# August Photo Thread (big pics!)



## Vintage Paw (Aug 1, 2007)

*August Photo Thread*

August is already here, hardly seems 5 minutes since I packed my christmas tree away, blah blah blah ...





Almost exactly as it was right off the sensor. Lovingly entitled *"high-key cliché"*.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Lovingly entitled *"high-key cliché"*.



Cliché of all clichés. The utter cheek of it.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 1, 2007)

I don't see why the monthly Photo thread has to have (Big Pics) in brackets after the title.  The whole thing started in May I think and whoever it was just happened to have loaded some big pictures to it and wanted to alert dial-up users to the fact.

I think it would be better if we disciplined ourselves to pictures of no greater than 800 pixels in either axis, especially as these threads have become very popular.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 1, 2007)

Yessir. Duly edited 

Oh, it won't let me. Sozzard.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 1, 2007)

I'm quite impressed how I managed to get the highlights the exact same colour as the message board background  

Double the cliché for your money - self-portrait reflected in mirror too.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 1, 2007)

It was beautiful yesterday. Golden light, perfect for getting my wide angle attachment on the gr-d out - flare-tastic.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

I've just dropped 10 rolls of film off for processing only to be told they won't be ready for collection until first week of September     August shutdown. To hot to work here in August.

Think the tourist type labs will still be running mind so, I'll make some contribution for a genuine critique or, even a simple criticism.

I'm throwing a pool party on Friday. Maybe I'll be a cheap disposable water proof. That should be fun


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2007)

Three from a lunchtime sortie round Bermondsey today.


----------



## alef (Aug 1, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I'm quite impressed how I managed to get the highlights the exact same colour as the message board background


I appreciate that you appreciate such detail.


----------



## alef (Aug 1, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Three from a lunchtime sortie round Bermondsey today.



This one is much more interesting than the other two. Has an almost sci-fi quality, could easily have been taken in Japan.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> It was beautiful yesterday. Golden light, perfect for getting my wide angle attachment on the gr-d out - flare-tastic.



This is looking so much better when viewed at night for some reason  

First time I looked I thought nothing. Now I'm thinking wow. Perhaps the past two hours spent under moonlight and red wine influence have changed my mind?

I like it lots now whatever


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

>


What's this shot with? Like it


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> What's this shot with? Like it



His new toy init. Ain't you been reading


----------



## mauvais (Aug 1, 2007)

Ah, spotted! I was trying to work out what focal length I might want on a fisheye - 10.5mm looks appealing, but then 15mm (as above) seems good too.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2007)

10.5 on Nikon's 1.5 crop should be approximately equal to 15mm on my 5D.




			
				alef said:
			
		

> This one is much more interesting than the other two. Has an almost sci-fi quality, could easily have been taken in Japan.



Cheerz. I've been experimenting with exactly that sort of mood with my PP technique. Subtly detached from reality, like a 1970s photorealist painting or, dare I say, some of my experiences with LSD in the past


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Cheerz. I've been experimenting with exactly that sort of mood with my PP technique. Subtly detached from reality, like a 1970s photorealist painting or, dare I say, some of my experiences with LSD in the past




But, take away the Japanese looking people and what have you got  

It's utter shyte IMO.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2007)

Hooray for Stanley's candour! 

e2a: Well, er. Take away the figures in most Cartier-Bresson pictures and you may not have a lot left (not that I'm equating myself with HCB, mind you).

As it happens, you do also have an astonishingly sharp image for a £70 lens, but you'll have to take my word for that.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Hooray for Stanley's candour!



Candour


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> It's utter shyte IMO.



http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+candour&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8



> candor: the quality of being honest and straightforward in attitude and speech


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 1, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define:+candour&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8




Ah! I thought you were talking about problems with dogs ears.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 1, 2007)

I have only two cats.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 2, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> As it happens, you do also have an astonishingly sharp image for a £70 lens, but you'll have to take my word for that.



Or maybe that was being too lazy. 100% crops.
















FWIW: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. 1/125 sec @ f/5.6, hand-held.

I'm happy, anyhow.


----------



## Firky (Aug 2, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Three from a lunchtime sortie round Bermondsey today.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 2, 2007)

One more from today, I'm enjoying the 50mm.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 2, 2007)

Old tools... I think I'll have a play with old and new this month


----------



## paolo (Aug 2, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> ...could easily have been taken in Japan.



Or, err, Bermondsey.

We has modern stuff now. And foreign peoples.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 2, 2007)

Another quick scoot out with the camera at lunch today. I may make a habit of this.











[wonders how these will fare on Stan's Shyte-o-meter]


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 2, 2007)




----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 3, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> [wonders how these will fare on Stan's Shyte-o-meter]




You popped out with your camera at lunch time. 8/10 shyte factor (negative rating). Cliché shooting.

The bike in contemporary urban setting is very 2002.

Thanks for the invite


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 3, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

>



Ha - I love his/her expression! Beautiful cat


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 3, 2007)

From the first day of the month, pushing the limits of hand-held available-light photography - 1/6th of a second.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 3, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You popped out with your camera at lunch time. 8/10 shyte factor (negative rating)



10 week old son = not much other time. You have to make do with what you can get.

e2a: I could post baby pics instead if you prefer


----------



## cybertect (Aug 3, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Ha - I love his/her expression! Beautiful cat



seconded.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 3, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> From the first day of the month, pushing the limits of hand-held available-light photography - 1/6th of a second.



Always fun seeing just how far you can go.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 3, 2007)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g33/refreshment_66/IMG_1673.jpg?t=1186179684


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 3, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Ha - I love his/her expression! Beautiful cat


Thanks, it's a she btw


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 4, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 4, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 4, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2007)

Comte de Chambord.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2007)

Some sort of Clematis Viticella, possibly Polish Spirit (which I know is in there someplace)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 4, 2007)

Gratuitous cat picture.


----------



## Firky (Aug 4, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Another quick scoot out with the camera at lunch today. I may make a habit of this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Quite like that one but there's something slightly out of balance about it. Can't put my finger on it. I think it might be the fire hydrant behind the bike on the wall.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 4, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Quite like that one but there's something slightly out of balance about it. Can't put my finger on it. I think it might be the fire hydrant behind the bike on the wall.



Nah. It's the top heavy left hand top corner. The shadow and roof contrasted by the white railings. Cropping the roof out helps a little bit.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)

getting used to my new D40


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)




----------



## Firky (Aug 4, 2007)

Do you like your new toy then?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)

Love it


----------



## big eejit (Aug 4, 2007)

I'm buying one for my mum on Monday. Glad to hear a good report of it.


----------



## Firky (Aug 4, 2007)

Yeah Nikon do great dSLRs 

I like this site for Nikon, better than Ken Rockwell: www.bythom.com

Still love my D50 to bits. I want to get out with it today but I have to hang around until the carpet is laid - then rehang the f'ing doors (bet I have to cut a 1/4" off the bottom too ).


----------



## johey24 (Aug 4, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> 10 week old son = not much other time. You have to make do with what you can get.
> 
> e2a: I could post baby pics instead if you prefer



CBtect, you lucky man. You could post photies of your wee one all day ... even if only for me and the better half. We think he's an urban75 star, and more, in the making.  

fwiw, i think that's a great photo.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 4, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Quite like that one but there's something slightly out of balance about it. Can't put my finger on it. I think it might be the fire hydrant behind the bike on the wall.



Too many elements in the picture are in the left half.


----------



## alef (Aug 4, 2007)

Took these two yesterday (both are slightly rough on the eyes).


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)

One from today


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)

and another


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 4, 2007)

Can't decide if I like this or not


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 4, 2007)

Taken about 10 minutes ago in the back garden.  I didn't notice that leaf that gets in the way under the flower when I took the shot and it's raining now...


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 5, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Can't decide if I like this or not



It's a good picture.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 5, 2007)

Thank you


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 5, 2007)

*a stupid photo for a birthday*

card for mates 32nd..


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 5, 2007)

*another filthy doorway*

in brixton


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 5, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

>



I can't look at that one because it does weird things to my eyes. It instantly draws them to the bottom left corner, and each time I try to look anywhere else in the frame back they go to the bottom left. 




			
				Stan Stan the Shouty Man said:
			
		

> Nah. It's the top heavy left hand top corner. The shadow and roof contrasted by the white railings. Cropping the roof out helps a little bit.



Completely agree. The roof and the shadow unbalance it. The combination of more going on on the left hand side, like the Canadian fellow said, and the shadow casting down on it, make it too heavy over that side. I think if there was no roof and therefore shadow the photo could pull off having more on the left, but together it's a bit much.

Interestingly, I once read that compositionally a photo balances better if the heaviest part of the photo is on the left. By heaviest I mean I suppose the part with more going on. When I've been putting together diptychs in the past I have generally found they work better that way around. I'm not sure why that is. It probably isn't always the case, but I find myself using that as a starting point to see if it does work like that.

Maybe it has something to do with us reading from left to right, but then is that rule the same for people who read from right to left?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 5, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Interestingly, I once read that compositionally a photo balances better if the heaviest part of the photo is on the left...



Depends on the person. My brain favours a balance to the right. The vast majority have a natural inclination to balance to the left. Some people link it with the right brain, left brain thing. 

This photograph to my mind is perfectly balanced. However, most people would prefer it to be flipped:






Strange init.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 5, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> I don't see why the monthly Photo thread has to have (Big Pics) in brackets after the title.



Funny you should say that as 'august' means large or big. So the 'big pics' in brackets is redundant this month anyway!


----------



## alef (Aug 5, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Depends on the person. My brain favours a balance to the right. The vast majority have a natural inclination to balance to the left. Some people link it with the right brain, left brain thing.
> 
> This photograph to my mind is perfectly balanced. However, most people would prefer it to be flipped:
> 
> ...



I'd prefer it flipped. My assumption is that it's to do with reading left to right. I've heard that Hokusai's prints of large waves going left to right are more dramatic for the Japanese as they read from right to left (ever heard this, Hocus Eye?). But this might just be a case of art critics trying to make themselves sound clever.

What is certainly clear is that the right hand pages in newspapers and magazines are read far more than left hand pages. An advertiser will certainly pay far more for an odd numbered page over an even numbered one. Supposedly in Casablanca the director had Ingrid Bergman always on the right of Humphrey Bogart so that our eye would be lead towards her.


----------



## Firky (Aug 5, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> I can't look at that one because it does weird things to my eyes. It instantly draws them to the bottom left corner, and each time I try to look anywhere else in the frame back they go to the bottom left.



Top right here.


----------



## Firky (Aug 5, 2007)

Can you see him?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 5, 2007)

Looking upriver towards Runcorn (you can see the endless industrial Mordor that is ICI Mond in the far distance)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 5, 2007)

Liverpool roofscape (near James Street)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 5, 2007)

Wecome to Birkenhead


----------



## baffled (Aug 5, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Depends on the person. My brain favours a balance to the right. The vast majority have a natural inclination to balance to the left. Some people link it with the right brain, left brain thing.
> 
> This photograph to my mind is perfectly balanced. However, most people would prefer it to be flipped:
> 
> ...


I prefer it composed as it is too, likewise if using lead in lines then I like them on the right.

Cack handed


----------



## baffled (Aug 5, 2007)

This should really be in July's thread but I'll put it in here as it was processed today.

A rescued PAD shot that most will hate but I like due to the comic like quality it has.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 5, 2007)




----------



## cybertect (Aug 5, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Looking upriver towards Runcorn (you can see the endless industrial Mordor that is ICI Mond in the far distance)



Mordor - that's a good term for it 

It's quite awesome at night. It always made an impression on me as a child when visiting relatives in Prenton.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 5, 2007)

johey24 said:
			
		

> CBtect, you lucky man. You could post photies of your wee one all day ... even if only for me and the better half. We think he's an urban75 star, and more, in the making.
> 
> fwiw, i think that's a great photo.



Cheerz  I'll see if I can put some more up then (watch out U75).

FWIW, Re-crop of the bicycle pic


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 5, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Looking upriver towards Runcorn (you can see the endless industrial Mordor that is ICI Mond in the far distance)
> ...[/IMG]



I like this. Could be better mind. Are you using a tripod? I'm guessing you're not. Tripods are good for many reasons. The best reason for using a tripod IMO is that you have to make more of an effort and consequently study the viewfinder with more effort.

I remember driving past those places at night when I was dropping off a mate to catch the helicopter for his Two weeks on the rigs. Well worth photographing by night.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 5, 2007)

No tripod there. I've a fairly decent one I use for garden stuff, but I was just off out for the day with the wife when I took those, so had no infrastructure.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 5, 2007)

*Sunbathing*


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 5, 2007)

big eejit said:
			
		

> *Sunbathing*




He looks like a right fucking perve IMO. 

Poncey fucker with his greasy hair.


----------



## Skim (Aug 6, 2007)

A photo of my nephew – wish I could have got more going on with the reflection in the water.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 6, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> He looks like a right fucking perve IMO.
> 
> Poncey fucker with his greasy hair.



Arf! I think he's probably Italian. There's quite a large community round here - Italians, not pervs.


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 6, 2007)

was in london on saturday trying to get from London to London and it was taking me fucking ages because i am that div that stand in front of you at ticket machines for 2 days trying to work out what sort of ticket i needed - anyway i was in a part of london that was no where near the part of london that i needed to get to so i got out at london station where there were bridges and took pictures

confusing town


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 6, 2007)

Not a place you want to be stuck for 5 hours.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 6, 2007)

Great photos as always.




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> He looks like a right fucking perve IMO.


Reminds me of one of the Alan Statham scenes in the Green Wing special 




			
				Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Not a place you want to be stuck for 5 hours.


Maybe not but it's an interesting photo, where was it taken?


