OT; how are your photography skills?

Gamespot is screwing up, sorry for the ugly links.

Lizzard:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16808054/Photos/DSC_0077.JPG

Lion Fish

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16808054/Photos/DSC_0100.JPG

Sunset:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16808054/Photos/DSC_0144.JPG

Heron:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16808054/Photos/DSC_0166.JPG

Boat:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16808054/Photos/DSC_0376.JPG

I'm a photographer.

Brutal_Elitegs

>>point camera in direction of something >>press button >>hope for a great photoUniverseIX

Sounds like what I do...

[QUOTE="Brutal_Elitegs"]

I'm a photographer.

EntropyWins

Hey...at least it was better exposed than a lot of pictures in this thread.

And I don't know who first said it, but there's a popular quote that gets said a lot: "If you can't take a good picture in your backyard, then you can't take a good picture anywhere." And for the most part, I absolutely agree with it. Not saying that THIS is a good picture. But please keep it nice. Because it's easy to beat up on one picture of a lawn chair, but I wouldn't have any problem beating up on nearly every single picture posted here.

I don't want that to happen, though. If people are going to post their pictures, then I'd hope that we're all mature enough to either offer constructive criticism or just plain keep our mouths shut.

I really admire photography but until I can afford a decent DSLR, that's all I'll be able to do - admire it.Shottayouth13-

[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"]I really admire photography but until I can afford a decent DSLR, that's all I'll be able to do - admire it.Bloodseeker23

Hmm, I'll play around and see what I can do.Shottayouth13-

Just keep in mind that probably the two single most important things you can do to get better pictures are to work on composition and pay attention to the light.

Those are really the two most important things, I'd wager. Far more important than what kind of camera you have. And you can work on those things with pretty much any camera that has ever existed.

[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"] Hmm, I'll play around and see what I can do.MrGeezer

Just keep in mind that probably the two single most important things you can do to get better pictures are to work on composition and pay attention to the light.

Those are really the two most important things, I'd wager. Far more important than what kind of camera you have. And you can work on those things with pretty much any camera that has ever existed.

A few of my favorites.

It's always interesting hearing feedback from people. With me, it always seems like the pictures people like the most are the ones I have the most critisicm for.

TC I love that shot!! Colours are great, really interesting composition :)

Here's a few of mine:

I need to really get back into photography again cause I really enjoy it!

I take pretty sick screenshots in games

TC I love that shot!! Colours are great, really interesting composition :)

Here's a few of mine:

I need to really get back into photography again cause I really enjoy it!

tofu-lion91

Cheers Tofu :) Where did you take that last photo? Was it like a photography course at college? I like them, particularly the squirrel, that's cute :P

[QUOTE="EntropyWins"]

[QUOTE="Brutal_Elitegs"]

I'm a photographer.

MrGeezer

Hey...at least it was better exposed than a lot of pictures in this thread.

And I don't know who first said it, but there's a popular quote that gets said a lot: "If you can't take a good picture in your backyard, then you can't take a good picture anywhere." And for the most part, I absolutely agree with it. Not saying that THIS is a good picture. But please keep it nice. Because it's easy to beat up on one picture of a lawn chair, but I wouldn't have any problem beating up on nearly every single picture posted here.

I don't want that to happen, though. If people are going to post their pictures, then I'd hope that we're all mature enough to either offer constructive criticism or just plain keep our mouths shut.

Indeed, I like the simplicity of it. It's cool :P

i'm lucky if i get 10 good ones out of 1000 :P here's a few ones i like from a recent trip.

comp_atkins

Nobody commented on mine.

:cry:

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="Shottayouth13-"] Hmm, I'll play around and see what I can do.Shottayouth13-

Just keep in mind that probably the two single most important things you can do to get better pictures are to work on composition and pay attention to the light.

Those are really the two most important things, I'd wager. Far more important than what kind of camera you have. And you can work on those things with pretty much any camera that has ever existed.

I'm just talking about the arrangement of visual elements (such as colors/shapes/lines/values/etc) within the frame.

As far as how you can get better, you get better by looking/thinking/doing/talking. Look at lots of people's photographs. Take lots of photographs. Constantly think about what's working and what isn't. When you see or make a picture that you like (or hate) put real thought into WHY you like or dislike it, and pay lots of attention to where it's leading your eye. And talking about it (or just plain writing about it) helps a lot. Many people find that writing or talking about art helps them to get a better working realization of things that they otherwise may only have a vague subconscious realization of.

