OT Unofficial Official Photography Thread

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1  Edited By WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

We used to have an unofficial photography thread at one time that was pinned. I haven't posted any pics in a while and could not find the thread that we had been using so I am starting a new one. Post your photography in this thread. Hopefully the mods will not lock this should we post in it after a period of time as elapsed since the last post.

My first pic to start all this off is something I picked up last month in West Virginia.

I have some more that I took up that way that I really like. I will be posting them later.

Editing this post seems to have made my original pic disappear from this post. The new forum software sucks so much.

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
 .
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
I was going to post that in my fashion thread but didn't want to resize it. Well couldn't be bothered
Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
And I guess my pic is less photography photography and more just that it was in my clipboard and happened to be a pic I took earlier
Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#5 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

Most of my pictures are on Instagram lol. I'll post one anyway:

tumblr_mrbqhzQsMf1spp1xio1_500.jpg

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Here is another one from last month in West Virginia.

  

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
 .
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Post a picture that you took Dave.

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27204 Posts

QvPiRKa.jpg?1

Tooky that with my phone camera hehe Just ordered a real camera a few days ago and am cited to play around with it :3

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
I posted like two pictures just now. Less about the photographic properties, but photos just the same
Avatar image for jerk-o-tron2000
jerk-o-tron2000

10036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 jerk-o-tron2000
Member since 2007 • 10036 Posts

Took this one down at the lake not too long ago................................

photo 032_zps5973c959.jpg

Avatar image for danjammer69
danjammer69

4331

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#13 danjammer69
Member since 2004 • 4331 Posts

Acting noble:



dawg


After a good cat joke:

dawggy

dawggy2

Avatar image for WilliamRLBaker
WilliamRLBaker

28915

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 WilliamRLBaker
Member since 2006 • 28915 Posts

A flower that decided HEY go to hell I will be growing up in your fire pit!

A weeping cherry hybrid outside the house.

Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

Had a visitor the other day:

8f8vXT5.jpg

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27204 Posts
:o a gnome!
Avatar image for konvikt_17
konvikt_17

22378

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 konvikt_17
Member since 2008 • 22378 Posts

^Its a Chicago Cubs gnome:D.

Taking a nap:

POsYFTp.jpg

Avatar image for ferrari2001
ferrari2001

17772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#18 ferrari2001
Member since 2008 • 17772 Posts

Tried out a few panorama shots. This one turned out pretty good. 

 

30vknbk.jpg

Avatar image for Commander-Gree
Commander-Gree

4929

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 Commander-Gree
Member since 2009 • 4929 Posts

I have  a pretty crappy camera and there is no good scenery around here, so I photograph my action figures

 

Avatar image for jerk-o-tron2000
jerk-o-tron2000

10036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 jerk-o-tron2000
Member since 2007 • 10036 Posts

That DR. Who's pretty realistic looking...................

Avatar image for Commander-Gree
Commander-Gree

4929

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 Commander-Gree
Member since 2009 • 4929 Posts

That DR. Who's pretty realistic looking...................

jerk-o-tron2000
Yeah, that is from a relatively new company and they did a good job. They've got a 10th Doctor coming out soon that I'm looking forward to.
Avatar image for hallenbeck77
Hallenbeck77

16879

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 Hallenbeck77  Moderator
Member since 2005 • 16879 Posts
< Hopefully the mods will not lock this should we post in it after a period of time as elapsed since the last post.WhiteKnight77
The other thread has had a long, successful run--but it's time for a new one. Same rules from the old one apply: bumping of the thread is permitted, and no spammy posts.
Avatar image for hippiesanta
hippiesanta

10301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#23 hippiesanta
Member since 2005 • 10301 Posts

188200_193189547387888_1403565_n.jpg stray dog at the beach

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts

Post a picture that you took Dave.

