who'll hog...and zap and zoooooooom it into the 21st century with liquid/mac type crystal/gel space agey fonts and give the info-detail a feels of now..and the background being the reaaaaaaal paaaaaaast....crit on!


----------



## pengaleng (Jul 2, 2005)

ha! I knew he was shit!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Jul 2, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> and the script is not reaaaaaally in keeping with the content..graphically and demonstratively the shot feeeels curvy <<<the obvious! #whizzzzz__bang_pft<clues!..._and also the historical implication of the content on the text puts the given font an anachronistic feel_....saaaaaaaawt i awwt...give it a bit of curly my son!...Copperplate or somecurvysomesuch!...Regency woodbloock/lead font...like in 18th Century newspapers/posters?...do some research and see the type of type they were using back then/other type of type of stuff nautical historical jobbie...the 'given' is too Art Deco/1920's/Agatha Christie/Poirot/PG Woodhouse....I'm just saying sometimes you can't reinvent the wheel and that there are some things that work some tings that don't...aight?..ooooooooooooor go the who'll hog...and zap and zoooooooom it into the 21st century with liquid/mac type crystal/gel space agey fonts and give the info-detail a feels of now..and the background being the reaaaaaaal paaaaaaast....crit on!



 

i understood that 

 

more booze for me


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 3, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> ---8<--- BIG SNIP ---8<---



It is Century Gothic, quite a me old bean - very ICA init.........><,

and its for a mailer for a  contemporrrrrary exxxxyhibition that compliments past and present within its corporate identity.... (blah blah fuck it I can type like you)  loads of shit about appealing to target audience, for the mailer show... nautical history students mainly from the uni

i am fucking saul bass when it comes to typography, dude - i still get people ringing me up for type stuff - cos I f'ing rawk!    Keep pondering about doing an MA in typography


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 3, 2005)

Oh yes I forgot myself. You are right.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 3, 2005)

nah, you just can't teach an old dog new tricks


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 3, 2005)

Crit one: If I sit still no one will see me 
Crit two: Fresh Air


----------



## alef (Jul 3, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Crit one: If I sit still no one will see me


Great contrast of bright colours, depth of field to good effect, moth/butterfly upside down unusual so more interesting.  





			
				thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Crit two: Fresh Air


Does nothing for me at all, sorry.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 10, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Crit one: If I sit still no one will see me
> Crit two: Fresh Air



butterfly is pretty but its quite stock image like, its hard to take a photo of fauna with out making it look like stock.

As alef says, the second one does nothing for me - but I guess the framing is quite nice.


----------



## chooch (Jul 10, 2005)

So what does the infinitely patient panel  make of this one and this one?


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 11, 2005)

chooch said:
			
		

> So what does the infinitely patient panel  make of this one and this one?



I like both of them, especially the second one - the water looks a bit like sky and it makes me think of thirst or something like that. The ground seems desperate for water.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 11, 2005)

One picture and another 

any responses welcome.


----------



## Firky (Jul 12, 2005)

chooch said:
			
		

> So what does the infinitely patient panel  make of this one and this one?



first one could be cropped a bit tighter, or have a tighter DoF, I just think there's too much of the ground, and your eye is pulled awkardly up to the bike. Lose a little bit of the ground, and it would be easier on the eye.

Second one's canny good, nice contrast in textures


----------



## Firky (Jul 12, 2005)

tangerinedream said:
			
		

> One picture and another
> 
> any responses welcome.



I like the second one, looks like's jumped over the traffic cones or being chased by them


----------



## chooch (Jul 12, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> first one could be cropped a bit tighter, or have a tighter DoF, I just think there's too much of the ground, and your eye is pulled awkardly up to the bike. Lose a little bit of the ground, and it would be easier on the eye.
> Second one's canny good, nice contrast in textures


Good advice. Ta.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 12, 2005)

alef said:
			
		

> You've nearly pulled off a fun trick of having the statue sharp and everything else appear moving. 'Statue walking' is a good title for it. Was your flash turned on? The highlights on the statue I find a bit distracting, though perhaps they're just from the sun. Maybe try this same idea a few more times and see if you can get it how you'd like it?



Thanks alef - I might try for a sunny day - I don't think the flash triggered but I could be mistaken as it was on night settings.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jul 12, 2005)

Ohh go on then Ill allow people to have a crit at my photos! A couple of silhouette type ones. The first taken in Whitby, North Yorkshire and the second taken in Leeds for a photoshoot for a friends band.

Whitby at dusk

Band silhouette


edit : the band photo was converted into b&w and had the photoshop equivalent of an orange filter applied to it.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 12, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> actually, HDR is probably the greatest feature Adobe have put in Photoshop.
> 
> http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-cs2-hdr-32bit.html?source=rss



Cool!! - I didn't know that! [goes and buys tripod]


----------



## Structaural (Jul 12, 2005)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Ohh go on then Ill allow people to have a crit at my photos! A couple of silhouette type ones. The first taken in Whitby, North Yorkshire and the second taken in Leeds for a photoshoot for a friends band.
> 
> Whitby at dusk
> 
> ...



Beautiful shots - I love the Whitby one.


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 12, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> Cool!! - I didn't know that! [goes and buys tripod]





Another one converted.


----------



## Structaural (Jul 12, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> Another one converted.





I could have done with one for this shot - but it's interesting enough without the background sharp - long exposure was used...

FibonacciFire


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 12, 2005)

Fantastic, not normally a fan of long exposure - but that is original


----------



## jms (Jul 12, 2005)

Just wondering what anyone thought of this picture

My brother took it, its in Berlin


----------



## chooch (Jul 12, 2005)

jms said:
			
		

> Just wondering what anyone thought of this picture


I like it, apart from the lamppost. It's so central that it throws everything else.


----------



## jms (Jul 13, 2005)

thats what I thought


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 13, 2005)

the refleshion of other building looks good.
sorry to sate ovest<?


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jul 17, 2005)

Thought i'd have another goContainers


----------



## Addy (Jul 17, 2005)

I agree with the others jms, the lampost needs to be removed and the reflection, to me, is the main focus.....old and new.......ugly and beauty?

A flower macro 
... i know, how original  
Shot with Fuji Finepix @ 3.1MP, no photoshop at all


----------



## BennehBoi (Jul 19, 2005)

Here's one I took of my daughter, completely accidental photo as she ran up to me from across the room.  Probably could do with some cropping, I only had a poor flash when it was taken so it's a bit shadowy.

The photo is completely unedited except for a resize.

http://www.benneh.net/photos/maiamoo.jpg


----------



## chooch (Jul 19, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Thought i'd have another go: Containers


DOn't think it quite works for me. Lovely curving line of containers, but the right hand side is too cluttered- maybe a crop to the edge of one of the blue buildings might help...


----------



## Skim (Jul 19, 2005)

jms said:
			
		

> Just wondering what anyone thought of this picture
> 
> My brother took it, its in Berlin





I like the idea, but not the execution. I know exactly where it is in Berlin because I tried to take the same photo myself (I like photos of reflections).

The peach and grey colours have the potential to look great together but the lighting here doesn't show them off to great effect. There's no great contrast, which would give some drama to the image.

While I can see that the picture might offer an interesting image of old meeting new, you just can't see the cathedral properly for that kind of theme to have impact. The crop's good, although I would have preferred the picture taken head-on – it's not flat enough for my tastes.

I don't think my photo of that cathedral was much better, though.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 21, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Thought i'd have another goContainers



I enjoyed all your photo's - I think you captue the North West very well, history standing amongst anonymous modern architecture  

I liked 'containers' - is it Trafford Park or Warrington?


----------



## boskysquelch (Jul 21, 2005)

Skim said:
			
		

> ......but the lighting here doesn't show them off to great effect.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jul 21, 2005)

tangerinedream said:
			
		

> I enjoyed all your photo's - I think you captue the North West very well, history standing amongst anonymous modern architecture
> 
> I liked 'containers' - is it Trafford Park or Warrington?



Thanks it's warrington just off liverpool road over the bridge from bankquay station


----------



## Robster970 (Jul 22, 2005)

Have been doing some stuff for the BJP competition. Won't use this one as it doesn't quite fit what I am trying to do but thought it came out well and didn't really expect it.

gambling kid


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jul 22, 2005)

I would like to enter these images:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/leebphoto/27783683/in/set-628358/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leebphoto/27783639/in/set-628358/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leebphoto/27783641/in/set-628358/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/leebphoto/27783640/in/set-628358/


----------



## Tank Girl (Jul 22, 2005)

I'm going to share a couple with you, I'm sure there's a lot wrong with them, but I do quite like them 

http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46563182

http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46562938


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 22, 2005)




----------



## jeff_leigh (Jul 22, 2005)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> I'm going to share a couple with you, I'm sure there's a lot wrong with them, but I do quite like them
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46563182
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46562938



i like the second photo you captured the lighting good, gives a nice effect


----------



## Big-H (Jul 25, 2005)

*Eastbourne Pier in summer...*

It really was a most miserable day in early July...

http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_fullsize.html?c_photo=28544300

Fortunately, the seagulls make a a difference; the following image was less successful...

Fuji F10, Auto WB, set on 400 ISO

Howard


----------



## Structaural (Jul 25, 2005)

Big-H said:
			
		

> It really was a most miserable day in early July...
> 
> http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_fullsize.html?c_photo=28544300
> 
> ...


needs login


----------



## Skim (Jul 25, 2005)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46563182




I like this a lot  I'm a fan of photos which take small details and look at them in more depth.

You could probably do a whole series on them and make us see rivets in a new light


----------



## Soreenkid (Jul 25, 2005)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> I'm going to share a couple with you, I'm sure there's a lot wrong with them, but I do quite like them
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46562938



I have pictures of the exact same thing... fools seldom differ or great minds think alike?


----------



## Tank Girl (Jul 25, 2005)

great minds innit 

and cheers skim, I'm always looking for ideas, and maybe you've just given me a good one


----------



## atomik (Jul 25, 2005)

Skim said:
			
		

> I like this a lot  I'm a fan of photos which take small details and look at them in more depth.


I agree. I really like these images.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2005)

Tank Girl said:
			
		

> http://www.pbase.com/tank_girl/image/46563182


I think there's a bit too much going on. The stencil graffiti is the centre of attention, whereas I think it'd be a more interesting photo without it. The rivets, texture, shapes and particularly the colours all make for a strong picture -- whereas the white star/person detracts from these.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2005)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> I would like to enter these images:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/leebphoto/27783683/in/set-628358/



Unusual crop, perhaps need a bit more cropping? Focusing in on the drums and hands is a good idea. Maybe try it removing the shoulders because right now it looks, to me at least, a bit too strange, particularly with the chin of the guy in red in the middle still included.


----------



## Faithy (Jul 29, 2005)

*Running towards freedom..*

This is one of the pictures I am really proud of:






Shot with a Nikon F-75, spring 2004 on a hot sunny day while 'studying' for my finals


----------



## Chorlton (Jul 29, 2005)

Faithy said:
			
		

> This is one of the pictures I am really proud of:



*applauds*

its brilliant, like it a lot.


----------



## maes (Jul 31, 2005)

took this the other day, what do people think?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/maestrocloud/IMG_1046.jpg


----------



## wordie (Aug 1, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> took this the other day, what do people think?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/maestrocloud/IMG_1046.jpg


That's quite a nice shot actually. The sun is a bit central. And with hindsight it may have been better if you'd tilted the camera down a little to get more of the reflection in the road.

But then, what do I know....?


----------



## editor (Aug 1, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> took this the other day, what do people think?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/maestrocloud/IMG_1046.jpg


Nice pic! Maybe it works better in portrait format tho?

I agree that a bit more of the road might have been nice.


----------



## Structaural (Aug 1, 2005)

a bit of leveling in photoshop helps







(actually looked better in photoshop  - somewhere between the two maybe)


----------



## Structaural (Aug 1, 2005)

This took a while but I was pleased with the result. Anyone?

my fish


----------



## maes (Aug 1, 2005)

ooh, thanks editor & BL - you're right, it looks far better in portrait.

BL did you just lighten the whole thing? i like how now more of the detail of the buildings/bridges etc is visible.

i'll try take some more while i'm in this beautiful place


----------



## Structaural (Aug 1, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> ooh, thanks editor & BL - you're right, it looks far better in portrait.
> 
> BL did you just lighten the whole thing? i like how now more of the detail of the buildings/bridges etc is visible.
> 
> i'll try take some more while i'm in this beautiful place



I duped the blue plate and levelled it to isolate the darker areas - it was a bodge - so the edges of the sky got caught. I just had a quick go with the Adjustments - Shadow/Highlight - and it did a better job (you need CS though)

see here


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 1, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> (you need CS though)



You can tweak a tad by ...work on largest file available before resizing for display...and a combination of *Levels* and using the Eyedropper in *Curves*/right click to isolatepoint/adjust Curve accordingly...then sharpen after Resizeing and Save As at a size/compression which'll not lose too many details(shadows/highlights)...in pre_CS that is... not that anyone'll understand me!


----------



## Structaural (Aug 1, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> You can tweak a tad by ...work on largest file available before resizing for display...and a combination of *Levels* and using the Eyedropper in *Curves*/right click to isolatepoint/adjust Curve accordingly...then sharpen after Resizeing and Save As at a size/compression which'll not lose too many details(shadows/highlights)...in pre_CS that is... not that anyone'll understand me!



I get ya   (I wish they'd make the curves box a lot bigger)


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 1, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> I get ya   (I wish they'd make the curves box a lot bigger)



 should've said right_click either side of point supplied by point created by eyedropper...innit?...LOL yeah Big Up Curves..  

I did see some plug_in/Addon software that Maxed Curves etc size wise...don't remember where but it was Uber priced..to a greater extent methunx NeatImage  will give chuffing results(from what i've seen) but tbh I've not got round to trying it out.


----------



## Soreenkid (Aug 1, 2005)

squelch said:
			
		

> should've said right_click either side of point supplied by point created by eyedropper...innit?...LOL yeah Big Up Curves..
> 
> I did see some plug_in/Addon software that Maxed Curves etc size wise...don't remember where but it was Uber priced..to a greater extent methunx NeatImage  will give chuffing results(from what i've seen) but tbh I've not got round to trying it out.



ive used that neatimage, its ace for reducing noise from street light on night shots


----------



## Soreenkid (Aug 1, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> took this the other day, what do people think?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/maestrocloud/IMG_1046.jpg



Nice shot, but I don't like stuff stuck in the middle - looks fake.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 1, 2005)

Soreenkid said:
			
		

> Nice shot, but I don't like stuff stuck in the middle - looks fake.




 ,,,wot?..._fake cobble_sets?_*...top effort Maestro...did you individually construct them pixel by pixel?....each lickle_ickle_bit? 


*or the bridges!!!! PML!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 3, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> took this the other day, what do people think?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v282/maestrocloud/IMG_1046.jpg



I really like this. In landscape format without having the soul zapped out of it by PS. For me, the original is far more moody and atmospheric in it's original exposure. Much more Parisian. 

Why do people insist on sticking every bleedin' photo through PS autolevels? More often than not it steralises the original. Strips it of any bollocks and turns it into 'just another stock library shot'.

Going slightly off topic; there is something very special about cities at dusk. Or, even cities between dusk and dawn. On my last drive from southern Spain to London I was on a very tight budget. Finding myself in Orlean at 10PM a quick look at the map convinced me the most straight forward route to Calais was along the old roads directly through Paris. Inevitably, without the sun to guide me I got lost in the city.

Being the kind of person who would sooner enjoy getting lost rather than getting stressed finding the ringroad I decided to park up and enjoy the lostness in a strange city in the early hours.

Whilst the neon and human buzz energises and empowers you get a sense of vulnerability. A certain awarness that you are the person on this earth that can make your life what you want it to be. 

Sadly I had left my cameras in Spain. Shall return and photograph Paris between dusk and dawn one day soon though.

Nice photo. Took me somewhere I'm not right now anyway!


----------



## Throbbing Angel (Aug 4, 2005)

there we are

some of mine on Flickr

Vegas & Whitby 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/throbbing/sets/647182/


----------



## Addy (Aug 4, 2005)

I need a caption


----------



## Sirius (Aug 4, 2005)

christ! that thing looks like its about to attack!


----------



## Firky (Aug 5, 2005)

Addy said:
			
		

> I need a caption



its ye


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 5, 2005)

Addy said:
			
		

> I need a caption



"Who the fuck is Jar Jar Binks?"


----------



## Oxpecker (Aug 14, 2005)

.


----------



## chooch (Aug 14, 2005)

Oxpecker said:
			
		

> Aldeburgh spiral


I like that. Very elegant. Shame the last bit of the handrail on the left isn't quite in the frame though.


----------



## Oxpecker (Aug 14, 2005)

.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 14, 2005)

Platform 5 Liverpool Lime Street Station


----------



## deja_vu (Aug 14, 2005)

hmm. not to sure how I feel about this.. just a quick shot, I had left after taking all the snaps I needed on that day. Wish I'd printed it, and not just scanned the neg, but oh well.  

http://www.pbase.com/image/47669237/large

tell me whatcha think.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 14, 2005)

deja_vu said:
			
		

> hmm. not to sure how I feel about this.. just a quick shot, I had left after taking all the snaps I needed on that day. Wish I'd printed it, and not just scanned the neg, but oh well.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/47669237/large
> 
> tell me whatcha think.



i was thinking of going to the local Cementary tomorrow to take some pictures, wow talk about Deja va


----------



## what (Aug 14, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> i was thinking of going to the local Cementary tomorrow to take some pictures, wow talk about Deja va



Even wierder I visited this morning
http://www.flickr.com/photos/83872455@N00/sets/751107/


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 14, 2005)

what said:
			
		

> Even wierder I visited this morning
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/83872455@N00/sets/751107/



i did take a couple of pictures at the small gaveyard next to the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool on friday

http://sallygladman341.fotopic.net/p18758790.html 
http://sallygladman341.fotopic.net/p18758795.html 

but the shot i want needs a bigger Cemetary


----------



## what (Aug 14, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> i did take a couple of pictures at the small gaveyard next to the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool on friday
> 
> http://sallygladman341.fotopic.net/p18758790.html
> http://sallygladman341.fotopic.net/p18758795.html
> ...



Not great cemetry but if your in liverpool toxeth cemetry on smithdown road is big

http://www.liverpoolhome.com/images-a/Tox_cem_2.JPG


----------



## blackadder (Aug 15, 2005)

Here is a pic I like, I like the cows angles.


Right angles


----------



## Oxpecker (Aug 16, 2005)

.


----------



## Oxpecker (Aug 16, 2005)

.


----------



## Addy (Aug 18, 2005)

Anyone got any ideas how i can clean up a shot like this?


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2005)

patch tool


----------



## Addy (Aug 18, 2005)

Cheers Firky
Just tried it and its doing the job fine


----------



## mollyemo (Aug 19, 2005)

How's this?


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 19, 2005)

Anyone got any ideas how i can clean up a shot like this?

*Addy *
Photoshop

Duplicate layer so you have two layers of same image
On top layer do Fliter/Blur/Gaussain blur at 8px
Still on top layer Try layer mode as Screen
Or Try lowing the Opacity still on top layer But layer mode as Normal

once happy flatten image

_one day I show then cunts I know photoshop more then them, sorry we don't enplaoy dyslexics. You motherfucking cunt _


----------



## Firky (Aug 19, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> _one day I show then cunts I know photoshop more then them, sorry we don't enplaoy dyslexics. You motherfucking cunt _



we do. but he got sacked cos he had 'social' problems (could only talk to people via his hand lol) 

if you feel you've not been able to get employment because of your dyslexia why don't you take their arse to the cleaners?


----------



## Firky (Aug 19, 2005)

just a snap shot of myself, nothing but moon light, oh and the match i used to light a spliff.

long exposure

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/gallery/archived/DSC_0001


----------



## chooch (Aug 20, 2005)

mollyemo said:
			
		

> How's this


Nice colours and textures but a bit of a nothingy composition. Sure you could crop something good out of it.  



			
				blackadder said:
			
		

> Here is a pic I like, I like the cows angles.


So do I. But I'd take the rest out. Just the cows in black and white would look best I reckon. But what do I know...

How about something subtle and something bold?


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Aug 20, 2005)

One I took at the LT Musuem 

cropped it a bit

Window

KoD


----------



## Valve (Aug 31, 2005)

train alongside the matterhorn


----------



## Superape (Sep 1, 2005)

There is nothing arty about this photograph.

It isn't an exotic subject, it isn't anything tricksy or clever.

It's just downright cute.

http://www.superape.slingshack.com/treerat.JPG

Taken from my house looking over to where we have a load of bird feeding stuff in the garden. The optical zoom has just been overtaken by the digital zoom on my Olympus C770-UZ. I'd have liked just a touch more space around the top of the subject. I've seen wildlife calendars with worse pics in 



If you want something more pretentious there's always this detail of some rigging taken at the tall ships event in Amsterdam:

http://www.superape.slingshack.com/images/P1010055.jpg

</happy snapper>


----------



## Structaural (Sep 1, 2005)

what said:
			
		

> Even wierder I visited this morning
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/83872455@N00/sets/751107/



I like your 'after the rain' photography. Lovely.


----------



## what (Sep 1, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> I like your 'after the rain' photography. Lovely.



Cheers Bootylove


----------



## Final (Sep 1, 2005)

Valve said:
			
		

> train alongside the matterhorn



A great  example of a a föhn wind   in action.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Sep 2, 2005)

Valve said:
			
		

> train alongside the matterhorn



Valve thats a fuckin excellent shot mate what camera/lens you using?


----------



## Valve (Sep 2, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Valve thats a fuckin excellent shot mate what camera/lens you using?



canon sd100 digi!


----------



## alef (Sep 11, 2005)

Valve said:
			
		

> train alongside the matterhorn



That really is a stunning picture, love all the lines, clean sky and snow, composition. Find yourself some competitions to win with that one.

If you have photo software I'd suggest you increase the contrast, it is a bit washed out. 

And I have a complaint, please reduce picture sizes before sticking them online! Your image is 1600 pixels across, waaaay too big. Many browsers will reduce it to fit, but quite a few won't. I'd suggest no more than 700 px across for the web.


----------



## alef (Sep 11, 2005)

Superape said:
			
		

> There is nothing arty about this photograph.
> 
> It isn't an exotic subject, it isn't anything tricksy or clever.
> 
> ...



The squirrel is nicely lit


----------



## mauvais (Sep 11, 2005)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Platform 5 Liverpool Lime Street Station


In the absence of any other comments, I like this - could do with straightening up though, I think - it could just be the odd perspective but it's a bit confusing as it is.


----------



## Firky (Sep 11, 2005)

what do people think of this? its one of my faves

I like it because their arms run a diagonal line from the bottom right to the top left of the picture, as does the shadow cast by the girls. 

Guy's feet just adds a little curio methinks.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 11, 2005)

I think it's an otherwise good shot, but I do reckon it's a shame about the feet at the bottom. Having said that, a tighter square crop - losing the top up to the girl and maybe a bit of the left - could still work.


----------



## Firky (Sep 11, 2005)

You see, I like the guy's feet in the shot, I zoomed out a little to include them. 

(was standing on some battlements, you're not supposed to stand on in southsea)


----------



## mauvais (Sep 11, 2005)

You've convinced me a little on that, as it becomes more obvious when you view it alone instead of partially in the browser. I suspect it depends more on how it's framed. I've certainly gone off the cropping idea so fair enough.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> what do people think of this? its one of my faves
> 
> I like it because their arms run a diagonal line from the bottom right to the top left of the picture, as does the shadow cast by the girls.
> 
> Guy's feet just adds a little curio methinks.




IMO the cut off legs at the bottom wreck what otherwise would be an interesting picture. The mononchrome/contrast of the colours are interesting.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

deja_vu said:
			
		

> hmm. not to sure how I feel about this.. just a quick shot, I had left after taking all the snaps I needed on that day. Wish I'd printed it, and not just scanned the neg, but oh well.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/image/47669237/large
> 
> tell me whatcha think.




I think I would have moved the focus out a bit, more into the center of the shot. Also, it's kind of flat.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

what said:
			
		

> Even wierder I visited this morning
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/83872455@N00/sets/751107/




This is a very nice pic from that group.

http://www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Here is a pic I like, I like the cows angles.
> 
> 
> Right angles




Too much grass, not enough cow.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> just a snap shot of myself, nothing but moon light, oh and the match i used to light a spliff.
> 
> long exposure
> 
> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/gallery/archived/DSC_0001



Cool.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Sep 11, 2005)

Valve said:
			
		

> train alongside the matterhorn



The photo is out of balance. The matterhorn is always dramatic, but that makes it like a news shot. The subject is worthy of comment, but not the composition of the photo as a photo.

What is the center of the photo? Everything is going all over the place.


----------



## mauvais (Sep 11, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The photo is out of balance. The matterhorn is always dramatic, but that makes it like a news shot. The subject is worthy of comment, but not the composition of the photo as a photo.
> 
> What is the center of the photo? Everything is going all over the place.


I agree. Maybe keep everything to the right of the closest metal support.


----------



## surfcatCO (Sep 12, 2005)

Here is a picture taken in Ginza in Tokyo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/66503483@N00/42690109/


----------



## mauvais (Sep 12, 2005)

surfcatCO said:
			
		

> Here is a picture taken in Ginza in Tokyo.
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/66503483@N00/42690109/


It's good. If you were to do it again, I'd maybe suggest capturing the woman in pink a few steps closer (maybe that alone also has potential), and more importantly, trying to get the same perspective but from as low to the ground as possible to give more of a sense of size. You've captured the near part of the zebra crossing though and that to me is quite important to the shot.


----------



## surfcatCO (Sep 13, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> It's good. If you were to do it again, I'd maybe suggest capturing the woman in pink a few steps closer (maybe that alone also has potential), and more importantly, trying to get the same perspective but from as low to the ground as possible to give more of a sense of size. You've captured the near part of the zebra crossing though and that to me is quite important to the shot.



I was carrying my camera around with me and only had literally a split second to line up the picture and take it as I approached the crosswalk.

I am thinking of cropping the bottom and adding a little space at the top so I can print the picture out.  The sky got bleached out white and I am thinking I might be able to photoshop a more interesting sky and then do something to enhance the colours in the picture (it was overcast and grey that day).

Unfortunately I don't really know how to do any of this other than the cropping,


----------



## SmellyBridge (Sep 13, 2005)

This is just one of our holiday snaps so I'm not sure if it deserves a place in here, but I like it.

Sunset Diver


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 13, 2005)

SmellyBridge said:
			
		

> This is just one of our holiday snaps so I'm not sure if it deserves a place in here, but I like it.
> 
> Sunset Diver




   the sea's falling off the World!!!!!


----------



## lizzieloo (Sep 13, 2005)

I have a smilar one have been thinking of posting

Mr P


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 14, 2005)

Sometimes it's obvious that something looks better in black and white. Sometimes I can't decide. So..

Colour or Black and White ?


----------



## Structaural (Sep 14, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Sometimes it's obvious that something looks better in black and white. Sometimes I can't decide. So..
> 
> Colour or Black and White ?



I prefer the colour version, I love that orange and blue colouring.


----------



## chooch (Sep 15, 2005)

BootyLove said:
			
		

> I prefer the colour version, I love that orange and blue colouring.


Me too. It's not quite formally strong enough for black n white. The colour version is real purdy.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 15, 2005)

Ta, all feedback is good feedback. And yes, see what you mean about not being quite strong enough, framing is just off apart from anything.


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 16, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> The photo is out of balance. The matterhorn is always dramatic, but that makes it like a news shot. The subject is worthy of comment, but not the composition of the photo as a photo.
> 
> What is the center of the photo? Everything is going all over the place.




why should there be something at the centre of the photo?

I hate compositions that place the main subject in the centre, it's just not pleasing to the eye

this is what doesn't work IMO about this picture is that the eye follows the train tacks and the overhead rails and is drawn to the centre of the picture

I think it would have worked better with the tracks guiding the eye to one the the 3rd sections 


I remember learning about the golden section at art college, it helped me to learn a lot about composition 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_section

the lighting also looks a bit flat, it would have been better IMO to take the photo earlier or later in the day, long dark shadows look    IMO


----------



## maes (Sep 16, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Sometimes it's obvious that something looks better in black and white. Sometimes I can't decide. So..
> 
> Colour or Black and White ?


I prefer the black and white - I looked at it first and in comparison the colour just seems too garish for what is quite an arty shot.


----------



## Firky (Sep 16, 2005)

I prefer the colour simply because the foreground does not lend its self well to B&W as it does with colour.


----------



## Degro (Sep 16, 2005)

*Edinburgh*

What do you think about this one? Maybe a bit tilted?
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto=QPIVGUCM

Made with a pentax optio 30 something. And I think I did a bit of underlighting to get the background a bit darker as well as the foreground.

Degro.


----------



## JonathanS2 (Sep 16, 2005)

That link just gives me a blank page. It might be a tilted blank page, it's hard to tell.


----------



## wiskey (Sep 16, 2005)

degro is having some problems with the site they are using to host pics


----------



## wiskey (Sep 16, 2005)

having not really been taking many pics of late i took this the other day, i dont normally take pictures of insects. 

what do you think?

butterfly


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 16, 2005)

Degro said:
			
		

> What do you think about this one? Maybe a bit tilted?
> http://www.mijnalbum.nl/GroteFoto=QPIVGUCM
> 
> Made with a pentax optio 30 something. And I think I did a bit of underlighting to get the background a bit darker as well as the foreground.
> ...




it's a nice pic but you shoudla clean your lens beofre taking the shot hence the mark at the top of the window, if you had stopped down a bit then the contrast would have been slightly higher which would have borught out the best in this shot but it's still a nice shot regardless and nothing that about 30 mins in pototatoe shop wouldn't fix


----------



## Degro (Sep 16, 2005)

Does this work then?
http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Album=RKUP46OE

I wanted to get some comments on the last one. The first two Are for the competition for september. But feel free to comment on them as wel. If you can see them of course.

Greetzzzz,

degro


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 16, 2005)

> wiskey
> butterfly


----------



## chooch (Sep 17, 2005)

Degro said:
			
		

> Does this work then?
> http://www.mijnalbum.nl/Album=RKUP46OE
> degro


Works. I like it. Contrast boost and a slight crop and I'd like it even more.


----------



## Tricky Mickey (Sep 23, 2005)

<dips toe tentatively into photo forum>

i know these are bleached out, and both were accidental, but I love them cos they remind me of a top day... a lovely dog, an endless summer day on an English beach, and the love of my life. As good as it gets. 

What could I do in Photoshop to improve/alter them?


----------



## Paul Russell (Sep 23, 2005)

Tricky Mickey said:
			
		

> <dips toe tentatively into photo forum>
> 
> i know these are bleached out, and both were accidental, but I love them cos they remind me of a top day... a lovely dog, an endless summer day on an English beach, and the love of my life. As good as it gets.
> 
> What could I do in Photoshop to improve/alter them?



I like the second one.

Usually if you have your camera set on auto these shots would come out a bit dark rather than a bit light, so I guess you were using some sort of manual mode??

"What could I do in Photoshop to improve/alter them?"

Not a lot. You could open Levels in Photoshop and move the slider on the left side a tiny bit so it meets the start of the curve, i.e. so you have a true black, I guess.


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 23, 2005)

I would suggest adjusting the 'curves' and seeing what kind of result you get
works for me


----------



## Pingu (Sep 25, 2005)

I quite like these two I got at seaworld.

they were taken with a canon eos350d with a 50mm fixed lens and a polarising filter through a perspex screen (otherwise i would have been slightly wet). cant remember fstop settings etc

I will be doing some messing with the curves and balances in photoshop

this last one to me is  abot cheesy but is of the type you see in the "come to our attraction and see..." type thing

i need to mess with this one  a bit too to sharpen it up  but any tips on what to do would be appreciated


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 26, 2005)

I like the top two Pingu!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 26, 2005)

Tricky Mickey said:
			
		

> <dips toe tentatively into photo forum>
> 
> i know these are bleached out, and both were accidental, but I love them cos they remind me of a top day... a lovely dog, an endless summer day on an English beach, and the love of my life. As good as it gets.
> 
> What could I do in Photoshop to improve/alter them?



I like those two. I wouldnt touch them at all. I like a bit of overexposure in my photographs


----------



## drewish (Sep 26, 2005)

*Eye of the storm*

You can view the photo (along with a few others) at:





my home page

It was made from the leaf skeleton image below by using Photoshop.





First the leaf skeleton image was moved, so that the white border made a St. George's cross shape on the photo. Then I used the Polar Co-ordinates feature of Photoshop - this makes a cone out of a rectangular shaped image. Finally, a small amount of retouching and application of the difference clouds feature made the final image.

Don't ask me about Photoshop, however. I like pressing buttons and trying different effects, but I don't know much in-depth about the application.

Hope you like the photo

drew


----------



## holteman (Sep 29, 2005)

ok be nice..iv only just started getting back into taking the odd snap shot






me fiddling round out and about brum the other week


----------



## audweb (Oct 1, 2005)

Hey, new here. just thought i'd share a couple. not really been taking photos for long....am sure i have a lot to learn! 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72941616@N00/48123010/ 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72941616@N00/48127108/ 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72941616@N00/48123012/ 

hope they work!


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 1, 2005)

I Spy.....................................


----------



## drewish (Oct 4, 2005)

holteman said:
			
		

> ok be nice..iv only just started getting back into taking the odd snap shot
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really liked the image - interesting angle, and nice contrast between the clouds and the massive architecture of the Selfridges Centre. The only downside for me was the strange shape in the top left hand corner - it needs to be lighter to give it some definition, i think.


----------



## drewish (Oct 4, 2005)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> I like those two. I wouldnt touch them at all. I like a bit of overexposure in my photographs



I much prefer the composition in the second photo - but I agree - the overexposure works really well. Really atmospheric, minimalist photos. I particularly like the footprints on the second shot - as they lead you in to the subjects.


----------



## alef (Oct 7, 2005)

audweb said:
			
		

> Hey, new here. just thought i'd share a couple. not really been taking photos for long....am sure i have a lot to learn!
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/72941616@N00/48123010/
> 
> ...



Welcome to u75!

All three photos have quite a bit going on at once, too much in my opinion. Maybe give more thought to exactly what you want to capture rather than putting loads in at once.

The first shot is certainly quite interesting considering the horrible history involved. I like how you've got barbed wire in the foreground and the very green grass behind, although I think having one of the barbed wire lines running right on the horizon makes it bit cluttered.


----------



## wiskey (Oct 9, 2005)

audweb said:
			
		

> http://www.flickr.com/photos/72941616@N00/48123012/



i like this one


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 9, 2005)

Shame about television ariel 
Painter  
Sky High 
We are not alone

no critics on I spy


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 9, 2005)

Paul Russell said:
			
		

> I like the second one.
> 
> Usually if you have your camera set on auto these shots would come out a bit dark rather than a bit light, so I guess you were using some sort of manual mode??
> 
> ...




cs 2 has an exposure button too


----------



## Firky (Oct 9, 2005)

only if you shoot in raw

if you create a duplicate layer in photoshop, and then choose multiply. Then twiddle with the opacity. 16% = 1/2 fstop / rule of thumb.


----------



## Firky (Oct 9, 2005)

i like painter, but would be tempted to pull the eazel into the shot a little more, maybe pull in the DoF a little, which you can't really do with a compact.

the one of the graveyard is nice, i like it just the way it is. but if it was me i'd drop down to my knees so the height of the headstones creates a line parrel with the eaves, of the thatched cottages.

do me, sir, do me!


terror:


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 9, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> only if you shoot in raw
> 
> if you create a duplicate layer in photoshop, and then choose multiply. Then twiddle with the opacity. 16% = 1/2 fstop / rule of thumb.


no your talking bollocks the exposeure button is under adjustments for all file types ...


----------



## Firky (Oct 9, 2005)

that does not give you true exposure, its just an effect, a work around. 

wouldnt use it with anything that has been subject to jpeg compression, as the jpeg compression engine always goes harsh on reds, and you get less difference between the shades.

never use the function anyway, prefer to shoot in raw and fiddle


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 9, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> that does not give you true exposure, its just an effect, a work around.
> 
> wouldnt use it with anything that has been subject to jpeg compression, as the jpeg compression engine always goes harsh on reds, and you get less difference between the shades.
> 
> never use the function anyway, prefer to shoot in raw and fiddle


and for those of us who can adjust that compression effect becuase they are already shooting in full adobe rgb ... oh that'd be canon not nikon then


----------



## Firky (Oct 9, 2005)

eh?

how does the colour profile effect the compression (considering the colour profile is post compression), or vice versa?

adobe rgb is alright, but its not the best to shoot with. looks great on screen but way too saturated if you're not careful when it comes to print, so I tend to shoot in mode Ia, if I'm shooting indoors, or doing portraits of people, mode II / adobe rgb, where as  mode IIIa is ace for summer landscapes and autumn colours.

the 3d colour metering matrix is well handy and very accurate. better than dicking about with light meters.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Oct 9, 2005)

tis synched innit,


----------



## exleper (Oct 12, 2005)

ok here's one... I bought a cheap but decent enough digicam from Argos, 3mp.  this is my first attempt at 'proper' photography.




It's the view of canterbury from my uni, kind of a cliched type of shot but I'm quite pleased with.  Been slightly touched up in iPhoto.

any tips/feedback for a first time photographer - re subject matters, light, etc?


----------



## JonathanS2 (Oct 12, 2005)

Trying to be clever with St. Paul's ...


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 12, 2005)

*Firky terror*

 b&w. were was that taken ?


----------



## Firky (Oct 12, 2005)

Pfft, um... London  *not a native of these parts*, think it may of been around St. James' Park (not Newcastle's footbool ground!).

edit: actually its the battle of britain thingy!


----------



## blackadder (Oct 15, 2005)

Critic please.


----------



## chooch (Oct 15, 2005)

JonathanS2 said:
			
		

> Trying to be clever with St. Paul's ...


Quite like that. Helps that it's so sharp and there's a bit of contrast in colour with the sun on St Paul's. 



			
				exleper said:
			
		

> k here's one... I bought a cheap but decent enough digicam from Argos, 3mp. this is my first attempt at 'proper' photography.


Bit of a picture of nothing much. If it's a picture of the layers, the layers aren't strong enough, if it's a picture of the cathedral and some stuff, the cathedral's not strong enough. If it's a general view the composition's not striking enough. 



			
				Blackadder said:
			
		

> Critic please.


Yeah. Like it. I'd zoom in and crop it so most of the first phone box fills the whole of the left edge...


----------



## mauvais (Oct 15, 2005)

*JonathanS2* - like the concept a lot, but I don't think that particular composition works perfectly, reflection-wise. You may not have been able to improve it at all, I don't know - but I would have run about a little looking for a better perspective. I'd have tried to fit more reflection in, even if it wasn't clear what it was. In any case, I'd have cut out the very bottom to just above where it has the building name - more interesting and slightly abstract that way. However the more I think about it, the more I like it, and it is a strong image so don't take this as heavy criticism - it's not. I just think it could be a little more refined.

*exleper* - I'd have moved forwards. The bushes on either side really detract from it. If you could pull it off I'd also have taken a shot exposed like you did, and then a shot composed as close to this as you can but taken so that the background is blown but the closer trees are much better exposed; you can then merge the two in Photoshop which isn't as difficult as it sounds.

*blackadder* - I like the pattern in that a lot. It may just be how you've saved it for web use but I'd like it to be a bit sharper, even if it's via PP. Also if you're using an SLR or have any control over depth of field, maybe increase that a little - again it could just be the save options. More importantly I'd have moved back a tiny bit to include a little more foreground as a sort of lead-in; it could be that it's a bit unbalanced but I find the main subject to take up a little too much of the frame vertically, and would like some more surround. Where was it taken by the way?


----------



## blackadder (Oct 15, 2005)

It was taken in Preston City centre, would you like to see the uncropt version?


----------



## mauvais (Oct 15, 2005)

Aye, might as well


----------



## blackadder (Oct 15, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Aye, might as well



OK, here it is, please feel free to betterise it for me.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 15, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> OK, here it is, please feel free to betterise it for me.


Here you go; just a brief crop of what I think looks better - all very subjective.

I'd still have liked extra foreground at the bottom, taken from the top; a bit more pavement to play with in front of the first phone box. Probably just one slab's width would do the trick. I think it's also slightly unbalanced and needs rotating by about 0.5 degrees, but I can't do that without losing even more. Doesn't sound like much and I'm not even that sure (look at the phone box verticals), but I reckon it'd help.

I chose the new crop purely because it's nice to have a bit of context; the people on the right add a little more interest, the tree adds some different colour and the whole composition gives a bit more perspective.

I also sharpened it with the standard PS action but it may have been a little overdone.


----------



## blackadder (Oct 15, 2005)

You are good, I'll give you that.


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 16, 2005)

BA preston.jpg nice sham about the kids at farend And that but of rubbish on the floor. 
 litter bugs  

wounder what  portrate image would have looked like moving more to the left so getting more of and up right of lines of boxes. 

still   tho


----------



## Firky (Oct 29, 2005)

Not sure if I like the blooming in this shot:

Thoughts? I know the composition is crap, I was just playing about with metering.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Not sure if I like the blooming in this shot:
> 
> Thoughts? I know the composition is crap, I was just playing about with metering.


Hard to say as by your own admission it's quite experimental. Anyway the colours and lighting are excellent; I'd have liked the sun slightly more left so it was behind her hair; the blooming isn't necessarily bad but there's too much very bright area, and maybe it'd help reduce the lens flare over her face. I reckon you could PS that out anyway. As I'm sure you know the placing of the pumpkin spoils it a bit, but that overlooked and with a few tweaks, I reckon it'd have made a great shot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Not sure if I like the blooming in this shot:
> 
> Thoughts? I know the composition is crap, I was just playing about with metering.



That's a good photo. The kid is cute, but the fact that you've got the sunlight, plus clarity of the kid's face, plus the light in the triangular pumpkin eye, makes it technically good also.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

exleper said:
			
		

> ok here's one... I bought a cheap but decent enough digicam from Argos, 3mp.  this is my first attempt at 'proper' photography.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Too much haze. You should try a UV filter. Also, there's not much in the photo to catch your eye. The neat old building is too far away, and the vegetation in the foreground is too dark to be interesting.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> i like painter, but would be tempted to pull the eazel into the shot a little more, maybe pull in the DoF a little, which you can't really do with a compact.
> 
> the one of the graveyard is nice, i like it just the way it is. but if it was me i'd drop down to my knees so the height of the headstones creates a line parrel with the eaves, of the thatched cottages.
> 
> ...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Shame about television ariel
> Painter
> Sky High
> We are not alone
> ...



I like stonehenge. Is there any way to sharpen the image a bit? But that might just be my monitor.

I think the easel one would benefit with less of the road in the photo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> I Spy.....................................




Nice photo. It's reminiscent of the Stonehenge one.

They'd look interesting shown together.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 29, 2005)

Tricky Mickey said:
			
		

> <dips toe tentatively into photo forum>
> 
> i know these are bleached out, and both were accidental, but I love them cos they remind me of a top day... a lovely dog, an endless summer day on an English beach, and the love of my life. As good as it gets.
> 
> What could I do in Photoshop to improve/alter them?




A little less exposure to get rid of some of that white.


----------



## Firky (Oct 30, 2005)

Do you do photography jc2?


----------



## Firky (Oct 30, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> That's a good photo. The kid is cute, but the fact that you've got the sunlight, plus clarity of the kid's face, plus the light in the triangular pumpkin eye, makes it technically good also.



Cheers 

I've never been comfortable taking shots of people, they're not my favoured subject. Prefer the suggestive and subtle shots... but I'm trying to change my style to make it 'fluffier'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 30, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Do you do photography jc2?




I used to do a bit of it.


----------



## Firky (Oct 30, 2005)

I'd like to see some if thats' OK?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I'd like to see some if thats' OK?



I suppose that's fair: I've played the critic long enough. All of this is done with film, no digital/photoshopping.

http://static.flickr.com/30/57925344_2fe1effdf9.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/24/57925345_fd9e25639e.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/27/57926540_a7354401a0.jpg?v=0


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Nature:

http://static.flickr.com/26/57925346_a18d2cfb78.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/24/57926537_9484a66091.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/24/57926541_5080170147.jpg?v=0


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

etc.

http://static.flickr.com/25/57926538_c37d3a4f4c.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/33/57926535_2153349d91.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/31/57926536_6ff8048c7f.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/33/57925348_38dfe1ea65.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/25/57925349_2ddeee614c.jpg?v=0


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 31, 2005)

*Johnny Canuck2*
1) Nature  that's nice 
2) Etc cool looks as if sand storm in background.



> Johnny Canuck2 I used to do a bit of it.


Why have you stoped ?


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I suppose that's fair: I've played the critic long enough. All of this is done with film, no digital/photoshopping.
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/30/57925344_2fe1effdf9.jpg?v=0
> 
> ...



Not sure about the pyramid one, but the two below that are excellent. I really like the girl and tree, with the diffused glow, and blotches of light.

These are fantastic


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nature:
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/26/57925346_a18d2cfb78.jpg?v=0
> 
> ...



Man, these are good   
I like the way you've not cropped the house off at the apex on the roof, makes the house look more broken and ricket.

The bottom one is great too; the power lines mimic the curvture of the landscape nicely.


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Dude, I can only hope to be as good as you.

These are probably the best photos on the thread, excellent stuff.

Quite a talent you have.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Dude, I can only hope to be as good as you.
> 
> These are probably the best photos on the thread, excellent stuff.
> 
> Quite a talent you have.



Thank you very much.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> *Johnny Canuck2*
> 1) Nature  that's nice
> 2) Etc cool looks as if sand storm in background.
> 
> Why have you stoped ?



Good question. Part of it is I started being busy with other things. At the time I was doing some photography, I had a labouring, no-mind type job, so I enjoyed doing something in the off hours that required some thinking. After that, I went back to school and switched jobs to a thinking-type job, and also started having kids. I find photography to be one of those contemplative things, where you drive around and look at things, and the process was interrupted a little by having a screaming baby in the car. Then my photo gear was absconded with, and I haven't replaced it.

Also, looking at these pics, I don't think I would take ones like this now; I think that the way I view the world has changed. But I'm starting to want to do it again, and I figure that one of these good SLR digital cameras costs a shitload of money.

A question for photographers who have experience with digital and a good film SLR: which is better?

It looks like clarity of image is excellent with a good digital, but I used to like experimenting with pushing film past its ISO number, and I liked infrared film. Can you do those kinds of things with a digital, without having to go and photoshop them later? That doesn't interest me as much.


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

I still prefer film just becuase it has a certain 'something', I can't quite put my finger on.

You've got an excellent talent, and very unique eye - seems a shame to waste it, and I'd like to see how you view the world now. 

I'd buy you a DSLR if I had the money, but alas... 

Besides, they're going to be far cheaper in Canada than they are here - get your arse down to Sears.


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I still prefer film just becuase it has a certain 'something', I can't quite put my finger on.
> 
> You've got an excellent talent, and very unique eye - seems a shame to waste it, and I'd like to see how you view the world now.
> 
> ...



I`ll reply to the rest of your post later! I got me neice here hehe!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I still prefer film just becuase it has a certain 'something', I can't quite put my finger on.
> 
> You've got an excellent talent, and very unique eye - seems a shame to waste it, and I'd like to see how you view the world now.
> 
> ...




Fuck Sears: I'll go to Future Shop or Best Buy..... They're actually cheaper.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

p.s. I like that pyramid.......

It might have something to do with the circumstances. It's located on a little barren island called Snake Island, in Okanagan Lake. That lake is one of those mountain lakes, about 80 miles long, but only two or three miles wide. It's in an arid range of low mountains.

A local guy had emigrated from Lebanon, and vowed he'd build an amusement park on Snake Island. He eventually bought it. Word was that he'd started the park, but abandoned it.

We were houseboating on that lake for a week, and we made a landfall at Snake Island. It was the weirdest place: he'd scraped out all these little pathways, and little stream beds made out of slate and concrete. That pyramid was the only building: it's made out of plywood covered in a rough cement coating.

All in all, a strange building in a strange place.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 31, 2005)

Ace photos, helped I expect by the fact you live somewhere utterly beautiful!

You can do infrared digital photography; bit more difficult as most cameras have a low-pass filter to block excess IR. It's still very doable though; see http://www.naturfotograf.com/D70_rev05IR.html for an example or two.

Inherently you can't do the equivalent of pushing film in-camera; with digital it's a faked effect done by adding grain rather than digital's noise. It does involve Photoshop but it is easy. The best way to think of that is to take the time you spend in the darkroom and turn it into the time spent in front of a monitor. It's a lot faster but I do appreciate it's not as hands-on and probably not as fun.

I can't offer you any perspective on film vs digital as I've never properly dealt with film, but you can get a D70 SLR for under $1400CDN.


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

I've been to Penticton which sits on the shores of Okanagan lake  Small world, beautiful part of BC! I loved the drive from Kerrisdale to Penticton, was one of the best parts of the entire trip for me driving through the cascades.

As for going past the ISO limit and infared... no! I don't think you can, you can get infared filters IIRC but they're not the same, and you'll get pissed off with the ISO restrictions.

You probably can do all sorts on the top of the line DSLRs but not at the 'prosumer' level. Do you have a friend you could with a DSLR you could borrow for a bit? Or hire one perhaps?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Inherently you can't do the equivalent of pushing film in-camera; with digital it's a faked effect done by adding grain rather than digital's noise. It does involve Photoshop but it is easy. The best way to think of that is to take the time you spend in the darkroom and turn it into the time spent in front of a monitor. It's a lot faster but I do appreciate it's not as hands-on and probably not as fun..



The other thing about pushing film is it can give the photo a flat perspective.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 31, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I've been to Penticton which sits on the shores of Okanagan lake  Small world, beautiful part of BC! I loved the drive from Kerrisdale to Penticton, was one of the best parts of the entire trip for me driving through the cascades.




Kerrisdale in Vancouver? My, aren't you chi chi?

It is a small world. My wife grew up in the Okanagan area, and we both have a lot of family there. Did you go via Highway 3, ie the Hope Slide, Princeton, etc, or the Coquihalla Highway, that ends up at the lake near Summerland and Peachland?


----------



## Firky (Oct 31, 2005)

Stopped in some posh part of Kerrisdale, Vancouver (off 43rd street IIRC) in this posh appartment for free, my ex had relatives who live there, and they loaned us their appartment for two weeks.

TBH, I'm not sure of the route we took - it took about 8 hours to get from Kerrisdale to Penticton, and we went the scenic route. If that helps, and through a small (by Canadian standards),national park.

Have you ever been to Slack Alices then you mucky puppy?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 1, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Stopped in some posh part of Kerrisdale, Vancouver (off 43rd street IIRC) in this posh appartment for free, my ex had relatives who live there, and they loaned us their appartment for two weeks.
> 
> TBH, I'm not sure of the route we took - it took about 8 hours to get from Kerrisdale to Penticton, and we went the scenic route. If that helps, and through a small (by Canadian standards),national park.
> 
> Have you ever been to Slack Alices then you mucky puppy?



Slack Alice's? My cousin's husband was the manager.

But actually, no. We have better establishments of that sort right here in Vancouver.


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2005)

Slack Alices is classy, what you on about? I'm gonna see if I can hunt some photos out of my time there, in 2000. 

You know that crumby casino they have? I got thrown out of there for being drunk... why else would a person go to a casino?


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2005)

*applogies for the derails*







as you were!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 1, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> Slack Alices is classy, what you on about? I'm gonna see if I can hunt some photos out of my time there, in 2000.
> 
> You know that crumby casino they have? I got thrown out of there for being drunk... why else would a person go to a casino?



Next time you're this way, I'll introduce you to a couple of classy joints.

Never been in their casino.


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2005)

*back on topic *

I'll start the topic rolling again!

It's quite hard taking a picture of a cat, they always seem to want to sniff the camera, look like they're about to - or be sleeping! Managed to take this one in the garden earlier.


----------



## sovietpop (Nov 1, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I'll start the topic rolling again!
> 
> It's quite hard taking a picture of a cat, they always seem to want to sniff the camera, look like they're about to - or be sleeping! Managed to take this one in the garden earlier.



that's nice. How do you get the eyes to be coloured in ( I understand how you go to black and white, how do you selectively colour a bit)(guessing your using photoshop)


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2005)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> that's nice. How do you get the eyes to be coloured in ( I understand how you go to black and white, how do you selectively colour a bit)(guessing your using photoshop)



I did it a cack handed way TBH, as I thought about doing it after and had already converted the RAW image to a jpeg.... 

Take you through what I did:

Moved the histogram over to the left a little more.

Duplicated the layer 

Multiplied the top layer, then knocked it out to about 33% (roughly one fstop)

Hit CTRL+SHIFT+U to get it in B&W (Never shoot digital B&W, as photoshop has a far better 'engine' than what you can get in your camera)

Flattened the image

Then, using the lasso tool (feather of about 8 pixels) I just selected his pupils and a bit of CTRL+U to colourise the eyes, and then oomphed the saturation levels.

Voila!


----------



## sovietpop (Nov 1, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I did it a cack handed way TBH, as I thought about doing it after and had already converted the RAW image to a jpeg....



ta. very useful advice. must try it myself.

btw, your cat looks very like mine. I agree that its quite difficult to photography cats - especially black ones.


----------



## Firky (Nov 1, 2005)

They certainly are, dogs are easier because dogs don't really have a mind of their own 

p.s I like this:

http://photobucket.com/albums/v241/sovietpop/?action=view&current=northsidebonfire.jpg


----------



## maes (Nov 8, 2005)

Continuing with fire... Do people like this?


----------



## Biddlybee (Nov 8, 2005)

I like the trail of the embers flying off the end of the flames - nice.


----------



## Firky (Nov 22, 2005)

cast iron






russian spies:






lone leaf:


----------



## Firky (Nov 22, 2005)

*the last ones.... i promise*


----------



## mauvais (Nov 26, 2005)

I'll give some feedback on those lot tomorrow - I promise I am going to sleep now!

Anyway, I finally did it, despite getting quite pissed off at Adobe, and here it is:

http://wapoc.com/crap/final_pb.jpg

If you look closely, you can see that as well as a big smiley face (no, I didn't do it), some enterprising individual has written the word 'COCK' on it (also not me)


----------



## Firky (Nov 26, 2005)

I'd crop some of the left hand side out of the pic


----------



## mauvais (Nov 26, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I'd crop some of the left hand side out of the pic


For more of a rule-of-thirds thing? Trouble is I try to keep everything 3:2 (as per the originals) and there's no room for manoeuvre on the other side.

Anyway...

Love the *cat*! Just a shame about the slightly distracting foreground, but otherwise perfect and benefits from the editing.

*Cast Iron*: prefer it before the tree line starts to taper away at the top; I'd keep the straight-ish lines by losing the top such that the centre of the ironwork is vertically centred.

*Russian Spies*: can't be much work to restore the part of the tree that the sun bloom has eaten up; that'd be my first suggestion. I'd also make the people more focal by losing a bit of the right; maybe this also makes the viewer wonder more about what he's taking a picture of.
*
Lone Leaf*: like the concept, but not sure it's worked perfectly. The leaf is too small to be a real focal point, and there's not much that you can do. I would have actually moved it so it was at least surrounded by the silver metal. Maybe I would have gone for a closer shot, but I don't know. I see exactly what you've tried to do, and it's a strong idea, but I think nature's let you down 

*Knot Aged*: Like it a lot; one of the strongest out of the set. Did you crop any out of the bottom? If so, I'd like a little bit back just to really balance it out and lend a little context.

As for the last one; not so keen. I assume it's a reflection in a tilted surface, but without a bit of context it just looks unnecessarily squashed horizontally. For example, if it's a bus shelter, at least a bit of the shelter or surroundings would have helped make that shot. Nice B&W conversion as ever though.

Here's another, bit big I'm afraid: Caledonian, literally inspired by your tip to take photos whenever you can, even if it's in your bedroom. It was in fact - it's an empty glass bottle of sparkling water, shot with the Sigma telephoto in supposed macro mode. Cropped slightly and sharpened.


----------



## blackadder (Nov 26, 2005)

My crap attempt to alter a very dull pic.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 26, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> My crap attempt to alter a very dull pic.


Like  it actually, but there's a few things not quite right IMO; mainly the sky is too saturated and unnatural. If you have a bigger and high quality original, you can do quite well with reducing the saturation purely on blue.

Maybe read up on replacing skies (with those from other images) in Photoshop; I like the oranges and gold colours but the sky looks bad, especially where it meets the treeline.

Also what's going on with that feint vertical line in the middle? There's not a lot you can do unless you do have a better master, but maybe sharpen it a bit too.

Is that per chance the railway bridge on the way out of Preston?


----------



## blackadder (Nov 26, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Like  it actually, but there's a few things not quite right IMO; mainly the sky is too saturated and unnatural. If you have a bigger and high quality original, you can do quite well with reducing the saturation purely on blue.
> 
> Maybe read up on replacing skies (with those from other images) in Photoshop; I like the oranges and gold colours but the sky looks bad, especially where it meets the treeline.
> 
> ...