If that seems like a lot of work, it can be. And there's no reason why you have to do that. If you just like taking pictures for fun or something, then "quality" doesn't matter...the most important thing is if you're getting enjoyment out of it. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with taking that kind of casual approach. I'm just saying that as far as "making good photographs" goes, the kind of camera you have is a relatively small concern. You can get "good" photographs with pretty much any camera, and even the best camera won't give you "good" photographs if you don't have a handle on composition and lighting. There's also absolutely nothing wrong with getting a better camera, just have realistic expectations. Getting a good camera doesn't suddenly result in good photographs any more than getting a good guitar results in good music. They're just tools.

Nobody commented on mine.

:cry:

kraken2109

I'm mainly a motorsports photographer, but I like to have fun else where as well :)

I'm mainly a motorsports photographer, but I like to have fun else where as well :)

jrtec13

They are SO awesome man! I really like the second one. What sport is it? Looks like some sort of US car-thingy :P

[QUOTE="jrtec13"]

I'm mainly a motorsports photographer, but I like to have fun else where as well :)

DarthJohnova

They are SO awesome man! I really like the second one. What sport is it? Looks like some sort of US car-thingy :P

Its called drag racing where 2 cars go head to head against each other to see who can race 1/4 of a mile to see who is faster. That particular kind of car is called a funny car. They can run around 300MPH.

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

[QUOTE="jrtec13"]

I'm mainly a motorsports photographer, but I like to have fun else where as well :)

WhiteKnight77

They are SO awesome man! I really like the second one. What sport is it? Looks like some sort of US car-thingy :P

Its called drag racing where 2 cars go head to head against each other to see who can race 1/4 of a mile to see who is faster. That particular kind of car is called a funny car. They can run around 300MPH.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

They are SO awesome man! I really like the second one. What sport is it? Looks like some sort of US car-thingy :P

DarthJohnova

Its called drag racing where 2 cars go head to head against each other to see who can race 1/4 of a mile to see who is faster. That particular kind of car is called a funny car. They can run around 300MPH.

Especially as they go from a standing stop and hit 300MPH in just a few seconds.

Because everyone likes cute bunnies

[spoiler] [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="DarthJohnova"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Its called drag racing where 2 cars go head to head against each other to see who can race 1/4 of a mile to see who is faster. That particular kind of car is called a funny car. They can run around 300MPH.

WhiteKnight77

Especially as they go from a standing stop and hit 300MPH in just a few seconds.

5 to 6 positive g's, and when the chutes hit -7+.. Tires deformation, has to be the coolest thing about a top fuel dragster/funny car, 8000hp does some cool stuff

A few of my favorites.

It's always interesting hearing feedback from people. With me, it always seems like the pictures people like the most are the ones I have the most critisicm for.

DJ419

#1) Pretty good. But I think one of the most important things is to really narrow down on what a picture is ABOUT. It could be about a flower, in which case you'd probably want to get in close, eliminate things which distract from the flower. Alternatively, a picture could be about the relationship between the flower and its environment. In which case you'd probably want to back up, include some of the environment, and provide a bit of extra context relating to the flower.

In the first picture you posted, the picture really seems to me to be ABOUT the stuff happening on the fence. I mean...there's some really interesting stuff going on there. You've got a lot of contrast between light and shadow, and the circular objects are really pretty interesting as a stark contrast to the hard lines of the fence. Meanwhile, the trees are blurry and don't really seem to have anything to do with the stuff in the foreground.

There's really some VERY interesting stuff going on there, but this is a case in which I really think it would have been better to get in closer and eliminate the things that aren't really helping. There's a good picture here, but I don't think that the trees are helping. I'd like to see this reshot with the trees totally eliminated from the picture.

#2) Also a pretty cool picture. One obvious problem is that the horizon line isn't straight. However, that's something which should be able to be fixed pretty easily, so that's not a huge issue. The bigger problem is that the background is just way too overexposed. And the thing about landscape pictures is that for many of those kinds of pictures, you pretty much have to really exclusively on the sun for light. So the kind of problem here is sort of something that often simply can't be fixed without simply waiting until the sun is in a different position. Cool picture, but I think it could be far improved by simply shooting when the light was better.

#3) My issue with #3 is sort of a combination of the stuff I just talked about in the previous picture. The picture seems to be primarily ABOUT the lighthouse (as opposed to being about the sky, or being about the stuff next to the lighthouse). The lighthouse is also extremely underexposed. As far as the underexposed lighthouse is concerned, one thing you could do is to simply wait until the sun is in a better position and then take the picture again. Alternatively, you could just increase exposure until the lighthouse is exposed. Even though that would inevitably result in the sky being even brighter (sky would probably be mostly pure white), I think that's a fair trade-off. The picture doesn't really seem to be ABOUT the sky, so I don't see a problem with minimizing the sky's importance. The lighthouse seems to be the most important thing here. And if you can't get EVERYTHING well exposed, then it's probably better to get the lighthouse exposed right even if it's at the expense of other things in the picture.

