Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[qkslvrtypes]

lol before i used to go crazy on Unsharp Mask

but lately since i usually end up with quite a LOT of shots, i have developed a more efficient way to edit, i have used sharpening on my pics less thanusual....

i can upload the unedited file if you guys want to show u how very minimal my editing is nowadays....

edit...here is the original...just converted from sRAW (small raw) to jpeg on cs3.

orig is on the left / edited is on the right

not much difference at all

if i remember correctly - levels, brightness up, contrast up, saturation up, and very little usm.

here is the link to the full res pic - http://farm4.static.flick...43328528_6185391935_o.jpg

 

[jrdnsrnss]

Just ordered the Canon 100mm macro. Been wanting this for awhile and finally went ahead and got it. Can't wait til it gets here.

 

[rap sizzle]

^ excellent choice man. Even though it's a macro lens, the fact that it can focus to infinity allows it to be more versatile for shots like in low lightand even portraits from a distance.

 

[backtotheknown]

slowly learning how to use the camera

 

[alljayevryjay]

Hey Quickster (sorry, its just easier to remember/type lol), how much off-camera lighting are you working with? I'm thinking about getting an umbrella typething for my speedlight, or even another speedlight for fun.

Just one.

 

[yamakazi18]

Originally Posted by alljayevryjay

Hey Quickster (sorry, its just easier to remember/type lol), how much off-camera lighting are you working with? I'm thinking about getting an umbrella type thing for my speedlight, or even another speedlight for fun.

Just one.

speedlights are for when you don't have the option of umbrella/studio lighting, it's either one or the other for me. the studios thati've worked with have never used speedlights with umbrellas. speedlights are expensive, and i'd buy just one for fill lighting, and spend the rest on adecent system of novatron 250W/s for under $100 each for studio use.

 

[notoriuswes]

I want to get into photography.

 

[nycknicks105]

This is slowly becoming one of my favorite threads to lurk around.

 

[mytsharp]

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Some stuff I did for Stussy DC.[/color]


My-T.

 

[rap sizzle]

^ I'm not sure if the exif data is messed up but did you just use the $2600+ EF 50mm f/1.0??? Your first shot says that you took used f/1.3 but the depthof focus doesn't seem to be all that narrow. Were you standing really far and just cropped?

 

[mytsharp]

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]I didn't crop it at all.[/color]

Exif Sub IFD

* Exposure Time (1 / Shutter Speed) = 1/320 second = 0.00313 second
* Exposure Program = shutter priority (4)
* ISO Speed Ratings = 100
* Exif Version = 0220
* Original Date/Time = 2008:12:16 14:13:58
* Digitization Date/Time = 2008:12:16 14:13:58
* Aperture Value (APEX) = 15377/4254
Aperture = F3.5
* Exposure Bias (EV) = 1/1 = 1
* Metering Mode = pattern / multi-segment (5)
* Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
* Focal Length = 50/1 mm = 50 mm
* Colour Space = 65535
* Image Width = 920 pixels
* Image Height = 618 pixels

[color= rgb(255, 255, 0)]Is that what you have?[/color]

[color= rgb(0, 102, 0)]My-T.[/color]

 

[rap sizzle]

Oops, my bad. I just woke up and I totally forgot there's the EF 50mm f/1.2L (one of the lenses I'm after

). The aperture stated by FxIF (theFirefox addon) tells me that you used f/1.3. Weird that it gave the wrong data since I usually check and the addon is pretty accurate and I knew f/1.3 was tonarrow to not have the background blurred enough.

 

[mytsharp]

I used the 1.8..

My-T.

 

[randomhero1985]

Random, but:

 

[mytsharp]

?????

 

[rap sizzle]

What does that have to do with photography?

 

[nealraj006]

I like the use of leading lines in those shots.

 

[elboricua 6]

Originally Posted by randomhero1985

Random, but:

How about you

yourself out of this thread ..

THANKS ...

Corny but I wanted to post that pic .. lol

 

[elboricua 6]

So the weather has been really crappy here in nyc, but not as crappy as my pictures .. But hey - Still trying .. Sorry if I have ruined some of ya appetite!!!

p.s. I found this ammusing .. :/

 

[kix4kix]

^ I like your work

 

[yamakazi18]

Originally Posted by MyTsharp

[color= rgb(255, 0, 0)]Some stuff I did for Stussy DC.[/color]


My-T.

this is pretty interesting. your stuff reminds me of the sartorialist: http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/

for these shots it's pretty easy to see what you're trying to achieve, obviously clothing advertisement. may i suggest that you shoot with a wideraperture, or a longer lens? this will increase the blur/bokeh in the background, which makes it less distracting, and easier to focus on the subject. thesartorialist does this very naturally, while yours seems to be a tad more forced. also try to pick backgrounds that "complement" or even"contrast" the subject, rather than match (as is the case here with the pink jacket and gray shirt matching the pink and gray sidewalk, not sure ifthat was intentional); this will make the subject stand out even more. anyway, nice work and i'm sure they'll get nicer!