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 6, 2007)

Taken earlier on while looking for textures, maybe an entry for this months competition.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 6, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

> Maybe not but it's an interesting photo, where was it taken?



On a train somewhere in between Stoke and Derby. On the way back there were floods and it took 5 hours to get home. Central trains are not known for their luxury or cleanliness.


----------



## isitme (Aug 6, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Not a place you want to be stuck for 5 hours.



Can I be as cheeky to ask for a big version of that to print off?

(Firky's mate posting and hello all!)


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 6, 2007)

isitme said:
			
		

> Can I be as cheeky to ask for a big version of that to print off?
> 
> (Firky's mate posting and hello all!)



PM'd you.


----------



## Firky (Aug 6, 2007)

I hope you told him to sod off


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 6, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I hope you told him to sod off



Of course I did.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 7, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 7, 2007)




----------



## Firky (Aug 7, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

>



That is way cool, you should enter it into the comp/


----------



## cybertect (Aug 7, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> That is way cool, you should enter it into the comp/



Tarkovsky


----------



## Firky (Aug 7, 2007)

Solaris?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 7, 2007)

I like it too Johnny. What I really like are those two stray bubbles off to the left.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 7, 2007)

Thanks.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 7, 2007)




----------



## Junglist (Aug 7, 2007)

Pic taken from the back of my garden tonight on my phone:


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 7, 2007)

Junglist said:
			
		

> Pic taken from the back of my garden tonight on my phone:



reduce the size to 40% of the original would look far better in my Browser methunx.  

Looks as BIG as EA is! 


e2a ::you doned it!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 7, 2007)

Sheeeesh!  That picture is so big you have to scroll across to get both the full width and height of it.  It is hard to visualise it as a whole image.

Please shrink it down so that we can see the whole thing in one go.

Edited to say thanks for doing that.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

Pissed off I cut the very top off.  Might go back and take it again tomorrow.


----------



## Junglist (Aug 7, 2007)

Didn't know it is that big until I put it on here, it's at 800x600 now.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

The invisible man goes vagrant


----------



## Junglist (Aug 7, 2007)

That photo deserves it's very own "Photoshop this" thread Blagsta.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 7, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Pissed off



you're pissed off????!...you *made* me put the word "Steichen" into Google ffs!  ...damned if I can see the pickee tho.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> you're pissed off????!...you *made* me put the word "Steichen" into Google ffs!  ...damned if I can see the pickee tho.



I can never understand any of your posts.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 7, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

>



I like this.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 7, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I can never understand any of your posts.



good for you.

it was prolly Coburn anyway.

and if you don't understand any of those words then photogravure would be lost on you also.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

Errrrr...yeah...


----------



## Skim (Aug 7, 2007)

I have no idea what drove me to muck around with a photo of my (10th?) birthday party, but it was lots of fun.

I am the one with bad hair holding a sausage on a stick.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 7, 2007)

Spooky!  Reminds me of an episode of Sapphire & Steel (anyone remember that?) where there were people with no faces.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 7, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I like this.


Thanks 




			
				Skim said:
			
		

> I have no idea what drove me to muck around with a photo of my (10th?) birthday party, but it was lots of fun.


That's creepy


----------



## Skim (Aug 7, 2007)

I was thinking of...






(Boards of Canada: Music Has the Right To Children)


----------



## cybertect (Aug 7, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Spooky!  Reminds me of an episode of Sapphire & Steel (anyone remember that?) where there were people with no faces.



Yes, I do!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 7, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> I was thinking of...



Now that's good.

Not sure I want to comment on Blagstar's invisible vagrant pic. I have a whole BRITA jug of wine to drink though so, I'll probably give a torrent of verbal hell later.


----------



## Firky (Aug 8, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

>



Class.


----------



## Firky (Aug 8, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> I was thinking of...



BoC are great init?


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 8, 2007)

Two photographs of JB


----------



## Skim (Aug 8, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> BoC are great init?



They are, didn't like The Campfire Headphase so much though. Music Has the Right... can still give me goosebumps if I play it at the right time


----------



## Biddlybee (Aug 8, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Took these two yesterday (both are slightly rough on the eyes).


Is that Gerry's on Old Compton Street?


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 8, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I have a whole BRITA jug of wine to drink though



you filter your wine???


----------



## cybertect (Aug 8, 2007)

I guess it's cheaper to buy by the gallon in Spain and decant it into anything available


----------



## cybertect (Aug 8, 2007)

Another lunchtime shot to annoy Stanley 


_Fruit at the Bottom_


----------



## disco_dave_2000 (Aug 8, 2007)

Chillers at the Big Chill Festival, Sunday


----------



## alef (Aug 8, 2007)

BiddlyBee said:
			
		

> Is that Gerry's on Old Compton Street?



Well spotted. Wonderful window display, isn't it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 8, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Two photographs of JB


Is that his Jag?


----------



## Biddlybee (Aug 8, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Well spotted. Wonderful window display, isn't it?


Tis a great shop... look at all those rums


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 8, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Is that his Jag?



That is what you are meant to think, but no, in the second picture it is in a showroom and he is sitting outside of it.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 8, 2007)

disco_dave_2000 said:
			
		

> Chillers at the Big Chill Festival, Sunday




They're all wearing those 'Ain't Half Hot Mum' shorts   Everyone the same init.

I blame the global warming.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 8, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That is what you are meant to think, but no, in the second picture it is in a showroom and he is sitting outside of it.



Too bad: I was going to say "Way to go, Negro!"


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 8, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That is what you are meant to think, but no, in the second picture it is in a showroom and he is sitting outside of it.




You are making an ironic comment?

Is it political?

Are you trying to say something?

It needs words for me I'm afraid. I'm a bit stupid I think. I can't see any irony. I see lots of black men with dreads driving Jaguars these days. Some of them are rich rasta musos. Is it a play on the idea of a jaguar?

Can you explain for me please?

Tar in advance.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 8, 2007)

*skim...*

your birthday party faceless one is the best.....


----------



## baffled (Aug 9, 2007)

working through some more unprocessed shots atm.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 9, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You are making an ironic comment?
> 
> Is it political?
> 
> ...





No there is no attempt at a political statement here.  He is a musician who had been playing at a venue where I had photographed him earlier in the evening.  http://www.pbase.com/hocus_eye/image/83551314/medium  As I walked home he caught up with me and we walked together.  We passed a Jaguar showroom and he asked me to photograph him again with the cars that were parked outside and against the wall so that cars inside the building would be in shot.  For example http://www.pbase.com/hocus_eye/image/83551665/medium

JB  does not own a Jaguar as far as I know but he is not short of a few pennies at the moment I think.  He was flying out to Sweden the following day and then will be heading for Norway.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 9, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say something
> 
> Stanley
> 
> ...





So why were we supposed to think he owned a Jaguar  

I seriously don't get this crap.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 9, 2007)

It was his idea.  He was trying to create an image of himself.  Bear in mind that it was _his  _spontaneous idea and it was at the end of an evening of music and beer.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 9, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> It was his idea.  He was trying to create an image of himself.  Bear in mind that it was _his  _spontaneous idea and it was at the end of an evening of music and beer.




Oh.

So, was he taking the piss?

Just a drunken snap then really. Drunken jokes are rarely as funny when you're sober. I've learned that from experience.


Just clarifying. Some people may have misunderstood.

I don't like Johnny Cantfuck's attitude.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 9, 2007)

No he wasn't 'taking the piss'.  He is a relaxed and 'chilled' sort of a person.  He just wanted to create an image for himself,  posing for a photograph.  Neither of us was drunk.  I don't think JC meant any harm really either.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 9, 2007)

Tartan day:


























Which is of course has little to do with local tradition but is instead a rather recent innovation.  Colourful nonetheless.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 9, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> . Is it a play on the idea of a jaguar?
> 
> .



Wowee.

No negroes in South America, where jaguars live. Brownies, but not your negro.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 9, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I don't like Johnny Cantfuck's attitude.



I know I'm not shooting blanks. How about you...... _Stanley_?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 9, 2007)

pogofish said:
			
		

> Tartan day:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It looks like a great day: ponytailed drummers, big scottish girls, and weird old men in blue tartan.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 9, 2007)

But isn't it a little warm for pantyhose?


----------



## Gromit (Aug 9, 2007)

*A Kid Goat*


----------



## Gromit (Aug 9, 2007)




----------



## e19896 (Aug 9, 2007)

SMASHED


----------



## cybertect (Aug 9, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> No he wasn't 'taking the piss'.  He is a relaxed and 'chilled' sort of a person.  He just wanted to create an image for himself,  posing for a photograph.  Neither of us was drunk.



I suspect that Stanley has never encountered a professional Music Agent in his life. On their scale of misdirection and hype, having your picture taken in front of a Jag you don't own is being faultlessly truthful 



e2a: Posting pics is what this thread's about.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 9, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It looks like a great day: ponytailed drummers, big scottish girls, and weird old men in blue tartan.



I fitted right-in!  

Pity I didn't get shots of the contribution from the Polish ladies in taffeta.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 9, 2007)

Gratuitous pussy shot







I cut the tops of his ears off


----------



## alef (Aug 9, 2007)




----------



## Nina (Aug 9, 2007)

I like the blue background alef. Robin's egg blue.

Also like Cyertect's fish eye jobby.  Nice shapes.


----------



## Nina (Aug 9, 2007)

Weymouth, with my Lomo.


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 9, 2007)

Nina said:
			
		

> Weymouth, with my Lomo.



popular punch and judy

http://www.paulrussell.info/gallerysea/49.html


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 9, 2007)

*blagsta...*

very nice...i have trouble with my cat, hates the camera, i pick up the camera and she runs a mile....


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 9, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> very nice...i have trouble with my cat, hates the camera, i pick up the camera and she runs a mile....



Thanks 

Here's another


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 9, 2007)




----------



## indigo4 (Aug 9, 2007)

*carpark walworth*

road


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 9, 2007)

Nina said:
			
		

> Weymouth, with my Lomo.



Love that. I got an actionsampler and supersampler, never got through 1 roll in either yet though. I've had them over a year  

First two usable photos from Héloïse the Hasselblad:









(usable in the sense that I bloody well wanted to get _something_ from my first two rolls. Still got 2/3s of a roll to scan, but so far these are the best  )


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 9, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> road



I really like some of your stuff.


----------



## baffled (Aug 10, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

>



Hope this doesn't offend but it's the shadows that grabbed my attention and not the discarded underwear.

Lovely shot either way.


----------



## baffled (Aug 10, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> road



Superb, very easy to get a shot like that wrong.


----------



## Firky (Aug 10, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> road



I like. I like a lot of your stuff because B&W photography is my favourite.




			
				Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> First two usable photos from Héloïse the Hasselblad:



Hasselblad 500 I bet? 

I want one but all the buttons on the lenses scare me 

Really liked the clouds one.


----------



## editor (Aug 10, 2007)

Some nice pics here!


----------



## e19896 (Aug 10, 2007)




----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 10, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Hope this doesn't offend but it's the shadows that grabbed my attention and not the discarded underwear.
> 
> Lovely shot either way.



Doesn't offend in the slightest 

Firkles - 500cm  And yes, I spent anxious times emailing various people asking them about what the hell I was supposed to do with it once I'd got it - the lens is scary. But she's so beautiful. And heavy.

Almost zero thought and time was put into my first two rolls, so I don't expect great shots from them, or any positive responses on here - I just wanted to make sure she worked. It would seem that she does *huge relief*

Of course, now I want a 150mm sonnar lens - but I can barely afford Héloïse, let alone new toys for her to play with.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 10, 2007)

Beware of people who drive a Seat Leon. This is Jidler.






Really though, he's one of the nicest people I know.

Tempted to post a few car pics now...


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 10, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

>



I really like this one! 

It says so much about that 'scene'


----------



## Skim (Aug 10, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> First two usable photos from Héloïse the Hasselblad:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you don't mind me asking, how much (if any) Photoshopping did you do on that photos? The colour and definition is lush – I'm just trying to get a sense of  how much of that is through using a medium-format camera


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> If you don't mind me asking, how much (if any) Photoshopping did you do on that photos? The colour and definition is lush – I'm just trying to get a sense of  how much of that is through using a medium-format camera



I wondered that too.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 10, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I really like this one!
> 
> It says so much about that 'scene'



Ta. Yes, judging by pics I see on the Net it seems to be the same the world over - car people meet at night at supermarket, shopping centre and retail car parks. 

Fun to play with the commercial lights in reflection.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 10, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Doesn't offend in the slightest
> 
> Firkles - 500cm  And yes, I spent anxious times emailing various people asking them about what the hell I was supposed to do with it once I'd got it - the lens is scary. But she's so beautiful. And heavy.
> 
> ...



Consider me jealous. A Hassie has been on my _Items of Lust_ list since I was about twelve


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 10, 2007)

I used a curves layer in photoshop. Just to bring out the colour of the sky. It was already pretty lovely after scanning the neg - but then I can control levels before scanning anyway. It certainly is a richer, more velvety colour than the scanned file.

I don't get prints done, so I'm never really sure how it would look au natural. With the scanning software I 'top and tail' - that is match up the bottom and top limits of levels with the histogram for each channel. I think that makes it as faithful as possible.

MF is beneficial in terms of resolution - with a bigger neg you can extract more detail and print at larger sizes. It doesn't have that much to do with colour rendition, as far as I am aware.

The lens you use has more to do with colours, in terms of contrast etc. Zeiss lenses for Hasselblads are pretty wonderful. I've got a CF T* coated lens. I don't know the ins and outs of them, but they seem to be liked a lot.

