Photography Post Vol. 2

[hey]

SLRS are shit, save for a digital back

I don't really know what you mean by this. Can you explain?

[masuerte]

I dunno if this shows enough from my murakami day

thinking of putting it in waywt street (best):

and lately (over the past month) I've been trying to take pictures with a haiku in mind...

midnght I reflect

a way incandescent lit

(and the wet asphalt)/(a lonely sidwalk)??

It's helping me (hopefully) take more pictures where subject and context are important... I hope to take pics someday without need of my accompanying contrived attempts at poetry hope they can stand on their own.

[Dolphin Jr.]

2 shots from today

[dino might]

masuerte, need idea about the photos and haikus

new/edited shot for portfolio concentration-

the idea of the concentration is bringing attention to the inherent beauty in the human face by showing it in unnatural angles/proportions/points of vue forcing the observer to pay more attention to the art of the human form thats otherwise usually overlooked (or something along those lines, needs work still)

[e0d9n0b5]

Shot these on a POS camera, I just thought it was worth shooting since we don't get many wrecked boats round these parts...

[kennmon]

I don't really know what you mean by this. Can you explain?

dont know the context surrounding this but he was joking.

a digital back is piece of electronics that is put on the back of a camera such as a medium/large format film camera to make it into a digital.

20+ megapixels and 20+ thousand dollars.

pretty much exclusive to studio pros etc.

[dino might]

alright shit, i dont know what the deal is but now that im on my home computer my last photo looks like an over-saturated piece of shit, like day-glo bright ass red so intense its hard to make out all the details now.

is everyone else seeing this? or is it just this monitor im on making it look like shit? i even printed it out big and glossy earlier and it definitely looked worlds better than it does right now..

im buggin'

[jeepster]

alright shit, i dont know what the deal is but now that im on my home computer my last photo looks like an over-saturated piece of shit, like day-glo bright ass red so intense its hard to make out all the details now.

is everyone else seeing this? or is it just this monitor im on making it look like shit? i even printed it out big and glossy earlier and it definitely looked worlds better than it does right now..

im buggin'

it doesn't look bad at all. the tear duct is a little blunt on the scale of things compared to how clear the rest of the shot is, but it looks really good.

how many pieces are in the concentration?

[mutt225]

looks very saturated to me. You need to get your monitor calibrated i use a lil huey and works wonders for me. Prints are almost always what i see on my screen

[dino might]

it doesn't look bad at all. the tear duct is a little blunt on the scale of things compared to how clear the rest of the shot is, but it looks really good.

how many pieces are in the concentration?

concentration- 12 pieces, breadth- 12 pieces. breadths pretty much done. im way behind on the concentration

looks very saturated to me. You need to get your monitor calibrated i use a lil huey and works wonders for me. Prints are almost always what i see on my screen

yo, thats just the thing though, when i was working on it earlier at school (on two seperate, pretty shitty computers/monitors by the way) it looked good like i wanted it to, and then i printed it out and it looked good, same picture... so thatd lead me to the assumption that the school monitors dont need to be calibrated right? since the same image was printed... but you say yours are calibrated and it sounds like youre seeing it look more like the shitty version im looking at now.. if its my monitor here at home thats fucked i can deal with that but if the ones i edit on are fucked then im fucked..

does the red on my skin just as red/intense/uniform as the red on my tear duct? thats what its looking like to me now, ie- not how its supposed to be

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

[un-]

[dino might]

phew, alright, looked at it on a 4th monitor and it looks like it did earlier, so mutt and jeep, im pretty sure you guys are seeing the correct one. this ibook is just way too haggard to handle it.

[its swanny]

look closely...it says sufu...

[mutt225]

Un id hang the first two on me wall very nice man, shot on film???

[soundbomber]

un the first one is dope. i like the film grain.

[dino might]

the long arm

[likewtfyo]

No idea why the background is blown..

[un-]

Thanks for the compliments & rep. The very first pic was from a 3.2mp Canon Powershot, the second was from a D40...a combination of weather & printing out the pics and putting them on a scanner is what created the grainy effect..

[mutt225]

just goes to show you dont need a bunch of fancy gear to make a great picture^^^

[mutt225]

Still hacking away on these should be all done by the end of today

[chris_n]

[soo]

[dino might]

chris, i like that, its charming

[dino might]

white lines

little black rocks

[masuerte]

I always seem to want to take pictures of reflections, shadows and light on buildings... This past weekend's pictures has convinced me to explore it more... what do you think of it? Can it be a good subject?

4th and olive (click picture for full size)

[inconduit]

finally updated my portfolio . i shoot streets.

see it here:

http://inconduit.com/set

[dino might]

masuerte the first is interesting and i think i would have liked the last a ton if more of the building was in the frame, its sort of distracting

[likewtfyo]

inconduit, you've got a knack for shadows and walls.

[dino might]

critique mah breadth

[krismur]

finally managed to get a summilux 1:1.4/35 for my r5, thought i'd share. will post results once i start shooting with it.