Rate the Photo Above you

[Radium_Angel]

2 hours ago, historicalpoultry said:

My god, am I nerding out over this picture! I haven't messed with film myself, so I don't really have anything to say about the execution of the photo in that regard. But this is really cool. I love space and everything connected to it and this photo brings together that interest with photography for me. The light bleeding over the radio telescope makes it seem to me just a little mystical. I don't know what it is exactly that causes it, but the simplicity of film photography, in terms of it being raw without any post porcessing like in this picture, really appeals to me sometimes.

Thank you, it was the fog...it was massively thick that AM, I have some other pics I can post later when I'm home, that shows some of the radio telescopes almost entirely shrouded in fog.

 

(EDIT)

It was Kodak BW400CN film, my favourite monochrome film. Shame it's no longer made.

[historicalpoultry]

On 10/30/2017 at 2:06 PM, L.Lawliet said:

My lil sis..7 years old..

With and Old AF Nikon D3000 with it's crappy Kit lens 18-55mm.

Shot at JPG because i forgot to freakin change the settings to RAW after my friend borrowed my camera!!

I am still learning though so it doesnt look professional or anything..i am a NOOB.
Wait why it lose it's color? it becomes more cold here in LTT her skin should've looks more red/magenta..*sigh gash darn compression make it looks more even worse than its already is.

I like the look on her face. Don't know what happened to the skin tones you mentioned, but I quite like them. Looks a little like film to me. 

 

To continue my obsession about space, this happened yesterday evening.

Shot on the a6500 with a Sigma APO 400mm f5.6 @ f22. This is the first moon shot I've ever taken and I'm quite happy with it. Of course, this has been done endless times before, but I think everyone should do something like this at least once.

 

[.spider.]

8 hours ago, historicalpoultry said:

@ f22.

You may want to read this 

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/diffraction.html

and it is even more relevant with today's high resolution sensors.

[historicalpoultry]

17 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

Maybe i should blame this crap :3 TN panel i am using  

But its strange cause in windows photo viewer the pic looks more reddish..

 

That is one good pic..but why there's no stars?

And why F22?

If ur subject is far away u already had a huge depth of field..

there's no reason u should shot at F22..

If u shot it at lowest depth of field u'll get everything in a sharp focus and u wont be cranking that ISO through the roof or using tripod to compensate the lack of light and one more thing called diffraction that will happen if u use a high aperture number.

But of course u'll need a good lens that'll shot sharp images at it's lowest aperture..so experiment, find the best aperture for your lens

I use a TN panel as well and on mine it looks pretty good, same goes for my iPhone. 

There's no stars because i took it around sundown. I can export a non-edited version if anyone cares to see that. The sky is just underexposed and then I brought it down further and converted to B/W in LR. 

As for f22, I didn't have too much time as some clouds were coming in and therefore I just went off the live view of the a6500 instead of taking enough test shots to check for sharpness (I don't often use that lense, actually this is kind of the first time I wanted to take a proper shot with it, so no time to check its sharpest aperture) and there f22 looked the sharpest. Also that lens is as soft as warm butter at f5.6, so it seemed very possible that f22 could be sharp. 

 

Anyways, should I get in a similar situation any time soon I'll take some more shots and see where the lens is the sharpest

 

[.spider.]

10 hours ago, L.Lawliet said:

 

That is one good pic..but why there's no stars?

 

I hope that's not a serious question.

[vanished]

On 10/30/2017 at 4:47 AM, historicalpoultry said:

[...] but the simplicity of film photography, in terms of it being raw without any post porcessing like in this picture, really appeals to me sometimes.

Well, it's definitely less than most of us have become used to with Photoshop, but there's still a bit of a process that's required to take it from film to print (developing), and what (and how) you do that can have big impact on the outcome.  That process is analogous to using lightroom/camera raw (ie, pre-photoshop) and they even still call it "develop settings" for this reason

On 10/30/2017 at 7:06 AM, L.Lawliet said:

[...]

Wait why it lose it's color? it becomes more cold here in LTT her skin should've looks more red/magenta..*sigh gash darn compression make it looks more even worse than its already is.

It's possible that you have some funny business going on with colour profiles in either photoshop, windows, local image viewers, and/or your browser, etc.  If an image does not look the same everywhere, at least one of them is messing up.

On 10/31/2017 at 4:31 AM, historicalpoultry said:

[moon pic]

Considering it's one object on a completely blank background, I'm not really sure how this should be framed but I don't love how it's been done here.  I think it should be bigger and at least a little closer toward the centre of the frame.  The good news is that since it's on pure black, you can just crop without impacting anything else, unlike how that would cut more things out on a ground-based shot

8 hours ago, .spider. said:

I hope that's not a serious question.

I hope you know the answer since it's apparently so obvious.  Why not let everyone know instead of whatever this is...

[.spider.]

2 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I hope you know the answer since it's apparently so obvious.  Why not let everyone know instead of whatever this is...

I think it was explained often enough after the first moon landing why there are no stars visible.

There's not enough dynamic range.

[.spider.]

24 minutes ago, L.Lawliet said:

 

On the camera?

Yes

[Radium_Angel]

Continuing the topic (of mine, anyway) of fog, here ya go

This was shot on a Nikon D2x, in monochrome mode. There is actually a city skyline in the background, plus a bridge. You can't see it because of the heavy fog, which is why I liked the shot.

Tamron 17-35mm lens, at 17mm, f/8 1/90 sec, tripodded. No other adjustments made.

