Photography The Post Your Photos Not For The Photocomp Thread For Critique Or Just For Fun Thread

[milou]

Use that large rock in the centre as Foreground Interest (tm) as its shape mirrors the shape of the tree line and then you'd have rock, hill and sky of w1n.

 

[old.user4556]

Urgh, its like there's a guy with no face halfway down the path wating for you.....

If I remember rightly it was an older woman with bushy white hair (she was looking down as she was walking up the hill).

It's not up to your usual standard. The saturation in the bottom and the ground brighter than the sky looks weird to me
That said, I've been using Flickr as a photodump now. I want to find somewhere else to put my best pictures.

Well this was a shower amongst sunshine, so the lighting is very mixed here, hence the brighter ground against the punch of the sky (you can see through to blue sky and sun beyond on the right of the image). I've taken some of the saturation out of the shot below in the yellow channel to try to even it up slightly.

I like the sky but I find the foreground a bit distracting. If it was my image I'd be looking at cropping out the guy and everything below him.

Nah I disagree, I like the guy, I feel that's a key part to this image to give it the scale that it needs.

Use that large rock in the centre as Foreground Interest (tm) as its shape mirrors the shape of the tree line and then you'd have rock, hill and sky of w1n.

Great suggestions. What about this then:

 

[Wazzerphuk]

I've taken some of the saturation out of the shot below in the yellow channel to try to even it up slightly.

View attachment 9111

Has definitely improved. Looks a little red in the bottom left now instead, perhaps bring that down a little? I know exactly what you mean with this shot, there's just something about it I can't pinpoint that bothers me a little.

 

[old.user4556]

Here's another from the same day. Similar conditions, bubbling clouds, showers and shafts of light.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Much prefer that one, although I'd crop a little of the bottom out and bring the edge up just short of the shadow of the stone, but that's just me.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

First 5D3 abstract from playing about a bit.

 

[caLLous]

The fuck is that?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

ISO 2500. Not bad.

 

[Clown]

I might have gone a bit too far with this...

 

[old.user4556]

No it's good, but you've already lost the highlight detail in the sky . I'd say get ya ass out of bed early and get up there at dawn.

 

[old.user4556]

ISO 2500. Not bad.
View attachment 9119

THREE GRAND FOR PHOTOS OF MINI EGGS?!

 

[Wazzerphuk]

If you can find something interesting to shoot in my flat go ahead!

 

[Clown]

Beachy Head!

 

[old.user4556]

If you can find something interesting to shoot in my flat go ahead!

You know, you live with a girlfriend right? You know....

Lovely day today, was out for a walk with the missus and took the 70-200mm f/4 L to "take some photos of ducks in the loch that I won't ever upload to Flickr because people won't comment on them because they're not long exposures". I know I harp on about dynamic range on the Nikon bodies but sweet jesus Canon L lenses are lovely - I'd miss them sorely (focus point on each shot is on the eye).

 

[Wazzerphuk]

She's been away and the weather has been greyer than John Major down here. Absolutely no good light at all.

 

[old.user4556]

I might have gone a bit too far with this...

Clown, be a doll and upload the RAW for this pleeeeeeeeeeease? I fancy a play.

 

[caLLous]

...Canon L lenses are lovely

They really are. We both know how good the 17-55 is but the 70-200 (I have the f2.8 IS but I think the build quality is the same for all 4 variations) is just in a different class. I'm dying to use it on a full-frame body for sports tournaments and such but then it would be that much shorter. With the 50D (and with the 1.4x extender if necessary) it's just right for smallish-pitch football games. Givf 1dx and EF 200-400 f4L pls! Although I suspect I would feel (and look) like a bit of a dick turning up to a kids' football tournament with a £14+k body/lens combination.

 

[Clown]

I fagged out and used this shit. It was a real quick snapshot, so ignoring any composition and watermarks, have I overdone it?

I feel like I could have done this with a RAW and lightroom. I need some proper dynamic range to test it out properly really.

 

[Clown]

Without watermarks, processed differently...

Canary Wharf. by Clwn, on Flickr

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Much prefer the second one there.

 

[old.user4556]

Needs some distortion correction, GIFV RAW.

 

[Clown]

It was a hand held random shot. I'm more looking at the colours of the thing. How do people end up with those crazy multicoloured things? Are they stupid?

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Yes, they are stupid and they don't have working eyes.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Still need to do a little more tweaking but which is best?

 

[djpringle]

2nd one looks best, somethings not quite right with the cable in the first

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Think I agree, the second one's better. Now that I've seen it a couple of times away from all the processing I'm not sure it needs any more work tbh.

Here's another, think B/W works best for this one.

 

[TdC]

2nd one looks best, somethings not quite right with the cable in the first

fwiw I find the first one to be more "real", eg random shot/view/whatzit, and the second one obv more processed, though much more posterworthy.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

fwiw I find the first one to be more "real", eg random shot/view/whatzit, and the second one obv more processed, though much more posterworthy.

I tried to get relatively close to the same result with a normal raw edited, and then with one with exposure blending. Good spot. I might give the raw edit another go to see if I can get rid of a couple of the bits that bug me (slightly bleached out white area, red cable, a little more clear detailing in some areas).

 

[TdC]

I didn't have any cool fonts lying about on the lappy, but it was this or draw a domain model

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Fuck you buddy