WhiteKnight77
Just to clarify, the two pics of the watch and pets were taken by me
Avatar image for PiscesChick93
PiscesChick93

10732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#25 PiscesChick93
Member since 2008 • 10732 Posts

These are some from my deviantart account :P

[spoiler]

Yo0mbr2.jpg

7W0MGZq.jpg

iOT9blD.jpg

kR1IrXB.jpg

[/spoiler]

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

These are some from my deviantart account :P

 

7W0MGZq.jpg

PiscesChick93

Where was this pic taken? I like it. Also, your deviant art name. :) 

Avatar image for PiscesChick93
PiscesChick93

10732

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#27 PiscesChick93
Member since 2008 • 10732 Posts

[QUOTE="PiscesChick93"]

These are some from my deviantart account :P

 

WhiteKnight77

Where was this pic taken? I like it. Also, your deviant art name. :) 

In Arras, France =]

Thank you! South Park was the inspiration :P

Avatar image for nomsayin
nomsayin

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 nomsayin
Member since 2013 • 1346 Posts
[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Post a picture that you took Dave.

dave123321
Just to clarify, the two pics of the watch and pets were taken by me

Dave me gusta tu perro
Avatar image for dramaybaz
dramaybaz

6020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 dramaybaz
Member since 2005 • 6020 Posts
Take picture of lunch, upload on instagram with a filter. Insta "photographer".
Avatar image for jerk-o-tron2000
jerk-o-tron2000

10036

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 jerk-o-tron2000
Member since 2007 • 10036 Posts

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Post a picture that you took Dave.

nomsayin

Just to clarify, the two pics of the watch and pets were taken by me

Dave me gusta tu perro

Hmm.............

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#31 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27204 Posts

Took these yesterday with my new camera =)

[spoiler] GbREXXf.jpg

YDEB9HB.jpg

Uvxwiam.jpg [/spoiler]

Avatar image for comp_atkins
comp_atkins

38678

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#32 comp_atkins
Member since 2005 • 38678 Posts

some recent trip pics

bb_zps016f91f8.jpg

moorea_zps5c50b051.jpg

bb2_zps7d86b2f5.jpg

bbn_zps77419cb5.jpg

camp_zps131cd781.jpg

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Took these yesterday with my new camera =)

[spoiler] GbREXXf.jpg

YDEB9HB.jpg

Uvxwiam.jpg [/spoiler]

