Rate the Photo Above you

[Miller1218]

7/10 I really like the way the picture was shot, but the color just seems a little dull.

 

This was take in Malibu, California. It was shot with a nikon d3300 with a 18-55mm kit lens.

[premiumtech]

6/10 Good colors, looks a little dark and could use a crop to get the subject out of the dead center imo. Good job at capturing movement, however. Solid snap, and could be livened up in post.

 

 

One of my favorites from my niece's 1st birthday. (and could probably benefit from my own advice with the subject in the center.) Nikon d5300 w/ 35mm f1.8 some slight tweaks with lightroom.

[Chase Haddleton]

8/10 nice portrait! I think it would be nicer with slightly more vibrancy in the colour though!

 

[.spider.]

3/10

It's sharp but it's also a picture of the moon like seen hundred times before.

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 12/11/2016 at 3:32 AM, Chase Haddleton said:

8/10 nice portrait! I think it would be nicer with slightly more vibrancy in the colour though!

 

1/10

While the composition itself is nice, the moon is taking up only a tiny portion of the composition.  Perhaps you should've cropped out more of the black to make the moon to be more prominent in the frame.

 

 

20,000+ feet above sea level (taken a few weeks ago)

 

On my way to do some filming for a documentary and had some nice encounters with underwater life.

 

A pod of sperm whales

 

A school of barracuda

 

A sea turtle

 

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

^^^All three photos get a 6/10, they could all use some more sharpness, contrast, and saturation.

 

Some pictures from my Trip to NYC.
 

[AkiraDaarkst]

21 minutes ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

^^^All three photos get a 6/10, they could all use some more sharpness, contrast, and saturation.

 

Those bottom three aren't photos, they are frame grabs from stuff that was filmed.  The photo is the aerial shot of the mountains.  The frame grabs aren't even the high quality ones, just grabs from low resolution proxy versions.

 

They were filmed using one of these babies, with a RED camera inside.

http://www.gateshousings.com/deep-dragon/

[Jacktastic-Mofo]

2 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Those bottom three aren't photos, they are frame grabs from stuff that was filmed.  The photo is the aerial shot of the mountains.  The frame grabs aren't even the high quality ones, just grabs from low resolution proxy versions.

 

They were filmed using one of these babies, with a RED camera inside.

http://www.gateshousings.com/deep-dragon/

They were filmed with a red, but you got that as a screenshot?

[vanished]

2 hours ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

They were filmed with a red, but you got that as a screenshot?

Video always looks better than a single frame of the same resolution, etc.

[iamdarkyoshi]

On 12/10/2016 at 7:32 PM, Chase Haddleton said:

8/10 nice portrait! I think it would be nicer with slightly more vibrancy in the colour though!

 

I'm looking at this on an oled, and I can see the tree. 8/10.

 

I couldn't find anything cool or professional, so here is a cat.

 

With edits, it might look cool

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I'm looking at this on an oled, and I can see the tree. 8/10.

I'm looking at it on a cheap VA panel and it's clearly visible

 

5 minutes ago, iamdarkyoshi said:

I couldn't find anything cool or professional, so here is a cat.

 

With edits, it might look cool

Perhaps, but if a picture isn't good to begin with, don't rely on edits to make it great.  You have to start with greatness and just fine tune it a bit  

[.spider.]

A detail of my headphones

[vanished]

17 minutes ago, .spider. said:

A detail of my headphones

 

Is that blur edited?  It just doesn't feel quite like a natural depth of field effect for some reason...

[.spider.]

29 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Is that blur edited?  It just doesn't feel quite like a natural depth of field effect for some reason...

That's the blur of EF100mm 2.8 Macro USM

[vanished]

Just now, .spider. said:

That's the blur of EF100mm 2.8 Macro USM

It's really interesting... it's like there's a whole band of in focus and then a quick transition to a moderate blur, but then a very slow taper up to increased blur... usually it's more, idk, linear?  I would be tempted to play with stacking to get even more in focus since by the looks of it that lens would make it easy.

