Photography Post Vol. 2

[neme216]

[fndmybetterhalf]

Cincinnati

shot of Cincinnati from Newport off the Levee

[chrisj]

dont mean to be asking for attention but i really want some critiques/comments about the photomontage i posted up.. i didnt awhiles back and its not the finished product.. but it is almost the finished product..

finished product = 3d i put each batch of contacts on stilts at different heights..

[chrisj]

^

I don't mean to be harsh, but why don't you just let the photos speak for themselves? I think your presentation isn't doing any good to them. Even on your earlier ones, I thought the actual panorama shots were nice, but those pink borders totally ruined them. No other photographers in this thread relies on gimmicks.

i get what your saying. the panos were raw scans, sorry for the lazy-ness but i havnt had time to crop them properly.

and gimmicks? cmon man what are you on about. i know its forced i just wanted some feedback, i mean its common sense that they were recieved as mediocre b/c of no comments. but i want to know why..

and as for presentation, what do you mean? the way i post, the info i post with them?

[designersheep]

^

It's just that when I look at your photos, I can barely see the actual photos. If I look closely they kinda look like they could be decent, but I can't tell because most of the space has been taken up by those pink borders and grey backgrounds. Perhaps gimmick may not be the best word, but when I look at your stuff I can't see what you are trying to do, and the way you present them (putting borders around them, cropping etc) just makes the viewer look at those areas more than the actual photos, and I've seen far too many photoshop masters (begs?) to be impressed by whatever that's going on on your work.

No disrespect, but I don't think what you are doing is original either. It just looks like you are doing the montage thing just because you recently saw someone else doing it and thought it was nice. You can argue that other pics up there aren't original either, but many of those photos go for simplicity and they don't try to seek attention, and techniques used are timeless stuff. Well.. whatever, don't get discouraged because it's only one person's opinion, and I'm not even a photographer.

Where's jmatsu?

[chrisj]

^

It's just that when I look at your photos, I can barely see the actual photos. If I look closely they kinda look like they could be decent, but I can't tell because most of the space has been taken up by those pink borders and grey backgrounds. Perhaps gimmick may not be the best word, but when I look at your stuff I can't see what you are trying to do, and the way you present them (putting borders around them, cropping etc) just makes the viewer look at those areas more than the actual photos, and I've seen far too many photoshop masters (begs?) to be impressed by whatever that's going on on your work.

No disrespect, but I don't think what you are doing is original either. It just looks like you are doing the montage thing just because you recently saw someone else doing it and thought it was nice. You can argue that other pics up there aren't original either, but many of those photos go for simplicity and they don't try to seek attention, and techniques used are timeless stuff. Well.. whatever, don't get discouraged because it's only one person's opinion, and I'm not even a photographer.

Where's jmatsu?

Yeah my work is a little rough, as I said raw scans. None of my work is purely photoshopped. The panos were raw scans. Almost all the film ive posted are raw scans.

The medium format shot, a little curves and the candid a little curves.

When you mentioned PS masters, it sounds like your implying that a lot of my work is PS-ed? It's not. 2/10 photos ive posted so far have been ps-ed and thats just curves to adjust lighting.

I got the montage when I was playing around with the contact sheet, I had thought of just putting up a collective piece of shots together, but when I saw the contact prints overlap the idea came to me. I am not saying it hasnt been done before, just trying to defend that I did not take the idea out of a book.

[chrisj]

Anyways,

mediumformat. hungary. 2005

[chrisj]

^

I like this one much better.

Yeah my bad I thought the previous ones were photoshopped, didn't know those borders were film scan negatives. Haha I posted the same msg to your pm and you gave me two different replies to my same duplicated responses. Anyway thanks for taking in my amateur criticism well.

I have a lot of time at work... Hahaha.

No problem, in our day in age you can't blame anyone for mistaking digital for film vice versa.

Peace (:

[masuerte]

^^ I dig it.

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showpost.php?p=506904&postcount=1140

I love piling pictures. Wish there was an easy and customizable program I can do to create them. Picasa doesn't let you modify much of their "pile pictures collage".

[travisio]

i'm not really all that happy with this roll. perhaps because it's black and white i can't just use colors to make the pictures stand out so i have to really make sure the composition the technical stuff is right on.

[mike lowrey]

Yeah my work is a little rough, as I said raw scans. None of my work is purely photoshopped. The panos were raw scans. Almost all the film ive posted are raw scans.

The medium format shot, a little curves and the candid a little curves.

When you mentioned PS masters, it sounds like your implying that a lot of my work is PS-ed? It's not. 2/10 photos ive posted so far have been ps-ed and thats just curves to adjust lighting.

