Rate the Photo Above you

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

That is the wrong man holding a Rickenbacker bass. Only Lemmy may use one

I used to do concert photography and it can be quite the challenge. Next time, try to get the bass/guitar head in the shot, but good use of DoF otherwise 

Thank you. Glad to see I'm not completely hopeless.

 

Definitely a challenge to set up a perfect shot here. I use one of those 1" sensor cameras, so while getting some DoF is definitely possible, I need to go in as tight as possible to get the best from it (there was no crop in above picture). The result being I'm getting a great deal of practice with getting the composition just right in-camera, as I can't really afford to waste space.

 

Factoring in composition, background, lighting, facial expression, pose, and even where the extremities of the instruments are at. It's easy to see why concert photography is challenging. In a proper venue (the above was at a restaurant), I'm questioning the viability of sneaking in for a closer shot for a future event. Perhaps my work ID could pass off for a photo pass in the darkness.

 

[Radium_Angel]

8 hours ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Perhaps my work ID could pass off for a photo pass in the darkness

Easiest way to start into concert photography is build a portfolio shoot local bands at places that don't care about cameras, bars, etc.

Contact the band 1st and say you'd love to exchange pics at (upcoming bar gig) for a media pass (or ticket to see them) then bring said permission to bar owner.

 

You will build up quick and local bands get the shots for their facebook/social media site. Everyone wins.

When you get good at it, move up to venues that do have photography rules, show them your body of work (only the best, natch) and say "here's what I can do for the band, and to show off the best of your venue."

 

Don't turn down any genre because you don't like the music, you'll never hear it when you're shooting. I typically did metal, but also punk, rock, blues, bluegrass and country. I didn't care, the work got me in, and later I made money at it.

 

If you want more tips on how to shoot a concert, PM me, happy to help

[Zodiark1593]

Well, I'm certainly not a specialist concert photographer, but I certainly don't turn down the opportunity to branch out a bit either.

 

Really like the 5th shot. 10/10 for that!

 

This is my most recent landscape shot. Given that all of 30 seconds went into planning the shot (saw the sunrise from my rear-view mirror on my way to work, pulled off for a couple quick shots, jumped back in), I'd be surprised if it stands anywhere close to a professional landscape, but my cousin (an actual pro) seems to like it. So I suppose I'll post it here.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Zodiark1593
Accidentally used pic with RL name

[Radium_Angel]

On 7/29/2019 at 2:50 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Edited

50% of a good pic is being in the right place at the right time.

This is very well done. I would have waited for the truck to go by, but it's possible the road had too much traffic and this was the least traffic you saw.

 

I knew a guy who camped out, in the desert, a solid week, waiting for the right sky/cloud/sun to come by over that spot, before he took the pic.

Granted, he sold it for 50k (large format 8x10 FTW) but still...that's dedication.

..or insanity.

[Zodiark1593]

4 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

50% of a good pic is being in the right place at the right time.

This is very well done. I would have waited for the truck to go by, but it's possible the road had too much traffic and this was the least traffic you saw.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Commute hours on highway 49 tend to see people comming around this turn going 70+ MPH (supposedly a 55 mph zone). To be fair, it was clear of traffic the second before hitting the shutter. I was also running late for work too, so there's that. My sense of time is a little skewed in the mornings.

 

 

Edit: I would like to add that while I don't tend to be an overly obsessive pixel peeper, if I'm going to be spending multiple days straight for that one shot, I'd probably want perfection.

[D13H4RD]

Probably my largest photo yet (over 60MB after exporting. Needed compression).

 

Some of the full-timers at the Discord I frequent at seem to like it, but I think something is a bit off about it. 

 

These are 8 long exposures stitched together in LR.

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

On 8/1/2019 at 9:40 PM, D13H4RD said:

Probably my largest photo yet (over 60MB after exporting. Needed compression).

 

Some of the full-timers at the Discord I frequent at seem to like it, but I think something is a bit off about it. 

 

These are 8 long exposures stitched together in LR.