Aye, it is the Preston rail bridge over the Ribble river. The verticle line is actualy rope and the sky was formally white, I only started messing with this pic just to practice photo editing.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 26, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Aye, it is the Preston rail bridge over the Ribble river. The verticle line is actualy rope and the sky was formally white, I only started messing with this pic just to practice photo editing.


Maybe try this:

http://www.dphotojournal.com/medium-no-circular-polarizer-filters-no-worries/

There's some techniques employed in there that stop the nasty edge problem (I think that's what feathering does but I don't know enough myself).

There's more on www.good-tutorials.com to look through (search for 'sky' and 'skies')


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2005)

Here's another two:

Plug:






Maths Tower:






I did that last one by blending two "different" exposures from the same RAW file. It's my first bit of proper work in Photoshop and I reckon it looks alright. Thoughts?


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> For more of a rule-of-thirds thing? Trouble is I try to keep everything 3:2 (as per the originals) and there's no room for manoeuvre on the other side.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...




I don't really use the rule of thirds or anything,  apart from when doing landscapes and things... maybe counterproductive...

The cast iron pic is my favourite because it is mirrors hte trees, it is almost as if they stopped where the lines are. I had to lie on my back on a muddy path for that photo, so perhaps thats where my affection for it comes from 

I agree with the spies pic, but I wanted a halo on the woman's hat, but I think you're right it could of lost some of the right. For reasons you said! I never thought of that, thanks.

The lone leaf was one of my 'conceptual' shots, I do have another one of the leaf that is bigger, but it creates it more of a centre piece rather than just floating in an alien void... arty farty I know. It was more to do with 'small thing in a big alien world' and being out of the loop... i.e me, I put the leaf there 

The tree one I like but, I have a problem with taking pictures of things like flowers and nature. They're inherently pretty and that takes away the main focus of a photo, I`ll try and crop it different if I still have hte original.

The last one of myself, is taken from a HUGE metal sphere with water running down, which was playing hell with the metering. 

Just gonna take a look at your bedroom pic  will get back...


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

Caledonian

Maybe quite a cliched shot of a bottle with dew on, but I love the vivid colours and the gradient of dark to light running from left to right. You've also cropped it just enough for it to still look abstract, yet recognisable.

B&W conversions...

OK Here's what I usually do! 

I try and look for pictures with plenty of contrast, and texture in. Lots of lines and patters, as they're more visible when you haven't got the distraction of colour. I also squint (or wear sunglasses) as it gives you an increased sense of shadow.

Once the *colour* (never shoot in B&W your computer is more powerful than any B&W conversion on a camera.) shot is done, I open it up in PS and use the channel mixer with monochrome ticked.

Set everything back to 0 or below if you like, and just play about. After a bit of practise you will get used to what colours to knock out and which ones to bring to the front. Just make sure they all add up roughly to 100% (don't be afraid of going over 100% however).

CTRL+U is the quick way but you won't get the same tones.

You should also shoot B&W with a yellow or red filter


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

p.s

this rawks:

http://photo.wapoc.com/v/summer2005/bastille/DSC_0989.JPG.html


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's another two:
> 
> Plug:
> 
> ...



Plug is awesome   I'd maybe saturate the reds a bit more to bring out the rust, other than that......

Maths Tower: I'd like it more if the colours were a bit stronger, or it was slightly off centre to give a sense of motion. Perhaps crop it at an an angle?


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Been fiddleing with this editing software again, don't ask me what i've done to the pic, I just slid a few sliders.


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

Thom Yorke:

(its a little dark but I took this with a shitty compact  )






Firky!

I took this pissing about drunk


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> My crap attempt to alter a very dull pic.



You need to put more time into filling the gaps and zooming in up close, its not bad for a first attempt. I can give you some more tips when I'm a bit more sobre. 

The easiest way to get more 'oomph' is simply by duplicating the layer and over saturating one, then feather erasing the bits that need erased.


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Been fiddleing with this editing software again, don't ask me what i've done to the pic, I just slid a few sliders.





Thats the best way to learn, but remember what you did you plonker!! and use layers.... layers are your friend


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> The easiest way to get more 'oomph' is simply by duplicating the layer and over saturating one, then feather erasing the bits that need erased.



One step at a time for Blackadder, I've only just learned how to rotate a slightly slanting pic.  

If you are ever passing through Preston, you are most welcome to come around and give me a few lessons, that goes to you too Mauvis.


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

I went to preston once... big purple pub !

If you're ever in northumberland or in hampshire, or london (god I get about) chances are I'm there so feel free to pm me


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> I went to preston once... big purple pub !
> 
> If you're ever in northumberland or in hampshire, or london (god I get about) chances are I'm there so feel free to pm me



That's fucking spooky, I lived in Bedlington Northumberland, Alton Hants and Putney London. You following me about old boy?


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> That's fucking spooky, I lived in Bedlington Northumberland, Alton Hants and Putney London. You following me about old boy?



lol

bedlington's a shit hole, i lived in portsmouth and cosham in hants, and morden in london. i've also lived in newcastle, but only for six weeks.

firky loves to travel. i should of been a gypsy.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> p.s
> 
> this rawks:
> 
> http://photo.wapoc.com/v/summer2005/bastille/DSC_0989.JPG.html


Cheers! That one was on a tripod and so came out OK with a bit of guesswork. The others in that set are all handheld and I wrote them off at first as they're proper shaky. However, I went through the whole set again recently and quite like them - bonkers hallucinogenic trails and stuff!


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Party- Low light 

Took this at a party last night, the reflection is from a conservatory roof, I had you use my spanking brand new Manfrotto tripod and no flash, whats your thoughts?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Party- Low light
> 
> Took this at a party last night, the reflection is from a conservatory roof, I had you use my spanking brand new Manfrotto tripod and no flash, whats your thoughts?


The reason I like it is because there's a combination of clarity and weirdness; I guess that's an effect of double glazing. Yeah - the roof section is clear which lends not quite a focal point but a reference, and the reflections are quite interesting in their "shakiness" (I know it's not).

It also takes a moment of interpretation while you not only work out what you're looking at overall but that each pane shows almost the same thing, only from a different angle. That's a brilliant idea, and I think _marginally _better in concept than in practice, but there's nothing you could have done to improve it (other than replacing their windows!)

I'd maybe see what sharpening it up looks like, but probably not bother, and maybe reduce the 'warmness' a little, but not much.

In summary: really excellent, and hope you do well with it in the comp!


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> and hope you do well with it in the comp!



.... you said it all really!


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> .... you said it all really!




Oops, have I done wrong by submitting this pic to the critics, whilst it is an entry in the comp?  I don't mind removing it from the comp if I have.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Oops, have I done wrong by submitting this pic to the critics, whilst it is an entry in the comp?  I don't mind removing it from the comp if I have.


No, of course not! I can't think of any reason why you can't ask for people's opinion on it, and probably better here than on the other thread  

Edit: oh and I might be up for some shots in Preston sometime, but it won't be immediately. I'm at uni in Manchester, but I'm from Lytham so it makes more sense when I'm back there.


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Oops, have I done wrong by submitting this pic to the critics, whilst it is an entry in the comp?  I don't mind removing it from the comp if I have.



dotn be daft!

crti. my photos you bastard


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> dotn be daft!
> 
> crti. my photos you bastard



LOL, a novice can't critic, surely?

For the record, I do think you do some excellent work with your camera, I'll glance back and comment.


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, this pic is superb Firks, I tried and snap some fireworks, but they came out shit.


----------



## Firky (Nov 27, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Jesus, Mary and Joseph, this pic is superb Firks, I tried and snap some fireworks, but they came out shit.



That aint me!


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

This one I like too, it's much better than my attempt to take a similar shot.


----------



## blackadder (Nov 27, 2005)

Firky said:
			
		

> That aint me!



Sorry, I started to read the thread backwards and saw your post linking to the pic, my appologies, but at least I agree with you that it is an awsome pic.


----------



## e-fluent (Nov 30, 2005)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Been fiddleing with this editing software again, don't ask me what i've done to the pic, I just slid a few sliders.



Pity there is no slider in PhotoShop that goes: Convincing: 0% - 100%.  

Select the sky layer and play around with the curves until it matches the rest of the phtoo in brightness and contrast. them you have to get the sun highlights on the buildings and shadows coming from the source of light in your sky ...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Nov 30, 2005)

here's some for critic on this thread


----------



## mauvais (Dec 1, 2005)

I've continued this rare process of actually thinking how to find more interesting shots. Here's three I'm supposed to be entering into a competition about Manchester, hence the IMO really stupid (cropped) ratios - 12x10". I need to pick the strongest two, and I did think the first ones but now I'm tempted by the third:

1. University

2. Manchester Town Hall

3. Big Wheel

It's bloody difficult trying to think 'I have to lose 25% of the width' when composing them. I'm not allowed to edit them but suggestions as to actual technique would be appreciated.

Here's a last one for fun and not considered for entry (someone else's work innit):

4. Asbestos


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 1, 2005)

Like big wheel - the red of the Arndale Centre sign makes a good contrast with movement in the wheel giving a silverish cast to the foreground.

KoD


----------



## mauvais (Dec 3, 2005)

I took this at about quarter past ten tonight, in Manchester:

http://wapoc.com/crap/test1.jpg

I've only changed the colour balance, and sharpened it. Can anyone read the EXIF?


----------



## boskysquelch (Dec 3, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Can anyone read the EXIF?



YUP! ....kewlio!!!!


----------



## maes (Dec 12, 2005)

i dont really like sepia, but it came out like that in my hurry to press the button...

http://static.flickr.com/35/72974252_abb409f00f_o.jpg


----------



## mauvais (Dec 13, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> i dont really like sepia, but it came out like that in my hurry to press the button...
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/35/72974252_abb409f00f_o.jpg


Quite like it, but that's cos I want to get my job back there pronto - working on that this week   

Not massively keen on sepia but it does lend quite an old, summery feel to it. I'd definitely have shot more to the left though to cover more of the crossing, and maybe zoomed in if possible to put more emphasis on the mopeds.

La Conciergerie in the background helps make the picture but like I say, you have to put more emphasis on it.

If this is digital and sufficiently big, then I suggest doing a crop starting on the left to include just the front of the bus and stopping on the right just before that big lamppost. I dunno about the verticals; the only thing that bothers me there is the road marking that's crept into the bottom left; you could probably clone that out.

It's maybe also slightly wonky, by about a degree, but I can't decide about that.


----------



## mauvais (Dec 13, 2005)

This is what I'm on about, hope you don't mind me editing it!






Dunno about the colours; Photoshop just decided to do that one with Auto Levels, so I figured I'd leave it as an alternative. It's mainly about the composition though.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 15, 2005)

Took this throgh the window at work, I've despeckled it & played with the gamma a bit 

Sun over stacks 

KoD


----------



## maes (Dec 15, 2005)

Cheers MM - yeah I like the edit. Not keen at all on sepia, really a colour person - it was a bright and beautiful day too, wish it had come out. Ah well.


----------



## Valve (Dec 23, 2005)

i am rather fond of this photo:

port ventspills latvia


----------



## snadge (Dec 26, 2005)

took this the other day, wish I'd kept an entry spare on the current  u75 photo comp cos' I think I would have had a better chance with it

dodged and burnt via layers and colour boosted


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> took this the other day, wish I'd kept an entry spare on the current  u75 photo comp cos' I think I would have had a better chance with it
> 
> dodged and burnt via layers and colour boosted



Beautiful. I wish I'd taken it, although I'd probably crop an inch of water off the bottom.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2005)

KeeperofDragons said:
			
		

> Took this throgh the window at work, I've despeckled it & played with the gamma a bit
> 
> Sun over stacks
> 
> KoD


It's a bit washed out, which is always a problem when you've got the sun staring you in the face.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> This is what I'm on about, hope you don't mind me editing it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the sepia.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2005)

maestrocloud said:
			
		

> i dont really like sepia, but it came out like that in my hurry to press the button...
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/35/72974252_abb409f00f_o.jpg



I prefer your photo to the cropped one.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Dec 27, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> I've continued this rare process of actually thinking how to find more interesting shots. Here's three I'm supposed to be entering into a competition about Manchester, hence the IMO really stupid (cropped) ratios - 12x10". I need to pick the strongest two, and I did think the first ones but now I'm tempted by the third:
> 
> 1. University
> 
> ...



Those first three make me think of travel photography: they get you interested in the places depicted, and the unusual angles give a sense of excitement to the picture.


----------



## blackadder (Dec 28, 2005)

I've being fiddleing around with my tripod and camera, I took a few pics of the lamp reflection and then thought it would be cool to have like a mask over the lampshade, but in the meantime, I just taped a peice of paper with U75 drawn on.


----------



## Firky (Dec 28, 2005)

That is pretty cool, BA!

I kinda like it. Looks like a club flyer


----------



## mauvais (Dec 28, 2005)

I like that! Inventive, and it's worked well - loads of colour, lots going on, and very abstract. Looks - whether it did or not - like it's taken a lot of thinking and planning.

*Edit:* I think the following are all a bit dark; that's back to my monitor profiling/Photoshop problems. Oh well - they print properly!

Here's some I did today - a few too many, I know, but couldn't decide! All taken in Lytham/St. Annes with the D70; telephoto and kit lens equally.

Pier Sunset - a blend of two RAW conversions, but you can see the halo around the roof. Nearly there but not liking that - must be fixable; any tips?

Night Boat - my favourite, little blurry on the original maybe. Taken in the almost-dark as a bit of a guess!

RNLI Building - like this a lot, but not sure why; maybe cos it's my first really successful attempt at slow water reflections. Nicely exposed, I thought.

Silhouettes - maybe needs cropping but I've already thrown away quite a lot of it

Light Pollution - it was dark; this is a 30 sec exposure, and the light is almost all streetlights from Southport

Dunes - finally a simple idea, think I did it OK. Oversharpened by my batch convert though.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 28, 2005)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's a bit washed out, which is always a problem when you've got the sun staring you in the face.



Bugger just noticed a bit on it - that's what you get for taking it throgh a window - damn & blast

KoD


----------



## mauvais (Dec 29, 2005)

KeeperofDragons said:
			
		

> Took this throgh the window at work, I've despeckled it & played with the gamma a bit
> 
> Sun over stacks
> 
> KoD


It's too big for me to see on this crappy monitor, but you know what? I'd fake it and copy in the left chimney to the right with a bit of Photoshop wizardry; should be easy. The bloom really takes away from the image, but if you put that back in you won't be able to tell (due to it being B&W)


----------



## Firky (Dec 29, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Light Pollution - it was dark; this is a 30 sec exposure, and the light is almost all streetlights from Southport



I really like that one.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Dec 29, 2005)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> It's too big for me to see on this crappy monitor, but you know what? I'd fake it and copy in the left chimney to the right with a bit of Photoshop wizardry; should be easy. The bloom really takes away from the image, but if you put that back in you won't be able to tell (due to it being B&W)



I'll give it a wirl, not very au fait with photoshop but I'll get Hocus to help me when he gets back

KoD


----------



## Firky (Dec 29, 2005)

Portrait 

Don't like taking 'emotive' portraits, always look a little contrived - but i'm chuffed with this one.


----------



## editor (Dec 30, 2005)

snadge said:
			
		

> took this the other day, wish I'd kept an entry spare on the current  u75 photo comp cos' I think I would have had a better chance with it


Outstanding!


----------



## mauvais (Jan 5, 2006)

I'm ill and stuck indoors today. Instead of doing revision for my exams, I thought of a much better idea - see what I could find to take photos of in the house.

Here's my favourite:







and here's a big bar of soap too. Stuck a paperclip in it, hung it in front of the window, PS'ed out the little bit of wire afterwards.


----------



## alef (Jan 6, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> I'm ill and stuck indoors today. Instead of doing revision for my exams, I thought of a much better idea - see what I could find to take photos of in the house.
> 
> Here's my favourite:
> 
> ...


The high level of detail and good use of depth of field make these stand out. They also give these shots the look of advertising or glossy publications, so not quite so arty -- whatever that means!


----------



## alef (Jan 6, 2006)

Generally I haven't been taking many pictures in recent months, though got a few shots over xmas while visiting Washington DC.

This lady has been protesting in front of the White House for a number of years:
Resist or Die


----------



## alef (Jan 6, 2006)

Here's another:
Skim leaving the metro


----------



## alef (Jan 6, 2006)

Last one:
Metro station


----------



## mauvais (Jan 6, 2006)

Reet - this monitor's too dark so I lose a bit of detail, bear that in mind.

'Resist or Die' is a pretty powerful image, and I like it. It looks like _she's _going to die before too long. Is she the American answer to Brian Haw? Composition wise, I would prefer more around it, but I always do. It could do with much more on the right to cover the whole of whatever she's holding - never mind the aspect ratio. It could do with a little more at the bottom just to push the badge back into the frame, and then maybe a little more at the top to add some balance. Maybe it could be a little more saturated, don't know. Otherwise, pretty good. If it's already a crop, you're laughing.

The two Metro shots - are these Paris or Washington? They look like the former, but I can't identify the station. I suppose it all looks similar! I don't think the second is that good; couldn't have been done much better but was never going to be that strong. The highlights are blown and the shadows are lost too.

The first has much more potential, but again there's a bit too much going on that's too dark to see - could just be me. It could also do with being sharper. I think there's stronger concepts in the scene such as isolating the roof and maybe including other stuff there as an alternative focal subject against it, like say the bright yellow illuminated signs etc, I dunno. Nowt much you can do down there without a tripod, and that'll probably get you in trouble.

I also don't think 500px wide is big enough to really do them justice, and that you shouldn't sacrifice as much image quality for filesize.


----------



## alef (Jan 6, 2006)

All very good points, much appreciated. The metro stations are in DC, confusingly they don't call them subways. I may have another play around and re-submit them. You are right about 500px being too small, originally I planned to directly include them in the thread but then switched back to links.


----------



## Salo (Jan 23, 2006)

*Skully*

Skull on stone


----------



## alef (Jan 23, 2006)

Salo said:
			
		

> Skull on stone


Does what it says on the tin.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jan 24, 2006)

Plastic Boat 

Best new years day ever. I was here.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 3, 2006)

Might as well put some life back in the thread


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 3, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Might as well put some life back in the thread




Quality.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Generally I haven't been taking many pictures in recent months, though got a few shots over xmas while visiting Washington DC.
> 
> This lady has been protesting in front of the White House for a number of years:
> Resist or Die



It's a good 'human interest' photo, but isn't remarkable for the photography aspect of it.


----------



## sherriff rosco (Feb 3, 2006)

A couple at a party in Sydney I was at last year. There was lots of stencils on the walls and these two decided to "flop" down next to this one. I love the way the stencilled man in the background is looking at them but they didn`t even register what was on the wall behind them!

Couple at Mekanarky 

.p.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Here's another:
> Skim leaving the metro



Too much light in the photo coming from the ground level.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Last one:
> Metro station



A really neat photo. The offsetting of the roof really works well.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 3, 2006)

tangerinedream said:
			
		

> Plastic Boat
> 
> Best new years day ever. I was here.



I like it, but it's a shame about the upper left corner.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 3, 2006)

sherriff rosco said:
			
		

> A couple at a party in Sydney I was at last year. There was lots of stencils on the walls and these two decided to "flop" down next to this one. I love the way the stencilled man in the background is looking at them but they didn`t even register what was on the wall behind them!
> 
> Couple at Mekanarky
> 
> .p.


I like it! It's a bit dark and gloomy though; fiddle with the contrast/brightness (+15-20% on each?) and maybe saturation too.

There's a bit of distraction brought in by the artefact in the top left, whether it's on the film/sensor or in the scene. It'd be good to heal that out, and a few other little bits of muck that spoil it a little. The corners are also darker - this is vignetting, and can be corrected via Distort > Lens Correction in PS until they match the right brightness. Maybe you want it like that, I dunno.

Overall, composition is pretty much there but maybe you could have moved it slightly left and slightly down; only a very little bit but it'd push everything into the frame a bit more and make it somehow more rounded/balanced.

The thing that bugs me most is that the stencil looks like it has a reflection/highlight in it. On closer inspection I don't think it does, but maybe you could have a play to see if you can counter or reduce that effect if necessary. Maybe not bother with that after all - I think it probably violates the realism of the image.

Good stuff.


----------



## sherriff rosco (Feb 4, 2006)

Ta Mauvais for the comments i`ll have a fiddle in fotoslop and see if I can improve on it

.p.


----------



## blackadder (Feb 5, 2006)

I just know this will show as a link only, how can I make it appear as a picture when using Flickr??


Anyho, critique please.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 6, 2006)

blackadder said:
			
		

> I just know this will show as a link only, how can I make it appear as a picture when using Flickr??
> 
> 
> Anyho, critique please.



It has too many conflicting angles.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 6, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It has too many conflicting angles.



agree, would crop it so that the lines of the frame are not making your head spin. will do a crop tonight when I get home from work. would probably also make it B&W and boost contrast. too many mid-tones all blending in together for my likes, but that's just a personal preference.

I can see what you were doing though and I think you've got something in the image as well - just needs a bit of honing.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 6, 2006)

blackadder said:
			
		

> I just know this will show as a link only, how can I make it appear as a picture when using Flickr??
> 
> 
> Anyho, critique please.



 i dunno, something like that? s'pose it's down to personal taste really but the cropping takes the confusing lines away

window


----------



## blackadder (Feb 6, 2006)

Cheers Robster, I like the B&W but the confusing lines were what made me take the shot, it's full of right angles. Have a look at my cow right angles a few pages back

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3392460&postcount=357

Great thread this, thanks for the comments.


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 6, 2006)

blackadder said:
			
		

> Cheers Robster, I like the B&W but the confusing lines were what made me take the shot, it's full of right angles. Have a look at my cow right angles a few pages back
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=3392460&postcount=357
> 
> Great thread this, thanks for the comments.



I like that - it's different to the window though - the lines on the window sent your eyes all over the place and detracted from the rather captivating scene in the pic.

those cow's though, they're special.....


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Blurgh:

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/v/shite/desktop/the-circus.jpg.html


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> Blurgh:
> 
> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/v/shite/desktop/the-circus.jpg.html



Are those your photos?

Holy shit!

The only one that doesn't cut the mustard, imo, is the bowling ball with the nail through it. Too effecty.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

I think some photos of ordinary things can create a sense of mystery, almost of supernatural dread, if you know what I mean. They reveal the extraordinary through the ordinary.

Some of these photos, esp the tree and the eggs, do that.

Very impressive.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Got any more? I'd love to look at them.


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Entire gallery is mine, and it was a tomatoe not a bowling bowl:

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/main.php

This one is one of my favourites:

http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/v/bw/people/us_sailors.jpg.html


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I think some photos of ordinary things can create a sense of mystery, almost of supernatural dread, if you know what I mean. They reveal the extraordinary through the ordinary.
> 
> Some of these photos, esp the tree and the eggs, do that.
> 
> Very impressive.



Cheers, fella. That means a lot having seen the calibre of your photos. 

The one with the eggs is more abstract than anything, trying to create an unspoken link, without trying to sound too arty farty. I think all my photos are more conceptual; apart from a few exceptions like the one of the American sailors. 

I  haven't been out with my camera for a few weeks, I blamed the weather, now I'l blaming myself - which is more accurate. There's loads of stuff to take photos of in London, I'm just a bit paranoid after I got started on in Croydon with my camera


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 8, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> I'm just a bit paranoid after I got started on in Croydon with my camera



what? serious?


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Yup. 

Just got followed and some abuse hurled at me (and a few bottles), as soon as I got onto the main road they fucked off. Wouldn't of been arsed, as they were only kids. No older than 16, but there was five of them. 

Last time I take photos of rubbish in the gutter


----------



## Robster970 (Feb 8, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Just got followed and some abuse hurled at me (and a few bottles), as soon as I got onto the main road they fucked off. Wouldn't of been arsed, as they were only kids. No older than 16, but there was five of them.
> 
> Last time I take photos of rubbish in the gutter



I know the type, loads of the little fuckers like that round where we live. least they didn't nick your gear or lay into you.

come on, your a big lad (like a giant 10yr old from what i've seen) - get on the horse again.


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Well I live in Hackney since that episode, or murder mile as its better known


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> Cheers, fella. That means a lot having seen the calibre of your photos.
> 
> The one with the eggs is more abstract than anything, trying to create an unspoken link, without trying to sound too arty farty. I think all my photos are more conceptual; apart from a few exceptions like the one of the American sailors.
> 
> I  haven't been out with my camera for a few weeks, I blamed the weather, now I'l blaming myself - which is more accurate. There's loads of stuff to take photos of in London, I'm just a bit paranoid after I got started on in Croydon with my camera



I've had a bit of a look-through; you're a good photographer. Each pic could be talked about but we'd be here a week. You use dark space/darkness well. The sailor pic is good, as is the old person with the dog, even if her features are a bit washed out. It looks like it might have been taken with a telephoto.


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I've had a bit of a look-through; you're a good photographer. Each pic could be talked about but we'd be here a week. You use dark space/darkness well. The sailor pic is good, as is the old person with the dog, even if her features are a bit washed out. It looks like it might have been taken with a telephoto.



it was, well spotted.

Its shadow / light and patterns that interest me most.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 8, 2006)

i'm almost frightened to post on this thread, you're all so good.
i have no idea how to use a camera, but luckily my digital seems to know what it's doing on its own and takes decent-ish pics for me. 

here are a few i'm proud of:

http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/feb3gina.jpg
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/nov18katey.jpg
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/jan20hatty.jpg

be gentle with me.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

ianw said:
			
		

> i'm almost frightened to post on this thread, you're all so good.
> i have no idea how to use a camera, but luckily my digital seems to know what it's doing on its own and takes decent-ish pics for me.
> 
> here are a few i'm proud of:
> ...




I like number 3 best, because it's not just that it's an interesting shot of your friend, it's done in such a way that the photo itself, ie the positioning etc, is also interesting.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 8, 2006)

thanks. 
i like the second one best. i know the positioning could be better - the glass in the left hand bottom corner doesn't need to be there, and there could be a tad less black on the right hand side - but i just love the fact that it's caught a very odd moment. i just look at that photo and think "what has he just said to her?" the way he's looking at her, and she's looking down, laughing, her fingers curled slightly. i just think if you could work out why she's curling her fingers, you could work out what he's just said. something rude i'd warrent. 

i like photos like that, that (to me, at least) contain some sort of narrative. the last pic is sweet, but that's really because hatty is so stunning. as another poster commented about another pic, doesn't really count as it's not my work.


----------



## Firky (Feb 8, 2006)

Yeah, I'll go along with JC and say that three is the best. The other two look as though they were shot from a position that appears to be higher than eye level, so it looks slightly voyeuristic. The final one has more jazz to it, as she's looking into the camera and addressing its presence.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 8, 2006)

ianw said:
			
		

> thanks.
> i like the second one best. i know the positioning could be better - the glass in the left hand bottom corner doesn't need to be there, and there could be a tad less black on the right hand side - but i just love the fact that it's caught a very odd moment. i just look at that photo and think "what has he just said to her?" the way he's looking at her, and she's looking down, laughing, her fingers curled slightly. i just think if you could work out why she's curling her fingers, you could work out what he's just said. something rude i'd warrent.
> 
> i like photos like that, that (to me, at least) contain some sort of narrative. the last pic is sweet, but that's really because hatty is so stunning. as another poster commented about another pic, doesn't really count as it's not my work.



That's a perfectly valid thing to like about the photo, but I usually distinguish between the pics content, and the construction of the picture.

A photo of a friend at a memorable moment, or some news photo, can have great impact, making them good photos, but they are that due to the content of the photo.

That's distinguished from photos that are great because of the way they're put together as images. Those pics can have essentially zero content, but still be great photos.

Nobody can argue nor really analyze the personal meaning of the content to you; all we can comment on is the construction of the image.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

yes, they are shot from higher than eye level. i guess i go for that voyeuristic vibe...! it's weird you mention it, but pretty much all of the photos i like that i've taken are taken from a higher than eye level angle. 

a few more examples. 
i like this because it feels like it captures a snapshot of friendship
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/sept16timfrankie.jpg

and this one because of who's looking at who
http://www.howdoesitfeel.co.uk/sept2stephen.jpg

anyway, they're only happy snaps. thanks for indulging me.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nobody can argue nor really analyze the personal meaning of the content to you; all we can comment on is the construction of the image.



yes, i see what you mean. i guess my favourite photographers are people that are able to capture interesting content - for example, diane arbus, to me, is pretty much the best photographer ever.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

ianw said:
			
		

> yes, i see what you mean. i guess my favourite photographers are people that are able to capture interesting content - for example, diane arbus, to me, is pretty much the best photographer ever.



You'd probably like Weegee also, if you like Arbus.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

just looking at some of his work now - you're right, i do like it. some of it's rather less focussed (emotionally, rather than technically) than the arbus stuff, but there's some great stuff there too. 

but just stumbled across a weegee photo of a cinema crowd caught in the light of the projection....um, just like wot arbus did. only which came first? the arbus shot is much much better.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

ianw said:
			
		

> just looking at some of his work now - you're right, i do like it. some of it's rather less focussed (emotionally, rather than technically) than the arbus stuff, but there's some great stuff there too.
> 
> but just stumbled across a weegee photo of a cinema crowd caught in the light of the projection....um, just like wot arbus did. only which came first? the arbus shot is much much better.



Weegee is earlier than Arbus generally, but I can't say for certain wiht any particular shot.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 9, 2006)

Pervert!


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 9, 2006)




----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

yeah, just reading all about it now. i get the impression arbus acknowledged his influence - it's fascinating to draw the lines actually. you can see exactly how she's looked at his photos and thought about how she could improve them. some of his stuff is a little frustrating - he's either too far away or just at the wrong angle. whereas arbus gets right in there. 

just been reading about brassai as well. i *love* this photograph:

http://galeria.origo.hu/kincses/brassai.jpg


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 9, 2006)

I like the way he loves her, but he's still got a fag on the go...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

ianw said:
			
		

> yeah, just reading all about it now. i get the impression arbus acknowledged his influence - it's fascinating to draw the lines actually. you can see exactly how she's looked at his photos and thought about how she could improve them. some of his stuff is a little frustrating - he's either too far away or just at the wrong angle. whereas arbus gets right in there.
> 
> just been reading about brassai as well. i *love* this photograph:
> 
> http://galeria.origo.hu/kincses/brassai.jpg



Weegee's origins as a crime photographer show through in some of his photos.

That photo reminds me of another photographer; I'll have to think on it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

I know who: Cartier-Bresson, one of the greatest photographers ever.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Weegee is earlier than Arbus generally, but I can't say for certain wiht any particular shot.




ok, compare and contrast:

arbus





weegee:





shame the arbus shot is so small, but i think you can make it out.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

The man makes me feel humble as someone attempting to make photos.


----------



## clandestino (Feb 9, 2006)

sheothebudworths said:
			
		

> I like the way he loves her, but he's still got a fag on the go...



exactly! i live for details like that in photographs!


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?





It's part of a series that I haven't finished yet, called The Journey.

I'd love to have some sort of device that allowed me to clamp the camera to the bike while keeping the camera at eye level, but I don't. If I did, I could keep both hands on the bars while taking the photo (using the 2 second timer to release the shutter) - I think having both hands on the bars would vastly improve the effect and the viewer's imagination of riding the bike. 

I might do it one day, I'm sure I can make something out of the shaft from a small monopod and a clamp.


----------



## Negativland (Feb 9, 2006)

This is just a picture of a sculpture I made today out of copper based on my entry to the photo comp (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spookyponies4ab.jpg)

http://img308.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jlbkljuo2nl.jpg

I like the photo of it more than the thing itself. It's inside a box which is not actually square.


----------



## Leica (Feb 9, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> I'd love to have some sort of device that allowed me to clamp the camera to the bike


gaffer tape?


----------



## mauvais (Feb 9, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Quite like it - needs a bit more DOF though I reckon - not sure. It seems like your hand and the handlebars are in focus and clearer than the subject (the road sign) but that might just be my imagination. Probably an idea worth continuing, I'd say.


----------



## Firky (Feb 9, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?
> 
> It's part of a series that I haven't finished yet, called The Journey.




I tried to do this with a compact digital, same thing - my results were shit. Too much vibration,so the results ended up very blurred and a bit cack. Your attempt however is good, I like the border (daft thing to say), as it makes it a bit more 'urban' and gritty, I also like the way you have only one hand on the bar. Makes it more 'ardcore and risky, if that makes sense. 

I'd of been tempted to take the picture a little further back than what you have, and tried to of get more of the road to give mor of a sense of motion. Having said that, my results were shit 

Goodstuff as ever, man.

Look forward to seeing the rest.


----------



## Firky (Feb 9, 2006)

Leica said:
			
		

> gaffer tape?



You want something you can release quickly incase things go tits up


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have you ever seen those things that musicians used to use to hold a mouth organ in front of their mouth while playing guitar? You could probably rig up one of those. You can also get 'extender' shutter release buttons, it's on a long cable type thing to allow you to press the shutter remotely. One end screws into the usual shutter release button. You could have the button in your hand while riding, and press it to take the photo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Negativland said:
			
		

> This is just a picture of a sculpture I made today out of copper based on my entry to the photo comp (http://img100.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spookyponies4ab.jpg)
> 
> http://img308.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jlbkljuo2nl.jpg
> 
> I like the photo of it more than the thing itself. It's inside a box which is not actually square.



Did you do that first one just with the camera and developing, or was a computer involved?


----------



## Negativland (Feb 9, 2006)

I used film until the developing stage then scanned it.

I put in the comp thread: "It's an unusual process but not really modified: Taken on very high speed B&W film in an SLR, developed and then scanned directly from the negatives on a standard flatbed scanner, muck, scratches and all. In Photoshop I just used curves, and inverted it of course.


----------



## Firky (Feb 9, 2006)

It is a nice effect but I'd try and not use it too often, otherwise your work may become stale.

Did you use diffuse light at all?


----------



## Negativland (Feb 9, 2006)

No, no filters. I agree it's a bit gimmicky - I try and do good darkroom prints of everything I take on film (and like) but that isn't very often cos I haven't got the patience and the darkroom at college sucks. I guess the second one isn't really suitable for photocrit, but I liked it as an image in it's own right. Any feedback?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

Negativland said:
			
		

> No, no filters. I agree it's a bit gimmicky - I try and do good darkroom prints of everything I take on film (and like) but that isn't very often cos I haven't got the patience and the darkroom at college sucks. I guess the second one isn't really suitable for photocrit, but I liked it as an image in it's own right. Any feedback?



IMO, it's a photo of an unusual piece of something. It's a photo that you might find in a museum catalogue.


----------



## Negativland (Feb 9, 2006)

Yeah, but if it wasn't a photo at all, and was a painting stuck on a wall, would you like it? I think it's a bit wierd when photographers take a fairly straight picture of someone else's sculpture and present it as their own work, I only ask cos it's my own thing in the box, and it's based on the first photo.

I guess I also asked because I rarely see photos as a finished product and think it's interesting to see how something can develop out of it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 9, 2006)

The thing is an interesting sculpture, but the photo of it doesn't jump out at me as a photo.


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 9, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Love the picture

I think there may be a way of rigging up a way of clamping a ball & socket thngy (techinical term  ).

I'm primarily thinking of the fixings that hold a bell.  Can't quite visualise it but iit's nearly there.  Would look great using the video feature

KoD


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 9, 2006)

Took this having fun at the houses of parliement

Played with the gamma a bit to bring the tree in better focus

bag in tree

To the purists playing with the gamma made no difference to the play of light on the pillar in the railings.  Mind you even at the expense of bringing out the tree, if it had an effect on it I would have left well alone

KoD


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Feb 9, 2006)

Played with the crop, couldn't resist

Sunspot 

KoD


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 10, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> Whaddya think of this picture (click to enlarge)?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


you can buy something called a magic arm that bolts onto anything attatched to it is a flexible arm so you can bend the camera into whatever position you want


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 10, 2006)

here's one of my favorites old i know but still a part of history


----------



## girasol (Feb 10, 2006)

^^^ is there any way of seeing that photo in a larger size?


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 11, 2006)

i'm not computer literate yet and with the restrictions of 9.8k i had too reduce it loads - which is why the colours are all mangled ( compressing ) and all so not until i've got a website up really sorry.


----------



## Firky (Feb 11, 2006)

Ecotart,

upload a bigger version to here: http://imageshack.us/


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 11, 2006)




----------



## Firky (Feb 11, 2006)

Fiddle with the levels a bit and it could be quite abstract, what ever it is!?


----------



## Orang Utan (Feb 11, 2006)

It looked better on my phone all small - it looks shit on the monitor.
I don't know what these 'levels' you speak of are.
It's my work building seen from underneath the bridge that goes over the entrance (there's a little room under the bridge with multicoloured floor lights that you see reflected here)


----------



## Firky (Feb 11, 2006)

http://www.davrodigital.co.uk/tutorials/levels_files/levels.htm


----------



## danski (Feb 11, 2006)

wow, cheers for that..really simple when explained like that
ive often used auto levels before, but can often get a colour cast and being new to pshop never delved any further
it seems very similar to audio recording then normalising ie. taking the loudest signal possible and getting the puter to make up the rest of the gain
cheers


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 12, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> Ecotart,
> 
> upload a bigger version to here: http://imageshack.us/




to tell you the truth i dont know if i want too - view too getting a book published an' all ..............but any advice will be appreciated ... really am a ludditte and have a story too tell.............not a personal one you understand just a subjective peice of history i feel i have to protect - have yogurt weaving sounds too accompany said history ( again not mine ) but recorded ...........i'm a bit stuck but getting there...............sorry if this is a bit cryptic i'm a bit drunk .


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Feb 12, 2006)

the evidence too me is all to clear.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Feb 12, 2006)

eco-tart said:
			
		

> you can buy something called a magic arm that bolts onto anything attatched to it is a flexible arm so you can bend the camera into whatever position you want


 cheers


----------



## Firky (Feb 12, 2006)

Sounds like a girl I once knew

wocka wocka wocka


----------



## boskysquelch (Feb 13, 2006)

Firky said:
			
		

> Ecotart,
> 
> upload a bigger version to here: http://imageshack.us/



Don't help this CUNT!  http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=4082972&postcount=45


ANgry photographers have long mammaries(sic).


----------



## pengaleng (Feb 13, 2006)

(((((squelch)))))


----------



## girasol (Feb 13, 2006)

eco-tart said:
			
		

> to tell you the truth i dont know if i want too - view too getting a book published an' all ..............but any advice will be appreciated ... really am a ludditte and have a story too tell.............not a personal one you understand just a subjective peice of history i feel i have to protect - have yogurt weaving sounds too accompany said history ( again not mine ) but recorded ...........i'm a bit stuck but getting there...............sorry if this is a bit cryptic i'm a bit drunk .



How do you expect an opinion on something we can barely see?  It looks interesting but it's hard to tell without the detail.


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 13, 2006)

i'm still learning my way round the computer got image up in image shack dont know how too link it to urban


----------



## Firky (Feb 20, 2006)

Its pretty self explanatory, it will give you a list of links to the bigger image once it is uploaded, you then post one of those links to here.


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 21, 2006)

Okay here goes for nothing - honestly computers usually break when i touch 'em....

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6135/porcupine30sg.gif


----------



## Davus Maximus (Feb 22, 2006)

eco-tart said:
			
		

> Okay here goes for nothing - honestly computers usually break when i touch 'em....
> 
> http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6135/porcupine30sg.gif


What _is_ that? Looks like a dangerous game of Kerplunk.

I took this the other day at the park with some friends:
http://static.flickr.com/40/102169578_fe4f787b0d_b.jpg

edit: first post!


----------



## maes (Feb 22, 2006)

eco-tart said:
			
		

> Okay here goes for nothing - honestly computers usually break when i touch 'em....
> 
> http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6135/porcupine30sg.gif


Is that claremont road?

Cool pic


----------



## eco-tart (Feb 22, 2006)

*yup*

yes it's claremont road on first day of eviction but i prefer the description of a dangerous game of kerplunk - instead of balls though you have yogurt weavers


----------



## craigxcraig (Feb 22, 2006)

This is my favourite picture from my recent trip to India - had been following this guy around for ages, he part of this huge procession I'd stumbled across. I caught two piccys of him and stupidly deleted my favourite!

First time i've done this and not sure how it looks - took me ages to get up!


----------



## Firky (Feb 22, 2006)

If you want to upload a decent sized pic for review:

1] Make it at least 640px on its widest side @ <72dpi (don't go below 50dpi otherwise it will look shit). Keeping it at a low dpi will stop people making prints of it

2] Watermark if you're still worried about people nicking it.

3] Upload it to www.imageshack.us and post the URL here.

If you don't have photoshop, there's Gimp.


----------



## red_joker (Feb 23, 2006)

*im not that experienced but i'm learning!*


----------



## Firky (Feb 25, 2006)

It is alright, little out of focus and the colours are a bit on the muted side. It could of also been framed more aesthetically, but like you said you're still learning 

Also, I have a thing against photographs of things that are inherently beautiful anyway (nothing against the photograph or yourself), it is just not my bag! Flowers are pretty anyway... I personally am not drawn to shooting them. But that is just me!

Anyway, here's a couple of mine:


----------



## red_joker (Feb 25, 2006)




----------



## tangerinedream (Feb 26, 2006)

Taken near Saltford, betwixt Bath and Bristol. It's a tree with the river in the background. Not the highest quality image on earth.


----------



## tangerinedream (Mar 3, 2006)




----------



## Markyd (Mar 3, 2006)

Ignore the date thing fucking camera.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 5, 2006)

Shooting conditions caused quite a heavy blue hue across the whole image. I've managed to tone most of it down but can't get rid of the last little bit without making the pic look unreal


----------



## Markyd (Mar 5, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

>



Wheres that and how'd you get the angle?


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 5, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> Wheres that and how'd you get the angle?



1) It's the Pyrenees Mountains. 

2) I'm very tall.


----------



## Markyd (Mar 5, 2006)

Excellent picture.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> Shooting conditions caused quite a heavy blue hue across the whole image. I've managed to tone most of it down but can't get rid of the last little bit without making the pic look unreal


Desaturate the blues/cyans:






or I prefer a slightly contrastier, full desaturation to be honest:


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 5, 2006)

Thanks for that, I think I'd prolly be most happy with the latter. 
Any critique?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2006)

I think you've done particularly well to be honest - I just hope the original is bigger and yet still sharp enough. I find shooting through aeroplane windows bloody difficult, and often there's bugger all to see anyway. So, a very good result from a very difficult environment.

I think perhaps a polarizer, if you're able to fit one to your camera, might have helped. It would cut out any reflections, not that you seem to have got much. Similarly a UV filter cuts through a bit of haze. Even so, I suspect the blue is just a question of how high up you are.


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 5, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> I think you've done particularly well to be honest - I just hope the original is bigger and yet still sharp enough. I find shooting through aeroplane windows bloody difficult, and often there's bugger all to see anyway. So, a very good result from a very difficult environment.
> 
> I think perhaps a polarizer, if you're able to fit one to your camera, might have helped. It would cut out any reflections, not that you seem to have got much. Similarly a UV filter cuts through a bit of haze. Even so, I suspect the blue is just a question of how high up you are.



Thanks, the original is much bigger and sharper. Unfortunatly it was too much bother to drag my backpack out of the overhead to get my 350D out, so I used my DSC-T7. Which means i lost the benefit of the UV filter i have permanently attached.
I totally agree though, normally there is feck all to see but thanks to the Pilot and the quick reactions of Mrs Bigga I managed to take 5 or 6 over the Pyrenees, this was the best of the lot.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2006)

Reet... *Markyd* - the wonky horizon's the first obvious thing. After that, I'd say it's too gloomy, even given the subject, and I'm looking at it on a calibrated monitor. It's not so much just plain dark as a lack of contrast. I'd probably up brightness & contrast by around 10 & 20 respectively. Composition's quite nice; maybe would have played with moving it up and down to meet the rule of thirds, see if that would work in this case. The main thing's the date, as you know. Turn it off 

*Tangerinedream* - the second one - for me, it needs a bit more balance at the bottom - it ends kinda short. If it's cropped then sod the aspect ratio, and if not, then zoom out a bit. Other than that, nice balance of colour, good warm tones, good shutter speed choice, and I think fairly sharp - if a bit overdone on that front.

*Tangerinedream* - the first one - bit weird. It's cluttered, but it works. The composition is spot on, even though I don't quite know what's going on. It's a bit nightmarish and also reminds me of some illustration styles I've seen. I would say again it's oversharpened - needs a bit, but this is too far. I'd also like the blues at the bottom to be deeper so I'd play with saturation, possibly only for certain channels, and see where that got me.


----------



## Markyd (Mar 5, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Reet... *Markyd* - the wonky horizon's the first obvious thing. After that, I'd say it's too gloomy, even given the subject, and I'm looking at it on a calibrated monitor. It's not so much just plain dark as a lack of contrast. I'd probably up brightness & contrast by around 10 & 20 respectively. Composition's quite nice; maybe would have played with moving it up and down to meet the rule of thirds, see if that would work in this case. The main thing's the date, as you know. Turn it off
> 
> [.



Yeah thanks. Knew about the horizon. 

Cheers for taking the time.  

M


----------



## jeff_leigh (Mar 5, 2006)

thought i'd make a contribution here


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2006)

Alright, a couple from me. Neither are the best I've taken recently, but they have a little more scope for critique. Here's the first, and here's another. The latter's more interesting to me as I rarely do landscapes, and even less frequently get something good.

All were taken at Edale with the D70. The full set's here. Cheers


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 5, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Alright, a couple from me. Neither are the best I've taken recently, but they have a little more scope for critique. Here's the first, and here's another. The latter's more interesting to me as I rarely do landscapes, and even less frequently get something good.
> 
> All were taken at Edale with the D70. The full set's here. Cheers



You're an excellent photographer, imo. I love the hills, creek, fence one. I'd put it up on my wall.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 5, 2006)

Markyd said:
			
		

> Ignore the date thing fucking camera.



I like it a lot, but I think it needs to be a touch less dark, and should have a touch more resolution.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Mar 6, 2006)




----------



## mauvais (Mar 8, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

>


Contrary to what I normally say, it feels a bit open. There's too much empty space or maybe just too much to absorb, I don't know. Try a tighter crop, losing enough from the bottom to get rid of the immediate foreground (grass). Maybe also a little off the right. There's a lot of interesting colour and shapes but they need to be forced into being the subject. All this depends on how big your original is and whether you can afford to crop, I guess.

Otherwise it's pretty good; maybe a touch more saturation, especially reds & greens. It looks a little off-colour; don't know why, but mainly the sky. It'd be interesting to see a bigger copy of a finished attempt on this basis.

Oh and Johnny; thanks a lot! Really appreciate your kind comments


----------



## Markyd (Mar 8, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I like it a lot, but I think it needs to be a touch less dark, and should have a touch more resolution.



Cheers Jc its a point and shoot cheap snap camera. and I'm happy with the result bearing that in mind. 

Thanks to all for taking the time to write. I appreciate all comments in a constructive sense


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello you lovely people   

A mate of mind asked me to do some shots of him at a recent gig. So here are the results. I reckon my monitor needs calibrating cos my missus looked at work and says they're really dark. I know one of the sepias is over done   

Anyhoo, whaddya think? Hmm?  

Clicky


----------



## jeff_leigh (Mar 24, 2006)

DJ Bigga said:
			
		

> Anyhoo, whaddya think? Hmm?
> 
> Clicky



i like the second one (img_0840.jpg) the fourth one (benn01.jpg ) just bring up the highlights a touch but the Black and white ones definately do more for me than the colours


----------



## DJ Bigga (Mar 24, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> i like the second one (img_0840.jpg) the fourth one (benn01.jpg ) just bring up the highlights a touch but the Black and white ones definately do more for me than the colours



Thanks dude, So they don't look too dark then?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 24, 2006)

I think it varies - some are just fine, but ones like this:






are waaaay too dark (calibrated monitor). There's plenty in between.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Mar 25, 2006)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/64278732@N00/117644136/


----------



## mauvais (Apr 1, 2006)

Here's one of mine from Ancoats in Monchestoh:






I want to, and probably will, go back and do it again, because I think it could be done better. Still, what do you reckon?

If you've got the time, there's some more: two, three, four


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 2, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one of mine from Ancoats in Monchestoh:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like the first one best; great b&w contrast.


----------



## Firky (Apr 3, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> three, four



I really like this one


----------



## ed (Apr 5, 2006)

a cry for advice!

so i took this photo... 

as you can see, it came out pretty terribly.  that's because i'm a complete novice.  you can probably imagine how nice that scene looked in real life.

i took this with flash off.  should i have pointed the (digital, olympus c350) camera up a bit, to get that bright bit of sky in the centre more, & so the camera would compensate a bit?  am i just stupidly pointing my camera at the sun and hoping for the best? haha

any advice would be appreciated - some of my photies are coming out very nicely these days, but it seems to be a bit hit and miss.....


----------



## mauvais (Apr 6, 2006)

Basically there's nothing you can do. Digital cameras have a lower dynamic range and what you're asking it to do is capture a massive amount of light from the sun, and yet a tiny amount from the shaded buildings, and display both accurately. It can't.

The best you could hope for with any digital camera, and the same applies albeit marginally less to film, is either to capture the sunset and the buildings as silhouettes, OR, the buildings in detail and a washed out sky. What you could also do is take _both _of those photos and blend them, but that's way more complicated.


----------



## ed (Apr 7, 2006)

hmm... 

ok, thanks for your advice!


----------



## mauvais (Apr 11, 2006)

Worrrrr, it's Mister Lizard!


----------



## Negativland (Apr 13, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one of mine from Ancoats in Monchestoh:
> 
> 
> I want to, and probably will, go back and do it again, because I think it could be done better. Still, what do you reckon?




First one's good, like artificial rock strata made of city junk. It is kind of tonally flat (I mean equally high contrast all over) but that just adds to the scratchy textural overload of it in this case. Still, it would be interesting to see it in different light.

I'm not sure about short depth of field effects in photography, in your iguana pic it works brilliantly, draws you right in to its face and claw - but in the peeling brick wall pic it's kind of obtrusive and doesn't add much.


----------



## northernhord (Apr 15, 2006)

*candle*








I took this one with my little webcam eye that I use for my ebay photos


----------



## Firky (Apr 15, 2006)

looks like looking out of a cave at dawn


----------



## northernhord (Apr 15, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> looks like looking out of a cave at dawn



Fuckin ell so it does,  it also looks like someone lying down if you look at the brighter bit at the top


----------



## jeff_leigh (Apr 15, 2006)

northernhoard said:
			
		

> Fuckin ell so it does,  it also looks like someone lying down if you look at the brighter bit at the top



with a big nose and wearing a hoody


----------



## northernhord (Apr 17, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> with a big nose and wearing a hoody



the big nose bit is actually where the genital area is, the head of the person lying down starts on the left


----------



## jeff_leigh (Apr 17, 2006)

northernhoard said:
			
		

> the big nose bit is actually where the genital area is, the head of the person lying down starts on the left


   i'm thinking of just a face not a whole figure, but yeah i can see what you mean


----------



## Firky (Apr 18, 2006)

*Stokie*


----------



## mauvais (Apr 18, 2006)

I love that, and the set it belongs to. I wish I could find somewhere accessible with a bit of life to it - the old factory I know up here is OK, but it's devoid of anything. What's the story with this place?

Oooh, critique then... not quiiite straight maybe, and it's a shame about the blooming. Any chance of clever photoshoppery maybe with a reduced exposure merged in for those bits? Aaand dodge and burn could change this, maybe add something to do. Check out my urban exploration thread for what I did to kerb's to see what I mean.


----------



## Firky (Apr 18, 2006)

Cheers, dude!

I like the blooming 

It is untouched other than B&W and USM. I think it could do with a little work in the foreground to add a bit more light but I think that would lead to me altering the rest of the pic.

G tells me it was an old laundrette that was destroyed by fire in the 6Ts. It is in the N16 area behind the cemetry, (which is also quite cool). The owner keeps getting offers every year from developers as it is in a prime location but he keeps waiting for the 'big one'


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 18, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

>



It's ok, but the photo has no focus, no centre. There's nothing unifying it, pulling it together.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 18, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> <snip> What you could also do is take _both _of those photos and blend them, but that's way more complicated.


 Sounds interesting. Can you recommend an online tutorial? I'd like to try it.


----------



## Firky (Apr 18, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's ok, but the photo has no focus, no centre. There's nothing unifying it, pulling it together.



Yeah, now you come to mention it... you have pointed out a gaping hole. I see exactly that you mean. Gah! I don't like it as much anymore.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 18, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Sounds interesting. Can you recommend an online tutorial? I'd like to try it.


Yeah, this, basically:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/blended_exposures.shtml

Best done with a tripod, and hard to do for bigger differences. If you have an SLR then it's a lot easier; one shot, and different exposures taken off it.

Here's one I did like that - put the sky back in, basically:

http://wapoc.com/web/manc/maths.jpg


----------



## jeff_leigh (Apr 18, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Sounds interesting. Can you recommend an online tutorial? I'd like to try it.



here's another Blending exposures  Tutorial Here


----------



## Firky (Apr 18, 2006)

*the matrix stylee*


----------



## kerb (Apr 19, 2006)




----------



## mauvais (Apr 22, 2006)

Are you really banned? Heh! Love the picture, interesting shapes, and the people lend it a sense of scale. Great contrast etc too - film? The black line could be a bit distracting, but easily PP'd out should you so desire. That's about it really, good one!

Here's one from me - tried to capture more where they were parked but kinda failed, yet got something else instead.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 22, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

>



I like this photograph a lot for the very reason Johnny Canuck2 doesn't! Because there is no focal point the viewer is forced to study the whole photograph. The essence of the picture is the scatter of decay and lack of order although there is a strong sense of composition and perspective. It could have been much better mind. You want to take a look at Thomas Struth's style of cutting through the chaos


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 22, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> here's another Blending exposures  Tutorial Here



Aha ... thanks. You too mauvais mangue. I'll have a bash at this I think. Looks useful.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 23, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Are you really banned? Heh! Love the picture, interesting shapes, and the people lend it a sense of scale. Great contrast etc too - film? The black line could be a bit distracting, but easily PP'd out should you so desire. That's about it really, good one!
> 
> Here's one from me - tried to capture more where they were parked but kinda failed, yet got something else instead.



Another good photo from mm. Great feeling of action.


----------



## Firky (Apr 23, 2006)

kerb said:
			
		

>



Purdy, I'd try an burn the people so they're more noticable and give a greater sense of height and perhaps a bit of dodge around in the right to take some of the black out (could just be my monitor but all I see is a black hole). 

I like the cable however! Leave that in


----------



## Firky (Apr 23, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one from me - tried to capture more where they were parked but kinda failed, yet got something else instead.



Meh, I like it. Not sure about the white building so close to the fuzz's car. I like the texture on the road, could do with a little more DoF but it still works the way you shot it   

I'd be shot or stabbed if I went out at night with my camera here


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 23, 2006)

http://static.flickr.com/46/133739515_a337f0a43e_b.jpg


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 24, 2006)

Yes, it's a silhouette. I just like it because it has my kids in it.


----------



## Firky (Apr 24, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> http://static.flickr.com/46/133739515_a337f0a43e_b.jpg



slightly over exposed but the colours are nice and vivid in places. get a chick which isn't pasty white 

silhoutte pic is cool albeit pretty simple, were they ninjas?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 24, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> slightly over exposed but the colours are nice and vivid in places. get a chick which isn't pasty white
> 
> silhoutte pic is cool albeit pretty simple, were they ninjas?



The first one is straight out of the camera. I wanted to crop it etc, but had some computer problems.

Second one: I suppose they were ninjas in their own minds...


----------



## KeeperofDragons (Apr 25, 2006)

I took this on a day out with my little optio.  Only played with the gamma slightly to keep the tree from washing out

Parliament

KoD


----------



## mauvais (Apr 27, 2006)

Johnny, your silhouette one's ace. The only thing wrong with it is that the subject's centred, and somehow I don't like that. I think maybe a border would solve it, or otherwise my preference would be to pan right a little bit, possssibly up too, maybe not, and do the whole rule of thirds thing.

Parliament, I don't know. It might look better in colour but at the mo it's a bit confusing. The tree and the background kind of clutter each other. There's probably something can be done with a little bit more editing, i.e. dodge and burn perhaps.

Here's one of mine. It's quite silly - I liked the colours of the scene so I played with composition a bit and tried to capture it. It's not entirely worked, and technically it's a bit off, but I quite like it all the same.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Johnny, your silhouette one's ace. The only thing wrong with it is that the subject's centred, and somehow I don't like that. I think maybe a border would solve it, or otherwise my preference would be to pan right a little bit, possssibly up too, maybe not, and do the whole rule of thirds thing.]



You might be right, but then I'd lose the centering of the figures against the fading sunlight and the clouds.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one of mine. It's quite silly - I liked the colours of the scene so I played with composition a bit and tried to capture it. It's not entirely worked, and technically it's a bit off, but I quite like it all the same.
> 
> ]



I like it too; great colour and compo. Do you ever take a bad picture?


----------



## mauvais (Apr 27, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> You might be right, but then I'd lose the centering of the figures against the fading sunlight and the clouds.


Yep, you're right. The centre thing works fine, and probably best. I've changed my mind, but what I would do is make them perfectly centred, then add a border. A bit like this - will delete in a bit.