[RiceAhoy]

[RiceAhoy]

[vanished]

12 minutes ago, RiceAhoy said:

 

My eyes are drawn to the sun and water, but then I'm staring at the unfocused part.

[Mihle]

Well, some people don't use this thread as it's supposed to. You are supposed to rate the previous picture that is posted when posting a new image....

[AkiraDaarkst]

40 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Well, some people don't use this thread as it's supposed to. You are supposed to rate the previous picture that is posted when posting a new image....

What’s the purpose of blindly rating something without discussion, most of the ratings I’ve seen are worthless.  Like someone rates a photo 9/10 because it’s sharp whilst the subject matter and composition are crap.

[AkiraDaarkst]

6 hours ago, RiceAhoy said:

The tilt of the building in the background bothers me...

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

What’s the purpose of blindly rating something without discussion, most of the ratings I’ve seen are worthless.  Like someone rates a photo 9/10 because it’s sharp whilst the subject matter and composition are crap.

You should ofc try to use words to say what you think could be done better and not only a rating, but saying nothing you don't follow the name of the thread, and make it less likely for a discussion to even happen.

[RiceAhoy]

8 hours ago, Mihle said:

Well, some people don't use this thread as it's supposed to. You are supposed to rate the previous picture that is posted when posting a new image....

Oops. I'll follow the rules now, I skipped over reading the first post in this thread.

[.spider.]

11 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

The tilt of the building in the background bothers me...

Why are mostly inexperienced photographers are so obsessed about perfectly vertical lines and totally ignore basic perspective distortion?

 

I noticed often that people recommend tools which distort images far beyond normal looking levels just to get perfectly vertical lines?

[cc143]

On 10/29/2017 at 3:05 AM, RiceAhoy said:

Started as a hobby now my friends are paying me to take their pics. My most recent photoshoot.

I know this has already been commented on and rated, and while most of the criticisms I would point out are addressed, the elephant in the room isn't. Don't put your logo in the middle of the frame. It is a nice logo don't get me wrong, but it draws too much attention, much more than it should, which makes undervalue the image. make it a bit smaller and put it in a subtle place, like the bottom right of the image, like in paintings. It is a pity because this is a nice image, it can be improved, yes, although judging by what I see, it is probably cropped in, so a bit of reframing and slider adjustments could close to perfect it, but that logo is just way out of place and it ruins the image for me!

 

Also, I assume you cut off half his head because it was way out of focus, When you have more than 1 subject it is practically impossible to get them in the same focal plane if the DOF is too shallow, it is better to isolate them less, or use some artificial lighting to assist you in that than shooting wide open regardless. 

[whoisjaya]

I am a little confused now: Which image is the next one to be rated?

[AkiraDaarkst]

22 minutes ago, cc143 said:

so, I assume you cut off half his head because it was way out of focus, When you have more than 1 subject it is practically impossible to get them in the same focal plane if the DOF is too shallow, it is better to isolate them less, or use some artificial lighting to assist you in that than shooting wide open regardless

There is a trick to have more than one subject in focus using wide aperture shallow dof.  There are several tricks but the simplest one is to have both subjects be aligned in the same plane.  A photo is a 2D slice of 3D space, so if you have two people standing, make one of them tilt their head or stretch their neck or lean in the direction of the camera to try and get both subjects aligned.  In a photo, it will not be noticeable that one person is not actually standing straight or that they have their neck oddly positioned, if you pose them properly.  Or instead of aiming the camera straight on at them, have them stand in a angle to the camera so that both subjects are in the same plane.  This is especially useful when you want to take a photo of a couple when one person is hugging the other person from behind and you don’t want the person in the back to have their chin on the front person’s shoulder.

 

Essentially, what I am saying is that it’s not impossible to put two or more subjects in the same plane.  It’s a matter of how you pose/position the subjects in relation to the camera.

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 minute ago, Jonas_2909 said:

I am a little confused now: Which image is the next one to be rated?

Just pick any.

[whoisjaya]

18 hours ago, RiceAhoy said:

I think the building in the back not being totally aligned with the frame since the character doesn't really look all to "serious" considering their facial expressions. The depth of field looks fine to me, but the framing does not really, to be completely honest. In my opinion, there is far too much space left blank over the person's head and under their feet there is not really enough... But that is just my opinion; solid 8.5 out of 10.

[AkiraDaarkst]

30 minutes ago, cc143 said:

Also, I assume you cut off half his head because it was way out of focus, When you have more than 1 subject it is practically impossible to get them in the same focal plane if the DOF is too shallow, it is better to isolate them less, or use some artificial lighting to assist you in that than shooting wide open regardless. 

Here’s a video that shows what I mean about 2D slice of 3D space and how in a photo it will not be noticeable that the subject actually looks  to be in a weird pose.

 

 

[cc143]

Just now, AkiraDaarkst said:

Here’s a video that shows what I mean about 2D slice of 3D space and how in a photo it will not be noticeable that the subject actually looks  to be in a weird pose.

 

 

I know what you mean, and it certainly is a way to do it, but if you are shooting at f/1.4, the DOF is quite shallow, making it more difficult to hit the correct focal plane, even with a single subject some times, and a slight miss is very obvious. In some instances you don't even have to zoom in to see it because of the shallow DOF. Which is why, I would shoot at 2.8 and maybe use a diffused speedlite to achieve better subject isolation. But there are many ways to do it that's for sure.