|
Had these developed recently, was kinda concerned with the slow film speed but they turned out pretty clear.   
|
| # ¿ Jun 10, 2010 07:38 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 08:51 |
|
|
     Like how they turned out for the most part. Main issues with the second and the last. Greens are way to heavy in the second, going to go with a less saturated film in overcast weather next time and the blur on the last is heavy enough that it's a bit hard for me to look at, should have used a smaller aperture. East Lake fucked around with this message at Jun 25, 2010 around 13:21 |
| # ¿ Jun 25, 2010 04:09 |
|
|
More from the same place I posted above. 
|
| # ¿ Jul 7, 2010 22:15 |
|
|
How wide is that lens Dread Head? Distortion sticks out in the second one the most for me.
|
| # ¿ Jul 8, 2010 18:00 |
|
|
Personally it doesn't bother me much in those photos, or in many landscapes. Only looks weird to me when it warps things like buildings or other clearly straight lines.
|
| # ¿ Jul 8, 2010 21:18 |
|
|
Yeah the second version is definitely much better BeastOfExmoor, the mountain in the first reminded me of the color of cheetos!
|
| # ¿ Jul 29, 2010 04:05 |
|
|
So this waterfall in the pic I took is probably around 100 feet high. Does it look almost like a miniature to anyone else? I'm thinking it might be the focus on the waterfall that slightly blurs the detail in the gorge below, or the small size of the image or something. Maybe I'm just seeing things.
|
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2010 22:12 |
|
|
Yeah it's definitely a bad angle for scale but I still feel like if you were there, even without seeing the falls from the front you'd immediately understand the size of it. Probably a few elements that didn't translate well. I'm going back there this weekend, gonna take that shot again a few different ways and see what happens.
|
| # ¿ Oct 15, 2010 23:39 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:might be different for you because I'm using a manual focus camera, but I just stop down and put the end mark for the aperture I'm using on the depth of field scale a teensy bit past infinity. Here's some not so recent stuff I'm pretty sure I haven't posted in here.      From the kodachrome thread.  
|
| # ¿ Apr 2, 2011 02:39 |
|
|
Col. Mustard posted:You know why Yosemite is one of the most photographed landscapes in the world? Cause the scenes and the light are loving awesome. I know these features have been shot millions of times. But these are mine, and only I was in this spot, at this time, shooting with this kit. Landscapes are difficult because a lot of times when you go out hiking everything looks awesome and then frustratingly enough you try to capture that and it just does not do it justice, tons of poo poo I took looks bland, the camera is not like the eye where everything is given context and you can shift focus in an instant.  What do you guys actively think about or look for when you shoot landscapes? Something that would separate what you took from a what other landscape "pros" are taking for some digital photography magazine, or whatever else. I'm kinda disappointed in myself that I have an idea about what I can isolate from an image to make it look better but often don't think much about what I should be looking for. Haven't even looked at all that much landscape photography to rip-off. Then there's the other end of the spectrum where you'd want to get something, anything so you have an image to look back to when you can't remember the location so well, technical skill be damned. There's probably a middle ground... Waiting for the weather to break here in upstate ny currently, so here's some older poo poo. Always like these because  
East Lake fucked around with this message at May 5, 2011 around 07:09 |
| # ¿ May 5, 2011 06:54 |
|
|
Are you only willing to consider cfi/cfe lenses? You could get a CF T* Distagon for under 1k on keh.
|
| # ¿ May 28, 2011 19:46 |
|
|
Should have panned a little to the right on the first to give the sign some space but I like it otherwise. 
|
| # ¿ Jun 25, 2011 19:35 |
|
|
xenilk posted:
Also for Dread Head, I feel the same way as Jay does. One perspective shift that may do some good is using a moderate telephoto lens for landscapes. Do you feel you're in a stylistic rut at all? Would like to hear your opinion before expanding on this.
|
| # ¿ Jul 6, 2011 03:25 |
|
|
To me it seems like you should keep taking those waterfall pictures but avoid looking toward this method/process as a way to advance your skill with photography. Taking those shots to remember your trip is reason enough to keep doing it but if I were to open up outdoor photography magazine or something similar I'd see legions of dudes taking similar pics. This certainly does your style no favors. I tried searching through National Geographic's stock site to find waterfall images I thought were more imaginative but didn't find much that caught my eye, though I'm sure they're out there. I did find this though. Photographer is some guy I didn't bother to write down. The image is very literal, almost like what you'd remember if you had walked through that area. If you had posted it here I wouldn't have thought twice about it. The two big things I always worry about are composition and establishing an atmosphere that is unique. While it's probably oversimplifying it I feel the above shot does suffer from having way too much to look at, same thing crossed my mind when I saw your last three images. There's tons of elements to segment the images and break apart my focus on anything. Rocks, branches, wood, water, waterfall, all occupying a small space in the image fighting for dominance, this picture of yours doesn't have the same issue. A print may have more bite and nuance but at these sizes I feel detail is also being squashed by the wide-angle view. The lighting is also pretty drab, only an isolated part in your second image catches my eye in regards to lighting, slightly behind the closest tree branch where it darkens and looks cave-like. Sometimes I'll stumble onto a nice landscape and find no way to compose it well enough to do it justice, and maybe it's worth taking the picture anyway but at the same time you have to move on knowing that at that point in time there wasn't much you could do to make a successful image out of it. Establishing your own unique processing style (lighting still is still extremely important!) is a bitch, at least for me, but I know that learning lightroom and ps inside and out is not something I should ignore, even though I'm currently doing that with slide films. I hate sitting at the comp too long to learn what seems like a b.s. in Photoshop Sciences, hopefully slowly learning one function at a time will help! I think the overall atmosphere/processing really separates a lot of the great photographers from everyone else. Once you establish a distinct look I think you'd find it would help with shots like your most recent three. This one is from Michael Kenna.  And this one is from 2001: A Space Odyssey  The 2001 snapshot really doesn't do it justice but you can see how these are composed in a similar manner. The mood in each is very different though, enough that you wouldn't think one is all that similar to the other. You don't often see landscapes like the ones above, and for good reason, it takes a great amount of vision and steps to get those results, heck the 2001 shot might be a matte painting, I don't know! But it's within our ability to create scenes that are as unique as these. They don't have to be as heavily separated from real life either, subtle alterations are fine as long as you're confident with the look. I think it's important to think about what kind of image you'd produce if you had no obstacle in realizing it, even something with no physical counterpart. Maybe an alien landscape that only exists within your head, then think about how you'd get a similar processing style and quality of lighting in the real world. Then you might know where your style should go, or maybe you'll still be as uncertain as everyone else, who knows! Alright I rambled quite a bit but I hope what I said was of some use, I'm pretty clueless in a lot of ways myself so maybe if we post enough nonsense we'll figure something out. 