As for bad photos, at least one for every good shot. That one took about five. The recent urban decay stuff I did, I got about half of them usable, and I was dead happy


----------



## chriswill (Apr 27, 2006)

One of the cage in Lyme park.


Levels and saturation adjusted


----------



## mauvais (Apr 27, 2006)

chriswill said:
			
		

> One of the cage in Lyme park.
> 
> Levels and saturation adjusted


You could bring the sky out a lot more, I reckon. The road bugs me a little; it's not really integral enough to the shot, so gets in the way. I'd clone it out, which should be quite easy, because it's thin.


----------



## chriswill (Apr 27, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> You could bring the sky out a lot more, I reckon. The road bugs me a little; it's not really integral enough to the shot, so gets in the way. I'd clone it out, which should be quite easy, because it's thin.




Should be easy, I'd probably get it tits up tho'


----------



## chriswill (Apr 27, 2006)

Another that is slightly different.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 27, 2006)

[/QUOTE]

That is very, very nice.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Yep, you're right. The centre thing works fine, and probably best. I've changed my mind, but what I would do is make them perfectly centred, then add a border. A bit like this - will delete in a bit.
> 
> As for bad photos, at least one for every good shot. That one took about five. The recent urban decay stuff I did, I got about half of them usable, and I was dead happy



The border's ok: kind of a lot of black, though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

>



That is very, very nice.[/QUOTE]

Something else about that pic.

I recall reading somewhere, that the test of a good colour photo, is that it would also be effective if done in black and white.

No doubt the colour adds to this pic, but compositionally, I think it would still be pleasing if it was b&w.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 27, 2006)

Maybe - I reckon that's roughly what you'd use if you were framing it for real. Anyway, you get the idea. I don't know why or how it works, but it does for me, trivial as it might seem. I suppose it's simply defining a strong edge and pushing the interest back into the shot.

Here's a black and white version of the kitchen shot (nearly the same, had to do it again). It doesn't work IMO. Cluttered, and the point to it is lost. The individual items look better, but the scene is gone.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 27, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Maybe - I reckon that's roughly what you'd use if you were framing it for real. Anyway, you get the idea. I don't know why or how it works, but it does for me, trivial as it might seem. I suppose it's simply defining a strong edge and pushing the interest back into the shot.
> 
> Here's a black and white version of the kitchen shot (nearly the same, had to do it again). It doesn't work IMO. Cluttered, and the point to it is lost. The individual items look better, but the scene is gone.



I agree it looks better in colour, but it isn't a total failure as a photo. A bit on the dark side.


----------



## chriswill (Apr 29, 2006)

Hehe


----------



## dlx1 (Apr 29, 2006)

beep beep   




Yellow




Pink


----------



## mauvais (Apr 29, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> ...


All the subjects are centred, which is typically to be avoided. Other than that, they're good, but they - especially the last - could be brought out a lot more with a S curve in Photoshop, e.g.:


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 29, 2006)

I like the centered truck.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 2, 2006)

another contribution
Here


----------



## Chorlton (May 2, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> another contribution
> Here




good spot for a photograph that - one thing i did notice was the amount of white to the right - kind of distracting me from the bridge and what is under the bridge -  not sure croppping would help tho.... but i rarely have a clue what i'm talking about....


my own isn't really up for critiscm (well, please do fire away but i will pay no heed because i like me chocolate box scenery snaps and i'll not listen) but rather to ask your advice:

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/7664/panorama9ga.jpg

i have been noticing with my panorams due to my arch-enemy the sun, and me not getting up early enough to catch first light, the photo looks a little washed out -- what, if anything can i do bring it to life a little


ok, feel free to critiscise now...


----------



## Chorlton (May 3, 2006)

not a whole pile of feedback on that.... i did make a few changes to it... improvement?

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7249/panorama6kb.jpg


(there are 'issues' around the border between sky and mountain in places but i think i can sort those)


----------



## mauvais (May 3, 2006)

Use Autostitch, if you don't already.

Your first one is way too big to view, hence no critique. The new one is quite nice; could be PPed to be a little bit more impressive and punchy without much work.


----------



## Chorlton (May 3, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Use Autostitch, if you don't already.



thanks just downloaded it, always used the phtotmerge in photoshop before... it says that its demo version? it doesn't appear to be tho??



			
				mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Your first one is way too big to view, hence no critique.


apologies all 




			
				mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> The new one is quite nice; could be PPed to be a little bit more impressive and punchy without much work.



PPed?


----------



## mauvais (May 3, 2006)

Autostitch is a permanent demo for the moment and presumably foreseeable future; you have to download a new copy every so often but it's free. Autopano Pro is the retail version, which is slightly better and much easier to use, but costs money.

PP - post processed. Curves, levels, saturation etc in Photoshop.

If you shot this with a tripod and SLR then a polarizer might have been a good plan too.


----------



## Chorlton (May 4, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> If you shot this with a tripod and SLR then a polarizer might have been a good plan too.



its enough to get myself and a D70 up these hills without lugging up a decent tripod....


----------



## mauvais (May 4, 2006)

Heh, I just use a shit one, Velbon, £30. Helps me climb too, like a fat walking stick  

Anyway I only suggested a tripod cos it'd reduce shutter speed a little if you used a polarizer (need a circular one, quite expensive). Brings out the colour a lot more though.

I would have liked to see this one shot a little wider - more of the lakes. They feel a little cut off in their prime.

I find this landscape stuff really difficult, especially the PP. I just can't get it looking how I suppose it might look good, and it annoys me. I also find most compositions pretty empty/lacklustre, and so it doesn't appeal. Good luck if you can do it!


----------



## paolo (May 4, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Here's one of mine. It's quite silly - I liked the colours of the scene so I played with composition a bit and tried to capture it. It's not entirely worked, and technically it's a bit off, but I quite like it all the same.



Colours are superb. My only criticism would be it looking a bit "arranged". With the wonderful benefit of hindsight I'd have tried making some slight difference in angles/overlaps/depth positions of the subjects.

Otherwise a belter (tech issues aside).


----------



## paolo (May 4, 2006)

And on the basis that it's only fair then, having critiqued, to subject myself to peer review, here's a couple of mine from tonight:













(have now realised I didn't post crop this the way I meant to... the first letter of the word after collection would be dumped if I'd done it right)


----------



## Chorlton (May 4, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Heh, I just use a shit one, Velbon, £30. Helps me climb too, like a fat walking stick



i have considered a walking pole with a screw-in-thingy at the top before...





			
				mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> I would have liked to see this one shot a little wider - more of the lakes. They feel a little cut off in their prime.



i have been playing around and while i can make it larger - i am trying to stay within the 20x7 dimensions as that is what it would be printed at - so i think that the original image really isn't suitable - i either leave off crib groch at the left and i get a rather flat mountain / lake view of snowdon and the other one or i get just snowdon and grib goch and the entire photograph is bunched to the right.... i'm not sure i should perhaps be concentrating on another pictre tbh




			
				mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> I find this landscape stuff really difficult, especially the PP. I just can't get it looking how I suppose it might look good, and it annoys me. I also find most compositions pretty empty/lacklustre, and so it doesn't appeal. Good luck if you can do it!




I agree.... i love landscape photography since i first clapped eyes on an ansell adams and find it a lot of fun to take but very demanding afterwards.... A quick browse around the postcards around lakeland towns can show you the full range from the quite beautiful to the truly awful photoshopped-andfiltered-to-buggery....

many thanks for the advice tho


----------



## dlx1 (May 4, 2006)

nature = 
--------------------------
48/139983615_3a53486c02.jpg Nice colour cream/brown


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 4, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> not a whole pile of feedback on that.... i did make a few changes to it... improvement?
> 
> http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/7249/panorama6kb.jpg
> 
> ...



yeah a definate improvement there, much clearer a little sharper too, shame about having to crop the lake though


----------



## snadge (May 4, 2006)

Taken outside in natural light, raw converted only.

http://www.pbase.com/snadge/image/59672690/original


----------



## snadge (May 4, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> nature =
> --------------------------
> 48/139983615_3a53486c02.jpg Nice colour cream/brown



I love doing flowers myself and am trying to do it well.

I feel there is too much distraction in this, smaller d.o.f maybe?


----------



## snadge (May 4, 2006)

paolo999 said:
			
		

> And on the basis that it's only fair then, having critiqued, to subject myself to peer review, here's a couple of mine from tonight:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I really like both of these, the collection pic though, was it taken in portrait mode?


----------



## mauvais (May 4, 2006)

snadge said:
			
		

> Taken outside in natural light, raw converted only.
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/snadge/image/59672690/original


Beautiful. Could be a bit sharper maybe, and is a bit big as an original to fit on the screen. I'm also wondering if some of the other colours can be brought out a little and made lighter - a tricky one that you'd have to experiment with, but it looks a little dark on my [calibrated] monitor.

If somehow the foreground and background tulips could have been offset - one to the left, one to the right - that would have perfected the composition of this image. It's still a winner though!


----------



## Cerisa (May 5, 2006)

I was quite proud of these three
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/43cb95db.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/P1010007.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/P1010020.jpg


----------



## mauvais (May 5, 2006)

Cerisa said:
			
		

> I was quite proud of these two
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/43cb95db.jpg
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/P1010007.jpg


Really like the first one. In some way it's a little cluttered though - if you have any control over aperture then perhaps a wider one would have blurred out the building behind a little.

The second one - the subject building is the most interesting thing, and the image should be confined to it. The other stuff, especially the building on the left, detract from the shot. Crop it out - maybe keep in the top floor of the building below, and everything above and to the left. Oh and it needs rotating


----------



## mauvais (May 5, 2006)

Third one - just spotted - is pretty cool. I can't really tell because I'm on a laptop with a shit, washed-out display, but that's got the most potential. There's loads of subtle colours you could probably bring out of that and turn it into something quite spectacular with a bit more complex playing around in Photoshop.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 6, 2006)

Cerisa said:
			
		

> I was quite proud of these three
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/New York/P1010007.jpg
> [/url]



love this one excellent cropping, thats something i've gotta learn about


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 6, 2006)

here's another one of mine

walkway


----------



## mauvais (May 6, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> here's another one of mine
> 
> walkway


Heh!

I did that - http://photo.wapoc.com/world/manchester/DSC_7546.jpg.html

I think I prefer yours, though it's maybe a little oversharpened.


----------



## dlx1 (May 6, 2006)

following jeff leigh walkway theam  

walkway Tunnel
Land of the Bluebell


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 6, 2006)

Brand new to this whole 'proper' photography malarky. Am very aware I have lots to learn. Just got my new 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor, on my D50 took this as a test shot this morning.






_larger version_


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 6, 2006)

mauvais mangue said:
			
		

> Heh!
> 
> I did that - http://photo.wapoc.com/world/manchester/DSC_7546.jpg.html
> 
> I think I prefer yours, though it's maybe a little oversharpened.



thanks mauvais a few people have commented on some of my images being a little over sharpened, sometimes i use the same photoshop action when i've got a lot of images to process


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 6, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> following jeff leigh walkway theam
> 
> walkway Tunnel
> ]



is that the same Walkway before it was finished? great minds think alike eh?


----------



## mauvais (May 6, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> thanks mauvais a few people have commented on some of my images being a little over sharpened, sometimes i use the same photoshop action when i've got a lot of images to process


Yeah - each image requires something different, and especially don't use the 'Sharpen' or 'Sharpen More' actions. If you use Photoshop, then Unsharp Mask as the final step, radius 0.3 to 0.8, amount 60-200%, threshold 3.

A tip I got told was to crank the amount to 500% and find the lowest radius without halos, then reduce the amount to suit. It doesn't always help though.


----------



## chriswill (May 6, 2006)

Vapour Trail.








Levels and colour tweaked.


----------



## Firky (May 8, 2006)

this was just a snap shot but i liked the way it turned out.

slight s curve added to it, and saturation knocked up by 7 in PS.


----------



## Firky (May 8, 2006)

chriswill said:
			
		

> Vapour Trail.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite like that actually, did you use a filter to get the fringe at the top?


----------



## suzi (May 8, 2006)

what is it? is it a cat's head? can't figure it out.. - the photo posted by vintage paw i mean..


----------



## chriswill (May 8, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Quite like that actually, did you use a filter to get the fringe at the top?




I use a UV most of the time, The fringe probaby came about through the editing.


Should know that really.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> what is it? is it a cat's head? can't figure it out.. - the photo posted by vintage paw i mean..



Yeah, abstract eh?


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> following jeff leigh walkway theam
> 
> walkway Tunnel
> Land of the Bluebell


*These *are ace. The tunnel could do with straightening up a little and both could be brought out a lot more in post-processing - you _should_ do some  - but they're just fundamentally good.

*Firky*, your sunset/sunrise/whatever shot is pretty cool. I'd have liked it shifted up a little to get the tip of the Gherkin in at the expense of the ground. It's also a bit tall to view properly. It feels a little bit wonky, but if anything, it's that bloom/blown out sky thing that annoys me. Any way of reducing it? I'd maybe lighten up the whole thing a little, I don't know. PS: check out Raw Shooter Essentials/Pro, it's free/cheap and I love it.

*Vapour trail* doesn't work for me. It's a lovely sky but there's just no subject. It needs something else prominent in there to make it a shot rather than just a pattern.

Can't decide about *the cat* - think the abstract idea's got potential, but something not quite right IMO


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2006)

Reet, couple from me. There's loaaads of photos on my computer - 14,000 it says here, though that's a bit wrong - and most of 'em are rubbish.

Still, every so often I go back through 'em and see if I can find anything worth rescuing with whatever gizmos and sk1LLz wot I've acquired recently. Slightly worringly, I only got two. Well, maybe a few more, but I can't be bothered...











Both are from last year.


----------



## Cerisa (May 9, 2006)

Mauvais Mangue: i took them using a digi-cam, so i don't really have any aperture control, although it does have different settings i could experiment with. oooh photoshop, that never even occurred to me. i don't have it on my laptop - how much would a good program cost? i'll definitely try cropping out the excess though. thank you for all the feedback  

and cheers jeff leigh, it's definitely one of my favourites, esp as it's all in hues of blue


----------



## blackadder (May 9, 2006)

Instead of submitting a single picture, can I submit a series please, as I need to select the best few out of it, for sending to the newspaper.

The series is of a carpet of fallen blossom, which was helped by a strong wind earlier that day. 

As I arrived at the scene a suited man with an identical pink as the petals coloured shirt, walked through the petals. If I had got there earlier, I reckon I would have got a great shot.

Anyway, here is the series   http://www.flickr.com/photos/99585382@N00/sets/72057594129057447/


----------



## zenie (May 9, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Reet, couple from me. There's loaaads of photos on my computer - 14,000 it says here, though that's a bit wrong - and most of 'em are rubbish.
> 
> Still, every so often I go back through 'em and see if I can find anything worth rescuing with whatever gizmos and sk1LLz wot I've acquired recently. Slightly worringly, I only got two. Well, maybe a few more, but I can't be bothered...
> 
> ...



That is wicked mate!! Well done.

What did you do to it?

and where is that? Very pretty!!


----------



## suzi (May 9, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Yeah, abstract eh?



very good


----------



## suzi (May 9, 2006)

anyway, my feeble effort:

<IMG SRC="http://static.flickr.com/45/140430662_1f5716bb8d.jpg">

oh, it doesn't work. never mind.


----------



## Robster970 (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> anyway, my feeble effort:
> 
> <IMG SRC="http://static.flickr.com/45/140430662_1f5716bb8d.jpg">
> 
> oh, it doesn't work. never mind.



is that butlins in bognor?


----------



## Derian (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> anyway, my feeble effort:
> 
> <IMG SRC="http://static.flickr.com/45/140430662_1f5716bb8d.jpg">
> 
> oh, it doesn't work. never mind.



There you go....


----------



## suzi (May 9, 2006)

Derian said:
			
		

> There you go....



oh. thank you. that is my work.


----------



## Derian (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> oh. thank you. that is my work.


 

Yes - I thought you were having probs posting it so I did it for you.


----------



## mauvais (May 9, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> That is wicked mate!! Well done.
> 
> What did you do to it?
> 
> and where is that? Very pretty!!


Pretty much as shot with a little playing contrast-wise to make them into proper silhouettes. The main thing was realising that shots don't all have to be 3:2, which in this case would just have produced rubbish!

It's pretty fuzzy, partly cos it's badly focused and partly cos of the haze, but it looks OK for a web version.

It's oop north - St. Annes, Lancashire. Cheers!


----------



## suzi (May 9, 2006)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> is that butlins in bognor?



oh you've been already.


----------



## Robster970 (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> oh you've been already.



I have - have a similar picture http://www.photo-sight.co.uk/index.php?s=y&id=gallery__butlins&p=2&view=file that's why I recongnised it


----------



## suzi (May 9, 2006)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> I have - have a similar picture http://www.photo-sight.co.uk/index.php?s=y&id=gallery__butlins&p=2&view=file that's why I recongnised it



i was joking. mine was taken in kew gardens.


----------



## Robster970 (May 9, 2006)

suzi said:
			
		

> i was joking. mine was taken in kew gardens.



LOL - you can tell the kind of places I frequent


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 9, 2006)

suzi - thanks  

mauvais - it was a test shot from my new 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor, it was raining, I couldn't go out, and the cat was the nearest thing that looked like a half-decent subject  Not a lot of thought went into it - in fact, it was all I could do to keep him relatively still for a half second to shoot it!


----------



## foamy (May 9, 2006)

*firky posting*




			
				mauvais said:
			
		

> *Firky*, your sunset/sunrise/whatever shot is pretty cool. I'd have liked it shifted up a little to get the tip of the Gherkin in at the expense of the ground. It's also a bit tall to view properly. It feels a little bit wonky, but if anything, it's that bloom/blown out sky thing that annoys me. Any way of reducing it? I'd maybe lighten up the whole thing a little, I don't know. PS: check out Raw Shooter Essentials/Pro, it's free/cheap and I love it.



Yeah, I didn't really have time to line it up properly as I was doing about 40mph in the car 

I also shot in jpeg, so no raw 

I just like it because of the colour and blooming... for which you don't


----------



## dlx1 (May 9, 2006)

mm
(nice) on beach wounder much difrence<? in B&W 
lol like the spray in 2nd "televison lies"


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 13, 2006)

My most recent one:

http://snaps.catbc.com/2006/05/61.php

I am rather proud of it, if I do say so myself


----------



## Firky (May 13, 2006)

f'ing ace, its my new wallpaper


----------



## mauvais (May 13, 2006)

Nice. No criticism there! What did you do PP wise?


----------



## Firky (May 13, 2006)

daisy paws! err, cropped and a yellow shift, slight s curve.


----------



## mauvais (May 13, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> daisy paws! err, cropped and a yellow shift, slight s curve.


Halo around the hand from blending or bad sharpening. Maybe would have preferred a tighter crop / more of the left, dunno. Other than that, like it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 13, 2006)

riot sky - aw shucks 

mauvais - all pp done in PS CS2: camera raw - upped the saturation a touch as it was rather flat; then into ps - auto-levels, gradient on the sky set to overlay, selective colouring layer to enhance and darken the blue and bring out the orange of the plant, unsharp mask x2 (diff. settings each time for diff. effects) - ta-da!

I'm really only just learning about PS - it seems like every couple of weeks I find out about a whole new setting that I never knew existed!


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 14, 2006)

Thought i'd make another contribution 
Here


----------



## Firky (May 16, 2006)




----------



## mauvais (May 16, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> http://www.oxygenkiosk.net/php-cgi/d/1410-2/over+there.jpg


Would have preferred the background separating from the guy's head - maybe removing it entirely would help.

Like the big white space, and like the simple thin border. Good conversion as ever.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2006)

http://static.flickr.com/47/137981954_1675247ce6.jpg?v=0

http://static.flickr.com/48/137981952_87f4c40431.jpg?v=0


----------



## mauvais (May 18, 2006)

Johnny, first one, could maybe bring out some details with a dodge/burn (mainly dodge) - the vehicle's great, but the rest is a little dark overall. Like the composition a lot.

Second one, not so keen, a bit dark too - the shapes are interesting but it just doesn't 'click' for me.


----------



## mauvais (May 18, 2006)

*And now, a reet load of balls...*

http://wapoc.com/crap/balls.jpg

http://wapoc.com/crap/drops2.jpg


----------



## Skim (May 19, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> http://wapoc.com/crap/balls.jpg
> 
> http://wapoc.com/crap/drops2.jpg



I like the first one especially. Reflections are fun to play with. Is is Covent Garden?


----------



## mauvais (May 19, 2006)

Skim said:
			
		

> I like the first one especially. Reflections are fun to play with. Is is Covent Garden?


Cheers - Jardin du Palais-Royal, Paris


----------



## Derian (May 19, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> http://wapoc.com/crap/balls.jpg
> 
> http://wapoc.com/crap/drops2.jpg




Great balls Mauvais


----------



## lilli (May 21, 2006)

*My fav*

My fav shot for a few months has been this one 






Taken at the Guinness Brewery back in feb time, I took quite a few from here, but this one I really like  

Feel free to comment rip it to bits etc......

Tis my first post too so Hi!


----------



## undercover (May 24, 2006)

Right, sorry about the date stamp, figured out how to turn it off now, but haven't figured out how to remove it from exisiting pics yet as haven't got this phototshop thing I keep hearing about...

These are from the living room in my flat.


----------



## Firky (May 25, 2006)

*fucked up*

nm


----------



## Firky (May 25, 2006)

undercover said:
			
		

> Right, sorry about the date stamp, figured out how to turn it off now, but haven't figured out how to remove it from exisiting pics yet as haven't got this phototshop thing I keep hearing about...
> 
> These are from the living room in my flat.



I like that one, but they really need to be bigger so I can tell you


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 25, 2006)

Here's one of mine:

hometown


----------



## undercover (May 25, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I like that one, but they really need to be bigger so I can tell you


When I posted these to Flickr, they automatically reduced them to teeny weeny size (sorry for that techno talk), what's a good place to store higher resolution? Or am I missing something at Flickr?


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 25, 2006)

undercover said:
			
		

> When I posted these to Flickr, they automatically reduced them to teeny weeny size (sorry for that techno talk), what's a good place to store higher resolution? Or am I missing something at Flickr?



I post my images on Flickr and i've never had any problem posting larger ones than yours, have a look at my earlier post #786


----------



## Firky (May 25, 2006)

undercover said:
			
		

> When I posted these to Flickr, they automatically reduced them to teeny weeny size (sorry for that techno talk), what's a good place to store higher resolution? Or am I missing something at Flickr?




Flickr is shit! (Well I just don't like it!)

www.imageshack.us


----------



## jms (May 25, 2006)

http://www.crumblewall.com/files/11.jpg


----------



## Firky (May 25, 2006)

I was going to enter this one into the portrait comp - its um.. supposed to be conceptual "guilty" -all the perfumes of arabia and all that jazz, but I thought it was a bit poncey!

still quite like the photo 

PVA on meh hands!


----------



## Firky (May 25, 2006)

jms said:
			
		

> http://www.crumblewall.com/files/11.jpg




I like that, could do with a little more DoF or perhaps a little more foreground, but I still like the contrast between the two things.


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 25, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Flickr is shit! (Well I just don't like it!)
> 
> www.imageshack.us



imageshack? isn't that where all the perverts post thier porn pics? or so i've heard


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 25, 2006)

undercover said:
			
		

> When I posted these to Flickr, they automatically reduced them to teeny weeny size (sorry for that techno talk), what's a good place to store higher resolution? Or am I missing something at Flickr?



They create many different sizes for you when you upload: thumbnail, small, medium and original. Your original size is still there, you just click 'all sizes' above whicever pic you want to see and it gives you the option of viewing that shot in any of those sizes, and gives you the url to each too. So it is still there in its original size, just showing up smaller to fit on the main page


----------



## undercover (May 26, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> They create many different sizes for you when you upload: thumbnail, small, medium and original. Your original size is still there, you just click 'all sizes' above whicever pic you want to see and it gives you the option of viewing that shot in any of those sizes, and gives you the url to each too. So it is still there in its original size, just showing up smaller to fit on the main page


Ah, gotcha, thanks very much guys. 

http://static.flickr.com/44/152402787_a2244243c3_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/51/152396047_cfa75eb551_o.jpg


----------



## jms (May 26, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I like that, could do with a little more DoF or perhaps a little more foreground, but I still like the contrast between the two things.



thanks 

whats dof?


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 26, 2006)

jms said:
			
		

> thanks
> 
> whats dof?



Depth of Field, say your f stop is 2.8 and you focus on a subject ten metres away anything in the background would be blurred and out of focus ( shallow DOF) if you took the same shot with say f8 the subject plus the background would be both sharp and in focus, shallow DOF is used in portraits to give more emphasis to the subject

see here


----------



## jms (May 26, 2006)

Oh, I see


----------



## Firky (May 26, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Depth of Field, say your f stop is 2.8 and you focus on a subject ten metres away anything in the background would be blurred and out of focus ( shallow DOF) if you took the same shot with say f8 the subject plus the background would be both sharp and in focus, shallow DOF is used in portraits to give more emphasis to the subject
> 
> see here




That should be a sticky


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 27, 2006)

Another of mine I took of some trees growing in the water on the side of a lake:

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/2651/watertrees9vy.jpg


----------



## Termite Man (May 27, 2006)

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/4d1fa620.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/DSC01583.jpg

both taken on a beach in wales , I'm quite pleased with most of the photos I took that day actually !


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 27, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/4d1fa620.jpg
> 
> http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/DSC01583.jpg
> 
> both taken on a beach in wales , I'm quite pleased with most of the photos I took that day actually !



Nice, I like the perspective of the first one. There's a guy somewhere that does long night exposures of beaches and they are utterly amazing

*digs out link*

http://www.mysteryme.com/index.php?showimage=157
http://www.mysteryme.com/index.php?showimage=176 (one of my faves)
http://www.mysteryme.com/index.php?showimage=199 (another fave)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 27, 2006)

No comment on either of my pics?


----------



## mauvais (May 27, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> No comment on either of my pics?


Bit big to fit on the screen!

I dunno about the first one. The second one's really lacking in contrast. you should do something like this with it: http://wapoc.com/crap/rendog1.jpg

Whatever's off to the left looks a bit more interesting so I probably would have left out that taller building on the right and included some of that. It's perfectly alright though


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (May 27, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Bit big to fit on the screen!
> 
> I dunno about the first one. The second one's really lacking in contrast. you should do something like this with it: http://wapoc.com/crap/rendog1.jpg
> 
> Whatever's off to the left looks a bit more interesting so I probably would have left out that taller building on the right and included some of that. It's perfectly alright though



Cheers!  I'm just getting back into taking pics after ages of hardly taking any, so it's good to get some feedback...


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 27, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> No comment on either of my pics?



either? i only saw one of your pics "some trees growing in the water on the side of a lake" i like the composition of the shot, though it looks a little under exposed to me


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 27, 2006)

Savage Henry said:
			
		

> http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/4d1fa620.jpg
> 
> http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j162/sav_henry/DSC01583.jpg
> 
> both taken on a beach in wales , I'm quite pleased with most of the photos I took that day actually !



That first one makes me think 'hippos in the mist'.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 27, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Bit big to fit on the screen!
> 
> I dunno about the first one. The second one's really lacking in contrast. you should do something like this with it: http://wapoc.com/crap/rendog1.jpg
> 
> Whatever's off to the left looks a bit more interesting so I probably would have left out that taller building on the right and included some of that. It's perfectly alright though



I like that photo. The only criticism I'd make of it is that the trees in the centre are a bit overexposed: it's too bad you couldn't have gotten a little more detail in that part of the pic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 27, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Nice, I like the perspective of the first one. There's a guy somewhere that does long night exposures of beaches and they are utterly amazing
> 
> *digs out link*
> 
> ...



Nice, especially 2 and 3. Did you fuck around with them on photoshop?


----------



## boskysquelch (May 27, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nice, especially 2 and 3. Did you fuck around with them on photoshop?



...they aren't'ers Joanie... 

*look at the site...there are Links and Abouts and everyting.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 27, 2006)

A few of my favourite photos I took during the G8 protests

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/58156251

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/46160485

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/46160484

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/58154408


----------



## xes (May 28, 2006)

I'm no photographer,but I thought a couple of pictures that I took last week in Dorset came out quite nice. (took on my phone)

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/1267/dsc001210no.jpg 
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7766/dsc001264ty.jpg
http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6258/dsc001279yf.jpg


----------



## Derian (May 28, 2006)

Is that Chesil Beach, xes?


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 28, 2006)

xes said:
			
		

> I'm no photographer,but I thought a couple of pictures that I took last week in Dorset came out quite nice. (took on my phone)
> 
> http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/1267/dsc001210no.jpg
> http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/7766/dsc001264ty.jpg
> http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/6258/dsc001279yf.jpg



you've got a good eye for composition XES i like that second shot very much


----------



## Vintage Paw (May 29, 2006)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> Johnny Canuck2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed.  Oh if I could produce something like wot he does *sigh*


----------



## xes (May 29, 2006)

Derian said:
			
		

> Is that Chesil Beach, xes?


very close Photo 1 is at west bay and the other 2 were from Hive Beach,which is just a stones throw away.


----------



## xes (May 29, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> you've got a good eye for composition XES i like that second shot very much


fank you


----------



## silver (May 29, 2006)

I took this in Barcelona last summer 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b84/shellybeard/Barcelona%202005/DSCF0136.jpg


----------



## Derian (May 29, 2006)

xes said:
			
		

> very close Photo 1 is at west bay and the other 2 were from Hive Beach,which is just a stones throw away.



The first one especially is very


----------



## xes (May 30, 2006)

Cheers Derian,might have to be all arty and do a few more phone snaps


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 3, 2006)

I think I palled off my best very photo today out of 148

back to the future  

edit: 
water heaters on an gran size


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jun 4, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> I think I palled off my best very photo today out of 148
> 
> back to the future




Very nice. Reminds me a bit of Jim Cooke's 'Engineerum' B&W photos.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 7, 2006)

Three I took over the weekend. First one is from the old rundown Liberal Club over the road from where I live, the other two from Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire.


http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/61280008

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/61278748

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/61278746


----------



## mauvais (Jun 8, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Three I took over the weekend. First one is from the old rundown Liberal Club over the road from where I live, the other two from Fountains Abbey in North Yorkshire.
> 
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/61280008
> ...


These are all ace. The second is maybe very slightly misaligned which might detract from it a little. The third, with the cross, is fantastic. Did you set up the cross?

Here's two of mine I took today:

http://wapoc.com/web/salford/salford5.jpg

http://wapoc.com/web/salford/salford7.jpg

The whole lot (11) are at http://wapoc.com/web/salford/


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 10, 2006)

Cheers Mauvais. No the cross was there already, not sure why though as ive been before and its not been.

Like the one of the bird on the tyres, its a good shot


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 14, 2006)

spred your wings mauvais salford5.jpg


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 14, 2006)

I was in chester 2 weeks ago just taking random shots of the crowds, later when looking at my images noticed these people, bit annoyed about the foot in the bottom left but can't crop it out without slicing into the guy
http://static.flickr.com/57/164786284_6be7d06e0c_o.jpg


----------



## elcuadroentero (Jun 14, 2006)

See what you mean about the foot...!
Maybe crop closer to the bloke's shoulder, losing the railing & half the foot, then clone the rest of the foot out?

I like it!
The couple look decidedly 'shady'.


----------



## Ging (Jun 15, 2006)

I like it better in colour, nice angle


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 15, 2006)

elcuadroentero said:
			
		

> I like it!
> The couple look decidedly 'shady'.


Thanks, i know what you mean it reminds me of the black and white picture behind the bar in the movie "The Shining"


----------



## kerb (Jun 15, 2006)

just started night photography. heres a few that i took last night when i was fairly drunk. these are roughly one minute exposures, at 16 aperture i think. my camera only goes up to thirty seconds so was using the stopwatch on my mobile to give me a guide. 

does it show?


----------



## mauvais (Jun 16, 2006)

Exposure's good and sharp, composition's a bit off. The lit subjects seem a bit like an afterthought, as there's not fully in the frame. You should have got more of them and less of the dark space.

Here's one from me to keep things plodding along: Typewriter


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 16, 2006)

posting these links in this thread instead of staring a new one just to ask do you think these images are under-saturated and look washed out? The reason i'm asking here is I've posted them on the dpreview forums and the posters there said they did, don't know if it's my monitor but they look ok to me, admittedly not as bright as some of the images i've seen but certainley not what i'd call under-saturated 
http://static.flickr.com/76/164847428_c92be2c17d_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/49/164836291_c3c86f5d81_o.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/76/164836287_f470191195_o.jpg


----------



## mauvais (Jun 16, 2006)

Not saturation, no. They look like they just came straight out of any average camera though. You need more contrast or something. Play with curves a little.


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 17, 2006)

edit: 2 post


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 17, 2006)

I don't have a flashy camera :  

but I do know  If the subjet is tall trun camera Portrate thay way you not cut bits off top & bottom  

164847428_c92be2c17d_o.jpg


----------



## Firky (Jun 18, 2006)

I had a couple of hours to kill yesterday afternoon so I went for a wander around the British Museum as I aint been there since Christ was a kid. Here's a couple of shots.

Whisper. 

Monster.

Snap.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 21, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I had a couple of hours to kill yesterday afternoon so I went for a wander around the British Museum as I aint been there since Christ was a kid. Here's a couple of shots.
> 
> Whisper.
> 
> ...


I like Whisper, but not the weird colours. They could grow on me though.

Monster's ace as it is, but I'm not keen on Snap. I can see why you took it, and why lots of people will like it, but it's just not really my thing. Maybe a tighter/square crop?


----------



## mauvais (Jun 21, 2006)

Here's one of mine, my favourite shot for ages, if ever: Sandstorm. Possibly more later.


----------



## Firky (Jun 21, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's one of mine, my favourite shot for ages, if ever: Sandstorm. Possibly more later.



hehe, i like that - pity about the structure in the background.

the colours on whisper, i like - its cross processed agfa film kinda stylee, I'm not keen on Snap either, but I thought it made quite as good Paul Russel stylee shot 

http://www.alienskin.com/exposure/index.html 



> Exposure brings the look and feel of film to digital photography. Simulate the warmth and softness of real world film, both color and black and white. Reproduce realistic film grain, and simplify your digital photography workflow.
> 
> You can now digitally simulate the vivid colors of Velvia(r), the rich blacks of Kodachrome(r), the sensitivity of Ektachrome(r), and the characteristics of dozens of other film stocks. Exposure also models the size, shape, and color of real world film grain. Use this level of subtle reproduction to simulate the distinct looks of films such as Ilford(r) 3200 Delta and long discontinued Ektachrome EES and GAF(r) 500.


----------



## portman (Jun 24, 2006)

*One from Ghent.....*

Here's an image I took on a visit to Ghent (Belgium) at the end of May...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/gent06_33.html

The conditions were changeable with bright patches accompanied by the odd brief but forceful shower. Which meant diving into cafes and bars every now and then to keep dry but hey, there could be worse ways of passing the time! However, the weather did provide some interesting light which I hope I captured in this shot... 

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 25, 2006)

My friend was wearing some really outrageous shoes, so I asked if I could take a photo of her feet.  This is one of the results 

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v470/loulou777/?action=view&current=coolshoes.jpg

It was a lot of fun as she has about a million pairs of shoes so I ended up taking loads of photos of her feet, which I think boosted her confidence as she's feeling a bit down after a break up.  

Feet are great 

edited to add, I cropped it and added some glow


----------



## Firky (Jun 25, 2006)

i hate feet, but that is quite a good photo... nice shoes to


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 25, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> i hate feet, but that is quite a good photo... nice shoes to



why thank you. 

All women, even if they don't like feet, understand that shoes are very important   

I'm very pleased with it.  The original is very high res, poster size in fact, I thought it best, just in case we needed any posters of feet.  As you sometimes do.


----------



## Firky (Jun 25, 2006)

Some perv will buy feet posters one ebay, I'd put money on it!

(i'm not a girl as you well know, but I do like girls things  )


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 25, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Some perv will buy feet posters one ebay, I'd put money on it!
> 
> (i'm not a girl as you well know, but I do like girls things  )



Selling posters of feet on ebay! 

I don't think so. 


My friend is an artist and has a different and rather fun idea about what she would like to do with the photos and I think it's very amusing, potentially lucrative and would be a laugh to do. 

Can't say what it is tho as am sworn to secrecy.


----------



## Firky (Jun 26, 2006)

I Can guess... (you filthy minx) 

Hope it goes well for you one way or another


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 26, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Here's an image I took on a visit to Ghent (Belgium) at the end of May...
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/gent06_33.html
> 
> ...



Great light. It would be interesting to see what this would look like in black and white.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 26, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I had a couple of hours to kill yesterday afternoon so I went for a wander around the British Museum as I aint been there since Christ was a kid. Here's a couple of shots.
> 
> Whisper.
> 
> ...



I think I like whisper best.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 26, 2006)

I don't think these photos are of high critical quality, but I like them anyway.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/6ad0e03d.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/4adf75ef.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/9da81780.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/4211b663.jpg


----------



## Louloubelle (Jun 26, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Nice, I like the perspective of the first one. There's a guy somewhere that does long night exposures of beaches and they are utterly amazing
> 
> *digs out link*
> 
> ...



I love these especially the 2nd 2
fabulous  

I've only recently discivered this thread so will be expressing my appreciation from time to time by checking out random photos


----------



## Firky (Jun 26, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I don't think these photos are of high critical quality, but I like them anyway.



Is that Granville Island?


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 26, 2006)

The round window

Walkway

Taken this saturday 24th


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 26, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Is that Granville Island?



No, it's the Richmond Night Market.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 26, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> The round window
> 
> Walkway
> 
> Taken this saturday 24th



I like the first one


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jun 26, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> The round window
> 
> Walkway
> 
> Taken this saturday 24th



I like the 1st one too, did you overexpose a lttle? nice effect


----------



## dlx1 (Jun 26, 2006)

not to happy about image a bit to dark. when were could see more of brick work getting hit by the light.  The light was flooding in when I took shot.

Setting was auto 
photoshop: frame & dpi only 

thanks


----------



## Negativland (Jun 26, 2006)

Messing around with one of my mam's potplants in te sunlight

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8747/15aa2.jpg
http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/6899/24de3.jpg
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2154/31mx.jpg

I like the interaction between flowers and shadows on 2 and 3, but I dislike the effect of out of focus areas, in closeups particularly.


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jun 26, 2006)

A couple i took a while back, never really happy with either of them but such is life:
http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9739/collected007large7by.jpg

http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/3046/collected009large8rp.jpg

Changed to links.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Jun 27, 2006)

Deleted, because I don't think this is the right thread for me to post my photos on!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 27, 2006)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> A couple i took a while back, never really happy with either of them but such is life:
> http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9739/collected007large7by.jpg
> 
> http://img479.imageshack.us/img479/3046/collected009large8rp.jpg
> ...



Nice effort I just think you've got the silhouette in the wrong place in the photo and there isn't enough of him/her.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Jun 27, 2006)

Here's one that makes me smile, taken up in North Yorkshire.

Moooooooo!

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/61279203


----------



## Bob_the_lost (Jun 27, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Nice effort I just think you've got the silhouette in the wrong place in the photo and there isn't enough of him/her.


Yeah, it was a brilliant opportunity, that never quite worked the way i wanted it to.

(I blame my models)


----------



## undercover (Jun 27, 2006)

Taken on the stairway on the way to the top of Leith Hill Tower in Surrey - 





Bigger pic here

The bloke taking this one isn't me, as I'm surely not going as thin up front - 





Not sure I want anyone to get a bigger version of that one....


----------



## mauvais (Jun 27, 2006)

Bob_the_lost said:
			
		

> A couple i took a while back, never really happy with either of them but such is life:
> http://img224.imageshack.us/img224/9739/collected007large7by.jpg


I think this is great, but it needs a better crop. Maybe a thin wide one to cut out the top and bottom and a little on the left. It's simply not a strong/big enough subject at the minute, in all that space, but it's a top photo.

The second one's OK but try a high contrast B&W one instead maybe, and again play with crops, probably beyond the standard ratios.


----------



## portman (Jun 30, 2006)

*...and here it is!*




			
				Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Great light. It would be interesting to see what this would look like in black and white.



Better late than never! I did produce quite a few black and white images from this trip but for some unfathomable reason, I didn't do one for this particular shot. Anyway, I gave it a go and have to admit, I now prefer the monochrome version to the colour one.

So here it is...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/gent06_33BW.html

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jun 30, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Better late than never! I did produce quite a few black and white images from this trip but for some unfathomable reason, I didn't do one for this particular shot. Anyway, I gave it a go and have to admit, I now prefer the monochrome version to the colour one.
> 
> So here it is...
> 
> ...




It's not bad, a bit dark. I think in this instance, the colour works better.


----------



## portman (Jul 1, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's not bad, a bit dark. I think in this instance, the colour works better.



Mmmm, getting mixed reviews on this one here and on another forum...

When I took this shot, the light was wierd to say the least. Above me was clear blue sky, going further away were white clouds then a fair size storm cloud in the distance. So deciding on exposure for this was a bit tricky to say the least! What I did,'t want to do was overexpose and burn out the white cloud completely, yet I was struggling to get enough definition and contrast in the buildings. Given that it was a stormy day, I was going for a darkish, moody feel to the image. 

I know I could have adjusted the sky in Photoshop but being me, I like to get things right on camera!

As for the storm cloud in the background, it caught up with us on the final leg of a guided boat tour around the canals!!

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jul 2, 2006)

Took this shot on friday in Liverpool and made a Black & White version too, can't decide which one i like best, any opinion?
http://static.flickr.com/59/179828291_a1b24680df_o.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/52/179828289_69c771df28_o.jpg


----------



## portman (Jul 2, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Took this shot on friday in Liverpool and made a Black & White version too, can't decide which one i like best, any opinion?
> http://static.flickr.com/59/179828291_a1b24680df_o.jpg
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/52/179828289_69c771df28_o.jpg



Normally I prefer mono but in this case I think the colour shot is more effective. This is because the colours are very muted apart from what looks like a reverse red tick in the corner. Not quite sure of the significance of it but it adds an interesting bit of contrast to the image! Overall, an interesting piece of documentary photography.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## portman (Jul 3, 2006)

*Thurrock 'sculpture trail'*

Actually it's a shot of a burnt out rusting car wreck in what passes for countryside in Thurrock (Essex bank of the Thames estuary). With the council barely able or unwilling to clear up burnt out cars, us locals have dubbed these wrecks the 'Thurrock sculpture trail'. Hence my attempt to create a slightly 'arty' image.

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/SW14804d.html

Anyway, see what you think....

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Firky (Jul 4, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Actually it's a shot of a burnt out rusting car wreck in what passes for countryside in Thurrock (Essex bank of the Thames estuary). With the council barely able or unwilling to clear up burnt out cars, us locals have dubbed these wrecks the 'Thurrock sculpture trail'. Hence my attempt to create a slightly 'arty' image.
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/SW14804d.html
> 
> ...



Quite like it but I feel it could be framed better, there's too much going on down the bottom of the photo and the angle is slighy off centre. I think it would work better if it was cropped tighter and the weed on the right hand side taken out of the shot.


----------



## Chorlton (Jul 4, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Took this shot on friday in Liverpool and made a Black & White version too, can't decide which one i like best, any opinion?
> http://static.flickr.com/59/179828291_a1b24680df_o.jpg
> 
> http://static.flickr.com/52/179828289_69c771df28_o.jpg




its an odd framing - why so much space at the top when there is obviously more rat / laser below. I also think its a little flat - i would B&W and mess with shadows and contrast


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jul 4, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> its an odd framing - why so much space at the top when there is obviously more rat / laser below. I also think its a little flat - i would B&W and mess with shadows and contrast



no the image cuts off at the bottom, but yeah i could have used a tighter crop. How can i get shadows from a flat wall ? BTW thanks for the comments


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Jul 4, 2006)

Emanuel


----------



## portman (Jul 4, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Quite like it but I feel it could be framed better, there's too much going on down the bottom of the photo and the angle is slighy off centre. I think it would work better if it was cropped tighter and the weed on the right hand side taken out of the shot.



Looking at the image again (must have taken it at least three years ago!), I tend to agree about the weed on the right. I should have swung the camera slightly to the left - don't know why I didn't to be honest! It was one of those shots that sits uneasily between straight documentary and trying to create something a bit different and slightly missed out on both objectives. 

Anyway, here's a closer crop of the burnt out wreck...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/SW14804g.html

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 4, 2006)

GuerillaPhoto said:
			
		

> Emanuel...



Nice adventurous angles. I like photographers who are not afraid to get down and dirty  

Interesting take on a very old subject. I remember back in the early 80's every photography magazine seemed to feature pics of grave yards shot in infrared every week. Nice but, to much old hat.

Now it seems graveyards manipulated in PhotoShop are all the rage. The first image is by far the best to me. Much prefer natural B&W in these circumstances. Graveyards are made for glorious tones in B&W. Effects just seem to be wrong and a bit 'goth with dayglo eyeshadow' to me.

They're good though.


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 4, 2006)

GuerillaPhoto is that Arnos Vale Cemetery ?

I like the yikprq.jpg (2nd down)  but frame has cut top of spike off. still


----------



## Firky (Jul 5, 2006)

Meh, this one is about four or five years old and was taken in the Hemp Hotel in Amsterdam on New Years Day, but I still like it. 

Hemp Hotel


----------



## Chorlton (Jul 18, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Meh, this one is about four or five years old and was taken in the Hemp Hotel in Amsterdam on New Years Day, but I still like it.
> 
> Hemp Hotel



no critism just to say that i do like that a lot....


last night i was looking at a photoblog of a lady who posts up a picture a day from her daily walk - i forget the name of the site, and i thought that is probably what i should be looking at doing, so i attempted some macro photography - now i don't have a macro zoom, just the 18-70mm that my d70 came with - but i had a few stabs at it this morning when i walked the dog - anyone got any advice about what sort of things i should be looking to do (aside from buy a lens, i can't afford it!)

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/2133/dsc0032759099be5.jpg

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9162/dsc0006dk3.jpg


----------



## Jangla (Jul 18, 2006)

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1268/16072006071df3.jpg

Taken this weekend just gone on a Nokia N80  

Absolutely no post production on it yet though.


----------



## Balbi (Jul 18, 2006)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v433/profiterole/Picture052.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v433/profiterole/Picture048.jpg

 taken while walking the dog


----------



## portman (Jul 18, 2006)

*Pylonscape...and a nature reserve*

We don't have much 'conventional' countryside alonside the Thames in Thurrock - it's more a collection of burnt out car wrecks, landfill sites, huge amounts of brownfield, all of which are straddled by plenty of these:

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/essex_countryside.html

Yet in the midst of all this we have a nature reserve with plenty of this:

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/May0106PR_04BW.html

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## portman (Jul 21, 2006)

*Which way to go?*

Taken last October in Amsterdam outside the Grey Area coffee shop. Poses an interesting dilemma - see what you think...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/AmsterdamOct05_17.html

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Brighton23 (Jul 25, 2006)

*Phone pics*

Went for a walk up the local headland yesterday eve after work, Shpongle in the headphones and just had to take a couple of pics on my phone. Much kudos to anyone who recognises...

First:





A little later:





Camera phone quality constantly surprises me! Anyone got a K800i yet? Thinking of an upgrade.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jul 25, 2006)

> Much kudos to anyone who recognises...



Kudos comes free to the people of East Sussex. I know where it is but, I don't want any kudos.

I quite like the first image despite it's low technical quality. Not so sure about the second. Interesting effect and colours but, does nothing for me in any other way.


----------



## Addy (Jul 26, 2006)

Last night in the Midlands...






Raw to jpg, noise removed and slight colour adjustment.

Full size


----------



## portman (Jul 26, 2006)

Brighton23 said:
			
		

> Went for a walk up the local headland yesterday eve after work, Shpongle in the headphones and just had to take a couple of pics on my phone. Much kudos to anyone who recognises...
> 
> Camera phone quality constantly surprises me! Anyone got a K800i yet? Thinking of an upgrade.



Good quality for a camera phone - just out of interest, how many megapixels is it? Liked both images but thought the first was marginally the better. Second was spoilt by the horizon being slightly on the wonk. Picky, I know but getting straight horizons is a bit of an obsession for me. As for location, I think it's the Seaford side of Newhaven.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Brighton23 (Jul 26, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Good quality for a camera phone - just out of interest, how many megapixels is it? Liked both images but thought the first was marginally the better. Second was spoilt by the horizon being slightly on the wonk. Picky, I know but getting straight horizons is a bit of an obsession for me. As for location, I think it's the Seaford side of Newhaven.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave



Thanks Dave. It's a 2mp Sony K750. Agreed the first is better. I'm no photographer (although would love to know more about it) but felt inspired after jogging up the head. You're right; Seaford Head near the tee for the 18th hole. Am tempted to head up there now but think I may get fried by the lightning


----------



## dlx1 (Jul 31, 2006)

web n light
Bird hide by Shrinking lake
Gentle wind


----------



## dada (Jul 31, 2006)

really like 'bird hide by shrinking lake'
the window itself creates a natural frame of the scenery.


----------



## Firky (Aug 1, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Bird hide by Shrinking lake



I like this one. Reminds me of playing in WW2 pillar boxes as a kid. Just need a stick for a machine gun


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 1, 2006)

come fly


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 2, 2006)

dada said:
			
		

> really like 'bird hide by shrinking lake'
> the window itself creates a natural frame of the scenery.



I was gonna say that   Great natural Cropping effect


----------



## portman (Aug 2, 2006)

I really liked 'bird hide by a shrinking lake', particularly the way the window of the hide has been used as a frame but leaving just a hint of detail inside of the side. Interesting the way the whole emphasis is on horizontals (sort of!) and long, stretched blocks of colour. Almost verging on the abstract...

I thought the starkness of 'gentle wind' had an appeal but IMHO, it would work better as a monochrome image. The blue of the sky is possibly a bit of a distraction.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 4, 2006)

Trip photo.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/be8b8063.jpg


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 4, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> last night i was looking at a photoblog of a lady who posts up a picture a day from her daily walk - i forget the name of the site



Diane Varner? http://www.dianevarner.com/

Very nice shots.


----------



## portman (Aug 4, 2006)

*Rural delights...not!*

Taken on a stroll through what passes for countryside on the Essex bank of the Thames estuary...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/close_up_of_grid.html

Originally shot in colour but converted into b/w in Photoshop - minimal tweaking to bump up the tonal contrast, then dumped the colour...

All comments welcome.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 4, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Taken on a stroll through what passes for countryside on the Essex bank of the Thames estuary...
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/close_up_of_grid.html
> 
> ...



I like the composition - definitely a go-er in b/w. I would have prefered shallower deapth of field - with the focus either on the front pylon or the next one, with the others out of focus - I think it would have made a stronger shot. Very nice though.


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 4, 2006)

Vintage Paw


> dianevarner.com


.

thanks for posting url. V  Sharp images 
_
still saving for D50 not long now £320 in envelope  _


----------



## Ravzila (Aug 11, 2006)

What do you fine fellows think of this long exposure effort?


----------



## Firky (Aug 11, 2006)

Ravzila said:
			
		

> What do you fine fellows think of this long exposure effort?



Not bad, I'd of put the smooth cobbles sweeping into the bottom right and tried to of removed the lights on the right too, perhaps a little more DoF. 

Here's a long exposure I did tonight... may enter it in the photocomp, I dunno.


----------



## Ravzila (Aug 12, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Not bad, I'd of put the smooth cobbles sweeping into the bottom right and tried to of removed the lights on the right too, perhaps a little more DoF.
> 
> Here's a long exposure I did tonight... may enter it in the photocomp, I dunno.


This must have been really long as the clouds have gone all movey! Looks cool.


----------



## kropotkin (Aug 12, 2006)

Don't know if this is too pretentious or not...


----------



## Firky (Aug 13, 2006)

Ravzila said:
			
		

> This must have been really long as the clouds have gone all movey! Looks cool.



about 40 seconds iirc


----------



## ddraig (Aug 13, 2006)

looks like a candidate for flyer/tune cover 





why's that pretentious k?


----------



## Firky (Aug 13, 2006)

does look like flyer material, never thought of that.

Seconded, I don't think it is pretentious - a bit boring imho but not pretentious.


----------



## Firky (Aug 18, 2006)




----------



## portman (Aug 26, 2006)

*A year on the Warren...*

Just one shot in a year long project looking at the changes on a nature reserve as the seasons pass by...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/PR200806_07BW.html

This was shot in colour with a minimal amount of tweaking to the tonal values and contrast before conversion to monochrme.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## H.Dot (Aug 26, 2006)

a familiar subject, but I think it has a 1960s feel (despite being from the early 1990s): 
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/arch.jpg

south Glasgow (but I think it looks like south London  ):
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/small-southside.jpg

an early 1990s view of the City:  http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/city.jpg

Senate House: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/85dc05fe.jpg

another City view: http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/citycolour.jpg




(© h.dot 1990-2006, but you can do what you like with them lol)


----------



## H.Dot (Aug 26, 2006)

Ravzila said:
			
		

> This must have been really long as the clouds have gone all movey! Looks cool.



that would make a good record/CD  cover


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Trip photo.
> 
> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/be8b8063.jpg



I like that, quite a good photo I think 

One thing I notice in it is that there are ladders and railings.

Whenever I see ladders or railings I want to get right up close to them and take a photo that emphasises the sense of perspective by showing how the railings or steps disapear off into the distance

I've tried to do that with these photos, hopefully it'll show what I mean 

blue dumbells

dream number 47471a

Obviously I've played around with these in photoshop

You might not want to do this of course, but I just couldn't look at a machine like the one you've photographed without trying to get right up to the ladders and see what it looked like from that perspective


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2006)

H.Dot said:
			
		

> a familiar subject, but I think it has a 1960s feel (despite being from the early 1990s):
> http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/arch.jpg
> 
> south Glasgow (but I think it looks like south London  ):
> ...



I like those, especially the black and white ones.

They do look very 1960s don't they?
How did you manage that, is it some special 1960s filter or something?


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

>



I really like this one a lot

I like the contrast between the blue and the red, the sharp and the soft, the linear and the curved. 

Quite a sexy picture in a way, it has an exciting combination of male and female elements 

*sorry, can't help my freudian influenced training lol*


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> I like that, quite a good photo I think
> 
> One thing I notice in it is that there are ladders and railings.
> 
> ...



I llike both of those. Sometime colour addition can be really over the top, but these work, imo. The good thing about the dumbbells, is that it takes an ordinary scene, and invests it with almost a supernatural feeling.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I llike both of those. Sometime colour addition can be really over the top, but these work, imo. The good thing about the dumbbells, is that it takes an ordinary scene, and invests it with almost a supernatural feeling.



Thanks 
To be honest I'm not 100% happy with the colour in the dumbells, but I'm just playing around with learning about channel mixing on PS2 so am allowing myself some outrageously loud colours  

Where is that (I assume it's some kind of cable car thing) that you photographed?

Is it near to you?  Is it something you can get close to or only from a distance?

It's the sort of structure that would have me excitedly climbing all over it with a camera if it was anywhere near me.  

A big house near to me collapsed the other day.  It is an amazing looking thing now as you can see right through the windows all the way through to the other side.  I was going to photograph it the day it happened but it was a bit dark and there were police and ambulances there and the next day there were hoardings up all round it. 

I might see if I can just sneak past the hoardings (obviously I'll keep safe and not actually touch or go into the building) and see if I can get a decent photo. 

For some reason, at the moment, I just keep on seeing cool stuff to photograph and I'm finding it very exciting.


----------



## portman (Aug 26, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> dream number 47471a
> 
> Obviously I've played around with these in photoshop



I really liked this one - and I don't normally go for images that have had a lot of Photoshop work done to them. However, with this one, you've got it spot on. It conveys a strange, dreamlike atmosphere with just a hint of underlying unease to it. Just out of interest, where was it taken? For some strange reason, Holland Park springs to mind but I could be way off...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> I really liked this one - and I don't normally go for images that have had a lot of Photoshop work done to them. However, with this one, you've got it spot on. It conveys a strange, dreamlike atmosphere with just a hint of underlying unease to it. Just out of interest, where was it taken? For some strange reason, Holland Park springs to mind but I could be way off...
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave



Taken at possibly the most beautiful location in London
The Hill Garden, Hampstead 

http://www.ukattraction.com/london/the-hill-garden-and-pergola.htm

I almost don't want to say as, surprisingly, there are very few good photos of the place on line

Best time to visit is late spring as the pergola is covered in wisteria then

I went yesterday around dusk and the plants had clearly suffered from the drought, which is partly why I played around with the levels to give it some colour.


----------



## portman (Aug 27, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> Taken at possibly the most beautiful location in London
> The Hill Garden, Hampstead
> 
> http://www.ukattraction.com/london/the-hill-garden-and-pergola.htm
> ...



Yup, I was way off - right side of the river and that was about it! 

As for the time of day the shot was taken, at dusk, the shadows certainly gave the image some atmosphere...


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 27, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Yup, I was way off - right side of the river and that was about it!
> 
> As for the time of day the shot was taken, at dusk, the shadows certainly gave the image some atmosphere...



