StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Simplicus - How did you get the angle for the third shot? It resembles an aerial shot.
The first shot is a waste of a great spot, view and sunset. A crime against humanity! The waves are blurry without being smooth [but that's just personal taste critique - going even a little bit to either end of the shutter speed extreme would work] and the left side of your frame is cluttered with bits of foliage, i'm sure that a little shuffling around (and maybe a few more minutes until sunset) would have yielded a much nicer shot.

Sunrise - third shot is generic, it's just a woman looking at you and some glare. Were you trying to work the glare into the shot? (I've seen some success by using it to frame the person, or off the immediate side or off a piece of the environment, say a tent).
First shot would be lovely, but it needs more of the older woman's hand . (A shame, that's a really nice shot you captured there. It's still nice, but it could have been Lovely).

I really like the second street vendor's shot - the "overexposure" of the light works very well in illuminating the vendors as they work (and showing their expressions) while turning the crowd into an abstract. 4.75/5 shot.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Simplicus - How did you get the angle for the third shot? It resembles an aerial shot.

I'm Superman.

Instead of a big thing seen from very far above, this was a small thing seen from not too far above (15-20 feet).

The first shot is a waste of a great spot, view and sunset. A crime against humanity! The waves are blurry without being smooth [but that's just personal taste critique - going even a little bit to either end of the shutter speed extreme would work] and the left side of your frame is cluttered with bits of foliage, i'm sure that a little shuffling around (and maybe a few more minutes until sunset) would have yielded a much nicer shot.

This is an instance where one just has to take the scene one is given. The sun was well down and it was actually rather dark, hence the motion of the waves. I pushed everything up to the horizon line quite a bit. Short of clearcutting there is no way to get rid of the trees, and there is no real reason to do so because they are a part of the landscape. They hardly constitute clutter anyway, since they blend into the silhouette of the rocks. And when one is standing on the edge of a cliff with pounding surf down below, one doesn't shuffle around too much.

Besides which, that point's not going anywhere until the next Ice Age, so I can make as many photographs of it as I want. Hardly a waste.

Oberleutnant wrote:View from the university campus. Jyväskylä, Finland.

Usually pure white in the sky and not much in a picture except the horizon line doesn't work, but in this case I think it really adds to the atmosphere. I get the mood of the scene instantly, and there's nothing in the photo working against it. Good job.

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Simplicus - How did you get the angle for the third shot? It resembles an aerial shot.

I'm Superman.

Don't you mean Jimmy Olsen?

Simplicius wrote: Instead of a big thing seen from very far above, this was a small thing seen from not too far above (15-20 feet).

Same place as the waves? Excellent work with playing the angles. (How "wide" was the lens you used, out of academic curiosity?)

Simplicius wrote:

The first shot is a waste of a great spot, view and sunset. A crime against humanity! The waves are blurry without being smooth [but that's just personal taste critique - going even a little bit to either end of the shutter speed extreme would work] and the left side of your frame is cluttered with bits of foliage, i'm sure that a little shuffling around (and maybe a few more minutes until sunset) would have yielded a much nicer shot.

This is an instance where one just has to take the scene one is given. The sun was well down and it was actually rather dark, hence the motion of the waves.

Ah, pity. I'm used to much more dramatic light from the sun for even early stages of the sunset, doubly so in winter. Geography for the win?

Simplicius wrote: And when one is standing on the edge of a cliff with pounding surf down below, one doesn't shuffle around too much.

Tsk, if the ground is solid and you're not in a hurry or overburdened there's no need to worry. (Unless you were using a big & heavy medium format?)
Remind me to point out a shot from an Icelandic canyon ravine edge. (the shot of the edge, not the shot from down the ravine itself).
No shot is worth your life or health, but a sense of adventure will yield the best nature shots .
Climb every rock! jump over every tree! Climb up rock faces! And stay the hell away from wild animals .

Besides which, that point's not going anywhere until the next Ice Age, so I can make as many photographs of it as I want. Hardly a waste.

Next Ice age or..global warming? (I.E 2011 or just after Peak Oil )

That reminds me of a similar cliff face that used to be on the beach near my house. I say used to be, since over the past 4 years it's been crumbled away due to wavebreakers built for a nearby marina, so the beach is less than half the size it used to be.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Same place as the waves? Excellent work with playing the angles. (How "wide" was the lens you used, out of academic curiosity?)

Totally different place, different time of day, a week apart. No angles really at play; I just looked straight down. 35mm equivalent.

Tsk, if the ground is solid and you're not in a hurry or overburdened there's no need to worry. (Unless you were using a big & heavy medium format?)

In order to stand so that the edge of the coast was out of the frame, I would have had to step off the cliff edge and levitate out over the bay. You can see where this would present a problem. That is what I meant by being unable to shuffle around.