KiIIyou
Not a big fan of the first one. I think it's impressive that you got the stars so clear and stationary, but to me it's still just a bunch of stars. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with a bunch of stars, but this seems to be a case of "why bother?" The only other element here are the silhouettes of the trees, and those silhouettes aren't really contributing anything to the image. Crop them out entirely and make this image REALLY about the night sky. The only thing is...I'm under the impression that that's REALLY hard and often requires hefty calculations, good telescopes, and expensive tracking equipment. It's a pretty specialized niche, and a lot of the better images I've seen are coming from the astronomers rather than the "photographers". Personally, there's no way I can compete with that, so I don't bother. The other two are really cool. First off, let me say that they are technically quite good. They're crisp and sharp, they're nicely framed, the limited depth of field is used very well. Photo #2 looks a tad bit underexposed, but not a big problem. It's a little bit muddy, but that's not a big problem at all. You've retained detail in all of the important areas and don't have any significant blown highlights or clipped shadows, so it's an easy fix. Just run it through photoshop again, do a slight curves adjustment, and it should be good to go. A few other notes regarding the last two photos... 1) Firstly, let me get this out of the way: I generally tend to LOATHE photos of peoples' pets. But Photo #2 is good. Here's the thing...when I think back to why I hate photos of peopls' pets, I think it's the EXACT same reason why I tend to hate photos of peoples' kids. People love their pets and their kids. They make a photo of their pets and their kids, and they obviously love those photos because they have an attachment to the object. It's a matter of context. The photographers can appreciate the context and the emotions because they have experience with the subject. So...it's good to them, but that's based on previous experience. As the viewer, I don't get that experience. I don't know the baby or the pet, all I'm doing is looking at a f***ing photo. The parent/owner looks at the image and forms an emotional attachment, while I just look at the image and think, "great...another f***ing baby/dog/whatever". And don't get me wrong...those kinds of photos are absolutely fine for a personal family photo album. But it DOESN'T work when showing that to strangers. Because even though the parent/owner cares about the baby/cat, I don't. They have experience, I don't. If it's gonna be judged by us who don't know the cat and don't give a $hit about the cat, it's the photographer's job to explain to us why we should give a $hit about the cat. And...you've sort of done that here. Firstly, you've done that by not ignoring basic photographic principles. That cat IS nicely composed, the limited depth of field works (its a tad bit underexposed, but as I said that's a small issue). This isn't just "here's my cat, you should love it too!" This actually is aesthetically pleasing. Second thing you've done here is to give that cat sort of an identity. I don't know that cat, but you've given me a reason to care about it. What is it looking at? What is it thinking? I don't know, but I look at this photo and I want to think about this. Unlike the majority of pet photos and baby photos which end up looking exactly the same, you've managed to put a personal stamp on subject matter which is cliched and boring. I've seen a $hitload of catmphotos before, but I've never seen THIS cat photo before. I don't look at this photo and then shrug my shoulders and say, "meh, just another cat". I think that's important to remember. Lots of people photograph trees and sunsets, and that's fine. But trees and sunsets aren't inherently boring. They just seem boring because so many photographers are unable to put a personal stamp on their work, and instead end up making technically good images that make the viewer think, "I've seen this a million times already". 2) Grasshopper is good. Nice color, it's good and sharp, nice depth of field, good use of space. My only issue here is that there's a lack of compelling CONTEXT. I mean, it looks really good, I'm not denying that at all. But the thing is...I think it's natural to relate the main object to the surrounding objects in order to get an idea of what the image is saying. And this image looks really good. But unlike the cat photo, this grasshopper doesn't seem to be having much of an IDENTITY. If this photo is natural, it's not really telling me anything ABOUT the grasshopper other than it happens to be on a sidewalk. And if it's a contrived photo, then it just makes me wish that you had included something for the grasshopper to work against. Again, I'm NOT saying that this is a bad photo. It's quite good. Very nice from a technical standpoint, the colors are very inviting, it uses space very well, the depth of field is effective, and you did well by getting in close on the grasshopper. Technically, it's great. It's just that, subjectively, it still just comes across to me as a grasshopper on a sidewalk. The cat had a soul, a unique identity. I don't tend to see cats like that, it's an unusual way to photograph one's pet cat. That creates drama and mystery and it makes me get interested. This grasshopper phot is VERY well done, but somehow it's still coming off as just a grasshopper. It looks good, it's aesthetically pleasing, yadda yadda yadda. But it seems to lack SOUL. Like, it seems to be the exact same way that I would personally photograph a grasshopper on a sidewalk. And that diminishes my interest a little bit due to the whole sunset thing. Everyone does that stuff sometimes, and even when it looks great it usually tends to look THE SAME. Anyway, don't take what I've said very seriously, because I have no business presenting myself as someone who knows wtf I'm talking about. That's just how this comes across to me. I love the work (aside from #1), I just think it could use a little bit more refinement and clarity and direction.
Avatar image for chaoscougar1
chaoscougar1

37603

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#34 chaoscougar1
Member since 2005 • 37603 Posts

"Unoffical offical"
i see what you did there

Avatar image for KiIIyou
KiIIyou

27204

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 KiIIyou
Member since 2006 • 27204 Posts

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"]

Took these yesterday with my new camera =)

[spoiler] GbREXXf.jpg

YDEB9HB.jpg

Uvxwiam.jpg [/spoiler]