 

 

I really like this combined shot. The shade of blue kind of gets close to a cyberpunk feel too. The brighter streak or haze in the sky about a third the way in (from the left) is the only thing that really stands out as "off". 9/10

 

I really wish I could have gotten closer to the fireworks show, but circumstances forced me to be quite far away at the last minute. Just made do with what I had on hand.

 

 

[ThePointblank]

On 8/3/2019 at 4:02 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

I really like this combined shot. The shade of blue kind of gets close to a cyberpunk feel too. The brighter streak or haze in the sky about a third the way in (from the left) is the only thing that really stands out as "off". 9/10

 

I really wish I could have gotten closer to the fireworks show, but circumstances forced me to be quite far away at the last minute. Just made do with what I had on hand.

 

 

The fireworks look a little overcooked; how long was your exposure and what was the ISO? Either one probably needs reducing.

And on the subject of some fireworks, here's my airplane + fireworks shot:
 

[Zodiark1593]

8 minutes ago, ThePointblank said:

The fireworks look a little overcooked; how long was your exposure and what was the ISO? Either one probably needs reducing.

And on the subject of some fireworks, here's my airplane + fireworks shot:
 

10/10 there.

 

My settings were ISO 125, F 5.6, and 13 seconds (though I blocked off the lens about partway through). 

 

I probably could've stopped down to F8.0 before diffraction becomes an issue on my camera. Though another thing to note that may be an issue is that the image was a 3 MP crop... From a native 20 MP sensor. I was really quite far, probably about a mile or so.

[ThePointblank]

8 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

10/10 there.

 

My settings were ISO 125, F 5.6, and 13 seconds (though I blocked off the lens about partway through). 

 

I probably could've stopped down to F8.0 before diffraction becomes an issue on my camera. Though another thing to note that may be an issue is that the image was a 3 MP crop... From a native 20 MP sensor. I was really quite far, probably about a mile or so.

Probably could knock down the shutter speed to 5 seconds (or use bulb mode and keep the time short), reduce ISO to 100, and stop down to f/8 to reduce the light and increase sharpness. Expose for the fireworks, not anything else unless you specifically need to expose for another subject, and just using the fireworks as a backdrop (then go ahead, blow out the highlights in the fireworks).

[Zodiark1593]

1 hour ago, ThePointblank said:

Probably could knock down the shutter speed to 5 seconds (or use bulb mode and keep the time short), reduce ISO to 100, and stop down to f/8 to reduce the light and increase sharpness. Expose for the fireworks, not anything else unless you specifically need to expose for another subject, and just using the fireworks as a backdrop (then go ahead, blow out the highlights in the fireworks).

To be fair, those fireworks appeared really quite sharp, at least before the crop of the century took place. 

 

Lowest is ISO 125 on my camera (Canon G7X mkii), probably makes no meaningful difference whatsoever.  F5.6 is typically where the lens is sharpest at, so that is why I kind of went with that at the time.

 

The rapid fireworks bursts and relative location didn't lend well to anything longer than maybe 1-2 seconds, so I'll probably tighten that down further, depending on circumstances. In the grand scheme of things, I probably underestimated the light output of the fireworks.

[Princess Luna]

[ScottStearns]

I like the composition of the pic above. I only would change the crop a bit myself. The fore ground is easily cropped out with an 8x10 pushed to the top. All the other elements would be enhanced, I think. Like leading lines, subject and subject separation, the texture of the wall v the blown out highlights, and even arguably breaking the implied horizon with the subject. I'm not sure of the rating system having just noticed this thread, so I'll give this a 6 of 10. To me, a 10 is going in my portfolio. This, to me, is a good example of practice and intention. If these compositional elements are applied to a subjectively more interesting subject, then $$

 

Here's me practicing a bit too: 

[craydawg]

I like the subject, but I wish that the depth of field was deeper to see a little more of the piano. not much just a little more on the keys.

 

 

Some Stokes Aster in the front yard:

[Zodiark1593]

2 hours ago, craydawg said:

I like the subject, but I wish that the depth of field was deeper to see a little more of the piano. not much just a little more on the keys.