Next Ice age or..global warming? (I.E 2011 or just after Peak Oil )

It's good for about 16 meters of sea level rise, so I'm not worried.

Instant Sunrise wrote:

I particularly like this shot - it perfectly gives a late-afternoon feel for a street festival somewhere down in the urban south. The diffusion from the smoke works quite well to catch the sun.

---

Some randomness from the Morten Aboretum - nothing particularly great from that day out, though.

Phong - the backlight through the foliage in the right shot is lovely, the first thing that springs to mind is "3 dimensional".
(in the top 2/3 of the main tree). The light orange leaves are beautifully illuminated by the backlight.

From a nearby park

J wrote:From a nearby park http://lh5.ggpht.com/_lDpopYqaiYE/Su-UF ... G_8508.jpg

This image just looks kind of flat - was it a cloudy day? The reflection is also fairly indistinct and the symmetry not-quite-there. What were you trying for?

It was yet another cloudy day, one of many we've been having in recent weeks. I was aiming for symmetry but I couldn't find a place to stand for a good reflection without having the foreground cluttered up by the reeds growing on my side of the pond.

So hey, remember that disco-era refugee Nikon my parents gave me that I was going to experiment with? A few weeks ago, I loaded it up with Kodak BW 400 and went to New York.



Grand Central Terminal's main concourse.



Manhattan Municipal Building.



St. Paul's chapel. Only surviving colonial-era church in New York.

Red - what type of tree is that next to St Paul's? It almost looks like something with spring blossoms on it.

I miss manual controls/my real camera .

I finally got my old, first camera working, and well, I think I was blinded by nostalgia. It's aged badly. The screen is crap, the settings fiddliy and it doesn't have any stabilization. The zoom rocker is still great (Panasonic TZ1K = X10 zoom), but the noise reduction is strong and the dynamic range fiddly .

The first shot was what I was hoping to use for the Urban landscape entry in the photocompetition here on SDN, but, well, it just came out crap. (I stabilized the camera on a rock for a 2.5s exposure, but it's still very, very noisy).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2614/407 ... 3599_o.jpg

"Student life"

There are SOME benefits to a long zoom, I had the opportunity to take 3-4 shots of the guy without him noticing me.


There are far too many cats here. Watching. Waiting. To STRIKE!

RedImperator wrote:Grand Central Terminal's main concourse.

The concept for this one is sound. It's biggest weakness is that there is little visual separation between the people in the foreground and the rest of the concourse floor. The foreground melds into the background despite the good use of a narrow depth of field. I think a somewhat elevated position would have helped that.

Manhattan Municipal Building.

My only real issue with this one is the framing. Using landscape orientation left you with that big block of open sky, while there looks to be a lot of building that is out-of-frame. Although the photo is obviously all about the building, its prominence is weakened.

For photos like this it's worthwhile to experiment with framing and vantage points and take as many photos as you need to, and then pick out the good ones. Getting a really satisfactory shot is worth several frames.

St. Paul's chapel. Only surviving colonial-era church in New York.

This is the best of the three, and I think it's a decent photo all around. The building is shown to advantage - at least the facade, and enough of the structure that one understands its size and form - but it is placed into the context of some of the surrounding buildings and the streets around it. I did a little Photoshop edit to bring the exposure down a bit, which I'll post if you want to see, but that's an issue of preference. The image itself is sound.

I'm glad to see you got photos worth posting. Keep shooting!

The Grim Squeaker wrote:The first shot was what I was hoping to use for the Urban landscape entry in the photocompetition here on SDN, but, well, it just came out crap. (I stabilized the camera on a rock for a 2.5s exposure, but it's still very, very noisy).

Even if it had been tack-sharp I don't think it would have made an especially good photo. The foreground is both ugly and empty, the only things of remote interst in the photo are all crammed back at the horizon line, the lighting is very flat and the color - a sea of sodium-lamp orange - is not especially pleasant.

Landscapes don't have to be horizon-line scenes. A lot of really good ones aren't. But if you are going to make a horizon-line landscape, you can't ignore what's in the rest of the frame. Oberleutnant's photo a few posts ago does it right; the whole frame works together even through all the 'stuff' is at the horizon.

"Student life"
There are SOME benefits to a long zoom, I had the opportunity to take 3-4 shots of the guy without him noticing me.

Evidently he didn't do anything of interest during that time.

This photo doesn't feel like anything to me. It is an inexpressive shot of an inexpressive person, placed against a cluttered background to make him harder to notice, face obscured and shadowed so there is no chance of detecting character or personality, and lit by midday light for guaranteed lack of mood. If this guy is a random stranger and not an acquaintance of yours, this photo becomes a 100% flop.