You can save and get a really good lens for your 35mm camera that will make the colours pop and contrast zing more than others, if that's all that matters. I just like the feel of mf. Getting a mf neg back is a joy, and I adore the 6x6 format. Damn it's expensive with only 12 exposures to a roll, but I get a feeling from it I never have with 35mm. Sentimentality and romantic notions? Most definitely - but I don't care. Whatever makes you happy, and all that


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 10, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Consider me jealous. A Hassie has been on my _Items of Lust_ list since I was about twelve



They really aren't _that_ expensive if you don't mind something from the 80s. There are loads around on ebay. I'm sure if you took some time and bought everything separately you could get a good system for maybe £350-£400, maybe even cheaper. I was impatient so I spent more  

One thing that convinced me to take the plunge was realising I could swap out various bits of it as and when my financial situation allowed. I could spend £150 on a mint recent a-12 back at some point, or £380 on a mint 503cw body etc. Or maybe go to a different system, like the 200/2000, and still have the lens work with it. And then, when I win that lottery, buy a digital back for it  

Go on, you know it makes sense


----------



## cybertect (Aug 10, 2007)

Indeed. I've been thinking along those lines too 

One of my colleagues at work picked up a 503cx body with a T* planar f/2.8 80mm lens for something ridiculous like £150 on eBay last year and he's having enormous fun with it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jacetheace666/tags/hasselblad/

Must admit, however, that I've also been finding myself tempted by the prices that Canon EOS 1-v and EOS 3 bodies are going for at the moment, which I can use my nice EF lenses with.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 10, 2007)

Naw, you can use your ef lenses on the body you've got. Just think of all those missed opportunities without your 'blad - the 'blad that has your name on it, just waiting for you, calling your name .........


----------



## cybertect (Aug 11, 2007)

I think a film scanner should really come first in my list of priorities. I've loads of old slides and negs that I want to do stuff with before I start adding yet more to the film backlog


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 11, 2007)

Well, not to become the recommendation queen or anything  but people always speak very highly of the Epson range. I've got the 4990, but I think people are getting good results from anything down to the 31xx series (which I think you have to be reconditioned now), and of course the better V700 and V750 are purported to be magnificent 

I'm off to Manchester today on't train to see if I can't train Héloïse on something interesting. Hopefully I'll come back with one or two half decent shots for this thread.


----------



## alef (Aug 11, 2007)

Doing lots of macros with my new Ricoh:


----------



## big eejit (Aug 11, 2007)

One of the balloons that woke me up at 7am this morning. I've applied a lomo filter.


----------



## alef (Aug 11, 2007)

Two I took yesterday in Covent Garden:


----------



## baffled (Aug 11, 2007)

Went for a little walk round the local woods today.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 11, 2007)

*baffled..*

yet again..loving your work. mwhahahhahahahahahahaah


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2007)




----------



## indigo4 (Aug 11, 2007)

*jonny love that mask one ...love it*

one of fleabag annie...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 11, 2007)

*Isle of Wight*





















I'll try to post some more soon.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 11, 2007)

*mauvis*

boat... hope you dont mind  actually your one = much better....i do like to see things in black and white though as you might ave noticed...!!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 11, 2007)

Nah, that's good - not all of them are candidates for B&W but I do like that.

Mind if I ask if you use anything in particular for conversions? Lightroom's greyscale mixer meself, love it.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 11, 2007)

*got cs2 but i only really*

use elements5 because im lazy and cant be bothered to learn a new package. I do have lightroom but never opened it either, looks too difficult! 

poppy again...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 11, 2007)

Could be a bit offputting I guess. I think accessing photos could have been a lot easier but once you get past all the clutter, it's ace! Worth a try anyhow.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 11, 2007)

*yes*

if you say its good i'll believe you and give it another go..!


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 11, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> one of fleabag annie...


I like that one


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 12, 2007)

*arhhh too cute..*

almost falling off the table..!


----------



## spacemonkey (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## cybertect (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I'll try to post some more soon.



I like the first two in particular. The black sea is most striking.


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 12, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> I like the first two in particular. The black sea is most striking.



Yes, that's a bit of a cracker that one.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

That's infrared - I ought to do more of that. I knew there was a reason I carried a tripod for eighty miles!


----------



## baffled (Aug 12, 2007)

Spacemonkey - Like the way the clouds lead into the sun, nice.

Another shot from my local woods.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

How did you do that - closeup against the sun?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I'll try to post some more soon.



These are fab


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Cheers - I can barely move now so I'm glad I got something out of my little adventure  

Edit: I just remembered I've this Where's Wally thing to pull out and see if it worked... hmmm...


----------



## baffled (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> How did you do that - closeup against the sun?



If that's for me then yes the sun was directly behind the tree.

ETA colour version.






I prefer the b&w myself.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Aye, definitely.

Here's something silly: 5mb panorama of the IoW and Portsmouth. Loads progressively.


----------



## Forkboy (Aug 12, 2007)

A slightly abstract IR shot..  (still working on the development process though...)


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Flim or digital? Either way I think it's great but needs more contrast. The ground's gone a bit bonkers too!


----------



## Forkboy (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Flim or digital? Either way I think it's great but needs more contrast. The ground's gone a bit bonkers too!



Digital, though like I said, I'm still working on a decent process for these.. and yeah the foreground is nuts.. but I'm working with 2MP so it's a bit tougher than with 8/10MP RAW files..  (I also figure that I might change the exposure on them as Raw files a bit before going into Photoshop..)

anyways, here's what they can come out like unprocessed..


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Cool! Not much use to you if you don't shoot RAW, but Pixmantec Raw Shooter is ace for IR because you can set white points below 2000 degrees or whatever the limit is in most - and therefore you can get false colour straight out of it, instead of all red/purple.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Aye, definitely.
> 
> Here's something silly: 5mb panorama of the IoW and Portsmouth. Loads progressively.


I like.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Here's another pano one from me: http://wapoc.com/110807/beachpano.jpg (1mb) - the source is ~200 megapixel! There's probably all kinds of weirdness in that but I like it.

Some more ordinary stuff:


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## Blagsta (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## Forkboy (Aug 12, 2007)

and the previous once procesed..


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 12, 2007)

I keep coming back to this but can't _want_ to get rid of the frizzz.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

Last four from me til we get some more nice weather and the feeling in my legs returns!





















Sorry for flooding the forum... nah, not really...


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 12, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Sorry for flooding the forum... nah, not really...


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 12, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I keep coming back to this but can't _want_ to get rid of the frizzz.




The frizzz works. You're the master of creative lighting. That's fucking beautiful.

The rose is cliché shyte mind


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

It's not quite a Lancashire rose


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2007)




----------



## Forkboy (Aug 12, 2007)

Well since everyone's going all floral on us....


----------



## Firky (Aug 12, 2007)

Some good shizzle mauvis, not so keen on the picture of the ship - too busy methinks.

IoW is a funny place init?


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 12, 2007)

llllurve the third bernie,,,big time.  

I've been thinking and doin more subtle too.. using "_Northlight_" this'en is...  






that there rose of mine is soooooooooooooo boootiful and she smells soooooo lush!!!!...took in drizzle last night...focusing with a Catseye frontlamp...flash on camera pointed at a pub opposite...I was doin it to piss off the loud outdoor smokers therein. 

the "frizz" was taken on a drizzly Sunday afternoon late afternoon in a squishy little allyway in Redruth..again Northlight/overhead basically...with the wall opposite the subject giving a gentle a bit of a fill ( I always look for a little spill in the eyes...if it is there then it needs some more fill....jus have to be careful not


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 12, 2007)

What's going on here?  At this rate the thread will need a hay-fever warning on it.


----------



## alef (Aug 12, 2007)

Went to the London Mela fest out in west London. A few OK pics, but the one I like is from the tube ride home. Simple, certainly not original, but what a fabric!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> llllurve the third bernie,,,big time.  <snip>


 "f2 and be there" innit 

The other ones you posted are fab, but that 'frizz' one is awesome. 

Otherworldly.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 12, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> I keep coming back to this but can't _want_ to get rid of the frizzz.


Good one.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Some good shizzle mauvis, not so keen on the picture of the ship - too busy methinks.
> 
> IoW is a funny place init?


The Mare Action one? I know, I just like the name 

Tis a bit - but then I guess all islands are. I do quite like it - scenery literally everywhere, though far too many hills. The weirdest thing for me was everyone drives really slowly and carefully, like something out of Pleasantville. God knows what some bloke thought when I came down a hill at 35mph+ on the wrong side of the road. He's probably still there now, weeping


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2007)

As part of my ongoing project to see how little of any given picture I can get in focus, here's a spider and a bit of its web.


----------



## Nina (Aug 13, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Two I took yesterday in Covent Garden:



wow, so much stuff!  I like this one.


----------



## Nina (Aug 13, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Went to the London Mela fest out in west London. A few OK pics, but the one I like is from the tube ride home. Simple, certainly not original, but what a fabric!



I'd like to see this in potrait with the window.


----------



## Nina (Aug 13, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Love that. I got an actionsampler and supersampler, never got through 1 roll in either yet though. I've had them over a year




You'll never get much further I doubt now with the mf!   I love the square format (you lucky thing)

TBH, I'll be bored with the Lomo pretty soon (this is my second roll) and I will no doubt soon start sniffing at the holga's and LCA's...

roll on santa I say.


----------



## spacemonkey (Aug 13, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Spacemonkey - Like the way the clouds lead into the sun, nice.



It's the moon! That wasn't my best camera, but the clouds just looked amazing, they were the only ones in the sky and they all led to the moon.


----------



## Skim (Aug 13, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Damn it's expensive with only 12 exposures to a roll, but I get a feeling from it I never have with 35mm. Sentimentality and romantic notions? Most definitely - but I don't care. Whatever makes you happy, and all that



Sounds great  If I had more money to burn now I'd spend it on film for my old Polaroid Image System – I keep looking at loads of faded Polaroids on Flickr and I'm itching to get sentimental with my old camera.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 13, 2007)




----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 13, 2007)

Wow Marius that is a fabulous picture.  The figures all look like realistically posed Airfix men.  They are all so upright.  I love the little shadows coming towards the viewer especially from the man who seems to be levitating, and the little bit of rim lighting around the edge of each of the players.  The whole thing looks like a model possibly because you are looking down on the players.  As I scanned my eyes across the scene I got a feeling that some of the figures moved!  I hope your side won.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 13, 2007)

Similar to a shot I took last week, but I prefer the colours in this one.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 13, 2007)

flowers of romance.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 13, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

>



Very nice


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 13, 2007)

Festival day





View from balcony





Chilling




Trippy saturday night from the balcony


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 13, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Festival day
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Horribly, sickly, wrong (and right).

 

You missed the fiesta?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Horribly, sickly, wrong (and right).


Well, that's certainly helped me to see where i could make some improvements to what i do..... 




			
				Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You missed the fiesta?


No, I watched it but i couldn't be arsed taking photos of it cos i take photos for my enjoyment and i can still enjoy the memories of watching the parade pass afore us all from memory. 

And i thought that the pic caught a certain anticipation but i was probably just been horrible eh?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Horribly, sickly, wrong (and right).
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the fiesta?



I thought you'd trot out the cliche line, as in: running child in first picture: cliche. Empty chair in front of vista: cliche.

The third is kind of neat, as is the fourth.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 13, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> I thought you'd trot out the cliche line, as in: running child in first picture: cliche. *Empty chair in front of vista: cliche.*
> 
> The third is kind of neat, as is the fourth.



Why's that then? As for running child, it happened as i stood there and it all looked alright to me but i wondered whether the cliché word would arise. 

Cheers for other commentary btw  May not help me improve per se, but may offer some encouragement to continue as it were.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 13, 2007)

Who mentioned cliché?

Not me.

TBH (perfectly) I'm not sure of I've just seen a parody or, something after the parody.

Maybe that's why I like them in a horrible, sickly way? I'll look again tomorrow and see if they still have any worth to my mind.

ATM they have merit, but they rely on a very subtle shock factor.

Your own pics?


----------



## Gromit (Aug 13, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> running child in first picture



Look again and you'll see the kid is actually doing a walking against the wind mime. He's very talented.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Why's that then? As for running child, it happened as i stood there and it all looked alright to me but i wondered whether the cliché word would arise.
> 
> Cheers for other commentary btw  May not help me improve per se, but may offer some encouragement to continue as it were.



The reason I thought of the cliche involved in a running kid pic, is that I took one and posted it here myself, the other day.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 13, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Who mentioned cliché?
> 
> Not me.
> 
> ...



Nah, bought them off a stall down Ridley innit mate. Three for a fiver so i bought four. Sleep tight Stanley me old china, wouldn't have missed this for the world.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 13, 2007)

Isn't it a funny thing about art.

If someone else captures it its a cliche.
If you yourself capture it then its a golden moment.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 13, 2007)

So, (take me as a twat here) you went on holiday. Saw the preparations and found time to photograph the, but didn't quite make the event.

P2. Empty beach and sea shot from a distance. Didn't quite experience. Saw it and photographed it though.

3. Are you taking the piss or, what?

Last. "We'll not go out hey?" To many people.


Class set. I like them beyond the parody.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 14, 2007)

He saw the fiesta. I think what he was trying to express in post #244 was that he opted to enjoy the fiesta rather than observe it through the lense of a camera. 

Some people can do both but some like to concentrate on one and not the other. I often completely forget i have a camera when I'm really enjoying myself.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 14, 2007)

*paulie tandori*

your third one the black and white, i nearly fell of my chair with joy...lovely..... well done....

e19896 - yes hello.....!!! 

oh and marius as much as i hate football yes thats a great photo - almost looks like tilt photography. melx


----------



## e19896 (Aug 14, 2007)

oh fuck i like this one i have in my own thoughts been takeing some fucking blinders over the last few weeks i love my pentax k100d..