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

So the weather has been really crappy here in nyc, but not as crappy as my pictures .. But hey - Still trying .. Sorry if I have ruined some of ya appetite!!!

don't be too hard on yourself, everyone has to start somewhere! when i started out i definitely did NOT know what the hell i was doing

to suggest some things: try not to use the flash so harshly, in that picture with the girl. i personally am not a big flash fan, and the harshness of it takesaway from the "softness" a girl provides in that "skyline of the night" photo. in the pic above that i quoted, i really like the framing ofthe V and upside down V, utilizing that great rule of thirds

the rockson the left provide a great depth contrast, which is one of my pet peeves (that people don't leave enough sense of depth in their composition). i like alsohow the rocks "melt" into the reflection of the bridge lights, providing an undistracting, easy transition. there are the 3 minimum layers i usuallytry for in "landscape type" pictures: background city lights, middle bridge, and just a small touch of foreground provided by the rocks. nicecomposition!

your night skyline pictures aren't half bad, at least deserving to be on a postcard! i had a period about a year and a half back when i was really intonight skylines, it at first frustrated me because i didn't really understand why my pictures looked so "postcard generic," but i just kept onvisiting the same places over and over again until i ended up with different shots from different angles that i thought were more original and fit my style.long exposure stuff is fun, keep at it!

 

[elboricua 6]

yamakazi18 wrote:

---

elboricua 6 wrote:

---

So the weather has been really crappy here in nyc, but not as crappy as my pictures .. But hey - Still trying .. Sorry if I have ruined some of ya appetite!!!

don't be too hard on yourself, everyone has to start somewhere! when i started out i definitely did NOT know what the hell i was doing

to suggest some things: try not to use the flash so harshly, in that picture with the girl. i personally am not a big flash fan, and the harshness of it takes away from the "softness" a girl provides in that "skyline of the night" photo. in the pic above that i quoted, i really like the framing of the V and upside down V, utilizing that great rule of thirds

the rocks on the left provide a great depth contrast, which is one of my pet peeves (that people don't leave enough sense of depth in their composition). i like also how the rocks "melt" into the reflection of the bridge lights, providing an undistracting, easy transition. there are the 3 minimum layers i usually try for in "landscape type" pictures: background city lights, middle bridge, and just a small touch of foreground provided by the rocks. nice composition!

your night skyline pictures aren't half bad, at least deserving to be on a postcard! i had a period about a year and a half back when i was really into night skylines, it at first frustrated me because i didn't really understand why my pictures looked so "postcard generic," but i just kept on visiting the same places over and over again until i ended up with different shots from different angles that i thought were more original and fit my style. long exposure stuff is fun, keep at it!






I be comparing my work to people with lots of experience, maybe that's why I have so high hopes and be so let down. LOL ....

But the weather plus the fog plus the low light be making some of those pictures look like crap.

Also, I used flash for only one picture above and that's the one you mentioned, if I didn't then I would of have had no shoot. The lens kept searchingand couldn't find her and when it did I had to shoot something like 4 sec to even show. That wasn't going to happen, so I had to use (stock flash) -I'm going to invest in the 580 and a buffer, don't know what they due but I heard good things about it ....

Thanks for your comments, I def keep them in mind ..

 

[yamakazi18]

Originally Posted by elboricua 6

yamakazi18 wrote:

---

elboricua 6 wrote:

---

So the weather has been really crappy here in nyc, but not as crappy as my pictures .. But hey - Still trying .. Sorry if I have ruined some of ya appetite!!!

don't be too hard on yourself, everyone has to start somewhere! when i started out i definitely did NOT know what the hell i was doing

to suggest some things: try not to use the flash so harshly, in that picture with the girl. i personally am not a big flash fan, and the harshness of it takes away from the "softness" a girl provides in that "skyline of the night" photo. in the pic above that i quoted, i really like the framing of the V and upside down V, utilizing that great rule of thirds

the rocks on the left provide a great depth contrast, which is one of my pet peeves (that people don't leave enough sense of depth in their composition). i like also how the rocks "melt" into the reflection of the bridge lights, providing an undistracting, easy transition. there are the 3 minimum layers i usually try for in "landscape type" pictures: background city lights, middle bridge, and just a small touch of foreground provided by the rocks. nice composition!

your night skyline pictures aren't half bad, at least deserving to be on a postcard! i had a period about a year and a half back when i was really into night skylines, it at first frustrated me because i didn't really understand why my pictures looked so "postcard generic," but i just kept on visiting the same places over and over again until i ended up with different shots from different angles that i thought were more original and fit my style. long exposure stuff is fun, keep at it!






I be comparing my work to people with lots of experience, maybe that's why I have so high hopes and be so let down. LOL ....

But the weather plus the fog plus the low light be making some of those pictures look like crap.

Also, I used flash for only one picture above and that's the one you mentioned, if I didn't then I would of have had no shoot. The lens kept searching and couldn't find her and when it did I had to shoot something like 4 sec to even show. That wasn't going to happen, so I had to use (stock flash) - I'm going to invest in the 580 and a buffer, don't know what they due but I heard good things about it ....

Thanks for your comments, I def keep them in mind ..
yea i think that is one of the ways to improve, to look up to those pictures from people you like. however just make sure to emulate them to makeyour own, not copy theirs! yea the fog/low lighting is hard to take pictures in, but that's why people need to start using that manual focus! autofocusisn't the end-all be-all, and like i mentioned previously, a lot of the older folks i have worked with simply do fine with manual focus. one"trick" to check for sharpness is to use that zoom-in feature on your LCD, it comes in handy. also, some cameras will have that small built in lightto try to light up the subject better. another "trick" is to simply bring a flashlight to help out your autofocus, it's so cheap and easy andcommonsense, yet whenever i tell people this they give me a really dumbfounded "oh" and it's a bit amusing, haha. anyway i LIKE fog in pictures,it gives EXTRA depth of field in the composition, not to mention an interesting aspect to an otherwise "normal" photograph, you know what i mean?

lastly i forgot to mention i liked your border for that picture, sometimes white works, sometimes black works, and i think you chose the right one!

 

[jpioneer]

Rookie is back once again...

I need to start studying PS...

Any C&C is Greatly appreciated!

 

[bayest]

A picture I pulled up from the July show in SF