 

 

Some Stokes Aster in the front yard:

Those are quite lovely. 9/10 from me. Not sure if my own flower pic quite stacks up.

 

 

 

 

[Radium_Angel]

1st proper pic with my new camera, a Nikon D3x. ISO 640, F/2, 1/50sec

Not worthy of commenting, just wanted to post.

 

To the pic above me, the pink flower: Nice delineation between flower and background. Good separation of colour. 

 

[Fetzie]

I like the colour contrast between the table and the keyboard LEDs. I understand why you would want to have the kitchen paper under the bowl (I don't enjoy cleaning either ), but I think it would look better without it for the photograph.

 

I took this one of my cat the other week.

 

 

Nikon D500 with my Tamron 70-210 f/4

Settings: 1/200, f/4, ISO-250, 110mm

[crotach]

Love it, eyes nice and sharp, background creamy and blurry. I'd rate it 8/10. I'm just not sure about the framing. I'd either take a bit more of the background and have the whiskers shown (just a bit more) or reduce it a bit and have the face fill the frame. Beautiful cat, too.

 

Here's my recent one. Sunrise from Mt.Kilimanjaro, taken with OnePlus 7. Couldn't possibly lug a big camera up to 5985 meters height. 

[HeartyTinman]

I'm in love with the image above. Its brilliant. Very nice tones and capture of the shadows and the highlights, especially on a mobile phone camera where the noise and tones always seem to come out and never do the view justice. I very much empathasise with not wanting to carry a camera up that high. Beautifully captures the moment. 

In terms of what I'd say you can do to improve the image, I'll ignore the image quality issues present and noise primarily due to the use of a mobile phone camera, I would say that some more context for the image with some more width could be benefical, say with a panorama, either with seperate images you stitch together later on or using the panorama mode I presume your phone has. Or alternatively, changing the perspective and focussing more, if possible, on a route going up to the summit.

You have captured the transition from light to dark across the frame and also framed it so that the horizon is dominant on the image and you avoid the excess noise from capturing more of the darker sky.

 

This is my image, taken on a Canon 760D, stitched together in post in Lightroom, of a small river in Snowdonia, Northern Wales, UK.  

 

[mopman94]

On 8/31/2019 at 4:01 PM, HeartyTinman said:

I'm in love with the image above. Its brilliant. Very nice tones and capture of the shadows and the highlights, especially on a mobile phone camera where the noise and tones always seem to come out and never do the view justice. I very much empathasise with not wanting to carry a camera up that high. Beautifully captures the moment. 

In terms of what I'd say you can do to improve the image, I'll ignore the image quality issues present and noise primarily due to the use of a mobile phone camera, I would say that some more context for the image with some more width could be benefical, say with a panorama, either with seperate images you stitch together later on or using the panorama mode I presume your phone has. Or alternatively, changing the perspective and focussing more, if possible, on a route going up to the summit.

You have captured the transition from light to dark across the frame and also framed it so that the horizon is dominant on the image and you avoid the excess noise from capturing more of the darker sky.

 

This is my image, taken on a Canon 760D, stitched together in post in Lightroom, of a small river in Snowdonia, Northern Wales, UK.  

 

I love these kind of photos, I love how smooth the water looks on these longer exposures. There good contrast between the moving water on the lower half and the still water on the upper half of the photo. The colours are really vibrant without being too saturated, all in all its a great photo. I guess if I were to be ultimately picky and artsy fartsy point of interest would make it a more creative photo, like a little paper boat.

 

This was taken on my OnePlus 7 Pro. I've really found that phone cameras have got to a point that I don't carry around my DSLR anymore. Debatable I know. But I have average skills at best so the extra quality I'd get from using my proper camera is minimal and I have to carry around a fat lump.

 

[thelaughingbiker]

Loving the warm colors added in post i presume? 7 out of 10  i love angles and i think it couldve been shot diffrently to make the main subjects take up more of the frame

 

 

 

Below is a photo i took while driving between work sites.  I took this on my x-t20 , i did amp up the colors a tad in lightroom but still its a road to nowhere. 