If I'm planning a shoot at a beautiful location I always try to do it on a sunny day during in either the first 2 -3 or last 2 -3 hours of the day as the light and shadows are the most beautiful then.  Nothing like evertyhign being bathed in early / late light, sometimes it makes things look like they're animated with a fiery light that you just don't see at other times. And the shadows I love shadows I do.


----------



## H.Dot (Aug 27, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> I like those, especially the black and white ones.
> 
> They do look very 1960s don't they?
> How did you manage that, is it some special 1960s filter or something?



thanks. 

lol, no filters.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

OK

Here's another one 

vine of dreams


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> OK
> 
> Here's another one
> 
> vine of dreams



I like it: I'm going to have to learn how to use Photoshop.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I like it: I'm going to have to learn how to use Photoshop.



good plan  
that and the ladder / railings perpective thing and you'll be sorted  

you've got some amazing locations in Canada, I imagine you will create some stunning images once you get into it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> good plan
> that and the ladder / railings perpective thing and you'll be sorted
> 
> you've got some amazing locations in Canada, I imagine you will create some stunning images once you get into it



Yep, the country is one big photo opportunity.

The thing about what you've done, is not just a technical alteration, but one that imparts a particular feel to the photo. It's that moody, sureal edge that I like.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yep, the country is one big photo opportunity.
> 
> The thing about what you've done, is not just a technical alteration, but one that imparts a particular feel to the photo. It's that moody, sureal edge that I like.



Thanks

TBH it's partly being blessed with a great location.  If you don't have some kind of decent location it's hard to work from there.

The moody, surreal feeling is I think a lot due to the perspective.  If you are a child then you see things from further down, so I spend a lot of time crawling around on floor trying to get a decent 'mini cameraman' shot. They do that in ghost and horror films too, either have the camera low down or have something hanging overhead.  It gives a slight feeling of unease and vulnerability that you don't get from say big skies.  I think it also reminds you unconsciously of being little and also possibly even invokes an ancestral memory of what it might feel like to be at risk of being attacked by a predator from above. 

This might all be bollix of course. LOL

I believe it though, and I've learned what it's like to leave home feeling clean and fresh and return covered in dirt.  Taking photos is like making luuurve to a beautiful woman, you have to be prepared to get down and get dirteee! LOL
I've only recently got a decent camera and photoshop and I feel I've learned a lot recently in a short space of time.  I still don't know how to use most of the functions on my camera and photoshop, so hopefully I'll get much better soon too.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

Just one more before I go to bed 

I Believe I can Fly!


----------



## H.Dot (Aug 28, 2006)

nothing at all exciting, but this is my first-ever photograph with my first-ever digital camera, taken yesterday...

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/soundsystem-1.jpg


----------



## portman (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> If I'm planning a shoot at a beautiful location I always try to do it on a sunny day during in either the first 2 -3 or last 2 -3 hours of the day as the light and shadows are the most beautiful then.  Nothing like evertyhign being bathed in early / late light, sometimes it makes things look like they're animated with a fiery light that you just don't see at other times. And the shadows I love shadows I do.



Couldn't manage the early morning - do enough of that during the week commuting to work! I do like the last few hours of daylight, particularly on a bright crisp, winters day. Especially in a coastal or estuary location. The photographs I've produced that I would count as my favourites have been shot in winter, late in the afternoon down at Leigh-on-Sea or the seawall at Stanford-le-Hope.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Couldn't manage the early morning - do enough of that during the week commuting to work! I do like the last few hours of daylight, particularly on a bright crisp, winters day. Especially in a coastal or estuary location. The photographs I've produced that I would count as my favourites have been shot in winter, late in the afternoon down at Leigh-on-Sea or the seawall at Stanford-le-Hope.




I agree, during the colder months the sun seems to be lower in the sky for longer so you get better shadows and also you get the best sunsets in November IME


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2006)

just for info in case snyone else wants to visit (not happy with this due to the blue halo) 
another shot of the Hill Garden, this is the view from the pergola 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/loulou777/HillGardenviewfrompergola.jpg
edited to ask

can anyone advise me how that blue halo happened and if there's anything I can do to lose it?

ta


----------



## jeff_leigh (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> can anyone advise me how that blue halo happened and if there's anything I can do to lose it?
> ta



you mean that blue washy bit at the top? Thats usually caused by by either too much saturation or a applying a darken blending mode on a washed out  sky


----------



## portman (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> just for info in case snyone else wants to visit (not happy with this due to the blue halo)
> another shot of the Hill Garden, this is the view from the pergola
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/loulou777/HillGardenviewfrompergola.jpg
> ...



Looks a bit like fringeing - can happen on some cameras when shooting towards a light source. When it occurs on an image I've shot, I generally go to the Hue & Saturation menu, go to whatever colour is featuring in the fringeing (blue in this case, but you can check by pulling the slider to saturate), and then pull the slider towards desaturate until it starts to disappear. Well, it doesn't actually disappear as such but changes to monochrome and is less noticeable. However, I'm not sure how successful it would be on this image as there is blue and cyan in the sky. Not a perfect method but one I found by trial and error - if anyone has a better method, do let us know...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## portman (Aug 28, 2006)

Here's a couple I shot yesterday on a day trip over to Belgium.

The first was taken while the ferry was still in Dover harbour - it's a close up of the jetty opposite. Mainly an exercise in abstraction with some emphasis on texture...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Channel27806_01.html

Minimal tweaking in PS - slightly upped the saturation and bumped up the contrast a tad.

The second was shot on the return journey when the weather had started to get a bit frisky!

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Channel27806_06.html

Again, minimal tweaking in PS - straightening the horizon being the obvious change!

Any comments or constructive criticism are welcome...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> Thanks
> 
> TBH it's partly being blessed with a great location.  If you don't have some kind of decent location it's hard to work from there.
> 
> ...


I think the surreal feeling comes from how you see things, not from tricks of the camera. It's your eye that can spot those kinds of shots.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/92273dd5.jpg


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> Just one more before I go to bed
> 
> I Believe I can Fly!


Gorgeous.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> just for info in case snyone else wants to visit (not happy with this due to the blue halo)
> another shot of the Hill Garden, this is the view from the pergola
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v470/loulou777/HillGardenviewfrompergola.jpg
> ...



Maxfield Parrish


----------



## Firky (Aug 28, 2006)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

I like #1 best. I like the chocolate feel of #2. I like #4 least; it feels gimmicky to me.


----------



## Firky (Aug 28, 2006)

'choclate' hehe i like, i also like number 1 - wasn't really taking photos because it was 4am pissed... the last one is gimmicky, trying to make ghosts with cesare


----------



## portman (Aug 28, 2006)

The fourth one down from the ground level point of view works the best for me. Has just the right amount of edginess. However, would like to see how it works in monochrome...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 28, 2006)

Well, I'm a bit nervous venturing in here, 'cos you're all rather good. Here we go though. 

Three recent landscapes, two from today's set. Lots of PP, curves to bring up earth tones mostly. I was trying to get the look of some oil paintings I like.

Then one from a couple of weeks ago. No fiddling about that I can recall. 

Anglers

Organic

River Dee saltmarsh and Welsh Coast from Parkgate


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a bit nervous venturing in here, 'cos you're all rather good. Here we go though.
> 
> Three recent landscapes, two from today's set. Lots of PP, curves to bring up earth tones mostly. I was trying to get the look of some oil paintings I like.
> 
> ...



I like #3. 1 is a bit out of focus.

Another thing you might try is taking the same photos early or late in the day, when the sun isn't directly overhead.


----------



## Firky (Aug 28, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, I'm a bit nervous venturing in here, 'cos you're all rather good. Here we go though.
> 
> Three recent landscapes, two from today's set. Lots of PP, curves to bring up earth tones mostly. I was trying to get the look of some oil paintings I like.
> 
> ...



I like that one, very chocolate box


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 28, 2006)

RS: Heh, well you know I like to photograph roses & kittens and stuff. I'm sure I'll grow up one day. 

JC: I was kind of stuck with glaring bright light on the first two, but I know what you mean. The light was a lot softer for the third one. When I'm taking pictures of my roses and stuff, I do a lot of the focussing manually, but today I was trying out auto-focus-for-idiots mode, so that and hand holding is probably why they're a bit soft.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Heh, well you know I like to photograph roses & kittens and stuff. I'm sure I'll grow up one day. I was kind of stuck with glaring bright light on the first two, but I know what you mean. The light was a lot softer for the third one.



Ultimately, it all boils down to personal preference. I like the 'sweet light' of evening best. Usually, I'm not up at dawn for that light.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 28, 2006)

I found the harsh light quite fun in some of the others in that set. 

The ones with tents and awnings and stuff to pick up the strong light, or ones with space for shadows to do fun things. 

This is a bit of an adventure for me because I'm normally crawling about in my garden. I really quite enjoyed trying something different in todays set.


----------



## Firky (Aug 28, 2006)

Really like the one of the dude in the teddy bear costume


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 28, 2006)

I couldn't resist taking one of him. This guy I knew spent months on the run from psycho drug dealers disguised as one of those. He'd busk with a banjo to survive. As time wore on the bear costume became a bit insanitary. That bear reminded me a bit of him, only it is clearly better fed and a lot jollier looking.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 28, 2006)

I think my favourite is this


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I think my favourite is this



I like this one:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Local Produce for Local People/DSC_0057.jpg


----------



## portman (Aug 29, 2006)

Two more from the weekend trip to Belgium...

First off is this one leaning over the side shot almost straight into the sun...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Channel27806_02.html

Second is the Belfort in Brugge...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Brugge27806_11BW.html

(It doesn't lean over like this, I shot it at an angle!) 

Any comments welcome...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## portman (Aug 29, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> ...River Dee saltmarsh and Welsh Coast from Parkgate



I liked this one best out of the three. Captured the wide open feel of the estuary perfectly. However, would be interested to see an evening or early morning shot from the same vantage point to see how the changed light alters the feel of the location. Just out of interest, was the grassland mudflat or beach at one point? The reason I ask is that the road on the left has every appearance of being a promenade that has been abandoned by the beach!

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Mungy (Aug 29, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> I liked this one best out of the three. Captured the wide open feel of the estuary perfectly. However, would be interested to see an evening or early morning shot from the same vantage point to see how the changed light alters the feel of the location. Just out of interest, was the grassland mudflat or beach at one point? The reason I ask is that the road on the left has every appearance of being a promenade that has been abandoned by the beach!
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave



Here is parkgate in the 1930s






Parkgate has an interesting history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkgate,_Cheshire

I live in Neston, btw


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 29, 2006)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Gorgeous.


Thanks 

The real artist is Antony Gormley, who also created the Angel of the North 
He's the one who made the statue and put it on the building


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 29, 2006)

Mungy said:
			
		

> Here is parkgate in the 1930s
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Does the tide still come right in twice a year? 

I know it says that on wiki, but somebody was telling me recently it only really comes in properly one year out of several now.

Also, thanks to those who offered comment and criticism, much appreciated.


----------



## Mungy (Aug 30, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Does the tide still come right in twice a year?
> 
> I know it says that on wiki, but somebody was telling me recently it only really comes in properly one year out of several now.
> 
> Also, thanks to those who offered comment and criticism, much appreciated.



yeah it does. early spring and autumn i think. as for coming in properly, not sure, i've never seen it look like it did in the 1930's


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 30, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I think my favourite is this



Nice photo, to be slightly critical Id say you need to get their heads in the top third of the photo to balance it out a bit.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 30, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Two more from the weekend trip to Belgium...
> 
> First off is this one leaning over the side shot almost straight into the sun...
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Channel27806_02.html





now with that one, I would have the body of the ship a little further to the left so that it was taking up about 1/3 of the picture, as it is, with the protruding bit, it takes up a bit more.  This would have the effect of drawing the eye into the expanse of the sea, along the glimmering sunlit bit and onto the tiny boat on the horizon that you don't really notice as it is.

I would have also positioned the camera so that you got more of a perspective of the side of the ship going off into the distance, probably by moving the camera a little more to the right.  

I would also not be happy with the way that the basket looking things are cropped half way through.  I would either crop higher, of if the image isn't cropped, I would crop this one to the left and top so that the baskets disappeared and there was a thin line of sky at the top, which would also emphasise the ship on the horizon. 

I would also reduce the shadows on the ship a little bit to see better what was there.

Having said that, I love the light on the water and the glossy appearance of side of the ship that you can see. 

Please note that my comments might be complete rubbish, just my 2p worth 

I like the 2nd shot and the angle looks great IMO


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 30, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I couldn't resist taking one of him. This guy I knew spent months on the run from psycho drug dealers disguised as one of those. He'd busk with a banjo to survive. As time wore on the bear costume became a bit insanitary. That bear reminded me a bit of him, only it is clearly better fed and a lot jollier looking.



That's a great theme for a short story *makes a note*  

I like the bear shot too and the one of the people eating, it seems quintisentially English


----------



## portman (Aug 30, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> now with that one, I would have the body of the ship a little further to the left so that it was taking up about 1/3 of the picture, as it is, with the protruding bit, it takes up a bit more.  This would have the effect of drawing the eye into the expanse of the sea, along the glimmering sunlit bit and onto the tiny boat on the horizon that you don't really notice as it is.
> 
> I would have also positioned the camera so that you got more of a perspective of the side of the ship going off into the distance, probably by moving the camera a little more to the right.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the feedback, very useful. Looking at it again, I should have thought a bit more about the perspective - realised I could have done it without leaning any further over the side than I was! When I was taking the shot, my main concern was getting the horizon straight - sounds sad I know but I'm a bit obsessed with getting it right so I don't have to muck around with the rotate tool 

As for the shadows, given the camera I was using (Konica Minolta Dimage), while I get a reasonable amount of control over the exposure, I didn't have that many options available given the prevailing light conditions which were pretty bright. My main aim was to avoid total burn out on the sea towards the horizon - this meant that the parts of the ship in the shadow were going to be fairly dark. One of those situations where I had to compromise and hope the result would be halfway okay.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Cid (Aug 30, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

>



I quite like this, but the closest valve puts me off it a little - it draws the eye too much... This might be ok, but it lacks definition and has that nasty, flat look that you get from something that's close to a flash. Looks out of place when compared to the richer tones in the rest of the picture.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 30, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Nice photo, to be slightly critical Id say you need to get their heads in the top third of the photo to balance it out a bit.



I know what you mean. I played about with cropping to just the two older people on the left, but I couldn't get anything I really liked


----------



## portman (Sep 2, 2006)

*Should have been submitted to 'Angle' but...*

...I'd already submitted the three images before I shot this! Basically, an exercise in playing around with shadows (there are a few more in the pipeline that will go up on the website - eventually!).

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/los_aug06_15BW.html

Shot late afternoon with a Konica Minolta Dimage. Minimal tweaking in PS Elements to bump up the contrast a bit before converting to monochrome. Any comments or constructive criticism welcome.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## alef (Sep 2, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/los_aug06_15BW.html



It's nice. B+W is particularly good for textures, though for my tastes I think there might be too much going on. The bricks themselves and the long diagonal shadows just kind of clash in, for me, an uninteresting way. 

Also, (a particular pet peeve of mine) the watermark/signature just isn't needed. Granted that yours is fairly small and unobtrusive, but honestly I think it does more harm than good. Any pic at 72dpi just isn't worth stealing, much better to simply show your pictures without any text on them.


----------



## alef (Sep 2, 2006)

Took this shot this afternoon, Skim gave it the name "Trapped". I played about with the colours and levels a bit.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 3, 2006)

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/1617/reflectionpicresizedvr3.jpg

Here's one that some people said was quite goo


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 3, 2006)

I also think this one is a pretty stunning slice of urban scenery

http://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=viewofdalianfrompark2qr4.jpg


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 3, 2006)

A Dalian beach shot:


----------



## portman (Sep 3, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Also, (a particular pet peeve of mine) the watermark/signature just isn't needed. Granted that yours is fairly small and unobtrusive, but honestly I think it does more harm than good. Any pic at 72dpi just isn't worth stealing, much better to simply show your pictures without any text on them.



Force of habit I'm afraid - I've been slapping on the copyright statement on the images since the site started way back in 2001! Given the low res (I post them up at 100dpi), they won't get nicked for print reproduction purposes. The main worry was someone using them on another website, however, having re-read the copyright info on the site, I'm probably well covered by that. I'll try a more discreet signature for any future images going up...


----------



## twister (Sep 3, 2006)

*summer in paris*

http://static.flickr.com/84/232615930_492c775ee2_o.jpg


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 3, 2006)

twister said:
			
		

> http://static.flickr.com/84/232615930_492c775ee2_o.jpg




Very nice. I would like to see a print mind. Trouble with low light/critical exposure photographs on the web is that very few of us use a monitor calibrated to a recognised standard. I suspect it loses a little on screen because of this. And, I suspect it would be lovelly as a good old fashioned, carefully produced photograph or, even an inkjet print.


----------



## Cerisa (Sep 4, 2006)

I missed out on the "Angle" comp, sooooo

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/P1010002.jpg


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 6, 2006)

I took these last night of some gorgeous light when the sun was going down.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 7, 2006)

Cerisa said:
			
		

> I missed out on the "Angle" comp, sooooo
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v73/smack_barbie/P1010002.jpg



 

The train was going so fast it bent the world?

 

Nice.

--/ I'm a little stoned. I'll look again in the morning for the same effect!


----------



## portman (Sep 9, 2006)

Another exercise in playing around with shadows... This was shot with my Konica Minolta Dimage - minimal tweaking in Photoshop Elements to adjust the contrast before conversion to monochrome.

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/LoS010906_07BW.html

Any constructive criticism or comments welcome.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 9, 2006)

This was a pretty weird one

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/9606/nearufohiullweirdnessao2.jpg


----------



## Firky (Sep 9, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Another exercise in playing around with shadows... This was shot with my Konica Minolta Dimage - minimal tweaking in Photoshop Elements to adjust the contrast before conversion to monochrome.
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/LoS010906_07BW.html
> 
> ...



Quite like that, but the little bit of white at the top left hand corner annoys me a little, I'd of had to crop it a wee bit tighter and perhaps make the shadows darker still


----------



## Firky (Sep 9, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> --/ I'm a little stoned. I'll look again in the morning for the same effect!



You always fecking arse


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 10, 2006)

i'm no photographer, just like catching moments, and I was really pleased with this one..







feel free to rip it to shreds (figuratively speaking), i just like it


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 10, 2006)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> i'm no photographer, just like catching moments...
> 
> feel free to rip it to shreds (figuratively speaking), i just like it



I'd say that you got it spot on. No criticism from me. Possibly the best photograph I've seen posted on Urban by an Urbanite. 

Very, very, fucking hippy mind 

--/ And, I'm not even pissed or, stoned. It's spontaneous and not at all contrived. That's what I like. A genuine moment in current festival culture.


----------



## Dubversion (Sep 10, 2006)

aw, i'm really touched by that, stanley. 

Actually, she was anything but a hippy - she's one of the Laundrettas, who travel around festivals and events in a little tent recreating a kind of 50s vibe, playing old Nancy Sinatra records and doing people's hair.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 10, 2006)

Still looks suspiciously fucking hippy to me. Hippy in a 2006 capitalist world sort of way.

Have no idea what I'm trying to say.


----------



## portman (Sep 10, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Quite like that, but the little bit of white at the top left hand corner annoys me a little, I'd of had to crop it a wee bit tighter and perhaps make the shadows darker still



Thanks for the comments - got a bit too close to the image and needed an outsider's view  

Here it is reworked with a new crop and have played about a bit bumping up the contrast...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/LoS010906_07BWRW.html

...also, in a similar vein, is this one...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/LoS010906_06BWRW.html

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Bomber (Sep 11, 2006)

First post by yours truly on this thread. Just started photoblogging and this one was my opening post at Shutterchance.com :-


----------



## Cerisa (Sep 11, 2006)

> The train was going so fast it bent the world?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 bless


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 19, 2006)

Constructive criticism please of some I took the other night when we had a powercut:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1005/img4894wi5.jpg
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6163/img4898ct1.jpg
http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2461/img4897vb5.jpg
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/4504/img4901rb6.jpg


----------



## Cid (Sep 20, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Constructive criticism please of some I took the other night when we had a powercut:
> 
> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1005/img4894wi5.jpg



Not exactly a bad pic, but not very interesting imo... You've fallen into the common trap of a high colour temp/oversaturated reds. While this does give a candle image a warm feel it can also make the image appear more flat as there is little contrast in the white areas.

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6163/img4898ct1.jpg

Doesn't do it for me... The ball of light effect is nice, but this time the shot's temp is too low so the white areas look a bit too blue, gives it a washed out feel. The pram is uneccessary, and so are the kid's toys - actually the toys could be used to create a nice eerie effect, but you'd have to play with the positioning and lighting. The background is also wobbily, which is a cardinal sin when you have indoor photos with strong lines.

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2461/img4897vb5.jpg

Too red again and doesn't really show anything. It's confused and says very little.

http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/4504/img4901rb6.jpg

Again says very little, and the DOF is badly managed - the picture has no clear focus (either that or you should get a tripod, hard to tell with small images). Might have worked well if you had done it as a model effect shot - there's a way of doing it on PS that I might post up later.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 20, 2006)

here's one i dug out from my archives recently that i quite like, converted it to b&w. Not sure why I ignored it for 18 months.

Lighthouse


----------



## BennehBoi (Sep 21, 2006)

*Free Running in Leeds*

Free Running in Leeds (224kb)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 21, 2006)

BennehBoi said:
			
		

> Free Running in Leeds (224kb)



that's cool, where abouts in Leeds is it?


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 21, 2006)

Free Running . _as above thats _


----------



## BennehBoi (Sep 21, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> that's cool, where abouts in Leeds is it?



The roof of the office section at Leeds International Baths.


----------



## BennehBoi (Sep 21, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Free Running . _as above thats _



I nearly shat myself when I realised what he was going to do.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 21, 2006)

BennehBoi said:
			
		

> The roof of the office section at Leeds International Baths.



Ah right, I recognise it now - good photo, well caught!


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

*Butterfly*

Could I have some constructive criticism on this photo of mine please? I took it yesterday on a Kodak digital camera. Thanks!

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6639/3528/1600/butterfl.jpg


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

wordie said:
			
		

> Alef,
> 
> This is my original shot, *but now in a sensible html page.*
> 
> Does it change your views at all?



Excellent photo - Love it!


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

Xanadu said:
			
		

> It's not going to stand up to any critics, but I love this photo:
> 
> http://img117.echo.cx/img117/6786/pb2900356rh.jpg
> 
> Today I'm going to call it rocking thommy.



As long as you like it, thats all that matters, but I do think it's pretty cool myself


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> i can only 'do' landscape....
> 
> 
> and i can only 'do' quite obvious, uber-cheesy pics.... anyone got any tips for bringing a different slant to landscape stuff?
> ...



LOVE photos 2 & 3 and I don't think there's anything you should change about them!


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> here's one i dug out from my archives recently that i quite like, converted it to b&w. Not sure why I ignored it for 18 months.
> 
> Lighthouse



That is fantastic, but I have to say I think it would look better without the guy sitting there.... Sorry!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> Could I have some constructive criticism on this photo of mine please? I took it yesterday on a Kodak digital camera. Thanks!
> 
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6639/3528/1600/butterfl.jpg




can't see it  

But, I know it's gonna be good


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> LOVE photos 2 & 3 and I don't think there's anything you should change about them!



Yeah I agree, all nice photo's - id have been tempted to have had the sun in the last one a little more in from the left side of the photo though, rule of two thirds and that


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> Could I have some constructive criticism on this photo of mine please? I took it yesterday on a Kodak digital camera. Thanks!
> 
> http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/6639/3528/1600/butterfl.jpg



I can't see it either


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> That is fantastic, but I have to say I think it would look better without the guy sitting there.... Sorry!



That's ok.  I did think about photoshopping him out but I don't like manipulating images too much.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 25, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Constructive criticism please of some I took the other night when we had a powercut:
> 
> http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/1005/img4894wi5.jpg
> http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6163/img4898ct1.jpg
> ...



Taking photo's inside is always a tricky thing, at least in getting them looking interesting unless they are macro ones. Some nice lighting to play with but as someone else said, the subject isn't as strong as it could be.

The candle one could have been better if had been closer up and better framed I think.


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

*Rate My Photo*

Some peeps said they couldn't see my photo.... Don't know what went wrong there! Try this address instead. The photo I wanted you to rate is the butterfly.

http://nickywuk.blogspot.com

Thanks!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> Some peeps said they couldn't see my photo.... Don't know what went wrong there! Try this address instead. The photo I wanted you to rate is the butterfly.
> 
> http://nickywuk.blogspot.com
> 
> Thanks!





It's very nice but, I much prefer butterfly faces to arses  

Technically very good. Good use of depth of field and very natural colour in good light. Just that I'd like to see his face!

What kind of butterfly is it?


----------



## Louloubelle (Sep 25, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> That is fantastic, but I have to say I think it would look better without the guy sitting there.... Sorry!



I disagree
I like the guy sitting there, it stops it from looking too symetrical.
Great photo


----------



## portman (Sep 25, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> That's ok.  I did think about photoshopping him out but I don't like manipulating images too much.



The bloke sitting there sunning himself adds a nice human touch to what is a good monochrome image. Would I be right in thinking the image was shot in Scarborough? Seems vaguely familiar from a holiday I had there about 20 years back...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 25, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> It's very nice but, I much prefer butterfly faces to arses
> 
> Technically very good. Good use of depth of field and very natural colour in good light. Just that I'd like to see his face!
> 
> What kind of butterfly is it?



Hehehehe! I like to see the butterfly from this angle. I think it's a Red Admiral. It's funny how you think it's techincally good when I just saw it, shot it on auto and hoped for the best  I really appreciate your comments though


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 25, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> The bloke sitting there sunning himself adds a nice human touch to what is a good monochrome image. Would I be right in thinking the image was shot in Scarborough? Seems vaguely familiar from a holiday I had there about 20 years back...
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave



Yes, is indeed Scarborough!


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Sep 26, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Taking photo's inside is always a tricky thing, at least in getting them looking interesting unless they are macro ones. Some nice lighting to play with but as someone else said, the subject isn't as strong as it could be.
> 
> The candle one could have been better if had been closer up and better framed I think.



Cheers... these were actually in the dark with the full-length exposure (15 seconds).  

I shall have to try doing this again and finding some more 'interesting' subject matteer


----------



## nickyw_uk (Sep 27, 2006)

*Sky*

OK, so I've been brave enough to post one photo, so I'll try my luck with another one. I took this yesterday, handheld, on a Kodak Z740. Comments please!

http://www.nickyw.co.uk/sunset.jpg


----------



## Barking_Mad (Sep 28, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> OK, so I've been brave enough to post one photo, so I'll try my luck with another one. I took this yesterday, handheld, on a Kodak Z740. Comments please!
> 
> http://www.nickyw.co.uk/sunset.jpg



Really nice sky, not a bad photo in my view, although the silhouette at the bottom could have been more interesting in terms of what was in it. Dunno if it was possible but a silhouette of a tree or something of that ilk would have given it a little extra punch.


----------



## dlx1 (Sep 30, 2006)

don't blow me


----------



## Cid (Sep 30, 2006)

dragonfly


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 30, 2006)

nickyw_uk said:
			
		

> OK, so I've been brave enough to post one photo, so I'll try my luck with another one. I took this yesterday, handheld, on a Kodak Z740. Comments please!
> 
> http://www.nickyw.co.uk/sunset.jpg




I sense a Romantic revival is in the air.

Similarly to the comments I made about Riot Sky's London sunset; it is just a beautiful sky. In this case a relatively unmanipulated beautiful sky but, just a beautiful sky nonetheless.

It's a very nice picture. However, it has no unique value. You need that in a photograph these days because we all think we can just buy a digi cam and go out and get a pic of a beautiful sky. It's just a photograph afterall!


Ideas. Imagination and that little bit of human magic that computers can't do is what everyone here should be chasing.

(IMHO).


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 30, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> dragonfly




Very, very nice macro photograph of a dragonfly.


----------



## slowth (Sep 30, 2006)

Was sitting at my pc the other night when i noticed a pair of shadow cartoon crickets on my wall made by the light shining on my money plant.Freaked me out for a moment or two.


----------



## Firky (Sep 30, 2006)

Hehe that's quite cool 

Reminds me of the photos dyslexic1 does of his goblins in woodwork.


----------



## H.Dot (Oct 3, 2006)

took this at the Tate Modern today. 

the colourful display is actually behind me (it's a reflection in a window above the turbine room), as is the girl who looks like she's walking on air. 

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j58/the947/tate1.jpg


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 4, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I sense a Romantic revival is in the air.
> 
> Similarly to the comments I made about Riot Sky's London sunset; it is just a beautiful sky. In this case a relatively unmanipulated beautiful sky but, just a beautiful sky nonetheless.
> 
> ...


 I do see what you're getting at Stanley, but I'm still learning about really basic skills, so what I'm hoping for some self-improving feedback on today is this set of rather conventional pictures of a singularly boring park 

Local Colour

Scallies nicked our bench

Tree and Shadows


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 5, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I do see what you're getting at Stanley, but I'm still learning about really basic skills, so what I'm hoping for some self-improving feedback on today is this ...



My advice to anyone learning the basics would be to forget the science for the time being (beyond the simple basics) and concentrate on the art. That said, I would give advice on the science of art rather than the science of photography.

I'd like to give a full reply to this post by comparing some of my photographs with yours but, that could read a little arsey and it's going to take some time and thought. If it's not going to be read (and why should anyone necessarily want to read it?) then I won't take the time.

If you're up for it I would like to suggest I compare and critique three of my photographs with yours. Then I would like you to critique mine and yours.

Back in an hour or, so (need to lubricate my mind). Will probably post anyway


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2006)

Yep. I'm up for that deal Stanley. I very much appreciate you taking the time.

PS Please feel free to pick anything from that set if it makes matching up with some of yours easier.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 5, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Yep. I'm up for that deal Stanley. I very much appreciate you taking the time.
> 
> PS Please feel free to pick anything from that set if it makes matching up with some of yours easier.





I'll stick with the three you posted. A €3.30 bottle of Campo Viejo may have lubricated my mind a little to slippery but, here goes;

(The young girl next to me in this internet cafe is already tut-tutting at my inabillity to type blind  )


It's no longer necessary to learn the technicalties of photography but, learning them is a good step into the technicalities and psychologies of art. The simple relationship of time and amount of light reaching the lens is all anybody needs to know. I was invited by a photographer to join him on a day shoot. He wanted to learn how I 'see' photographs but, also had an unhealthy obsession with the technicalities. He was shocked to see me shooting on aperture priority mode and considered it to be almost cheating. Why? As far as I was concerned I knew what film I was using, knew I wanted to use the smallest possible aperture and knew I could trust the cameras metering system 100% in the conditions on that day.

I'll happily give my opinion here in the full knowledge that not so many people get what my photographs are about for me! To try and explain myself possibly as much as give advice, I'll attempt to compare three of my own photographs to the three samples of your photographs posted here. I firmly believe we all see the world differently. So, don't read my comparisons as being judgemental about your photographs - they will just be explaining what I see.

BTW: None of these are romantic in style or, context. I've moved on. And, presentation counts for a lot with photography. Moreso than painting etc.

1. My comparison: http://w ww.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/wall2.jpg

All of the three photographs of mine here are about alienation, solitude and and the conflict/harmony between man and nature. Your shot is good in terms of technicalities and composition. However, it fails to draw me in as a viewer. It's not forcing me to ask questions.

It was my intention whilst taking this photograph to force the viewers to ask why I had taken it (this is true of all examples here - and all my photographs). The colours have been exagerated subtely to give the dandelions as much prominence as the graffit. The tones, colours and textures in the wall. Those dandelions are ignored on a daily basis. So, is the graffiti. However, the dandelions will be there every year without fail. The graffiti will fade or, be eradicated. Fresh grafitti may be more noticeable but, it will die and vanish forever. People will ignore the dandelions year in year out.

Your photograph captures textures, tones and colours but, fails to convey any unique feeling you had at the time. Nice to see the contrast between the old laid stone and new laid stone but, not a lot else for me. Sorry!

Every photograph needs a 'star'. A leader to be compared. I'm not going much  further with this cos it would take a book but, I'm sure you could advance.

2. My comparison. ht tp://www.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/tabletennis.jpg

Your shot is just a shot of a park with a couple of wrecked benches to my mind. TBH this shot is ultra week. Nothing grabs me at all.

My shot of the table tennis table conveys solitude and alienation on a couple of levels. Firstly, it's disused - it has no purpose in a modern Berlin. It has no friends. But, what a fucking good idea? Public tables in public spaces. They are apparently not an affordable option in the west. However, childrens play areas are everywhere in the west.

I used a small depth of field to help isolate the table in the way I felt isolated at the time.

Enough.

--/ 

Your shot is just a view of a park. There is no central view point and nothing to beg further questions. The benches are just there because they are. You need context. You need to isolate a viewing point. You need to know why you took the picture and need to learn how to express that in words as well as pictures.


3. My comparison. http://w ww.freewebtown.com/johncolley/berlin/large/trees.jpg 

Your shot is just another tree in another park. So is mine.

But, amongst all those trees at the edge of this forest one single tree begs you in further.


--

Finito.

I'd like to say more but, I'm not going to. I'd really like to get more feedback from you.

The science of art is a very difficult subject to some. To others it comes very naturally. Your photographs of roses are amongst the very, very best photographs of roses I've ever seen. Perhaps that is because you just love them and don't need to think about how you can communicate that 'love'. They're very beautiful and very sensitive photographs. I just try and do the same for table tennis tables. I love them more than roses.


It's a big and varied world. Thank fuck it's filled with a varied range of people and minds and ways of seeing.

A post here is so much harder work than a conversation over a couple of vino tintos!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2006)

Thanks Stanley 

Give me about an hour. I want to repay you as best I can for taking the trouble, and I need a bit of time to come to grips with your photographs.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 5, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Thanks Stanley
> 
> Give me about an hour. I want to repay you as best I can for taking the trouble, and I need a bit of time to come to grips with your photographs.




Don't try to hard. It's simply an exchange of views!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2006)

OK. Here's my initial response. I'd like a bit more time to think about it properly though. 

1) My immediate response was fairly strong to this. Initially I thought the flowers at the bottom of the wall were some sort of tragic wreath, and wondered what the story was. Then I thought probably they were growing in cracks in the tarmac. I realised my initial reaction had been conditioned by an experience I had a few months ago, wandering round a dodgy part of Bradford with my pocket camera at night. I saw some sad and bedraggled flowers, went to take a picture and then suddenly realised that must have been where the policewoman had been shot a week or two previously. 

Then I started looking at the elements in the picture. Three fairly harmonious surfaces. Got me thinking a bit about some early pattern matching algorithms where they discovered the counter-intuitive result that the more constraints you have, the easier it is to resolve whether a vertex is pointing in or out. This vertex is unambigious. Different textures on each surface, but sort of harmonious again. Interesting gap between the two walls I think, one imagines a letter to the dear departed hidden inside the crack. 

I have the advantage that you've already told me what you were trying to do, at least in basic terms. It didn't quite work that way with me. I wasn't aware at all of the photographer, probably because I had a strong specific reaction described above, but you were at least partially successful simply having got that reaction. I'd missed the ephemeral/eternal thing, but it's quite interesting now that you mention it. 

Mine fails, at least in your case to convey some of the emotional content the picture has for me. This isn't a big surprise now that I analyse it a bit, because that particular place has all kinds of personal resonances for me. 

I do think though, that there are some questions that anyone _might_ want to ask on viewing that picture. For example, as in your picture, what's the story on those different kinds of stonework? I used to walk past that corner every morning on the way to school, and knowing that Tranmere Hall used to be someplace around there, I wondered if that sandstone had been the foundations. I love the texture of our local sandstone and it has a real resonance of place for me, but (duhh) not necessarily for anyone else. A very useful thing to be reminded of (again)

Next one in a bit.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2006)

2) Initial reaction. Hmm, I think I've seen this one before. OK. Table-tennis table in middle of field. Why? It looks like it's solidly concreted in, so it isn't one he brought with him for surrealist purposes. Nice sunset or something in the background. I wonder if he thought the whole scene was wreathed in magnificent light? Only to find that part looks dull. Been there, done that. 

It's almost in compartments though, interlocking rounded greens are suggested by what we can see of the spaces in the park. In the background, we have a nice pastoral sunset or something, but over here, everything is dull municipal green, with this weird table in the middle of it. 

Harmonious again, the worn circle within the vaguely circular outline suggested by the treeline in the background. That treeline is flat too, which is nice because the table's flatness is a contrast to the locally bumpy ground and it provides another instance of (more or less) flat to go with it, as does the flat bit under the table. 

Table seems popular though from the wear and tear around it. Not necessarily for ping-pong. Municipal parks. Stuff about communities etc.

I think you succeeded in your intention of conveying 'here I am, just me and this fucking weird table' and eliciting some of the thoughts intended. To a greater extent than the other two, I could feel the presence of the photographer in this one, and wondered about his thoughts.

My intention with that whole set was mainly an exercise. I had limited time and shitty looking weather but wanted to get some photography in. At the time what I was concentrating on was: getting better at tough exposures, experimenting with ways of making highly conventional scenes look subtly unreal (ie making people wonder if it's a photo, a painting, cg etc) and trying to get a bit better at distinguishing boring from interesting. Photographing an outstandingly dull park on a shitty day was a good challenge on all three fronts, especially the latter one.

Again, that scene has a bit of local emotional resonance for me. I grew up with that distant view of Liverpool Anglican cathedral across the Mersey. So to some extent I'm making the same mistake as with 1). I had some vague idea about three local religions, church, football and oak-tree worship, but nothing much came of it in that picture. I did sort of like the bench with no planks, but in retrospect that's because in some other pictures it was much more ambiguous, there it's quite clearly a bench with no seat, which is less fun. I was fairly happy with the composition, because I was trying to be totally predictable in that way, but subtly off in another. That didn't work, or at least it didn't on you. It feels like something like that might turn out to be worth doing though, so I'm probably going to keep at it for a bit.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 5, 2006)

3) Macro of pubic hair? 

Spooky trees. OK. Is that snow or leaves? Leaves probably. 

Some interesting patterns in the trees. Triples making an enclosure around the fallen tree. The tree has been cut. Is it a plantation? Trees about the same size. Maybe a birchwood. I see birches. Somewhere up North perhaps? 

OK. Patterns. Lots of wiggly upright things. Fuzzy surface. Something pointing inwards gives depth. Lots of trees meeting the ground implies flatness of the surface more strongly than the light reflected off the ground does.

Chaotic. What's that thing that looks like a cable plugged into the dominant standing tree? Strong pattern of wiggly upright things, chaos on other levels. There is a pattern, or many patterns, but they aren't particularly harmonious or inviting. This provokes a sort of wary response. It makes me want to move quietly about and observe the scene from different perspectives, as though I were worring about lions in among the trees and wanted to see them through the strong tree pattern. 

Mine. I was just struck by the play of light on the tree and the contrast with the silhouetted leaves in the foreground. Attractive tree. Contrasts and harmonies in the overlapping branches and the shadows I found pleasing. 

I do understand what you were saying about digicam sunsets being increasingly common, but I am not wholly with you on the need for every photo to be shining with unique insights and visions (please clarify if I've missed your drift), although I think it's nice if they turn out that way.

It seems to me that novelty for it's own sake is a really bad goal to pursue. I could see how that might be a sort of job requirement for some professional artists or people in creative professions though. Uniqueness as an outcome of some internal process is probably OK, but that's not _striving_ for uniqueness, it's actually (assuming it occurs) becoming unique as a result of sustained effort and experience. This seems to me to be the right way to go about things.

Biggest lesson here for me is that just because I can feel an emotional resonance, doesn't automatically mean that anyone else is likely to find my pictures as interesting as I do, unless I make more of an effort to distinguish between personal and universal significance (duhh again). That first one of yours actually communicated very well, because it clicked with the experience I described above. I doubt that you planned it that way, but this encourages me think that the trick is to train yourself to pick up resonances like that while your conscious mind is doing craft stuff, but then to think discriminatingly about whether the resonances you reacted to will actually mean anything to anyone else seeing the picture.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 6, 2006)

^^^

Excellent  

I was so pissed and stoned last night I barely remember reading this thread nevermind posting. I can be an arrogant tosser at times.

Thanks for taking the time to view and critique. I'll try and be a bit more constructive in critiques in the future  

I think we should all swap photos for critique here. Be as nasty and knock each others pics down as much as possible. Then try and argue for your own case. Very difficult to do!


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 6, 2006)

I recently took some photos of a rather photogenic young man and I love strong lights and shadows and I prefer to take photos near to dawn and dusk for this reason. 

Just as an example, I would probably now reject this photo as I'm now noticing areas of overexposure to the left of his face that I woudn't previously have notivced, or to be honest, that I would have thought added an element of life / texture to the photo. 







Perhaps this isn't the best example, I'll try to find another, but I'd be interested to hear other people's views on this.

can you be so preoccupied with getting things technically right that you lose some creative 'fire'?  Or can you suddenly realise that what you thought was texturally interesting is just a technical fault. 

I hope this makes sense. 

Sorry to just barge in to the thread with this, I'll take a look at the recent submissions too


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 6, 2006)

Stanley
I'm not sure if it's just me but I get timeouts on all your links

I get a timeout on nicky_w_uk's link too so perhaps it's a fault my end 

I love the dragonfly, that really works for me


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 6, 2006)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> I
> Sorry to just barge in to the thread with this,



Good move IMO. But, I am a little pissed!


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 6, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Good move IMO. But, I am a little pissed!




I'm not but I think I might nip out and buy a can of guiness (purely for the iron content / medicinal purposes)  

Hope all is well with your art project / movement stanley


----------



## Louloubelle (Oct 6, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> don't blow me




very simple and elegant

I've got a old one on a similar subject that kind of also raises my point about over-exposed photos

there's glare and over-exosure in this but I like it 

http://www.pbase.com/louloubelle/image/30557645

 

Not sure if I like it as much now as I did when I first took it and was enthralled by just about any photo I took though 

edited to add that now I look at it again I think it's a bit average, the composition leaves a lot to be desired, it's a bit all over hte place, but I still love the light.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Oct 6, 2006)

Unless photo's are badly overexposed in important areas then I don't worry about it too much, especially b&w ones, I think they look more dynamic. The best photo's aren't always the correctly exposed ones imo.

In the one of your blokey, yeah could do with burning areas in if there's anything left in the originals to get back - the dandelion one reminds me of one I took

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/58282618


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 6, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> ^^^
> 
> Excellent
> 
> ...


 Well, I'm up for another round if you are.

I've been turning what I've learned from our previous exchange over in my mind. And I've tried to pick three more photos on that basis.

If you don't mind, I'm going to try to keep my intention to myself until it's my turn to comment (assuming you're up for it again) The reason for this is probably obvious if you think about what I learned from the previous round. 

For the same reason, no titles this time. 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0006_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0056_2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Local Produce for Local People/DSC_0064_1.jpg


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 7, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0006_4.jpg
> 
> ...




I like this one and I'm not entirely sure why. That is a very good thing IMO. The photographs I like most are the ones that work for reasons I can't phathom.

Compositionally it's very simple and very graphic. There are three obvious layers of depth that draw you in - the foilage, the wall and the window. The lighting hepls take you through the photograph. I like it but, it should work better.

I'm sure I have a better example of mine somewhere online to compare but, I'm going to use this shot to demonstrate layers and depth:








Even though I like your simple composition I think my example uses very graphic lines to direct the eye into the distance more dynamically. Hate that word. However, there's sod all in the distance other than a void of ocean nothingness. This brings the eye back to the forground after a little thought to look more carefully at what's going on. The foilage in my case is much more subtle - slimey moss but, it's an equal example of nature winning over like your ivy.

Where you shot takes the eye directly into the distance mine sends the eye back into the foreground. In your shot the viewer hits a dead end very quickly also but, there is perhaps a a little to much going on to give the wall and ivy the prominence it needs.

Not absolutely sure about any of this. Like I say, I like pictures that work because I'm not why they do.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 7, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Chester/DSC_0056_2.jpg
> 
> ...




Chester is a shit place. It's bit like Shrewsbury and to close also. This type of shot does nothing for me. I also have a personal dislike for candid shots of people. It would be unfair of me to say anything about the content.

Compositionally it's a little to uninteresting. A bit like you were just walking along, saw the guy and put camera to eye to take a picture without really looking at the entire scene.

Something interesting going on with the black and white tudor architecture and the B&W banner but, that is about all.

No comparrison amongst my own stuff.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 7, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Local Produce for Local People/DSC_0064_1.jpg




Candid shots of people like this make me cringe. However, I do see the skill/luck in catching comedy moments in real life. I have agreat deal of respect for the eye and mind of Paul Russell here but, I just dislike candid photographs like this. For me it's whimsicle nonsense.

I do like a lot of street photography. However, again I do very little myself and put very few pictures of people on the web. The only one's I do put on the web are shots I know the people will like themselves.

This one:






Is obviously posed. I was taken simply beccause I was asked to take it. I liked the kids and wanted to do a good job. It's photograph that all three of them would be very welcome to have a copy of for free in 20 years time when they will really value it for what it is.

--/

Let's not do candid people shots


----------



## Firky (Oct 7, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> In the one of your blokey, yeah could do with burning areas in if there's anything left in the originals to get back - the dandelion one reminds me of one I took
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/58282618



Purdy, I like that - reminds me of a Vodafone advert for some reason.


----------



## Firky (Oct 7, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> beccause I was asked to take it. I liked the kids and wanted to do a good job. It's photograph that all three of them would be very welcome to have a copy of for free in 20 years time when they will really value it for what it is.
> 
> Let's not do candid people shots



I prefer candid shots (that are well done) to portraiture, and in the same breath I don't dislike all portraiture, just most of it! I like self-portaits done oddly enough, as long as they're not proper vain.  There's some really good nudey stuff out there but much of it looks like soft porn / glamour. 

I really like this self-portait, and it was done by a 12 year old kid!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 7, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> I prefer candid shots (that are well done) to portraiture, and in the same breath I don't dislike all portraiture, just most of it! I like self-portaits done oddly enough, as long as they're not proper vain.  There's some really good nudey stuff out there but much of it looks like soft porn / glamour.
> 
> I really like this self-portait, and it was done by a 12 year old kid!




Yup. The kids don't know the same boundaries and conventions that all of us 18 pluses are force fed. They have new ideas. Give them a camera and a little bit of knowledge and wham bham.

I was relatively lucky as a child. First camera (a kodak instamatic from tokens collected off the back of cornflakes packets) came as a birthday present. My mother was an art teacher at that time and the developing was occassionally done in the darkroom. Very primative, very basic and very affordable in a modern context. However, as a six year old in 1973 I was definitley one of the rich kids.

Today, I see perfectly good Samsung 5MP cameras for €69 and less. PC's are very affordable and knowledge costs nothing but time. A very good 35mm film point and shoot can cost less than a tenner new!

All good news for the kids and new ideas and photography/art in general. Not that any of it's likley to be recognised mind.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I like this one and I'm not entirely sure why. That is a very good thing IMO. The photographs I like most are the ones that work for reasons I can't phathom.
> 
> Compositionally it's very simple and very graphic. There are three obvious layers of depth that draw you in - the foilage, the wall and the window. The lighting hepls take you through the photograph. I like it but, it should work better.
> 
> ...



Thanks Stanley. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I've been engrossed in something most of the weekend. 

Your shot:

First impression was, yuck, ugly hotel or something. Off-putting initially.

Second impression was the business with angles. I think I see what you mean about making the viewer look at the foreground. It's almost a study in vanishing points and the emphasis of the relevant lines reinforces that. 

Maybe 'cos I'm seeing it low-res, the slimy roof thing in the foreground doesn't look as interesting as it sounds like it was for you. I can't really make it out, and know more about it from your description than my eyes.

Mine: 

I like mine a bit better, because I found the subject inherently pleasing. I was fascinated by the weathering on the pale panels, I thought they were some sort of alloy at first and only realised it was wood of some kind when looking at the photo. The ivy thing was fortuitous and I only noticed it when I put my eye to the viewfinder and tried to frame an interesting shot. 

I do see what you mean about the initial journey of the eye through the internal spaces being a short one, possibly unresolved due to the hard to identify red-black stuff seen through the far window (more dirty sandstone)

I'm glad you liked my photo, and if I didn't like yours much, I learned something useful from it, the stuff about leading the eye back outwards.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Oct 8, 2006)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Candid shots of people like this make me cringe. However, I do see the skill/luck in catching comedy moments in real life. I have agreat deal of respect for the eye and mind of Paul Russell here but, I just dislike candid photographs like this. For me it's whimsicle nonsense.
> 
> I do like a lot of street photography. However, again I do very little myself and put very few pictures of people on the web. The only one's I do put on the web are shots I know the people will like themselves.
> 
> ...



Yours: 

I like this one a lot better. The subjects are immediately engaging. 

Looking at the elements of the picture, it's all pretty strong and centred. The triangular grouping posed against the central rectangle could hardly be more so and this enhances the subject matter. The overall effect is to reinforce the viewer's instant impression of a strong bond between the three kids, that's created by the way that they're posing together. Very nice.

From what you said about your intentions, I think you succeeded admirably.

Mine: 

I swapped this one at the last minute. I suspect that you might have preferred the picture that was there originally. No matter. Your reaction was interesting. I'd not tried this sort of thing before, so I was sort of experimenting wildly in this set. Now you mention it I can imagine why you might find grabbing slices of other people's lives in this way distasteful. I'm not quite sure what I think of it myself, but it does seem rather more invasive than any other sort of photography I've tried my hand at so far. On the other hand, if I imagine going out deliberately looking for that kind of stuff, I can feel vague stirrings of what might be paleolithic hunting urges. 

Just because we've evolved to want to do certain kinds of things, doesn't automatically make them ethical though. I shall have to think about this.

The candid shot in question, only really caught my eye when I was looking at the RAW files to see what I'd brought home. What I liked about it was the multiple intersecting gazes. The only person not looking intently at someone else was the distracted looking guy in the foreground. The blonde is staring at his back in a way that makes it look like they've had a row. The young boy is gawping, perhaps hormonally, at the blonde and the 'Don't Look Now' lady in the background is gazing, apparently critically, at the whole scene, perhaps including the photographer.

I found the whole thing fascinating, but I'm now questioning whether this is a healthy kind of fascination, or some other kind. Have I correctly identified the reason for your distaste for this type of candid photography or do you feel that way for reasons unconnected to the ones I'm talking about above?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 9, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> I found the whole thing fascinating, but I'm now questioning whether this is a healthy kind of fascination, or some other kind. Have I correctly identified the reason for your distaste for this type of candid photography or do you feel that way for reasons unconnected to the ones I'm talking about above?




That's about it. And, the fact that once an image has been published on the web it can be recirculated very easily and even presented out of context.

I'm just camera shy basically. That's why I'm a photographer. I have had to overcome my 'fear' of having my photograph taken whilst painting on the streets. many people even ask to have their photograph taken with me. They think I'm going to be a famous artists one day - I erm... 'sell' myself a little to well sometimes


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 10, 2006)

This is my 2nd attemped a bit to light but not worked that out yet. It did seem the longer I keep shutter open the more the preset of light when up (F2) - some thing 

red lights of the back of the car is white not red


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 10, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> red lights of the back of the car is white not red




I like this. 

The lights from the cars are 'burned out' for the same reason that some of the leaves on the trees are white and not 'green' or, more correctly orange.

Under street lit conditions you are seeing the world in monochrome (usually). You only see light at the frequency the street lights are emmitting. That frequency is usually a very narrow bandwidth (orangey).

It confuses digital receptors as much as it confuses film. Although film is easier to compensate.

In normal daylight, which is around 5500K (Kelvins) we see the world via reflected panchromatic light. In street light we only see the world reflected in the colour emmitted by the street lights.

Try looking at your shot as a black and white image and you may understand a little better.

I like it lots. Good photo IMO.


----------



## Chorlton (Oct 11, 2006)

anyone do nature photos? anyone got the patience for it? what do people look for in nature photographs? is it a potrait of the animal looking noble or is it doing something a little out of the ordinary? or dramatic action


----------



## dlx1 (Oct 14, 2006)

> something a little out of the ordinary


wow that sharp


----------



## portman (Oct 15, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> anyone do nature photos? anyone got the patience for it? what do people look for in nature photographs? is it a potrait of the animal looking noble or is it doing something a little out of the ordinary? or dramatic action



I haven't the patience, skill or the gear for it to be honest. I do have every respect for those who do because it is hard work but when it goes right, the reward is worth the effort.

Of the three, the one that really stood out for me was 'something a little out of the ordinary'. Superb composition and the movement has been captured well. Also works the best because it has been cropped pretty tightly.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 27, 2006)

Any views on this pic?  This is one I took of my uncle-in-law with RD Jr earlier.  Ok I know usually we don't post family pics or whatever on this thread, but I thougt this photo looked really stunning.

Any views?

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6095/minimisedunclexo8.jpg


----------



## mauvais (Oct 28, 2006)

Been pissing around with this for a bit. It was shot in infrared. As for PP, I changed the hue to bring the sky back to blue, and changed saturation a little, but that made it noisy and horrible, so I did something with Noise Ninja and masks. Think I got there eventually.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 28, 2006)

That is stunning mauvais!


----------



## mauvais (Oct 28, 2006)

Cheers!  I've just chopped out some more noise in the clouds that I spotted, and put it up again. Hard getting the balance between noise & detail right!

I love infrared. It has a habit of making everything ace.


----------



## trashpony (Oct 28, 2006)

It's a beautiful shot. 

I've been past them on the train and that's how they look in my head (iyswim)


----------



## mauvais (Oct 28, 2006)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

> Any views on this pic?  This is one I took of my uncle-in-law with RD Jr earlier.  Ok I know usually we don't post family pics or whatever on this thread, but I thougt this photo looked really stunning.
> 
> Any views?
> 
> http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6095/minimisedunclexo8.jpg


Right - it is a great shot for the expressions. Could definitely compose a little better; more of the bottom edge and then a tighter crop, mainly to lose some of the clutter at the top. Hard to tell how to improve the colours/contrast etc, partly because I'm on a laptop and partly because people shots are much more subjective. Maybe a little more punchy. Depends what you're up for in terms of Photoshop - it strikes me as a very good shot to learn things with, like blurring out the background, filters, various tutorials etc.


----------



## portman (Oct 28, 2006)

Two shots of Vondelpark in Amsterdam taken on Wednesday last week when it was misty. Not quite sure which of these two works the best in terms of capturing the atmosphere of a misty, quite sombre autumn day. I'd be interested to have your views...

Cheers,
Dave

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/dam_oct06_22.html

...or

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/dam_oct06_21.html


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 29, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Right - it is a great shot for the expressions. Could definitely compose a little better; more of the bottom edge and then a tighter crop, mainly to lose some of the clutter at the top. Hard to tell how to improve the colours/contrast etc, partly because I'm on a laptop and partly because people shots are much more subjective. Maybe a little more punchy. Depends what you're up for in terms of Photoshop - it strikes me as a very good shot to learn things with, like blurring out the background, filters, various tutorials etc.



Cheers - yeah I haven't really got into photoshopping etc yet.  Whenever I try it, I seem to stuff it up totally...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 29, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Two shots of Vondelpark in Amsterdam taken on Wednesday last week when it was misty. Not quite sure which of these two works the best in terms of capturing the atmosphere of a misty, quite sombre autumn day. I'd be interested to have your views...
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave
> ...



Aesthetically speaking, I prefer the reflections one.  But I think the first one perhaps captures that sobre, misty feel you refer to.


----------



## Hagal (Nov 3, 2006)

These are all Tmax100:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6585/untitled5hb3.jpg

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/3108/thorn2sg8.jpg

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6863/spikesbm5.jpg


----------



## Firky (Nov 3, 2006)

Meh, don't do anything for me.


----------



## J77 (Nov 3, 2006)

Was thinking about that layered and depth thing - I don't know if this has enough of either but I had it as a background for a while - I may have been a bit close too, but I'm a bit of a point and click person...


----------



## J77 (Nov 3, 2006)

I also wish, I'd had a bit more symmetry in this one...


----------



## zenie (Nov 3, 2006)

J77 said:
			
		

> Was thinking about that layered and depth thing - I don't know if this has enough of either but I had it as a background for a while - I may have been a bit close too, but I'm a bit of a point and click person...



I like that a lot 

and yer maybe a bit too close but the colours really zap out at you


----------



## J77 (Nov 3, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> I like that a lot
> 
> and yer maybe a bit too close but the colours really zap out at you


Thanks - that's the lovely Welsh light, that is


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 3, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> Meh, don't do anything for me.



3 does for me but tidy-up or make the edges of the frame more definative...looks like you jus nabbed the side of the frame on the scan rather than given it purposeful boundaries...

I reckon petals suit thing type of thang but sharp_complex structure doooont. 

When I saw 3 this morning I thought I'd quite like a print of that...but the grain would have to be fkkn excellently sharp.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 3, 2006)

Hagal said:
			
		

> These are all Tmax100:
> 
> http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/6585/untitled5hb3.jpg
> 
> ...



