Rate the Photo Above you

[cc143]

2 hours ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

As for standing positions of the couples, you make a good point that I completely overlooked.  But I also hesitate to agree with you completely because in a wedding photo the main subjects are the couple that is getting/is married.  You may not want to make them less prominent by making something else stand out more.  It's something that the photographer(s) at the scene, the one(s) doing the job, have to decide for themselves.

My opinion on this is entirely objective and of course no where near as informed as your or probably most people who could have responded. I am aware of the issue you raise, but I think in this instance, the car, which is part of the image is not prominent enough to justify its being in the frame. I also believe by doing that slight positioning adjustment you put the couple off center in the frame, which could be better given the framing. Ideally though, the image would be better in that sense if they were on the other side of the car, which I suppose in this case would be the middle of the street. 

 

[Oskar94a]

I really like that Model A in the picture but the background seems a bit off. I'll give it 7/10.

 

Here's a picture of my cat.

[AkiraDaarkst]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:30 PM, Oskar94a said:

I really like that Model A in the picture but the background seems a bit off. I'll give it 7/10.

 

Here's a picture of my cat.

No fair!!!! This is cheating, I adore cats.  You're trying to force me to give you high marks for this photo by using a cat. 

[vanished]

1 minute ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

No fair!!!! This is cheating, I adore cats.  You're trying to force me to give you high marks for this photo by using a cat. 

A tighter crop would help, yes?

[AkiraDaarkst]

10 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

A tighter crop would help, yes?

Maybe a bit more closeup, a tighter crop, or even a lower angle to capture the cat looking more towards the camera instead of looking down, maybe try to frame the entire cat without cropping out his/her feet...  It is already a beautiful photo.

 

OK 9.5864213558/10 because the cat isn't fat and cuddly enough.  And because he/she isn't sitting on my lap letting me pet him/her at this moment.

[SQZY98]

 

On 11.3.2017 at 7:30 PM, Oskar94a said:

I really like that Model A in the picture but the background seems a bit off. I'll give it 7/10.

Here's a picture of my cat.

Cute cate Like how the sun reflects in his/her fur. Seeing more of his bottom half would have been nice, but cats are incredibly hard to photograph, admittedly.

 

 

I love using the ND-Filter on my camera. Though, that leaves me with one question: I noticed that I often get lens flare on my pictures. That being said, I screw the ND filter on top of my already existing UV filter. Could that sandwitchign be the cause of the excessively appearing flare?

 

 

[vanished]

5 minutes ago, SQZY98 said:

 

Cute cate Like how the sun reflects in his/her fur. Seeing more of his bottom half would have been nice, but cats are incredibly hard to photograph, admittedly.

 

 

I love using the ND-Filter on my camera. Though, that leaves me with one question: I noticed that I often get lens flare on my pictures. That being said, I screw the ND filter on top of my already existing UV filter. Could that sandwitchign be the cause of the excessively appearing flare?

 

 

idk, but you could always just remove the UV filter... I assume you're not shooting on film after all.

 

PS, beautiful shot!   But, I think it could be a little more exposed, and why is it so blurry?

Edited March 13, 2017 by Ryan_Vickers

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

3 minutes ago, SQZY98 said:

 

Cute cate Like how the sun reflects in his/her fur. Seeing more of his bottom half would have been nice, but cats are incredibly hard to photograph, admittedly.

 

 

I love using the ND-Filter on my camera. Though, that leaves me with one question: I noticed that I often get lens flare on my pictures. That being said, I screw the ND filter on top of my already existing UV filter. Could that sandwitchign be the cause of the excessively appearing flare?

-snip-

I always remove the UV filter before using an ND filter.  A lens hood should also reduce the flare.

 

[SQZY98]

58 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

idk, but you could always just remove the UV filter... I assume you're not shooting on film after all.

 

PS, beautiful shot!   But, I think it could be a little more exposed, and why is it so blurry?