East Lake fucked around with this message at Jul 6, 2011 around 06:15 |
| # ¿ Jul 6, 2011 06:05 |
|
|
aliencowboy posted:good riddance, snow Anyway here's some "landscapes" from me!      
|
| # ¿ Mar 28, 2012 22:50 |
|
|
I'm relatively pleased with them. I can definitely compose better but I wasn't too deliberate with these, at least compared to other shots I've taken. I don't want them to look clinical. I don't know if that's the best way to describe it but I definitely want to be inventive with how things are composed (more than I have with these). Anyhoo I think I want to try take some pics where you feel like you're in the frame looking in rather than looking at the picture itself. I think since I've been using a normal fov/tele lenses they're just sort of isolated compositions without any foreground to place you there. East Lake fucked around with this message at Mar 30, 2012 around 03:44 |
| # ¿ Mar 30, 2012 03:40 |
|
|
The vignetting looks pretty dark for daylight particularly on the left side but aside from that I think it looks pretty good the way it is. It's very bright in the middle but the light looks nice, sort of otherwordly.
|
| # ¿ Jun 5, 2012 09:22 |
|
|
 Adirondack High Peaks Region. That's about as close as I got without torrential downpours. Not fun hiking or picture taking that day.
|
| # ¿ Aug 26, 2012 06:50 |
|
|
I think the sunset-like lighting in the clouds sorta gives it away. That's just a guess though. It seems like the light on the ground might be too bright for the clouds that suggest lighting in the evening.
|
| # ¿ Aug 30, 2012 02:40 |
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Thanks. I was thinking of taking one of these good ones and blowing it up for my mom's birthday soon.
|
| # ¿ Sep 8, 2012 05:17 |
|
|
I've got to be honest it looks unpleasant to me. I'm not against even massively altering a landscape to make it unrecognizable from the original, but when the contrast is reduced like that it's almost similar to an uncanny valley situation where I'm expecting to see the contrast and it's not there and I just can't move past that. The photo takes on this odd 2D look.
|
| # ¿ Dec 27, 2012 13:29 |
|
|
Metalslug posted:Odd - that photo is absolutely not processed in the faux-HDR method I just mention, nor using HDR software either.  The only thing that sticks out to me in the Lak Lake shot is the shadow boost, mainly with the flatness of the mud in the foreground. East Lake fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2012 around 06:27 |
| # ¿ Dec 31, 2012 06:23 |
|
|
What aperture are you shooting those at Sludge? One thing that does stick out to me is the heavy foreground blurring in some of the shots.
|
| # ¿ Mar 16, 2013 05:14 |
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2013 08:51 |
|
|
xzzy posted:So basically what everyone is saying is that the place where you live is the most boring place on the planet.  Drive out to the corn field you see the most, or the one that for some reason bothers you the most because the farmers don't tend it well and it's ragged and depressing or something. Like it's not even doing it's job as a corn field well Stand in the corn. Hold a back up camera in your hand with a main camera a distance away for a self portrait. I think a shot something like this would be good but even wider. You need the illusion that the field stretches infinitely. A few pose options would be like a sort of forlorn look where you're holding your camera with one arm completely slack at your side as if you're going to drop it, while your gaze is looking in the opposite direction down toward the ground like the scenery isn't amusing you anymore. Or you could do like a clenched fist at the sky while you yell like the scenery has wronged you in some way, with possible violent demonstration with the camera. Or you could be on your knees crawling hands first away from a certain corn stalk like it's a mob boss who's about to take his money back and a little bit more. For more light hearted material you could stand out behind a few stalks and lean into one of the rows between the stalks, eyes looking off to the left or right of the frame with a determined face ready to escape the corn field prison. Alternative idea... Make your own corn stalk. Some abomination made up of crap that you're hoarding and should throw out but you keep anyway because you just might use it for something one day. Give it a face and some character and put it in the fields. You could do a thing where it's like a traveling corn stalk visiting all the fields until he finds the best one there is. East Lake fucked around with this message at Mar 22, 2013 around 07:12 |
| # ¿ Mar 22, 2013 07:03 |
|