----------



## chooch (Aug 14, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

> http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w57/cheekysquirrel/cityvrsstoke.jpg


That is great  

Two from horse races on the beach at Sanlucar. Not overly exciting, but...


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Festival day
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where's that?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 14, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> Where's that?



It's Calpe, on the Costa Blanca, my g/f's uncle's flat. We were there for the festival to honour la Virgen de las Nieves, patron saint of Calpe, which has been celebrated since 1940. The main attraction is intended to be the queen and her maids of honour of four generations: infant, junior, adult and elders. It was more like an excuse for late night drinking, lots of parades and fireworks, and a wide variety of music


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 14, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> So, (take me as a twat here) you went on holiday. Saw the preparations and found time to photograph the, but didn't quite make the event.
> 
> P2. Empty beach and sea shot from a distance. Didn't quite experience. Saw it and photographed it though.
> 
> ...



 

I was a bit to stoned for my own good last night. WTF was I on about? 

Think I sometimes look for a bit to much in photographs!


----------



## e19896 (Aug 14, 2007)

Shadow playing....


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 14, 2007)

a gate on the way up moel siabod:


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 14, 2007)

bridge in betws-y-coed


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 14, 2007)

classic car show in betws-y-coed


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 14, 2007)

dear bosky and mauvis - you are both fucking ace.

that is all


----------



## mauvais (Aug 14, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> dear bosky and mauvis - you are both fucking ace.
> 
> that is all


Ha!  

Which do you like?

I love your bridge one, and though it'd have been nice to go wider on the gate, the colours are wicked - really hard to do right IMO. Both make me want to go there! - but if I did, I'd probably cycle myself stupid and starve to death in some remote valley


----------



## Skim (Aug 14, 2007)

Went on a walk around east London today. Loved looking into people's windows. I'm not that excited about the pics I took today, but I got strangely excited about doing a series on net curtains


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 14, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> Went on a walk around east London today. Loved looking into people's windows. I'm not that excited about the pics I took today, but I got strangely excited about doing a series on net curtains



Ah, so these are the reason Alef had hours to spend trouncing me at scrabble then  

Lovely 

Chorlton, I love that bridge shot - great stuff!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 14, 2007)

I've taken the week at home to get a few jobs done and spend some quality time with William. He's 12 weeks old now and is getting much more smiley for his dad  
















and one from the very end of last month


----------



## cybertect (Aug 14, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> bridge in betws-y-coed



nice. The dog and low clouds make it special  

Does remind me rather of a similar footbridge in Pitlochry.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 14, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> a gate on the way up moel siabod:


I like this one 


Raindrops on my kitchen window earlier.


----------



## ICB (Aug 15, 2007)

Holiday snaps from Ireland


----------



## pogofish (Aug 15, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> nice. The dog and low clouds make it special
> 
> Does remind me rather of a similar footbridge in Pitlochry.



I'm thinking that too - and a couple on Deeside.


----------



## baffled (Aug 15, 2007)

Aldenham Country Park


----------



## baffled (Aug 15, 2007)

Another from Aldenham Country Park.






Think the horizon is slightly off but thats fixable.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)




----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 15, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

>



Is that Phil Spector in the foreground rhs?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 15, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> Is that Phil Spector in the foreground rhs?



No, it's your mother, not wearing a bra.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 15, 2007)

ah, i can see that now  top stuff jc2


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 16, 2007)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 16, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

>


I would have loved this shot with the top of the buildings showing, the people removed and a bit of lens correction... nice shot


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 16, 2007)

I don't agree with those proposed changes.  There is more right with the picture than not.

The people give scale to the boat.  One of the buildings has its top showing so it doesn't matter that two of them are not seen complete, it brings the centre of interest back to the massive boat.  

I would have rotated the whole image left only about 4 degrees.  A tiny crop would then be needed.  All of the buildings have converging verticals and if the one on the extreme left was sloping in at the same angle as the one on the extreme right I think the picture would look balanced. 

That massive gin-palace of a boat makes an impressive picture especially as the waterway looks relatively narrow.  I wonder how many gallons per mile of fuel it uses up.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 16, 2007)

I tried taking the people out and I agree, it looks crap without them. A little lens correction is probably all that's needed.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 16, 2007)




----------



## ICB (Aug 16, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That massive gin-palace of a boat makes an impressive picture especially as the waterway looks relatively narrow.  I wonder how many gallons per mile of fuel it uses up.



Not as many as these, nice run about though


----------



## wordie (Aug 16, 2007)

ooops! Wrong place!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 16, 2007)

.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 16, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I would have loved this shot with the top of the buildings showing, the people removed and a bit of lens correction... nice shot



I know; I kicked myself when I saw the pic, and the building tops weren't there. I broke my own rule, which is to look into every corner of the image before pressing the shutter release, not just at the big interesting thing in the middle.

I like the people in it, though. They're from Calgary.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 16, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> I don't agree with those proposed changes.  There is more right with the picture than not.
> 
> The people give scale to the boat.  One of the buildings has its top showing so it doesn't matter that two of them are not seen complete, it brings the centre of interest back to the massive boat.
> 
> ...



Cropping out the building on the right would take away too much of the smaller boat.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 16, 2007)

Glass sculpture at Cardinal Place on Victoria Street, London SW1.

As I finished taking this picture I was accosted by a security guard requesting that I not take pictures in this place. I muttered something about the privatisation of public spaces, my excuses and left. I got my one shot, though.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 16, 2007)

ICB said:
			
		

> Not as many as these, nice run about though



Milford Haven?


----------



## e19896 (Aug 17, 2007)

The whole of Them


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 17, 2007)

*cybertech - that*

glass shot is amazing...i found myself thinking, what the hell is that..and getting right up close to the computer screen....


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 17, 2007)

*e19896*

sorry but i loved your shot and thought id turn it into a black and white...hope you dont mind


----------



## e19896 (Aug 17, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> sorry but i loved your shot and thought id turn it into a black and white...hope you dont mind



Yep that works i had tweeked a little in gimp and had done a bw copy but i like the depth of green you get with the colour


----------



## ICB (Aug 17, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Milford Haven?



Yep 

That orange one is so big it was three shots wide as we passed it, I've seen bigger ships in and out of Portbury but never that close


----------



## Gromit (Aug 17, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> sorry but i loved your shot and thought id turn it into a black and white...hope you dont mind



Call me a heathen but I don't see anything special about the shot. 
I don't dislike it. Its a nice water reflection, plants and building shot but it doesn't strike me as fantastic in either colour or B&W.

What is it that you love about it may I ask please?


----------



## Gromit (Aug 17, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Glass sculpture at Cardinal Place on Victoria Street, London SW1.



Cracking pic.

Is the blurring to the left photoshop tweaked or all done with the lense?


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 17, 2007)

*marius...*

no you may not ask...! i dont know i love reflections basically big M


----------



## baffled (Aug 17, 2007)

Something I have been playing around with today.


----------



## Skim (Aug 17, 2007)

I like the mood of that, Baffled. The colours are perfect. My only criticism is that I find the shadows at the bottom a bit distracting, but I guess it does add the photo a bit of shape.


----------



## baffled (Aug 17, 2007)

Cheers, the shadow was an attempt to frame the subject a bit but could probably be softened or even removed.


----------



## baffled (Aug 17, 2007)

Another from the same wedding.






Toned and desaturated, needs a little bit of cloning but I haven't the time right now.

ETA

ooops, I deleted the image from my flickr account which is why I now have a nice white box instead.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 17, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

> Cracking pic.
> 
> Is the blurring to the left photoshop tweaked or all done with the lense?



99% done in the lens - it's extreme bokeh of another part of the sculpture behind. I tweaked the contrast a bit and ran some 'Dust and Scratches' - there was a surprising amount of dust on it .


----------



## mauvais (Aug 17, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Another from the same wedding.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The noise makes her look a bit like she's got a beard  but otherwise that's excellent. I never do portraiture and probably can't, but that is good.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 17, 2007)

*baffled arhhh that little girl one*

is simply stunning, beard or no beard...!


----------



## baffled (Aug 17, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> The noise makes her look a bit like she's got a beard  but otherwise that's excellent. I never do portraiture and probably can't, but that is good.



funny you should mention the beard, never really noticed it until I resized and posted it  

quickly went back and tried again though it still needs work






damn you quoters 

off to work now so I'll try and fix it tomorrow.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 17, 2007)

*i liked the one with the beard*

better


----------



## cybertect (Aug 17, 2007)

agreed


----------



## cybertect (Aug 17, 2007)

Afternoon to Brighton today. Mostly shopping, I only managed to take a few pics.

I've been finding the 70-200 f/2.8 a bit bulky a lot of the time, so I picked up a 2nd hand 85mm f/1.8 lens at the London Camera Exchange on the Strand yesterday, so that's what I had with me. 


"Sorry love, I don't go south of the sea front" 






A cliché for Stanley






Baby pic


----------



## baffled (Aug 17, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> better



I agree too, the second effort was rushed before going to work.

I definately need a new monitor too as on this work one the shadow/noise is more obvious  

I'll take my time and try again tomorrow.


----------



## chooch (Aug 17, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> quickly went back and tried again though it still needs work


that is kind of lovely


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 18, 2007)

*cybertect*

the taxi one. i like this.


----------



## alef (Aug 18, 2007)

Snapped this Paul Russell-ish moment yesterday:


----------



## baffled (Aug 18, 2007)

Sorry to spam with the same image but can someone tell me if I have gone too far with the cloning out of the shadow/noise, but I don't really want to be giving my mate pictures of his daughter with a beard


----------



## Skim (Aug 18, 2007)

Taken on the South Bank yesterday, without thinking too much about it. There's something about the geometry I'm happy with.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 18, 2007)

*baffled - thats*

the best one, the last one...no beard and quite quite stunning


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 18, 2007)

*london bridge*

found some old rope.


----------



## baffled (Aug 18, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> the best one, the last one...no beard and quite quite stunning



cheers.

Heres something I want to go back and reshoot but the weather has been dire


----------



## e19896 (Aug 18, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Snapped this Paul Russell-ish moment yesterday:




now i like this..


----------



## e19896 (Aug 18, 2007)

By gum, funny old life this.. i have been in sunny Rawmarsh for the last few days.. So i had an itch to take some images.. Plus take my own police watch for a wander, yes that's him with sony video cam and he even come and filmed me in The Blue Moon cafe.. Others are of the madness that is Sheffield on a Saturday in auguest and this time by the sea including a whole load of bible bashers.. Glad i got out though..more Reflections of moving Blackpool to Sheffield..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 18, 2007)

Hello again enumbers

I liked the first one of those ferris wheel pictures.  It places the wheel in its environment of the other buildings behind it.  Also there is better colour saturation than in the later pictures.

I think that if you have several similar shots of something you should take courage and make a decision as to which one you will present us with.  Good stuff though.

Edited to add:  I looked through you pictures on Flickr.  Some of them seem to be about half to one stop overexposed.  You might think about adjusting this - there should be a plus or minus option somewhere.


----------



## alef (Aug 18, 2007)

baffled -- I can relate to that "have I over-photoshopped this?" feeling. The longer I mess about with images the more I notice the manipulations both in my own and in others. Image looks fine to me, nice portrait. Also like the taxi shot.

e-numbers -- Thanks, it was a lucky find in an otherwise uneventful long walk with camera in hand. With your ferris wheel and clocktower images, can I suggest you edit harshly and only post your favourites? Having three very similar shots weakens rather than strengthens your presentation, IMHO.

ETA: Hokusai  beat me to saying the same thing...


----------



## baffled (Aug 18, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> baffled -- I can relate to that "have I over-photoshopped this?" feeling. The longer I mess about with images the more I notice the manipulations both in my own and in others. Image looks fine to me, nice portrait. Also like the taxi shot.



Cheers and while that taxi shot is indeed very good it alas is not mine, it's Cybertects.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 18, 2007)




----------



## e19896 (Aug 18, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Hello again enumbers
> 
> I liked the first one of those ferris wheel pictures.  It places the wheel in its environment of the other buildings behind it.  Also there is better colour saturation than in the later pictures.
> 
> ...



i gave three as a means of movement and regards Flickr it is there to ease my other projects and the 70 that are there come from over 200 edited down to the 70 you see and agreed if we are going to be up our backsides on this then you are right but as you know i like to present with little manipulation ive done that by the pentax k100d allready..


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

>



fuck me, that's quite quite bonkers Johnny, fantastic stuff


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 18, 2007)




----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 18, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> fuck me, that's quite quite bonkers Johnny, fantastic stuff


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 19, 2007)

the child looks demented as it eats blue ice cream, alrite.

stoned fool 

so what about my art zen?


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Paulie Tandoori said:
			
		

> the child looks demented as it eats blue ice cream, alrite.
> 
> stoned fool
> 
> so what about my art zen?





Just a snap of a kid pulling a funny face whilst eating ice-cream. So fucking what? I didn't click here to see someone else's fucking family snapshots. The Japanese tourist shot is yet another Japanese tourist shot. Hilarious! They look so out of place here in the united states of Canada.  

I haven't seen any art by you yet.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> The Japanese tourist shot is yet another Japanese tourist shot. Hilarious! They look so out of place here in the united states of Canada.  .



They're Chinese, and most likely citizens.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I didn't click here to see someone else's fucking family snapshots. .



Poor boy. Aren't we satisfying your expectations? Tell us what to do, so that we can please you more.

Signed,

_Anxious_.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any art by you yet.



Maybe once you make some yourself, you'll be able to recognize it when others do it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Maybe once you make some yourself, you'll be able to recognize it when others do it.



FFS  

I actually found Paulie Tandoori's balcony set quite interesting and artfully presented. The stuff you post here is simple snap shot photography. Tell me what I'm missing.

