December 22, 2014, 01:10:25 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - distant.star

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 106
781
Portrait / Re: First paid photo shoot - DATE: 23 March 2013
« on: March 14, 2013, 10:55:48 AM »
.
That's funny. Reminds me of the time I hired a young man as an editor. I based my decision largely on his having worked for National Geographic. How could I go wrong if he'd worked with them as an editorial employee? Turns out he was dreadful -- he couldn't find his own desk each morning without asking someone where he should sit. He didn't last long. I think he may have gone back to National Geo!!



I agree that the gear doesn't really matter to produce great photo's, but once you start to take on paid and serious work, you'll need the basic kit. Kinda reminds me of this....

782
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 11, 2013, 12:40:29 AM »
.
I really like this crop. Seems like it's what been missing for me in all the ones I've seen. It fills the frame!!



Fun!

Ok, I came in late, so to try something different I cropped to a square format. Why should landscapes be landscape?

Edited in LR4. Cropped to 'thirds on the key peak (left top). Adjusted overall exposure and contrast, used a grad filter to darken the sky and then added some saturation there, used clarity and temperature to make the background distant range 'pop' a little more, added vibrance and clarity but de-saturated the closer mountain range.

Done quickly so some of the 'brushing' is a little rough (just like home - my wife doesn't let me apply the top coat...)

Great idea and responses everyone.

Cheers

John

783
Canon General / Re: crap portraits of me
« on: March 09, 2013, 09:51:45 PM »
.
Can't give you much from a tech standpoint. It's the luck of the draw -- keep settings as simple and foolproof as possible and hope.

You may also want to think about karma. I know anytime I see tourists or families I offer to take a picture of all of them with their camera. I pay attention to background, get them posed well, make them smile a bit -- and take six or eight pics real quick. I've taken pictures of thousands of people that way over the years.

Maybe it comes back. Who knows!

784
Portrait / Re: Bikini girl in my studio with my first scenic bacground
« on: March 09, 2013, 12:07:55 PM »
.
I don't think anything about the background is meant to look realistic.

785
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 09, 2013, 09:32:12 AM »
Now for the "artistic" psychedelic interpretation :o

What I like here is that intensity of color seems to begin erasing the line between earth and sky. Not entirely, but it makes that demarcation less certain -- almost like a mind altering experience. Disclaimer: I know nothing about art and less about drugs!

786
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 09, 2013, 09:28:55 AM »
a couple more for fun  ;)

I like the B & W. It has a lot of power to bring out the starkness. And I especially like the bluish cast over it. That's something I would have done had I thought of it. Should be simple in SilverEfex Pro.

787
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 08, 2013, 09:11:55 PM »
.
You make a good case, Attila. This whole thread seems an exercise in creativity, and it's been perhaps the most entertaining thread I've seen here in a long, long time. Too bad it's been squeezed into one person's perception of what is right.

Personally, I've always subscribed to the Gary Winogrand, "I photograph to see what the world looks like in photographs" philosophy. I've never taken a picture that looked like what I saw, for a hundred reasons. Like Winogrand, the thrill for me is to see what the camera has seen -- and to wonder why it's different from what I saw and/or remembered and/or thought I saw.

Our attempts at manipulation of a scene may be to bring it in line with what we saw. Just as valid is to alter it to make it the way we wanted to see it.

We're talking about pictures here -- pictures, not reality.

No accounting for taste, as they say. I'm sure there are people who don't see a faint smile on "Mona Lisa," but rather a faint scowl.

As for all the renditions of the image in this thread I am surprised no one really broke out of the conventional (except for ducks and bathing beauties that we now know are not allowed). I mean really squirrel it up in some abstract way. If I had the process skills I would have done that as I see a beach and waves up front and a larger sea looming in the background.

No matter, it's all fun.

788
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Spec List [CR2]
« on: March 08, 2013, 03:09:40 PM »
.
I don't think Rockwell gets so much hate as he does envy. Lots of folks here know more than he does, yet he's making a good living spouting off and pretending to be an "expert."

For me, I feel sorry for him. I can't imagine choosing such an undignified way to make a living (one level below "professional wrestling," I guess). And I won't get into pimping his family. Makes me shake my head and feel sad.

I also think he does a disservice to many people who don't know much about photography.


WOW! ... 22 pages of posts for a camera whose specs are not even out ... is that indication of the popularity of 7D? ... there has not been this much speculation for the replacement of D7000 (i.e. D7100) coz according to Ken Rockwell "D7000 is the best APS-C DSLR ever" (I know the name Ken Rockwell invites lots of hate around here. Anyway, the number of posts here on 7D replacement, for me, is an indication of how popular it really is.

Rockwell invites hate because he is a douche (you ever seen him in a video?), and because he calls just about every newest camera on the market the "Best whatever EVER!". I mean, how can you trust a guy who can't be truly objective, and just gravitates towards the newest thing and drools all over it whenever the newest thing hits the street?  :P (And that is nothing to say of the frequent rogue inaccuracies and blatant misrepresentations and incorrect statements he regularly makes, about ANY and ALL brands of camera.)