As far as composition goes, there's also a lot of stuff in the foreground which doesn't really seem to be SAYING anything. The palm tree sort of says something (it's a warm enough climate for palm trees to live) and that sort of gives some information that observers can use. So yeah...keep the tree. But most of the other stuff in the foreground really doesn't seem to be doing anything helpful in my opinion. I'd recommend shooting in vertical (rather than horizontal) orientation, getting in closer, and cutting out a lot of the sky and a lot of the stuff in the foreground. Then maybe rrepositioning yourself until the palm tree and the lighthouse feel like they're well balanced.

#4) Again, what is this picture about? Is it about the random organic lines present in the tree? I sort of THINK that's the case, because this picture doesn't look as if it's really about the tree in within the context of the environment. There's not really enough environment there to give it context. The only other significant thing there aside from the branches seems to be the light post, and that isn't working for me because it's just sort of merging with the tree. The lighting and the contrast and the color are similar enough that none of the elements (the tree or the pole) really stand out. They just sort of merge together In a way that's not pleasant for me.

So...what is this picture about? Is it about the relationship between the straight vertical lamp post and the random organic lines of the tree? If so, that's a good idea. But I really think that the lighting should be such that the light post doesn't blend in with the tree so much. Honestly, they're just sort of merging together in a really uncomfortable way.

Alternatively, if the picture is about the organic lines of the tree branches, then I think it's be a good idea to get in a lot closer. Cut out the unneeded stuff (like the pole, and the negative space around the tree). Get in really close, and really make the picture ABOUT the organic lines of the tree.

#5) This one is a cool idea. Not really my cup of tea, but I think it's a valid idea. A few things though. It's not sharp enough. The ring seems to absolutely be the most important thing there. So the ring in particular seems like it should be in focus. In fact, NOTHING in that picture seems to be in focus, so that sort of seems like the picture was shot without a tripod, using a shuter speed that was too slow to avoid causing motion blur. Solution...either use a tripod, or shoot at a faster shutter speed.

#1) Pretty good. But I think one of the most important things is to really narrow down on what a picture is ABOUT. It could be about a flower, in which case you'd probably want to get in close, eliminate things which distract from the flower. Alternatively, a picture could be about the relationship between the flower and its environment. In which case you'd probably want to back up, include some of the environment, and provide a bit of extra context relating to the flower.

In the first picture you posted, the picture really seems to me to be ABOUT the stuff happening on the fence. I mean...there's some really interesting stuff going on there. You've got a lot of contrast between light and shadow, and the circular objects are really pretty interesting as a stark contrast to the hard lines of the fence. Meanwhile, the trees are blurry and don't really seem to have anything to do with the stuff in the foreground.

There's really some VERY interesting stuff going on there, but this is a case in which I really think it would have been better to get in closer and eliminate the things that aren't really helping. There's a good picture here, but I don't think that the trees are helping. I'd like to see this reshot with the trees totally eliminated from the picture.

#2) Also a pretty cool picture. One obvious problem is that the horizon line isn't straight. However, that's something which should be able to be fixed pretty easily, so that's not a huge issue. The bigger problem is that the background is just way too overexposed. And the thing about landscape pictures is that for many of those kinds of pictures, you pretty much have to really exclusively on the sun for light. So the kind of problem here is sort of something that often simply can't be fixed without simply waiting until the sun is in a different position. Cool picture, but I think it could be far improved by simply shooting when the light was better.

#3) My issue with #3 is sort of a combination of the stuff I just talked about in the previous picture. The picture seems to be primarily ABOUT the lighthouse (as opposed to being about the sky, or being about the stuff next to the lighthouse). The lighthouse is also extremely underexposed. As far as the underexposed lighthouse is concerned, one thing you could do is to simply wait until the sun is in a better position and then take the picture again. Alternatively, you could just increase exposure until the lighthouse is exposed. Even though that would inevitably result in the sky being even brighter (sky would probably be mostly pure white), I think that's a fair trade-off. The picture doesn't really seem to be ABOUT the sky, so I don't see a problem with minimizing the sky's importance. The lighthouse seems to be the most important thing here. And if you can't get EVERYTHING well exposed, then it's probably better to get the lighthouse exposed right even if it's at the expense of other things in the picture.