I suppose you could claim to be making some sort of comment on Canadian society by using very badly executed snap shot photography to reflect the disposable culture and lack of quality values in Canada today.

Seems to be everytime I open this thread it's full of pages of shyte posted by you spoiling the place


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Poor boy. Aren't we satisfying your expectations? Tell us what to do, so that we can please you more.
> 
> Signed,
> 
> _Anxious_.


----------



## alef (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> ...
> Seems to be everytime I open this thread it's full of pages of shyte posted by you spoiling the place



Everytime I open up this forum it's full of crap comments from yourself spoiling this place. You want less politeness? You want to know what people really think? You're full of shit. Your photos are shit. Your comments are shit. And I'm depressed that I'm now being dragged down to your level.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Everytime I open up this forum it's full of crap comments from yourself spoiling this place. You want less politeness? You want to know what people really think? You're full of shit. Your photos are shit. Your comments are shit. And I'm depressed that I'm now being dragged down to your level.




You take yourself far to seriously.

Personally I think a thread of pics alone without comments (good, bad and plain stupid) would be boring.

If I'm depressing you then simply put me on ignore. I really don't want to depress anyone. I may be full of shit and a shit photographer in your opinion, thankfully those with the money and respected knowledge think otherwise (some of them - not all obviously).

I'll fully admit to using this place to vent a little spleen at times. It's very useful for that


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 19, 2007)

Rain on a train on Friday


----------



## baffled (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Personally I think a thread of pics alone without comments (good, bad and plain stupid) would be boring.



See now I want to say something but.

A) I have not an artistic bone in my body

B) I am too reserved

C) I finished nights at 7am and have been drinking vodka red bulls ever since.

First of all Stan and Johnny need to sort out whatever latent feelings they have for each other before we can move forward  

Secondly, yes this thread is a softer option than the critique me one at the top but maybe a little self regulation wouldn't hurt? (maybe 1 or 2 shots per person a day?), if someone has shot a project or series then it would merit it's own thread anyway.

While posting images to an open forum lends itself to criticism that criticism should be constructive and not negative (polite or not is up to you).




Thirdly, this simple and somewhat rubbish post took nigh on an hour to compose thanks to alcohol and sleep deprevation.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 19, 2007)

Arrrgghhhhhhhhhh!

*jumps off cliff*







(he's just not my type)


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 19, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> (he's just not my type)



ageist!!! 

If I don't like someone's pictures I put them on Ignore. Simple as.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 19, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> Everytime I open up this forum it's full of crap comments from yourself spoiling this place. You want less politeness? You want to know what people really think? You're full of shit. Your photos are shit. Your comments are shit. And I'm depressed that I'm now being dragged down to your level.




alef this comment is erm out or order to be frank..


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 19, 2007)

Pie 1

I like _Rain on a train_ no. 3 particularly.


----------



## Skim (Aug 19, 2007)

*What a load of shit*






(Spotted in East Dulwich. No, I don't understand a word of it either.)


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

So, I'm sitting on the fast ferry out of Cherbourg, everybody's remarking on how flat the sea is, and there's a sunset coming up.






Trouble is, it's directly on our port side, and the windows are covered in salt spray. There's only a tiny bit of "outside" on the seacat type ferries, and each side of that is covered by a fine mesh door.

So this was taken by jamming the camera lens up close enough to the mesh that it just about doesn't show. The sea looks almost greasy, it's so flat - the sun was nowhere near as "red" as that, but I thought the photo came out pretty well. There's some evidence of camera shake on the full-sized image, which I was a bit surprised at, at 1/160sec exposure, but maybe I was holding the camera against the mesh door, which would have been vibrating with the engines *shrug*


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 19, 2007)

That is most interesting. The halation of the light around the sun makes it look as if there is a dip in the sea under the sun.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That is most interesting. The halation of the light around the sun makes it look as if there is a dip in the sea under the sun.


There was what looked a bit like a layer of haze on the horizon, but which hasn't really shown as haze in the photo...


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> That is most interesting. The halation of the light around the sun makes it look as if there is a dip in the sea under the sun.



In english I think he means the sun bends the horizon a bit in an opitcal illusion. 

Surprised you haven't cropped it something like this:


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

Marius said:
			
		

> In english I think he means the sun bends the horizon a bit in an opitcal illusion.
> 
> Surprised you haven't cropped it something like this:


Werl, I don't think I'm any photographical artist, really - it's normally Ms Pembrokestephen who spots the neat shots and has the ideas about framing and stuff - but I did consider cropping it, then thought that bit of framework on the right gave it a bit of perspective...

But part of the reason for posting a few pics here is to get some feedback like yours, and learn a bit. So thanks!


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Aug 19, 2007)

Halation is real, not an illusion.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2007)

Hocus Eye. said:
			
		

> Halation is real, not an illusion.



There is no spoon


----------



## Gromit (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> but I did consider cropping it, then thought that bit of framework on the right gave it a bit of perspective...



Maybe if it was on both sides but on one side only my anal desire for symmetry protests. But thats just me.  

You could leave the thing at the bottom though and it would add value. 

Forgot to add that I do really like the pic though


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

*3 more*

These were from Yves Rocher's garden thing at La Gacilly. The first one's a whole load of bamboo - I thought the texture of the stems was interesting, and the way it was really quite dark inside, but with lots of light outside.






Then I started playing with macro photography...





That took loads of shots to get right - just couldn't seem to get it to focus nicely. Got there in the end, though 





I was really pleased with these. I love that look of the object in close tight focus, with the background all blurred and out of focus. I took loads of shots of this blackberry plant (and ate quite a few of the blackberries, too  ), but only the really tight-in close up shots looked like anything other than a snap.

Camera's a Fujifilm S7000, absolutely no bells and whistles whatsoever, I use autofocus nearly all the time, and generally don't even bother getting cute with the manual settings...


----------



## e19896 (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

>



and with this i goto the pub been a fun day..


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

ICB said:
			
		

> Yep
> 
> That orange one is so big it was three shots wide as we passed it, I've seen bigger ships in and out of Portbury but never that close


Wait until the LNG tankers start coming in. We'll all need wide-angle lenses


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> You take yourself far to seriously.
> 
> Personally I think a thread of pics alone without comments (good, bad and plain stupid) would be boring.)



But that's what these 'big pics' threads are. Why do you think they're so popular, with so many more posts per day than the 'post a pic for the critics' thread: People like their pictures and want to show them off, but they're sensitive about someone coming along and raking them over the coals, for something that is just an enjoyable hobby for most.

If you want to impress everyone with your erudition on all things photographic, why not go back to the critics thread, and wait for someone or something to criticize. In the meantime, the rest of us just want to look at some photos.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

I think it's a shame that this has overtaken the critique thread, as that encourages you to think much more especially as a critic, but then I'm just as guilty of posting on here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

I'd be just as happy to post my stuff on either, except that this one doesn't oblige me to resize things from my usual 200k or so @ 800x600, or to put a link instead of a picture. I've always had the idea that the critics thread does.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 19, 2007)

could someone quote back mavis so I can see what he's just said? ta!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

AM I ON IGNORE?!


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 19, 2007)

wot?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> I think it's a shame that this has overtaken the critique thread, as that encourages you to think much more especially as a critic, but then I'm just as guilty of posting on here.



Nothing's stopping you from posting there


----------



## big eejit (Aug 19, 2007)

*Sand rivers on Crosby Beach:*


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Nothing's stopping you from posting there


Wot a relief!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Much prefer the uncropped version. The frame/bar and the reflection on the right give a nice point of reference. Without that it would be just another good sunset shot. As you said yourself; it adds perspective. It also adds much more. We know we're not on a beach for starters. Much more interesting this way. Far to easy to over simplify photographs. Trust your instinct.



I appear to be upsetting people again with my frank crap  

Sorry sensitive types. I like it here for the diversity. It's not nearly as sterile as the vast majority of photo forums. I suspect most here like it for the same reason. If I go off on a 'that's crap' binge you can all be rest assured that I honestly mean it. Why the fuck does that bother anyone? 

When someone posts a photograph that really makes me think I love it. There have been some stunningly good, original and unique photographs posted here. Paul Russell's recent shot I love. I'll bet he thought very little about what he was doing at the time, but he's been photographing good shots prolifically for some time. Learning subconsciously perhaps. Always looking to improve.

Photographs need to be talked about if you want to learn and progress (perhaps most here don't). You need to understand why things are crap and why things are good. Most importantly of all you need to be bold enough to open up your mind and not get so upset if someone doesn't see things your own way. It's a big world and we all view things differently.

Don't bother hiding behind false modesties. It will only hold you back. If you know you've got a good photograph then there is absolutely no reason to get upset by rude comments from a Mr Big Head like myself.

Then again, how many here have the bollocks to really say how and why a photograph works for them beyond 'ooooh - tis pretty'?

Very simply put me on ignore if you don't like me. I'll not be putting anyone on ignore because I like to get annoyed and react occasionally. It's a very healthy thing.

I would hate to see this place become like all the others.

That is all 



Right. I'm off to the Critique thread to really lay into something


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Photographs need to be talked about if you want to learn and progress (perhaps most here don't). You need to understand why things are crap and why things are good. Most importantly of all you need to be bold enough to open up your mind and not get so upset if someone doesn't see things your own way. It's a big world and we all view things differently.:



I agree with the last part about opening one's mind, and seeing things differently, but I'm not sure about the first part. I think some things are crap, but in the end, there's no big book, with all the 'crap' things enumerated on yellow pages, and all the 'not crap' things listed on pink pages. 

It truly is in the eye of the beholder, and in the end, stanley, all you can do is explain why something works or not for _you_. Yes, you can explain some of the basic elements of photography, but after that, it's all down to personal vision or motivation.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> ...Yes, you can explain some of the basic elements of photography, but after that, it's all down to personal vision or motivation.



Basic elements  


Just about sums you and your basic rule book up


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Basic elements
> 
> 
> Just about sums you and your basic rule book up



Yeah, the rule of thirds and suchlike.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yeah, the rule of thirds and suchlike.



Yep. Very basic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Yep. Very basic.



Didn't take you long to google that, did it?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

p.s. when was the last time you posted a photo?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Didn't take you long to google that, did it?


What do you mean?


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 19, 2007)

he means _look at ME I'm such a schmuck_.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Didn't take you long to google that, did it?



I know all the rules and theories like I know the back of my hand. I just choose to ignore them because all they are good for is stifling creativity in the name of safety.


Think I posted a new photograph about Three whole weeks ago. Have been mostly painting and 3D (CGI) modelling recently. Collect films and scans from the lab second week in September. Promise I'll post a few here for you to try and understand


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I know all the rules and theories like I know the back of my hand. I just choose to ignore them because all they are good for is stifling creativity in the name of safety.
> 
> )



If you've discarded the rules, then what is it that you plan to teach people in order for them to stop taking crap photos?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

I've been wanting to say this for ages. Not using the rule of thirds is all well and good. Rules should be used like medicine - as and when appropriate.

However not knowing the rule is a bigger problem, and if you don't, you should look it up now. It might stop your photos looking like they were taken by a lazy man in a chair.

I lurrrrrve good composition and anyone who can't be arsed must be slain


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> If you've discarded the rules, then what is it that you plan to teach people in order for them to stop taking crap photos?




Erm...

Ignore conventions. Trust your own instinct.

Actually no. Once you've learned the rules and theories thoroughly, only then can you learn to ignore them. I'm not planning to teach anyone anything BTW.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> However not knowing the rule is a bigger problem, and if you don't, you should look it up now. It might stop your photos looking like they were taken by a lazy man in a chair.
> ...



Ooooh. I agree and disagree. Some people just have a natural inclination and understanding - they really don't need to think about it ever. 

Others would be well advised to learn and understand, but don't take it as gospel. If what you see works for you and breaks all the rules - go with it. Don't revert to the safe option.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 19, 2007)

the thirds rule is an affectation escaped of badly translated manuals for digicams...not a fkkn rule at all.

The Golden Section is a theory.

And then even that...and _genres_...are six-form/Foundation Art College wannabee misnomers.

*P*hotography has it's own form of pictorial compositional "guides"


They are S , T, Y, P, O, V, and a couple of others I ferget.

Just thought I'd _share_. 

Off to watch Wishmaster I_IV   ..NN X


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yeah, the rule of thirds and suchlike.


Going on what I know from my musical experience - roughly "learn the rules, then you can exercise your own judgement about when you want to break them", I try very hard with that rule of thirds. If I have the time to frame a shot nicely, I'll try it in a rule-of-thirds way, then see how it works if I bend/tweak/mess around with it a bit.

Maybe I need to start posting a few efforts to the critique thread, not this one...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 19, 2007)

I was scanning some of my old negatives and thought I'd have a play with them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> Going on what I know from my musical experience - roughly "learn the rules, then you can exercise your own judgement about when you want to break them", I try very hard with that rule of thirds. If I have the time to frame a shot nicely, I'll try it in a rule-of-thirds way, then see how it works if I bend/tweak/mess around with it a bit.
> ...



I agree. I read all the books years ago, and went out to practice the rules. As time went by, I began just seeing things in a certain way, then shooting. Sometimes I like to deliberately do something contrary to what the rules would dictate, just to see what I'll get.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

>



We've got those too...






...or something similar.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Very nice.

As sensitive as ever. Really don't understand why your flower photographs hit the spot for me. Maybe that's what I like about them. You appreciate flowers on a level I cannot for real, but your photographs communicate beautifully.

Or, summat along those lines 


e2a; Bernie Gunther's shots obviously. The second one is particularly nice. Obvious, but nice. Actually, I think I prefer the first one.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> We've got those too...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Lacks sensitivity and understanding of the subject. A little.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Whatever you say, stanley.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

Thanks Stanley 

For me the photography thing is primarily about communicating on the subject of gardening, which as you know I'm quite keen on. Or at least that's why I got into it in the first place. I've sort of got the bug now and although I don't often show them here, I do experiment a fair bit in other areas these days.

