Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Girl under the bridge
- Thread starter JosephBergdoll
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not much I can do about ISO3200 on an original 1D body, and I think that the natural noise looks better than heavily processed noise reduction stuff. Thanks though.
Colors are awesome, Really noisy though.. I'm not a professional photographer but *I think* if you lowered your ISO and increased your Aperture that would help fix it?
I'm probably wrong so don't think I'm acting as a know it all, I'm just suggesting what I think might help.
Otherwise, Great angle and really cool shot anyway!
I'm probably wrong so don't think I'm acting as a know it all, I'm just suggesting what I think might help.
Otherwise, Great angle and really cool shot anyway!
Maybe his lens wont go any wider? adjusting the aperture would also alter the depth of field!
Nice shot!
Wel composed!
Maybe his lens wont go any wider? adjusting the aperture would also alter the depth of field!
Nice shot!
Good point,
Like I said, By no means take my comment too seriously, Because I am not a professional.
Still think it's a great shot though-
Yeah, there are some around, and I've heard of people modding movie camera lenses which can be even faster and using them (although mad expensive and unwieldy), by the by I've read on the net that this .95 is a security camera lens as well. http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/03/nokton-095-lens-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras/
It must be nice to have fast/quality glass but for where I am in photography am having a bunch of fun learning/experimenting with some pretty lo-fi gear at the moment (don't want to be one of these 'technical photographers' who just take pictures of brick walls, lol- rather learn the basics from scratch). Had a brief peek at your flickr and like your shots, happy shooting!
It must be nice to have fast/quality glass but for where I am in photography am having a bunch of fun learning/experimenting with some pretty lo-fi gear at the moment (don't want to be one of these 'technical photographers' who just take pictures of brick walls, lol- rather learn the basics from scratch). Had a brief peek at your flickr and like your shots, happy shooting!
I took a quick look using Preview. There is enough texture and shape that it looks passable in B&W, but the color really makes the photo. The composition just seems a bit off for B&W - too centered and not enough negative space, maybe. Not a professional either, but I used to shoot almost everything in B&W.
It is a really good shot, Joseph.
I completely agree about that last part, applying noise reduction just for the sake of it is seldom the right thing to do.
It is painfully obvious in many blu-ray encodes for example. Some genius "improves" the picture by applying noise reduction and sharpness filters without understanding of the process, resulting in an artificial look with many details annihilated. Yuck.
Anyways, don't get me wrong, I really liked the picture and found it to be very impressive. Composition is far more difficult (and important) to master than post-processing in my opinion.
I actually think the composition is the weakest part of the photo. It bugs me more than the lack of sharpness and the graininess. You call it "Girl under the bridge", but it's all girl and no bridge. Needs more sense of scale, IMHO.
What ISO did you shoot this at? With an aperture of 1.4 and the reflected light I think you could've afforded to do ISO400 even, with steady enough hands. Looks like you shot it at 1600+ though.
What ISO did you shoot this at? With an aperture of 1.4 and the reflected light I think you could've afforded to do ISO400 even, with steady enough hands. Looks like you shot it at 1600+ though.
Are you f ing serious? Trying to tell me what available light was there? This is a bit underexposed and it was shot at 1/80, f/1.4, ISO3200. Come on now. I know my stuff. Don't you think if I could've shot this at 400, I would've?
Are you f ing serious? Trying to tell me what available light was there? This is a bit underexposed and it was shot at 1/80, f/1.4, ISO3200. Come on now. I know my stuff. Don't you think if I could've shot this at 400, I would've?
Dont post a photo and expect all praise
If you cant take criticism, don't post.I like the photo - its good. However as others have pointed out, the graining devalues it (IMO) and makes the picture look amateurish. I can see where you were going though and like it.
Personally, I like the grain - and i think it would look great with just a touch more, it's subtle - but it gives the photograph lots of character.
i really like the colours, and the mixes of the colours - however im not so sure i like the subject and the way it integrates with the picture...
there is a lot to take in.
there is a lot to take in.
You made a thread just to show off this one photo! Please don't expect everybody to be gushing, "Ohhh my, how lovely." I wasn't trying to attack you or anything, and I'm not trying to say that you don't know what you're doing; I'm just saying that I think the photo could've been taken differently, and I'd like it all the more for that. I'm not even much of a photographer myself, you probably know more than I do. I was just giving my two cents. If you don't agree with me, that's fine, but there's no need to be so sour about it.
If you can't listen to anything but praise, then how will you ever know you're improving?
By the way, I agree with DoFoT9. Like I said, it's the composition that bothers me more than the graininess.
Peace and love?
Dont post a photo and expect all praise
I like the photo - its good. However as others have pointed out, the graining devalues it (IMO) and makes the picture look amateurish. I can see where you were going though and like it.
Trying to tell me what the ambient light was like without having ever been there isn't criticism.
Ambient light is not a matter of opinion, it's fact... If I had shot this at ISO400 I would've had an exposure of about 1/2 a second, and the photo would be absolutely ruined by camera shake. Come on now. I don't expect people to comment saying "oh how lovely" etc., notice how I haven't even responded to any criticism (or comments for that matter) until you came in with your asinine ideas about exposure. Probably should learn a bit about photography before you try to tell experienced photographers that they're doing it wrong (when it comes to something as simple as exposure), people might take you more seriously. Anyone who knows anything about exposure will tell you that bumping down to 400 from 3200 is reducing your amount of light by TWO stops...
Last edited: