Rate the Photo Above you

[Fadewood]

@Flyguygamer 8/10. Pretty rad, and I like the darkness, very sleep hollow like. 

 

Part of a series of Skulls I shot for a tattoo artist using black foam core for background and setting. 2-3 light setup and modifiers. 50mm lens. 

 

 

[the pokemon kid]

@Flyguygamer 8/10. Pretty rad, and I like the darkness, very sleep hollow like. 

 

Part of a series of Skulls I shot for a tattoo artist using black foam core for background and setting. 2-3 light setup and modifiers. 50mm lens. 

 

I like the photo, it is a good concept. It is composed very nicely. Skulls and snakes are always interesting subjects. However I feel it is a little too dark for my liking, I understand that you are probably going for a dark look but the heads of the snake and detail on the skull are getting hidden in the shadows.

[Nineshadow]

I was thinking about posting a picture of my toe with a half-fallen off nail but that'd be way too gross.

[Flyguygamer]

@Flyguygamer 8/10. Pretty rad, and I like the darkness, very sleep hollow like. 

 

Part of a series of Skulls I shot for a tattoo artist using black foam core for background and setting. 2-3 light setup and modifiers. 50mm lens. 

6/10, I think it is a little dark and that it could benefit form some background I think.

 

8 second exposure - 55mm - f/36 - iso 100 - lightly edited in photoshop for brightness.

 

[the pokemon kid]

6/10, I think it is a little dark and that it could benefit form some background I think.

 

8 second exposure - 55mm - f/36 - iso 100 - lightly edited in photoshop for brightness.

 

ltt2.jpg

 

A nice shot, I like the use of the movement of the water. The only thing that is bugging me is that the horizon line doesn't look straight in the background. It looks like it is sloped to the right. I would also try getting in close to something in the foreground. Maybe get low and get right by the river bank with the rocks. It would show the movement of the water off slightly better IMO. Many times I have been in the river to get an interesting foreground ( very cold when I am standing in a river in January...)

[Flyguygamer]

A nice shot, I like the use of the movement of the water. The only thing that is bugging me is that the horizon line doesn't look straight in the background. It looks like it is sloped to the right. I would also try getting in close to something in the foreground. Maybe get low and get right by the river bank with the rocks. It would show the movement of the water off slightly better IMO. Many times I have been in the river to get an interesting foreground ( very cold when I am standing in a river in January...)

It was tilting slightly. Thanks for the feedback! Just to let you know you are supposed to post a photo you took when you rate. Looking forward to your photos.

[StormtrooperStu]

Look what turned up in the post today.

 

My new R9 270x.  Kept crashing on me until I found out that my PSU fan had stopped for some reason.

 

[Streamline]

6/10, I think it is a little dark and that it could benefit form some background I think.

 

8 second exposure - 55mm - f/36 - iso 100 - lightly edited in photoshop for brightness.

 

ltt2.jpg

 

Did you bump up the brightness? If so I think you shouldn't have done that because now it looks overly bright and dis-saturated in colors and makes for white spots in the water.

Here's my take on your pic:

 

Adjust levels slightly:

 

Adjust horizon (always try to level out the horizon when taking a landscape photo unless you're willingly going for an effect), add a small amount of saturation and add a little vignette effect:

[Flyguygamer]

Did you bump up the brightness? If so I think you shouldn't have done that because now it looks overly bright and dis-saturated in colors and makes for white spots in the water.

Here's my take on your pic:

 

Adjust levels slightly:

 

Adjust horizon (always try to level out the horizon when taking a landscape photo unless you're willingly going for an effect), add a small amount of saturation and add a little vignette effect:

Wow. Thanks for the help and feedback. Do you have any other tips? Do you have time to improve some of my other photos I took that day? Can you give me the .psd file to see what you did?

[Nineshadow]

This was taken quite a long time ago.My S3 does some decent shots after all!

[flibberdipper]

I guess I'll have to take some more pictures with my mom's phone this weekend.

[Fadewood]

@Nineshadow Cool macro, I just wish phones can start doing better low light photos. 9/10

 

Here is another Skull photo from the series I'm doing. The last one was yes indeed pretty dark, however when printed, it's much better.. for the web it was a bit too dark. This one is a bit dark as well, but you can see a bit more of the background foamcore. 

 

 

[Flyguygamer]

@Nineshadow Cool macro, I just wish phones can start doing better low light photos. 9/10

 

Here is another Skull photo from the series I'm doing. The last one was yes indeed pretty dark, however when printed, it's much better.. for the web it was a bit too dark. This one is a bit dark as well, but you can see a bit more of the background foamcore. 

8.5/10 I like this one a lot better. More light and a background. 

 

15 sec exposure - 29mm - f/29    Lightly edited.

 

[dklhs90]

8.5/10 I like this one a lot better. More light and a background.