JC, I think your tall pink flowers are different to mine. Not sure what either of them are. Mine were a present from my mum (which probably means they're some sort of horrible invasive monster she had too many of in her garden)


----------



## mauvais (Aug 19, 2007)

Dr_Herbz said:
			
		

> I was scanning some of my old negatives and thought I'd have a play with them.
> ...


Don't like the inclusion of the Sandisk card but otherwise these are pretty interesting and innovative. What did you do?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> JC, I think your tall pink flowers are different to mine. Not sure what either of them are. Mine were a present from my mum (which probably means they're some sort of horrible invasive monster she had too many of in her garden)



I think yours are lupins, but on second look, pretty sure mine aren't.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

No, they're not lupins, I tried to grow lupins before but the snails eat them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

I asked my wife: she agreed they aren't lupins.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

My wife says it's loosestrife.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

Yours or mine?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 19, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> Yours or mine?



Yours.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Aug 19, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Don't like the inclusion of the Sandisk card but otherwise these are pretty interesting and innovative. What did you do?



Cheers, mauvais... I'm not too keen on the sandisk one either but it kinda tells a story so I thought I'd include it.

I sat everything on white card, backlit the negatives with a second flash and shot at f4  between 2 and 3 seconds to over exposure everything. The first and second were then inverted in photoshop and the last one was done with a lightroom negative filter.

I love messing with light and this digi SLR allows me to play, it's the best toy I've ever bought. It gives me the opportunity to experiment without the expense of film.

e2a, sorry, the first one was taken at f1.4 and 1.6 second exposure


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Yours.


 Yep, just reading up on it. Seems like it's quite invasive in North America due to lack of predators, but a fairly standard wildflower over here.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)

Sadly, it's rained all weekend, so I was reduced to taking more gratuitous cat pictures.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 19, 2007)




----------



## alef (Aug 20, 2007)

In terms of photography, I prefer dogs. They just seem more expressive.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 20, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> In terms of photography, I prefer dogs. They just seem more expressive.



Is that a comment on Bernie's cat picture?


----------



## alef (Aug 20, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Is that a comment on Bernie's cat picture?



Bernie's cat pics are OK. My comment is more on cat photography in general. Maybe it's because I'm a failed cat owner and prefer dogs, but I certainly find dog portraits more interetsing than cat portraits. 

Monkeys, especially chimps, really win:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjutabor/213359054/


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 20, 2007)

Well, I've got a couple of days off next week, so let's hope for better weather. 

Cat pics are good for lens testing due to the fur details etc (new lens, shit weather = frustration) but it's not something I'm particularly proud of.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 20, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> In terms of photography, I prefer dogs. They just seem more expressive.



I find dogs are camera shy. The moment you get a camera out they'll all of a sudden stop behaving the way they were (the way you wanted) and either leg it or look sheepish.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 20, 2007)

*One *

There are some real good images here leaving all the negative to one side:

*Two*
Dogs are a shy or know there images is to be taken gizmo who sometimes lives with me is very much like this but i got him last week in full action:






Aint he fucking grand?


----------



## cybertect (Aug 20, 2007)

mauvais said:
			
		

> Don't like the inclusion of the Sandisk card but otherwise these are pretty interesting and innovative.



Aye. Playful fun.  

Some more London pics from the end of last week.






I finally managed to have my camera with me when in the vicinity of the British Museum


----------



## mauvais (Aug 20, 2007)

What lenses did you use? You've got a full frame DSLR, right?


----------



## cybertect (Aug 20, 2007)

Yep, a 5D.

The first two were the Canon 15mm f/2.8 fisheye - partially defished with Fisheye-Hemi.

The second pair were taken with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 20, 2007)

how the fuck have you done this i have done this is gimp but i guess you have used a camera etc..


----------



## alef (Aug 20, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> how the fuck have you done this i have done this is gimp but i guess you have used a camera etc..



15mm lens (fisheye) is mentioned above.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 20, 2007)

Yep. Similar shot from from a lower viewpoint without any de-fishing.


----------



## pembrokestephen (Aug 20, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Yep. Similar shot from from a lower viewpoint without any de-fishing.


I'm struggling to separate my blown-awayness about the architecture from my blown-awayness with the photo...!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 20, 2007)

Thanks. It was for things like this that I wanted a fisheye.

It is an awesome piece of engineering (refers Stanley to previous thread about use of computers in design making the impossible possible).


----------



## johey24 (Aug 20, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> *One *
> 
> 
> Aint he fucking grand?



fucking grand, indeed.


----------



## chooch (Aug 20, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> I'm struggling to separate my blown-awayness about the architecture from my blown-awayness with the photo...!


From experience, I reckon it's really hard to take a genuinely bad photo in there.


----------



## pogofish (Aug 20, 2007)

pembrokestephen said:
			
		

> I'm struggling to separate my blown-awayness about the architecture from my blown-awayness with the photo...!



Try walking in there with a stumping hangover, on the hottest day of the year up to then - It all drifted away nicely!


----------



## pogofish (Aug 21, 2007)

Bridge of Gairn at Gairnshiel.


----------



## ICB (Aug 21, 2007)

pogofish said:
			
		

> Bridge of Gairn at Gairnshiel.



Nice, reminds me of the one in Brief Encounter that there was a hunt for a few years back, turned out to be Middle Fell Bridge over Langdale Beck.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 21, 2007)

You know not being big headed or nowt but since getting a proper dslr i have moved in leaps and bounds and i feel well happy with this. Taken today as part of a project i have given myself named mundane aspects of evryday life it was taken in Doncaster and the info is this

Camera:  	Pentax K100D
Exposure: 	0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: 	f/4.5
Focal Length: 	40 mm
Focal Length: 	400mm
ISO Speed: 	400
Exposure Bias: 	0/10 EV
Flash: 	Flash did not fire

Enjoy..


----------



## moose (Aug 21, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

>


That one does spooky things when I scroll up and down the page - the inner 'rings' of the roof seem to rotate


----------



## e19896 (Aug 23, 2007)




----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 23, 2007)

That third one is cool.


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 23, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> You know not being big headed or nowt but since getting a proper dslr i have moved in leaps and bounds and i feel well happy with this. Taken today as part of a project i have given myself named mundane aspects of evryday life it was taken in Doncaster and the info is this
> 
> Camera:  	Pentax K100D
> Exposure: 	0.017 sec (1/60)
> ...



I really like that one too.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 23, 2007)




----------



## Tankus (Aug 23, 2007)

Originally Posted by e19896 .... I like that one too


----------



## Tankus (Aug 23, 2007)




----------



## barney_pig (Aug 23, 2007)

holiday snaps
 we had a storm roll in off the atlantic 
 no safe swimming but beautiful seas
 I hoe these do some justice to it


----------



## Tankus (Aug 23, 2007)

heh lurve the drama 

A bit more tranquil 

The Thames


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 24, 2007)

barney_pig said:
			
		

> holiday snaps
> we had a storm roll in off the atlantic
> no safe swimming but beautiful seas
> I hoe these do some justice to it
> ]



Great pics.


----------



## baffled (Aug 24, 2007)

A quick Baffled is bored abstracty shot.


----------



## baffled (Aug 24, 2007)

I would imagine most bored males sat infront of a pc would resort to "_knocking one out_" of a different variety.

Me I start "_knocking out_" random pictures of walls and blinds.






Needs to be reshot when the sunset is favourable as it's a little soft.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 24, 2007)

Rain showers over the Tuscan coast this morning.


----------



## baffled (Aug 24, 2007)

Further exploring the use of shadows.


----------



## alef (Aug 24, 2007)

e-numbers -- My general belief is that getting fancy kit is over-rated but you've clearly proved me wrong. You've seriously improved with your new dSLR, these are best pics by a long way.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 24, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> e-numbers -- My general belief is that getting fancy kit is over-rated but you've clearly proved me wrong. You've seriously improved with your new dSLR, these are best pics by a long way.



Hey, guess what? I disagree  

I'm concerned that e-numbers is becoming a bit of a technocrat. He's lost the empathy for his subject ATM. It will undoubtedly return when he gets it out of his system though  

However, he'll never attain the graphic technocracity of Baffled. League of his own this graphically obsessed photo merchant   You'd win by a mile in a corporate stock library contest


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 24, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Rain showers over the Tuscan coast this morning.
> 
> ...



I like this lots. And, now I've just slated others for being technocrats I can't help but ask what camera, lens, exposure. Some serious wobble in those chimneys on the lens periphery. Not a bad thing from a £200 35mm SLR with standard lens. Unacceptable from anything more IMO. Although, I do like it.


----------



## baffled (Aug 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> However, he'll never attain the graphic technocracity of Baffled. League of his own this graphically obsessed photo merchant   You'd win by a mile in a corporate stock library contest



Thanks I think  

Those shots of mine were literally the product of a bored man waiting to be dealt a decent poker hand and shooting his surroundings


----------



## cybertect (Aug 24, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I like this lots. And, now I've just slated others for being technocrats I can't help but ask what camera, lens, exposure. Some serious wobble in those chimneys on the lens periphery. Not a bad thing from a £200 35mm SLR with standard lens. Unacceptable from anything more IMO. Although, I do like it.



[peeks at EXIF Data]

Canon Digital IXUS i

1/800 sec, f/2.8, focal length 6.4mm.

Flash did not fire


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 25, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> [peeks at EXIF Data]
> 
> Canon Digital IXUS i
> 
> ...





Well, that's forgivable   I sort of like the wind swept look.


Nice. Threatened to do that here in Granada tonight. We waited with full expectation and baited breath. Didn't happen. Rain all around, blue skies above. Think it must be a good Three months since we last saw rain. I suspect the reservoirs are getting a bit critical by now.

Scorchio forecast for the foreseeable future.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 25, 2007)

You can have some of our rain with my blessing.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 25, 2007)

Very refreshing  

'More' London looks pretty busy these days  

A relatively quiet back water when I was living in Borough. 

I'm going to take a shower now to get the full effect  


FUCK! I WANT RAIN.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 25, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> I like this lots. And, now I've just slated others for being technocrats I can't help but ask what camera, lens, exposure. Some serious wobble in those chimneys on the lens periphery. Not a bad thing from a £200 35mm SLR with standard lens. Unacceptable from anything more IMO. Although, I do like it.



5 year old canon ixus i.
My little sketchbook.







more from a silly camera soon....


----------



## Skim (Aug 25, 2007)

I'm continuing to collect net curtains. Such twee things fascinate me. In their drabness there is a mystery as to what lies behind the lacy subterfuge...


----------



## e19896 (Aug 25, 2007)

oh my lord take cover Stan is going to shout more bloody graphs..

others enjoy..


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 25, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> I'm continuing to collect net curtains. Such twee things fascinate me. In their drabness there is a mystery as to what lies behind the lacy subterfuge...




I like these & the idea.
Keep expanding it.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 25, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> [peeks at EXIF Data]
> 
> 1/800 sec, f/2.8, focal length 6.4mm.



Actually, that's reminded me to get my arse in gear & get a decent snappy that has some kind of control over exposure. 
The ixus is/was a nice little snappy for it's time & price, but even on it's very limited 'M' setting, still takes an exposure like that  

<starts 'what camera' thread No. 3456>


----------



## Skim (Aug 25, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> I like these & the idea.
> Keep expanding it.



Thanks. I like the challenge of making something interesting out of the mundane. Window reflections can be a bit of a problem, although I'll try to make them work to my advantage, as with the curtain/bunting one.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 25, 2007)

I know there's some antipathy to photos of graffiti on here but I like htis one I took today:


----------



## Firky (Aug 25, 2007)

Don't like doing photos of family and stuff but I was asked to take a few today so...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 25, 2007)

Orange Woman Unimpressed by Drunk Man


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 25, 2007)

Street Artist


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 25, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Don't like doing photos of family and stuff but I was asked to take a few today so...



did you do any with duct tape?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 25, 2007)

Matthew Street


----------



## big eejit (Aug 25, 2007)

Good shots Bernie. Make me feel quite homesick even tho I haven't lived there for 20 years!


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 25, 2007)

Why thank you 

Some more here if you want to get all nostalgic ...


----------



## big eejit (Aug 25, 2007)

Cheers Bernie. I'll have a look later. In the meantime here's one of my daughter attempting to break at pool in the local pub:


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 25, 2007)

Heh, that's a good one


----------



## alef (Aug 25, 2007)

Beautiful. I'm with Bernie, it's a cracker.




			
				big eejit said:
			
		

> Cheers Bernie. I'll have a look later. In the meantime here's one of my daughter attempting to break at pool in the local pub:


----------



## treefrog (Aug 25, 2007)

Seaplane moored outside the IMAX cinema, Glasgow.


----------



## indigo4 (Aug 25, 2007)

*big eeeeeee + firky*

big - e - your daughter one, i love it, gorgeous..

firky - as ever fantastic.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 25, 2007)

My other half yesterday after having her hair cut:





A few snaps from the local community farm today:


----------



## Firky (Aug 25, 2007)

indigo4 said:
			
		

> firky - as ever fantastic.



Ta! 50mm prime @ f4  focus on the eyes mmm so sharp

nikkor lenses are made of teh win


----------



## Dhimmi (Aug 26, 2007)

Like this one because despite it's unusual subject it's just so mundane. 





Whenever anyone gets too serious at these games there's aways someone ready to take the piss.  





Happy geezer.





A nice portrait of youth I think.


----------



## Firky (Aug 26, 2007)

don't you ever get people asking wtf you are doing?