I probably focused on too much of the lower part (f8) or wiggled the focus ring a bit when mounting the ND filter. I kind of sat on a cliff with the water running right behind me while doint that so I couldn't really take a look at the screen simultaneously. In such moments I wish I had a camera with a rotatable screen. I'll keep that in mind for the future

57 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I always remove the UV filter before using an ND filter.  A lens hood should also reduce the flare.

 

I'll do now! I know that UV filters are kind of useless but kept it on as a protection for the lens. A lens hood would be useful as well, haven't got around to get one yet as the ND filter is the only thing I own that's 77mm in size. I hope that brings some improvements.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

30 minutes ago, SQZY98 said:

I probably focused on too much of the lower part (f8) or wiggled the focus ring a bit when mounting the ND filter. I kind of sat on a cliff with the water running right behind me while doint that so I couldn't really take a look at the screen simultaneously. In such moments I wish I had a camera with a rotatable screen. I'll keep that in mind for the future

I'll do now! I know that UV filters are kind of useless but kept it on as a protection for the lens. A lens hood would be useful as well, haven't got around to get one yet as the ND filter is the only thing I own that's 77mm in size. I hope that brings some improvements.

I personally only use a UV filter when I am in an environment with lots of sand/dirt.  Why put a cheap piece of glass on an expensive lens?

[vanished]

11 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I personally only use a UV filter when I am in an environment with lots of sand/dirt.  Why put a cheap piece of glass on an expensive lens?

or water... basically anything you don't want on the lens for one reason or another.  Either it's potentially damaging, or just something you don't want to have to clean off "in the field"

[AkiraDaarkst]

43 minutes ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I personally only use a UV filter when I am in an environment with lots of sand/dirt.  Why put a cheap piece of glass on an expensive lens?

Well there's no point in buying cheap UV filters.  But if you buy high quality ones, they hardly affect the light passing through to affect the image.

 

2 hours ago, SQZY98 said:

 

Cute cate Like how the sun reflects in his/her fur. Seeing more of his bottom half would have been nice, but cats are incredibly hard to photograph, admittedly.

 

 

I love using the ND-Filter on my camera. Though, that leaves me with one question: I noticed that I often get lens flare on my pictures. That being said, I screw the ND filter on top of my already existing UV filter. Could that sandwitchign be the cause of the excessively appearing flare?

 

 

A bit underexposed and the foreground tree branch or log near the bottom.

[Equilibrium_FOOL]

4 minutes ago, AkiraDaarkst said:

Well there's no point in buying cheap UV filters.  But if you buy high quality ones, they hardly affect the light passing through to affect the image.

 

A bit underexposed and the foreground tree branch or log near the bottom.

Most beginner photographers buy cheap UV filters, after reading how UV filters are so beneficial.  I am guilty of this. 

On the other hand, most people would rather scratch a cheap UV filter than their lens.

[SQZY98]

23 hours ago, Equilibrium_FOOL said:

I personally only use a UV filter when I am in an environment with lots of sand/dirt.  Why put a cheap piece of glass on an expensive lens?

I guess both components are cheap in my case Using a Tamron 18-200mm f3.5 with a Tamron UV filter. These were included with a pack along with my D3300, didn't buy them separately. I'm glad that I have this lens instead of the normal kit lens though. IMO it makes a pretty good all-rounder, but of course it has its limits.

[vanished]

24 minutes ago, SQZY98 said:

I guess both components are cheap in my case Using a Tamron 18-200mm f3.5 with a Tamron UV filter. These were included with a pack along with my D3300, didn't buy them separately. I'm glad that I have this lens instead of the normal kit lens though. IMO it makes a pretty good all-rounder, but of course it has its limits.

Yeah that is an exceptionally good range of focal lengths to cover.  Unmatched versatility   But, without doing any looking into it, I would assume you're right about it lacking in other areas (sharpness, distortion, etc).

[cc143]

Those sound like a good idea in the beginning until you actually shoot one. Its a 3.5-6.3 or something right? I owned the sigma version for like a month a couple of years ago. 

 

Quick long exposure attempt yesterday, what do you guys think?

[AkiraDaarkst]

1 hour ago, cc143 said:

Those sound like a good idea in the beginning until you actually shoot one. Its a 3.5-6.3 or something right? I owned the sigma version for like a month a couple of years ago. 