I really like the feel you are going for in these, and the abstraction is something that works well with this type of shot, but I think they are a little _too_ abstract for me. Don't get me wrong, I do like them, but I would like them more if the subjects were more a part of the photograph. It's almost like you need to re-set the balance between the subject and the mood, at the moment it's all mood and little subject - they could do with a bit of both


----------



## Hagal (Nov 3, 2006)

> It's almost like you need to re-set the balance between the subject and the mood, at the moment it's all mood and little subject - they could do with a bit of both



I know what you mean. 

These are attempts to make nice pictures of a tin of soup:
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4372/heinz5qu5.jpg
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/258/tomato1rz2.jpg


----------



## chooch (Nov 3, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I really like the feel you are going for in these, and the abstraction is something that works well with this type of shot, but I think they are a little _too_ abstract for me.


I like them. Just abstract enough for very abstract photos, for me.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 4, 2006)

I actually went out with Boris yesterday  I only went as far as the park then came home again.

I'd like your opinion of this shot, either in colour or black and white.

photos here

Thanks


----------



## sorearm (Nov 4, 2006)

*Bonfire night point-n-click*

reet, i'm in no way in the league of some professional shooters on these boards, just a simple point-n-click of tonights bonfire and firework display....


----------



## mauvais (Nov 5, 2006)

sorearm said:
			
		

> reet, i'm in no way in the league of some professional shooters on these boards, just a simple point-n-click of tonights bonfire and firework display....


Crop out the left and top - dead space that does nowt for you.

Maybe use dodge and burn to bring out the lighting around the people. They would make this shot work - otherwise it's just a firework - but they don't stand out enough. Something perhaps a bit nasty in the sharpness of the firework too - how did you resize it? It's got potential but needs to be altered to make that happen, I think.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 5, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I actually went out with Boris yesterday  I only went as far as the park then came home again.
> 
> I'd like your opinion of this shot, either in colour or black and white.
> 
> ...


I love the colours in the first one - dunno if you're seeing what I'm seeing, since my monitor's all calibratey and quite unusual - but it's kind of unique and has a lovely feel to it. Something I like about this is the almost vignetted look - I know it's not but the dark corners add to it. Focus and DOF are bang on apart from the sharp grass in the bottom left; very minor gripe really. Care to reveal any PP secrets there?  

Black and white better? - I really don't know. It's just as good, yet very different. Works for the same reasons but has a different feel to it. It's fairly objective that you've done the best B&W conversion possible, but subjective about which is better. Both are great.

And get out more!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 5, 2006)

Hagal said:
			
		

> I know what you mean.
> 
> These are attempts to make nice pictures of a tin of soup:
> http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4372/heinz5qu5.jpg
> http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/258/tomato1rz2.jpg


I think the second one nearly works, but it's just not an appealing composition IMO. Just because it's abstract doesn't necessarily mean all the rules go out the window. Maybe a top right crop with the same ratio would help.

I'd keep trying but really plan how to make it work instead of relying on the concept to cover the execution.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 5, 2006)

Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/hay.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/mine.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/golden_car.jpg

More where that came from if you so desire. Personally I think the PP is a bit shoddy but only in the detail like sharpening - couldn't completely be bothered for obvious reasons!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 5, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I love the colours in the first one - dunno if you're seeing what I'm seeing, since my monitor's all calibratey and quite unusual - but it's kind of unique and has a lovely feel to it. Something I like about this is the almost vignetted look - I know it's not but the dark corners add to it. Focus and DOF are bang on apart from the sharp grass in the bottom left; very minor gripe really. Care to reveal any PP secrets there?
> 
> Black and white better? - I really don't know. It's just as good, yet very different. Works for the same reasons but has a different feel to it. It's fairly objective that you've done the best B&W conversion possible, but subjective about which is better. Both are great.
> 
> And get out more!



Thanks mauvais  

The coloured version - I used the curves posted in the link in Ms Ordinary's thread about cross-processing and just tweaked slightly. It hasn't given a proper x-pro look, but it seems to be slightly 'retro' for want of a better word. 

The b&w conversion is a 'fake infrared' technique I read about. Channel mixer -> check monochrome -> red = -50 green = 200 blue = -50. I tried other b&w conversions but this brought out the right contrast for the subject, everything else seemed too flat.


----------



## alef (Nov 5, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!
> 
> http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/hay.jpg
> 
> ...



I think there's too much going on. In the Hay shot my eye is first drawn to the odd 'cloud' of trees, then to the pylons and lastly to the hay in the foreground. Each of those could make a strong photo but all together they're not interacting in kind of interesting way.

Same kind of issue with Mine: the pair of towers on the left and the solitary one on the right both look very photogenic, but together you end up with a photo with too much sky and less of a composition.

Golden car just looks like a frame taken from a dull car advert, sorry.


----------



## Firky (Nov 5, 2006)

*Blaeberry Hill, Northumberland*


----------



## Firky (Nov 7, 2006)

*ansel adams i am not *

..


----------



## Firky (Nov 7, 2006)

.


----------



## Hagal (Nov 9, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!
> 
> http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/hay.jpg
> 
> ...



Is the superb exposure of your photos the result of technique or technology?


----------



## Jangla (Nov 9, 2006)

Already posted in last months comp but I'm quite proud of the shot as i've only been taking pics a couple of months:
http://static.flickr.com/93/279086625_29babf2cbe_b.jpg


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 9, 2006)

Hagal said:
			
		

> Is the superb exposure of your photos the result of technique or technology?



All exposure is a result of technique or technology...stooopid question IMO...be more honest about what you are asking...or don't ask at all. 

Bet you would have dared asked Ansel Adams how often he got it wrong or how often he had to reprint his picutres to get them to a standard so they would look good in print?

...coz I know they would have looked shite in RL!!!1


----------



## mauvais (Nov 9, 2006)

Heh! I sort of see what they're asking. How much work did I do, and how much do they come out of the camera like that?

Depends what you mean by exposure. Does the camera get it right, with decent enough dynamic range? Yeah. I set EV compensation as appropriate - probably +/- 0.3 to 0.7 on each of these, but I could get away without.

Then in terms of contrast and detail, I do dodge and burn to improve on things, and I'm careful with me curves an' that! Bit of both but I can't pretend it's a great personal achievement!


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 10, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Heh! I sort of see what they're asking.



I jus never do....


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2006)

Well, I've been experimenting, again. I'd be grateful for some reactions to this stuff. 

Windy

Bumble

For the Birds


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 15, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, I've been experimenting, again. I'd be grateful for some reactions to this stuff.
> 
> Windy
> 
> ...


Imo, the tree in windy is misplaced somewhat. I'm assuming you were looking for an offcenter feel, but there's too much sky in the tree to sky ratio. That type of shot might work better if you were  closer to the tree, and looking up more.

As for the last one, the beauty of closeup shots, is the clarity of focus in relation to the unfocused background. Your shot looks like it was done on auto, with the camera dialing in some sort of 'average' focal length. 

The picture would work better imo, if the focus on the near object was sharper.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2006)

OK, thanks JC. Watch out for the ghosts of those baby seals now 

The last one is a bit dodgy. I was ill, so I was shooting through a window, with a resulting loss of contrast and tried to fix it with PP.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2006)

For what it's worth though, despite our political differences JC, I do value your comments on this kind of stuff 'cos I've seen your photos and they're superb. 

I know the tree didn't quite work, but there is something to be seen there that I'm going to keep trying for.


----------



## boskysquelch (Nov 15, 2006)

*I'm gonna do it agin


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Nov 15, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> For what it's worth though, despite our political differences JC, I do value your comments on this kind of stuff 'cos I've seen your photos and they're superb.
> 
> I know the tree didn't quite work, but there is something to be seen there that I'm going to keep trying for.



And I enjoy the fact that a committed political commentator like yourself has an interest in photographing flora. It's nice to see other sides of a person.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Nov 15, 2006)

Heh, thanks JC. Your critique above inspired me to spend my lunchtime trying to improve my manual focussing a bit. Albeit under gloomy and unhelpful lighting conditions. Autofocus is all very well, especially for those of us with older eyeballs, but I am a bit fed up with it thinking it knows better than me what I'm trying to focus on, so I think I'm going to make more of an effort to avoid it when photographing things where I've got time to fiddle and do sums.


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 18, 2006)

Battersea Powerstation
http://www.avgp39.dsl.pipex.com/misc/dsc01182a.jpg


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 18, 2006)

London Eye
http://www.avgp39.dsl.pipex.com/misc/wheel.jpg


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 19, 2006)

> Blagsta Battersea Powerstation



That nice, cool shade of brown


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 19, 2006)

oops


----------



## zenie (Nov 19, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> London Eye
> http://www.avgp39.dsl.pipex.com/misc/wheel.jpg



What PP did you do to this? 

Evening shot I take it?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 19, 2006)

Like both - Battersea and The London Eye. Watched a Spanish/South American film last night shot in very similar colour (assuming they had a good copy and the projector wasn't wonky). My Better Enemy (rough translation) shot in Patagonia during the Chile/Argentinian conflict. Big skies and loads of contrast with gorgeous washed out colours. A little less red and blue than your shots but, very similar in mood effect.

Would recommend the film to any photographers. Very clumsy in many ways but, quite refreshing to see after sterile perfection. Fantastic shots in it.


----------



## dlx1 (Nov 19, 2006)

best time of the year (1120 x 262)
_
the colours did look ahole lot richer_


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 19, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> What PP did you do to this?
> 
> Evening shot I take it?



Yesterday afternoon about 4.30pm.  Adjusted curves in Photoshop.


----------



## maggot974 (Nov 19, 2006)

hi every1.  
i am today's noob, and is this the right place to enter the photography comp?

this was taken on my phone camera, as i'd rather not take my decent camera to work (on a building site) so i'm hoping composition will compensate for lack of clarity.

Old and New

criticism, suggestions welcome


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2006)

maggot974 said:
			
		

> hi every1.
> i am today's noob, and is this the right place to enter the photography comp?
> 
> this was taken on my phone camera, as i'd rather not take my decent camera to work (on a building site) so i'm hoping composition will compensate for lack of clarity.
> ...



This thread is to submit a photo for criticism/unabashed praise - you win nada except a smile if people like it, and some valuable tips if people have criticisms. If you go back to the forum list you will see the November Comp thread - this month's theme is 'foreign' - you enter there. Again, you win nothing but your contemparys' praise  

Now, to your photo - it's such a shame you can't take a 'proper' (whatever that means) camera with you, but understandable in such an environment. Looks like you have a great eye for detail and composition - such a shame the limitations of the camera quality let it down. Do you ever get out and about with a 'normal' camera when you aren't working. I'd love to see some of those shots


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2006)

Right, I actually went somewhere with people the other day with Boris (Birmingham - it was raining in Manchester so we went south instead  ).

Three I have processed so far (again, with my heavy-handed pp work - but I like it, okay    )

http://flickr.com/photos/buca/301242478/

http://flickr.com/photos/buca/301306319/in/photostream/

http://flickr.com/photos/buca/301346680/in/photostream/

I really like 2 and 3, and might rework 1 to be fully b&w and a little less 'texture-y' than it is now - I'll see how I feel though - might leave it like that for posterity. It is a big learning curve and I discover something new about what works for what photo and what doesn't with each one I process.

Pigeons are funny


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 20, 2006)

The Iron Man is still there! Someone told me they had moved it - believe anything me.


I like your pigeons. I once started a project to photograph loads of pigeons on 10" x 8". Got to expensive to achieve what I wanted to achieve. One day maybe. Trying to portrait hundreds of them all in the same side on pose against a plain grey backdrop. They're all the same but, they're all very different sort of thing??? Dunno. Think your candid shots work better. 

Dumb birds. They must be Blues fans.


----------



## dada (Nov 20, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Right, I actually went somewhere with people the other day with Boris (Birmingham - it was raining in Manchester so we went south instead  ).
> 
> Three I have processed so far (again, with my heavy-handed pp work - but I like it, okay    )
> 
> ...



i really like the textures of your photos.
how did you do it?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 20, 2006)

Stanley - I didn't even know the Iron Man existed until that day   I'm not sure the composition of that shot works - it's all about the woman in the foreground, and although I like that their alignment is the same, creating parallel lines of a sort, there's something about the position of the statue that seems to make it unbalanced. I'd like to hang around there for a while again next time I go to see if I can improve on it. As for the pigeons, a bit of luck really; they just happened to be on a waist-height plinth so I could just lean in and get them - I'd be buggered if I was going to get down on the floor with the filthy creatures  I'd like to have a go at photographing them again (well, I doubt I could ever find those particular five, so I'll see if I can find some lookalikes  ).

dada - thank you  After any colour work most of the effect is created with pattern layers in photoshop. Levels too. I rarely work with curves, I certainly didn't for the 3 most recent photos, primarily because I'm not as good at them as other things!


----------



## Robster970 (Nov 21, 2006)

bit of a departure for me this. normally take pictures of things, not people.

happen to catch my daughter on Sunday with a friends medium format. quite pleased with it but it's very different to what i'm used to doing so any constructive stuff welcome from composition to PS use.

http://www.photo-sight.co.uk/temp/DallasB&W-2.jpg


----------



## Blagsta (Nov 21, 2006)

I like that, wonderful expression!


----------



## Robster970 (Nov 21, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I like that, wonderful expression!



she's a cheeky monkey


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 22, 2006)

She's adorable!  I don't 'do' portraits (for lack of a willing participant) so I feel a bit weird giving advice, but I suppose I look at lots of them, so with that in mind all I would say is:

composition: less background, more her for that particular composition. Other than that, spot on - I love the shallow dof, the background is suitably blurry for my tastes. I love that she is looking away - seems to sum up a child's mood some how.

pp: the photograph looks a little flat - so maybe a tad more contrast in ps or some such program? Although, flat can be good, you don't want too much contrast coz 'flat' gives a soft, sentimental look, but the part especially on her jumper arms looks a bit too flat. But not a biggie really.

Great portrait either way


----------



## funky_sessions (Nov 22, 2006)

*shivers nervously at the thought of posting  photos for the critics....*

hmmm...

well.. here goes.

curvy
warehouse
remembrance
the road outside my house @ 10:45pm

of course... feel free to look through my flickr and comment on any of them, i'm new to photography, so any constructive criticism is always welcome.

I tried to get back into the warehouse at the weekend to take pics with my new dslr, but it's all been boarded up


----------



## maggot974 (Nov 22, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> This thread is to submit a photo for criticism/unabashed praise - you win nada except a smile if people like it, and some valuable tips if people have criticisms. If you go back to the forum list you will see the November Comp thread - this month's theme is 'foreign' - you enter there. Again, you win nothing but your contemparys' praise
> 
> Now, to your photo - it's such a shame you can't take a 'proper' (whatever that means) camera with you, but understandable in such an environment. Looks like you have a great eye for detail and composition - such a shame the limitations of the camera quality let it down. Do you ever get out and about with a 'normal' camera when you aren't working. I'd love to see some of those shots



thanks for that, VP.  i can't take that picture again now - the floor has been laid already... nvm, other opportunities will arise


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

funky_sessions said:
			
		

> warehouse
> 
> I tried to get back into the warehouse at the weekend to take pics with my new dslr, but it's all been boarded up



The light is fuckin beautiful there mate what did you shoot it with?

Whereabouts do you live?


----------



## funky_sessions (Nov 23, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> The light is fuckin beautiful there mate what did you shoot it with?
> 
> Whereabouts do you live?



I shot it with a Sony DSC-T3 (5.1mp point and shoot) it was before I got my dslr. I went back at the weekend to take some more pics with my new improved camera but it was boarded up.  

i'm considering taking some tools and breaking in, taking some more pics, then sealing it all up again afterwards.... but I'd probably get in a load of trouble if I got caught.

oh... I live in derby.


----------



## zenie (Nov 23, 2006)

funky_sessions said:
			
		

> I shot it with a Sony DSC-T3 (5.1mp point and shoot) it was before I got my dslr. I went back at the weekend to take some more pics with my new improved camera but it was boarded up.
> 
> i'm considering taking some tools and breaking in, taking some more pics, then sealing it all up again afterwards.... but I'd probably get in a load of trouble if I got caught.
> 
> oh... I live in derby.



Gahh Derby is bloody miles or I'd offer to come back with you, is nice to have the windows open you see so you get the light streaming through.

Is all about the light 

Go back with a crowbar doesnt look like there's any security ey?


----------



## funky_sessions (Nov 23, 2006)

zenie said:
			
		

> Gahh Derby is bloody miles or I'd offer to come back with you, is nice to have the windows open you see so you get the light streaming through.
> 
> Is all about the light
> 
> Go back with a crowbar doesnt look like there's any security ey?



no... no outward security... but the've boarded up all the access routes I used before, and put that anti climb paint on everything.   there are *loads* of signs everywhere now saying it's looked after by some security firm that weren't there before. junkies ruined it :-( the first time I got in, there were no needles or anything, then just a few days later there were a few, then loads more :-( then it got boarded up. *sigh*

I guess if I took a crowbar, and a hammer, I could fix it all back up after getting in and taking pics... the windows in the picture aren't boarded up, but they're too high to climb through and covered with grating.

cume up anyways zenie, we can break in together... (and get thrown in the cells together too if we get caught)


----------



## hiccup (Nov 23, 2006)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Well, I've been experimenting, again. I'd be grateful for some reactions to this stuff.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



There is clearly a scary monster in the background of that photo. The red eyes! The evil smile! The pointy chin!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 23, 2006)

hiccup said:
			
		

> There is clearly a scary monster in the background of that photo. The red eyes! The evil smile! The pointy chin!



Tis exactly what I thought  

funky-sessions - great shot that one with the light through the windows. Where in Derby is it? I'm from those parts (was passing through today in fact).


----------



## funky_sessions (Nov 24, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Tis exactly what I thought
> 
> funky-sessions - great shot that one with the light through the windows. Where in Derby is it? I'm from those parts (was passing through today in fact).



it's the old GNER railway warehouse on friargate, I don't know if you know it or not.


----------



## Janh (Nov 28, 2006)

I'd appreciate comment on this shot taken with a point and shoot Sony DSCs600. I'm quite pleased with it as it's my first week with the camera even though the subject might be familiar by now.


http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q148/hotwires/stpauls.jpg


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 29, 2006)

Janh said:
			
		

> I'd appreciate comment on this shot taken with a point and shoot Sony DSCs600. I'm quite pleased with it as it's my first week with the camera even though the subject might be familiar by now.
> 
> 
> http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q148/hotwires/stpauls.jpg



Nice  (I hate the word nice, sorry I just used it). I like the idea. When I read 'stpauls' at the end of the url I thought 'oh, another typical shot of st pauls' but that isn't what that is at all. You have brought a different view to it. I like how the focus leads into it. In some ways though it seems a little _too_ dark - with too little detail to the shot, but there is definitely something there.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 29, 2006)

Two more from me (nicely situated in the new blog too)

number 1

and

number 2

I wasn't sure about number 2 but others seem to like it well enough. It's the beginning of an idea that I hope to develop. I'd appreciate your thoughts.


----------



## soulfluxzero (Nov 30, 2006)

There's sum really beautiful images there, i especially like number 2 as it seems to have a greater feeling of mood, atmosphere and symbolism (we are puppets kind of thing?) that i think would look great in a series if you were to carry them on. Then again, i might just be one of those people who prefer a moody photograph. 
 I'm sure you've been asked before, but do you use a special filter for your pics? The scratchy texture you achieve is a great look. Oh yeah and the page http://catherinebuca.com is coming on very nicely- keep it smiple and easy to navigate and you've got a winner!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Nov 30, 2006)

soulfluxzero said:
			
		

> There's sum really beautiful images there, i especially like number 2 as it seems to have a greater feeling of mood, atmosphere and symbolism (we are puppets kind of thing?) that i think would look great in a series if you were to carry them on. Then again, i might just be one of those people who prefer a moody photograph.
> I'm sure you've been asked before, but do you use a special filter for your pics? The scratchy texture you achieve is a great look. Oh yeah and the page http://catherinebuca.com is coming on very nicely- keep it smiple and easy to navigate and you've got a winner!



Thank you  

Filter: no action or filter, I play around with patterns and other 'normal' pp stuff like levels - that's all really. 

Design: I'm not planning on changing anything now - I'm happy with how it is. Apart from when you select a gallery from the drop-down list I'd like people to be able to browse backwards and forwards just through the photos in that selected gallery, but at present as soon as you start browsing it takes you back to the normal loop of images ... I'm sure there's a way, but I haven't worked it out yet.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Nov 30, 2006)

Can't we have a separate spread for people who just take crap holiday photos please?  This thread is full of arty farty clever and expert photos.

Anyway, I'm sticking up one of my holiday snapshots here


----------



## Janh (Nov 30, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Nice  (I hate the word nice, sorry I just used it). I like the idea. When I read 'stpauls' at the end of the url I thought 'oh, another typical shot of st pauls' but that isn't what that is at all. You have brought a different view to it. I like how the focus leads into it. In some ways though it seems a little _too_ dark - with too little detail to the shot, but there is definitely something there.



Thank you.

Nice site btw really subtle and delicate with no distracting flashyness, fly-eye view of cactus is my favourite.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Dec 1, 2006)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Two more from me (nicely situated in the new blog too)
> 
> number 1
> 
> ...




You're really quite good aren't you. Prefer the colour shot. Saw a photograph here of a pomegranite (sp?) the other day. One of the sexiest fruit/seed shots I've ever seen. Part of a set of four featuring one of the lushest lip photos I've ever come across also. Wish I could find a link to point you to. 

Like them and I'm in no mood to be critical ATM. So, I won't this time


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 2, 2006)

Coffee break


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 2, 2006)

Gas


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 3, 2006)

Lonely coffee


----------



## funky_sessions (Dec 3, 2006)

Cathedral

ok... here's another one.. what do you think?


----------



## chooch (Dec 4, 2006)

Some more Seville. Hmm. Think I might be overdoing this _boost the contrast to bollocks_ bit.

alcazar window
Alfareria
Triana rain

Be glad to hear what anyone thinks...


----------



## chooch (Dec 4, 2006)

funky_sessions said:
			
		

> ok... here's another one.. what do you think?


Pretty. Though not nearly as lovely as the warehouse. Not sure the composition quite works with the bricks out of line and the looming bit on the right hand side. Difficult to make a shot like this work, I think.


----------



## funky_sessions (Dec 4, 2006)

chooch said:
			
		

> Some more Seville. Hmm. Think I might be overdoing this _boost the contrast to bollocks_ bit.
> 
> Alfareria



I really like that one, I like the simple contrast between the dark background and the white graffiti


----------



## Chorlton (Dec 7, 2006)

Causeway1

causeway 2


*very* noisy pics - not altogether sure why...


----------



## alef (Dec 10, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> Causeway1
> 
> causeway 2
> 
> ...



Dark and moody, which I like. The levels do look a bit too dark but maybe that's the effect you want? What is the beach made of? Looks like some kind of strange volcanic rocks.

I would suggest straightening the horizon on the second shot.


----------



## alef (Dec 10, 2006)

funky_sessions said:
			
		

> Cathedral
> 
> ok... here's another one.. what do you think?



Very dramatic and full of texture. I'm not particularly into architectual photography but this is certainly a good use of b+w.


----------



## alef (Dec 10, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Coffee break



Your shots are quite minimal, which can work well if the subject is interesting enough. I find these a bit bland, to be honest.


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2006)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Lonely coffee



Quite like that even if it is rather simple. I think it is because it is begging to be symmetrical but fails.


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2006)

funky_sessions said:
			
		

> Cathedral
> 
> ok... here's another one.. what do you think?



Its alright, slightly on the piss and there's too much going on on the right hand side but its alright. slight barrel distortion


----------



## Firky (Dec 10, 2006)

chooch said:
			
		

> Some more Seville. Hmm. Think I might be overdoing this _boost the contrast to bollocks_ bit.
> 
> alcazar window
> 
> Be glad to hear what anyone thinks...



That is f'ing excellent, really like that - I'd pay money for it. Reminds me of Rothko! People shouldn't be afraid to take pictures of things like this - rather than stuff, things and scenes. Excellent work! 

p.s

I saved it


----------



## Chorlton (Dec 11, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Dark and moody, which I like. The levels do look a bit too dark but maybe that's the effect you want? What is the beach made of? Looks like some kind of strange volcanic rocks.
> 
> I would suggest straightening the horizon on the second shot.



yeah, its the giants causeway on north antrim, which is indeed volcanic... its a great place bacuase 9 times out of ten its being battered by waves and foul weather yet the visitor centre only sells pictures of beautiful sunsets and idyllic long exposure shots... it comes into its own in foul weather.

all editing was done in picasa - i tried photoshopping it - but i liked what picasa gave me better... dirtier and noisier

I've looked at the second and can't see the straightening required - could you expand?

cheers for feedback


----------



## alef (Dec 11, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> yeah, its the giants causeway on north antrim, which is indeed volcanic... its a great place bacuase 9 times out of ten its being battered by waves and foul weather yet the visitor centre only sells pictures of beautiful sunsets and idyllic long exposure shots... it comes into its own in foul weather.
> 
> all editing was done in picasa - i tried photoshopping it - but i liked what picasa gave me better... dirtier and noisier
> 
> ...






			
				Chorlton said:
			
		

> causeway 2



The horizon is tilting about one degree to the left so needs a small clockwise rotation. I admit it's not a lot but with such a strong horizontal line it leapt out at me. If you compare the heights of the sky on each side I'd say there's at least a 15 px difference (should I grab my anorak and leave now?).

I visited the other half of the Giant's Causeway in the Hebrides, though it was a sunny and beautiful day:
http://www.alef.co.uk/photos/hebrides/10.html


----------



## funky_sessions (Dec 11, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> Its alright, slightly on the piss and there's too much going on on the right hand side but its alright. slight barrel distortion



how do I correct the barrel distortion? is it something I can do in photoshop?
maybe I could try and vanish the other part of the building out on the right hand side In PS, but I haven't got too much time to play around with it at the moment.


----------



## Blagsta (Dec 11, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> Your shots are quite minimal, which can work well if the subject is interesting enough. I find these a bit bland, to be honest.



Yeah, I wasn't sure about the coffee ones myself.  Tbh, I used it as more of an exercise in correct exposure...I'm still learning!


----------



## chooch (Dec 15, 2006)

firky said:
			
		

> That is f'ing excellent, really like that - I'd pay money for it.
> I saved it


Ta. 


Another, this time from Cordoba.


----------



## chooch (Dec 15, 2006)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!
> http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/mine.jpg


Like the composition of that one: not quite balanced; a bit of tension.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Dec 16, 2006)

Taken on a recent trip to Thailand, Here


----------



## portman (Dec 17, 2006)

chooch said:
			
		

> Ta.
> 
> 
> Another, this time from Cordoba.



A good 'un...captures the feel of the skaters movement brilliantly. Producing the image in monochrome also adds a little something extra to it...


----------



## portman (Dec 17, 2006)

Four images shot on the seawall at Stanford-le-Hope (Essex shore of the Thames Estuary) in the fading light of a fine winter afternoon...

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Seawall171206_01.html

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Seawall171206_03.html

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Seawall171206_07.html

http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Seawall171206_08.html

Minimal tweaking in Photoshop Elements, mainly slight adjustments to the contrast. Images are an attempt to capture the mood and feel of the place more than anything else.

All comments or constructive criticism are welcome...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 17, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Four images shot on the seawall at Stanford-le-Hope (Essex shore of the Thames Estuary) in the fading light of a fine winter afternoon...
> 
> http://daveamis.freeservers.com/Seawall171206_01.html
> 
> ...




First one i think might have looked better landscape. I can see why you took it portrait but its feel a bit narrow. Obviously i wasn't there so maybe it wouldnt have done 

Second one is nice but the curves on the left side are cut off which lets the image down a little

Third one, maybe it should have been framed a little closer, cutting off the horizontal line running along the bottom third of the photo.

Fourth one is the best, portrait but it works nicely.

Nice light on all of them, framing let a couple down, but still ok shots.......


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 17, 2006)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> Taken on a recent trip to Thailand, Here



I think i can see what you were trying to do, looks a little over exposed in the white areas, but then again my monitor is shite  Maybe you'd have been better taking it slightly lower down and framing the first three 'vases' and going for a more geometric shot using the horizontal lines of each side of the vase to divide the photo up.

I took a similar shot of statues in Cambodia and tried to get too many in the same shot and it didn't really work......


----------



## Barking_Mad (Dec 17, 2006)

Thought i'd share this one, it's one of my favourites from my trip to India but a bit of a 'happy accident'. It was taken in a narrow entrance to a temple and there was a woman stood behind me so I couldn't crouch down to frame it. Instead I held the camera by my side, took a guess on the framing and clicked. I think im going to take them all like that in future 

http://www.pbase.com/barking_mad/image/71513905


----------



## Kanda (Dec 18, 2006)

My first steps with photography, I took a wander round Clapham Common yesterday.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/djkanda/sets/72157594426050339/

Is really just getting used to the camera, working out settings etc etc


----------



## dlx1 (Dec 18, 2006)

Kanda said:
			
		

> My first steps with photography










1st attempts at photography  looking good.

Reflection: you cut the birds head off


----------



## chooch (Dec 18, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Nice light on all of them, framing let a couple down, but still ok shots.......


Aye. Well spotted and technically good, but the composition doesn't work for me. The first one is best. 




			
				Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> Thought i'd share this one, it's one of my favourites from my trip to India


Aye. Turned out lovely.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 18, 2006)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> 1st attempts at photography  looking good.



Thanks 

Gonna get on the roof at work and try a few things when it gets dark, London Eye etc all visible from there.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 19, 2006)

More pissing about with new camera around the South Bank last night: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=327045641&size=l


----------



## hiccup (Dec 19, 2006)

Kanda said:
			
		

> More pissing about with new camera around the South Bank last night: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=327045641&size=l



Very Christmassy. Were you using a tripod, or just very steady hands?

I took this the other day, down beside the Thames at Wapping:

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/826/ladderbl4.jpg

Thought the evening sun brought out some lovely colours.


----------



## Kanda (Dec 19, 2006)

hiccup said:
			
		

> Very Christmassy. Were you using a tripod, or just very steady hands?



I wedged myself against a post, upon review of last nights photos, I definitely need to buy a tripod!


----------



## chooch (Dec 19, 2006)

Kanda said:
			
		

> More pissing about with new camera around the South Bank last night: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=327045641&size=l


That´s mighty impressive.


----------



## jeff_leigh (Dec 19, 2006)

Barking_Mad said:
			
		

> I think i can see what you were trying to do, looks a little over exposed in the white areas, but then again my monitor is shite  Maybe you'd have been better taking it slightly lower down and framing the first three 'vases' and going for a more geometric shot using the horizontal lines of each side of the vase to divide the photo up.
> 
> I took a similar shot of statues in Cambodia and tried to get too many in the same shot and it didn't really work......



Thanks Barking they're actually Bells though


----------



## chooch (Dec 19, 2006)

alef said:
			
		

> I visited the other half of the Giant's Causeway in the Hebrides, though it was a sunny and beautiful day:


I like the shot of the seats and the green floor.


----------



## digitalfrog (Dec 20, 2006)

Makeup girls


http://www.pbase.com/digitalfrog/image/59422934.jpg


----------



## Kanda (Dec 20, 2006)

More spam from me, I'm really enjoying my new hobby 

Me and the g/f in The Albert (in the mirror), hip shot, messed about with blurring in photoshop. I think thats Ninja and William behind me.

http://kanda.zenfolio.com/img/p672774628-4.jpg


----------



## ashtray (Dec 21, 2006)

digitalfrog said:
			
		

> Makeup girls
> 
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/digitalfrog/image/59422934.jpg



That is fantastic!


----------



## Structaural (Dec 21, 2006)

digitalfrog said:
			
		

> Makeup girls
> 
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/digitalfrog/image/59422934.jpg



You've some great shots on your website... sexy!


----------



## alef (Dec 21, 2006)

Kanda said:
			
		

> More spam from me, I'm really enjoying my new hobby
> 
> Me and the g/f in The Albert (in the mirror), hip shot, messed about with blurring in photoshop. I think thats Ninja and William behind me.
> 
> http://kanda.zenfolio.com/img/p672774628-4.jpg



I like the moodiness of the shot, and I always like it when people work with available indoor lighting, never easy.


----------



## AndrewNumLock (Dec 25, 2006)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/137/328249716_b0e8cea141.jpg?v=0

Thoughts?


----------



## portman (Dec 28, 2006)

Four images taken on a walk down to the seawall today. Camera used was a Konica Minolta Dimage. Conditions were still, some cloud and a weak sun that was on the way down. No manipulation at all on the images apart from a very minor correction of a fraction of a degree with the rotation tool to straighten up the horizon. Here they are:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/336356513/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/336356519/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/336356532/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/336356539/

Any comments or constructive criticism welcome. I do intend to do some Photoshop manipulation at a later date so bear in mind these may not be the finished images!

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## alef (Dec 28, 2006)

portman said:
			
		

> Four images taken on a walk down to the seawall today. Camera used was a Konica Minolta Dimage. Conditions were still, some cloud and a weak sun that was on the way down. No manipulation at all on the images apart from a very minor correction of a fraction of a degree with the rotation tool to straighten up the horizon. Here they are:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/336356513/
> 
> ...



The first one stands out, it has a sort of alien landscape quality, plus the nice golden light reflecting. The last one lacks composition and seems rather bland compared to the other three.


----------



## portman (Dec 29, 2006)

*Greenwich...but not as you know it!*

The following documentary style shots were taken on a visit to Greenwich today. Rather than do the usual tourist bit (difficult when the Cutty Sark is in bits getting mended!), me and my better half took ourselves off down the riverside path going downstream. Here's the results:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/337667225/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/337667192/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/337667204/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/337667213/

Yes, I know the shot of the front of the Lovell's building has a sodding great lampost in the middle. I don't retouch this kind of thing out and I certainly don't take a saw out on a shoot with me to remove any offending items such as this!!

Any other constructive comments, either here or on Flicker, are more than welcome...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## k_s (Dec 29, 2006)

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d121/Ghostrevol/morning.jpg

Lake Geneva from the town of Rolle at around 4.30am. Slightly lousy quality as it is a scan of a 35mm print. As always, photoshop was not allowed anywhere near this image.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 29, 2006)

k_s said:
			
		

> http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d121/Ghostrevol/morning.jpg
> 
> Lake Geneva from the town of Rolle at around 4.30am. Slightly lousy quality as it is a scan of a 35mm print. As always, photoshop was not allowed anywhere near this image.


----------



## portman (Dec 31, 2006)

Some images from a wander around the City of London today - all black and white by the way...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/340017257/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/340017231/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/340017238/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/340017222/

As ever, comments and constructive criticism are welcomed...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Chorlton (Jan 9, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> Some images from a wander around the City of London today - all black and white by the way...
> <snip>
> 
> As ever, comments and constructive criticism are welcomed...
> ...




I like all of those very much, you are clearly not simply desaturating here, but working on the tones and contrast as well?


----------



## chriswill (Jan 9, 2007)

Just pissing about at home.


----------



## portman (Jan 10, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> I like all of those very much, you are clearly not simply desaturating here, but working on the tones and contrast as well?



Yes most definitely! There is always some adjustment that is going to be needed but in general it amounts to not much more than a few minutes work. If it takes longer than that, then I haven't taken the photograph right so it gets binned.


----------



## Chorlton (Jan 10, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> Yes most definitely! There is always some adjustment that is going to be needed but in general it amounts to not much more than a few minutes work. If it takes longer than that, then I haven't taken the photograph right so it gets binned.




well, i like!

E2A

got a couple myself that i wouldn't mind feedback on from urbanites

My God, its Full of Stars

Tram Tower Stretford

Tram Stretford no tower

no tram, no tower and deffo no stretford


all taken in this past coupla days
gracie


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 11, 2007)

The Strand







Charing Cross Rd


----------



## e19896 (Jan 12, 2007)

all four of them


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 12, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> all four of them




They look like bad snaps taken by a kid on work experience at the local rag. On a day when there was no news. 

Actually, they're far worse than that. It's just another burned out car very badly snapped.


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> They look like bad snaps taken by a kid on work experience at the local rag. On a day when there was no news.
> 
> Actually, they're far worse than that. It's just another burned out car very badly snapped.



Why don't you tell us what you really think?


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> all four of them



If the car is still around I'd suggest trying to photograph it again and play more with the composition and reflection. Perhaps try some tight crops around some of the interesting colour patterns on the car.


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> The Strand
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Details of urban streets... hmm, to be honest they don't do much for me. Maybe need more in a series to show you're capturing all around the West End. On their own they don't really offer anything unusual (unless you've never looked in a London phonebooth before!).


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

chriswill said:
			
		

> Just pissing about at home.



I like the yellow door


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Details of urban streets... hmm, to be honest they don't do much for me. Maybe need more in a series to show you're capturing all around the West End. On their own they don't really offer anything unusual (unless you've never looked in a London phonebooth before!).



They are part of a series of photos of stickers, signs, sigils etc that people use to put their mark on the big city
http://www.avgp39.dsl.pipex.com/signs/index.htm

I liked The Strand one 'cos someones stuck a butterfly hairclip high up on a signpost with a bit of chewing gum - a deliberate act that creates a silly bit of art.  The Charing Cross Rd one I liked 'cos the prostitutes flyers were near the gutter and dirty, which is how a lot of people view prostitution.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 12, 2007)

Here's a few from the festive season. Do I need one of those ND grad thingies to make this sort of stuff work better?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0066_3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0076_4.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0093_1.jpg


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> ...The Charing Cross Rd one I liked 'cos the prostitutes flyers were near the gutter and dirty, which is how a lot of people view prostitution.



Here's a similar pic from when I lived on the infamous marquess estate in Islington. It was only much later that I noticed a slice of tomato in the shot:
http://www.alef.co.uk/photos/marquess/marquess-4.html


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Here's a few from the festive season. Do I need one of those ND grad thingies to make this sort of stuff work better?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0066_3.jpg
> 
> ...



I like the colours, very autumnal/wintery.  I prefer the 2 & 3, the first one is a tad bland IMO.  The third one is especially good.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Here's a similar pic from when I lived on the infamous marquess estate in Islington. It was only much later that I noticed a slice of tomato in the shot:
> http://www.alef.co.uk/photos/marquess/marquess-4.html



Cool.  


I also particularly liked this one of mine






because of the juxtaposition of the "go veggie" sticker and the connotations of the sex trade and meat.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 12, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Cool.
> 
> 
> I also particularly liked this one of mine
> ...


 There's something strangely fascinating about those phonebooth cards, although they've gotten sort of tackier over the years. Back when I used to live in London, say in the early-mid 90's, you used to get people like Vince Ray doing the artwork, at least for his numerous dominatrix friends, which was much more stylish. 

You've certainly captured the tacky sleaze aspect though.


----------



## alef (Jan 12, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Here's a few from the festive season. Do I need one of those ND grad thingies to make this sort of stuff work better?
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0066_3.jpg
> 
> ...



The first two have really nice colouring. Landscape isn't my usual cup of tea, but your shots certainly catch my eye.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> The first two have really nice colouring. Landscape isn't my usual cup of tea, but your shots certainly catch my eye.


 Thanks 

As you probably guessed, they're from the same location as those other ones I posted a while back, but with different light. 

Same windswept thorn tree though.


----------



## portman (Jan 14, 2007)

A few shots documenting the mundane dreariness of a suburban town...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/356724463/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/356724458/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/356023613/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/356023606/

Comments and constructive criticism (about the photography, not the neighbourhood I live in!) are welcome...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 14, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Here's a few from the festive season. Do I need one of those ND grad thingies to make this sort of stuff work better?
> 
> ...




Depends what you mean by better? I very rarely work without a very subtle garduated neutral density filter for day time landscapes. Barely discernible - very subtle. But, it does help to control the exposure a little.

There isn't really a 'better' way of shooting into the light. Post production in PS or, dodging and burning in the darkroom can help even out the exposure and bring detail out of the lowlight and highlight areas. Or, you could try a composite of two or, three exposures.

Personally, I prefer the 'natural' contrasty look in the examples here. Shots 1 and 2 may have looked very different with a polarising filter.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 14, 2007)

Interesting. Thanks Stanley. How many stops is 'barely discernable' in your view? I was thinking of +3 but I'm now wondering if I shouldn't look at +1 or something?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 14, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Interesting. Thanks Stanley. How many stops is 'barely discernable' in your view? I was thinking of +3 but I'm now wondering if I shouldn't look at +1 or something?




I use a graduated ND that starts from about 1 stop and fades out within a third of the filter surface. It is so subtle that I need to rely on the filter markings to be sure it's horizontal.


----------



## e19896 (Jan 15, 2007)




----------



## baffled (Jan 16, 2007)

Yes I know selective colouring is cliched but being new to all this I couldn't resist, go on then tear me a new one


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 17, 2007)

Wow, I like them!


----------



## baffled (Jan 18, 2007)

Ta, was messing about in Picasa and found the B&W Focal tool and ended up ith the above.


----------



## baffled (Jan 19, 2007)

More flowers but straight B&W conversion this time.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sismastery/362448477/


----------



## dolly's gal (Jan 20, 2007)

can't,

the digi camera got covered in beer


----------



## zenie (Feb 3, 2007)

Took this tonight

Anything I can do in PS to make it look a bit more wow? 

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/142/377853757_450bb331e3.jpg

Just been cropped a bit on one side.


----------



## Structaural (Feb 5, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> Took this tonight
> 
> Anything I can do in PS to make it look a bit more wow?
> 
> ...



The Image-Adjustments-Exposure is an interesting tool for photography...


----------



## t0bytoo (Feb 5, 2007)

ta-da


----------



## t0bytoo (Feb 5, 2007)

something different


----------



## jms (Feb 5, 2007)

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp2.jpg
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp1.jpg

(i get bored easily  - these are probably utter shit but still)


----------



## zenie (Feb 6, 2007)

Structaural said:
			
		

> The Image-Adjustments-Exposure is an interesting tool for photography...



I'm shit at PP


----------



## chriswill (Feb 8, 2007)

Taken along the Leeds Liverpool Canal near where I live


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2007)

chriswill said:
			
		

> Taken along the Leeds Liverpool Canal near where I live
> 
> http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/9073/canalreur5.jpg


Wonderful colours but a bit empty/lacking. Play with it. See that concrete on the right bank - try cutting off anything right of that to push the canal out of the centre. Lose a bit of sky too. Not the perfect solution by any means, just one possibility. Play with cropping and ignore trying to preserve the aspect ratio too.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2007)

jms said:
			
		

> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp2.jpg
> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp1.jpg
> 
> (i get bored easily  - these are probably utter shit but still)


Lamp1 would be reet if it had more on the bottom without affecting the rest. I genuinely like the lighting on either of them, especially with the subtle background and selective highlighting in 2, but the composition is a bit poop


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/133/359776540_6737da7867.jpg
> 
> Yes I know selective colouring is cliched but being new to all this I couldn't resist, go on then tear me a new one
> 
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/147/359601145_1dc72e8e0e.jpg


I think these are mint  

Tiny little bit more contrast via curves for punch on the first one? Little more brightness via curves on the second (and maybe contrast to boot) - plus maybe a little more off the bottom for a slightly more letterbox shot? Otherwise great.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> A few shots documenting the mundane dreariness of a suburban town...
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/356023613/


This one works for me. I'd prefer if it were wider - it's especially a shame you've lost a little bit of detail on the right hand side in the graffiti. Are the railings either side the same height? If so, it'd be better if they were balanced - both vertically and horizontally. It's a little disconcerting. More sky or more ground would help too, and maybe more/less of the horizon - i.e. take it from higher up or lower down. Perhaps the latter as the trees on the left are a distraction.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 8, 2007)

Gah, too many posts.

Bernie, http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v229/Druid/Marsh Lane January/DSC_0076_4.jpg - ace. Shame there's not more road and the left side of the sky is a little blown. Can it be brought back at all without affecting the rest? Maybe black out the road as with only that much, it kind of throws the whole thing out. I love the tiered background, and that's what makes it for me.

Blagsta, http://www.avgp39.dsl.pipex.com/london/photos/018.jpg has real potential, because you've captured something a little more unusual, that tells a little story IMO. Cut off the top and lose all the black, it's a distraction. Straighten it out - perspective correction if necessary to make both lines straight and parallel. More contrast to bring out the reds and blacks, lend it some punch.

Chriswill, http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/2426/somewherenb5.jpg. Alef's right. The yellow door makes the shot. Lose the right hand side such that you make it more of a significant part of the photo. A little more of the bottom if you have any you've chopped off. Doesn't matter too much. Just remove the aforementioned clutter to make it more simplistic.

That'll do for now


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks mauvais. I'm not quite confident enough in my own judgment to offer helpful hints to others yet, but I really appreciate it when someone helps me.

I've had another couple of goes at that tree where I've tried to address some of the issues you mention. I might have a dig around for some to compare.


----------



## baffled (Feb 9, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I think these are mint
> 
> Tiny little bit more contrast via curves for punch on the first one? Little more brightness via curves on the second (and maybe contrast to boot) - plus maybe a little more off the bottom for a slightly more letterbox shot? Otherwise great.



Cheers, that was my first go at something like that and the end result wasn't too bad.

Couple of fences close up and rotated 90 degrees.

Wire In The Wood

Never A Frown


----------



## jms (Feb 9, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> but the composition is a bit poop



how do you mean? im intrigued


----------



## e19896 (Feb 9, 2007)

The image is here to big to post


more here


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 9, 2007)

jms said:
			
		

> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp2.jpg
> http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p250/jspearmint/lamp1.jpg
> 
> (i get bored easily  - these are probably utter shit but still)



Totally loving these! You do this often? As in you have a photoblog etc? I'd love to see more


----------



## jms (Feb 10, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Totally loving these! You do this often? As in you have a photoblog etc? I'd love to see more



Well i kinda do them every once in a while... sometimes i make videos instead. Usually its just for myspace purposes though. Nothing fancy.


----------



## Firky (Feb 11, 2007)

Straight off the camera, nothing done to it apart from saved to jpeg, resized and a border added. No tweaks or anything. I quite like it myself.


----------



## chooch (Feb 11, 2007)

Taken in Jerez, yesterday.
Not sure I quite got the composition quite right.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 11, 2007)

*Sheffild in snow.*


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 11, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

>



Are you serious 

I actually like the subject and content. Alien colours exagerated by a natural blanket of white. Empty swings etc. It could be very thought provoking, but it isn't for me.

I like the way photographers shooting this kind of stuff use clinical composition and technical excellence to draw empathy. Lacks here and spoils the shot greatly.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 11, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Are you serious
> 
> I actually like the subject and content. Alien colours exagerated by a natural blanket of white. Empty swings etc. It could be very thought provoking, but it isn't for me.
> 
> I like the way photographers shooting this kind of stuff use clinical composition and technical excellence to draw empathy. Lacks here and spoils the shot greatly.



are you serious if you was aware who was at my side at the time and giveing me advice and we was stood there for half an hour i was board but looking at the image and i have done nowt regards manipulation i feel happy with it...


----------



## alef (Feb 12, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> are you serious if you was aware who was at my side at the time and giveing me advice and we was stood there for half an hour i was board but looking at the image and i have done nowt regards manipulation i feel happy with it...



Don't take him too seriously. Stanley Edwards is often grumpy and his favourite subject for photography is empty fields.  

I like your colourful swings in the snow, for me it's more interesting than the previous photos of yours you've posted on here.


----------



## Firky (Feb 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Don't take him too seriously. Stanley Edwards is often grumpy and his favourite subject for photography is empty fields.



PML 

I did just 'lol'


----------



## e19896 (Feb 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Don't take him too seriously. Stanley Edwards is often grumpy and his favourite subject for photography is empty fields.
> 
> I like your colourful swings in the snow, for me it's more interesting than the previous photos of yours you've posted on here.



Thanks i feel one is getting there but hanging out with a top bloke in all of this aint to bed.. yes i liked the image at the end though for the life of stood there and the taking of the image i did think why the fuck but looking at it now i work it all out..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Don't take him too seriously. Stanley Edwards is often grumpy and his favourite subject for photography is empty fields.



 

Personally, I thought I was being very kind. I've decided I don't like this scum bag e19896. And, his photography is utter shyte.

May as well say what I really think now I know he's an arsehole


----------



## mauvais (Feb 12, 2007)

jms said:
			
		

> how do you mean? im intrigued


On lamp2 you (?) are almost falling out of the frame. Even another 10% of space or so would have made it work. The big space to the left works well, you're positioned well vertically; the lamp is kinda chopped - not sure I'd have noticed if everything else was right though. Looking out of frame is always a funny one but I wouldn't try and apply such a rule so indiscriminately, so never mind that. Just not enough room to look around.

Lamp1 is exactly the same but in the other direction - the vertical. The lamp base and wire being cut off is distracting and feels like someone chopped it in the wrong place. This time there's loads of space again and I like that, and this time you're looking into the picture and not cut up yourself, but there's not enough of the bottom. 10 or 15% maybe.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Personally, I thought I was being very kind. I've decided I don't like this scum bag e19896. And, his photography is utter shyte.
> 
> May as well say what I really think now I know he's an arsehole


*
THANK YOU*


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 13, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> *
> THANK YOU*



You're most welcome.

You want to be an artist you're going to have to learn that not everyone will like your work (or, you) and many will gladly tell you so. You shouldn't let it bother you. I try not to when people tell me my work is shit.

IMO it is an utterly shit photograph. Many others may think differently.


As an aside, I don't like people posting up photographs here for critique when all they're really after is a bit of ego massage. You ask for an honest critique and you'll get one (from me at least).


----------



## e19896 (Feb 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You're most welcome.
> 
> You want to be an artist you're going to have to learn that not everyone will like your work (or, you) and many will gladly tell you so. You shouldn't let it bother you. I try not to when people tell me my work is shit.
> 
> ...



no i do not i post images to promote the work not the ego..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 13, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> no i do not i post images to promote the work not the ego..




Look, you posted on a thread entitled 'submit a photo to the urban75 critics'. Just because one person offered a critique that you didn't like you got all upset. If you simply want to promote your work go post it somewhere else where you're not inviting critical feedback. Idiot.

The reason I don't like you is because you see fit to brag about your super market skip recycling and poor downtrodden, inner-city estate living lifestyle as a qualification for being a real artist.

But, I suspect you don't like walking to far in the snow. Especially not through those mean estates where the kids may be throwing white stuff around. I suspect your home is actually a room/flat in a more salubrious Victorian street on the outskirts of the city


----------



## baffled (Feb 13, 2007)

If I am being honest my first post was looking for an ego stroking but now I would rather get an honest and fair critique of anything I choose to show here.

The rest of it will remain secret for ever more.

*Barbed Arch*






*Reborn*






Both photos and others avaialble HERE if you wish to leave comments.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Look, you posted on a thread entitled 'submit a photo to the urban75 critics'. Just because one person offered a critique that you didn't like you got all upset. If you simply want to promote your work go post it somewhere else where you're not inviting critical feedback. Idiot.
> 
> The reason I don't like you is because you see fit to brag about your super market skip recycling and poor downtrodden, inner-city estate living lifestyle as a qualification for being a real artist.
> 
> But, I suspect you don't like walking to far in the snow. Especially not through those mean estates where the kids may be throwing white stuff around. I suspect your home is actually a room/flat in a more salubrious Victorian street on the outskirts of the city



no it is a squat due to myself being homeless and i did not get all upset took your comments on board no i promote the work because i desire to say something about urban regeneration in sheffield and what we are losing is what made sheffield. so much of this city, and other cities, has not been documented. well here in this media age we have that opportunity and you know what i fucking love doin this, it is hard work but good fun to be frank.

i promote skip raiding as a means of self reliance and a benefit to stop the rape of this earth by a minority when the majority suffer.

my home will be a flat in the more salubrious Victorian street on the outskirts of the city end of this week that's following two years of being fucking homeless and i have lived in the ghetto man and yes have the privilege of not doing so now but i do not forget me roots brother and you know what i like your work, very much like your work and welcome your comments because you are good at what you do and might improve some of the shit i do. one is learning all comments welcome negative and positive..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 13, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> my home will be a flat in the more salubrious Victorian street on the outskirts of the city end of this week that's following two years of being fucking homeless ...



Good luck. 

The most important piece of advice ever given to myself and the advice I always pass on is; 'do it for yourself - not to try and please others'.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Feb 14, 2007)

Gulfoss, Island. 

Taken on a bog standard Epson 3 megapixel.


----------



## MightyAphrodite (Feb 14, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Straight off the camera, nothing done to it apart from saved to jpeg, resized and a border added. No tweaks or anything. I quite like it myself.




 awww....*melts*







horrible place... :|


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 14, 2007)

Boris Sprinkler said:
			
		

> Gulfoss, Island.
> 
> Taken on a bog standard Epson 3 megapixel.



I like them. Simple and unpretentious. You've captured the essence and atmosphere of the place. Lens flare ads to the cold effect. Don't think you could do better with a 3MP basic.

WTF is Gulfoss Island?


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Feb 14, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> WTF is Gulfoss Island?



i Engelsk??

Gulfoss - Gold falls.

Island - Iceland.


----------



## jms (Feb 14, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> On lamp2 you (?) are almost falling out of the frame. Even another 10% of space or so would have made it work. The big space to the left works well, you're positioned well vertically; the lamp is kinda chopped - not sure I'd have noticed if everything else was right though. Looking out of frame is always a funny one but I wouldn't try and apply such a rule so indiscriminately, so never mind that. Just not enough room to look around.
> 
> Lamp1 is exactly the same but in the other direction - the vertical. The lamp base and wire being cut off is distracting and feels like someone chopped it in the wrong place. This time there's loads of space again and I like that, and this time you're looking into the picture and not cut up yourself, but there's not enough of the bottom. 10 or 15% maybe.



Cool. I still like the way I cut them up. Works for me


----------



## Vintage Paw (Feb 14, 2007)

jms said:
			
		

> Cool. I still like the way I cut them up. Works for me



And for me


----------



## chintz (Feb 15, 2007)

Still new to  Photography and Photoshop

One of my first attempts at a "proper" photo rather than a snapshot also my first proper play with photoshop

criticism most welcome but go easy


----------



## Chorlton (Feb 15, 2007)

Boris Sprinkler said:
			
		

> Gulfoss, Island.



lovely - its a beautiful place, i was there a few years ago with my 3mp that i scrimped and saved for





and now my first attempt at flash photography, its taken with a d70, a manual 50mm lens that i just bought and i have been messing with off camera flash... feedback or advice on what you look for in potraits would be very much appreciated


----------



## Chorlton (Feb 15, 2007)

chintz said:
			
		

> One of my first attempts at a "proper" photo rather than a snapshot also my first proper play with photoshop
> 
> criticism most welcome but go easy



i think thats great, all the more so for a first attempt, i must tell you tho that me likeing it may not mean a lot as i am a sucker for landscapes, the more cheese the better.. i loves them....


----------



## e19896 (Feb 16, 2007)

from me new toy taken tonight moveing home 16 2 07 but going to play over the weekend..


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Feb 16, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> from me new toy taken tonight moveing home 16 2 07 but going to play over the weekend..



I like that. The way the houses in the foreground blend to mist and then then to the lights further out, it makes a busy place look still. What Roald Dahl would have called the witching hour.


----------



## portman (Feb 18, 2007)

*Baffled...*

This is simply an exercise in taking a fairly simple, semi-abstract shot then doing a bit of PS work with tightening the crop, upping the saturation a bit and then bumping up the contrast. I shoved it up on Flickr (forlornly hoping for some critical input!) and have got the usual ego stroke for what, in retrospect, is just an okayish sort of image...so do feel free to rip it apart, it would be a refreshing change!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/379655337/

This one was the closest I could zoom in on the pylon with the camera I've got. I've been trying out a few pylon shots with the aim of getting something with a gritty but abstract quality. Looking back at many of them, they are okay but nothing to write home about. I feel that with this one, I may be getting there but could do with some pointers as to how to improve it. Also, would a mono version be worth a try?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/370976219/

Cheers and thanks (in advance) for any feedback...


----------



## Firky (Feb 18, 2007)

Damn that Bernie!


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

*Macro Spike...*






Just added border effect view all four here there worked to go with the html/css have a look..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Just added border effect view all four here there worked to go with the html/css have a look..




You're just teaseling now  

You're still shyte IMO  

Each to their own. Thankfully.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 19, 2007)

I really don't get it - you're almost like a troll but I can't quite decide if you are  

The name, the stuff, how you behave - you're up on the roof with a banner, screaming 'pisstake!' but I worry it's not at all.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Damn that Bernie!





That's quite pretty.

Have you considered a range of greetings cards?


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You're just teaseling now
> 
> You're still shyte IMO
> 
> Each to their own. Thankfully.



and who made you god and each to there own i know what ill ban meself from urban75 good bye..


----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I really don't get it - you're almost like a troll but I can't quite decide if you are
> 
> The name, the stuff, how you behave - you're up on the roof with a banner, screaming 'pisstake!' but I worry it's not at all.



*scans for evidence*

Nope. You right. He's a troll.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> and who made you god and each to there own i know what ill ban meself from urban75 good bye..




Oi! Idiot. How about slagging some of my photography in your defence instead of just fucking off?

I'd like that.   Oh I would. I'd love it.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Oi! Idiot. How about slagging some of my photography in your defence instead of just fucking off?
> 
> I'd like that.   Oh I would. I'd love it.



i hope you are not being serious and just incase you are i have reported this post as all of this is becoming abuse..


