|
MrBlandAverage posted:"It's lovely" is bad critique, but "it's lovely because of this choice you made" is good critique. or a choice your parents made. like reproduce.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
Completely off topic, but ever since learning the importance of making sure the horizon is straight (either in camera or in post), now all I see anywhere is photos with wonky horizons, and it drives me mad. I should never have learnt.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
I'm facebook friends with one of my wife's good friends from high school, who is just starting to get into photography after being a "model." She posted some pictures, and even though I know my pictures are bad (why I never post any of them) I had to really work hard to not reply with "HORIZON HORIZON HORIZON" on all of them.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:"It's lovely It is bad critique, because it's lazy. Most of the time, a lovely photo is lovely for a reason. I think a lot of new photographers take a lot of photographs of extremely common subjects in extremely common settings with extremely common compositions. I did the exact same thing when I was new, and looking back, there a lot of photos that at the time I was pretty proud of, because at that point I was still just figuring out exposure, how light interacts, getting sharp results, etc. Nowadays I (think) I have the basics down so I'm able to attempt to make photos that are more interesting. Sometimes, when I branch out into a new-to-me type of photography, I do that same thing while I'm trying to learn that basics of that type. So a lot of times people see photos that have been done to death or are clearly from someone trying to nail down those basics and just glaze over and say "it's lovely" or "it's uninteresting" because that's easier than explaining why it's unremarkable. edit: that's not to say that photos of common subjects in common settings can't be interesting. It just takes those extra deliberate elements to make them "good".
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
" sounds like a bad critique, but maybe you can critique the way I take critiques? Is there anything that can be gained from critiques like that?
|
I have a level in the viewfinder  It's not that useful.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Sometimes I see photos in the Photo A Day thread that have the exact same subject and composition as photos I have taken and was proud of, and it teaches me that I'm not creative enough yet.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
mulls posted:Sometimes I see photos in the Photo A Day thread that have the exact same subject and composition as photos I have taken and was proud of, and it teaches me that I'm not creative enough yet. Mimicry is a form of flattery. With that being said, it's a flattery of the subject that we all take a picture of, not of our talent. Realizing that helped push me to to find a, let's say, more unique subject.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
I've fallen behind on posting photos anywhere, to the point where I'd just as soon start over and build a new gallery somewhere new (I'm currently on Flickr). Where are people posting these days? Still Flickr? 500px? I just have no idea what's out there, I'd love some suggestions.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
jackpot posted:I've fallen behind on posting photos anywhere, to the point where I'd just as soon start over and build a new gallery somewhere new (I'm currently on Flickr). Where are people posting these days? Still Flickr? 500px? I just have no idea what's out there, I'd love some suggestions. Flickr's most recent redesign seems to have fixed a lot of the poo poo that had been wrong for a while. No more loving Yahoo bar and the page number links at the bottom of Photostream work again. They have completely transitioned over to forcing you to use a Yahoo account rather than just linking it to your Google login which is annoying because I can never remember what my Yahoo account is, but whatever, it's cookied login 90% of the time. Tumblr is probably better if you actually want to put time into laying stuff out, but I just want an online photo dumping ground that I can link to easily.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
dakana posted:It is bad critique, because it's lazy. Most of the time, a lovely photo is lovely for a reason. I think a lot of new photographers take a lot of photographs of extremely common subjects in extremely common settings with extremely common compositions. I did the exact same thing when I was new, and looking back, there a lot of photos that at the time I was pretty proud of, because at that point I was still just figuring out exposure, how light interacts, getting sharp results, etc. Nowadays I (think) I have the basics down so I'm able to attempt to make photos that are more interesting. Sometimes, when I branch out into a new-to-me type of photography, I do that same thing while I'm trying to learn that basics of that type. Also, has 500px made it possible to do away with that awful rating number system? I loved the gallery layout but that damned rating number turned everything into a circlejerk.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Muttonchips posted:Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks for breaking it down- this is a good critique of a critique. Photography *is* a circlejerk.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
I got a shiner from a lighting accessory today. Bought one of the roundflash knockoffs (big ring flash reflective soft box for a shoe mount flash) , and when I unzipped the pouch it sprang to life like a demented jack in the box and whacked me in the face. Fair warning to all
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:Completely off topic, but ever since learning the importance of making sure the horizon is straight (either in camera or in post), now all I see anywhere is photos with wonky horizons, and it drives me mad. Don't learn about lighting. Don't learn about makeup. Don't learn about composition. Porn is ruined for me.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Don't learn about lighting. FTFY
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
two easy questions: 1. My girlfriend's d40's flash arm is broken and the store quoted me $169 for it. I've more or less fixed it by just holding the flash down when I want to take photos without flash . Is there an easy fix for this slash is it being broken affecting my pictures at all? I see in the corner of the viewfinder it throws a lightning bolt and ? but I don't know if that's actually affecting anything and 2. After buying Understanding exposure I'm trying to do some of that bullshitty DoF stuff with the apeture but I'm not getting it done with the kit lens. Am I just not choosing the right subjects or is it harder to do with the default lens?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Grandmaster.flv posted:two easy questions: If it's going off, it'll drain the battery faster, and it also might affect your burst rate if it's trying to recharge when you take another photo. For #2, depth of field is affected by subject distance, focal length, and aperture. You'll get the shallowest depth of field with your kit lens on the D40 if you shoot something wide open at the longest focal length you've got (so, 5.6 at 55mm) at the minimum focus distance (so as close as possible).