 

Quick long exposure attempt yesterday, what do you guys think?

 

I think it's a decent photo though I do have some points:

• The horizon is centered, think about how the photo could look like with a shift in perspective by moving the horizon off center.
• Think about doing some selective dodging, burning, exposure adjustment to make the photo more interesting to look at.  Right now I see a few elements competing for attention:
  • The red and white streaks of lights from the moving cars
  • The bright lights from the street lamps all over the photo and some from the buildings, especially with their star flares
  • The grass on the side of the road being lit up
  • And the sky

[cc143]

@AkiraDaarkst I tried removing attention from the grass and some of the other elements you mentioned, however I ended up repeatedly messing up and thought I'd quit while I'm ahead, my editing does need a lot of work.

 

Interesting point about the horizon, I'll go out again once I get some free time, I want to do an early morning shoot sometime as well around Glasgow. 

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

@AkiraDaarkst I tried removing attention from the grass and some of the other elements you mentioned, however I ended up repeatedly messing up and thought I'd quit while I'm ahead, my editing does need a lot of work.

 

Interesting point about the horizon, I'll go out again once I get some free time, I want to do an early morning shoot sometime as well around Glasgow. 

Did you shoot entirley stopped down on the aparture? As you get the really large "stars". Imo they are a major pain in the ass to fix in post so I try to not stop down so much that I get so "large" ones. 

 

Composition wise I would probably have shifted the entire image to the right so the building would dissapear out of frame or shoot tighter. You could also tilt down more on the road. And as you said yourself you could do quite a bit of post proccessing work. Mainly boost the lighttrails imo. 

[xQubeZx]

And to rate it, 7/10 technically its pretty good. But it isn't super appealing to me, different color temperatures (Its a pain I know) and other small things. 

 

Figured I'd show a longexposure of mine now:

[cc143]

1 hour ago, xQubeZx said:

And to rate it, 7/10 technically its pretty good. But it isn't super appealing to me, different color temperatures (Its a pain I know) and other small things. 

 

Figured I'd show a longexposure of mine now:

 

It was at f14, so not entirely stopped down, but pretty stopped down yes. 

 

What did you shoot this at? I see a lot of noise on the sky, I assume that's from post? I also think that the lights on building etc. are a touch too blown out. 

[xQubeZx]

2 hours ago, cc143 said:

It was at f14, so not entirely stopped down, but pretty stopped down yes. 

 

What did you shoot this at? I see a lot of noise on the sky, I assume that's from post? I also think that the lights on building etc. are a touch too blown out. 

I don't remember the exact settings now but I usally do long exposures at f/11 ISO 100. May have used up to 400 max. The noise defentivly comes from post processing and lazy noise reduction work by me. Shutter is probably around 10-30s long. (I took it in the middle of the night) And since major cities have so much light pollution the skies will look horrible when its cloudy imo. 

 

The blown out posters are a flaw, but there where a major pain to do something about as they switched images every few seconds. My best bet would have been to take a shorter exposure with a higher ISO to capture the detail and blend them in Ps. But I sadly didn't get one that fit too well so I just left them blown out. Maybe could fix slightly if I gave it the time. (And I didn't consider them the most important aspect of the image) 

[Fossburger]

at xQubeZx: love the city pic, how long did you have the tripod set up in the busy streets? 9/10

 

[xQubeZx]

5 hours ago, Fossburger said:

at xQubeZx: love the city pic, how long did you have the tripod set up in the busy streets? 9/10

 

Max 30s exposure, can't remember if I blended two or not. But somewhere between 10s to 60s (incase I blended two frames). 

 

However the total time I stood with my tripod was a lot longer hehe... I jumped up on like a cement "wall" that was right next to the street and stood there maybe 30-50cm higher than the people. Then I hung around there for maybe 30min or so shooting pictures. 

[vanished]

18 minutes ago, xQubeZx said:

[...]I jumped up on like a cement "wall" [...]

*pile, not wall.  Unless it was actual concrete and not just cement