MrGeezer

Not a big fan of the first one. I think it's impressive that you got the stars so clear and stationary, but to me it's still just a bunch of stars. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with a bunch of stars, but this seems to be a case of "why bother?" The only other element here are the silhouettes of the trees, and those silhouettes aren't really contributing anything to the image. Crop them out entirely and make this image REALLY about the night sky. The only thing is...I'm under the impression that that's REALLY hard and often requires hefty calculations, good telescopes, and expensive tracking equipment. It's a pretty specialized niche, and a lot of the better images I've seen are coming from the astronomers rather than the "photographers". Personally, there's no way I can compete with that, so I don't bother. The other two are really cool. First off, let me say that they are technically quite good. They're crisp and sharp, they're nicely framed, the limited depth of field is used very well. Photo #2 looks a tad bit underexposed, but not a big problem. It's a little bit muddy, but that's not a big problem at all. You've retained detail in all of the important areas and don't have any significant blown highlights or clipped shadows, so it's an easy fix. Just run it through photoshop again, do a slight curves adjustment, and it should be good to go. A few other notes regarding the last two photos... 1) Firstly, let me get this out of the way: I generally tend to LOATHE photos of peoples' pets. But Photo #2 is good. Here's the thing...when I think back to why I hate photos of peopls' pets, I think it's the EXACT same reason why I tend to hate photos of peoples' kids. People love their pets and their kids. They make a photo of their pets and their kids, and they obviously love those photos because they have an attachment to the object. It's a matter of context. The photographers can appreciate the context and the emotions because they have experience with the subject. So...it's good to them, but that's based on previous experience. As the viewer, I don't get that experience. I don't know the baby or the pet, all I'm doing is looking at a f***ing photo. The parent/owner looks at the image and forms an emotional attachment, while I just look at the image and think, "great...another f***ing baby/dog/whatever". And don't get me wrong...those kinds of photos are absolutely fine for a personal family photo album. But it DOESN'T work when showing that to strangers. Because even though the parent/owner cares about the baby/cat, I don't. They have experience, I don't. If it's gonna be judged by us who don't know the cat and don't give a $hit about the cat, it's the photographer's job to explain to us why we should give a $hit about the cat. And...you've sort of done that here. Firstly, you've done that by not ignoring basic photographic principles. That cat IS nicely composed, the limited depth of field works (its a tad bit underexposed, but as I said that's a small issue). This isn't just "here's my cat, you should love it too!" This actually is aesthetically pleasing. Second thing you've done here is to give that cat sort of an identity. I don't know that cat, but you've given me a reason to care about it. What is it looking at? What is it thinking? I don't know, but I look at this photo and I want to think about this. Unlike the majority of pet photos and baby photos which end up looking exactly the same, you've managed to put a personal stamp on subject matter which is cliched and boring. I've seen a $hitload of catmphotos before, but I've never seen THIS cat photo before. I don't look at this photo and then shrug my shoulders and say, "meh, just another cat". I think that's important to remember. Lots of people photograph trees and sunsets, and that's fine. But trees and sunsets aren't inherently boring. They just seem boring because so many photographers are unable to put a personal stamp on their work, and instead end up making technically good images that make the viewer think, "I've seen this a million times already". 2) Grasshopper is good. Nice color, it's good and sharp, nice depth of field, good use of space. My only issue here is that there's a lack of compelling CONTEXT. I mean, it looks really good, I'm not denying that at all. But the thing is...I think it's natural to relate the main object to the surrounding objects in order to get an idea of what the image is saying. And this image looks really good. But unlike the cat photo, this grasshopper doesn't seem to be having much of an IDENTITY. If this photo is natural, it's not really telling me anything ABOUT the grasshopper other than it happens to be on a sidewalk. And if it's a contrived photo, then it just makes me wish that you had included something for the grasshopper to work against. Again, I'm NOT saying that this is a bad photo. It's quite good. Very nice from a technical standpoint, the colors are very inviting, it uses space very well, the depth of field is effective, and you did well by getting in close on the grasshopper. Technically, it's great. It's just that, subjectively, it still just comes across to me as a grasshopper on a sidewalk. The cat had a soul, a unique identity. I don't tend to see cats like that, it's an unusual way to photograph one's pet cat. That creates drama and mystery and it makes me get interested. This grasshopper phot is VERY well done, but somehow it's still coming off as just a grasshopper. It looks good, it's aesthetically pleasing, yadda yadda yadda. But it seems to lack SOUL. Like, it seems to be the exact same way that I would personally photograph a grasshopper on a sidewalk. And that diminishes my interest a little bit due to the whole sunset thing. Everyone does that stuff sometimes, and even when it looks great it usually tends to look THE SAME. Anyway, don't take what I've said very seriously, because I have no business presenting myself as someone who knows wtf I'm talking about. That's just how this comes across to me. I love the work (aside from #1), I just think it could use a little bit more refinement and clarity and direction.