As far as composition goes, there's also a lot of stuff in the foreground which doesn't really seem to be SAYING anything. The palm tree sort of says something (it's a warm enough climate for palm trees to live) and that sort of gives some information that observers can use. So yeah...keep the tree. But most of the other stuff in the foreground really doesn't seem to be doing anything helpful in my opinion. I'd recommend shooting in vertical (rather than horizontal) orientation, getting in closer, and cutting out a lot of the sky and a lot of the stuff in the foreground. Then maybe rrepositioning yourself until the palm tree and the lighthouse feel like they're well balanced.

#4) Again, what is this picture about? Is it about the random organic lines present in the tree? I sort of THINK that's the case, because this picture doesn't look as if it's really about the tree in within the context of the environment. There's not really enough environment there to give it context. The only other significant thing there aside from the branches seems to be the light post, and that isn't working for me because it's just sort of merging with the tree. The lighting and the contrast and the color are similar enough that none of the elements (the tree or the pole) really stand out. They just sort of merge together In a way that's not pleasant for me.

So...what is this picture about? Is it about the relationship between the straight vertical lamp post and the random organic lines of the tree? If so, that's a good idea. But I really think that the lighting should be such that the light post doesn't blend in with the tree so much. Honestly, they're just sort of merging together in a really uncomfortable way.

Alternatively, if the picture is about the organic lines of the tree branches, then I think it's be a good idea to get in a lot closer. Cut out the unneeded stuff (like the pole, and the negative space around the tree). Get in really close, and really make the picture ABOUT the organic lines of the tree.

#5) This one is a cool idea. Not really my cup of tea, but I think it's a valid idea. A few things though. It's not sharp enough. The ring seems to absolutely be the most important thing there. So the ring in particular seems like it should be in focus. In fact, NOTHING in that picture seems to be in focus, so that sort of seems like the picture was shot without a tripod, using a shuter speed that was too slow to avoid causing motion blur. Solution...either use a tripod, or shoot at a faster shutter speed.

MrGeezer

First and foremost, I greatly appreciate the feedback on my photos. I always enjoy listening from friends about what they think, and even more so, from people who have an idea of what makes a good photo. Which it sounds like you do. I would rather hear criticism, than compliments. I am always trying to learn how to do better.

The flower photo was taken with my kit lens, as that was the only lens I had at the time. It was certainly hindering just a little bit in macro shots and that was about as close I could get to it without losing focus. I figured, so long as the background was blurred enough, the focus of the photo would stay on the flower and not distract from it.

The photo of the creek, I thought the horizon was fairly straight? Perhaps the reason it looks slightly odd was because the bank on the left was a few feet higher than the right side. I chose that exposure because I liked the color of the sky in the water better than the color of the sky itself. I felt that the bright glow of the sun made it more interesting as well. I agree if I had waited longer for a different time of day, I could have got equal colors from the water and the sky. However, I didn't have a tripod with me, so it would have been hard.

As for the photo of the lighthouse, I wasn't trying to solely focus on the lighthouse. The sun was directly behind the lighthouse almost in the dead center behind it. The point was to get some kind of "haloish" effect from the sun that surrounded the lighthouse, I probably could have done a little better if I took more with different settings. I was still very new and wasn't really sure how to go about it.

The photo of the tree was certainly about the lines of the branches. I agree it probably would have been better if the lamp post wasn't there. At the same time however, perhaps it breaks it up a little. To be honest, I might just be a sucker for that shade of yellow and the contrast of the blue sky behind it.

The photo of the fence, I felt keeping the frame where it was with the trees in the background blurred out enough to keep the focus on the objects on the fence was better than keeping it solely on the fence, because the area below the circular saw was completely shadowed out. I felt it was too bland if I had gotten rid of the trees behind it. The trees are still blurred out enough where I don't believe it distracts from the objects and the fence.

The photo of the ring was taken in a moving vehicle with not a whole lot of lighting, and I rarely use the flash for anything. Even with the blurriness, I still found it appealing.

Nobody commented on mine :cry:

I'm still a photography newbie, I still have to experiment with my cam until I can upgrade to something better...or to atleast buy a new lens since I hate mine.





Kitteh!




All three of the pics are kind of old, I'm too lazy to go out from mah living room :P

The only things i can provide are these:

I took these at the airshow in Chicago today. They look a hell of a lot better blown up, but I made them smaller for the forums. I also have many more photo's, but I wish my camera battery didn't die halfway through the show...:(

Forgot to charge it before I went to bed yesterday...:x

1)First and foremost, I greatly appreciate the feedback on my photos. I always enjoy listening from friends about what they think, and even more so, from people who have an idea of what makes a good photo. Which it sounds like you do. I would rather hear criticism, than compliments. I am always trying to learn how to do better.

