The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

I can do it without the presets with no problem. It's just easier to click a button haha. However, I'd say the majority of people that use presets stop at that step. I always tweek the preset after applying to give me the exact look that I want. In fact I should just make my own preset from those settings.
 
^^^^I guess I should start using Lightroom. I used to love editing photos and still do to a degree but oddly I think I take more time editing now than before and it's starting to drive me insane. Worst of all, some edits are so bad cause the original photo is so bad and I am sure a filter would help that tremendously and prove to be a lot quicker.
 
If you click that link and look at his photo set, it just all looks like he did different edits for no reason at all. I get why people use those filters but the retro look should be used properly. What is retro of landscapes and even Hawaii ones for that matter?! Those photos should have pop. He even muted the sunset photo which makes no sense at all.

He has the 2nd set here. He even used a retro filter but it actually worked imo for these photos. Even the blur on the 2nd one makes the retro filter seem more legit as if it was shot on film:

HR2-007.jpg
HR2-001.jpg


http://thehundreds.com/hawaiian-recap-part-2/
 
I totally get it..i've been actively taking pics as a hobby for about two years but never experimented too hard with editing until last year.. I think I've had a very similar journey---started off making roughly 6-10 tweaks on average for a photo that would enhance it but lessen also take away from its natural look.

Now, I aim to not take it too far out of its natural state. I guess its true "less is more" sometimes. :D

I've made this comment before, in different words perhaps, but to me 'natural' & photography are kinda opposing terms...it seems to me that photography is a completely unnatural, can anyone really be sure what they see through the camera's lens is how it actually appeared to anyone else? whatever edits need to be made to get the result(s) you are after are fair game, i think...


I pretty much stick to the VSCo Film presets. There are a couple that I like but the shoot determines which one I use. The ones I use are pretty similar to each other.

I think as a challenge, people should just edit their photos without using filters. I'd be lying if I said I never use them and I use them more now than ever (talking about maybe using filters 20% of the time though) but I still try and lay off them and just edit photos as is with the typical things. I've noticed in even some look books and even stuff from Van Styles that aren't his model shots get a lot of crap for only using filters.

For example. I know this might not even be a filter thing but editing blacks to where it is super light just grinds my gears sometimes. I mean do it where it makes sense but a lot of cases, it is just done without really any disregards. I saw this on Hypebeast this morning and for a product shot, this photo makes no sense with the edit:

nike-kobe-9-low-em-bright-mango-1.jpg


And this was a blog Van Styles did when he went to Hawaii (no hate). His edits were just odd. He's like muting colors when that is the last thing you want to do with photos from Hawaii.

http://thehundreds.com/hawaiian-re-cap-part-1/

HR1-010.jpg
HR1-007.jpg
HR1-016.jpg

i see what you are saying, but maybe that is why he did it? or maybe that is his style? clipping the blacks like that sometimes helps keeps the high contrast between light & dark in the mid tones & highlights and retain some details...
 
I've made this comment before, in different words perhaps, but to me 'natural' & photography are kinda opposing terms...it seems to me that photography is a completely unnatural, can anyone really be sure what they see through the camera's lens is how it actually appeared to anyone else? whatever edits need to be made to get the result(s) you are after are fair game, i think...
i see what you are saying, but maybe that is why he did it? or maybe that is his style? clipping the blacks like that sometimes helps keeps the high contrast between light & dark in the mid tones & highlights and retain some details...
I get what you're saying. To be honest one could pose the bigger question to say "is your reality the same as what I visually perceive 'reality' to be?".. I goes along the same lines as the question you just mentioned and I agree. The 'necessary edits' are all just based on what one 'thinks' needs to happen. That's what makes this whole thing beautiful. Pictures can be reinterpreted many different ways.
 
One from today. Not the best but eh. Been trying to go out and shoot at night here in SF but summers just blow cause the fog is just crazy. No real colors in the sky and I even got my gradient filters too but they are pretty useless right now. Oh well.

QFT!

I started out at Twin Peaks last night and it was nothin but fog.

I ended up in Alamo Square as well...looks like I just missed you by a little bit. Still tryin' to get on y'all level.