----------



## mauvais (Feb 19, 2007)

Honest question to help me understand where you're coming from - why's your website called pretentiousartist?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> i hope you are not being serious and just incase you are i have reported this post as all of this is becoming abuse..




YOU FAT USELESS BUNCH OF LARDY GAY PULP.


I have dirt on the mods - they'll never ban me  


Get a fucking grip man. It's art and it's the internet


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Honest question to help me understand where you're coming from - why's your website called pretentiousartist?



because that's what one is..


----------



## mauvais (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> because that's what one is..


You _can't_ be for real


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> You _can't_ be for real



yes one is very much so read the blog there..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> yes one is very much so read the blog there..



Do you're down with the kids talking style. It's far more entertaining.

Is you as pissed as I am?

Bet you are  

More bad pics please. You LOOOOOSER.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Do you're down with the kids talking style. It's far more entertaining.
> 
> Is you as pissed as I am?
> 
> ...



i do not drink reoprted againe for abuse..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> i do not drink reoprted againe for abuse..




Like I said before; I have the dirt on the mods - they'll never ban me (I hope, sort of, whatever).

I'm actually very good at abusive words. You don't want to read them.


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards you are now on ignore get a life mate and stop drinking..


----------



## e19896 (Feb 19, 2007)




----------



## Pete the Greek (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> YOU FAT USELESS BUNCH OF LARDY GAY PULP.
> 
> 
> I have dirt on the mods - they'll never ban me
> ...



that's the funniest post i've ever read

Big LOL!!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

That's nice. Is it your work?


----------



## alef (Feb 19, 2007)

_Please_ start some thread elsewhere, this sticky is for posting up images and offering constructive criticism.

I suggest the following:
- limit to each individual adding only the occasional photo
- if you have nothing worth saying then say nothing

If you have a handful of photos you'd like to post then just start your own thread. And critics: silence can be loud, and has the advantage of saving the rest of us from listening to yet another bitch fest.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> _Please_ start some thread elsewhere, this sticky is for posting up images and offering constructive criticism.
> 
> I suggest the following:
> - limit to each individual adding only the occasional photo
> ...





Mister sensible since he became a dad or what


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> _Please_ start some thread elsewhere, this sticky is for posting up images and offering constructive criticism.
> 
> I suggest the following:
> - limit to each individual adding only the occasional photo
> ...


Must agree meself like 
It's like a tit for tat between Oliver Reed and Chris Eubank.
"I'm an artist and can be as rude as i like when talking about art" v's "One was born in the ghetto don't you know and i'm down with the urban stylee" FFS @ both of you 
It might only be the Internet but that's no excuse for being fucking rude. Now make up chaps and fucking duck before Ed sees the mess you've made of his beloved forum 

A plague on both your houses


----------



## Firky (Feb 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> That's quite pretty.
> 
> Have you considered a range of greetings cards?



No.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> _Please_ start some thread elsewhere, this sticky is for posting up images and offering constructive criticism.
> 
> I suggest the following:
> - limit to each individual adding only the occasional photo
> ...


I very much agree, criticism and random slagging are not the same thing.


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Feb 20, 2007)

this thread is officially amazing ok a couple for you guys to crit some may have seen them before elsewhere.:

1



2



3


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 20, 2007)

GuerillaPhoto said:
			
		

> ...
> 1
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## GuerillaPhoto (Feb 20, 2007)

thank you I have only been into photography for little over a year now and have learnt very quickly due to photographing in extremes. the red floating light was indeed a mistake it was a tiny red LED on the flash gun i was using off camera.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 20, 2007)

What Stanley said. I've commented before that you seemed unwilling to develop (!) for quite a long time - then with this and the last ones I saw from you, suddenly it's like you've had an epiphany. Really good stuff - keep striving to improve and who knows where it'll get you.

I like the first two, not the third. You could and should photoshop out the red trails in the first one. Same for both the highlight on the left and the sensor overheat/whatever in the top left corner on the second. Prefer them without the web address but that's just me.


----------



## neonwilderness (Feb 24, 2007)

I thought this was a fairly average photo, but it's had nearly 900 view on Flickr since I uploaded it last night (most of my photos are lucky if they get over 25)


----------



## Gromit (Feb 24, 2007)

1st Pic
Lake Ontario
(Forgive the shape but its my PsP wallpaper and I've mislaid the orginal)

2nd Pic
Steam Train


----------



## e19896 (Feb 28, 2007)

http://pretentiousartist.com/abstracts/all.html


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 28, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> http://pretentiousartist.com/abstracts/all.html




It is very delicate and very beautiful but, not my favourite in Abstracts Five. I'm more a fan of photographs that disturb you enough to ask questions. This doesn't for me. Decoratively it works very well. Again, your use of gif makes for a painterly quality. It's decorative and a little haunting but, lacks clout. The image I quoted on your other thread is class. Post that one up here and I could write an essay about it


----------



## e19896 (Mar 1, 2007)

Stan you mean this..?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 1, 2007)

I think he means the dude in the car ... but I could be wrong.


----------



## e19896 (Mar 1, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I think he means the dude in the car ... but I could be wrong.



The dude in the car is me and well you will guess not taken by me..


----------



## Chorlton (Mar 1, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> The dude in the car is me and well you will guess not taken by me..




 


I had a feeling that might be the case


that one of the bin and the boat is superb tho... the statement it makes about the unsuitablity of prizes on Bullseye is beautiful... i would call it 'heres what you could have won' but i would probably spell 'won' w0n - leave it up to the viewer to work out why


----------



## e19896 (Mar 1, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> I had a feeling that might be the case
> 
> 
> that one of the bin and the boat is superb tho... the statement it makes about the unsuitablity of prizes on Bullseye is beautiful... i would call it 'heres what you could have won' but i would probably spell 'won' w0n - leave it up to the viewer to work out why



The fucking car was awsome i mean there we was walking through streets of Sheffield we had never been then bingo that car there was another with a wham tape i joke not but not as good as the one love car it was just fucking nice oh yes the boat another class find shame we was moved on by the old bloke in the house we asked all polite for more images but he was haveing none of it and i agree the ray of sun fucks it up but it had to be added to the whole lot and we was shit faced on smoke makes the whole thing more mad.


----------



## D'wards (Mar 6, 2007)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/410655578_5ba50a912e.jpg?v=0

can someone ave a look at this pleae, give us your opinion...


----------



## 5t3IIa (Mar 8, 2007)

I'm not qualified to gave an opinion or owt but it looks lovely. And cold. Very cold.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 8, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Stan you mean this..?



Yep. That is the boat shot I referred to. It's very nice. I like it lots.


----------



## baffled (Mar 10, 2007)

Into The Abyss

Really happy with how this macro turned out, had to up the ISO as Ii was hand held using available natural light.


----------



## alef (Mar 10, 2007)

D'wards said:
			
		

> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/410655578_5ba50a912e.jpg?v=0
> 
> can someone ave a look at this pleae, give us your opinion...



Like it. Has a good starkness with the branches and sky. The reflection looks almost like you've just copied the top half in photoshop and whacked it on the grass. Also like how it's almost b+w except for all the green. Thumbs up!


----------



## alef (Mar 10, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Into The Abyss
> 
> Really happy with how this macro turned out, had to up the ISO as Ii was hand held using available natural light.



Obviously a very impressive macro shot. Did the fly sign a waiver for use of its image?


----------



## alef (Mar 10, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Stan you mean this..?



Genuinely speechless.


----------



## e19896 (Mar 12, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Genuinely speechless.



well erm i need to hug this






Thanks..


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 12, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> well erm i need to hug this
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The technocrats will never get this either.


----------



## Rainingstairs (Mar 15, 2007)

*downtown tampa florida*


----------



## Rainingstairs (Mar 15, 2007)

*park in sarasota florida*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 15, 2007)




----------



## Firky (Mar 15, 2007)

Dude post the pics you put on our forum, they were class


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 15, 2007)

RenegadeDog said:
			
		

>




That's good. What did you shoot on?


----------



## dlx1 (Mar 16, 2007)

What going on only filled it up yesterday! 

----------

/d-towntampatree.jpg


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 16, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> That's good. What did you shoot on?



It was on my Canon s80, using the 15 second exposure...


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 16, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Dude post the pics you put on our forum, they were class



You mean the ones around my city etc?


----------



## Gromit (Mar 16, 2007)

I guess my photos were rubbish then as no one chose to say anything about them.


----------



## Crispy (Mar 16, 2007)

Rainingstairs said:
			
		

>


I sat on one of those benches last year


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 16, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

> I guess my photos were rubbish then as no one chose to say anything about them.



 

Lake Ontario is nice, but steam trains don't really interest me. The subject lost me rather than the photograph itself.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 18, 2007)

Well, I haven't put anything up on here for a while ...

As you might know I tend to use a fair bit of pp on my images - starting with a photograph and creating something new from them in photoshop. However, I've just bought a Rolleicord and I'm going to use it to learn more about lighting, exposure and composition because I can be really lazy (at least I admit my faults  ).

So, got my first roll back yesterday - have uploaded 3 shots so far. I'd like it if someone had a look and told me what they thought. http://flickr.com/photos/buca/sets/72157600005519609/detail/

They are pretty mundane subjects ... I was just shooting like a madwoman around my house on a pretty dreary day because I wanted to get started!

Scanned from the negs on an Epson 4990, only thing tinkered with in photoshop was levels to help with the contrast. I'm not used to scanning negs, and am finding it pretty cumbersome to get used to the software: because I didn't get prints I have no idea if the final image is what is actually on the neg - but they look how I imagined they would when I was setting exposure etc. Oh, the film was expired too - 2000!

Just ordered a job lot of slide and b&w film from 7dayshop so I can get out and about


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 18, 2007)

They're very nice


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 18, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Into The Abyss
> 
> Really happy with how this macro turned out, had to up the ISO as Ii was hand held using available natural light.



Very good - of course the shallow dof is spot on, and the way it's composed brings something a bit fresh to what could have been just another insect macro. Not that insect macros are inherently bad ... 


e2a: Thank you Stanley


----------



## baffled (Mar 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> So, got my first roll back yesterday - have uploaded 3 shots so far. I'd like it if someone had a look and told me what they thought. http://flickr.com/photos/buca/sets/72157600005519609/detail/



Never sure if I should comment on peoples work/photo's as I am so new to it all but they are very nice with great lighting and contrast, *Wall With The Three* being my favourite.

You have some great stuff on your stream too


----------



## Firky (Mar 18, 2007)

Good stuff, VP


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 18, 2007)

Thank you you two  

I'm thoroughly hooked. Going to set myself the challenge of learning how to develop b&w film this summer - then there'll be no stopping me


----------



## zenie (Mar 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Thank you you two
> 
> I'm thoroughly hooked. Going to set myself the challenge of learning how to develop b&w film this summer - then there'll be no stopping me



You're getting really good well done!!


----------



## Firky (Mar 18, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Thank you you two
> 
> I'm thoroughly hooked. Going to set myself the challenge of learning how to develop b&w film this summer - then there'll be no stopping me



Its a piece of piss, really is. I'd advise you to take night classes though, first time I tried I used a tutorial off the internet and although it was concise it wasn't the same as someone showing you how to do it.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Mar 19, 2007)

Thanks Zenie 

Firkles: yup, someone else advised that too, and he's like the god of film too


----------



## ramjamclub (Mar 19, 2007)

*amsterdam - de waag*




casio exilem z4 digital camera 
unretouched, nothing done in editing


----------



## e19896 (Mar 21, 2007)




----------



## Blagsta (Mar 22, 2007)

ickle chimp on the wheels of steel


----------



## Cid (Mar 23, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> Stan you mean this..?



Sorry, but I don't buy it... Excellent subject matter, poor technique. Anyone with a disposable camera could take that photo.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Mar 23, 2007)

Salford Quays, Manchester.
Scanned from old photos so the quality is a bit crap.


----------



## dlx1 (Mar 26, 2007)

Grey Day


----------



## Firky (Mar 26, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Grey Day



Grim


----------



## Firky (Mar 26, 2007)

dicking about in the garden with the laptop n camera, tis sunny


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 26, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> dicking about in the garden with the laptop n camera, tis sunny
> 
> ...



You've gone all Vintage Paw  

It would make a good stock seller if the flowers weren't so crusty. I like it. Flowers everywhere here ATM. I was thinking stick some VC160 into the old Yashica J to see what happens. No idea yet how the lens handles colour.


----------



## Firky (Mar 26, 2007)

I know, I did it on purpose. I downloaded a couple of scans of some hessian and cotton, and a picture of some sand paper I had.


----------



## dlx1 (Mar 27, 2007)

Nesting
Nesting2
_
wish I had an slr_


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 27, 2007)

Be gentle i was on drugs But hey i like it.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/7449b1b0-fbb8-4ea5-ab86-1fa929280df3/CNV00005
Vivitar wide and slim (£2 ebay) + old £1 ebay polarizing filter gaffer taped to body . 
Very out of date Kodak profoto 100 film (5 rolls for £8 yeah you guessed it ebay) neg scanned by Morrisons photo lab (The cutting Edge) . 
Curves in photoshop (Torrented copy naturally) 

Cheap as chips


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Mar 28, 2007)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> Be gentle i was on drugs



It's very nice.

Are all the SFX down to lens, filter and film or, has a little PhotoShop enhancement taken place?


----------



## Firky (Mar 28, 2007)

A pointless photo but I thought the mist looked pretty this morning so here it is:






[/IMG]


----------



## zenie (Mar 28, 2007)

thedyslexic1 said:
			
		

> Nesting
> 
> wish I had an slr[/I]



It looks stuffed 

Get a film one cheap as chips on ebay  




			
				friedaweed said:
			
		

> Be gentle i was on drugs But hey i like it.
> http://www.esnips.com/doc/7449b1b0-f...80df3/CNV00005
> Vivitar wide and slim (£2 ebay) + old £1 ebay polarizing filter gaffer taped to body .
> Very out of date Kodak profoto 100 film (5 rolls for £8 yeah you guessed it ebay) neg scanned by Morrisons photo lab (The cutting Edge) .
> ...



Nicee effect maaaannn!! 

Firky that is exactly the kind of landscape shot that makes me go meh


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 28, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> It's very nice.
> 
> Are all the SFX down to lens, filter and film or, *has a little PhotoShop enhancement taken place*?


Come on Stan i'm a beginner of course. 
I used the unsharp mask. (Something i've been playing with a lot)
Increased to about 300% and set the radius 250 pixels and increased the threshold to hold the sky.  


Thanks for the nod dude, cheers zenie


----------



## Firky (Mar 28, 2007)

zenie said:
			
		

> Firky that is exactly the kind of landscape shot that makes me go meh



Me too, I don't even like taken shots of landscapes but I still do cos I gotta get that shot init and you only take that shot by taking shot after shot after shot. I hate portraits* more than landscapes (sorry alef) and flowers shots really make me go 'meh' (sorry bernie).

*although I did take quite a good one of the catgun today


----------



## chooch (Apr 2, 2007)

Taken yesterday in the first Semana Santa procession round these parts.
Filtered some and the contrast boosted.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 2, 2007)

chooch said:
			
		

> Taken yesterday in the first Semana Santa procession round these parts.
> Filtered some and the contrast boosted.




The kids get bored with it all very quickly  

Nice shot. Pissing it down with very cold rain in Granada this morning. Procession or, no procession? How the Spanish fret about the rain


----------



## alef (Apr 3, 2007)

chooch said:
			
		

> Taken yesterday in the first Semana Santa procession round these parts.
> Filtered some and the contrast boosted.



Like it a lot. Kids are much more expressive than adults, mainly 'cause they're less bothered about what other people think. 

As this is the 'critique' thread I'll add that something doesn't quite work in the crop. It's rather cluttered in an unsatisfying way. Suppose it would work best if either it showed only the kids or it showed what it is that they are bored by.


----------



## chooch (Apr 5, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> LAs this is the 'critique' thread I'll add that something doesn't quite work in the crop. It's rather cluttered in an unsatisfying way. Suppose it would work best if either it showed only the kids or it showed what it is that they are bored by.


Thanks. Yep. I agree. The shot was the best I could do without being about two foot taller.  I'd love to remove that bald geezer from the front. I'll try cropping down to just the kids and see.

Off out now to try and take something better


----------



## baffled (Apr 6, 2007)

Anyone care to let me know if this works or not.

Overexposed in Photoshop and then adjusted shadows, contrast and saturation.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 8, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Anyone care to let me know if this works or not.
> 
> Overexposed in Photoshop and then adjusted shadows, contrast and saturation.


Works for me


----------



## Odyssey (Apr 8, 2007)

Aye, get ya sunglasses out. Looking good. I'm liking Firky's mist shot too, very pleasent. 

Here's one I made earlier.


----------



## baffled (Apr 8, 2007)

Thats great Odyssey, where was it taken?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 8, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Anyone care to let me know if this works or not.
> 
> Overexposed in Photoshop and then adjusted shadows, contrast and saturation.



Works for me  

(just!)


----------



## portman (Apr 8, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Anyone care to let me know if this works or not.
> 
> Overexposed in Photoshop and then adjusted shadows, contrast and saturation.



...almost works for me. I like the overexposed feel and the contrast but...it's the pinkish hue that bothers me a bit. It's probably a subjective thing on my part but I feel the image would work better if the colours were more muted...or even with a sepia feel...


----------



## Firky (Apr 8, 2007)

cos am a sad bastard that is getting excited about glastonbury here's one of me faves


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 8, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> cos am a sad bastard that is getting excited about glastonbury here's one of me faves




Oi! 'DriveCleaner' - fuck off.

(came by way of an imageshack pop-up) Not impressed.

Photo is a bit cliched also


----------



## Firky (Apr 8, 2007)

That's why I like it - it reaks of festival cliches. Storm clouds, 'rockers' and filthy fingers 




			
				Odyssey said:
			
		

> Aye, get ya sunglasses out. Looking good. I'm liking Firky's mist shot too, very pleasent.
> 
> Here's one I made earlier.



I likes that, begs the question.... anything to do with 'that tsunami' ?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> <snip> and flowers shots really make me go 'meh' (sorry bernie).<snip>


 Oh that's quite alright. Nobody pays me to do this stuff, so I only really have to please myself 

Edited: file was a bit big so replaced image with link


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Apr 8, 2007)

I am always interested to hear what people think though ...


----------



## Odyssey (Apr 8, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Thats great Odyssey, where was it taken?






			
				firky said:
			
		

> I likes that, begs the question.... anything to do with 'that tsunami' ?



Not 'that tsunami'. It's a floating village in Cambodia, shot on an iffy digital compact and hence photoshopped immensely.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 8, 2007)

Great shot Odyssey  Love the splashes from the boat.

Hey Firkles, you bin stealin' my ideeeas?  

baffled - I like the high contrast shot - I think I agree about the colour, a more muted tone might have worked better, but it's certainly impactful


----------



## Jessica (Apr 8, 2007)

This is my friend Lawrence....He plays drums on Sundays with some homeless friends of mine that sit out there for their art sale.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 8, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 8, 2007)




----------



## Jessica (Apr 8, 2007)

More...

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00149.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00165.jpg

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00175.jpg


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 8, 2007)

Jessica said:
			
		

> More...
> 
> http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00149.jpg
> 
> ...



Which part of the country you live in?


----------



## Jessica (Apr 8, 2007)

Too much fun in New Orleans...Just one of my famous night trips...

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00341.jpg

I'm dancing in the background...He swears he did not know she was doing this...
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00342.jpg

I'm on the end...
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00345.jpg


----------



## Firky (Apr 8, 2007)

Jessica said:
			
		

> Too much fun in New Orleans...Just one of my famous night trips...
> 
> http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00341.jpg
> 
> ...



I'd of put that one first because I thought you were the other lass


----------



## Firky (Apr 8, 2007)

.


----------



## Jessica (Apr 8, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I'd of put that one first because I thought you were the other lass




Haha...that's the best picture ever!


----------



## Jessica (Apr 8, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Which part of the country you live in?



Jackson, Mississippi


----------



## Jessica (Apr 9, 2007)

My friend Chris...

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00278.jpg


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2007)

Looking out my back door.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 9, 2007)

B & K Grocery

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=449886408&context=pool-60802169@N00&size=l


----------



## e19896 (Apr 9, 2007)




----------



## Jessica (Apr 10, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> B & K Grocery
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=449886408&context=pool-60802169@N00&size=l




I really like the look of that neighborhood...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2007)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0055-1.jpg?t=1176188037

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0061.jpg?t=1176188094

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0065.jpg?t=1176188406


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> B & K Grocery
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=449886408&context=pool-60802169@N00&size=l



Nanaimo?


If it is I love that town - its the harbour that makes it though.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 10, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Nanaimo?
> 
> 
> If it is I love that town - its the harbour that makes it though.



Nanaimo STREET, in East Vancouver.


----------



## Jessica (Apr 11, 2007)

My favorite coffee shop...a lot of wasted time has been spent here...

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00385.jpg


----------



## Jessica (Apr 11, 2007)

View from the patio of my favorite coffee shop...

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00521.jpg


----------



## Chorlton (Apr 11, 2007)

excellent, i was looking for the 'post pictures of your neighbourhood because truly we give a fuck' thread


----------



## Gromit (Apr 11, 2007)

Jessica said:
			
		

> My favorite coffee shop...a lot of wasted time has been spent here...
> 
> http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00385.jpg



The entire picture seems out of focus because the reflection is where you have set the focus. Doesn't work well but the overall idea wasn't bad.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 11, 2007)

Jessica said:
			
		

> View from the patio of my favorite coffee shop...
> 
> http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/DSC00521.jpg



Dreadful pic. Once again on an angle. Forgivable in the first pic but not here.
Do you have one leg shorter than the other?
There is no main feature to the shot and its full of ugly wires.

Sorry.


----------



## Kanda (Apr 11, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> excellent, i was looking for the 'post pictures of your neighbourhood because truly we give a fuck' thread


----------



## Jessica (Apr 11, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

> Dreadful pic. Once again on an angle. Forgivable in the first pic but not here.
> Do you have one leg shorter than the other?
> There is no main feature to the shot and its full of ugly wires.
> 
> Sorry.




 I like the color of the sky in it.


----------



## e19896 (Apr 16, 2007)




----------



## Dan U (Apr 18, 2007)

Surf in Cornwall last Saturday

http://www.pbase.com/ninefootsix/image/77288882


----------



## chooch (Apr 18, 2007)

Dan U said:
			
		

> Surf in Cornwall last Saturday
> http://www.pbase.com/ninefootsix/image/77288882


Pretty enough. Like the composition too.


----------



## Jessica (Apr 18, 2007)

http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h79/jessicawes48/gooddays.jpg

I drove down there the other day...The city has painted over it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 18, 2007)

Jessica said:
			
		

> [.The city has painted over it.



Why did they do that?


----------



## Jessica (Apr 19, 2007)

It was in a part of town where most of the buildings are abandoned and falling apart.  They're renovating and remodeling most of downtown, and apparently it didn't fit into what they  envisioned.  Nobody I know knew about it.  If anyone had they would have stopped it.  For years people have been fighting over what to do with the King Edward Hotel.  I'm just happy they aren't going to tear it down.


----------



## friedaweed (Apr 21, 2007)

*Grey snow i know *

From the recent ski trip.

Vivitar Wide and slim placcy cam, Out of date Kodak profoto 100asa film, supermarket developed to photo cd 
Camera £2, film £1, development £2. Aldi art + priceless 

Ice Station Frieda
Cheers for looking


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 21, 2007)

friedaweed said:
			
		

> From the recent ski trip.
> 
> Vivitar Wide and slim placcy cam, Out of date Kodak profoto 100asa film, supermarket developed to photo cd
> Camera £2, film £1, development £2. Aldi art + priceless
> ...



I like  I'm loving the flare. It's nice knowing it was so cheap!


----------



## twisted_angel (Apr 21, 2007)

This was taken the other week on my cam phone... i was quite impressed at how it turned out...its the view from my house...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/Lexihoult/Image0024.jpg


----------



## portman (Apr 21, 2007)

twisted_angel said:
			
		

> This was taken the other week on my cam phone... i was quite impressed at how it turned out...its the view from my house...
> 
> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v369/Lexihoult/Image0024.jpg



Pretty good quality for a phone camera. A very atmospheric image - feel cold just looking at it! Would be tempted to crop just a bit out from the foreground though - up to the bit where the light is hitting the ground...


----------



## twisted_angel (Apr 23, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> Pretty good quality for a phone camera. A very atmospheric image - feel cold just looking at it! Would be tempted to crop just a bit out from the foreground though - up to the bit where the light is hitting the ground...


Thanks..i want to frame it so will do that.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 23, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> Pretty good quality for a phone camera.



That's what I thought


----------



## Chorlton (Apr 25, 2007)

messing around with some actions that let me better control tones - and using the local pests as models


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 25, 2007)

I know these won't be to everyone's taste but I really like them:









Both taken on a cheap plastic chinese Holga camera with a polaroid back using 80 series black and white pack film. No pp done apart from cloning out some scanner dust.

I have been trying more and more to capture light in my photos, or to use it as an integral part of my compositions. With these photos I actually had this effect in mind when I was setting them up. I'm glad they turned out like this.

With the polaroid back on the Holga the viewfinder is obscured, so it's very much a case of positioning the camera and hoping for the best. I still put it up to my eye though - I suppose I've conditioned my brain to envisage what it would look like from that angle. It seems to work anyway. I should add, you have little control of settings on a Holga. My version has been modded to allow for two apertures, but they are very much hit and miss. Shutter is either fixed to one speed (I have no idea what that speed is) or bulb. Focusing is your basic head and shoulders, two people, a group of people, or mountains. So in practice you kind of just have to guess that the conditions are right for the speed of film you have in and that the camera is the right distance away.

So yeah.


----------



## Jessica (Apr 26, 2007)

I like them...especially the cat one...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 26, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I know these won't be to everyone's taste but I really like them...
> 
> So yeah.



I quite like them. All of your photographs have a very fragile look. Not fragile as in not strong images, sort of fragile in a very sophisticated and feminine way. I think that's a good thing.

I think the Holga shutter speed is 1/100th sec.

I've been shooting on cheapo retro cameras recently. Interestingly the cheapest of the lot, the Yashica J Star range finder is giving the best results. Even better than the Zeiss Icarex IMO. Much of it is all about personal taste than technical correctness.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 26, 2007)

Thanks Jessica and Stanley 

Stanley - have you got any of these pics up online yet? I'd love to see them. 

Re the Holga, I think the apertures are f/11 and f/8 but I could be wrong. I think it's quite funny they originally sold the cam with two aperture settings but actually with only one aperture - when you moved the slider it changed nothing  It's only with a recent upgrade they now have 2 working apertures. 

I love the idea of just pressing the shutter not really knowing what you're going to get. I'm one who can worry a lot about "is the right speed set" or "hang on, if I focus just a little bit more here ... or there ..." and lose the feeling of emotion. Of course, there is a time and a place for both approaches - and a technical knowledge is indispensible, but just going with a feeling, and hoping it turns out ok just makes me feel giddy with joy


----------



## baffled (Apr 27, 2007)

I have just started messing about with a Holga as well









I have to agree that it is quite liberating not having to mess about with numerous settings and half the time you don't even bother with the viewfinder as it's not exactly accurate.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 27, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Stanley - have you got any of these pics up online yet? I'd love to see them.
> 
> ...



This is the only Yashica J Star shot I currently have online. May upload some more later. No meter. Cheap FujiColour 100 film. Pure guess work with the settings from years of shooting at small apertures. I love the quality this camera gives.







No PhotoShop or PP either. Straight scan from neg. Lovely colours.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Apr 29, 2007)

baffled - I love those two  The way the Holga treats sun flare is great (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/229/474439925_5306955e85_b.jpg - the one on the right is mine). I've only put one roll through her yet, and it's not developed, so all I have to go on is the holgaroids I've shot. If I can get results like yours I'll be very happy 

Stanley: you're right, fabulous colours  Hard to believe that was such a 'guess' shot - it's a tough subject with the dark foreground and the bright sky, but it's been handled perfectly


----------



## ivebeenhigh (Apr 29, 2007)

i took this sat on a toilet in an art gallery in paris.  true story.  its my desktop at the moment.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2007)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0421.jpg?t=1178424665

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0414a.jpg?t=1178424756

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0420.jpg?t=1178424786


----------



## jeff_leigh (May 6, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0421.jpg?t=1178424665
> 
> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0414a.jpg?t=1178424756
> 
> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0420.jpg?t=1178424786



I like all these Johnny good composition, Nice cropping the 2nd one is my favorite, where was it taken?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 6, 2007)

jeff_leigh said:
			
		

> I like all these Johnny good composition, Nice cropping the 2nd one is my favorite, where was it taken?



Walmart.


----------



## portman (May 19, 2007)

This one...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/490250945/

I'd be grateful for any comments and constructive criticism on the idea behind the image and the execution...

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## portman (May 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0421.jpg?t=1178424665
> 
> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0414a.jpg?t=1178424756
> 
> http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_0420.jpg?t=1178424786



The fact that Walmart has a department devoted to mass produced sculptures / ornaments such as these does give these images an interesting and somewhat surreal edge...


----------



## ramjamclub (May 19, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> This one...
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/490250945/
> 
> ...


Try cropping the sky out.


----------



## chooch (May 19, 2007)

One from today:
Chipiona. Extreme range, so a bit blocky, but...


----------



## Forkboy (May 25, 2007)

Some recent pics from a little urban exploration (an old hospital that's virtually demolished now..)

http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07182/Wallpaper2542.png

http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07214/Ravensparkj.jpg

http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07213/Ravensparkh.jpg

http://xs215.xs.to/xs215/07212/Nursestation423453513.jpg


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> This one...
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveamis/490250945/
> 
> ...



OK. Like it being in b+w. Suppose my advice would be to crop tighter and focus more on the stripey chairs (as you have done with the little huts in a neighbouring pic). The chairs having fallen over is not particularly interesting but the strong vertical lines of the material looks like a good element to visually exploit.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2007)

chooch said:
			
		

> One from today:
> Chipiona. Extreme range, so a bit blocky, but...



Like it. Shame about the low quality and the underexposure of the man and the dog. But I do rather like the composition, strong shot.


----------



## alef (Jul 25, 2007)

Forkboy said:
			
		

> Some recent pics from a little urban exploration (an old hospital that's virtually demolished now..)
> 
> http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07182/Wallpaper2542.png
> 
> ...



The first one works best with its simplicity. Great textures and colours. B+W one is  OK. Third one is way too obviously photoshopped, hate any mixing of B+W and colour, frankly it's tacky. Last one has too much going on at once, am I looking at the book, the window or the floor?


----------



## e19896 (Aug 17, 2007)




----------



## northernhord (Aug 17, 2007)

I took this one in Tunisia in January of this Year


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Forkboy said:
			
		

> Some recent pics from a little urban exploration (an old hospital that's virtually demolished now..)
> 
> http://xs315.xs.to/xs315/07182/Wallpaper2542.png
> 
> ...


Same in parts as Alef's critique; first one's alright but the exposure/lighting is a bit poor. You could play with that to give it some focus, in the sense of highlighting something.

Second one - hmm, looks a bit weird. Enlarged/noisy/bad JPG? Something funny about it - if you can't fix this, exploit it. Find some crazy artistic/film filters in Photoshop or whatever and make it 'worse'. Otherwise quite a good shot.

Third - I like this, despite the shoppery. Straighten it up and I'd like it more. I'm not sure the floor needs to be completely desaturated, assuming you have. I love the ceiling though - no idea what's going on there. Scary place! Overall nice bit of experimentation which could be optimised a little.

Fourth, composition's crap. Lighting's lovely but it's got half a wall in it for no reason. I hate trying to do portrait landscapes for this very reason - I have the same problem. Otherwise could have been nice work.

You're quite good at this so keep going!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

>




That's shit that is  

IMVHO like. It just doesn't work for me. It may work for you. It may work for others. Lovely diverse world we live in.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

OK, first one I've ever submitted to the tender mercies of the critics, so here goes.






Up near Betwys-y-Coed, we'd stopped so I could have a sneezing fit (I was driving), and found ourselves by this lake. As usual, the sky wasn't like it appears in the photo, but there was just something about the timbre of the light that said "photograph me", so I reached in and got the camera.

I was being bitten to bits by mozzies, in between sneezing, and ideally I'd have whipped the tripod out of the boot, only I didn't think that was wise on a narrow and fairly busy bit of road.

As things turned out, it wasn't too bad - I photographed it at 12MP-Fine on my S7000, and at full res you can see some slight blurring, as the light was going and we were down to 1/60sec or so exposure time.

I was pleased with the reflection in the lake - just enough rippling to make it look reasonably natural - but it would have been nice for the land in the foreground to be a little less "black". I haven't fiddled with anything like that: the photo's as it was taken.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> OK, first one I've ever submitted to the tender mercies of the critics, so here goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Like that.

There's no way of telling whether it's straight or not, but I guess I'd like it rotated a tiny bit CCW so it seemed to balance a bit more.

Since the ground is probably lost in terms of detail, adding a bit more contrast (look up Photoshop or similar, and Curves) might bring the sky out a bit more, lending a little punch. In fact making the ground completely dark might help too. On the other hand it works as it is - a very calm and serene environment, and an image based on something fairly simple and fundamental.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

>



The rounded corners and the subdued colours give a retro feel. Don't like the drop shadow, find that just gimmicky. Think I might prefer it if it had just the strong geometric lines _or_ the clouds, having both -- plus the distracting lights inside -- make it rather busy. I like minimalism.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Like that.
> 
> There's no way of telling whether it's straight or not, but I guess I'd like it rotated a tiny bit CCW so it seemed to balance a bit more.
> 
> Since the ground is probably lost in terms of detail, adding a bit more contrast (look up Photoshop or similar, and Curves) might bring the sky out a bit more, lending a little punch. In fact making the ground completely dark might help too. On the other hand it works as it is - a very calm and serene environment, and an image based on something fairly simple and fundamental.


Thanks  When (if) I ever fiddle with an image, it's usually in Gimp - my Windows stuff doesn't have the horsepower. But I don't know Gimp that well, either, so layering and masking are a closed book.

I did wonder about the skew, too: I'm pretty sure the horizon was level but you're right - it does look slightly squint.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

northernhord said:
			
		

> I took this one in Tunisia in January of this Year



Kind of a fun twist on the usual holiday snapshot. Prefer to see it larger.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

If you're on Linux, Bibble is dirt cheap and a lot easier to use than the Gimp.

Although, you'll have to wait for the new version for layers and masks. I don't have any use for them personally. So I prefer Bibble.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Second one - hmm, looks a bit weird. Enlarged/noisy/bad JPG? Something funny about it - if you can't fix this, exploit it. Find some crazy artistic/film filters in Photoshop or whatever and make it 'worse'. Otherwise quite a good shot.



Looks to me like heavy use of unsharp mask. Squelch also, I think, went to far with sharpening on this statue pic in this month's comp.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> Thanks  When (if) I ever fiddle with an image, it's usually in Gimp - my Windows stuff doesn't have the horsepower. But I don't know Gimp that well, either, so layering and masking are a closed book.
> 
> I did wonder about the skew, too: I'm pretty sure the horizon was level but you're right - it does look slightly squint.


When I look again I'm not sure - just have a play and see what you think works best.

GIMP is like Photoshop but harder to work. It has Curves too but it's possibly no use me telling you where, as when I followed a tutorial it had all moved around on my version.

Basically you want a subtle S like this (this shows Photoshop):






You can see the line would have run straight through the grid but they've moved the points slightly.

How subtle controls how powerful the effect is. Give it a whirl.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> There's no way of telling whether it's straight or not...



(Here comes the maths teacher again.) You can tell if it's straight by the reflection in the water. All still water must be completely horizontal due to gravity, then the reflection will have to be at right angles. Draw a line of symmetry with the clouds to find the exact rotation. I'd say it's close to five degrees.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Ah, that's what's disturbing me. Lower! 2.5 degrees!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> OK, first one I've ever submitted to the tender mercies of the critics, so here goes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It's nice. Could be better very simply by adjusting your horizon. 

Verticals and horizontals are critical. Every photograph we see we put into the wider context. Your lake is sloping - lakes don't ever slope like that. They're always as level as a spirit level. Simple science that everyone understands. Everyone will question the slope and it spoils the aesthetics.

A slight adjustment will make it more pleasing (less challenging) to the eye and more natural. It will also be more dramatic even though it challenges less on an immediate level.

Nice enough. Not brill, but good. It has atmosphere. I suggest taking more care to align your horizontals and verticals with a tripod in future. Don't worry about getting run over. The end result will be worth it.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> OK, first one I've ever submitted to the tender mercies of the critics, so here goes.



Hope you don't mind I've had a quick play in photoshop with your pic. There's some nice green hidden in there, though I've probably gone too far in manipulating the levels. The rotation is a funny issue, I've set it "correct" but visually it looks a bit unbalanced because of the taller mountains on the right.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Hope you don't mind I've had a quick play in photoshop with your pic. There's some nice green hidden in there, though I've probably gone too far in manipulating the levels. The rotation is a funny issue, I've set it "correct" but visually it looks a bit unbalanced because of the taller mountains on the right.



I like the dark original better. It has character.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Hope you don't mind I've had a quick play in photoshop with your pic. There's some nice green hidden in there, though I've probably gone too far in manipulating the levels. The rotation is a funny issue, I've set it "correct" but visually it looks a bit unbalanced because of the taller mountains on the right.




Are you serious?

You've bent it!


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Hope you don't mind I've had a quick play in photoshop with your pic. There's some nice green hidden in there, though I've probably gone too far in manipulating the levels. The rotation is a funny issue, I've set it "correct" but visually it looks a bit unbalanced because of the taller mountains on the right.


No problem. I've been trying to find the full-sized original to have a bit of a play myself.

It's interesting the way the mountains seem to confuse the balance!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Here's what I was blathering on about, done with a 1.5 degree rotation, curves, and some tinkering with hue & saturation.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's what I was blathering on about, done with a 1.5 degree rotation, curves, and some tinkering with hue & saturation.



This looks way more correct, but there's something about the 'bendiness' of the original, that adds an air of foreboding to it that isn't there in the properly angled one.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's what I was blathering on about, done with a 1.5 degree rotation, curves, and some tinkering with hue & saturation.


Errr, wow!



OK, some lessons learned here. Now I need to go and find myself some more mountains to photograph


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's what I was blathering on about, done with a 1.5 degree rotation, curves, and some tinkering with hue & saturation...



Hmm, I've never considering giving my online photos frames, but it can work, maybe I'll start having a play....


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> It's interesting the way the mountains seem to confuse the balance!




No they fucking don't!

The first thing anyone looks at is the water level. The mountains and everything else become irrelevant after that. Everyone in the whole world knows about water. It's the first point of reference in this shot.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Hmm, I've never considering giving my online photos frames, but it can work, maybe I'll start having a play....


I got convinced to do it once by a friend. I refused to believe them at first but on reflection it makes a big difference. I'm still too lazy to pick the right sizes/colours for the particular image, and I've got a simple action in Photoshop to do it, but it definitely helps.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

I think my green version is pushing the levels too far, you can see the distortions. But I much prefer a landscape rich in colour over the silhouette. For want of a better word, I find the black mountains cliché.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> I think my green version is pushing the levels too far, you can see the distortions. But I much prefer a landscape rich in colour over the silhouette. For want of a better word, I find the black mountains cliché.


Here's a lazy alternative:






Same again but no curves this time. Instead, a black gradient layer over the sky, a white gradient layer up out of the ground, both in Photoshop's 'Overlay' blending mode. Reduced the green saturation a bit to make it look less toxic.

Ah, forgot rotation. Oh well.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

I hate to bastardise others art, but this is closer to an all recognised harmony:






See how important the horizontal is? It's your first instinct. Your foundation of trust.

Oh, I didn't do anything else. Please excuse me. I hate it when others do this stuff to my vision.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Oh, I didn't do anything else. Please excuse me. I hate it when others do this stuff to my vision.


You said _vision_! As in "ooh yes, that's right, mmm, that matches my vision"

http://muse.cream.org/bill/bewild19.mp3

*stops taking Stan seriously *


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> See how important the horizontal is? It's your first instinct. Your foundation of trust.



That is still not straight. The clouds need to reflect exactly, you're still off by a degree or two.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

You'll all go crazy if you try and get it right. Trust me.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's a lazy alternative:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except for the lack of rotataion, I like this version has a very good balance of colours and darkness. Thanks for the ps tips, I don't use layers enough for levels adjusting.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> That is still not straight. The clouds need to reflect exactly, you're still off by a degree or two.




FFS.

I'm doing my best to bore the thread and you just come up with more rules and maths  


I reckon it's as straight as anyone here can get on a Sunday evening.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> I think my green version is pushing the levels too far, you can see the distortions. But I much prefer a landscape rich in colour over the silhouette. For want of a better word, I find the black mountains cliché.



But the 'how green was my valley' version is also a cliche: the travel brochure photo.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> You said _vision_! As in "ooh yes, that's right, mmm, that matches my vision"
> 
> http://muse.cream.org/bill/bewild19.mp3
> 
> *stops taking Stan seriously *




Bollocks and stuff.


I get sea sick sometimes. I got sea sick on a narrow boat once. I did manage to adjust my perspective, but then I just wobbled and got sea sick in the bars on land. I don't understand. I never will. Fucking water - why is it always flat?

A tad stoned. I may go to bed now.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Here's a lazy alternative:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's a nice compromise on the colour.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 20, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I hate to bastardise others art, but this is closer to an all recognised harmony:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, it wasn't a vision - it was a snapshot with pretensions. I'm very glad of the feedback. All of it...


----------



## e19896 (Aug 21, 2007)

as it comes no change other than scaled..


----------



## RickSchofield (Oct 8, 2007)

*moorland fashion shoot.*






un-editied so far. 

opinions? honest critique VERY welcome


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Oct 8, 2007)

RickSchofield said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> opinions? honest critique VERY welcome




The lighting doesn't work for me. You've lost the ambiance, the place, the mood and the model. Much as fashion photography should be about the clothes, the models need to be well photographed also. A few reflectors and diffusers would have been good. Working with available light can be very restricting, but carefully reflected light, fill-in flash and diffused light make a huge difference.

For the best of this sort of fashion shooting take a look at Squint Magazine. Ask yourself how they achieved the results they did.

Compositionally, and your working relationship with the model come across very well. It's just the technical subtleties that let you down. You need to learn how to shape subjects with available light. Nice pic otherwise.


e2a; Oh - and the hair. Control the hair!


----------



## baffled (Oct 14, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> e2a; Oh - and the hair. Control the hair!



While I don't like to talk technical (being new to this), the thing that struck me foremost was that her hair was obscuring her face.

Very distracting, though I like the shot and idea a lot.


----------



## Rainingstairs (Oct 17, 2007)

*E. Berlin Sony Center*


----------



## Rainingstairs (Oct 17, 2007)

*Detroit Airport*


----------



## portman (Nov 22, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> I'll submit this one because I'm not very sure about it. Was trying to do something similar to yours, wordie, but just don't think these pipes and bit of wall are interesting enough.



There is some interesting potential for playing around with angles where the wall of the building changes direction. Not knowing the location I may be barking up the wrong tree but if it is possible, picking a different viewpoint to make more of the angle could produce some interesting results. It is one of those images that could work in mono but as it happens, I like the colour in this one. However, I would be tempted to re-visit the location when the light is lower so you can make more of the shadows and the tonal contrast.

Bit of a cheek me making comments after a nine month absence but rather than start slinging my own images up again, I'd rather ease my way back in gently!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 22, 2007)

Rainingstairs said:
			
		

>



I like this. It took me a while to realise it was water, not steel arcs, so I appreciate it more.

I'd like it a bit stronger, and ideally, without the distractions like the people, but that's all very subjective. Have a play with PP maybe, but as it is, it's a strong shot.


----------



## alef (Nov 22, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I like this. It took me a while to realise it was water, not steel arcs, so I appreciate it more.
> 
> I'd like it a bit stronger, and ideally, without the distractions like the people, but that's all very subjective. Have a play with PP maybe, but as it is, it's a strong shot.



I remember that fountain! It's very impressive. My recollection is that the jets of water would stop and start at various times adding more complexity. I'd be tempted to try to catch some of them mid-air to add to it. Otherwise agree with mauvais.


----------



## alef (Nov 22, 2007)

portman said:
			
		

> There is some interesting potential for playing around with angles where the wall of the building changes direction. Not knowing the location I may be barking up the wrong tree but if it is possible, picking a different viewpoint to make more of the angle could produce some interesting results. It is one of those images that could work in mono but as it happens, I like the colour in this one. However, I would be tempted to re-visit the location when the light is lower so you can make more of the shadows and the tonal contrast.
> 
> Bit of a cheek me making comments after a nine month absence but rather than start slinging my own images up again, I'd rather ease my way back in gently!



Thanks. I've got bored with walls and pipes. Started photographing satellite dishes over the summer but that didn't really go any where. Trying to get back into people. Agree with your colour/mono comments, often better in b+w but that shot had just enough colour to make it worthwhile.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Nov 22, 2007)

Oh FFS!


----------



## cybertect (Nov 22, 2007)

RickSchofield said:
			
		

> un-editied so far.
> 
> opinions? honest critique VERY welcome



OH, hang on, *now* I know where I'd seen that shot before... Scho


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 19, 2007)

I think this one is good... any thoughts?


----------



## mauvais (Dec 19, 2007)

I think it doesn't work 

The link that is, not some artistic attempt.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 19, 2007)

RickSchofield said:
			
		

> un-editied so far.
> 
> opinions? honest critique VERY welcome



My opinion is that she is GORGEOUS.

Sorry, I am not a photographer or anything. 

As you were.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Dec 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I think it doesn't work
> 
> The link that is, not some artistic attempt.



Yeah I dunno what's gone wrong there.


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Dec 27, 2007)

this was just some messing i was doing. Wadya think.


----------



## Skorch (Jan 30, 2008)

Took a few photos the other day while on a walk with the 'ol point & shoot.  






Photo taken at the pub.  Not sure if the sepia-spotlight sort of thing works, but I thought it'd add a bit of contrast between the main drinker with the newish jacket on, and the old fashioned surroundings.







Also at the pub... There's butterflys everywhere on the wall.  Plain creepy.






Gothic meets Deco... I liked the subject but I wish I could have gotten the shot from a better perspective, but the hill just wasn't high enough.


----------



## basher t (Feb 20, 2008)

Here's an old one:






and here's a slightly newer one:






Thoughts?


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Feb 22, 2008)

I'm not much of an expert, but I like 2 and 4 the best.  4 is the tate isn't it?  Very impressive.  For me 3 is a bit cluttered, 5 is nothing amazing and 1 doesn't quite work.

(I'm just a layman when it comes to pics though so don't listen to me )


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Feb 22, 2008)

RickSchofield said:


> un-editied so far.
> 
> opinions? honest critique VERY welcome



Stop fucking with us.


----------



## johey24 (Mar 3, 2008)

*Wishing I were you*


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Mar 12, 2008)

I submitted this to the photo comp.  Any thoughts?

I thought it was quite good.


----------



## deviousmonkey (Apr 13, 2008)

On a LG Viewty camera phone:


----------



## brix (Apr 13, 2008)

Aaargh, can't get the link to work.  Never mind...


----------



## boskysquelch (Apr 13, 2008)

brix said:


> Aaargh, can't get the link to work.  Never mind...



get the image big>right click the image>look at Properties> use the .jpg code


----------



## brix (Apr 13, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


> get the image big>right click the image>look at Properties> use the .jpg code




Bloody hell - thank you!


----------



## boskysquelch (Apr 13, 2008)

brix said:


> Bloody hell - thank you!



lully image btw...


----------



## brix (Apr 13, 2008)

boskysquelch said:


> lully image btw...



Thank you kindly.  Just got a new camera and in the process of working out to use it.  That was taken after, ahem, a few drinks on the Southbank the other night.  I took a few and most were rubbish (nothing to do with being pissed, of course ) but that one turned out OK.


----------



## Grobelaar (May 14, 2008)

here are three shots I took of the singer/producer Jamie Lidell at the Scala in 2005. Been thinking about maybe getting them printed up, but  I have a few reservations so thought I'd canvas a few opinion on here. The idea was to capture the energy of his performance, for those not familiar the shows are quite intense.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 15, 2008)

he looks like he would get right on my tits. tbh. soz but not my thing.


----------



## jugularvein (May 15, 2008)

i like the water on this one


----------



## Grobelaar (May 15, 2008)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> he looks like he would get right on my tits. tbh. soz but not my thing.


are you talking about the music or the photos?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (May 15, 2008)

Grobelaar said:


> are you talking about the music or the photos?


probably the former, from the latter.


----------



## albionism (May 22, 2008)

Grobelaar said:


> here are three shots I took of the singer/producer Jamie Lidell at the Scala in 2005. Been thinking about maybe getting them printed up, but  I have a few reservations so thought I'd canvas a few opinion on here. The idea was to capture the energy of his performance, for those not familiar the shows are quite intense.



Those are great shots.


----------



## alexandragibson (Jun 11, 2008)

*photos for your consideration*

I just built my first website of photography last week.  Would love to hear people's feedback, please.  Thanks!
<ed; url removed>


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 11, 2008)

alexandragibson said:


> I just built my first website of photography last week.  Would love to hear people's feedback, please.  Thanks!
> 
> --


bit last week really.


----------



## Blagsta (Jun 11, 2008)

looks like spam to me


----------



## Vintage Paw (Jun 11, 2008)

johey24 said:


>



Makes me think of the Doctor Who Ep "Blink"


----------



## liampreston (Jun 16, 2008)

Heh, yeah, a thing for road signs, as you do...


----------



## funky_sessions (Jun 16, 2008)

*Jammin'*






my first attempt at gig photography. still getting to grips with my new 40d.


----------



## liampreston (Jun 16, 2008)

A mate of mine of photographs for the local paper and blogs always curses mic stands and bass players


----------



## tom_craggs (Jun 17, 2008)

funky_sessions said:


> my first attempt at gig photography. still getting to grips with my new 40d.



Who's the band?


----------



## tom_craggs (Jun 17, 2008)

alexandragibson said:


> I just built my first website of photography last week.  Would love to hear people's feedback, please.  Thanks!
> 
> --



Spam I am sure, but either way personally I find the lighting on your portraits a bit too harsh for my tastes.


----------



## funky_sessions (Jun 17, 2008)

tom_craggs said:


> Who's the band?



Pando. - i'd never heard of them, a friend of mine who is a music promoter asked me to come down and take some pics for her, there were 4 different bands on that night, I managed to get some cool shots, but some faster lenses are now on my shopping list, the 17-85 IS couldn't cut it in the lighting conditions.

my sigma 105 f2.8 macro was pretty good, but still struggled with the lighting at times, so i'm thinking about a 50mm f1.4 or even an 85mm f1.2 
I also want a 70-200 f2.8IS for my kit, but at nearly £1300 it's going to take some saving


----------



## editor (Jun 17, 2008)

alexandragibson said:


> I just built my first website of photography last week.  Would love to hear people's feedback, please.  Thanks!
> <ed; url removed>


Not nice to spoil the non-commercial community vibe of this thread with your "me! me! me!" selfish plug for your print-flogging website.


----------



## johey24 (Jun 17, 2008)

funky_sessions said:


> Pando. - i'd never heard of them, a friend of mine who is a music promoter asked me to come down and take some pics for her, there were 4 different bands on that night, I managed to get some cool shots, but some faster lenses are now on my shopping list, the 17-85 IS couldn't cut it in the lighting conditions.
> 
> my sigma 105 f2.8 macro was pretty good, but still struggled with the lighting at times, so i'm thinking about a 50mm f1.4 or even an 85mm f1.2
> I also want a 70-200 f2.8IS for my kit, but at nearly £1300 it's going to take some saving



Dear goodness

Those prices you quote!

The 40D *PLUS *wide angle EFS 17-85 PLUS 75-300mm  lens PLUS 2 x 4GB cards, a heavy duty bag, a variety of light filters, 3 batteries, charger and mobile charger, tripod, cleaner sets plus plus plus .... all this cost me about 80% of your single lens out here. All brand new. Even cheaper if u go to Japan.  

Not sure what a ticket costs from Europe at the moment, but you can fly out here, have a wee holiday for 3 or so days and go back with all these for not too much more than 1600 Pounds.


----------



## quimcunx (Jun 17, 2008)

johey24 said:


>




I love this!

I think it's quite playful though, like a game of hide and seek.


----------



## johey24 (Jun 17, 2008)

PS
A friend of ours flew out here about a year ago, bought the Canon 75-300mm zoom plus Macro lens a for about 60% of the  European price. 

Something to consider if u have the money AND  want a holiday in the East.


----------



## johey24 (Jun 17, 2008)

TX Papingo. Was meant in a playful / naughty way. Nosy, eternally young girl and gossiping old timers ............ or more seriously, mobility vs being frozen in time. 

Jealousy, eventually.


----------



## tom_craggs (Jun 17, 2008)

funky_sessions said:


> Pando. - i'd never heard of them, a friend of mine who is a music promoter asked me to come down and take some pics for her, there were 4 different bands on that night, I managed to get some cool shots, but some faster lenses are now on my shopping list, the 17-85 IS couldn't cut it in the lighting conditions.
> 
> my sigma 105 f2.8 macro was pretty good, but still struggled with the lighting at times, so i'm thinking about a 50mm f1.4 or even an 85mm f1.2
> I also want a 70-200 f2.8IS for my kit, but at nearly £1300 it's going to take some saving



Interesting, had similar issues myself. The image qaulity of the sigma 105 is fantastic but sometimes when doing events with it the versatiity of a zoom was really missing. I rarely find I need less than 2.8 though, ISO 800 - occasionally perhaps. I notice sigma have recently announced the release of a 50mm 1.4

I brought the canon 70-200 2.8 non IS - image qaulity is sublime, as good as a decent prime IMO. My advice - go second hand - got mine for under £400 and it's been a life saver, but kills my neck and back over the course on an evening! - Also I have found you need a decent monopod for it really. Here's a snap with it in very low lighting;






Would be good to see more of your shots from your event.


----------



## Yelkcub (Jun 17, 2008)

Taken with a now lost mobile phone....


----------



## liampreston (Jun 17, 2008)

Off to take yet more street name shots. Too much of a point-and-clicker, alas, but I'll give any more decent attempts to the two previous on here...if there are any heh.


----------



## funky_sessions (Jun 17, 2008)

tom_craggs said:


> I brought the canon 70-200 2.8 non IS - image qaulity is sublime, as good as a decent prime IMO. My advice - go second hand - got mine for under £400 and it's been a life saver, but kills my neck and back over the course on an evening! - Also I have found you need a decent monopod for it really. Here's a snap with it in very low lighting;
> 
> Would be good to see more of your shots from your event.



Tom, i'll post up some of the other pics once i'va had a chance to look through them, I shot nearly 400 pics over the course of the night, some came out well, some not so good. I priced up the 85mm F1.2L II lens on my way home, and it's even more expensive than the 70-200L IS 

I thought about going for the non IS version, but thought that the Image Stabilisation was worth the investment, although, if I could find a 2nd hand lens for a decent price I'll invest in a decent monopod instead. as the image quality from that pic looks fantastic 

the lighting was less than spectacular at the venue, I was shooting ISO3200
just to be sure of getting the shots. one thing I am impressed with is the low noise at high iso from the 40d, it's impressive.





this was converted to black and white and tweaked using Exposure 2 to add some film grain, the pic works better in black and white than colour.






once again, converted to black and white using exposure 2.


----------



## stowpirate (Aug 8, 2008)

Taken on Zenit 3m with the standard Helios lens. The location is just down the road from Delia Smith house in the Suffolk of village of Moats Tye.






Taken some years ago on top of the Long Mynd in Shropshire.






Taken with Ilford Delta 3200 Film


----------



## Dreadwear (Aug 29, 2008)




----------



## chooch (Aug 29, 2008)

the umbrella's the only one that grabs me there - good strong graphic image, quirky composition. not sure what any of the others are trying to do, really. 

is that uffington?


----------



## Dreadwear (Aug 29, 2008)

Yes, it is, Chooch! Well spotted.

The water one is of the Appearing Rooms at Southbank. 

I also don't actually know what any of them are trying to do, he he.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 8, 2008)

*4 of mine...... board n00b*


----------



## Boris Sprinkler (Oct 5, 2008)

They hung him out to dry.






Nikon D40. Can't remember the lens i was using.


----------



## stanie (Oct 5, 2008)




----------



## daniella34dd (Oct 23, 2008)

*My Modeling Pics*

let me know what you guys think <3
-d

---

Also, if you're a photographer in the Miami area, hit me up!

ed: no 'hit me up' adverts if you please.


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 23, 2008)

will do...kthnxbai X


----------



## nightowl (Oct 27, 2008)

my first ever panorama. thames barrier park this morning

http://theowlsnest.fotopic.net/p54541835.html


----------



## CyberRose (Nov 12, 2008)

I have never posted a picture ever before, but I am planning on getting a new camera for Christmas so have been having a nosey around and decided to submit this picture to the critics:

http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg286/jameswagstaff/cctv.jpg

I call it "Camera with spikes stuck on it"


----------



## mauvais (Nov 15, 2008)

I love this photo. Took it in a burst of several as I was trying to catch them fighting. Made me laugh out loud when I first saw it.