I got the montage when I was playing around with the contact sheet, I had thought of just putting up a collective piece of shots together, but when I saw the contact prints overlap the idea came to me. I am not saying it hasnt been done before, just trying to defend that I did not take the idea out of a book.

despite all this, fact is that I can make barely anything out of your montage for example (which was too big btw). the photos themselves are so small that theres no way of making anything out of them, they might as well be taken with a cellphone camera or something. I'd much rather look at for example five larger images than a montage where you cant see anything.

if you posted reasonably sized images, I'm sure you'd gain much more recognition for your photos and your methods as well.

[eplsoccer7]

Just to make everybody in here a little bit more happy. Take a look at this pure bred...

[chrisj]

thanks masuerte!

mike: i see what your saying, maybe one day ill do a blow up of that.

however i really enjoyed using the contact prints, i got the response i wanted to get by using them. at the show people did come close and peer into the photos.

so it wld be ok if i posted bigger ressed images? i always posted smaller b/c i thot they would get taken off.

dslr. shanghai. mid2005.

[keagan]

I took these like two hours ago. apart from the last one... I took that around five pm.

they're apart of a design project called "fuck you, you dirty stupid cunt"

I am going to get the picture below tattooed onto my hand.

If you can't read.

(10?)

years ago;

mmmm

435134

My god, I am so bored

[seenmy]

not strictly my photography but that of the photographers i work with on projects styling and art direction by my self.

www.thenonplace.com

[red]

not strictly my photography but that of the photographers i work with on projects styling and art direction by my self.

www.thenonplace.com

i was just looking at your website, and i have to say, i love your work.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

Little advert there aye?

That Stone island picture is fucking Muccccckkkkkkyyyyyy!

More updates please.

[seenmy]

hehe yea im trying to get at least 1 update a week shooting tomo so hopefully have something new next week,trying also to get a few people on board to do street photos ala sartoralist,which will also help with keeping updates going

[passant]

on the prowl tonight.

[chrisj]

hahaha like the photos passant!

a little voyeurism for you all. (candid of my friend on the shitter)

medium format. vienna. 2006.

[masuerte]

I found this so funny.

A friend of mine has a term for this: your friend is an "I shit nude" kinda shitter!

oh and the vignetting is kinda neat.

[chrisj]

masuerte: haha yeah i didnt hink he wld be like completely nude.. but yeah i love this photo.. im getting it blown up huge and giving it to him for his nxt bday(21)

i know this is fuckign cliche but one of my first ps-ed shots ever EVER

dslr. singapore. 2004

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1001/568003932_b45e7dc272_o.jpg

[Corbin Law]

it is a nice idea, but as your said cliche.

but when it comes to coloring one specific area of an image, people make the same mistake i see there. which is to use a strong vibrant red

but it doesnt blend as well and usually just looks like a colored screen over it

just use a less intense/more dull red and it will look softer and match the interesting atmosphere of the sticks.

[tweeds]

jaunt out yesterday

AE-1 with cheap 400 film and a 50mm lens and my shitty scanning gives all the photos the same pinkish cast

[backinthetrees]

thats a 50mm 1.8??

the bokeh at the back manifests in a more pentagonal shaped as opposed to it being round..

pinkish cast doesnt look so bad.

chrisj, come on.. you can do better than that!

[tweeds]

the bokeh at the back manifests in a more pentagonal shaped as opposed to it being round..

i won't pretend i understood that...

elaborate if you would!

i dunno if it looks better with that pinkish cast or not, but i much prefer the colour on the prints. and i also have no idea about darkroom techniques. one step at a time i suppose

[masuerte]

^^

Oh god... no discussion on Bokeh please hahaha

here's a whole wiki about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh

AND DUDE, there's hardly any bokeh in his pictures. Wuh>??

[chrisj]

thats a 50mm 1.8??

the bokeh at the back manifests in a more pentagonal shaped as opposed to it being round..

pinkish cast doesnt look so bad.

chrisj, come on.. you can do better than that!

hahaha!! it was literally one of my first pieces ever give me some slack! did it in photo class when i just started out in highschool.

masuerte, yeah i think i have a version that you are describing.. it like a very suttle pastel pink on the flower.. at the time i really liked the contrast tho.. anyways let see somemore photo from everyone!

backinthetrees: pm me ur info man we shld catch some supper

[travisio]

the bokeh on the bottom one in the top left background looks kind of hexagonal. if i remember correctly, 50mm 1.8 has 6 aperture blades. it doesn't look all that polygonal though.

[mis]

Im new to this. So Bokeh is the blurred out part of the photo in a low depth of field shot? Whats good/bad bokeh?