----------



## Dhimmi (Aug 26, 2007)

What do you mean?


----------



## Firky (Aug 26, 2007)

running around with guns and that, you'd get ya head kicked in around here


----------



## Dhimmi (Aug 26, 2007)

Nah, it's all on private property out of public view. Forty cars drive in and six or seven hours later they all drive out. They might hear the occassional bang from a pyro but typically they drive past none the wiser. 





See? Plenty of room...

Have a butchers;
www.shadowopzairsoft.co.uk/


----------



## Firky (Aug 26, 2007)

Looks cool but I still prefer shooting me mates with cotton buds in an air rifle


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2007)

Bike 





Bikes





Sign


----------



## Firky (Aug 26, 2007)

very different photos from you bernie!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2007)

big eejit said:
			
		

> Cheers Bernie. I'll have a look later. In the meantime here's one of my daughter attempting to break at pool in the local pub:



Good one.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2007)




----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> very different photos from you bernie!


 Well, there are only so many half-melted flower pics a person can stand to take without trying something slightly different. 

Normal service will be resumed soon though


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 26, 2007)

Bernie Gunther said:
			
		

> <snip> Normal service will be resumed soon though


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2007)

immortal


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 26, 2007)

broken wings

both toying with ideas for the texture competition, but I'm not sure about them I'm going to try and get some better ones


----------



## big eejit (Aug 26, 2007)

What the hell are they?


----------



## Skim (Aug 26, 2007)

I think I'm losing it a bit now.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 26, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> I think I'm losing it a bit now.


Hahaha! Brilliant!


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 26, 2007)

Some great recent stuff. Skim - love the piggy  

A slideshow of some pancam (plastic panoramic trashcam) work: *the end of days* http://flickr.com/photos/buca/sets/72157601680069765/show/


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 26, 2007)

My lovely pregnant girlfriend


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 26, 2007)

and another


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 26, 2007)

one more


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 26, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> broken wings
> 
> both toying with ideas for the texture competition, but I'm not sure about them I'm going to try and get some better ones



That is actually very lovely.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> .



Yes!


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 26, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> one more



She appears to be one of those women that pregnancy agrees with. Best of luck with the birth and those first few exciting weeks.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 27, 2007)

big eejit said:
			
		

> What the hell are they?




it is a rather large old bug from a Victorian specimen cabinet. It is crumbling away and the larger wings and most of the legs have broken off.  Still very beautiful IMO

It is photographed on a very posh bedspread by Coco De Mer, which just happens to have an incredible texture. 



Thanks Stanley

I like it but something about the composition is displeasing to me.  I might just start again with the same image, or I might just try to take some more shots of the bug tomorrow.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 27, 2007)

I love the pig and the rashers, took me a while to realise, it's a little plastic pig innit?  

and Blagsta, your gf looks radiant


----------



## Skim (Aug 27, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> one more




I like that one best for the Ready-Brek glow round her hair and shoulders  




			
				Louloubelle said:
			
		

> it's a little plastic pig innit?



On the contrary – I am breeding micro-pigs for photographic experiments


----------



## big eejit (Aug 27, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> it is a rather large old bug from a Victorian specimen cabinet. It is crumbling away and the larger wings and most of the legs have broken off.  Still very beautiful IMO
> 
> It is photographed on a very posh bedspread by Coco De Mer, which just happens to have an incredible texture.



Good stuff. It looks like a crashed spaceship of the Insect People from a lost Flash Gordon episode.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 27, 2007)

big eejit said:
			
		

> Good stuff. It looks like a crashed spaceship of the Insect People from a lost Flash Gordon episode.




What a compliment!  

I luuuuurve the old Flash Gordon series with all my <3

Thank you 


That photo of your daughter is terrific BTW, the look of seriousness and concentration on her face is wonderful, a great capture


----------



## Firky (Aug 27, 2007)

I love the way louloubell is mad as a march hare but utterly charming. A rare gift.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 27, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> broken wings
> 
> both toying with ideas for the texture competition, but I'm not sure about them I'm going to try and get some better ones



These are amazing.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Some great recent stuff. Skim - love the piggy
> 
> A slideshow of some pancam (plastic panoramic trashcam) work: *the end of days* http://flickr.com/photos/buca/sets/72157601680069765/show/



I realised the slideshow more than likely won't work if you aren't logged into flickr, boo.

Here's my fave from the set:


----------



## Firky (Aug 27, 2007)

Spot the mistake:


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Spot the mistake:



Which one?


----------



## Firky (Aug 27, 2007)

Yeah I can't make my mind up if I like this or not. I *hate* being in the countryside


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 27, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Yeah I can't make my mind up if I like this or not. I *hate* being in the countryside



I was joking, sort of 

For me, it's a bit dark, but I guess you can't up the exposure in ps because of the area of blown-out highlight already in the sky. For a boringly good technical shot I suppose an ND filter should have been used to even out exposure. But that wouldn't really matter to me if there was something more of interest in the shot. I do, however, like how the grasses are blowing to the left, whereas from the composition of the picture I somehow expect them to be blowing to the right. Weird.


----------



## Firky (Aug 27, 2007)

I Took it because the hill (Simonside) falls to the right but hte grasses were to the left, then the field above that (with the sheep in) falls to the right, then the next field to the left, then right, then left again... spooky how you noticed that too.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 27, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> What a compliment!
> 
> I luuuuurve the old Flash Gordon series with all my <3
> 
> ...



Thanks to you too Louloubelle (and others who like the photo). She makes a great subject.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Spot the mistake:



You're not in London?


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 27, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> You're not in London?



He is really - that's Clapham Common


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2007)

Robster970 said:
			
		

> He is really - that's Clapham Common



Could I get there on the Clapham omnibus?


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 27, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Spot the mistake:




Complete overkill on contrast without paying any attention to yr midtones


----------



## Firky (Aug 27, 2007)

Can I ask what you did, simply used the dodge / burn tool more aggressively than myself? Looks much better. I was trying to create a stormy look to it but couldn't get it quite right.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 27, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Hey, guess what? I disagree
> 
> I'm concerned that e-numbers is becoming a bit of a technocrat. He's lost the empathy for his subject ATM. It will undoubtedly return when he gets it out of his system though



You know you are right i have lost the empathy for me subject however i needed to upgrade as i need the work but in the meantime i have become a technocrat you should have seen me today and now i feel anger because not one is as good as i was takeing on the old fuji and ou she comes for a few days need to go back to the old school..


----------



## Robster970 (Aug 27, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Could I get there on the Clapham omnibus?



Yes indeed. Once can alight at Trafalger Square sir.......


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 27, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> Can I ask what you did, simply used the dodge / burn tool more aggressively than myself? Looks much better. I was trying to create a stormy look to it but couldn't get it quite right.



Just had a quick play with Shadow/Highlight tool in Image adjustments then desaturated overall a bit, resaturated the greens some & then desaturated the cyan & plopped on a warming 85 photo filter @ 45%


----------



## alef (Aug 27, 2007)

I've just starting to use shadow/highlight adjust recently by trial & error. Seeing what you've done has sent me to the help files to read up on it, definitely will be using it more. I'm also recently hooked on photo filters, now add them on to almost all of my images.

The more I play with photoshop the more I think I'm seeing photos differently...




			
				Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Just had a quick play with Shadow/Highlight tool in Image adjustments then desaturated overall a bit, resaturated the greens some & then desaturated the cyan & plopped on a warming 85 photo filter @ 45%


----------



## e19896 (Aug 27, 2007)

The technocrat has had enough i spent far to long on takeing this then when home fucking about in gimp but i do like..






Poor friend stand still look like this etc for over half an hour i had him stand there but i like..


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 27, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> [
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 !!!


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 27, 2007)

e19896 said:
			
		

> The technocrat has had enough i spent far to long on takeing this then when home fucking about in gimp but i do like..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That's better  

You're getting back to the roots. Fuck Gimp off. Fuck it all off. Just go with what you actually see.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 27, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> That's better
> 
> You're getting back to the roots. Fuck Gimp off. Fuck it all off. Just go with what you actually see.



You are right but photoshop has somehow come into my hands where is the dlsr..


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 28, 2007)

alef said:
			
		

> I've just starting to use shadow/highlight adjust recently by trial & error. Seeing what you've done has sent me to the help files to read up on it, definitely will be using it more. I'm also recently hooked on photo filters, now add them on to almost all of my images.
> 
> The more I play with photoshop the more I think I'm seeing photos differently...



Use it subtally though. I think of these features as more of a little helping hand, & for example use the photo filters according to my traditional colour knowledge. Keep an eye on your histo in levels when working with the Shad/H'light, because if you over do it it can knock out a fair bit of info.

i.e: There's still no substitute for a properly exposed original RAW file.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2007)

Looks nicer larger


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 28, 2007)

Here's some seascapes in Italy last week from the silly camera.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

Here's some more from me 











thanks for the really nice comments, I really appreciate it 

x


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2007)

They really are fabulous Louloubelle  The fabric the fly is on makes it - perfect for the texture theme imo


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> They really are fabulous Louloubelle  The fabric the fly is on makes it - perfect for the texture theme imo




Thanks 

I so much want one of those bed covers but they cost £600  

eta

they used to cost £600, now they don't stock them anymore 

further eta

I didn't notice at the time, but the design is actually called a 'penis crest' and it is, well, a kind of giant penis thing LOL


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

and another


----------



## baffled (Aug 28, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Here's some seascapes in Italy last week from the silly camera.



Superb  

An abstract from me, to be known hence as *The Migraine Inducer*


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 28, 2007)

Been scanning a set of negs from Héloïse today. I got a couple of extension tubes for her and tried them out on a very windy day on some trees:





Sildeshow of all eight


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 28, 2007)

Louloubelle, what an excellent theme. Powerful photos.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> Louloubelle, what an excellent theme. Powerful photos.




thank you 

I'll get a big head at this rate 

just one more for the moment, this one isn't exactly how I wanted it but I hope I get the idea across.  It's called Dusk Eats Them All


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Been scanning a set of negs from Héloïse today. I got a couple of extension tubes for her and tried them out on a very windy day on some trees:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




very nice

at first glance just photos of leaves but they have a clean, elegant simplicity of form, light and shade that you make look effortless but that must have taken some real thought.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 28, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

>



I love this one too

The contrast between the subject matter in the foreground is quite striking


----------



## japanese001 (Aug 29, 2007)

*Full moon*


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 29, 2007)

....

edited as I can see your photo now

nice shot  

the moon was looking stunning last night, was it taken then?


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 29, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> very nice
> 
> at first glance just photos of leaves but they have a clean, elegant simplicity of form, light and shade that you make look effortless but that must have taken some real thought.



Thank you  

The picture below illustrates what I was trying to do the best. The evening light was bloody amazing in the church yard across from my house, so I spent a whole roll just on a couple of trees. Of course, the whole light coming through leaves thing is so cliché ... blah blah blah ... I know that, but I wanted to produce beautiful things for myself. No more, no less.





The bokeh, my god, the bokeh. I wanted to see what this lens was truly capapble of, not having really done any shallow dof stuff with Héloïse since she came to live here. And I wanted to get to grips with the extension tubes I bought too. This was with the no longer produced 20 extension tube, and it was perfect. 

Of course, it was stupidly windy, and the leaves were shooting in and out of frame constantly, so to say I got 8 really cracking shots out of 9 (I'd already taken 3 shots of something else on that roll) is pretty good going. 

I'm loaded up with colour film now though, so I'm going to go and do the same again, probably tonight when the sun starts dipping again. Hopefully the wind won't be so awkward


----------



## cybertect (Aug 29, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Been scanning a set of negs from Héloïse today. I got a couple of extension tubes for her and tried them out on a very windy day on some trees:



They're gorgeous, the two you posted here in particular, though I also like the third one in the series.

I'm also enjoying Louloubelle's macro studies hugely. 'Poetic' seems to spring to mind as an appropriate adjective, though they also have a somewhat disturbing quality to them, like a David Lynch film


----------



## e19896 (Aug 29, 2007)

on me way....


----------



## cybertect (Aug 29, 2007)

What I did on Bank Holiday Monday: Guildford to Brighton run with a bunch of Dub nuts, chilling out at Stanmer Park.

The recently purchased 85mm f/1.8 lens is rapidly becoming my firm favourite.


























Coastal light after 3pm seems decidedly different to what I'm used to in London.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 29, 2007)

Lovely smooth lens that one. 

Light does seem to have different qualities depending on where you are, nevermind the time of day too. Can take a bit of getting used to I imagine.

You're right about Louloubelle's series - poetic and disturbing. A great stillness to them. The shiny metallics of the wings and the fabric suggest that more sinister aspect, not sure why. Would look great scrolling through them on a black background.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 29, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> The recently purchased 85mm f/1.8 lens is rapidly becoming my firm favourite.



Lovely lenes - 'specially with the 1.8.
85's always been my 2nd favourite after the 50 on 35m

Always like your pictures, you've got a really gentle way of showing the VW scene, not an obvious aproach to it at all.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 29, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> I'm also enjoying Louloubelle's macro studies hugely. 'Poetic' seems to spring to mind as an appropriate adjective, though they also have a somewhat disturbing quality to them, like a David Lynch film



Wahey!  So for I've got a 30s Flash Gordon and a David Lynch comparison!  Is chuffed. Thank you so much  All I need is a Jan Švankmajer and I'll have a royal flush 






			
				Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> You're right about Louloubelle's series - poetic and disturbing. A great stillness to them. The shiny metallics of the wings and the fabric suggest that more sinister aspect, not sure why. Would look great scrolling through them on a black background.