----------



## liampreston (Dec 7, 2008)

I've been out pointing-and-clicking, these are two I'm brave enough to offer for constructive (I hope!) critisicm....


----------



## jeff_leigh (Dec 13, 2008)

@liampreston good light and shadow there, Try the same effect in B&W


----------



## Tankus (Dec 18, 2008)

tower bridge at dawn


----------



## Dreadwear (Dec 19, 2008)

The view from my office:






Big Image - http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v284/josollsam/Misc/ViewfromwhereIwork3.jpg


----------



## Dreadwear (Dec 19, 2008)

Bah. That didn't do what I wanted it to do!


----------



## Dillinger4 (Dec 19, 2008)

Those the ones, Dreadwear?



edit - I edited out the first two, the first one doesn't work, and the second one is huge.


----------



## Dreadwear (Dec 19, 2008)

Thanks!


----------



## army_of_one (Dec 28, 2008)

This is my first time posting for criticism so be gentle.


----------



## Herbsman. (Jan 17, 2009)

The problem with sticky threads is that because they're always there, I completely ignore them. I recently posted a seperate thread with a critique request, when I could have just posted it in this thread. Oops!


----------



## ramjamclub (Jan 19, 2009)

Where is this pub? This looks like a pub I know in Dublin zie post 1481


----------



## Dreadwear (Jan 21, 2009)

army_of_one said:


> This is my first time posting for criticism so be gentle.



Hi

I do like that slow motion water movement thing and you seem to have got it down nicely. However, I would probably have photographed more of the water with less of the land above it personally,  and on the second photo I would have made it slightly more obvious what the object is (I think it is a candle in a holder?).


----------



## army_of_one (Jan 21, 2009)

Dreadwear said:


> Hi
> 
> I do like that slow motion water movement thing and you seem to have got it down nicely. However, I would probably have photographed more of the water with less of the land above it personally,  and on the second photo I would have made it slightly more obvious what the object is (I think it is a candle in a holder?).



Yeah, a lot of my photos are like that first one. I'm trying to work more on the story/composition that I want in my photos. 

For the second, I was learning the macro function on my lens. I knew that I wanted a more abstract feel though. I guess that doesn't come across so well.


----------



## Stigmata (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't think i'm any great shakes with the camera, but every so often I get a picture I quite like:

York Minster





Midday in Hampshire


----------



## sandra_nz (Apr 24, 2009)

It's nothing fancy, but I really like this photo of my dad and Uncle fishing. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I would like to get it properly printed.


----------



## stowpirate (Apr 24, 2009)

sandra_nz said:


> It's nothing fancy, but I really like this photo of my dad and Uncle fishing. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I would like to get it properly printed.




Nice photo all that needs is a straight horizon. Should be easy to do in  photo editing software.


----------



## isitme (May 21, 2009)

dunno why i like this one. i think it's cos it has so much roads in it


----------



## sned (Jun 18, 2009)

Took this ages ago.. people say they like it. Be kind


----------



## Herbsman. (Jun 18, 2009)

Its a cat


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Jun 18, 2009)

I particularly like the cat and the one by mauvais with the birds with the weird chins


----------



## boohoo (Jun 18, 2009)

clapham deep level shelter...


----------



## madshadow (Jun 22, 2009)

sandra_nz said:


> It's nothing fancy, but I really like this photo of my dad and Uncle fishing. Any suggestions on how to improve it? I would like to get it properly printed.


----------



## sandra_nz (Jun 22, 2009)

That looks great, thanks so much!


----------



## thelittlechef (Sep 12, 2009)

A few for (gentle) critisism, all part of my first attempt at some semi-serious wildlife photography:





Duiker Antelope
-----------------





Secretary Bird
-----------------





Rock Aguana
-----------------

Final one I know is not a great shot - but it is such an unusual animal it ends up as my favorite of the bunch:






(It's an Aardwolf btw)

All taken on a Nikon D90 with 70-300mm VR handheld.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 12, 2009)

REAL photographers are beyond criticism. Their photos make you criticize yourself.

(nice nature shots btw... colour balance seems a bit too warm, could be my monitor though)


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 12, 2009)

.


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 13, 2009)




----------



## stowpirate (Sep 16, 2009)

Where has the rest of that mermaid gone?


----------



## boskysquelch (Sep 16, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> Where has the rest of that mermaid gone?



I ate her...within minutes of her death... 






had to save the tail for 2 1/2 weeks to get the right light & the right size caterpillar.


----------



## Badger Decoy (Oct 6, 2009)

Hi, I've not posted in this forum before but I've worked up the courage to submit a couple of pictures. I took them with just a shitty little compact so they're not great but I quite like them anyway! I've just bought a second hand dslr so am looking forward to gettin into more techie stuff soon! 

This is a view over the old town, Dubrovnik





Kayaks





And a couple of photos from sunny South London


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 6, 2009)

that photo of the kayaks is fucking BADD

print it 18 inches wide and frame it IMMEDIATELY


----------



## jeff_leigh (Oct 7, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> that photo of the kayaks is fucking BADD
> 
> print it 18 inches wide and frame it IMMEDIATELY



I'd crop the top though


----------



## Badger Decoy (Oct 7, 2009)

Thanks for the tips guys. Glad you liked that photo I really liked that one too! Can't wait til I get my new dslr camera through - damn postal strikes are making it take ages to get to me.


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 8, 2009)

jeff_leigh said:


> I'd crop the top though



I'd crop your face


----------



## jeff_leigh (Oct 8, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> I'd crop your face



It's already cropped


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 8, 2009)

My Kitchen Sink


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2009)

st james sq


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2009)

tree


----------



## sim667 (Oct 8, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> My Kitchen Sink



Do you process films in your kitchen sink then? The chemicals never make u ill or nuffink? It was something I was a little bit concerned about because of the hydroquinone in dev


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 8, 2009)

stowpirate said:


> My Kitchen Sink


Yo dude. Is that booze brewing on the windowsill? I thought it was best to brew it out of direct light!!!


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 8, 2009)

sim667 said:


> Do you process films in your kitchen sink then? The chemicals never make u ill or nuffink? It was something I was a little bit concerned about because of the hydroquinone in dev



Have done for years now. You have to make sure you wash any chemical spillage away. I shift everything that might get contaminated out of the area to reduce the risk. Then thoroughly clean the area afterwards. Darkrooms are far more dangerous places because half the time you cannot see what you are doing and you get the chemicals all over your hands & clothes. My daughter was always coming home stinking of developer and fixer when she did photography at school and college.


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 8, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> Yo dude. Is that booze brewing on the windowsill? I thought it was best to brew it out of direct light!!!



That is only for red wine because it loses it colour. It is peach wine which is about to be distilled into schnapps using the iced wok method


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 8, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> Yo dude. Is that booze brewing on the windowsill? I thought it was best to brew it out of direct light!!!



i thought it was urine samples.


----------



## stowpirate (Oct 9, 2009)

Pickman's model said:


> i thought it was urine samples.



If the fermentation goes wrong it sometimes tastes or smells like that


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 15, 2009)

.


----------



## boskysquelch (Oct 15, 2009)

grrrs i can something icky.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 15, 2009)

This was taken by my son.  I actually think it's a good picture 

(He's about 3 years and 10 months old)


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 18, 2009)

I reckon that's quite an interesting pic - it looks like all the things have been glued on


----------



## jeff_leigh (Oct 18, 2009)

Is that the kid from the Balloon story?


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 18, 2009)

Doesnt sunlight make stuff go bad quicker


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 19, 2009)

jeff_leigh said:


> Is that the kid from the Balloon story?



It's my son


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 19, 2009)

upsidedownwalrus said:


> It's my son



Balloon Boy:

http://www.ndtv.com/talkingpictures/NEWS/balloon/b5.jpg


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 19, 2009)

Badger Decoy said:


> Hi, I've not posted in this forum before but I've worked up the courage to submit a couple of pictures. I took them with just a shitty little compact so they're not great but I quite like them anyway! I've just bought a second hand dslr so am looking forward to gettin into more techie stuff soon!
> 
> This is a view over the old town, Dubrovnik
> 
> ...




First photo: nice. I'd darken the sky a bit.

Second: I'd crop out maybe 2/3 of it, leave in only the three or so kayaks in the bottom right third.

Third: A bit nondescript. The rather boring dock dominates the photo.

Fourth: also could use cropping. I'd take out that flotsam to the left, and just leave in some of the shadows, and the legs at the top.


----------



## upsidedownwalrus (Oct 19, 2009)

Oh.  Well I thought my son's pic was interesting, but I feel somewhat humbled by Badger Decoy's pics


----------



## jeff_leigh (Oct 19, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> Second: I'd crop out maybe 2/3 of it, leave in only the three or so kayaks in the bottom right third.



Thats what I said and Herby gave me grief


----------



## Herbsman. (Oct 19, 2009)

I'll give your face grief


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 20, 2009)

jeff_leigh said:


> Thats what I said and Herby gave me grief



Oh well, it's all subjective, innit?


----------



## extra dry (Nov 29, 2009)

messed about with size and colour, but what do you think?


----------



## extra dry (Nov 29, 2009)

more of the harbor, again I had to resize the photo


----------



## extra dry (Nov 29, 2009)

TAXI!!!


----------



## extra dry (Nov 29, 2009)

famous bridge in Prague under reconstruction.


----------



## tangerinedream (Dec 6, 2009)




----------



## Roadkill (Dec 13, 2009)

_Sir Nigel Gresley_ at King's Cross this afternoon.


----------



## thriller (Feb 8, 2010)

Tottenham Court Road


----------



## army_of_one (Feb 25, 2010)

thriller said:


> Tottenham Court Road



I think you need to decide what the subject is. I'm a bit confused as to what you want it to be.

a) the M&Ms-in which case the guy looks shopped and extraneous 
or
b) the guy-in which case he still doesn't fit with the way you've focused 

To selectively color the M&Ms implies to me that they are the subject, but the inclusion of the seller(?) is confusing.

As an exercise of selective color it's great. As anything else it kind of loses it's way.


----------



## thriller (Feb 27, 2010)

Some excellent points. BTW. He aint a seller. He is joe public who annoyingly walked into my shot.


----------



## JKaranka (Mar 30, 2010)

This makes me wonder why Haribo Happy Cola has colour and the other Haribo next to it doesn't! 



thriller said:


> Tottenham Court Road


----------



## Tankus (Mar 31, 2010)

Caerphilly castle at sunset 

Done over two sunsets ... feb and this month


----------



## funky_sessions (Apr 1, 2010)

gig time!


----------



## ramjamclub (Apr 19, 2010)

Amsterdam-Office building


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Apr 19, 2010)

ramjamclub said:


> Amsterdam-Office building



Why? Why did you think this was even worth posting here?

Can you give us any clues?


----------



## ramjamclub (Apr 20, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Why? Why did you think this was even worth posting here?
> 
> Can you give us any clues?


I suspect you are not enamoured with architectural lines.


----------



## Herbsman. (Apr 20, 2010)

Bit boring


----------



## gamma globulins (Apr 20, 2010)

Seems a little bit overposterised.


----------



## Herbsman. (Apr 20, 2010)

it was an accident


----------



## gamma globulins (Apr 20, 2010)

Like the composition, the dude at the back not looking at the camera and the peeping skellington. And the guitar necks complement the woowork pretty well.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Apr 20, 2010)

.


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 20, 2010)

I like this photo


----------



## boskysquelch (Apr 20, 2010)

ace place. go back there on a moonlit night....v magical.

Only Cape in the UK too.


----------



## gamma globulins (May 20, 2010)

I know some aren't too keen on selective colour, but it occurred to me I could mimic the red-white colours of the Polish flag using this scene from Gdansk (though I then ended up restoring the colour to three pedestrians to lend an additional focal point to the photo).






What do you think?


----------



## MightyAphrodite (May 20, 2010)

awesome ....i love tinkering with pictures like that. i like ^ it a lot !!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 20, 2010)

Herbsman. said:


> Bit boring



It could be less cropped. All of the guy on the left's head should be in the shot, and the shoulder of the guy on the right.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 20, 2010)

gamma globulins said:


> I know some aren't too keen on selective colour, but it occurred to me I could mimic the red-white colours of the Polish flag using this scene from Gdansk (though I then ended up restoring the colour to three pedestrians to lend an additional focal point to the photo).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like it.


----------



## gamma globulins (May 20, 2010)

Thanks! I am pleased I have pleased. I did try another version where I did the B&W conversion using a digital red filter, which turned the blue of the sky much darker and made the clouds stand out (and because I restored the reds with a layer the red points stayed as above), but it kept giving the building an odd light-grey outline so in the end I gave up.



fractionMan said:


> I like this photo



I'm still not sure about this. I like it, but I can't say why. I also feel it's missing something but can't say what. Sorry, bit useless.


----------



## thriller (Jun 20, 2010)

fractionMan said:


> I like this photo



hmm. is the man in the pic a dwarf? Looks like it. It has a 1980s feel to it.


----------



## Herbsman. (Jun 20, 2010)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It could be less cropped. All of the guy on the left's head should be in the shot, and the shoulder of the guy on the right.


You're right... Need a wider lens for that to be possible though. Or stitch 2 photos together. Not difficult but I didn't think of it at the time


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jul 7, 2010)

hi, I know it's nothing special, but I was proud of myself for figuring out I could get a better pic of the sunset if I switched over to the manual setting.  Think it's the first time I ever used it.


----------



## gamma globulins (Jul 10, 2010)

Still quite a cool shot!.


----------



## fat Andy (Jul 20, 2010)

Went to a local lavender field at the weekend.The place was full of people with frilly bonnets and parasols prancing about. Rebelled a bit and came up with this.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2010)

boskysquelch said:


> Only Cape in the UK too.


 
No it ain't.


----------



## gamma globulins (Jul 26, 2010)

fat Andy said:


> Went to a local lavender field at the weekend.The place was full of people with frilly bonnets and parasols prancing about. Rebelled a bit and came up with this.


 
I like it, though if you had it all to do over again I might take a wider shot and maybe re-order the legs so the biggest are in the middle.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Jul 26, 2010)

what do you guys think?


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Jul 26, 2010)

double post


----------



## skaboom1 (Aug 19, 2010)

here is mine


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 19, 2010)

Taken on a mobile from a moving car.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 19, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Taken on a mobile from a moving car.


 
That's got a certain something. The fact the bench seems to be essentially skeletal gives it an extra ghostly twist.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

skaboom1 said:


> here is mine


 
It's a photo of a poster. What are we supposed to be criticising - the photo or the poster?

The poster is OK. The photo is of no particular worth other than that it depicts an OK poster. It's not taken flat-on and you haven't even bothered to crop out the bit of another frame at the bottom.

PS you can't make an embedded image from a link to a web page. You should just post the link to the page like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sammyi/4880083150/


----------



## teuchter (Aug 20, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Taken on a mobile from a moving car.


 
Although the murky atmosphere is quite appealing, it's not an especially good photograph. It's not surprising to learn that it was snapped from a moving car because it doesn't give the impression that any care has been given to its composition. For me the fact that it's not level (giving the impression that everything is leaning to the right) is distracting. I agree with the other comment that the fact the bench is "skeletal" helps with the ghostlyness. However, it's lost somewhat in the general darkness at the bottom of the picture. 

Including something in the foreground might have helped. Then there would have been a clearer progression from a sharply defined silhouette in the foreground to the misty fuzziness in the background. The nearest object to the camera is the tree on the right which is awkwardly cropped out along its trunk.

Converting it to black and white might help too. Apart from anything else it might help disguise the low quality of the image resulting from the camera used.


----------



## tangerinedream (Aug 21, 2010)




----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 9, 2010)

Bike polo






bog standard shot, nothing special


----------



## tangerinedream (Sep 9, 2010)

Herbsman. said:


> Bike polo
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the wheel to the right detracts from essential focus of the picture. The luminous wheel to the left is a nice effect but the blur to the right doesn't have quite enough punch to merit inclusion. It's quite an interesting image with action and light aplenty without the extra factor of the blurred wheel.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 10, 2010)

Harsh bastard.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 10, 2010)

Herbsman. said:


> Harsh bastard.


 
I like it and i like the wheel in it, maybe if the shutter speed was slightly slower and it was more blury but not so slow that the action in the background was still sharp.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 10, 2010)

ive been crying because of him


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 10, 2010)

Herbsman. said:


> ive been crying because of him


 
You cant really get upset if someone didnt like your photograph, at least they said something about yours. Mine was just ignored XD


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 11, 2010)

Next time I'll ask the guys not to play polo but just to pose in a convenient position so that there are no blurry distractions


----------



## tangerinedream (Sep 11, 2010)

Herbsman. said:


> Next time I'll ask the guys not to play polo but just to pose in a convenient position so that there are no blurry distractions


 
Here's a thought...why not start your own thread called 'submit photos you consider to be above criticism?' :stickyouttonguesmileything:


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 11, 2010)

tangerinedream said:


> Here's a thought...why not start your own thread called 'submit photos you consider to be above criticism?' :stickyouttonguesmileything:


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 12, 2010)

Can I have your opinions on this image please?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 12, 2010)

ilovebush&blair said:


> Can I have your opinions on this image please?



Looks like something from a 1992 photo library catalogue.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 12, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Looks like something from a 1992 photo library catalogue.


 
what do you mean by that?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 12, 2010)

ilovebush&blair said:


> what do you mean by that?


 
I mean it looks like something from a 1992 photo/stock library catalogue in style and content.


----------



## ilovebush&blair (Sep 12, 2010)

Stanley Edwards said:


> I mean it looks like something from a 1992 photo/stock library catalogue in style and content.


 
cool it was taken last week

what cultural references are you basing this on? or is it something about lighting or development?

was using a semi fish eye big in 1992? can you link me to some examples of this stock photography please


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 12, 2010)

ilovebush&blair said:


> cool it was taken last week
> 
> what cultural references are you basing this on? or is it something about lighting or development?


 
It looks like something from a 1992 photo/stock library catalogue in style and content.


----------



## Redeyes (Sep 23, 2010)

What do you reckon to this panorama I took in Rome a few years ago? That's my missus to the left btw

Click for image


----------



## Crispy (Sep 23, 2010)

Redeyes said:


> What do you reckon to this panorama I took in Rome a few years ago? That's my missus to the left btw
> 
> Click for image


 
Should've taken it from the other end to prevent the sun washing out what looks like quite an interesting sky

I like the little shopping trolley thing on the left, that would have made a nice subject for a closer pic


----------



## Redeyes (Sep 23, 2010)

Crispy said:


> Should've taken it from the other end to prevent the sun washing out what looks like quite an interesting sky
> 
> I like the little shopping trolley thing on the left, that would have made a nice subject for a closer pic



No idea where that trolley came from, it wasn't ours though now you mention it it does look kind of interesting.

I did get one from the other side but there's hardly any sky in it. This one from the top of the Palatine hill has some sky in it though plus a look across the forum.

Click for image


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 13, 2011)




----------



## Kippa (Mar 27, 2011)

Taken at Blackpool Zoo.  Damn thing kept moving around like it was on speed, finally got to take a picture of the little fecker when it kepts still for a second.


----------



## Kippa (Mar 27, 2011)

This one is taken from the Tutankhamun exhibition manchester in Manchester.


----------



## Kippa (Mar 28, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Taken on a mobile from a moving car.



I like this image, it has a lot of atmosphere to it, a sense of forboding.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Mar 28, 2011)

Herbsman. said:


> Bike polo
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice photo. There are a couple of nice contrasts working for it - one being the blur of the tire to the right compared to the clarity of the two figures; the other being the nearness of that wheel contrasted with the figures in the distance. The only thing it's lacking, imo, is something with a bit of clarity, maybe in the top right corner, to give a bit more balance. The photo is pretty heavily weighted toward the left.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 28, 2011)

Kippa said:


> This one is taken from the Tutankhamun exhibition manchester in Manchester.


 
It looks like a postcard you would buy in the museum shop, having just visited the Tutankhamun exhibition.


----------



## Sergeantbilco (Apr 5, 2011)

First Post, First Photo post. Would love an opinion...


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2011)

Sergeantbilco said:


> First Post, First Photo post. Would love an opinion...


 
Fixed for you.

The general idea is ok but the dinosaurs are lost somewhat in the darkness at the bottom of the image. Maybe something where they were silhouetted as well as the wheel would have worked better.


----------



## Tankus (Apr 9, 2011)

Redeyes said:


> What do you reckon to this panorama I took in Rome a few years ago? That's my missus to the left btw
> 
> Click for image



great subject  ...like crispy sez , better from the other side , all the brickwork would be well lit too


----------



## mauvais (Apr 9, 2011)

teuchter said:


> Fixed for you.
> 
> The general idea is ok but the dinosaurs are lost somewhat in the darkness at the bottom of the image. Maybe something where they were silhouetted as well as the wheel would have worked better.


Is this Pripyat? 

You could probably add gradient light as an overlay in Photoshop or similar to bring out the foreground. Like this:


----------



## black_mamba (Apr 26, 2011)

Yum, Chernobyl. 

Here's my photo for anyone to criticise. I picked what I consider to be one of my best and favourite shots! Only because I can't see anything wrong with it.  Open to suggestions though...





Taken during an enduro event in Hampshire.


----------



## Blunders500 (Jun 9, 2011)

One from somewhere fairly local in SE London


----------



## teuchter (Jun 10, 2011)

^ borderline over-HDR-ed


----------



## Blunders500 (Jun 10, 2011)

teuchter said:


> ^ borderline over-HDR-ed



Indeed I agree with you - I wanted to bring out the flagstones on the floor, which are not too far from how I see them. It was fairly dimly lit in there so the process suited the image <imo>


----------



## chandlerp (Jun 28, 2011)

The interior of the Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool on Sunday afternoon


----------



## Kippa (Jul 2, 2011)

I like the perspective in the Anglican Cathedral, my only critisim is that the coloures are overly saturated.


----------



## edwinchester (Jul 31, 2011)

I've just bought a 100-300 lens and took it away with us when we went visiting friends. I spotted a swallows nest in the rafters of an out building and sat myself under a kids trampoline outside to get a shot up through an open windowframe from close enough without disturbing the parents who were flying in and out feeding the chicks. Still had to be bloody quick though and didn't manage to get a 'perfect' shot but given more time and luck I may have done. Any hints on improving shots like these?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Aug 7, 2011)

These were taken by my daughter with my new (second hand) camera.  Not bad me thinks.


----------



## edwinchester (Aug 8, 2011)

xsunnysuex said:


> These were taken by my daughter with my new (second hand) camera. Not bad me thinks.



Nice. What size lens?


----------



## xsunnysuex (Aug 8, 2011)

The lens is a 27mm LEICA DC VARIO-ELMARIT Lens
http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews_panasonic_lumix_dmc_fz28.php


----------



## Tankus (Aug 12, 2011)

Blunders500 said:


> One from somewhere fairly local in SE London


 ...... really really like this


----------



## Artaxerxes (Aug 18, 2011)

That is pretty neat, where is it?



edwinchester said:


> Still had to be bloody quick though and didn't manage to get a 'perfect' shot but given more time and luck I may have done. Any hints on improving shots like these?



Tripod defintely, I'd say a bit more light as well but that might disturb the wee things.

One of mine, this was taken at Yumchaa in Soho and fiddled with in Photoshop


----------



## OneStrike (Aug 25, 2011)

I have a personally important photo to share but almost certainly poorly shot, is this the best thread?

It might be the vodka, but Artaxerxses above makes me think Dali, Owl angry in equilibrium, weight of time, in the order my squirrel brain thought.


----------



## drewg (Aug 28, 2011)

Took this on a cycling holiday in Thanet, Kent.
landscape there lends itself to panorama pictures. Taken with a samsung 15500 mobile
Here's another


----------



## becki1701 (Sep 16, 2011)

Mt Bromo in Indonesia....maybe too much bush in the foreground..?


----------



## becki1701 (Sep 16, 2011)

And now that I see it here the colours aren't very deep!


----------



## Utopia (Sep 17, 2011)

Some excellent/random images on here!

Here's one I took on a Greek island last week -


----------



## sim667 (Sep 20, 2011)

Blunders500 said:


> One from somewhere fairly local in SE London



Where is that?


----------



## RoyReed (Sep 20, 2011)

sim667 said:


> Where is that?


Crystal Palace - the subway under the old high-level(?) railway station. Stunning Victorian brickwork. I think it's normally closed to the public.


----------



## sim667 (Sep 20, 2011)

Ah excellent..... its got some beautiful brickwork in there.


----------



## drewg (Sep 23, 2011)

^^that is in London!?
Looks like that moorish place in spain. the al hambra or something. Amazing picture colours and perspective. Is it accessible to the public?


----------



## RoyReed (Sep 23, 2011)

No, as I said it's normally closed to the public. I got in a few years ago when access was allowed as part of the 'Open London' scheme. You can read more about it here:
http://www.subbrit.org.uk/sb-sites/sites/c/crystal_palace_subway/index.shtml


----------



## sim667 (Oct 3, 2011)

Id love to go into some of these place on that site!


----------



## mauvais (Nov 3, 2011)




----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2011)

^ Seeing as this is the criticism thread...

I like it but for me two things stop it from being great photo-

1) I think it's a bit too symetrical, ie boring composition-wise
2) It maybe falls between two stools by being sort of a bit abstract, but not abstract enough.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 4, 2011)

mauvais, I think it is all about the fantastic colour - I love it


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 7, 2011)

teuchter said:


> ^ Seeing as this is the criticism thread...
> 
> I like it but for me two things stop it from being great photo-
> 
> ...


I don't think the symmetry is a problem in this picture. It is self framing, if you cropped or moved the camera to one side or the other you would lose the framing effect. It is not completely symmetrical but only nearly so which gives it a bit of an edge. I have taken symmetrical pictures before now when the subject was symmetrical. No composition rule is compulsory.

It is a powerful image redolent of fire or even an explosion, nothing boring to me. I had a little think about the fact that the eye level is halfway up/down the picture frame. However cropping some of the foreground would take out the tips of those finger like leaves that seem to point towards the corner. There is also a red leaf towards the left sitting with the tips of its separate leaves just touching the lower edge of the picture which is a good component of the composition as it stands.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 10, 2011)

I forgot I'd posted here. Cheers for those, interesting. I'm quite pleased with it if only because I haven't taken a good shot in ages, so I think I'll get it printed big.

You can have a couple more if you like


----------



## teuchter (Nov 10, 2011)

^ The second one is very nice indeed.

The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.


----------



## weltweit (Nov 10, 2011)

mauvais, I love the first (the red one) it is very lovelly, I expect it was UK but the shape of the leaves in the bottom right corner make me think of the orient. I like the second also but not as much as the first.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 11, 2011)

teuchter said:


> ^ The second one is very nice indeed.
> 
> The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.


Oh boo, you've spoilt it for me now  

I don't know what that's about. Wind, mucky lens maybe, or misfocused somewhere into the scene - seems to be the whole RHS.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 11, 2011)

mauvais said:


> Oh boo, you've spoilt it for me now



That's what this thread is all about.

What about a bit of cropping?


----------



## mauvais (Jan 18, 2012)

My, this thread's doing well isn't it.






Camera on a tripod, lit different areas of the scene for different exposures, and then reassembled in Photoshop, choosing the right bits of each.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 18, 2012)

I'm a rank amateur, but for me that's too bright.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2012)

The lighthouse, or the whole thing?


----------



## TruXta (Jan 19, 2012)

mauvais said:


> The lighthouse, or the whole thing?



The whole thing. Technically (again a rank amateur) it looks very nice, but it lacks a bit of darkness IMO.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2012)

I think it's very good; slightly unreal looking and I like the slightly seasick composition.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2012)

TruXta said:


> The whole thing. Technically (again a rank amateur) it looks very nice, but it lacks a bit of darkness IMO.


I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2012)

Oh, but just on a technical point to annoy you, there is a little bit of posterisation visible in the sky in the middle.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 19, 2012)

mauvais said:


> I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.



I don't think this is a problem really.


----------



## mauvais (Jan 19, 2012)

teuchter said:


> Oh, but just on a technical point to annoy you, there is a little bit of posterisation visible in the sky in the middle.


Oh yeah. That's 'cos I'm a lazy slapdash shit.


----------



## TruXta (Jan 19, 2012)

mauvais said:


> I was going to say it probably depends on your monitor, but it's a fair point, there's no deep blacks in there. That's kind of inherent to long exposure night photography though - the sky is always brighter than the darkest scenery. I'll have a meddle with it next time.



You'd know all that much better than me . Don't get me wrong, in many ways it's a cracking shot.

ETA I just now saw the tree pics above on this page - NOW we're talking


----------



## Quartz (Feb 10, 2012)

teuchter said:


> ^ The second one is very nice indeed.
> 
> The fuzziness at the bottom right bothers me slightly though.


 
Fuzziness? ITYM out-of focus area.  Maybe it's my monitor but I would also point out the smoke bottom middle as possibly being over-exposed - it's just a block of white.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Fuzziness? ITYM out-of focus area.  Maybe it's my monitor but I would also point out the smoke bottom middle as possibly being over-exposed - it's just a block of white.


It can't be out of focus if the foreground & background are sharp - but it can have been moving.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 10, 2012)

mauvais said:


> It can't be out of focus if the foreground & background are sharp


 
It is the object the furthest distance from the camera, so it can most certainly be out of focus.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 10, 2012)

Quartz said:


> It is the object the furthest distance from the camera, so it can most certainly be out of focus.


I had a look at the detail in the background and bits of it are sharp - it really is a left to right deterioration. It's 1/160sec at 38mm though so very little potential for movement in the scene. Don't know what happened there.

No clipping in the smoke by the way - plenty in the sun, and in the sky on the left.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 11, 2012)

At the risk of it just being me, another one:






I'm quite pleased with that, although not necessarily because it's any good as a whole. Can you spot anything wrong with it? I'll post the original later.


----------



## Ranbay (Feb 26, 2012)

just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot


----------



## Quartz (Feb 26, 2012)

mauvais said:


> At the risk of it just being me, another one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Why are the shadows on the chains different? On the left of the bridge they go at 5 o'clock; on the right, they go at 6 o'clock. I'm assuming multiple light sources - I can see one bottom left - but I don't see multiple matching shadows.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 27, 2012)

There were multiple light sources, though none of them under my control - just ordinary street lighting on the harbour. You're along the right lines though. I'm abroad at the mo but I'll post the unedited copy when I get back.


----------



## mauvais (Feb 27, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot


Can't really tell the exposure and quality on this laptop, but composition wise, this is excellent. Has almost everything going for it - shame the reflections are chopped off, but isn't major. Timing's excellent so they're both off the ground. Great work.


----------



## Quartz (Feb 27, 2012)

B0B2oo9 said:


> just point and shoot on my new Nikon D5100, im still a leaner... just really like this shot


 
Compositionally, it's excellent. You've got the photograph neatly divided into thirds - beach, land, and sky. Everything is artisticly indistinct, giving the whole a slightly abstract feel. The only distinct thing is the contrail. This allows the viewer to superimpose their own youngsters on the children in the foreground. And therein it fails as art. It's too bland and generic.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 1, 2012)

Here's my one from before:









Took aaaages. Not worth it, but never mind.


----------



## Marc Fairhurst (Mar 4, 2012)

Some really nice photographs in here. I'm gonna go with this. River Thames. Camera: Nikon D7000


----------



## extra dry (Mar 25, 2012)

A friends coffee shop on  a Tuesday morning


----------



## extra dry (Mar 25, 2012)

total destruction


----------



## army_of_one (Mar 25, 2012)

extra dry said:


> View attachment 17670 A friends coffee shop on a Tuesday morning


Is the photo on it's side or is that the way it's meant to be viewed?


----------



## army_of_one (Mar 25, 2012)

Quartz said:


> Compositionally, it's excellent. You've got the photograph neatly divided into thirds - beach, land, and sky. Everything is artisticly indistinct, giving the whole a slightly abstract feel. The only distinct thing is the contrail. This allows the viewer to superimpose their own youngsters on the children in the foreground. And therein it fails as art. It's too bland and generic.


I had the exact same feeling when I first saw it. Compositionally it's great, but there is nothing to continue the story IYKWIM.


----------



## extra dry (Mar 25, 2012)

army_of_one said:


> Is the photo on it's side or is that the way it's meant to be viewed?


 

no it is not, however I lack the technology to change it


----------



## Marc Fairhurst (Apr 6, 2012)

sim667 said:


> Where is that?


I live not far from that place. I was actually on the other side of it and didn't even know that passeway existed. If anyone's ever going let me know. Would love to photograph it.


----------



## Marc Fairhurst (Apr 6, 2012)

Canary Wharf, London.


----------



## Rogue_Leader (Apr 9, 2012)

Lake Iznik, Turkey




Fishing Boat on Lake Iznik, Turkey by Molesworth II, on Flickr


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 14, 2012)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Lake Iznik, Turkey
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I really like this photo. It's very well composed, and the color tones are sumptuous.

If you're looking for critiqe: it feels just slightly crooked. You can see it if you look at the shoreline and the trees. Probably 1% correction would handle it.


----------



## mauvais (May 14, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I really like this photo. It's very well composed, and the color tones are sumptuous.
> 
> If you're looking for critiqe: it feels just slightly crooked. You can see it if you look at the shoreline and the trees. Probably 1% correction would handle it.


Yep, it's on the piss. Assuming the pic shown is the full source image, if you correct it you'll knock out the edges when cropped to a rectangle, but since it's all empty blue, just make up some more (PS' Content Aware Fill will do nicely).


----------



## Citizen66 (May 16, 2012)

If he straightens the shoreline, won't that then put the boat at an awkward angle?


----------



## editor (May 16, 2012)

The slightly wonky shoreline does detract from the otherwise excellent photo. I'd maybe boost the colours in the background and the sky as it looks a bit washed out.


----------



## mauvais (May 16, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> If he straightens the shoreline, won't that then put the boat at an awkward angle?


No. There's no important verticals or horizontals - and water is flat, so it's not about some false manipulation that will break something else, it's just about making it look right.


----------



## RoyReed (May 16, 2012)

Lovely photo that with a few tweaks could be made really good - lowered gamma and black point, darkened sky with graduated mask and straightened horizon (1.5° anticlockwise).


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 16, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> Lovely photo that with a few tweaks could be made really good - lowered gamma and black point, darkened sky with graduated mask and straightened horizon (1.5° anticlockwise).
> 
> View attachment 19245


 
Are you able to enlarge that to the same size as the original?  I'd like to be able to compare the overall impact with equivalent sizes.

[I'm not technically proficient enough to do it myself.]


----------



## RoyReed (May 17, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are you able to enlarge that to the same size as the original? I'd like to be able to compare the overall impact with equivalent sizes.
> 
> [I'm not technically proficient enough to do it myself.]


It's too large to post here (about 9MB). PM me with your email address and I'll send it to you.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2012)

. Hmm.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 17, 2012)

I'm trying to work out what the 'hmm' means. The original character who posted it seems to have stopped posting. The 9MB file size from taking a picture from this page seems excessive. And Johnny isn't on a wind-up. How to decide?


----------



## RoyReed (May 18, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> The 9MB file size from taking a picture from this page seems excessive.


I could make it smaller than 9MB by increasing the jpeg compression. I saved it at 100% quality from the original file on Flickr.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 18, 2012)

Ah right.


----------



## fractionMan (May 18, 2012)

The hmm was because I posted up a photo then changed my mind


----------



## fractionMan (May 18, 2012)

Here it is, criticism welcome:

Small version:



Bigger version:


----------



## Citizen66 (May 29, 2012)

All criticism welcome. I'm a beginner.  Cropped from a bigger shot (too much crap in the background). Looks over exposed. Probably picked the wrong day (grey sky) and doesn't look particularly sharp. Suggestions?


----------



## Quartz (May 29, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Here it is, criticism welcome:


 
It just doesn't work for me. You've cropped it, haven't you? There's a person in the background chopped in half. Also, your subject is looking off to the viewer's left (his right). He really needs to be looking at the ball. Why do you have that ball in the foreground, anyway? Perhaps if you were to crop it some more, cutting out that ball and the person chopped in half?


----------



## fractionMan (May 29, 2012)

Quartz said:


> It just doesn't work for me. You've cropped it, haven't you? There's a person in the background chopped in half. Also, your subject is looking off to the viewer's left (his right). He really needs to be looking at the ball. Why do you have that ball in the foreground, anyway? Perhaps if you were to crop it some more, cutting out that ball and the person chopped in half?


 
I didn't crop it, it just came out of the camera like that.

The people in the background are playing boule. The boule in the foreground has been thrown by the person he's looking at. I like this photo because to me it's obvious what's going on but not obvious why they guy has the expression he has.  For some reason I like the placement of those elements, but I guess it doesn't resonate with others.

Cheers for the comment, it's appreciated.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Cheers for the comment, it's appreciated.


 
You've captured the guy perfectly, and I like the way you've got the grass in focus. I just think the photo should focus solely on him. If you were to cut out the foreground boule and remove the person chopped in half, it could be a good character study, with the out-of-focus game in the background to give a setting, just to indicate he's watching something. 






See what I mean? There's no longer the distracting person cut in half, and there's a single point of focus. Note that there's a loss of picture quality because I've worked on your jpeg and saved it back as a jpeg. There's also an annoying something (a gap in the tree?) which looks like a blemish just above the man's head, and should probably be removed. I am hopeless at painting, so my efforts to correct it in MS Paint were laughable. It likely needs a blending tool.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Here it is, criticism welcome:
> 
> Small version:
> 
> ...


 
It's a pretty good photo; nice flat depth of field, the photo is balanced by the er, bocce? players in the background.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> All criticism welcome. I'm a beginner.  Cropped from a bigger shot (too much crap in the background). Looks over exposed. Probably picked the wrong day (grey sky) and doesn't look particularly sharp. Suggestions?


 
I think you need to be a bit further back. The sculpture is imposing enough that it needs a bit more of the surroundings to give it place. It's also hard to tell what's behind it on the right. It might be a building, or it might be overexposed sky.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 30, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I think you need to be a bit further back. The sculpture is imposing enough that it needs a bit more of the surroundings to give it place. It's also hard to tell what's behind it on the right. It might be a building, or it might be overexposed sky.


 
It was a grey day. I'll take a few more shots of it so you can get some context. The problem with moving further back is that it's surrounded by estate agents and other random shops etc which I didn't really want in the shot.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> It was a grey day. I'll take a few more shots of it so you can get some context. The problem with moving further back is that it's surrounded by estate agents and other random shops etc which I didn't really want in the shot.


 
Good thing about outdoor sculptures etc, is they can always be revisited. There are a couple of places around here that I go back to every couple of years to see if my take on the place has changed.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 30, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Good thing about outdoor sculptures etc, is they can always be revisited. There are a couple of places around here that I go back to every couple of years to see if my take on the place has changed.


 
Yeah. And I won't ever be happy until I get the perfect shot with this, either. It's from my hometown/childhood. I like the artistically added red paint though.  Need to get the perfect shot before that's removed by the council.


----------



## fractionMan (May 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> You've captured the guy perfectly, and I like the way you've got the grass in focus. I just think the photo should focus solely on him. If you were to cut out the foreground boule and remove the person chopped in half, it could be a good character study, with the out-of-focus game in the background to give a setting, just to indicate he's watching something.
> 
> ...
> 
> See what I mean? There's no longer the distracting person cut in half, and there's a single point of focus. Note that there's a loss of picture quality because I've worked on your jpeg and saved it back as a jpeg. There's also an annoying something (a gap in the tree?) which looks like a blemish just above the man's head, and should probably be removed. I am hopeless at painting, so my efforts to correct it in MS Paint were laughable. It likely needs a blending tool.


 
Thanks for this  

Removing the half person has definitely improved it.  Removing the boule at the bottom does indeed stick the focus squarely on the person, which is great, but it also removes some of the, I'm not sure how to put it really - the interplay between elements.   I was quite fond of the boule in the bottom left, as a sort of context+foreground element.  There's still the boulers in the background but I can't decide if I prefer it with or without.  For such a small element I think it's a very different photo either way.


----------



## fractionMan (May 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> All criticism welcome. I'm a beginner.  Cropped from a bigger shot (too much crap in the background). Looks over exposed. Probably picked the wrong day (grey sky) and doesn't look particularly sharp. Suggestions?


 

Composition wise, I think the main thing is that the figures look squashed into the picture then cut off. My eyes keep falling off the bottom wanting to see where they're standing. Also I feel the background is a bit distracting. This could be down to the grey sky (which I've found really hard to not overexpose in these situations) or the overhead wires. Perhaps a shallower depth of field might help here.

If you do go back, you might find it's not just the type of day or light, but the time of day that makes a difference as the sun will cast more or less dramatic shadows at different times.

Take a few more from different angles, heights, sizes etc. You might find you can place the statue in such a way as it's seen in relationship to it's surroundings or that if you get close and low you can fit it all in _and_ miss out the surrounding shops. I'd also experiment blurring the background out by standing further away, opening the aperture up fully and using a zoom.


----------



## Citizen66 (May 30, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Composition wise, I think the main thing is that the figures look squashed into the picture then cut off. My eyes keep falling off the bottom wanting to see where they're standing. Also I feel the background is a bit distracting. This could be down to the grey sky (which I've found really hard to not overexpose in these situations) or the overhead wires. Perhaps a shallower depth of field might help here.
> 
> If you do go back, you might find it's not just the type of day or light, but the time of day that makes a difference as the sun will cast more or less dramatic shadows at different times.
> 
> Take a few more from different angles, heights, sizes etc. You might find you can place the statue in such a way as it's seen in relationship to it's surroundings or that if you get close and low you can fit it all in _and_ miss out the surrounding shops. I'd also experiment blurring the background out by standing further away, opening the aperture up fully and using a zoom.


 
Woo. Nice tips. cheers.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (May 30, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> Yeah. And I won't ever be happy until I get the perfect shot with this, either. It's from my hometown/childhood. I like the artistically added red paint though.  Need to get the perfect shot before that's removed by the council.


 
Have you tried it in the late evening or at night?


----------



## Citizen66 (May 30, 2012)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Have you tried it in the late evening or at night?


 
No, just that once. Will have a go at different times of day. The other thing is light. I take some truly terrible photos when the sun is blazing as parts come out well over exposed and the rest in shadows.  And there was me thinking good light = perfect photos.


----------



## Quartz (May 30, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Removing the boule at the bottom does indeed stick the focus squarely on the person, which is great, but it also removes some of the, I'm not sure how to put it really - the interplay between elements.


 
That's an interesting comment as I see no interplay _in the photograph_ between the man and the boule. If the man had been looking at the boule, I would have left it in.



> I was quite fond of the boule in the bottom left, as a sort of context+foreground element. There's still the boulers in the background but I can't decide if I prefer it with or without. For such a small element I think it's a very different photo either way.


 
I agree. The problem I have is that I wasn't there; you remember the whole scene. For me, the players in the background set the scene.


----------



## fractionMan (May 30, 2012)

Quartz said:


> That's an interesting comment as I see no interplay _in the photograph_ between the man and the boule. If the man had been looking at the boule, I would have left it in.


 
To me, he's looking at the people/person who threw the boule. Which leads me to imagine that person. But, as you say below...



> I agree. *The problem I have is that I wasn't there; you remember the whole scene.* For me, the players in the background set the scene.


 
Which is a very good point. Perhaps it's just me who's using the boule to make the leap of filling in the missing player(s).

I've looked back now and I think you're right, the boule at the bottom is stealing the focus from the man and the pic without it is stronger. On reflection I'm not sure the inclusion of the boule is nescessary to add interest either - anyone looking at the photo is likely to wonder what the man is looking at, boule or no boule.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2012)

I didn't notice the boule at first. Only when quartz mentioned it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 17, 2012)

Do I need a specific subject?


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 17, 2012)

OK, I'm a beginner myself so hope I can still give a view. 

The problem is with the composition. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 17, 2012)

Citizen66 said:
			
		

> OK, I'm a beginner myself so hope I can still give a view.
> 
> The problem is with the composition. I don't know what I'm supposed to be looking at.



Well there's spiders webs, but they're either side of the shot rather than central to it, and the background presence is distracting. If you want a good spiders web shot, concentrate on that. Widen the aperture if you can't escape the background thus blurring it. Perhaps spray water on the web to get an interesting shot.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 17, 2012)

Yeah, but I don't like this:






But don't know why I don't like it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 17, 2012)

Widen the aperture?

May as well tell me to go to defcon9. What does that mean and how do I do it?


----------



## Zimri (Jul 18, 2012)

First post in this thread, i've just linked to the image, wasn't sure if adding it as an attachment or anything was the way to go.

Anyways, this is the .jpg version from a much bigger raw image, it's been slightly edited in CS5, but yeah, not sure if it'll resize in my post ok, so url for .jpg is http://www.ranger-danger.co.uk/photography/chain-wip2colour.jpg


----------



## extra dry (Jul 20, 2012)

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/318701_3408196492195_2147317619_n.jpg

not mine of course but a place I visited 100's times growing up, even took a school trip to the farn islands around there..

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/318705_165002866967816_1977106274_n.jpg


----------



## Termite Man (Oct 14, 2012)

A whole album of photos for the critics 

http://s1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii576/TermiteMan/Barbican/

and this is my current favourite from the album


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Do I need a specific subject?


 
If the subject is the webs, it's overwhelmed by the background. This shot would benefit from the photographer walking around the bush or whatever it is, to find the best angle, preferably one where the bush is highlighted against something neutral, like the sky, or water etc. This might require you shooting from below the subject, or higher up, etc.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Oct 19, 2012)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, but I don't like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This highlights the web a bit better, but still the background is too evident. Same suggestion as with the other one.


----------



## paimei01 (Jan 4, 2013)

Winter
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paimei01/8336432231/in/photostream/lightbox/


----------



## mauvais (Jan 4, 2013)

Sepia doesn't do you any favours IMO. It's not a bad composition but I struggle to think about anything in it when its colour temperature jars so much with the actual temperature of the scene.

Edit:

I made it greyscale and I felt it needed more contrast. I quite like it as an abstract shot. There are some nice textures. The lines in the left foreground detract from the image as they're in a different direction to the general flow and interfere with the shadow of the leaves.

If you'd taken a few steps left and turned, lining up the broken snow on the left with the hole in the ice, with the sporadic holes for punctuation, you might have got a more concentrated composition.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2013)

Agree with mauvais


----------



## jeff_leigh (Jan 4, 2013)

mauvais said:


> Sepia doesn't do you any favours IMO. It's not a bad composition but I struggle to think about anything in it when its colour temperature jars so much with the actual temperature of the scene.


Agreed I would've gone for a cooler filter


----------



## paimei01 (Jan 4, 2013)

Thanks. It was sunny and I thought to show it with some sunset light, even if it was not evening. Yes I could have frame it better.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 4, 2013)

paimei01 said:


> Thanks. It was sunny and I thought to show it with some sunset light, even if it was not evening. Yes I could have frame it better.


 
I like it. It's well-composed, and imo, the sepia adds an unexpected  but pleasant element.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jan 10, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I like it. It's well-composed, and imo, the sepia adds an unexpected but pleasant element.


 
 I agree...I like it a lot, I think the composition is really appealing. It would be nice to see it in its true colors, just for comparison though.


----------



## teahead (Feb 20, 2013)

Has my son got what it takes?

http://instagram.com/joshclayton93/

e2a he's just using a phone camera atm, so the colours are a bit meh by comparison with what they might be. And trying to figure a way to fund his continuing travels.


----------



## Redeyes (Feb 20, 2013)

Just bought myself a Fuji X10 refurb, wanted a decent camera for a while as I like taking photos but wanted to step it up a bit from taking them on my phone. I had no clue as regards taking pics in manual mode and all that jazz about f stops etc so bought Bryan Peterson's book UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE and think I'm getting my head around it. Took this at the weekend on top of Pendle hill, the kids were playing around climbing on the OS thing you find on top of such hills and I wanted to shoot right into the sun to get them in shadow...


----------



## Quartz (Mar 9, 2013)

Redeyes said:


> Just bought myself a Fuji X10 refurb, wanted a decent camera for a while as I like taking photos but wanted to step it up a bit from taking them on my phone. I had no clue as regards taking pics in manual mode and all that jazz about f stops etc so bought Bryan Peterson's book UNDERSTANDING EXPOSURE and think I'm getting my head around it. Took this at the weekend on top of Pendle hill, the kids were playing around climbing on the OS thing you find on top of such hills and I wanted to shoot right into the sun to get them in shadow...


 
The photo is nicely split into thirds, but the ground is really too dark. The contrails detract from the picture - really they should be in the top third but there's little you can do about them. I wonder if you should try getting the sun out of camera-shot - either zoom in or tilt the camera down? And I don't mean cropping it out. The sun is such a powerful source that it can overpower everything else.


----------



## drewg (Mar 23, 2013)

Shot this some years ago with an Olympus Trip 35. It's tottenham high street during a reclaim the street party.
Dug it out because it was a hot summer day and I'm feeling cold


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 12, 2013)

drewg said:


> Shot this some years ago with an Olympus Trip 35. It's tottenham high street during a reclaim the street party.
> Dug it out because it was a hot summer day and I'm feeling cold


 
It's a good photo: the man and dog are good. It's a bit cramped in that the dog's nose is right up against the side of the frame, and the man's feet are cut off.  The background action is intriguing; it might have been interesting to see the shot taken a moment earlier, when the person with the blue tank top wasn't so close to the woman on the ladder. As it is, it looks like the runner's head is about to go up the butt of the ladder person. Things like that are one of the dangers when figures are overlapped in a photo.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 24, 2013)

Took this in the peak district at sunset last autumn. Got given little fiji digital camera and decided to have a go at this photography malarky. Edited it bit - crop and tweaked the colour - is that cheating?


----------



## drewg (Apr 25, 2013)

Interesting colour variation of reds pinks purples. Too much sky too white. Would have cropped close to rock formation leaving a sliver of sky and cropped right hand rocks till the upper one looks like a nose/.

post editing is what photographers have always done using dark room techniques so keep on experimanting if you enjoy it


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Apr 25, 2013)

This looks like a nice spot.

That thing over the rocks in the upper left is a flare spot. 'Flare' in photography refers to extraneous light that's recorded on the image, but that isn't needed to present the scene. In other words, light reflected from the rocks, light from the sky etc all are necessary to make an image of the rocks and sky. But depending on the position of a light source like the sun, extraneous light can end up getting in. It has to do with lens constuction etc, and is over my head.

Looks to me like the sun is just to the left of the image, maybe low in the sky, like morning or later afternoon. It can be eliminated by moving so that the relationship angles between you, the object of the photo, and the sun, are different.

You probably already know all this, but there it is.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 24, 2013)

drewg said:


> Shot this some years ago with an Olympus Trip 35. It's tottenham high street during a reclaim the street party.
> Dug it out because it was a hot summer day and I'm feeling cold


 
Like the subject, would have been better had it been landscape or taken from a few feet further back. Bit cramped as someone else said.


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 24, 2013)

Rogue_Leader said:


> Lake Iznik, Turkey
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

Very nice, id have personally wanted a little less exposure of the sky, but i can see that's not necessarily possible. Photoshop it


----------



## Hocus Eye. (May 24, 2013)

Barking_Mad said:


> Very nice, id have personally wanted a little less exposure of the sky, but i can see that's not necessarily possible. Photoshop it


I think the sky is absolutely fine. I find the clipped highlight on the distant moored boat on the left a bit distracting but would leave it be. However the whole picture needs to be rotated anti-clockwise by about 3 degrees. Tis a good picture.


----------



## newharper (May 25, 2013)

Portscatho, Cornwall.


----------



## Pingu (Jun 1, 2013)

taken at a re-enactment the other weekend. processing is:

conversion to sepia (obviously)
slight crop
added a bit of noise
slight vignette

and here is original


----------



## Pingu (Jun 3, 2013)

newharper said:


> Portscatho, Cornwall.


 
deffo no expert here but for me the signs are a bit distracting, i would be tempted to remove them. the eye would then be nicely led up the pathway without any distractions.  I would also try to do a small crop to remove the stones at the very bottom so it starts of smooth and do a  bit of a graduated filter on the sky.

other than that though I like it. I love to see buildings etc and the contrast of the curves in the foreground with the angled building in the background works for me


----------



## Pingu (Jun 6, 2013)

my picture so good/bad/meh that its stumped you all?


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 12, 2013)

Pingu said:


> my picture so good/bad/meh that its stumped you all?


 


it's really lovely.


----------



## Miss Caphat (Jun 12, 2013)

newharper said:


> Portscatho, Cornwall.


 

ok, my 2 cents: there's a lot of potential for texture and pattern there but the photo doesn't really make use of it. Maybe it's the camera itself, but also the angle, the lighting, and so on. I'm left wanting to see it look more alive, with more depth, variation in tone, and more of a contrast between the shapes of building, road, sky,and shadows.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 25, 2013)

Why is this image so crap? I wanted an image for this months competition which is entitled "Pet Hates" and ironing is a pet hate for me so I figured an image of ironing would be good for it. I did try to have visible steam rising from the iron but against that light background the steam did not show in the resulting image. I think the image does show "ironing" but I just find it such a boring image! what do you think?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 25, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Why is this image so crap? I wanted an image for this months competition which is entitled "Pet Hates" and ironing is a pet hate for me


 
Preach it!



> so I figured an image of ironing would be good for it. I did try to have visible steam rising from the iron but against that light background the steam did not show in the resulting image. I think the image does show "ironing" but I just find it such a boring image! what do you think?


 
Try placing the clothes and the iron further apart, so the picture is divided into distinct thirds. Also, the front of the clothes are out of focus. There's an issue of balance too: the pile of clothes is small and the iron is tall. Try having the whole pile of clothes in the picture, and making the pile taller. I'm not sure but also the iron comes across as cold, clean, and elegant, whereas the clothes exude a warmth by not being folded or stacked to military correctness.This creates a contrast. I wonder if having the clothes stacked as if they were in a shop might work better? Or, for the more homely warmth, hark back to the distinct thirds and add a cup or mug of tea or something.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 25, 2013)

Hiya Quartz interesting what you say, I guess I just don't find any of the objects aesthetically pleasing so the image is somehow compromised immediately by that. And I find the red shirt at image bottom under the iron, which I specifically put in to brighten the image, a cheap appeal to populism


----------



## editor (Jun 25, 2013)

Pingu said:


> my picture so good/bad/meh that its stumped you all?


I prefer the colour version but would have darkened the background a bit more and given it a little bit of a contrast boost overall. Good photo though.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Jun 29, 2013)

I would have just got on and done the ironing.


----------



## Redeyes (Jul 9, 2013)

Here's one of my grand-daughter, haven't done any tinkering apart from cropping it a bit. Any tips on some jiggery pokery in Aperture or similar? Or should I just leave it as is?


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 12, 2013)

Took this one today with my new/old Canon SX40HS. Then a bit of tweaking in Gimp. Bearing in mind I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to photography (though I have been boning up by watching loads of YT videos), what do you think?


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 15, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Took this one today with my new/old Canon SX40HS. Then a bit of tweaking in Gimp. Bearing in mind I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to photography (though I have been boning up by watching loads of YT videos), what do you think?


You've caught the moment really well, but it might have been a bit nicer if there had been more back-light behind the water drop. And I don't know if you did this, but a tip for this type of photograph is to add a bit of guar gum, glycerine or agar agar to the water to thicken it slightly. Lot's of info on this online.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 15, 2013)

Redeyes said:


> Here's one of my grand-daughter, haven't done any tinkering apart from cropping it a bit. Any tips on some jiggery pokery in Aperture or similar? Or should I just leave it as is?


 

A lovely photo. Perhaps it's the compression but the division between the ears of the hat and the background is indistinct. Scrolling the picture makes me think that the bowl bottom right is an issue - the picture might be better off without it as it interferes with the whole background going into shade.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 15, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> You've caught the moment really well, but it might have been a bit nicer if there had been more back-light behind the water drop. And I don't know if you did this, but a tip for this type of photograph is to add a bit of guar gum, glycerine or agar agar to the water to thicken it slightly. Lot's of info on this online.


Thanks for the tips. 

I came across a video or two while browsing photography videos where a guy showed you how to take this kind of photo. It looked cool, and relatively simple to do, so I gave it a go. I don't have some of the equipment he used, so had to improvise. I actually did it in in my back garden, using water dripping from our outside tap into one of my mum's black baking trays, she has just bought D), filled with water. I don't have a proper tripod, just a small bendy table one, so was limited in placement of the camera, and don't have an external flash, so had to use the one on the camera. After that it was just a case of putting the camera on continuous mode, and firing off a bunch of shots as the water was dripping, selecting the best one, then cropping it, adding colour, and vollah!


----------



## Redeyes (Jul 16, 2013)

Quartz said:


> A lovely photo. Perhaps it's the compression but the division between the ears of the hat and the background is indistinct. Scrolling the picture makes me think that the bowl bottom right is an issue - the picture might be better off without it as it interferes with the whole background going into shade.


