 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
692 online
Server Time:
2024-05-15 17:10:53
|
|
|
 Weirdlig
   
Gender: Female
 |  | Tear up my most recent explore...
< on 2/7/2012 8:59 PM >
|  | | | Still busting ass to get better at this, tell me what's up.
1. Two image B&B
2. B&B for the window
3. Minor aperture/exposure experiment
4. Lens correction gone right
5.
6. Just starting out playing with B&W/sepia
7. Two image B&B, I FORGOT to take one to balance the outside, lol
8. Three image B&B
9.
10. Three [or four?] image B&B for window + fake lens flare in upper left
http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography |
|
explicitly
 
Location: Augusta
Gender: Male
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 1 on 2/7/2012 9:22 PM >
| | | | I like #1 and #7. Not a fan of the fake lens flare, but that could be a matter of taste. Really like #7.
|
|
Weirdlig
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 2 on 2/7/2012 9:51 PM >
| | | | Thanks, the lens flare is actually only there because it helped balance some trouble I was having with blending.
http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography |
|
ahhntzville
Location: Boston
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 3 on 2/7/2012 9:56 PM >
| | | | On 2, 4, 5, 10... be wary of centering the subject; it usually makes for a boring shot. Even #3 would work better if that electrical outlet was more off center, in my opinion. Centering works better on something like #6 where you've got more going on perspective wise. 5 is also not a great angle to shoot that subject at (head on).
|
|
randomesquephoto
Don't be a Maxx
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 4 on 2/8/2012 1:17 AM >
| | | | Black and white is where it's at. Let's see more of them. I like the concept of the jelly numbers photo. But, that outlet is much too distracting. And if you came at it from a different perspective/ angle it would strengthen it.
RIP Blackhawk |
|
randomesquephoto
Don't be a Maxx
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 6 on 2/8/2012 5:14 AM >
| | | |
Very good and simple articles. I think you used great "framing" in the hallway you shot looking through the wheelchair, which you didn't include in this critique. But, I think was your best shot. I struggle with a well composed photo, but it can make a difference in even the most basic or boring subject.
You're improving. Try things a little different. Not everything has to be SO symmetric. Look at things from a different perspective than you're used t
RIP Blackhawk |
|
randomesquephoto
Don't be a Maxx
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 7 on 2/8/2012 5:15 AM >
| | | | ... to. I think your best set thus far was the one before this. The orange state hospital. Because you were forced to stay low and view things differently.  keep up the good work.
RIP Blackhawk |
|
randomesquephoto
Don't be a Maxx
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 8 on 2/8/2012 5:17 AM >
| | | | Woops... the hallway chair is here. I'm not paying attention. Scratch everything I've said. Ever. :/
RIP Blackhawk |
|
Adv.Pack
Location: Connecticut
Adventure Pack
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 9 on 2/8/2012 2:22 PM >
| | | | #1. I don't see a need to B&B. Also, it's way too blue. And, don't let the sink touch the edge of the frame.
#2. Also too blue. And crooked.
#3. I would open up one more stop to get a little more dof.
..... to many to have desire to critique.
https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/ |
|
Weirdlig
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 10 on 2/8/2012 5:44 PM >
| | | | Funny, I've always been obsessed with becoming symmetrical and centering things. Might have to unlearn that a bit.
As for bracket and blending shots with no overpowering light source, it just helped balance out the exposure in a few areas by a 10% difference. It's impossible to notice when just viewing the finished piece but I did notice it helped when I was editing.
The blue...it was just the color of the room and part of what I liked about said room. If I wanted to change that...what's the best method? Normally I'd figure to single out the blue/cyan saturation and lower it...then maybe frig with color balance and add a filter.
...BTW, dof = ????
Will read after job interview. Will buy after job.
http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography |
|
OwlsFlight
 