I need to rearrange my galleries, lots of old stuff there that I need to remove as I've moved on since then

You can scroll through them here

http://www.pbase.com/louloubelle/dreams_and_nightmares_



I'm coming to the point of working through the catastrophic deaths and events of recent years and I've been using photography to do it.  

I had this revelation in a series of dreams that I have  to photograph dead things in domestic settings and to thus make them immortal. 

Just after I realised that I had to photograph dead things I became friends with a woman who was similarly obsessed and who had a freezer full of dead creatures, all cat / RTA casualties or donated from park keepers. 

She's a sculptor / taxidermist and uninterested in photography. 

We had a bit of a situation after she showed me 2 mahooosive fish she'd had in the freezer for a few years, they looked like they were made of wood, but were in fact just frozen.  We put them on her very expensive bedspread and I started to photograph them but after a few minutes I noticed this rather unpleasant smell.  The fish were defrosting and were leaving a malodourus oily deposit on her insanely expensive bed cover.  

I moved them immediately and was very worried, but she seemed relatively unconcerned about it.  *still feels guilty*


cybertect, I love this one






to my(possibly warped) mind it looks like it's been taken from the 'shoulder' of the car as a predatory beast with the girl as prey and it invites the viewer to imagine that you are also a predatory car, possibly as part of a pack.

Or something


----------



## cybertect (Aug 29, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Always like your pictures, you've got a really gentle way of showing the VW scene, not an obvious aproach to it at all.



Ta. I get a lot of comments within the 'scene' that I capture the atmosphere of shows and meets. I think it's because I often take care to include people in the composition rather than just focus on the cars alone. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to shout "No, don't move out of the way, I wanted you in the picture just where you were" just as I was about to press the shutter 

I'm finding myself spoiled by the 15mm fisheye and the 85mm. Now I'm hankering after a decent wide rectilinear prime...  




			
				Louloubelle said:
			
		

> to my(possibly warped) mind it looks like it's been taken from the 'shoulder' of the car as a predatory beast with the girl as prey and it invites the viewer to imagine that you are also a predatory car, possibly as part of a pack.
> 
> Or something



Possibly the most original comment I've had on a picture of mine, and I think I even get what you're on about. 

[the car belongs to the girl in the bokeh, FWIW]


----------



## Skim (Aug 29, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> I'm coming to the point of working through the catastrophic deaths and events of recent years and I've been using photography to do it.
> 
> I had this revelation in a series of dreams that I have  to photograph dead things in domestic settings and to thus make them immortal.



That's a superb idea. 

I wish I could photograph what I see and experience in my dreams. I hate waking up from dreams, because I've been immersed in a series of intense, beautiful worlds and then it's suddenly gone and I'm back in the real world.

Keep going with the theme, it's intriguing.


----------



## franklin1777 (Aug 29, 2007)

Here are two shots I took over the bank holiday weekend:


----------



## cybertect (Aug 29, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> I wish I could photograph what I see and experience in my dreams. I hate waking up from dreams, because I've been immersed in a series of intense, beautiful worlds and then it's suddenly gone and I'm back in the real world.



I barely ever remember my dreams for more than a few seconds after I wake


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 29, 2007)

Thanks to this thread and wiki I now know what bokeh means

When I first saw the word I thought it was some kind of neme like teh or something   


thanks for the encouraging words skim  

I've long admired your work and still remember how impressed I was with your fabulous shot of the inside of a washing machine  

As well as dead things I've been obsessed with the small details of texture for some time and I think that it's partly because, as a pre-verbal child, I vaguely remember finding the regular patterns and textures of blankets and carpets both reassuring and disturbing.  Reassuring because they held me when my mother wasn't there and gave me something to look at and disturbing because I had to look at them for too long when my mother didn't come.

There's something about deeply furrowed textures that is both reassuring and scary, partly they are soft and multidimensional and therefore a source of potential comfort but also you don't know what might be hiding in them, insects or other nasties. 

Also, woven textures are the points at which threads intersect and meet and they have often been a metaphor for the process of thinking, something which can be both reassuring and terrifying, especially when you are very little.


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 29, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> The picture below illustrates what I was trying to do the best.


Great shots!


Here's a few from the weekend.


----------



## japanese001 (Aug 29, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> edited as I can see your photo now
> 
> ...


It probably is to look at the same moon in the world?

*Actuality and miniature of the Kyoto station*


----------



## big eejit (Aug 29, 2007)

Great pic. That's one hell of a structure.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

> Great shots!
> 
> 
> Here's a few from the weekend.
> ...



What is that place?


----------



## cybertect (Aug 29, 2007)

japanese001 said:
			
		

> It probably is to look at the same moon in the world?



Is there a tilt/shift lens involved with those, or Photoshop?

Very cool pics, either way.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 29, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Is there a tilt/shift lens involved with those, or Photoshop?
> 
> Very cool pics, either way.



I was thinking that too. 
There is a T&S effect that's quite popular AFAIK.

Anyway, welcome japanese001 - More shots of Japanese city strangeness please


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 29, 2007)

great pics japanese001 

more please 

as I'm on a roll.....

here's another with a textural theme, although it's for a different project and is quite sad







the black wallet is made of elephant hide
above it is a pair of ivory glove stretchers showing the schraeger lines that are very hard to photograph and that you only get at this angle with elephant ivory


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 30, 2007)

one more before I go to bed






the ghosts of flowers 

night all 

xx


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 30, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> What is that place?


It's an 18th century hill fort, there doesn't seem to be much info about it online.   This is all I've found so far.


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 30, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> one more before I go to bed
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah! I nearly came a little bit  Absolutely beautiful. Mucky faux vintage yummy. Rah!


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 30, 2007)

Vintage Paw said:
			
		

> Ah! I nearly came a little bit  Absolutely beautiful. Mucky faux vintage yummy. Rah!




LOL 





 








it's authentic vintage I'll have you know  

eta

this one makes me feel slightly uneasy and sick.  which I quite like
*is weird*


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 30, 2007)

this is the only place in Cornwall I know where i can't get the InterWeb. 






And this is all Our work...planting seeds alone in Spring randomlly...I ferget how easy it's it to grow Beauty. The swallows are going mental over it in the evenings atm...voles jump over our feet regular taking the mickey hunting fer the masses of beetles...dragon flies...you name it we pretty much get...this time last year it was a corner of a barren over grazed by geese ducks guinea fowl and chckens(a big bonus for wild flower growing)up against a stone hedge(you'd call it a wall) where the cesspit tank and cover is. The trees are willows, bays plants, black thorn and gorse ealier after Xmas...behind me is about 15x30 yards of herbs, campions, lavender,cornflowers, deadnettles, cabbages, lettuces etc...and pretty much every other flower that grows around here in the hedges. We pulled off seed heads as we walked around last September for a few weeks, some we jus scattered some we pricked and planted more carefully.Tbh I can't know or remember all I used to know...that would really boring! 

I'm going to cycle up there now to crash out and watch the sunset over the Atlantic_Irish Sea.

N_N X

Agin >>>>cool 




e2a:: My mate and his cat live in the handmade tent.


----------



## baffled (Aug 30, 2007)

Fantastic set of shots Louloubelle, especially love the flowers.

Enjoyed a lovely evening in the garden recently but couldn't resist getting the camera out while the tea lights provided an obvious subject for me.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 30, 2007)

*almost finished..some cameras errors to correct*

my current
Daytime






 and Nightime






 Desktops

I use them at different times of the day to _zone out_ of things... from a distance like people do with a fireplace...atm.....


----------



## Skim (Aug 30, 2007)

On the way home this afternoon...






Shot in Raw, Photoshoppery kept to a minimum – just a little bit of level tweaking, a tiny bit of unsharp mask, nothing much.


----------



## big eejit (Aug 30, 2007)

Nice shot Skim. Lovely lights.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jesus, those are good.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

neonwilderness said:
			
		

> It's an 18th century hill fort, there doesn't seem to be much info about it online.   This is all I've found so far.


Thanks


----------



## cybertect (Aug 30, 2007)

boskysquelch said:
			
		

> my current
> Daytime
> 
> 
> ...



Wow!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 30, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> On the way home this afternoon...
> 
> Shot in Raw, Photoshoppery kept to a minimum – just a little bit of level tweaking, a tiny bit of unsharp mask, nothing much.



Tasty. I think the cut off head works for this one, where it normally wouldn't.


----------



## chooch (Aug 30, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> one more before I go to bed
> the ghosts of flowers


That is very lovely.

A couple from a few days in Galicia, from the cheesier end;


----------



## chooch (Aug 30, 2007)

Skim said:
			
		

> On the way home this afternoon...


I like that. Where is?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 30, 2007)

Church at bottom of One Tree Hill, Honor Oak, SE London


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 30, 2007)

View from top of One Tree Hill


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> View from top of One Tree Hill



What is that dildo building?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 30, 2007)

That's the Swiss Re building, otherwise known as The Gherkin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe


----------



## cybertect (Aug 30, 2007)

A few rejected shots taken for the August compo


----------



## cybertect (Aug 30, 2007)

Three from London Bridge Station the other night.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That's the Swiss Re building, otherwise known as The Gherkin.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe



Ta.


----------



## chooch (Aug 30, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> A few rejected shots taken for the August compo


Love the first and the bin.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> That's the Swiss Re building, otherwise known as The Gherkin.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_St_Mary_Axe



It's an out of place monstrosity, imo.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 30, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's an out of place monstrosity, imo.



I love it.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 30, 2007)

Blagsta said:
			
		

> I love it.



Chacun a son gout


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 30, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> Three from London Bridge Station the other night.





Bueno!


----------



## alef (Aug 31, 2007)

This thread is getting quite popular. Not to be left out, here's a few I took today:


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

Stanley Edwards said:
			
		

> Bueno!



Cheerz 

I've been finding myself inspired by Tommy Oshima's street photography, though I don't have his huge collection of glass and interesting cameras to work with (nor his talent). I love what he does with limited depth of field. The 85mm f/1.8 can get me closer to that territory.

The first of the three in particular I had him in mind when I raised the camera to my eye.


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 31, 2007)

Those are all great cybertect!

I especially love the 1st one of the London Bridge Station shots, the reflections and water have a very sensuous quality, kind of like when you've leaving a club in the early hours and you realise just how beautiful the wet pavement is.  Or something


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 31, 2007)

Johnny Canuck2 said:
			
		

> It's an out of place monstrosity, imo.



It's beautiful 

IMO


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 31, 2007)

stunning!
i can almost smell the sea 

eta

I'd be interested in seeing it in B&W


----------



## Louloubelle (Aug 31, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> Enjoyed a lovely evening in the garden recently but couldn't resist getting the camera out while the tea lights provided an obvious subject for me.



I like these, very elegant and simple, yet beautiful.  I like the 1st one best as I think that the desaturation empahsises the textures


----------



## dlx1 (Aug 31, 2007)

_sound of Silence_





_I love my job._ Shutter to slow


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> one more before I go to bed
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lovely lovely lovely lovely lovely


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

early morning walk in the alps






A photographer once told me that a landscape picture stops being a landscape the second that there is any person or even part of a person in it as that changes the focus - i resolved to take a pic that would prove him wrong - did i in this picture????


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

Mer de Glace - Chamonix


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

yes, yes it is beautiful but my chest hurts and i think i am dying


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

when i become a famous photographer i will no doubt be asked for advice to pass on to the younger generation of photogs, my advice will be to climb a mountain in the dark and watch the sun rise over it -  that and take more pictures of your significant other obv.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 31, 2007)

Louloubelle said:
			
		

> one more before I go to bed
> 
> ...
> the ghosts of flowers
> ...



Very nice. Are you family with the work of John Blakemore? Go Google him if you're not - I'm sure you will like


----------



## baffled (Aug 31, 2007)

Something I took a couple of weeks ago but only just got round to.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 31, 2007)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> A photographer once told me that a landscape picture stops being a landscape the second that there is any person or even part of a person in it as that changes the focus



 

What a steaming pile of unmittigatted bullshit.


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 31, 2007)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> What a steaming pile of unmittigatted bullshit.



at the time i took it on board as in his explanation he made sense - a figure automatically draws your attention to where the figure is looking  - but as i thought more about it I came to the conclusion that you just have


----------



## baffled (Aug 31, 2007)

boredom strikes again.


----------



## baffled (Aug 31, 2007)

lets hear it once more for boredom


----------



## Vintage Paw (Aug 31, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> lets hear it once more for boredom



I really like that


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

Intriguingly abstract


----------



## baffled (Aug 31, 2007)

used your current fave 85mm at f/1.8


----------



## neonwilderness (Aug 31, 2007)




----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> used your current fave 85mm at f/1.8


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

Last lot of the month from me, I promise 

Last Sunday was the gathering of the 'Rocco Mafia' at Ashford in Kent. As much a social do as a car meet.

Baz











Lindi taking orders for lunch...











...


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

...

Sean











Jim











Bokeh


----------



## cybertect (Aug 31, 2007)

Smart shooting.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Aug 31, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> boredom strikes again.




You are very good. An original eye. Strong graphic style. 

You should be making dosh from this!


Get to it.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 31, 2007)

baffled said:
			
		

> boredom strikes again.


This makes me feel like my head's gone out of focus. Waa.


----------



## indigo4 (Sep 1, 2007)

*i told baffled*

he should be making money from his amazing photos but would he listen..nah he was off, camera out, photos on his hard drive...no use to anyone...

what about starting off putting them on something like photobox, they have a gallery and people can browse and buy them i think..not sure have to have a proper look....

anyway mel get back in your box...


----------



## japanese001 (Sep 1, 2007)

*hot evening*


----------



## neonwilderness (Sep 2, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1399/1287850748_c03231bcd6.jpg
> 
> Smart shooting.


Cheers, I was quite pleased with it considering the shit lens I was using 

Here's another:


----------