 

 

[Zodiark1593]

On 9/2/2019 at 5:32 PM, thelaughingbiker said:

Loving the warm colors added in post i presume? 7 out of 10  i love angles and i think it couldve been shot diffrently to make the main subjects take up more of the frame

 

 

 

Below is a photo i took while driving between work sites.  I took this on my x-t20 , i did amp up the colors a tad in lightroom but still its a road to nowhere. 

 

 

Not bad, the symmetry works quite well. I like these kinds of pictures, though I'd have chosen a cloudy, dreary day. 7/10. Blues are a bit too deep and draw attention from the road (the presumed subject). I'd probably scale back the blues somewhat, probably adjust the hue a bit too. You can probably use a gradient to adjust saturation.

 

I'd also throw a (very) light touch of highlights back into the clouds as well. Not so much that you remove detail you intended to preserve, but enough so to add a little extra depth to the scene. A gradient can be used for this as well, to selectively add subtle highlights to the clouds. 

 

I got my tripod in recently, and I've also been doing a fair bit of work on my black-white processing. Let me know if it stacks up. Shot on my Canon G7X mkII, Aperture  F7.1, ISO 125, 1 second shutter.

 

 

[Ankerson]

On 9/3/2019 at 10:59 PM, Zodiark1593 said:

Not bad, the symmetry works quite well. I like these kinds of pictures, though I'd have chosen a cloudy, dreary day. 7/10. Blues are a bit too deep and draw attention from the road (the presumed subject). I'd probably scale back the blues somewhat, probably adjust the hue a bit too. You can probably use a gradient to adjust saturation.

 

I'd also throw a (very) light touch of highlights back into the clouds as well. Not so much that you remove detail you intended to preserve, but enough so to add a little extra depth to the scene. A gradient can be used for this as well, to selectively add subtle highlights to the clouds. 

 

I got my tripod in recently, and I've also been doing a fair bit of work on my black-white processing. Let me know if it stacks up. Shot on my Canon G7X mkII, Aperture  F7.1, ISO 125, 1 second shutter.

 

 

 

Nice, but you could have stopped it down more to F8 to F16 depending. It does look like it's soft though. 7/10 for effort, not sure what was going on with the softness. Would have been sweet if it was sharp.

 

 

D750, Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro VR.

F8, ISO 220, 1/125...

 

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Ankerson said:

 

Nice, but you could have stopped it down more to F8 to F16 depending. It does look like it's soft though. 7/10 for effort, not sure what was going on with the softness. Would have been sweet if it was sharp.

 

 

D750, Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro VR.

F8, ISO 220, 1/125...

 

Seems like the image was uploaded far more compressed than my original.

On this camera, diffraction kicks in at about F9, so I couldn't get any more sharpness had I wanted to (minimum aperture is F11). In this case though, I'm fairly certain either the forums or my browser are reluctant to upload the full resolution image, or I accidentally uploaded the Instagram copy.

 

Edit: I'm suspecting the forums just doesn't much appreciate having a 20 MP image show up. Actually clicking on it seems to give you the full resolution though.

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, Ankerson said:

 

Nice, but you could have stopped it down more to F8 to F16 depending. It does look like it's soft though. 7/10 for effort, not sure what was going on with the softness. Would have been sweet if it was sharp.

 

 

D750, Nikkor 105mm F2.8 Micro VR.

F8, ISO 220, 1/125...

 

Can see what you're going for but I don't find it interesting enough IMO. Good execution and I especially liked the sharpness of the subject matter, but it kinda looks a bit "eh". Perhaps a less distracting background would have worked in its favor, but it just looks kinda plain to me.

 

7/10 for effort. The actual shot would probably get a 6/10 from me.

 

The following is too big to upload at standard res (it is sized at nearly 80MB at a 11,588x6109 resolution). The reason? It's a composite consisting of 12 portrait-orientation shots combined and stacked together in Photoshop CS6, with the 12 individual frames edited in COne 12 beforehand. The camera used was a Fujifilm X-T3 with the Fujinon XF 18-55 f/2.8-4 R LM OIS lens attached. Each frame was captured for 4 seconds at an ISO of 400 and aperture of f/8.