I await her ladyship's judgement on the matter...
I think we've put the forum to sleep...
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.
Photo of the Day - August 2009
- Thread starter Phrasikleia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I await her ladyship's judgement on the matter...
I think we've put the forum to sleep...
Another thoroughly amusing day on the photo forum.
I appreciate the comments from you both. OK, I've edited the photo to bring out her eye, for better or worse. So there she is, emotionally available for your delectation. But I warn you; she's likely to be a heartbreaker.
I appreciate the comments from you both. OK, I've edited the photo to bring out her eye, for better or worse. So there she is, emotionally available for your delectation. But I warn you; she's likely to be a heartbreaker.
Another thoroughly amusing day on the photo forum.
I appreciate the comments from you both. OK, I've edited the photo to bring out her eye, for better or worse. So there she is, emotionally available for your delectation. But I warn you; she's likely to be a heartbreaker.
That's so close to, but much better than my quick Photoshop edit. I think it's even more wonderful this way- but I'm interested in what you think- when you compare the results, which looks better to you, and which is more like your vision of the shot when you hit the shutter button?
^^^
Robin says: "Looks good to me"...
Excellent capture- I miss seeing the brightly colored (coloured) British Robins!
Well, Doylem is right that I could not see her eye at the time (or at least I don't remember seeing her eye), which is probably why it didn't occur to me to adjust the levels on her when I processed the photo. Nonetheless, you pointed out what the left side of my brain knows--that the eyes of a human or creature are very important in a photograph--and the right side of my brain isn't coming up with any really compelling reason to issue a veto. In other words: when in doubt, I usually just "follow the rules," which is what I ultimately did here, once reminded.
^^^
Robin says: "Looks good to me"...
Handsome little devil. I think he's seducing me with his catchlight.
Time for a picture, picture-taker!
Taken last evening, in Wells, Maine:
Click the above image for EXIF.
Taken last evening, in Wells, Maine:
Click the above image for EXIF.
Perhaps it was an informal look that the photographer was going for. While I agree the signs might be a bit distracting, it does not render the entire image a terrible photograph.I'm confused. Why spend so much time and energy trying to 'correct' the deficiencies in a pix, instead of spending just a little more time and energy, at the time of shooting, to create a worthwhile portrait? That is: instead of applying digital 'teeth whitener, maybe choose a location without distracting signs, people, etc...
And lately, the condescending nature here has been quite ugly; reminding me why I stayed away for a while.
This looks to be aimed at me, since it was my post you quoted.
Condescending? Or just expressing an opinion?
Do people really just want to read "Wow!!!!! Awesome!!!!!!!!"?
I did not take it as condescending, at least anything directed towards the overall technique. But there has been increased bickering here that makes it difficult to really want to participate in the fun. I want critique and I want to learn, but not at the expense of someone being a dick about it. That is not saying you or anyone else was, that is overall and in general.
At photo.net I love their "no words" forum because you get a POTD feel without all the chatter.
But the critique here is decent. IE: using fill flash on the portraits and waiting for better light. Etc etc.
At photo.net I love their "no words" forum because you get a POTD feel without all the chatter.
But the critique here is decent. IE: using fill flash on the portraits and waiting for better light. Etc etc.
I agree regarding the star like flare
Trouble is, when looking dead on with the sun in this situation, an F/22 (the aperture to get the star flare) resulted in less than desirable flare around the image mainly because of my Grad ND filter. This was the trade off Thanks!
I think it helps not to read between the lines too much when reading a critique. I haven't seen any condescending comments here lately, nor any really ugly bickering. Well, OK, there was a bit of an exchange regarding bokeh some days back, but those two seemed to be enjoying a little revelry in the finer points of rhetoric and semantics; they remained civil, so all's well that ends well. Today's differences of opinions were certainly good-natured, and I for one appreciate any comments coming from that hot little Robin.
Seriously, though, it will be a real pity if this thread ever devolves into some kind of pep rally, where comments are welcome so long as they're wholly positive. I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
Seriously, though, it will be a real pity if this thread ever devolves into some kind of pep rally, where comments are welcome so long as they're wholly positive. I don't think anyone wants that to happen.
Taken last evening, in Wells, Maine:
Click the above image for EXIF.
I like this quite a bit. It has subdued colors without feeling washed out like some of my photos end up. There seems to be a very slight halo around the right side of the person... is the sun directly behind him?
I'm confused. Why spend so much time and energy trying to 'correct' the deficiencies in a pix, instead of spending just a little more time and energy, at the time of shooting, to create a worthwhile portrait? That is: instead of applying digital 'teeth whitener, maybe choose a location without distracting signs, people, etc...
Like I said it was a picture I took in the midst of shooting video. It wasn't some set up shoot or anything. We had just finished shooting some scenes for a short and I was asking her about how she felt about and just snapped it.
And Compuwar, the attached image has a very blue tint to it and strong red overtones but I'm totally gonna use your advice and go back and rework starting from the original.
yosemite valley
went up to yosemite this morning for a picnic. the air quality was horrific and time of day was not an advantage. that said, would a filter have helped with the blown out sky?
went up to yosemite this morning for a picnic. the air quality was horrific and time of day was not an advantage. that said, would a filter have helped with the blown out sky?
went up to yosemite this morning for a picnic. the air quality was horrific and time of day was not an advantage. that said, would a filter have helped with the blown out sky?
I like the photo, blown out sky? I'm not seeing much of that.. I see you got a XSi, did you turn highlight tone priority on? I find it helps a bit during daylight hours on both my XSi and 40D. I also picked up a set of Cokin Gradual ND filters for landscape shots like this, where the sky is 1-2 stops brighter then the ground and I can shoot a decently well exposed image.
but for your image, I like it.
went up to yosemite this morning for a picnic. the air quality was horrific and time of day was not an advantage. that said, would a filter have helped with the blown out sky?
A circular polarizer would have help with the washed out blues and somewhat with the haze.
Thanks for the reply, romanaz. I don't think I used the term "blown out" correctly. Going through my photos from today, almost every shot where the sky meets rock has a white banding to it - however, I think it is due to the air. I do not have highlight tone priority on, I'll give it a try next time and see how it fares. Thanks for the tip! And I will be buying some filters, I'm sure it would have helped a bit.