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Using a calculator is quite useful for learning depth of field, this is one I have in my bookmarks - http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
If I convert all my images to DNG files does that mean that everything (edits, keywords, description, whatever else could possibly be stored in a Lightroom library) is stored in the DNG? I'm traveling for the next four months and while I'll have my computer, I want to be able to edit everything in Lightroom, convert to DNG and throw it up on Google Drive and be done with it without having to worry about libraries, corruption, XML files (if possible), etc.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
This probably is not the correct place to post this, however I can't find a better place so here goes! I am in need of a piece of software and I have pretty specific needs. Perhaps somebody knows of one, or would be interested in creating this software for me in exchange for dollars. I need to be able to plug my Canon 7d into my computer (PC or Mac) via USB, and have an intravolometer feature which allows me to take one photo per second and automatically save onto my computer. I have tried the EOS utlity, and it works great with the exception of the minimum time being five seconds between photos. Edit: The volume of photos I have to take in a day is kind of insane, so every second helps Bojanglesworth fucked around with this message at 22:15 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:Don't learn about lighting. Try editing porn photos for a living. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:This probably is not the correct place to post this, however I can't find a better place so here goes! Why not just use a 3rd party remote control and tethering with Lightroom? http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/38165202 http://amzn.com/B005OUUFGK
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:This probably is not the correct place to post this, however I can't find a better place so here goes! Should be quite easy on Linux if that's an option: http://gphoto.sourceforge.net/doc/remote/
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
huhu posted:Why not just use a 3rd party remote control and tethering with Lightroom? That may just have to be the route I go. What I am doing is photographing cars on a revolving carousel, at the maximum speed the carousel takes forty seconds to spin 360 degrees. I only really need about 35 photos to make a nice fluid spin for the site. The wheel: http://youtu.be/xXaZ0pb5jlE
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:That may just have to be the route I go. What I am doing is photographing cars on a revolving carousel, at the maximum speed the carousel takes forty seconds to spin 360 degrees. I only really need about 35 photos to make a nice fluid spin for the site. Google "rubber band intervalometer" gphoto or Lightroom could work too Also magic lantern adds an intervalometer Dren fucked around with this message at 04:18 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:That may just have to be the route I go. What I am doing is photographing cars on a revolving carousel, at the maximum speed the carousel takes forty seconds to spin 360 degrees. I only really need about 35 photos to make a nice fluid spin for the site. Check out controlMyCanon. I've used their nikon software for high volume tethered shooting with good success, I bet it'll work for you. If nothing else the trial software is full featured, so there's nothing stopping you from testing it out. http://www.controlmycanon.com/ If it does work it's pretty darn cheap too.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 05:49
|
|
|
I've been shooting street photography and it's an absolute struggle at night. With my F/4 lenses I end up having to shoot at 1/50 shutter speed and a cranked up ISO. With my f/1.8 prime lens I have more flexibility but everything becomes a depth of field shot. Does anyone have some good tips on managing light better? Like are there things I should look for in the environment, or certain places I should stand in order to get better exposure? I've noticed some nighttime street photography shots online that look really dark and cool, where the lights feel powerful and high contrast to the shadows. It seems difficult to get that effect. I haven't messed around with a tripod yet, and I'm only learning post processing. Also any good video series on photography for beginners is welcome.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Thoren posted:
I really like the fundamentals of photography course on Lynda.com. It's really long and covers lots of things. I quite like that there's a good chunk of time where he goes into the field, starts taking photos and explains his process as to why the last shot wasn't what he wants and what he'll change to get closer to the right one.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I've been shooting street photography and it's an absolute struggle at night. With my F/4 lenses I end up having to shoot at 1/50 shutter speed and a cranked up ISO. With my f/1.8 prime lens I have more flexibility but everything becomes a depth of field shot. Heh, tripod helps a lot, but a big gently caress-off flash helps a lot, too. You get that 'flash look' but it helps to isolate your subject from the background, or you can just use it as fill. Modern direct flash can actually look very nice! Otherwise, if you don't have enough light, you don't have enough light, I'm not really seeing a solution other than the tripod.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 12:42