2)The photo of the tree was certainly about the lines of the branches. I agree it probably would have been better if the lamp post wasn't there. At the same time however, perhaps it breaks it up a little. To be honest, I might just be a sucker for that shade of yellow and the contrast of the blue sky behind it.

The photo of the fence, I felt keeping the frame where it was with the trees in the background blurred out enough to keep the focus on the objects on the fence was better than keeping it solely on the fence, because the area below the circular saw was completely shadowed out. I felt it was too bland if I had gotten rid of the trees behind it. The trees are still blurred out enough where I don't believe it distracts from the objects and the fence.

3)The photo of the ring was taken in a moving vehicle with not a whole lot of lighting, and I rarely use the flash for anything. Even with the blurriness, I still found it appealing.

DJ419

1) Hey, no problem. Just speaking for myself here, but personally, half the fun of photography comes from how little I know. I mean, everyone's priorities are different. But I honestly think I take more satisfaction from GETTING better rather than BEING better. I mean, don't get me wrong. Better pictures is a primary goal for me. But the real fun is in having pictures that aren't quite satisfying for me. The flaws in my pictures allow me to sort of do some problem-solving and find ways to fix them. Working towards solutions can actually be just as fun and satisfying as having solved problems in the first place.

2) And you said that it sounds like I know what I'm talking about. Well...sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I'm no pro and I still have room for a LOT of improvement. So in that sense, I think it's good that you're agreeing with some of what I posted, while disagreeing with other things. That sort of shows that you're thinking about what you're doing and making deliberate decisions. And personally, I think that's a very important part. Agree or disagree, I think the most important thing is that we were able to talk about it, freely exchange ideas. That helps people to think about art more clearly, and ultimately that benefits everyone. There's usually not a clearly obvious "right" or "wrong". I personally think that the primary value of criticism is less about an assessment of "quality", but more in the simple communication and sharing of different viewpoints.

3) On this point, I'd just like to say that in my personal opinion, on-camera flash isn't worth much as a primary light source. It can be used effectively as light to fill in shadows if the lighting is too harsh. But if the problem is simply "too dim", I don't find internal flash units to be of much use at all. Assuming that you're using a DSLR (which you may or may not be), I think that a good thing to invest in would be an external flash unit that fits onto the camera's hot shoe.

Those units can be fairly expensive, but even the cheap bottom-end models can be extremely effective for the person on a budget. The primary benefit there is being able to have a secondary light source which is projecting light from an off-camera position. Here's an example.

Just a standard shot of food, but the lighting wasn't right. The only significant light was from an open window at about the 2 o'clock position. That was about where I wanted the main light to be, but most of the object was just way too dark. Increasing exposure using available light would have then resulted in most of significant areas of the picture being EXTREMELY overexposed. What I really needed was a secondary light, from an off-camera position.

And that's where those shoe-mounted flash units can come in handy. Here, I only had a shoe mounted flash. What I did though, was to swivel the flash head over to the left, hold up a plain old sheet of white paper, and bounce the flash light back onto the subject. Effectively creating a significant secondary light source from an off-camera position, even though the actual flash unit was actually mounted on the camera.Picture still has its flaws, but that one single shoe-mounted flash unit gives me all sorts of opportunities to improve the lighting in this kind of way.

Bottom line as far as that goes...if you take pictures that require flash, I really think it's work investing in a cheap shoe-mounted flash unit. Internal flash units seem to generally sometimes do okay filling in shadows, but unless you can swivel the flash off of its axis, then it's not going to be nearly as versatile as even a cheap flash unit that can swivel up and down.

5 to 6 positive g's, and when the chutes hit -7+.. Tires deformation, has to be the coolest thing about a top fuel dragster/funny car, 8000hp does some cool stuff>jrtec13

.

Yeah no doubt..being a rally photographer would be really intense especially not only capturing the photo but trying to be alert to the fact at any point the driver could screw up and run into you. Your photos look really awesome, got a question on the long exposure one you did at the bottom...I noticed that there was a little bit of noise on the image, just curious what you took that photo at on hte ISO settings? I haven't done much long exposure work at was interested in what settings you used.

I would say they are pretty average.

Let's use MrGeezer's more recent thread a few posts down

Edit: Linky

http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/28875865/post-your-photography.?tag=topics%3Btitle