SMH. I also still need to get Lightroom so I can do some PP.

Foggy Ladies Skyline by that1fool, on Flickr

City Hall by that1fool, on Flickr
 
I totally get it..i've been actively taking pics as a hobby for about two years but never experimented too hard with editing until last year.. I think I've had a very similar journey---started off making roughly 6-10 tweaks on average for a photo that would enhance it but lessen also take away from its natural look.

Now, I aim to not take it too far out of its natural state. I guess its true "less is more" sometimes. :D

I've made this comment before, in different words perhaps, but to me 'natural' & photography are kinda opposing terms...it seems to me that photography is a completely unnatural, can anyone really be sure what they see through the camera's lens is how it actually appeared to anyone else? whatever edits need to be made to get the result(s) you are after are fair game, i think...


I pretty much stick to the VSCo Film presets. There are a couple that I like but the shoot determines which one I use. The ones I use are pretty similar to each other.

I think as a challenge, people should just edit their photos without using filters. I'd be lying if I said I never use them and I use them more now than ever (talking about maybe using filters 20% of the time though) but I still try and lay off them and just edit photos as is with the typical things. I've noticed in even some look books and even stuff from Van Styles that aren't his model shots get a lot of crap for only using filters.

For example. I know this might not even be a filter thing but editing blacks to where it is super light just grinds my gears sometimes. I mean do it where it makes sense but a lot of cases, it is just done without really any disregards. I saw this on Hypebeast this morning and for a product shot, this photo makes no sense with the edit:

nike-kobe-9-low-em-bright-mango-1.jpg


And this was a blog Van Styles did when he went to Hawaii (no hate). His edits were just odd. He's like muting colors when that is the last thing you want to do with photos from Hawaii.

http://thehundreds.com/hawaiian-re-cap-part-1/

HR1-010.jpg
HR1-007.jpg
HR1-016.jpg

i see what you are saying, but maybe that is why he did it? or maybe that is his style? clipping the blacks like that sometimes helps keeps the high contrast between light & dark in the mid tones & highlights and retain some details...

That "fade" effect can be a real hit or miss and it is over done.

Not sure why it was used on the sneaker shot., but to me it works with the second and third water shots.
 
Last edited:
QFT!

I started out at Twin Peaks last night and it was nothin but fog.

I ended up in Alamo Square as well...looks like I just missed you by a little bit. Still tryin' to get on y'all level.

SMH. I also still need to get Lightroom so I can do some PP.

Foggy Ladies Skyline by that1fool, on Flickr

City Hall by that1fool, on Flickr

Wow.....how ironic. I think I shot mine at around 9ish or so. Don't remember seeing anyone with a camera. I was trying to get a lot of the city in the background like you did on your second but just wasn't able to with my lenses.
 
I'm looking for a really sharp canon lens (Preferably prime) to embark on some new work with, can anyone with a canon setup recommend anything?

I was thinking on the lines of an 85mm or a 50 if I could find the 1.4 for less than 3 bills

So far I have a pancake and a 17-40 L

I sold my 50 1.8, I think I outgrew it and it wasn't enough blur for me
 
I'm looking for a really sharp canon lens (Preferably prime) to embark on some new work with, can anyone with a canon setup recommend anything?

I was thinking on the lines of an 85mm or a 50 if I could find the 1.4 for less than 3 bills

So far I have a pancake and a 17-40 L

I sold my 50 1.8, I think I outgrew it and it wasn't enough blur for me

85mm if you want that milky bokeh but it won't be a super friendly lens in a big city unless you are shooting people. You do have the wide lens covered so maybe an 85mm will round things out.
 
Could look into Rokinon/Samyang if you're not concerned with having no AF.


85mm if you want that milky bokeh but it won't be a super friendly lens in a big city unless you are shooting people. You do have the wide lens covered so maybe an 85mm will round things out.

Appreciate that guys, now the only question (and no I don't mind manual focusing)

What 85 procures clearer results? Canon, Rokin, or ????




And yeah Fong, I'll be using it to shoot people.
 
Back
Top Bottom