[AkiraDaarkst]

7 hours ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

They were filmed with a red, but you got that as a screenshot?

They were taken from 720p resolution proxy files which were created using a GOP Inter-Frame compression, if I had used Intra-Frame compression the quality would be better of course.  Nothing has been graded or cut yet.

[AkiraDaarkst]

5 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Video always looks better than a single frame of the same resolution, etc.

Video only looks better usually than the frame grab from the same video.  But if a video camera and a photo camera were side by side and captured the same scene with the same resolution (video camera recording video and photo camera taking still images) the photo camera's single frame image will be better than a single frame extracted from the video (depending on the compression method and frame rate/shutter speed combo used).

 

If you put two identical 4K cameras (as an example) side by side to film the same scene and one camera used Intraframe and the other used something like Long GOP Interframe compression, taking a frame grab from the Intraframe version usually results in better quality than the frame grab from the Interframe version.  With Intraframe, each frame is compressed individually and the data for each frame is not linked with data from adjacent frames.  With Interframe, the compression method looks at frames before and after and combines groups of frames before compressing the data.

 

Intraframe is probably the next best thing to use if your camera isn't capable of cinema RAW, if you want the highest amount of data possible for color grading and heavy editing.

[.spider.]

4 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

 if I had used Intra-Frame compression the quality would be better of course.  

That's a wrong generalisation

[Magikarpdrowned]

12 hours ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

^^^All three photos get a 6/10, they could all use some more sharpness, contrast, and saturation.

 

Some pictures from my Trip to NYC.
 

9/10, great composition and colors, would have liked to see just a tiny bit more saturation. Amazing job though!

 

Here are some pics from my Japan Trip.

[vanished]

8 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Video only looks better usually than the frame grab from the same video.  But if a video camera and a photo camera were side by side and captured the same scene with the same resolution (video camera recording video and photo camera taking still images) the photo camera's single frame image will be better than a single frame extracted from the video (depending on the compression method and frame rate/shutter speed combo used).

That's what I meant, sorry I wasn't very clear  

[AkiraDaarkst]

3 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

That's what I meant, sorry I wasn't very clear  

I understood you meant that, I was just clarifying for other people who take things literally and do not get the concept, they need things spelled out.

[Blade of Grass]

Hey guys! Just a reminder, please post only 1 photo at a time! It makes it easier for people to judge  

 

23 hours ago, Jacktastic-Mofo said:

^^^All three photos get a 6/10, they could all use some more sharpness, contrast, and saturation.

 

Some pictures from my Trip to NYC.

Very nice photo! 

[GamerzCentralYT]

On 12/14/2016 at 6:12 AM, Magikarpdrowned said:

9/10, great composition and colors, would have liked to see just a tiny bit more saturation. Amazing job though!

 

Here are some pics from my Japan Trip.

Very nice colors and good amount of detail. 8/10. I didn't have my 60D with me this was taken with a Samsung Galaxy S5 no editing on compress for web uploading.

[bob345]

1 hour ago, GamerzCentralYT said:

Very nice colors and good amount of detail. 8/10. I didn't have my 60D with me this was taken with a Samsung Galaxy S5 no editing on compress for web uploading.

 

5/10, i can kind of see what you where going for but the picture just seems a little dull.

Here's a shot i took a while ago as kind of a product shot.

 

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 12/15/2016 at 9:59 PM, bob345 said:

 

I don't think the squarish crop really works, and while the thin DOF does make the knife stand out, perhaps a bit of uneven lighting can improve things.

 

5 hours ago, Heightzx23 said:

 

0/10, what's the point?

 

 

Yesterday I purchased a Sony A6500 and found this USB power bank on sale.  I liked the fact that it has the word empowered printed on it in the form of EMPOWE(RED).  While it is actually meant as a campaign for supporting AIDS eradication, I felt it can also be used to make a gender empowering statement.  So took a photo book that I recently purchased as a prop.  (Shot on the new A6500)