Thank you so much for your feedback and stuff. =) love your always unbiased and clear ways of talking of things, specially when talking about photos. It's hard to see the things you mentioned when they're your own and I appreciate your view of em, actually makes me see what you're talking about when I can read it like that. Those were my first shots I'd taken with an slr for over 15 years =o back then I don't think I ever took a good picture haha. It feels nice to see someone thinks at least one of em are good now. =)

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="KiIIyou"]

Took these yesterday with my new camera =)

[spoiler] GbREXXf.jpg

YDEB9HB.jpg

Uvxwiam.jpg [/spoiler]

KiIIyou

*snip*

That's just how this comes across to me. I love the work (aside from #1), I just think it could use a little bit more refinement and clarity and direction.

Thank you so much for your feedback and stuff. =) love your always unbiased and clear ways of talking of things, specially when talking about photos. It's hard to see the things you mentioned when they're your own and I appreciate your view of em, actually makes me see what you're talking about when I can read it like that. Those were my first shots I'd taken with an slr for over 15 years =o back then I don't think I ever took a good picture haha. It feels nice to see someone thinks at least one of em are good now. =)

I agree that the cat picture works. The reason is that to make it work, you got down to the cat's level and I could be mistaken, but practically in her face though you could have used a telephoto or zoom lens. The cat also was just not looking into the camera, but is staring intently at something and you seem to have caught that intensity in that gaze. Cats are probably the hardest animal to photograph due to their aloofness and their attention being easily drawn away.

I also agree with the grasshopper. It needed more to make it pop. 

Also, remember, that you might take 100 pictures of one subject, but only 5 are what could be a really good picture. 

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Here are some more pics from the trip I took to West Virginia this past July. The place is a historic farm with the farmhouse (I actually slept in it a couple of nights) dating back to 1845 or at least the original part of it.




 

 

 

 

 

 

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Here is another set. 




Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Here is another set.




 

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

Here is the last set.




There are more, but I think these are the best. 

Avatar image for nomsayin
nomsayin

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 nomsayin
Member since 2013 • 1346 Posts

me hanging out with my friends. i am in the white. 

[spoiler] ZUGVJq0.jpg?1 [/spoiler]

Avatar image for Sweetbackhair
Sweetbackhair

2959

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#44 Sweetbackhair
Member since 2007 • 2959 Posts

My mom's a huge dog lover so I have 5 dogs at my house.

s

s

q

g

 

This one isn't ours, we just transported this one and his siblings to another person.

j

Avatar image for Big_Pecks
Big_Pecks

5973

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#45 Big_Pecks
Member since 2010 • 5973 Posts

Here's my flick gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/66586196@N05/

/ shameless promotion

Avatar image for MrGeezer
MrGeezer

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 MrGeezer
Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Here are some more pics from the trip I took to West Virginia this past July. WhiteKnight77