789
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 08, 2013, 01:40:21 PM »
.
Thanks, K. I saw the duck tucked away in one image. Missed the bikini mirage.

This whole thread seems to annoy some crabby old folks. Hard to understand -- I think this is great, and I'm thoroughly enjoying seeing how people approach this.

I was surprised at two things when I first saw the original file. First, it's so totally neutral. Second, when you look, there is amazing detail throughout. It really speaks well for the power of the 17-40 as a landscape lens. That's what motivated me to even try. There's lots of room for a wide range of interpretation.

For me, I always think there's room for a little humor. Sadly, not everyone agrees.



Thought it was funny but I see now that a girl in a bikini is just too "offensive" for "some" on CR..   ::)

Have I missed something?

Yes you have.... the rubber Duckie came later.... first there was a Girl in Bikini rendition that was quite inspired... unfortunately someone probably complained to the mods... and it was taken down like megaupload.com during the SOPA/PIPA days...

790
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 09:54:43 PM »
.
I wasn't going to, but it kept calling -- so I did a purely interpretive rendition.


791
Landscape / Re: How Would You Edit This Landscape Photo?
« on: March 07, 2013, 03:01:18 PM »
.
Very nice.

Looking forward to other interpretations!

Thanks.

792
EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Information [CR1]
« on: March 07, 2013, 11:35:06 AM »
.
This is in line with what I wrote here on a sunny Sunday last June:

Predictions based on generalized long-term knowledge of the history of technology with neither scientific basis nor specific speculation. Intended only to provoke thought and discussion. If you're response is that I'm an idiot, fine, I'll say that right up front and save you the trouble. So...

1. The Canon EOS 1DX (if it ever becomes reality) is the last 1-Series flagship DSLR Canon will ever make. Like the EOS 1V was/is the last 35mm film SLR from Canon, the 1DS will be the last DSLR. Like the 1V it will be around a long time. Its "obsolesence buffer" will be plenty of room for "upgrading" through software application.

2. A new "flagship" version of the APS-C line will be introduced (e.g. a 7D2), and like the 1DX it will be the final flagship of the APS-C line. It also will be around a long time and see upgrades through software. Given Canon's predilection for super pricing I predict it will be over $2500 U.S. And most people who have a 7D today will buy one! It will seem spectacular.

Meanwhile, Canon will lead a transition to new formats that require far less mechanical apparatus than the traditional SLR. I'll leave speculation about exactly what that may be to others.

That's what I said, and I'm sticking with it. The only adjustment I may make is to shift the initial price upward, probably over $3K, hard as that is to imagine.

793
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Art Tool or Art Object?
« on: March 06, 2013, 10:44:07 PM »
.
Thanks, agierke.

I appreciate your taking the time to write a thoughtful and interesting response.

Your "how difficult has it become to document the true state of human nature as compared to the times of say Dorthea Lange, Cartier-Bresson, or Alfred Stieglitz?" is something I think/wonder a lot about. Could people really have been that much different? I saw a picture yesterday of an Atlantic City beach scene in 1912. A photographer (big glass plate thing on a tripod with hood, etc.) taking portraits of people sitting on a donkey. There must be 100 people all looking at the photographer at work -- and yet not a single one looking at the photographer taking the picture I was looking at. That suggests something very different, even mystifying to me. But then I also wonder about the whole progression of "street photography." The old rules of only black & white, only candids, only in public, "decisive moment," etc. seem to be changing as color takes over more and more. And more fascinating to me is the posing and interaction, even storytelling that is accompanying a more emotional street photography today. That sure goes to your question about documenting the true state of human nature.

Thanks again. I really appreciate it.

794
Lenses / Re: Advice on a telephoto lens for street photography
« on: March 06, 2013, 04:09:22 PM »
Anything over 50mm is not street photography, it is voyeurism ;)

The longer I do street photography, the less dogma I have or accept, but this is one I subscribe to. Real street photography is in close.

To the OP question:

I wouldn't use any of the lenses you mention for anything I'd consider "street photography." I have used the 135mm for candid portraits on the street sometime, but I use it mostly at night on the street.

Best, I believe, is anything 35mm to 50mm -- the 40mm "pancake" is great. Some of the best stuff can be done with UWA because it makes you get in close and still retains context. I do like the 24-105 suggestion -- it can make life on the street a lot easier. (The older you get, the more you look for easy!)

Oh, and while we're on the subject, if you don't know this site, you should look at it:

http://www.humansofnewyork.com/

It's not classic street photography, but it's a great and very entertaining variation with great street photography attitude. His story of raising $100K to send kids to summer camp is a great outcome of someone inappropriately using his images.

Sorry, don't mean to hijack the thread, but this is worth a look -- especially for anyone interested in street photography and copyright issues.

795
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Is this true
« on: March 06, 2013, 01:35:19 PM »
.
I don't trust anyone who doesn't know how to say "ISO."

Beyond that, this is just a lot of picking flypoop out of pepper for me.

Pages: 1 ... 51 52 [53] 54 55 ... 106