15 sec exposure - 29mm - f/29 Lightly edited.

ltt3.jpg

awesome picture. How do you get such low f/ arent the f/ kind of locked down?

My first GPU upgrade from the GTX580 Direct CU II taken with Galaxy Note 3

[Streamline]

Wow. Thanks for the help and feedback. Do you have any other tips? Do you have time to improve some of my other photos I took that day? Can you give me the .psd file to see what you did?

Sure, send me some via PM, I could make you some step by step pics. Sending you the PSD doesn't really make sense since most of the steps are immediate changes to the picture that do not involve multiple layers. Recently I have only had one picture where I did use two layers, one for the sky and one for the foreground because editing both together and get a nice outcome on both was not possible, but usually I'm using gradients or just full-picture changes. 

[Nineshadow]

awesome picture. How do you get such low f/ arent the f/ kind of locked down?

My first GPU upgrade from the GTX580 Direct CU II taken with Galaxy Note 3

Pretty cool.

8/10

[Flyguygamer]

awesome picture. How do you get such low f/ arent the f/ kind of locked down?

My first GPU upgrade from the GTX580 Direct CU II taken with Galaxy Note 3

No, On my dslr with that lens I can get f/29.

[dklhs90]

No, On my dslr with that lens I can get f/29.

hmm i gotta check that out on my dslr. each lens has a different min max f/ right or...

or is it up to the body to decide the min max?

[Blade of Grass]

hmm i gotta check that out on my dslr. each lens has a different min max f/ right or...

or is it up to the body to decide the min max?

It's up to the lens.

[dklhs90]

It's up to the lens.

hmm ok then i gotta check out my lenses then. for a water shot like yours i'd probably use my 14-24mm 2.8 nikon right?

[Streamline]

hmm ok then i gotta check out my lenses then. for a water shot like yours i'd probably use my 14-24mm 2.8 nikon right?

 

Yes, 14-24mm sounds reasonable. Be aware that the focal length of the lens actually defines how much goes onto your picture. 14-24 is pretty wide angle already and is great for landscape photography. 50mm for instance is great for macro and portrait shots. The aperture size affects two things: a big aperture lets in more light and allows for smaller exposure times but it also creates a more shallow depth of field: your focus is going away much quicker so your subject will be in focus, but everything in front or behind it is going to disappear out of focus much quicker depending on the distance between those. A small aperture lets in less light and allows for higher exposure times and also creates a much higher depth of field so everything in the picture is going to be in focus/more stuff is going to be in focus.  

 

Edit: And please refrain from posting snapshots...a pic of your two brandnew GPUs taken with a phablet with no thought given about composure and/or editing done is not photography...it's a snapshot that goes on facebook or is shown to friends, not in a thread where people rate your skills to take photos.

 

Edit2: Here are two examples of what small aperture vs. big aperture looks like:

 

Big aperture (f2.8 40mm macro lens) note how the focus on the keycap disappears very quickly and how it's only in focus in the middle:

 

Small aperture (f22 40mm macro lens) everything in focus though a bit blurry because of higher exposure time and I didn't use a tripod for this shot:

[Blade of Grass]

Yes, 14-24mm sounds reasonable. Be aware that the focal length of the lens actually defines how much goes onto your picture. 14-24 is pretty wide angle already and is great for landscape photography. 50mm for instance is great for macro and portrait shots. The aperture size affects two things: a small aperture lets in more light and allows for smaller exposure times but it also creates a more shallow depth of field: your focus is going away much quicker so your subject will be in focus, but everything in front or behind it is going to disappear out of focus much quicker. A big aperture lets in less light and allows for higher exposure times and also creates a much higher depth of field so everything in the picture is going to be in focus/more stuff is going to be in focus.  

I think you got them revered

F/1.8 is a large aperture

F/22 is a small aperture

[Streamline]

I think you got them revered

F/1.8 is a large aperture

F/22 is a small aperture

 

As far as I know the size of the aperture is what matters and what is referred to when talkig about large or small apertures:

Big aperture = f22 = small hole

Small aperture = f1.8 = large hole

 

Edit: Nvm, I do have it wrong, wikipedia has an example picture which makes it clear  Thanks for correcting me, I did fix my previous post already.

[dklhs90]

As far as I know the size of the aperture is what matters and what is referred to when talkig about large or small apertures:

Big aperture = f22 = small hole

Small aperture = f1.8 = large hole

Edit: Nvm, I do have it wrong, wikipedia has an example picture which makes it clear Thanks for correcting me, I did fix my previous post already.

yes I get things confused with the aperture from time to time.

[Flyguygamer]

hmm i gotta check that out on my dslr. each lens has a different min max f/ right or...

or is it up to the body to decide the min max?

No it is lens. That was the 18-55 IS II kit lens that can do min if f/3.5-f/5.6 and a max of f/22-f/36. The smaller f/ is at 18mm and the larger is at 55mm.