Photography Post Vol. 2

[eplsoccer7]

Prague

[nocoolonesleft]

Here are some photos of a crazy preacher who travels to universities across the country to harass college students.

[pure junkie]

you should first of all ditch that digital, get a rangefinder and shot some film.....

but being trapped in the vortex of digital reproduction like most others, you should consider buying L series canon prime lenses, zooms are for pussies.

upgrading to a full frame would also give you more fun.

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough." - Robert Capa.

I'm a broke college student and shooting digital saves me money ......maybe one day I can learn more about photography and use diff. methods

[jeepster]

nocoolonesleft, get rid of those heinous borders. ruins the power of the shots. maybe re-edit them as well, bring out the shadows/highlights. They're a little bland, but especially with those corny borders, they're just boring.

[nocoolonesleft]

nocoolonesleft, get rid of those heinous borders. ruins the power of the shots. maybe re-edit them as well, bring out the shadows/highlights. They're a little bland, but especially with those corny borders, they're just boring.

I have those because when posting them online it helps to isolate them from the potentially retarded background color of the various forums I've posted them on. Kind of like what dry mounting or matting does to a print. They do look sort of stupid with those borders but I'm too lazy to change them for posting here.

As for bringing out the shadows and highlights, I'm not sure what you mean. I looked at the histogram of the most recent shots (if that's what you were talking about) and they are good in terms of the representation of value from lights to darks. I don't really see any details being lost in the shadows that would be brought out by editing and, while the highlights are clipped a little bit, there's not much information in the sky to bring out from the last picture.

But yeah, the borders are ugly, I know. I figured it'd be fine for an informal photo thread here

ps, the wu tang reference is your location is pretty rad

[jeepster]

its not a reference, I live on Staten Island currently (though right now I'm home in CT)

but what I'm saying you should increase the contrast in the darks/lights, even if the background remains the same. Burn portions, bring out the lines in his face more... just make it a little more visually arresting. They're good pictures on their own, especially considering the subject matter, but they're a bit plain.

[nocoolonesleft]

Ah, okay I get what you're saying now. I'll reprocess them to be a little more contrasty to see how they look. After several years of professors trying to break me of the "too much contrast" habit, I've started under compensating

I really appreciate your critique, too. Something that happens too rarely in photography threads.

[rockon99]

new camera....

1949-1951 Rolleiflex. perfect working condition.

[LoganL]

damn thats nice Rockon99, Im actually shopping for a rolleiflex right now, but im sure its the medium format camera i want. How much did u have to drop for it?

[rockon99]

^^ i bought it from a camera tech at my local shop in that condition for $75

[LoganL]

oh i just noticed that its a tessar 3.5 , i thought for a sec that u got 2.8 planar fully working for 75 haha. when u gonna run your first roll thru it

[rockon99]

i'm already halfway finished with my first roll.. gonna take it to a lab for process. then probably print them myself. im really stoked though, this is my first REAL medium format camera, not that holgas arent real, theyre just plastic. lol

and its a challenge for me metering the light, i dont have a light meter, and i'm pretty bad at estimating what shutter speed/aperture to use based on the light available. i'm learning though, which is awesome......

edit: and about the lens; is planar better quality than tessar? im not very lens savvy. i just use what i have. havent done much research. if so, it doesnt look like i could ever switch lenses. i'd have to do major camera surgery if i wanted to do so.

[nocoolonesleft]

[tweeds]

[cecinestpasandre]

[jebeebus]

[LoganL]

i dont think you could change the lens. yea the f/2.8 zeiss planar is much better, gives u an extra stop and its better quality. Im sure the tessar is decent, as Rollei only rolls with the best

[rockon99]

alright - good to know. cos everything that it needs to work properly is in perfect condition. it is a little beat up and stuff but, its not hindering the performance of the machine. its weird to get used to the mirror image you see on the ground glass - it messes with my miiiiind lol

[nocoolonesleft]

[LoganL]

yea, it would seem the rolleiflex might be a little slow for street photography, because the focusing isn't very fast/easy, and because of the reversed image. But im sure operation will be faster and smoother once you get used to it.

[rockon99]

Just remembered i had this photo. i dont think i ever posted it. took this on the plane to wisconsin with my old shitty like, 3.5 megapixel digital.

[Boston.]

Why on earth do you keep posting the same photos? I kinda like the unique composition of the first but the perspective angle doesnt work with the center composition. On a whole, they are relatively uninteresting especially with how dark / little detail exists in the 2nd.

Interesting artwork on a wall doesn't equate to a good photo. The angle of the camera to the wall makes the rather uninteresting composition to start with look tilted and framed with a very weird proportion that isn't appealing.

The second photo with the boy is technically excellent but I wish he had a better expression on his face and possibly a little more brightness. Seems slightly dull to me in the highlights.

Also the 2nd preacher photo on the last page was great but the other two had very bland expressions. This guy is incredibly active during his talk and I know as a photog you can get better expressions than the first and third. I disagree with adding contrast to them though.

In the tent photos on the top of this page I want to see a b&w conversion of the first one because its stronger compositionally and the color and lack of detail in those circle things on the poles makes me want to see it without the yellow tinge. The other composition doesnt do anything for me.

Excellent composition I just wish I didn't have to tilt my head ever so slightly to straighten the proportions.

I think this is too dark.

Simple composition but well executed with good sharpness but a little washed out colors I think.

*I editted this critique because i had a second opinion jebeebus.

I either need to see more tonal range in the shadows or a foreground subject for this photo to be good. I like the landscape though and the (proper?) yellow white balance.

These are both dull facial expressions with muted colors. I'm bored looking at these, sorry. I could get really technical on the lighting in both of them because they could use work with the shadows but its only very very small stuff and could have been purposefully done

[MHP]

[bluespring]

[nocoolonesleft]

There's an optical illusion or something going on in your photo bluespring. The horizon appears to be level but at the same time it looks like the foreground is slanted. Hope I'm not the only one who sees this It's a nice shot though.

[bluespring]

^Not sure about illusions but it could be the hills. Cool, you like it.

[marsa]

looks like Perth.

[Boston.]

There's an optical illusion or something going on in your photo bluespring. The horizon appears to be level but at the same time it looks like the foreground is slanted. Hope I'm not the only one who sees this It's a nice shot though.

Your horizon is definitely slanted and you could correct it pretty easily but on top of that the middle composition between sky and hills isn't good.

[jebeebus]

Appreciate the crits Boston. You obviously know your shit. Keep em coming! Cool shot as well ^^^

[nocoolonesleft]