|
|
|
I'm also amazed how bumping the exposure in Lightroom can rescue some photos that on first inspection look like nothing is there.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 12:51
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I've been shooting street photography and it's an absolute struggle at night. With my F/4 lenses I end up having to shoot at 1/50 shutter speed and a cranked up ISO. With my f/1.8 prime lens I have more flexibility but everything becomes a depth of field shot. For nighttime street photos like the ones you mentioned make sure you're using spot metering and not evaluative metering. As far as getting better going out and shooting and being critical of your work is 100x more effective than watching a video.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Winogrand's night photos are all blurry and they own so good, just use a low shutter speed and focus on what photos look good blurry.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
EL BROMANCE posted:I'm also amazed how bumping the exposure in Lightroom can rescue some photos that on first inspection look like nothing is there. Not if you're a canon shooter! right guys?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
mulls posted:Winogrand's night photos are all blurry and they own so good, just use a low shutter speed and focus on what photos look good blurry. I loving hate Winograd and absolutely adore Daido Moriyama, even though their working methods seem similar. If your pictures are good, a little bit of blur won't ruin them.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Thoogsby posted:For nighttime street photos like the ones you mentioned make sure you're using spot metering and not evaluative metering. As far as getting better going out and shooting and being critical of your work is 100x more effective than watching a video. I was on evaluative this whole time.  Pivo posted:Heh, tripod helps a lot, but a big gently caress-off flash helps a lot, too. You get that 'flash look' but it helps to isolate your subject from the background, or you can just use it as fill. Modern direct flash can actually look very nice! I'm still not sure how to use flash. I only have my DSLR's built in flash but it seems to make everything look lovely. I guess it's one of those things I'll have to learn as time goes on. EL BROMANCE posted:I really like the fundamentals of photography course on Lynda.com. It's really long and covers lots of things. I quite like that there's a good chunk of time where he goes into the field, starts taking photos and explains his process as to why the last shot wasn't what he wants and what he'll change to get closer to the right one. Thanks I'll check this out.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Thoren posted:I'm still not sure how to use flash. I only have my DSLR's built in flash but it seems to make everything look lovely. I guess it's one of those things I'll have to learn as time goes on. Use a business card or small mirror to bounce the light from your on-camera flash off walls or the ceiling or something.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Use a business card or small mirror to bounce the light from your on-camera flash off walls or the ceiling or something. a NyQuil cup also makes a handy diffuser.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:Use a business card or small mirror to bounce the light from your on-camera flash off walls or the ceiling or something. Most "high end" flashes also have a built-in diffuser and can tilt and rotate the head, and gigantic bounce cards (is that what they're called?) cost like, 10 or 20 bucks with the thing to attach it to the flash. And high end flash will last you a long time, so they're a good investment. The tiny on-body flash is usually crappy, it'll cast shadows with long lenses.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
A Yongnuo flash is only like $60.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Desaturating content of an image based on luminance, does that effect have a specific name? I came across an article about how eyes suck at colors with dark tones and figured to try something like that in Photoshop. Pretty much taking a copy of the luminance data of the image, inverting it and applying a curve, then stuffing it as mask into a saturation adjustment layer. Gives a nice effect, but it's definitely not negative values in the vibrance slider. If it is a specific effect, would be nice to know its name, because it sucks doing by hand.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
split toning
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:49
|
|