Location: Ehn Jay
One foot in the grave, the other on a banana peel
| |  | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 11 on 2/9/2012 3:56 AM >
| | | | Dof = Depth of field
I think things are improving. There's a lot to learn in this hobby, and be ready to continue learning things for a long, long time!
I'll touch on a couple things here. Do you shoot in jpeg (or jpg)? The highlights seem to jump right into a pale color wash at some of the hot spots which is usually a jpeg shooting problem. If it is raw, maybe try a couple blends. It's not too bad, just a thought.
Also, a couple shots have a very slight fuzzy feel to them. How is the shutter released when you shoot? Sometimes during the shorter long exposures like 1/2 sec to 2 sec if you release the shutter with your hand on the camera while it's on the tripod it can be just enough movement to make things blur just a hair. Shooting with a remote or short timed self timer can easily fix that and then you know your shots will come out as sharp as your aperture setting will allow.
Exploring the distance between points A & B. |
|
Adv.Pack
Location: Connecticut
Adventure Pack
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 12 on 2/9/2012 3:59 AM >
| | | | Posted by Weirdling
The blue...it was just the color of the room and part of what I liked about said room. If I wanted to change that...what's the best method? Normally I'd figure to single out the blue/cyan saturation and lower it...then maybe frig with color balance and add a filter.
...BTW, dof = ????
|
I think it is just a white balance issue.
dof = Depth of Field.
https://www.instagram.com/chris.kiely/
ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/adv_/ |
|
cherokezelda
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 13 on 2/10/2012 1:01 AM >
|  | | | Excellent incorporation of the windows for natural lighting.
#1- It seems like the sink is forged into the existing composition. I would like to see the sink in its entirety to complement the decay of the wheelchairs; also, perhaps more of the wall- background prevails over subject. The wall is just as intriguing due its is worn features yet youthful and airy color of baby blue. The paradoxical aspect of it is well worth exaggerating in the photograph.
#5- This was the least aesthetically pleasing for me; it is a well-crafted shot in terms of technicality, but it seems like a shot merely for documentation rather than having a conspicuous artistic agenda. See below.
#7- Absolutely stunning. This is largely due to the compositional aspects and how the wheelchair is angled. Rather than a straight-on, centered shot of the wheelchair (as in #5), this seems to provoke more of a story, for it teases the mind. The wheelchair is positioned in such an "alive" fashion where the mind imagines an individual sitting it it, yet it is forlorn and decayed in reality.
"...the improvisation and expectation of meanings inferred from a few words, leaps over the written spaces in an ephemeral dance." - Michel de Certeau |
|
Weirdlig
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 14 on 2/10/2012 2:18 AM >
| | | | Again, thanks for the tips!
I always use self timer, I don't think I've taken a shot without it in four months now. White balance issue...what exactly does it mean and how do I manipulate settings to correct it?
Cheroke--that's gotta be the most artistic critique I've ever heard, lol. It also managed to be very informative...in an eye-opener kind of way.
So for shot one, the cutting off of the sink was done intentionally. I've actually begun excluding the ends of objects when you already know one side and can assume the other. It was kind of a way I broke out of centering all of my shots and I think it only works some of the time.
Yay or nay [in general] on said method? I thought it made it look somehow less boring.
http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography |
|
cherokezelda
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 15 on 2/10/2012 4:09 AM >
| | | | Your theory on intentionally obliterating certain sections of an object piques my interest. Do you seem to endorse this method in regards to objects that are only symmetrical? I think it would be exceptionally interesting to apply this method on an object that is asymmetrical- subsequently, it would invite the audience for a more advanced scrutinization.
I do not think a "Yay or Nay" dichotomy is particularly productive here. It seems like you are unconsciously immersed in a "generalized other" engagement of your work- in other words, you are defining your photography on the basis of what you think others think it should look like. This is exemplified by "...ma[king] it look somehow less boring". Who or what is this look for? Who or what has the privilege of constituting what is affiliated with the notion of "boring"?
Of course, we should consider the perfunctory rhetoric of "doing it because you love it" or "doing it for yourself". In regards to your method of cropping, allow me to propose this: are you performing this method in an effort to obtain this external idealization of not being "boring" and positioning subjects in the center? Or are you simply performing it for yourself?
"...the improvisation and expectation of meanings inferred from a few words, leaps over the written spaces in an ephemeral dance." - Michel de Certeau |
|
Weirdlig
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 16 on 2/10/2012 3:28 PM >
| | | | Lol, you're a trip.
It's only with symmetrical objects. You know what both ends of a sink will look like, so the mind fills in the blank. It kind of gives you the opposite of a frame and in that sense I guess it's a bit of a tease and can make a photo less generalized.
I like to see how other people view methods, not so much to say 'I should stop/continue this' but to figure how often it's appropriate. If it's generally approved, I could incorporate it more in my shots. If its only my personal tastes, I might try a new method of framing...not so much go back to normal, but see if there's a third, fourth, fifth, etc method that could be unique. Or, well, I guess try to find an additional method sooner than I would have otherwise.
http://www.flickr....irdlingphotography |
|
randomesquephoto
Don't be a Maxx
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 17 on 2/10/2012 5:31 PM >
| | | | Posted by cherokezelda
Your theory on intentionally obliterating certain sections of an object piques my interest. Do you seem to endorse this method in regards to objects that are only symmetrical? I think it would be exceptionally interesting to apply this method on an object that is asymmetrical- subsequently, it would invite the audience for a more advanced scrutinization.
I do not think a "Yay or Nay" dichotomy is particularly productive here. It seems like you are unconsciously immersed in a "generalized other" engagement of your work- in other words, you are defining your photography on the basis of what you think others think it should look like. This is exemplified by "...ma[king] it look somehow less boring". Who or what is this look for? Who or what has the privilege of constituting what is affiliated with the notion of "boring"?
Of course, we should consider the perfunctory rhetoric of "doing it because you love it" or "doing it for yourself". In regards to your method of cropping, allow me to propose this: are you performing this method in an effort to obtain this external idealization of not being "boring" and positioning subjects in the center? Or are you simply performing it for yourself?
|
Best critique. 
RIP Blackhawk |
|
cherokezelda
Gender: Female
| | Re: Tear up my most recent explore...
<Reply # 18 on 2/11/2012 3:37 AM >
| | | | Is that not a valid question to explore? For me, it is wildly fascinating on where our motives are derived from. I am not quite sure if I understand the latter half of your response (psilocybin mushrooms are the agency of such distortion, you know  ).
Let me attempt to clarify through a more concrete inquiry. When photographing something, are you seeing what you subjectively see, or are you imaging and framing your image to better suit some idealization that is compatible with your audience? In other words, are you not centering your subjects because you were told so by the external, and therefore it fits this ideal that the external imposed (not having centered subjects)?
"...the improvisation and expectation of meanings inferred from a few words, leaps over the written spaces in an ephemeral dance." - Michel de Certeau |
|
|
|
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 500 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 741840505 pages have been generated.
|
|