 

Cheers for the reply! Some good points you make there, I never even considered how the ears would look against that background nor the presence of the bowl! Deffo things I'll look out for the future when framing up a shot though so thanks.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 23, 2013)

Ok so I'm a complete amateur in photography. Only got my DSLR 5 months ago and these shots are with my new 50mm lens. I want to get into street photography and these three short are my first real attempts-they are of course edited in Elements.

I'd be interested in your honest views-particularly around composition.

http://flic.kr/p/feErJV

http://flic.kr/p/feG23r

http://flic.kr/p/feCR6P


----------



## Quartz (Jul 23, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> Ok so I'm a complete amateur in photography. Only got my DSLR 5 months ago and these shots are with my new 50mm lens. I want to get into street photography and these three short are my first real attempts-they are of course edited in Elements.
> 
> I'd be interested in your honest views-particularly around composition.
> 
> http://flic.kr/p/feErJV


 
With this one, you've got the problem of the black dog and the woman's trousers disappearing into the shade. Can you tweak the contrast?



> http://flic.kr/p/feG23r


 
Interesting technique there. Not really my cup of tea.



> http://flic.kr/p/feCR6P


 
A lovely scene. Good depth of field, the thirds work, catching the waves breaking is a very nice touch. Perhaps you could crop it less on the right-hand side? Look at the woman's back top-right and compare the amount of space to the border with the dog bottom-left. But the picture lacks a focus: what or who is the subject of this photo?


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 23, 2013)

Quartz said:


> With this one, you've got the problem of the black dog and the woman's trousers disappearing into the shade. Can you tweak the contrast?


 
Yeah I can. Still getting to grips with Elements and I'm going to re edit this one again/





Quartz said:


> Interesting technique there. Not really my cup of tea.


 
This was me messing around because I havent figured out how to airbrush out parts of the photo. The focal point here was the two elderly gentlemen but there was a lot in the background I could've erased if I knew how. I found this depth of field function and messed around with this-this was the result.





Quartz said:


> A lovely scene. Good depth of field, the thirds work, catching the waves breaking is a very nice touch. Perhaps you could crop it less on the right-hand side? Look at the woman's back top-right and compare the amount of space to the border with the dog bottom-left. But the picture lacks a focus: what or who is the subject of this photo?


 
OK on the croppping-I cropped that far back because there was someone bringing in a boat in on the landing jetty. It didnt seem to sit right with the rest of the scene-but I hear what you're saying...maybe less crop could've worked better.

Re: focus. Does a picture that is trying to capture the whole scene need a focus? I ask because I genuinely don't know. I was looking to capture the impromptu nature of the group of people using a landing jetty to enjoy the sea-as opposed to having one stand out point of focus.

Thanks for your comments by the way.


----------



## RoyReed (Jul 23, 2013)

Grandma Death said:


> I'd be interested in your honest views-particularly around composition.


 
For _The Old Lady & Dogs_ I'd be inclined to crop it tighter, and as Quartz says, tweak the shadows to bring out some of the detail to make the black dog more visible. Also, I want to know what the lady and dogs are staring at so I'd have tried to include more to the left of the image. It's always hard suggesting things for this type of photograph as you usually have only a couple of seconds to get the shot, but if you'd moved half a step to the left you might have been able to lose the car in the top left-hand corner. Also it's a shame that the dog in the foreground has its paw cut off. Maybe I'd have done something like this.



I've cropped much tighter top and right and touched out the car top left. But I'd still like to see more on the left-hand side.

If you want to see some really good examples of street photography on Urban, have a look at Johnny Canuck3's photos.


----------



## Grandma Death (Jul 23, 2013)

Funny enough I wanted to get a bit more square on but she was clocking me looking at her and I didn't want her getting upset. She was looking for some friends and I agree on the car. Once I've got to grips with photoshop I'll work on this one again. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Redeyes (Aug 20, 2013)

Here's one of my youngest daughter on holiday the other week in Brean, Somerset. I'm pleased with how the sky reflected in the window.


----------



## Quartz (Aug 20, 2013)

That's very clever.


----------



## Redeyes (Aug 22, 2013)

Quartz said:


> That's very clever.



Cheers, was a lucky shot to be honest. I focused on Poppy's face and never thought about how the reflection would come out!


----------



## astral (Oct 14, 2013)

Here's my first try at some macro and wildlife photography from this weekend.


----------



## brogdale (Oct 14, 2013)




----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2013)

I liked this animated scene I grabbed at Paddington with my Ricoh GR.






More: http://www.urban75.org/blog/pic-of-the-day-an-animated-scene-at-paddington-station-ricoh-gr-camera/


----------



## sim667 (Oct 16, 2013)

editor said:


> I liked this animated scene I grabbed at Paddington with my Ricoh GR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Taking a photo at an international station? Im surprised you weren't thrown to the floor and become the victim of a frenzied bukkake session by overzealous security guards.


----------



## Bungle73 (Oct 16, 2013)

sim667 said:


> Taking a photo at an international station? Im surprised you weren't thrown to the floor and become the victim of a frenzied bukkake session by overzealous security guards.


Um, since when was Paddington an international station?

And NR are more than happy for people to take photographs at their stations: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx


----------



## sim667 (Oct 16, 2013)

Bungle73 said:


> Um, since when was Paddington an international station?
> 
> And NR are more than happy for people to take photographs at their stations: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/aspx/777.aspx



Oh shit I'm thinking of Waterloo aren't i?

I've been asked what I'm doing taking photos at a station before.


----------



## Bungle73 (Oct 16, 2013)

sim667 said:


> Oh shit I'm thinking of Waterloo aren't i?


Waterloo isn't international either.  Hasn't been for years.  Only international station in London is St. Pancras.....unless you count Stratford International, which isn't really "international" at all since only domestic trains stop there.



> I've been asked what I'm doing taking photos at a station before.


I think some of the staff like to make up their own rules, but NR, and I think most (all?) of the TOCs are happy for people to take photos at their stations, as long as people stick to a few simple rules.  I think the advice generally given to is go onto whoever runs the station's website, print off the page about photography at stations and take it with you.  Then if you get unfairly challenged you can show it to the person.

And also, if you do get hassled, report it to whoever runs the station, be it NR or a TOC.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 6, 2013)

Of course Paddington is an international station. You are not implying that Wales is merely a principality of England are you? ; )


----------



## Bungle73 (Nov 8, 2013)

Went up to London yesterday, took my new camera, and took some shots by the Thames in the evening.  Canon EOS 700D with 18-55mm STM IS kit lens.
















Edit: Actually they are all HDR images, except the Tower Bridge one.

First one edited in Digital Photo Professional, the 2nd in Raw Therapee, and the 3rd wasn't edited at all.


----------



## torquemad (Dec 17, 2013)

Hocus Eye. said:


> Of course Paddington is an international station. You are not implying that Wales is merely a principality of England are you? ; )



Ditto Euston and Scotland! And Kings Cross for that matter. And Liverpool Street for the Harwich ferry.

In fact, come to think of it, Waterloo may be the only non-international station in London.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Feb 20, 2014)

I'm really not much of a photographer at all, to be honest, but this one, which I took in Argentian Patagonia in 2007, didn't turn out too badly, I guess:


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 1, 2014)

Pingu said:


> my picture so good/bad/meh that its stumped you all?


----------



## Zuru (Mar 10, 2014)




----------



## torquemad (Mar 11, 2014)

Zuru said:


> View attachment 49899



What was/ is the gold disc?


----------



## Zuru (Mar 12, 2014)

torquemad said:


> What was/ is the gold disc?



Was.	 The name of the band is not important as I am not trying to bash them. It is the music business as a whole and the competitive nature of these "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" awards that I am taking a cheap shot at...


----------



## torquemad (Mar 12, 2014)

Zuru said:


> Was.	 The name of the band is not important as I am not trying to bash them. It is the music business as a whole and the competitive nature of these "I scratch your back if you scratch mine" awards that I am taking a cheap shot at...



Thanks for the clarification. I had not appreciated that it was an installation, if that is the right word. I thought it was simply a skip you ahd happened upon.

Either way, I appreciate the pic and the metaphor. Thank you.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 16, 2014)

Orion Nebula (needs more data for the overexposed bits)


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 16, 2014)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Orion Nebula (needs more data for the overexposed bits)


Nice. How did you get that?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 16, 2014)

Remote controlling a Takahashi TOA 150 on a Paramount PME with an SBIG 8300 camera, up a mountain in a desert in New Mexico someplace via iTelescope.

UK weather and light pollution make trying to do astrophotography locally pretty pointless IMO. So while I do a fair bit of visual astronomy, my dabbling with imaging is conducted via networked scopes in places with nice weather and no light pollution.


----------



## kage (Mar 18, 2014)




----------



## artyfarty (Apr 8, 2014)




----------



## artyfarty (Apr 8, 2014)




----------



## RoyReed (Apr 8, 2014)

artyfarty said:


> View attachment 51896


Very nice shot of Mark Thomas, but I think a small crop and a tweak of the levels could improve it.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2014)

artyfarty said:


> View attachment 51896



The face is excellent, particularly the way you've got the sweat glistening. But the picture is rather ruined by that bit of flash on the LHS and the guitar(?) on the RHS. I suggest you paint out the guitar and crop the picture closer to his face: 



(I couldn't crop it decently without painting out the guitar.) I've not got that quite right, but I hope it helps.


----------



## Quartz (Apr 8, 2014)

Heh. Ninjaed by RoyReed!


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 9, 2014)

Quartz said:


> Heh. Ninjaed by RoyReed!


----------



## mwgdrwg (Apr 13, 2014)

OK, this is the first photo I've *ever* taken without using automatic settings and auto-focus! I've got a little Canon Powershot SX260 HS compact camera, so don't be too scathing.


----------



## fractionMan (May 8, 2014)

It's a bit of a shame, this thread seems to have turned into more of a post a photo rather than crit thread.  

Perhaps it's because it's a sticky.


----------



## Bungle73 (May 19, 2014)

Was in Edinburgh last week, and took this at the top of Calton Hill.  Was a spur of the moment thing:




Calton Hill Panorama by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## spikey_r (Aug 24, 2014)

this is Middlesbrough transporter. it's pretty iconic up this way. this was also the bridge that was dismantled using CGI during the 3rd series of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet. 
i'm still pretty new with an SLR and the various metering modes and EV adjustments.


----------



## Lord Hugh (Sep 1, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> It's a bit of a shame, this thread seems to have turned into more of a post a photo rather than crit thread.
> 
> Perhaps it's because it's a sticky.


 I think this one needs a little more photo, but it is certainly a good effort


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 5, 2014)

kage said:


> View attachment 50409



I love this! Missed it before somehow, but this time it made me go "ohh!"


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 13, 2014)

I took this with an old Canon Powershot G5 I had converted to take near-infrared (720nm) pictures. The rose was deep red/scarlet.


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 22, 2014)

Used my membership at HCP today, and had a day out with the camera. I liked this one, so I edited it and uploaded it straight away. What do you think?


----------



## Quartz (Sep 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Used my membership at HCP today, and had a day out with the camera. I liked this one, so I edited it and uploaded it straight away. What do you think?



I love the way you've got the band of red flowers in focus but everything else is out of focus.


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 23, 2014)

Quartz said:


> I love the way you've got the band of red flowers in focus but everything else is out of focus.


Thanks. I shot several at a few different apertures, but when I got them back on the computer I liked this one the best.


----------



## fractionMan (Sep 23, 2014)

The fact the chimneys are just a tiny bit cut off is a bit annoying


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 23, 2014)

fractionMan said:


> The fact the chimneys are just a tiny bit cut off is a bit annoying


It is, but I only noticed after I got back home. I really should be more careful. 

I just had a look and one of the other ones has a lot more space at the top, but it's at f/5.6 so has a much larger dof.


----------



## Greebo (Sep 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> It is, but I only noticed after I got back home. I really should be more careful.  <snip>


It happens.  At least with digital photography you can learn from it while remembering what you did the first time.  One of my recent attempts was a gothic style carved door in what looked like a very old wall, which was being overgrown by a bramble hedge.  So far so good.  Except for the modern scaffolding at one end of the house which also got included, for want of 5 more minutes to try the same shot from other angles.  D'oh!


----------



## Miss Caphat (Sep 23, 2014)

Bungle73 it's a nice picture, but next time you might want to play round with different angles and views. It's a little "straight on" without anything to really focus on because that whole section of foliage is similarly bright, tall, and shaped. sometimes if you move around you can get a different angle where one section, or flower, etc stands out and can become a nice focal point

this isn't the best example, because it isn't exactly what I think you were trying to do, but I hope it sort of shows what I mean


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 23, 2014)

Bungle73 said:


> Used my membership at HCP today, and had a day out with the camera. I liked this one, so I edited it and uploaded it straight away. What do you think?



Nice use of depth-of-field. F2-2.8-ish?


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 23, 2014)

Miss Caphat said:


> Bungle73 it's a nice picture, but next time you might want to play round with different angles and views. It's a little "straight on" without anything to really focus on because that whole section of foliage is similarly bright, tall, and shaped. sometimes if you move around you can get a different angle where one section, or flower, etc stands out and can become a nice focal point
> 
> this isn't the best example, because it isn't exactly what I think you were trying to do, but I hope it sort of shows what I mean


Thanks for the feedback. I'll take your suggestions into consideration next time. 



ViolentPanda said:


> Nice use of depth-of-field. F2-2.8-ish?


Thanks.f/2.8 @50mm


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 31, 2014)

I took this in Bath, UK in September. I'd just bought a new tripod, and was experimenting with it. I took several long-exposures one night when I was there, but when I got back home and uploaded them to the PC I didn't think much of them aesthetically However, I took another look recently, and decided that some were better than I previously though. I picked this one out and decide to edit and crop it.




Pulteney Bridge Bath by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## Citizen66 (Dec 31, 2014)

I'm not arty enough to give advice but it'd make a great postcard!


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 31, 2014)

Citizen66 said:


> I'm not arty enough to give advice but it'd make a great postcard!


Thanks.


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 2, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Used my membership at HCP today, and had a day out with the camera. I liked this one, so I edited it and uploaded it straight away. What do you think?



Amazing vibrant floral burst of colour set to the backdrop of Georgian architecture splendour makes this pretty great in my estimation.

The first thing that came to my mind as soon as I saw this photo was "spring" by Vivaldi (part of four seasons composition)


----------



## Gone Girl (Jan 2, 2015)

MellySingsDoom said:


> I'm really not much of a photographer at all, to be honest, but this one, which I took in Argentian Patagonia in 2007, didn't turn out too badly, I guess:



Amazing photo for sure.

For me, this photo represents the past, (what you can't see behind the angle of shot), the present (the road starting at base of shot as it continues upwards) and the future (the road as it disappears into the distance of mountain backdrop).

The contrast of road, mountains and sky make for a visually stunning photo in my books anyway


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I took this in Bath, UK in September. I'd just bought a new tripod, and was experimenting with it. I took several long-exposures one night when I was there, but when I got back home and uploaded them to the PC I didn't think much of them aesthetically However, I took another look recently, and decided that some were better than I previously though. I picked this one out and decide to edit and crop it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your horizon's not level. It should be rotated a little bit counterclockwise in my opinion.

Also, my preference for this kind of architectural shot (especially when there's a reflection) is to correct the perspectives so that the verticals are vertical and parallel. I don't think you always have to do it, but I would with this shot.

http://digital-photography-school.c...ive-distortion-and-correction-in-photography/


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> Your horizon's not level. It should be rotated a little bit counterclockwise in my opinion.
> 
> Also, my preference for this kind of architectural shot (especially when there's a reflection) is to correct the perspectives so that the verticals are vertical and parallel. I don't think you always have to do it, but I would with this shot.
> 
> http://digital-photography-school.c...ive-distortion-and-correction-in-photography/


Thanks for the feedback. How can you tell the horizon is wonky? Even if I bring up the gird in LR I still can't tell. I did use the auto-leveling feature in LR when I edited it, but that is not always 100% accurate.


----------



## teuchter (Jan 4, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Thanks for the feedback. How can you tell the horizon is wonky? Even if I bring up the gird in LR I still can't tell. I did use the auto-leveling feature in LR when I edited it, but that is not always 100% accurate.


I can tell just from looking at it but I am quite sensitive to wonky horizons, perhaps even obsessive. But find something around the middle (side-to-side rather than top-to-bottom) of the image. Say the blueish streetlight mounted on the building wall. Then find its reflection in the water. Put a straight edge joining the light and its reflection and you'll see it's not vertical, as it would be if the horizon was horizontal. 

If you extend all the vertical lines on the buildings downwards, they will converge on a perspective point somewhere way below the image. In your image, this would be slightly off to the left rather than aligned with the middle.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 4, 2015)

teuchter said:


> I can tell just from looking at it but I am quite sensitive to wonky horizons, perhaps even obsessive. But find something around the middle (side-to-side rather than top-to-bottom) of the image. Say the blueish streetlight mounted on the building wall. Then find its reflection in the water. Put a straight edge joining the light and its reflection and you'll see it's not vertical, as it would be if the horizon was horizontal.
> 
> If you extend all the vertical lines on the buildings downwards, they will converge on a perspective point somewhere way below the image. In your image, this would be slightly off to the left rather than aligned with the middle.


Thanks. I'll give that a go.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 4, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I took this in Bath, UK in September. I'd just bought a new tripod, and was experimenting with it. I took several long-exposures one night when I was there, but when I got back home and uploaded them to the PC I didn't think much of them aesthetically However, I took another look recently, and decided that some were better than I previously though. I picked this one out and decide to edit and crop it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What ISO, exposure time and aperture did you use?


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 4, 2015)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> What ISO, exposure time and aperture did you use?


I always use 100 ISO for long exposures for best image quality. Aperture f/8 (again my go-to aperture for best quality). Shutter speed 25 seconds, but I brought the exposure up a tad in LR.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 5, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> I always use 100 ISO for long exposures for best image quality. Aperture f/8 (again my go-to aperture for best quality). Shutter speed 25 seconds, but I brought the exposure up a tad in LR.



I'll have to try that: I usually use ISO 200 for nice clear night images. Usually I'll use f6.3, but in a well-lit situation like this, I would expose for a shorter time.

I love how the water turned out in your image, btw.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 5, 2015)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I'll have to try that: I usually use ISO 200 for nice clear night images. Usually I'll use f6.3, but in a well-lit situation like this, I would expose for a shorter time.


Why 200? Is that the base ISO of your camera? I usually choose f/8 because that is around the sweet spot of the lens. I wasn't paying much attention to the exposure at the time tbh, because I wasn't trying to do anything "serious", just testing things out. I didn't even look at the histogram.



> I love how the water turned out in your image, btw.


Thanks.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 5, 2015)

TBH if it had been a shorter exposure I think it would have been too dark. As I said I already brought it up a tad in LR.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 7, 2015)

Bungle73 said:


> Why 200? Is that the base ISO of your camera?


Just picked it out of the air. Since reading your post, I've been experimenting with even lower ISOs  plus apertures of f8 and f11 at night; and I've been pleased with the results.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 9, 2015)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Just picked it out of the air. Since reading your post, I've been experimenting with even lower ISOs  plus apertures of f8 and f11 at night; and I've been pleased with the results.


Generally you always want to use the lowest ISO possible to minimise noise. You only need to raise it when you need a faster shutter because you're hand-holding, and there isn't enough light.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 13, 2015)

Pavement shot in Hanoi, Vietnam of some sleeping feet. Taken with my hitec Canon Ixus90.


----------



## Lord Hugh (Jan 13, 2015)

DJWrongspeed said:


> Pavement shot in Hanoi, Vietnam of some sleeping feet. Taken with my hitec Canon Ixus90.
> 
> View attachment 66295


 It's a nice shot; for me, I would increase the contrast/darken the shadows, as there is not much dark in the picture (looks a little "washed out" which does not suit the image), and then maybe increase the saturation/vibrance of the colours (personal taste alarm! This is mostly just my preferences, though I'd recommend to increase the darkness to stretch out the histogram to full range regardless of taste). I am also finding that the brightness of the top and bottom draw my eyes away from the centre - I would do a slight vignetting around the edges to draw the eye to the center.

I did a quick example - it's not the best as I only have gimp on this PC and I'm not used to using it, so it's a bit funny, but gives an idea of what I mean:
[Edit: also there was something bugging me about the framing, I cropped a little off the pavement at the bottom and it's more pleasing now]


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 13, 2015)

It's a nice spot. What I would have done is made a vertical shot that crops off some of the extraneous detail on the right and left (especially the polystyrene boxes) which makes more of the relationship between the feet and the shoes left on the step.

 

And I agree with Lord Hugh about tweaking the levels just to get the best of the shadow areas.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jan 15, 2015)

Thanks to Lord Hugh & RoyReed for the advice,  i'd actually a more 'portrait' one but only posted the wider one.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jan 27, 2015)

On holiday in Chester last July:




River Dee, Chester by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 5, 2015)

Another from me. This on a personal photo walk along the Thames in September.  Took a few, of which this is one of those I chose to edit and upload.




Westminster by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## fractionMan (Apr 5, 2015)

The chester photo has a great mass of nothing much on the left hand side.  Seems a bit meh tbh.

I like the westminster bridge shot though.  The different sky above it frames it really well.  Houses seem washed out slightly.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 5, 2015)

fractionMan said:


> The chester photo has a great mass of nothing much on the left hand side.  Seems a bit meh tbh.
> 
> I like the westminster bridge shot though.  The different sky above it frames it really well.  Houses seem washed out slightly.


Thanks. I brought up the shadows in LR. Maybe I overdid it tad?


----------



## Conrad2 (May 13, 2015)




----------



## Bungle73 (Jun 16, 2015)

Took these in North Berwick last week:




North Berwick, Soctland by Graham West 2014, on Flickr




North Berwick, Soctland by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## Pingu (Jul 11, 2015)

this is my first attempt at anything remotely arty with my camera. imo it could probably do with a little crop but thought would submit the raw picture to get more experienced views


----------



## Quartz (Jul 11, 2015)

Apart from the blob in the upper right, it looks really good. Next time you might consider framing it so the topiary on the RHS is out of shot.


----------



## Pingu (Jul 11, 2015)

Quartz said:


> Apart from the blob in the upper right, it looks really good. Next time you might consider framing it so the topiary on the RHS is out of shot.




am going to introduce it to photoshop later on today to crop out some of the unwanted bits and to despekle a bit. the blob was cos it was raining and a drop got onto the lens but that is easily removed too


----------



## Pingu (Jul 11, 2015)

done:


straighten image up
remove blob
slight crop (if I crop to remove the plant then it just doesnt look right)


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 21, 2015)

Took this image of Lincoln Cathedral last week. I'm annoyned at myself for not giving more space at the top, and also it would probably would have been better shot in the morning to avoid the large shadow at the bottom, but it would have meant getting up early (if the weather played ball). 




Lincoln Cathedral During the Golden Hour by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 21, 2015)

It's two images stitched together btw (I need to get myself a wide angle lens).


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 21, 2015)

Another angle:




Lincoln Sep 2015 15-09-2015-4.jpg by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## mwgdrwg (Sep 25, 2015)

Quite chuffed with this, taken on my old iPhone 5:


----------



## Roadkill (Oct 1, 2015)

Cross-posted from the Mundane Pictures of the North thread:

 

Taken half an hour ago on my way to work.


----------



## Ponyutd (Nov 5, 2015)

Pevesney Bay last weekend.
Snapped on a mobile phone.


----------



## xsunnysuex (Nov 16, 2015)

Simple subject I know.  But was so pleased with this.  Flowers my sis in law gave me.


----------



## Archimage (Feb 2, 2016)

oops, sorry, wrong thread.. removed.


----------



## Archimage (Feb 9, 2016)

Okay, I went out locally and took some pics.
All here in Inyo County - California.


----------



## Bungle73 (Apr 12, 2016)

Took this in Lincoln last September:




Ellis Windmill, Lincoln by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## catinthehat (Apr 12, 2016)

I know nowt about taking photo and most get taken on a mobile phone with me squinting and wobbling.  This is a shame as I am fortunate to spend a lot of time in very picturesque places.  If someone would tell me a couple of things  to do it better that would please me and I would be grateful.  I think I am okish at picking things to take a picture of but always have it tipsy or with a big sunlight thing all over the place.  Here, for example, I have lopped the top of the mountain off.


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 27, 2016)

Took this up in London on Monday.




Blackfriars Rail Bridge by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## Bungle73 (Jul 28, 2016)

New crop.




Blackfriars Rail Bridge by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## bimble (Jul 28, 2016)

I hope this doesn't upset anyone, I know it's ugly.
Took the picture a few days ago on my corner here, early morning on way to the station. Haven't shown it to anyone yet.
What troubled me most is that I saw a beauty in this which maybe wasn't there at all. I don't know.
The foxcub was removed that same day but the blood's still there.
*oversharing*


Spoiler: Rather gruesome picture of fox cub


----------



## Pingu (Aug 4, 2016)

never really done any still life before so open to all comments and tips


----------



## Pingu (Aug 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> I hope this doesn't upset anyone, I know it's ugly.
> Took the picture a few days ago on my corner here, early morning on way to the station. Haven't shown it to anyone yet.
> What troubled me most is that I saw a beauty in this which maybe wasn't there at all. I don't know.
> The foxcub was removed that same day but the blood's still there.
> ...



spoiler tags would improve that massively for me tbh


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2016)

Pingu said:


> spoiler tags would improve that massively for me tbh


Yes, sorry. I don't know how to do that will try to figure it out later.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 4, 2016)

Surround it in this:

[ spoiler ] your image [ /spoiler ]

but without the spaces.

Producing this:



Spoiler



your image


----------



## bimble (Aug 4, 2016)

mauvais said:


> Surround it in this:
> 
> [ spoiler ] your image [ /spoiler ]
> 
> ...


For some reason I don't have an edit option on that post - have reported it to the mods and asked them to delete for now . Sorry people.


----------



## Pingu (Aug 4, 2016)

other than that though its certainly a different picture to what we normally see.


----------



## Pingu (Aug 4, 2016)

bimble said:


> For some reason I don't have an edit option on that post - have reported it to the mods and asked them to delete for now . Sorry people.



no dont do that. just because its something i dont want to see doesnt make it any less valid a post. for all i know there may be someone with a walnut phobia.


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 28, 2016)

Still life with cup of tea


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2016)

This photo leaves me with unanswered questions.

Well, one really: what is the complete word - 'badge....'

Badgers? Slaying the Badgers?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 29, 2016)

#bestyorkshire


----------



## rubbershoes (Aug 29, 2016)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This photo leaves me with unanswered questions.
> 
> Well, one really: what is the complete word - 'badge....'
> 
> Badgers? Slaying the Badgers?



It's about Bernard Hinault whose nickname was the Badger. He hasn't been slain and is  alive and well


----------



## franco (Oct 14, 2016)

Some drawings of Brixton I've been doing recently, feel free to share ; )
by FrancoMeuAmigo


----------



## editor (Oct 14, 2016)

franco said:


> Some drawings of Brixton I've been doing recently, feel free to share ; )
> by FrancoMeuAmigo
> 
> View attachment 93925 View attachment 93926 View attachment 93928 View attachment 93929
> View attachment 93927


Love them! Good work.


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 14, 2016)

Lovely drawings!

My only comment (since you've put it in the 'critics' thread) is that the drainpipes on the Morley's pic are a bit black and heavy.


----------



## stockwelljonny (Oct 14, 2016)

Love the drawings, really nicely done, always like black and white cityscapes.

Made me think of this book 
Matteo Pericoli - The City Out My Window: 63 Views on New York, Simon & Schuster, November 2009


----------



## franco (Oct 14, 2016)

RoyReed said:


> Lovely drawings!
> 
> My only comment (since you've put it in the 'critics' thread) is that the drainpipes on the Morley's pic are a bit black and heavy.


You're not the first one to mention that RoyReed and I do agree, good or bad feedback is always welcome!


----------



## franco (Oct 14, 2016)

stockwelljonny said:


> Love the drawings, really nicely done, always like black and white cityscapes.
> 
> Made me think of this book
> Matteo Pericoli - The City Out My Window: 63 Views on New York, Simon & Schuster, November 2009


Thanks for sharing, never saw this book before, it looks really good!


----------



## stockwelljonny (Oct 15, 2016)

recommend it, really nice line drawings out of notable New Yorkers Windows (always including the window frame!) plus a few paras from the person..


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 3, 2016)

My first picture post! Taken with my phone on Thursday


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 3, 2016)

Did I do the post right?


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 3, 2016)

sparkybird said:


> Did I do the post right?


Yes.

Nice photo, nice light. It might be improved slightly by cropping to 3:2 ratio (I'm guessing the original is 16:9) to lose a little bit of the dark area at the bottom.


----------



## sparkybird (Dec 3, 2016)

Thanks Roy! Didn't occur to me to crop. never done this before, but am going to try it out on the phone
Cheers


----------



## Bungle73 (Feb 23, 2017)

Look at this cheeky chappy that I discovered in my garden last night :




Newt in Our Garden by Graham West 2014, on Flickr


----------



## themonkeyman (Mar 15, 2017)

Would love to have some feedback.  This was a a picture I took last autumn from Coombe Hill, the highest point in the Chilterns.  Thanks.


----------



## alsoknownas (Mar 15, 2017)

themonkeyman said:


> Would love to have some feedback.  This was a a picture I took last autumn from Coombe Hill, the highest point in the Chilterns.  Thanks.


I like the textures and the contrast between them.  Really nice.  Not sure about the aspect ratio.  I would be tempted to burn a bit of texture back into the fields either side of frame from where the figures are.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2017)

Nice, I wouldn't do any image manipulation burning textures etc. I might be tempted to crop the right hand side in a bit. I'd also try doing a more severe crop where you lose the conifers altogether, keep a good area of earthen field including the figures, with just a sliver of the autumn-colour trees along the top. Would have to do it to see if it worked.


----------



## Sirena (Mar 15, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> Look at this cheeky chappy that I discovered in my garden last night :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think she's a lady....


----------



## Bungle73 (Mar 15, 2017)

Sirena said:


> I think she's a lady....


How can you tell?


----------



## Sirena (Mar 15, 2017)

Bungle73 said:


> How can you tell?


Males are a bit smaller and slimmer with a distinct orange belly.  

She (for I think it is such) seems more drab and is fat-bellied: fat with eggs...


----------



## themonkeyman (Mar 16, 2017)

teuchter said:


> Nice, I wouldn't do any image manipulation burning textures etc. I might be tempted to crop the right hand side in a bit. I'd also try doing a more severe crop where you lose the conifers altogether, keep a good area of earthen field including the figures, with just a sliver of the autumn-colour trees along the top. Would have to do it to see if it worked.



Thanks

So something like this


----------



## neonwilderness (Mar 16, 2017)

themonkeyman said:


> Thanks
> 
> So something like this


Personally I prefer the first one as the greener trees in the background add something. I agree about cropping the right hand side though, works better for the rule of thirds. 

Perhaps it might work better cropped into square?


----------



## themonkeyman (Mar 17, 2017)

neonwilderness said:


> Perhaps it might work better cropped into square?








Like this maybe ?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 20, 2017)

Sheltering from the rail under Admiralty Arch (looking up the Mall) this time last year...


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 23, 2017)

Took this 5 yrs ago by the Greenwich Observatory. The 2 stars above the open dome are actually jupiter and venus.
Am very proud of this picture. Took it with my old Olympus E300 digital SLR camera


----------



## themonkeyman (Apr 17, 2017)

Took this a couple of days ago with my quadcopter


----------



## GeriatricMascot (Apr 25, 2017)

themonkeyman said:


> Took this a couple of days ago with my quadcopter


Love an aerial view. Easy to fly?


----------



## themonkeyman (Apr 25, 2017)

GeriatricMascot said:


> Love an aerial view. Easy to fly?


Yeah it's pretty good. A DJI Phantom 2 with a go pro hero 3 black. It's pretty sweet. Would love a DJI mavic pro though but they are ££


----------



## weltweit (Apr 25, 2017)

I love aerial photos, it is a perspective we hardly ever saw before drones.


----------



## GeriatricMascot (Apr 26, 2017)

Coincidentally shooting this in the studio today!


----------



## aileen (May 26, 2017)

themonkeyman said:


> Took this a couple of days ago with my quadcopter



This green colour gives me energy!!! Really beautiful!


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 20, 2017)

I think the processing of this is a little gimmicky but what the hell..


----------



## mauvais (Aug 20, 2017)

It's a decent photo but the HDR is way overcooked. What's the original like?

You've got dust on the sensor (assuming digital) too


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 21, 2017)

mauvais said:


> It's a decent photo but the HDR is way overcooked. What's the original like?
> 
> You've got dust on the sensor (assuming digital) too



original is crap. I've deleted it.  Yeah, there is some marks on the lens. It's my brothers camera. the fool never put a lens cap on and this is the result.  sony a200 dslr.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 21, 2017)

donkyboy said:


> original is crap. I've deleted it.  Yeah, there is some marks on the lens. It's my brothers camera. the fool never put a lens cap on and this is the result.  sony a200 dslr.


The dust is possibly on the sensor inside the camera - might be removable with a dust blower. Or the back of the lens. Generally marks on the front of the lens don't matter too much to the image as it's outside the focal plane.

Anyway if you had chance, try stuff like gradient filters (e.g. in Lightroom) to bring something back from the sky but without pushing the image further than the data really tolerates.


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 23, 2017)

Little unsure on the hdr processing if being honest


----------



## donkyboy (Aug 24, 2017)

I know. I understand. it's a cliche. Selective colouring..


----------



## weltweit (Sep 10, 2017)

So, today I took this photo:


I was thinking about the lines in the field. I cropped it a little to give me this below:



But I am not happy with it.

What would you have done? Apart from not taking it at all


----------



## RoyReed (Sep 11, 2017)

weltweit said:


> So, today I took this photo:
> View attachment 115428
> 
> I was thinking about the lines in the field. I cropped it a little to give me this below:
> ...


I prefer the first version - I like the way the line of trees at the top edge of the photo frame the green field in the distance.

But I'd have tried a couple of different things - a vertical photo and a panorama.

 

 
Neither of these are perfect by a long way, just a different way of thinking.


----------



## weltweit (Sep 11, 2017)

Hi RoyReed I like the portrait orientation.

I supposed I could have moved more to see if I could get the lines in the field to lead to something.


----------



## OzT (Sep 28, 2017)

.


----------



## Winot (Oct 27, 2017)

I took this from the inside of a Richard Serra sculpture.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 27, 2017)

Not a bad photo, but this being the criticise everything thread, my comments would be:
- I'd make the basic composition deliberately less symmetrical because as it is, it's almost-but-not-quite (rotationally) symmetrical
- I'd try and take it so that the stain-marks on the central portion of steel were running exactly vertically and not converging (ie. parallel with the sides of the frame). For me that would make it stronger as an abstract type composition, although I realise that bit of steel might have been leaning at an angle which might make this impossible.


----------



## Winot (Oct 27, 2017)

Yeah there were 3 separate panels curving at different angles. I snapped from the only perspective that got them all in the frame. I don’t think it would have been possible to have done  what you suggest.


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2017)

Taken on my phone... Give me both barrels, critics!


----------



## editor (Oct 27, 2017)

donkyboy said:


> Little unsure on the hdr processing if being honest


Waaaaay too much. Sorry!


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 27, 2017)

editor said:


> Taken on my phone... Give me both barrels, critics!


The lighting's great - just like the 'You're never alone with a Strand' advert from the 1960s. I bet it would look good in b&w too.

It's a shame that the bloke is in front of the bus stop rather than to the right or left of it. Apart from that I think it's a nice shot.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 27, 2017)

Winot said:


> I took this from the inside of a Richard Serra sculpture.
> 
> View attachment 118881


I think it's a decent photo, albeit the image fidelity seems a bit low - phone photo? Ignoring that, maybe there's some more detail to be brought out of the dark LHS.

It does however run into the age-old issue of 'what is your photo really adding', i.e. is all the work here actually done by the sculptor?


----------



## Winot (Oct 27, 2017)

mauvais said:


> I think it's a decent photo, albeit the image fidelity seems a bit low - phone photo? Ignoring that, maybe there's some more detail to be brought out of the dark LHS.
> 
> It does however run into the age-old issue of 'what is your photo really adding', i.e. is all the work here actually done by the sculptor?



Yeah it’s taken on an iPhone 8. Was really just a snap - I didn’t do any exposure adjustment or anything. 

This is the sculpture from above - in the newly renovated Museum of Modern Art in San Francisco:


----------



## de_dog (Oct 27, 2017)

He's out of frame, does the movement make up for it?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 9, 2018)

donkyboy said:


> Little unsure on the hdr processing if being honest


Bah, if it's a good photo it's a good photo


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 9, 2018)

editor said:


> Taken on my phone... Give me both barrels, critics!




It is quite nice. Nothing special. The Marilyn Manson poster over powers everything. That is the biggest problem. It could be a bit more than quite nice without that, but as it is, it is just a promo for the poster. Nothing more.


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2018)

Stanley Edwards said:


> It is quite nice. Nothing special. The Marilyn Manson poster over powers everything. That is the biggest problem. It could be a bit more than quite nice without that, but as it is, it is just a promo for the poster. Nothing more.


Well I like it and others do too.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 9, 2018)

themonkeyman said:


> Took this a couple of days ago with my quadcopter



This is probably the best I have seen here.

Very good use of new technology there


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 9, 2018)

editor said:


> Well I like it and others do too.



Yeah. It's an OK pic of a Marilyn Manson poster. What is there not to like?


----------



## editor (Feb 9, 2018)

Stanley Edwards said:


> Yeah. It's an OK pic of a Marilyn Manson poster. What is there not to like?


If that's all you can see in the picture, that's fine.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 9, 2018)

editor said:


> If that's all you can see in the picture, that's fine.


I like the shadows. My favourite photographer up here would be going nuts reading this thread she hates purists


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 9, 2018)

editor said:


> If that's all you can see in the picture, that's fine.



No. It isn't fine.

I can see what you saw, and what you wanted others to see. However, the Marilyn Manson poster just over powers everything. The shot you saw had nothing to do with Marilyn Manson - he isn't what you wanted others to see, but others will undoubtedly remember the power of the poster first.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 9, 2018)

I didn't even notice MM!!!


----------



## donkyboy (Feb 9, 2018)

Stanley Edwards said:


> This is probably the best I have seen here.



i wouldn't go that far. it's massively over-sharpened.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Feb 9, 2018)

donkyboy said:


> i wouldn't go that far. it's massively over-sharpened.



It is incredibly artificial. New technology taken to a new level of new plasticness. But, undoubtedly real. I find it very intriguing.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 9, 2018)

The drone shots I love are looking vertically down over a forested landscape with perhaps variations such as a hill and valley etc, you just don't get to see these normally, except perhaps helicopter shots and we don't see these so often. It is a birds eye view that I enjoy.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 4, 2018)




----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 4, 2018)




----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 4, 2018)

editor said:


> Waaaaay too much. Sorry!



At what point does it stop being a photograph, and turn into an art work?


----------



## editor (Mar 4, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> At what point does it stop being a photograph, and turn into an art work?


I don't think just adding very common photo effect turns a photo in an 'art work.'


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 4, 2018)

This is maybe my favourite of the tens of thousands of pictures I've taken over the last 50 years.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 4, 2018)




----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2018)

Get your horizon horizontal


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Get your horizon horizontal



Better? (You crabbit bugger! )


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2018)

You cannot get it absolutely level because it curves, both ways.

The island on the horizon above the person, is Ailsa Craig, where the granite for the best curling stones in the world is mined. The recent Winter Olympics specified Ailsa Craig stones.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 5, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> You cannot get it absolutely level because it curves, both ways.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 5, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> Better? (You crabbit bugger! )


Better but still not good enough.
It's the horizontal part of the horizon I want horizontal; ie. the sea. To be precise the tangent to the point on it equidistant from the two side edges of your picture, given that it's technically true that it is curved, although only in one direction when projected onto your 2d picture plane.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

Here's one I took at the weekend


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 5, 2018)

teuchter said:


> Better but still not good enough.
> It's the horizontal part of the horizon I want horizontal; ie. the sea. To be precise the tangent to the point on it equidistant from the two side edges of your picture, given that it's technically true that it is curved, although only in one direction when projected onto your 2d picture plane.


 Ah, but those of us with the creative gene can visualise the drop over the horizon.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2018)

Thimble Queen said:


> Here's one I took at the weekend View attachment 129370


There's kind of two, different interesting things going on in this photo.

One is the jumble of cranes on the skyline, especially those in the left of the frame - lots of different heights and contrasting but complementary angles. To some extent some variation on this is a stronger composition than the entirety:



although it's got some excess clutter in the bottom and needs a tidy. I'd like to see more space off to the left to make that properly work.

The other thing going on is the ice, in which there's loads of lovely detail and textured shapes. The idea of a partly frozen port is fundamentally a good subject. I think it'd look better with more foreground, a squarer composition with more of a kind of 'lead in' pathway for the eye. It'd also look better, although in the absence of a drone there's probably not much to be done about it, if it was taken from about 20-30ft higher than it is. This would separate the jetty from the background by putting some clear space in between. The other way of using that idea is to flatten it as much as possible, i.e. get vertically much closer to the ice, and see if that gives you anything. Or, you know, use a different focal length (or try a panorama) and go and take the same kind of shot but from the jetty. Or if you can, walk to the left. Various options.

Basically the middle section is too dark to provide much detail and is only there because it has to be. HDR might help, as it would to retain the sky and lighten the ice, but probably only so much. Also the left hand side of the shot is stronger than the right, which only really introduces some context - it's a dock.

I say all this because I think it's an interesting photo in an interesting place and another crack at it with the above in mind might turn out something really good.


----------



## Callie (Mar 5, 2018)

mauvais said:


> There's kind of two, different interesting things going on in this photo.
> 
> One is the jumble of cranes on the skyline, especially those in the left of the frame - lots of different heights and contrasting but complementary angles. To some extent some variation on this is a stronger composition than the entirety:
> 
> ...


Its defrosted now


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2018)

Callie said:


> Its defrosted now


Summon a new Beast


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

mauvais said:


> There's kind of two, different interesting things going on in this photo.
> 
> One is the jumble of cranes on the skyline, especially those in the left of the frame - lots of different heights and contrasting but complementary angles. To some extent some variation on this is a stronger composition than the entirety:
> 
> ...



Thank you. I took it on my camera phone so I suppose it's not too bad considering that. Your feeback is interesting and helpful.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

Callie said:


> Its defrosted now



Well yeah i can't take it again


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

mauvais I look another one where you can see more to the left inc the Philharmonic.... It's still got the ice in the foreground cos that's part of what I wanted to show.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 5, 2018)

Thimble Queen, where is it? If you don't tell me I shall have to assume it is Murmansk


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

weltweit said:


> Thimble Queen, where is it? If you don't tell me I shall have to assume it is Murmansk



Hamburg ❤


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2018)

Thimble Queen that's what I meant about moving left. I like that much more as a composition, except it's on the piss 

The wider the shot the better here to get maximum foreground without losing anything else, but obviously you have limited control with a phone.

It's got great, subtle colours & I like that for the most part it could be any time within the last 100 years or so. I can imagine a series of them.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

mauvais said:


> Thimble Queen that's what I meant about moving left. I like that much more as a composition, except it's on the piss
> 
> The wider the shot the better here to get maximum foreground without losing anything else, but obviously you have limited control with a phone.
> 
> It's got great, subtle colours & I like that for the most part it could be any time within the last 100 years or so. I can imagine a series of them.



What does on the piss mean?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 5, 2018)

It's a couple of degrees off-level in a clockwise direction, easily corrected.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 5, 2018)

mauvais said:


> It's a couple of degrees off-level in a clockwise direction, easily corrected.



Ah you mean its wonks. I hadnt noticed


----------



## Callie (Mar 5, 2018)

He called you a drunk!!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 5, 2018)

Is this any good?







Cropped only, I think.

I was waiting for a sunset but just took this on the way. I'm no photographer but it looks ok to me


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 6, 2018)

Callie said:


> He called you a drunk!!



He's not wrong


----------



## sky_blue (Mar 6, 2018)

But I messed up when I tried to edit it...


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 9, 2018)

sky_blue said:


> But I messed up when I tried to edit it...


Is that in Dresden?


----------



## sky_blue (Mar 12, 2018)

No, it's Potsdam, Germany. It's near the capital and it has 3 major parks (at least from what I remember) full of castles and suchlike sightseeing. It is very beautiful!  Worth a visit  I made more photos, if you are interested let me know. I don't mind posting them. They are not as edited as this one


----------



## Sasaferrato (Mar 12, 2018)

sky_blue said:


> No, it's Potsdam, Germany. It's near the capital and it has 3 major parks (at least from what I remember) full of castles and suchlike sightseeing. It is very beautiful!  Worth a visit  I made more photos, if you are interested let me know. I don't mind posting them. They are not as edited as this one



I've been in Potsdam.  I lived in Berlin for two years 23 May 1980 - 23rd May 1982, two years to the day, it was my daughter's birthday. I only got to see Potsdam 20 odd years later, couldn't go when the wall was still up.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 15, 2018)

I quite like this, but it certainly has its problems - quite high ISO (5600) so pretty noisy, then pushed some more, and taken in misty conditions to start with. Anyway, Fountains Abbey, North Yorks.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 25, 2018)

It's potentially a nice photo, but you really need to straighten the horizon. I'd also tweak the contrast and colour balance just a touch to emphasise the area that's sunlit. And a crop to a panoramic format might help a bit as well.


----------



## leohartmann (Mar 26, 2018)




----------



## mod (Mar 26, 2018)

Kreuzberg, Berlin 2007.



Hampi, India. 2008.



Munnar, India. 2008.


----------



## sky_blue (Mar 27, 2018)

mauvais said:


> I quite like this, but it certainly has its problems - quite high ISO (5600) so pretty noisy, then pushed some more, and taken in misty conditions to start with. Anyway, Fountains Abbey, North Yorks.
> 
> View attachment 130102


Oh my God, this is one of the best pictures I've ever seen. The place looks very intriguing!


----------



## mauvais (Mar 27, 2018)

sky_blue said:


> Oh my God, this is one of the best pictures I've ever seen. The place looks very intriguing!


It's worth a visit, I'd like to go back: Fountains Abbey and Studley Royal Water Garden


----------



## teuchter (Apr 2, 2018)

mauvais said:


> I quite like this, but it certainly has its problems - quite high ISO (5600) so pretty noisy, then pushed some more, and taken in misty conditions to start with. Anyway, Fountains Abbey, North Yorks.
> 
> View attachment 130102


I'm not bothered by the noise. But I'd crop it, I think there is too much on the left. I might even consider cropping it to a square format.


----------



## josef1878 2.0 (Jun 10, 2018)

Lancashire Mining Museum, Astley Green Colliery


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 26, 2018)

The stones at Callanish on Lewis.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 26, 2018)

Kitchen window sill.


----------



## MaxineDanko (Sep 13, 2018)

All the pics here are really amazing to watch.


----------



## editor (Sep 13, 2018)

Sasaferrato said:


> The stones at Callanish on Lewis.


it'as a bit underexposed. This is more like it should look (although this is a 2 sec tweak and it could be much better):


----------



## moody (Oct 15, 2018)

I like this but horizon is on the piss, I've photoshop elements here, can I fix it as would love to make a poster of it for my drab bedroom.


----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 15, 2018)

Late entry for the work photo competion,, I fear I over 'shopped it.


----------



## mx wcfc (Oct 15, 2018)

I think this is my best other effort.  somebody has entered an "everso cute" picture of his daughter which will win, but here's my 2nd best effort - couldn't get it as flat as I wanted it and agin, probably over 'shopped it.  Havana roofscape:


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 16, 2018)

moody said:


> I like this but horizon is on the piss, I've photoshop elements here, can I fix it as would love to make a poster of it for my drab bedroom.


How to Straighten Images in Photoshop Elements 9 - dummies

It'll be a nice shot once it's corrected - about 1° anticlockwise. You might need to sharpen it a little after straightening depending on what anti-aliasing PSE uses.


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 16, 2018)

mx wcfc said:


> I fear I over 'shopped it.
> View attachment 149735


Impossible to tell without seeing the original. Nice composition though.


----------



## ringo (Jan 18, 2019)

I'm no photographer, this is just a picture I took that I like. No technical criticism required 
Approaching Djenne mosque, the largest mud built building in the world.


----------



## a_chap (Jan 18, 2019)

The receding figure gives the picture lovely depth 

Not so sure about the discarded bra just above the shadow on the left. Might be best to crop that out.


----------



## fuck seals (Jan 18, 2019)

A wet January in Moscow


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

ringo said:


> I'm no photographer, this is just a picture I took that I like. No technical criticism required
> Approaching Djenne mosque, the largest mud built building in the world.
> 
> View attachment 159068


Hi ringo, I must have missed you posting this. I have been admiring online photos of the Djenne Mosque for a number of years now, it is an amazing building. Must have been great to have seen it live as it were. Did you not take any snaps of the building itself?


----------



## ringo (Feb 15, 2019)

Yes loads. On my portable disk, not phone, but I'll dig some out.

The  cliff houses of the Dogon travelling from Mali to Burkina Faso were extraordinarily photogenic too.

I'm no photographer and it wasn't an expensive camera, but the light and the subject lent any image great beauty.


----------



## ringo (Feb 15, 2019)

BTW I've only got pics of the outside of the Djenne mosque, no part of it allowed non-Muslims.


----------



## ringo (Feb 15, 2019)

And it is awesome to behold in real life. Astonishing and Unbelievably beautiful and impressive.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

ringo said:


> BTW I've only got pics of the outside of the Djenne mosque, no part of it allowed non-Muslims.


Yes as I understand it a French magazine made a fashion shoot inside, of scantily clad women, and since then non muslims have been excluded. Shame. But understandable.


----------



## ringo (Feb 15, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Yes as I understand it a French magazine made a fashion shoot inside, of scantily clad women, and since then non muslims have been excluded. Shame. But understandable.


Wow, that's pretty insulting.
I went in 2005, I wasn't aware it was ever open to non-Muslims.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2019)

Was at Two Temple Place for the (free) John Ruskin exhibition...


----------



## gawkrodger (Mar 14, 2019)

which of the three below do people prefer?


----------



## gawkrodger (Mar 14, 2019)

I prefer the top as I like the canal reflection and curve, but I've had someone else say they feel their focus is taken away from the mill and prefer the second


----------



## Tankus (Mar 14, 2019)

top for me too


----------



## Me76 (Mar 15, 2019)

Middle for me, but I have no photography experience


----------



## teuchter (Mar 15, 2019)

Middle.


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 30, 2019)




----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 9, 2019)

Come on then guys!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 9, 2019)

gawkrodger said:


> which of the three below do people prefer?


Either top or bottom, top has focus on the area you are taking the photo from as a way of contrasting/framing the misty background but the bottom totally envelopes you in the mist, just 2 different angles.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Apr 9, 2019)

Thimble Queen said:


> Here's one I took at the weekend View attachment 129370


Awesome! The journey from my now 11 year location to the place I still call home is straight down the north east coast of Scotland so see loads of oil rigs and that, I could take pictures of similar scenes all day honestly- I like the modren(sic)  mixed with devastating natural views


----------



## karanight (Aug 5, 2019)

gawkrodger said:


> which of the three below do people prefer?


I don't like the line on the bottom of the bottom photo, it's too distracting
the top photo looks like a record shot
My favourite shot is the middle one,  being zoomed in gives more atmosphere and lightens the blackness of the foreground.
Also the buildings in the top one are a little lost, it's like you were taking a photo of them for the sake of it, that's what I mean about it looking like a record shot
Back to the second shot, as it's zoomed in, the buildings take a more positive roll in the photo and also the mist is more defined.  Compared with the top one where the mist could be mistaken for maybe smoke, the second one shows clearly that it's misty, and in turn gives it more of a mysterious quality


----------



## karanight (Aug 6, 2019)

Which one would you hang on your wall and why?


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 6, 2019)

karanight said:


> View attachment 179889View attachment 179890
> Which one would you hang on your wall and why?


If I was getting that printed it would definitely be the one without the pink cast. And I think I'd probably crop it to a square, particularly to lose the out of focus blade of grass on the left. And I think you could afford to lighten the image slightly, particularly the mid-tones and shadows.


----------



## karanight (Aug 6, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> If I was getting that printed it would definitely be the one without the pink cast. And I think I'd probably crop it to a square, particularly to lose the out of focus blade of grass on the left. And I think you could afford to lighten the image slightly, particularly the mid-tones and shadows.


Having looked at it again I think you're bang on with the pinkish one, and the adjustments you've made with the other works will
Thanks


----------



## albionism (Aug 8, 2019)

gawkrodger said:


> which of the three below do people prefer?


Top, by far.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Aug 13, 2019)

I think for the first time ever on a boat shot with a phone, I managed to get the horizon more or less horizontal.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 13, 2019)

Me, ill, thinking of jumping in.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2019)

TopCat said:


> Me, ill, thinking of jumping in. View attachment 180711


reminiscent of the great caspar david friedrich painting the monk by the sea

only with a load more action and a pier


----------



## teuchter (Aug 13, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> View attachment 180710
> 
> I think for the first time ever on a boat shot with a phone, I managed to get the horizon more or less horizontal.



The verticals on the boats are however distorted and skewed by the upwards angle of view. Something that can be corrected if you can be bothered.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 13, 2019)

Shit, this Is the FEB photo thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> View attachment 167051
> 
> Come on then guys!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 13, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Was at Two Temple Place for the (free) John Ruskin exhibition...
> 
> View attachment 162672


and only now i find out about it


----------



## brogdale (Aug 13, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and only now i find out about it


Sorry to hear...& I know it won't help to say it was rather a fine exhibition for free.


----------



## Winot (Sep 28, 2019)

Playing with new iPhone 11 Pro


----------



## brogdale (Sep 28, 2019)

My youngest at Harty Ferry.


----------



## Bollox (Jul 27, 2020)

Taken years ago at cosmeston lake, probably not technically good, but I like the way the little fella is calmy walking towards me, he got real close but mum nearby started coming my way hissing so I legged it shortly after this pic


----------



## scifisam (Oct 22, 2020)

I quite like this one. It's not terribly interesting, but it's pretty. I was hoping a bus would come past and add some more red on the right hand side, but didn't want to wait since I was actually trying to catch a bus. The colours are lucky timing. Should I crop it a bit? I adjusted the rotation by 3% but didn't make any other changes.h


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

I'd rotate to get the verticals vertical and then I'd crop it, remove most of the sky portion and some of the left so the kebab sign is at the top left of the imageso it's all about the colours of the lights, especially on the pavement, and the figure in partial silhouette. And maybe drop the blacks down a bit so the figure is fully in silhouette, and see what that looked like.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 22, 2020)

brogdale said:


> My youngest at Harty Ferry.
> 
> View attachment 185370


Get your horizon level


----------



## scifisam (Oct 22, 2020)

teuchter said:


> I'd rotate to get the verticals vertical and then I'd crop it, remove most of the sky portion and some of the left so the kebab sign is at the top left of the imageso it's all about the colours of the lights, especially on the pavement, and the figure in partial silhouette. And maybe drop the blacks down a bit so the figure is fully in silhouette, and see what that looked like.



Thank you. When adjusting it I can never remember whether to go for horizontal or vertical. I think the one I uploaded was pre-adjusting the horizontal anyway.

So like this?


----------



## MsPsyientist (Nov 12, 2020)

Hey yall 🤗 total amateur but cant help but love taking pics lol.. A few from many.. The beautiful Xiao Lin, a red panda, some cool shots from the homestead, the most perfect "edenesque" apple id ever seen, a cool radar station discovered on a walk, a celestial flower and some lake districtness.. All mine, no photoshop, most from a Huawei P30Pro, some with light filters, some with effects.. 2 on my old Canon 600DSLR.. (I miss it!) Cant choose so you lot can decide... Ulp! 😉💋 Xx id love to see more from everyone too, some awesome styles here!


----------



## MsPsyientist (Nov 12, 2020)

gawkrodger said:


> which of the three below do people prefer?


Definitely top. More impact and crisp lines/contrast. All great shots though 👌


----------



## not a trot (Oct 10, 2021)

Hanging around in my front garden waiting for some scraps.


----------



## A380 (Oct 10, 2021)




----------



## Winot (Aug 22, 2022)

East Village, NY


----------



## xsunnysuex (Aug 22, 2022)




----------



## A380 (Aug 22, 2022)




----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 23, 2022)




----------



## BristolEcho (Aug 23, 2022)

scifisam said:


> Thank you. When adjusting it I can never remember whether to go for horizontal or vertical. I think the one I uploaded was pre-adjusting the horizontal anyway.
> 
> So like this?View attachment 235336


Looks like a DANK. I reckon it's a good shot.


----------



## BristolEcho (Aug 23, 2022)

starfish2000 said:


> View attachment 339243


And this.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 23, 2022)

On Southend Pier


----------



## Winot (Aug 23, 2022)

scifisam said:


> On Southend PierView attachment 339244


That’s excellent - they look like raspberry ice creams.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 23, 2022)

scifisam said:


> On Southend PierView attachment 339244



You should've snatched the bench away to see if the pole through their ears would hold them up.


----------



## sparkling (Nov 8, 2022)

hope I can join this group as I am loving taking photos on our evening walks with the dog


----------