Not gonna say too much about the first picture, except that landscapes are REALLY freaking hard. Especially from a compositional standpoint. The easy reason being that it is extremely hard to control what's there. If a tree is in the way, then you can't exactly cut down the tree. Another downside is the fact that you're relying on the sun. Since you can't control the light, all you can do is learn when the light is right. Now...in landscapes I usually like to see some sunshine or some strong shadows to contrast with the bright areas. This image is foggy and overcast. And that normally goes against what people traditionally do when photographing broad landscapes. Not a big problem as long as you realize that it comes off as gloomy and dreary. If that's what you want to say, that's great. My biggest problem with image #1 is the composition. I appreciate the gloomy tone. I've seen gloomy landscapes with overcast light that really worked. Just something that popped into my head...check out this website http://www.kahnselesnick.com/index.htm and go to the Scotland Future Bog section. Gloomy and dreary? Hell yeah, it's in Scotland Bogs. But it works largely due to how the space is handled. My biggest problem with your image #1 is that the placement of lines and trees and hills and houses seems too disorganized. There's a lack of overall form. But...the nice thing about landscapes is that most of the objects tend to not move very much. So this could seem like an opportunity for further investigation. If you're there again, it might be nice to just try moving around the landscape and seeing how the overall design changes. Second image is really cool. Especially the textures and the juxtaposition of cherished objects (artwork on the wall, a nice wood cabinet, a nice teapot) with the utter lack of care for the wall. And man...that wall. I'm a huge fan of decaying stuff and neglected stuff, because it often tends to just plain look cool as $hit. Especially when that disorganization is contrasted with organization (as you've done in the photo). Here you've got the randomness of paint peeling and decaying, contrasted with the deliberate placement of objects that someone cared about. That kind of thematic contrast provides a LOT of interest. It's like in Fight Club when Marla Singer bought a bridesmaid's gown for $1 in a thrift store, and meditated on how something that was cherished so much could be so easily tossed aside. It's a nice idea. My biggest problem with image #2 is the light. It looks like straight on-camera flash. And...just my personal opinion, but on camera flash as the primary light source usually SUCKS. When the primary light source is at the lens position, it simply kills the shadows. It takes objects with awesome textures (like that wall) and renders them flat. It also does stuff like create glaring reflections off of polished objects (such as that wood cabinet). I really see something here, but the big thing that's killing it for me is the light. Personally I find that on-camera flash is usually good for fill-light and not much else. As a primary light source, on-camera flash usually just kills it. Interest often lies in the shadows, and on-camera flash KILLS shadows because the object being photographed gets in the way. Like...just look at that teapot. There's a shadow there, but you can barely see it because the primary light source is at approximately the same position as the lens. So all of the interesting and really cool shodows are blocked by the object which is casting the shadow in the first place. It's just something to think about. If you own a DSLR, it could be a good investment to get a setup that allows for use of flash OFF-camera. A relatively cheap route is to buy a flash unit, and a cheap cord to tether it to your camera. Anyway...jesus. I've already talked way too long about what I intended to be brief. I'm gonna skip over #3 (for now) and go right to #4. I'm not gonna talk too much about #4 (because I easily get carried away with that). I just want to show you this guy's work. http://www.carlostarrats.com/ Pretty f***ing cool, right? Well, as far as technique goes, you're doing the exact same thing in image #4. In image #4, you've used transparent glass to create depth. And that's EXACTLY the same as what this other guy does. Just plexiglass. He uses plexiglass to create layers in order to create depth. And it looks cool as f***. So...just a note: what you're doing in image #4 can be EXTREMELY useful for future purposes. It's not gonna work all the time, and I only use it for certain scenarios, but plexiglass is your friend. You're just combining different layers here, and there are scenarios in whichthat can be EXTREMELY useful. Agaun...that may not be your thing and that's fine (most photographers probably don't usually do that). But seeing as how that's EXACTLY what you're doing in image #4, I just wanted to point out how cool this can look.

Avatar image for chaplainDMK
chaplainDMK

7004

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#47 chaplainDMK
Member since 2008 • 7004 Posts

Here's my flick gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/66586196@N05/

/ shameless promotion

Big_Pecks
Good photos :D
Avatar image for nomsayin
nomsayin

1346

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#48 nomsayin
Member since 2013 • 1346 Posts
MrGeezer
dude, you're trying too hard, simmer down a bit.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77

12605

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#49 WhiteKnight77
Member since 2003 • 12605 Posts

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Here are some more pics from the trip I took to West Virginia this past July. MrGeezer