I'm going to go ahead and say that super-long-zoom candid shots are a terrible idea. Nine times out of ten they catch people who are relatively stationary or are just walking by, because if you are really far away from people striking interesting poses or expressions, or doing the kinds of human activities that make for interesting photos you don't notice them doing those things. The merit of candid 'street' photos is in their immediacy, and if you stand a zillion feet away and stalk someone as if you are filming a wild gorilla you lose that completely. Man up, use a normal lens, and wade right into the crowd, or don't bother.

There are far too many cats here. Watching. Waiting. To STRIKE!

If this cat was a person it would be an okay photo and you could take some pride at being ballsy enough to shoot random people while they stare straight at you. As it is, you've got an okay photo but it's of a cat so most everyone who cares will be people who get soppy over cats, while you're still not out there getting good photos of people.

It is an okay photo, but your camera was stupid and exposed for the rocks instead of the cat. They need to be pulled down, and the cat and trees need to be pushed. The lighting is good, but since a.) it's incidental, and b.) the cat chose it, I can't give you any credit for it.

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:The first shot was what I was hoping to use for the Urban landscape entry in the photocompetition here on SDN, but, well, it just came out crap. (I stabilized the camera on a rock for a 2.5s exposure, but it's still very, very noisy).

Even if it had been tack-sharp I don't think it would have made an especially good photo. The foreground is both ugly and empty, the only things of remote interst in the photo are all crammed back at the horizon line, the lighting is very flat and the color - a sea of sodium-lamp orange - is not especially pleasant.

I have some more interesting ideas involving the moonlight and overall view of the city. The limitation is a purely technical one. (In daylight there's nothing interesting of that type in the area. There's an excellent area in the Ancient city, but, well, time constraints).

"Student life"
There are SOME benefits to a long zoom, I had the opportunity to take 3-4 shots of the guy without him noticing me.

Evidently he didn't do anything of interest during that time.

Sitting with the coffee cup outstretched, looking a bit like a worried beggar?

There are far too many cats here. Watching. Waiting. To STRIKE!

If this cat was a person it would be an okay photo and you could take some pride at being ballsy enough to shoot random people while they stare straight at you. As it is, you've got an okay photo but it's of a cat so most everyone who cares will be people who get soppy over cats, while you're still not out there getting good photos of people.

The trouble with people is that being people, they ask why you're taking photos of them in the campus. Still, i'll be working on it, but with a strong emphasis on being very candid. (/Who, me?).

It is an okay photo, but your camera was stupid and exposed for the rocks instead of the cat. They need to be pulled down, and the cat and trees need to be pushed.

Actually, that's incorrect. I pushed up the exposure before the shot, the cat is exposed well, the rocks are totally burnt out (at least on my laptop screen).

The lighting is good, but since a.) it's incidental, and b.) the cat chose it, I can't give you any credit for it.

Hey, I chose to take a picture of that particular cat (in that particular time & place), saw that particular spot and had the camera for that morning, so by any criteria I did . There's no need to be nasty .

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I have some more interesting ideas involving the moonlight and overall view of the city. The limitation is a purely technical one. (In daylight there's nothing interesting of that type in the area. There's an excellent area in the Ancient city, but, well, time constraints).

There's still nothing really interesting in the scene. As Simplicius noted, even if it was tack-sharp and the whole scene was within depth-of-field ... then what? What is your subject? The streetlight? That tall building with the rooftop lights towards the horizon? Everything else is just visual noise that blends together.

Sitting with the coffee cup outstretched, looking a bit like a worried beggar?

I don't think it's too bad, but you can't really read his facial expression in that view. I don't know if there's quite enough subject isolation, either - what do the persons in the background bring to the image? Is he a beggar with people passing him by? Just some dude stressed? With his shoulder blocking his lower face it's hard to catch what exactly his on his mind.

I like it (as opposed to shots one and three) but it could be better.

The trouble with people is that being people, they ask why you're taking photos of them in the campus. Still, i'll be working on it, but with a strong emphasis on being very candid. (/Who, me?).

Part of this might be your bearing. You're going around with a long lens (Sigma 70-300, IIRC) photosniping from afar. Get in, get intimate and become part of their surroundings. Do you think anyone pays attention to tourists with little P&S cameras? They're part of the background.

Actually, that's incorrect. I pushed up the exposure before the shot, the cat is exposed well, the rocks are totally burnt out (at least on my laptop screen).

Well, then post-process the image a bit more? Still, Simplicius is right - it's just another cat picture.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:

It is an okay photo, but your camera was stupid and exposed for the rocks instead of the cat. They need to be pulled down, and the cat and trees need to be pushed.

Actually, that's incorrect. I pushed up the exposure before the shot, the cat is exposed well, the rocks are totally burnt out (at least on my laptop screen).

