 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
744 online
Server Time:
2024-05-11 19:52:33
|
|
|
 Felonious Monk
  
Location: Between Bridgeport and Branford
Gender: Male
This text is personal.
 |  |  |  | CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
< on 7/21/2008 5:50 AM >
|  | | | "The Lost Kirk"
Okay, so it isn't a kirk but it has a lot of institutional features. This was a former camp for a well known University. Eisenhower frequented the grounds and local historians claim it was one of his favorite getaways. Built early 1900s Abandoned 2000.
1
2
3
4
5
6
After months of struggling with security and entry this notoriously "easy" stupid location I finally decided to walk right in under their noses.
7
8
9
10
I know, I know, nothing special but this one has been nagging me. I was sick of driving past it and today I decided I was going to find a new way in. I'm pleased even if it isn't something crazy. 
Feel free to comments and constructive crit (if you don't like em, fine, tell me why, i'd love to hear your thoughts). I totally swapped it up on my normal post processing style. No saturation slider, no contrast slider, no unsharp mask, no shadow/highlights. Also, This is the first exploring I've done in well over a month and the first processing I've done on my new mac. I'm primarily concerned with brightness because this display is a fucking veritable beacon.
Stay happy, healthy and stealthy everyone.
Felonious Monk
[last edit 7/21/2008 6:31 AM by Felonious Monk - edited 4 times]
"i've been trying for almost a year to get Colfax to one of my events to give it some credibility" - bfinan0
|
|
TheAMA
Location: Massachusetts
Gender: Female
Asbestos=Hot Chick
| | | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 1 on 7/21/2008 6:37 AM >
| | | | You make me angry. =)
I especially love the bay window and the odd green glow that you caught off to the right. It's got great perspective. The shot of the mattresses just looks perfect. I don't think you could have asked for a better shot with that one. The shadow under the bed is fantastic and the placement of the white curtain balances it out. The blackboard shot however...AWESOME. Love it.
So yeah, you suck. A lot.
|
|
Felonious Monk
Location: Between Bridgeport and Branford
Gender: Male
This text is personal.
| | | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 3 on 7/21/2008 12:04 PM >
| | | | Thanks a shitload you two. Question, how do you deal with those little paintchip hot spots that pop up. These photos have zero USM on them yet still certain paint flecks look like white dots. Any thoughts?
They're saved in Quality 10 .jpg in Adobe CS3's save for web function. I'm shooting a 30d on the stock camera profile in RAW format.
"i've been trying for almost a year to get Colfax to one of my events to give it some credibility" - bfinan0
|
|
NAN
    
Location: rochester NY
bathroom expert
| | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 4 on 7/21/2008 12:43 PM >
| | | | I really like 2, 3 and 5. especially 3
Through the darkness of future's past
The magician longs to see
Once chants out between two worlds Fire, walk with me |
|
hydrotherapy
  
Clever Girl
Location: Circle of Least Confusion
RPS is inside all of us
| | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 5 on 7/21/2008 1:19 PM >
| | | | I like this post-processing style a thousand times more than what you were playing with before- much more realistic and most of the compositions are pretty good, but you can pay attention to composition instead of being assaulted by too much saturation.
While I still feel some of your shots are still cropped a bit close to some major vertical lines (1, 2, 6) overall the work is beautiful. 4 wins. Some of the best stuff I've seen you share.
And a brief rundown on the save for web function- when you're saving as a JPEG for web, it's reducing your colors to be as web-friendly (web can't display as many colors as photoshop nor can most browsers other than Safari support gamma that is matched by other on-screen, non-web applications, hence the color shift/saturation shifts/gamma shift) between a photo you save and display online, and that exact same photo opened in photoshop. When using the 'save for web' feature, the program works to reduce the amount of artifacts (jagged little rasterized pieces of CRAP that show up in photos saved under low quality/high compression) and often uses a process that ends your photos looking more dithered (like a GIF or other indexed color as opposed to RGB file). I'm not too used to getting little while flakies if saving under something at a high quality like 10, but my suggestion would be to, inside photoshop under image > image size change your resolution, manually to 72dpi while keeping your pixel dimension whatever you want, and sliding the quality scale around on the save function/JPEG until the files are at an acceptable size. Try that to see if bypassing the save for web feature, which I normally avoid like the plague on photos because it mutilates them to some degree in the name of web color safety and compression, helps your photos.
Hope that made sense, if not, feel free to PM me. And macs win- good job on the purchase.
Get down, girl, go 'head, get down. |
|
Felonious Monk
Location: Between Bridgeport and Branford
Gender: Male
This text is personal.
| | | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 6 on 7/21/2008 1:30 PM >
| | | | Thanks so much for the info hydro. I was wondering if it was save for web that was contributing to the butchering. Thanks for the feedback on my post-processing! I think what was going on before was that I was trying to even out the exposure on the whole photo. I was trying to compensate for hot spots or for dark spots when in reality, all you seem to be able to do is try to balance the difference between the two and accept the results. (RxP i'm SERIOUSLY considering your collapsible reflector idea btw) This could with that fact that I was being heavy handed would often create this overprocessed, oversaturated, overly contrasty result. Not to mention my old monitor was a piece of shit so I was oversharpening to compensate. The difference on this monitor is staggering.
I was noticing a bit of a noise problem in some photos, do you think this could be due to the fact that I was shooting 6-1second exposures on ISO 320? I didn't think I should get noise on an ISO that low with the 30d but then again, I've never shot exposures that long on 320.
Thoughts?
[last edit 7/21/2008 1:32 PM by Felonious Monk - edited 1 times]
"i've been trying for almost a year to get Colfax to one of my events to give it some credibility" - bfinan0
|
|
tullo
Location: Belleville New Jersey
Gender: Female
| | | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 7 on 7/21/2008 1:45 PM >
| | | | losing all of the post processing you were doing before definitely worked to your benefit in my opinion, and obviously other peoples opinion. ultimately what you do with your photos is up to you though, obviously.
just adding on the whole saving for web, etc discussion- i noticed your images are linked from a pbucket- i have noticed any time i stick something on a pbucket it butchers the file. both in quality and color. i have seen bizarre color shifts in photos simply because i placed them on photobucket. i guess they have some kind of method of "optimizing" images placed on their site so as to save space for themselves.
http://www.designedbreakdown.com |
|
Explorer H
 
Obla-di-obla-doberator
Location: Around the corner from the Turkey Hill
Gender: Male
I just want some slack.
| | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 8 on 7/21/2008 3:33 PM >
| | | | I like the set a lot. Good control on the blowouts, etc.
I always shoot 100iso in situations like yours, and since I have the time (and a beast of a tripod), I shoot around f9+ to get more detail on a deeper depth o' field. At least with longer exposures I don't get as much noise as something shot with an iso setting of 320+/-.
http://doublehmedia.com http://hartmancommercialphoto.com |
|
Felonious Monk
Location: Between Bridgeport and Branford
Gender: Male
This text is personal.
| | | | Re: CT's Lost Kirk and a big f*** you to Murphy
<Reply # 9 on 7/21/2008 3:39 PM >
| | | | Yeah, I noticed part way through I was on 320 but I was under the impression that the camera could handle it. apparently, I was wrong. As far as the aperture, I was shooting as shallow as possible as I'm practicing something for my photography internship i'm in and was on an assignment to practice shooting in that DoF so that's why everything's super super shallow. Normally, I switch it up more favoring f/8 or so to keep the color and the crispness in the frame.
Thanks for the thoughts!
"i've been trying for almost a year to get Colfax to one of my events to give it some credibility" - bfinan0
|
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 125 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741390140 pages have been generated.
|
|