Not gonna say too much about the first picture, except that landscapes are REALLY freaking hard. Especially from a compositional standpoint. The easy reason being that it is extremely hard to control what's there. If a tree is in the way, then you can't exactly cut down the tree. Another downside is the fact that you're relying on the sun. Since you can't control the light, all you can do is learn when the light is right. Now...in landscapes I usually like to see some sunshine or some strong shadows to contrast with the bright areas. This image is foggy and overcast. And that normally goes against what people traditionally do when photographing broad landscapes. Not a big problem as long as you realize that it comes off as gloomy and dreary. If that's what you want to say, that's great. My biggest problem with image #1 is the composition. I appreciate the gloomy tone. I've seen gloomy landscapes with overcast light that really worked. Just something that popped into my head...check out this website http://www.kahnselesnick.com/index.htm and go to the Scotland Future Bog section. Gloomy and dreary? Hell yeah, it's in Scotland Bogs. But it works largely due to how the space is handled. My biggest problem with your image #1 is that the placement of lines and trees and hills and houses seems too disorganized. There's a lack of overall form. But...the nice thing about landscapes is that most of the objects tend to not move very much. So this could seem like an opportunity for further investigation. If you're there again, it might be nice to just try moving around the landscape and seeing how the overall design changes. Second image is really cool. Especially the textures and the juxtaposition of cherished objects (artwork on the wall, a nice wood cabinet, a nice teapot) with the utter lack of care for the wall. And man...that wall. I'm a huge fan of decaying stuff and neglected stuff, because it often tends to just plain look cool as $hit. Especially when that disorganization is contrasted with organization (as you've done in the photo). Here you've got the randomness of paint peeling and decaying, contrasted with the deliberate placement of objects that someone cared about. That kind of thematic contrast provides a LOT of interest. It's like in Fight Club when Marla Singer bought a bridesmaid's gown for $1 in a thrift store, and meditated on how something that was cherished so much could be so easily tossed aside. It's a nice idea. My biggest problem with image #2 is the light. It looks like straight on-camera flash. And...just my personal opinion, but on camera flash as the primary light source usually SUCKS. When the primary light source is at the lens position, it simply kills the shadows. It takes objects with awesome textures (like that wall) and renders them flat. It also does stuff like create glaring reflections off of polished objects (such as that wood cabinet). I really see something here, but the big thing that's killing it for me is the light. Personally I find that on-camera flash is usually good for fill-light and not much else. As a primary light source, on-camera flash usually just kills it. Interest often lies in the shadows, and on-camera flash KILLS shadows because the object being photographed gets in the way. Like...just look at that teapot. There's a shadow there, but you can barely see it because the primary light source is at approximately the same position as the lens. So all of the interesting and really cool shodows are blocked by the object which is casting the shadow in the first place. It's just something to think about. If you own a DSLR, it could be a good investment to get a setup that allows for use of flash OFF-camera. A relatively cheap route is to buy a flash unit, and a cheap cord to tether it to your camera. Anyway...jesus. I've already talked way too long about what I intended to be brief. I'm gonna skip over #3 (for now) and go right to #4. I'm not gonna talk too much about #4 (because I easily get carried away with that). I just want to show you this guy's work. http://www.carlostarrats.com/ Pretty f***ing cool, right? Well, as far as technique goes, you're doing the exact same thing in image #4. In image #4, you've used transparent glass to create depth. And that's EXACTLY the same as what this other guy does. Just plexiglass. He uses plexiglass to create layers in order to create depth. And it looks cool as f***. So...just a note: what you're doing in image #4 can be EXTREMELY useful for future purposes. It's not gonna work all the time, and I only use it for certain scenarios, but plexiglass is your friend. You're just combining different layers here, and there are scenarios in whichthat can be EXTREMELY useful. Agaun...that may not be your thing and that's fine (most photographers probably don't usually do that). But seeing as how that's EXACTLY what you're doing in image #4, I just wanted to point out how cool this can look.

The first picture was taken about 40 minutes before sunset with a slightly cloudy sky. The owners of the property set up a place to view sunsets in one of the upper meadows (they grow hay even though they do not plant it). I have a different pic from the area.

I took a bunch of pictures and I do you a seperate flash attached to the shoe, which can be used remotely (it's wireless and not a cheap alternative, that flash was $469). I was actually bouncing light off the ceiling to get what I wanted color wise, but the ceiling isn't white, it is dark colors with exposed beams. I actually slept in that bedroom and the water pitcher, wash basin and chamber pot (back in the 1800s there was no indoor plumbing). I actually had to move some items of mine from the top of the dresser to get the pics.

As far as the glass goes, I was actually taking a pic of the hand made plate glass. You can see the defects in it (string of bubbles), but was able to get more due to shooting from inside the farm house. You can even see the handmade glass in the picture with the stove and the window behind it. 

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35553

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35553 Posts
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]nomsayin
dude, you're trying too hard, simmer down a bit.

It's endearing