1) Calibrate your computer screens already, you can't make sound judgements on exposure & colour unless your screen is reasonably accurate. My screen is, the rocks aren't totally burnt out on my screen, which means your laptop screen is way too bright. Most screens are that way out of the box, manufacturers usually set the damn things in "torch mode" as the default so it looks better in the showroom, but that's so fucking far from accurate that it's not even funny.

2) When Simplicious says the rocks need to be pulled, it means they're too bright and need to be darkened. Pushing the cat & trees means they need to be brightened up.

RedImperator wrote:So hey, remember that disco-era refugee Nikon my parents gave me that I was going to experiment with? A few weeks ago, I loaded it up with Kodak BW 400 and went to New York.

Grand Central Terminal's main concourse.

I like this shot. It's well-anchored by the girl in the lower-center but that sort of makes me want to ignore a good chunk of the vertical space (about the entire area the windows are in).

---

I'm not quite sure how well this picture works. It's cluttered as all hell, but then again, it's a street scene. The clock is the obvious subject but it competes with the crowds and a bunch of other things in-frame. So here's the picture - feedback?

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I have some more interesting ideas involving the moonlight and overall view of the city. The limitation is a purely technical one. (In daylight there's nothing interesting of that type in the area. There's an excellent area in the Ancient city, but, well, time constraints).

The streetlights will kill moonlight.

Sitting with the coffee cup outstretched, looking a bit like a worried beggar?

Whatever the intent of the photo, it needs to speak for itself. You can't tell everyone who looks at it that you thought the guy looked like a beggar, so the image has to tell that story. If it doesn't, then whatever story it does tell is totally up to the viewer - and the issues I listed earlier say tell me it is a photo about nothing.

If you want a controlled, literal story, you have to control your photos in the studio or make explicit journalistic shots. If you want to create moods or impressions, you have to make photos that have subjective qualities which provoke them. This photo manages to be neither, which is why it fails.

The trouble with people is that being people, they ask why you're taking photos of them in the campus. Still, i'll be working on it, but with a strong emphasis on being very candid. (/Who, me?).

I'll reply in Talk.

Actually, that's incorrect. I pushed up the exposure before the shot, the cat is exposed well, the rocks are totally burnt out (at least on my laptop screen).

When you edited, I guess you were going by how the image looked on-monitor and what your changes looked like. The problem is that method doesn't account for how individual monitors are calibrated (or not), and especially doesn't account for how bad laptop monitors are for image editing (they are unevenly lit).

I did some quick masking and then looked at the separate histograms. The background (cat & trees behind cat) were grossly underexposed (left), but fortunately could be recovered (right):



Looking at the foreground rocks and plant, they were not blown, but were very overexposed compared the the rest of the image (left). Since they weren't blown out, detail was fully recoverable (right):



The whole-image histogram is thus a confused one, since if you move middle gray in one direction the main part of the image is too dark, and if you move it in the other direction, the irrelevant foreground is too bright and noticeable. However, making adjustments with Shadows & Highlights works to balance the image, because one part is all shadows and the other is all highlights:



Ta-dah. Still just a cat picture, though.

phongn wrote:I'm not quite sure how well this picture works. It's cluttered as all hell, but then again, it's a street scene. The clock is the obvious subject but it competes with the crowds and a bunch of other things in-frame. So here's the picture - feedback?

There are some nice elements in here - I especially like the row of flags - but it is quite cluttered, especially since everything in the shot is compressed into the middle distance and back. A lot of the crowding is caused by the trees and the buildings on the left, about which nothing can be done. I do wonder if waiting until people were well into the sidewalk and shifting the focus to them would have opened it up despite the stuff in the background.

One of my pictures from Nuit Blanche, before I got totally plastered.
Yes, I deliberately put the bunny on her head.

The sunset today was AMAZING. Unfortunately, it was in between classes. However, I had a 10 minute break to climb over some fences, around the ledge of the building and over the rooftop to snap some shots.
The camera failed Spectacularily. I think I just realized why RAW is a selling point for some people .

Gold and purple. Incredible amounts of noise for ISO 80.



Again, colours are unedited. (are were much stronger in real life).


Runner up for my sdn photo contest submission.

Wrong thread, man. I'll move it. Edit: Done.

Simplicius wrote:Wrong thread, man. I'll move it. Edit: Done.

I don't know how it happened, I only had photo a day and the monthly contest open

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Again, colours are unedited. (are were much stronger in real life).

Are you still viewing on a laptop screen? The colors look plenty strong to me. If your monitor's too bright it'll wash out the image.

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Again, colours are unedited. (are were much stronger in real life).

Are you still viewing on a laptop screen? The colors look plenty strong to me. If your monitor's too bright it'll wash out the image.

The colours are strong, but trust me, they were MUCH richer and more saturated in real life.