TR Forums

Aphasia · Sat Jun 18, 2005 8:49 am

No, ive made it like that per design, highly saturated but muted colors. Thought it made it better together with the B&W to lessen the contrast. Standard colors can be pretty ugly in some situations. But yes, from those shots, ive choosen some of the bleaker places, so i guess thats what certain parts of stockholm looks like.

FireGryphon · Sat Jun 18, 2005 9:48 am

Excellent pics. They look very lonely to me, which I assume is by design.

The two that standout are the one with the tuft of grass and the one taken from under the highway. The former's line of focus that runs through the pic is a very cool effect, and the latter's blackened portion of the pic is very interesting. I've seen only a few that used the latter effect.

Aphasia · Sat Jun 18, 2005 12:56 pm

Thanks, and yeah, most of the things is experimenting with that wideangle. Having real wideangle forces you do think quite a bit on what you do, and kindof compress what you want to do, else you will just get photos that have too much things in them. Its much more playing with shapes and lines then what you find in normal focalwidths.

So when i have included people ive been trying to make some kind of point having them there. Too much people in a photo doesnt work, but having none at all tends to make em totally sterile which may or may not have a point.

The tuft and the strolling pair are taking with a Tamron 28-75 and the rest were done with the Canon 10-22. Although im still very much a beginner with a wideangle like that, im actually getting quite fond of using it.

FireGryphon · Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:31 am

Here's a question for you guys with high end cameras, like the EOS caliber (but not necessarily Canon made).

A friend of mine's cousin's new boyfriend

is a professional photographer. He uses a Canon EOS 10D that he took with him on a recent trip/assignment. My friend got the pics he took (JPEGs) and showed them to me, and I personally think something is wrong with them. The pictures were smooth enough that I could tell that it was taken with a camera with a larger sensor than my own (Canon A95) but the pictures were a bit blurry, like they were just a tad out of focus and made my eyes blur looking at them. The colors were dull and drab also.

I only noticed this because I know a few of you guys have EOS and other pro quality digicams and the pictures you post are always richly colored and finely detailed. By comparison, these other pictures really looked bad.

I was wondering how a "professional photographer" could take such horrible pics? Since you guys have the cameras, perhaps you could give me some idea. Maybe he doesn't know how to operate different settings? Do you have to post-process JPEGs to adjust color and focus? It just doesn't make sense to me.

Aphasia · Sun Jun 19, 2005 3:55 am

Well, a normal JPG, needs abit of sharpening and some extra contrast to get some "punch" usually, but it also depends on the settings in the camera. But the 10D is aimed for prosumers to most images will require abit of post-processing when you compare to images from a 300D thats aimed at consumers.

As for looking abit unfocused, it can be many different things. Too long shutter-speed, focus is in the wrong place in the scene or he could have been using a lense that wasnt soo good.

I havent seen the images, but being a professional means you earn money from it, it doesnt really include any provision for being a good photographer. Although, the the bad ones are generally weeded out now and then as it photographers usually runs their own businesses.

Walking around in town here, you see portrait studios where the window-add-photos are horrific. I mean, i still think im a beginner at most things compared to some of my friends(pro photographers since 15 years) but i could do better than those window-adds blindfolded.

FroBozz_Inc · Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:29 pm

Awesome pics, Aphasia.
Love the tuft, the south stairs and bike :-)

I like how there's just a little bit of green in the tuft. very cool.

Aphasia · Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:48 am

Well, latest stuff i did a week ago. Felt it went well.

FireGryphon · Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:14 am

That's a gorgeous picture. looks like a green pepper?

Aphasia · Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:29 am

Habanero durings is ripening phase.

FireGryphon · Thu Jun 23, 2005 9:32 am

How about trying some macro shots of a computer board?

thegleek · Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:14 am

FroBozz_Inc wrote:
I like how there's just a little bit of green in the tuft. very cool.

i dont think so dude. i copy/pasted that pic directly into PSP8, and the
unique color count is 8,087. and i searched thru all those colors using
nattyware's pixie, and no greens are anywhere.

FireGryphon · Thu Jun 23, 2005 10:52 am

It's an illusion. You see grass, and think green.

Aphasia · Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:14 am

Actually, if you look through a decent color-palette that gives the RGB, values you see they arent perfectly greyish, there is a tiny bit of green in the tuft, and also a tiny bit of yellow in the light straw.

Ive just desaturated it just enough so its just beyond grey. The original is much more green.

mattsteg · Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:14 am

thegleek wrote:
FroBozz_Inc wrote:
I like how there's just a little bit of green in the tuft. very cool.

i dont think so dude. i copy/pasted that pic directly into PSP8, and the
unique color count is 8,087. and i searched thru all those colors using
nattyware's pixie, and no greens are anywhere.

Of course, you're just using a pointlessly arbitrary definition of "green" whatever that may be. There's definately green there, and a quick perusal of the pixel values confirms its presence.

FireGryphon · Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:17 am

mattsteg wrote:
thegleek wrote:
FroBozz_Inc wrote:
I like how there's just a little bit of green in the tuft. very cool.

i dont think so dude. i copy/pasted that pic directly into PSP8, and the
unique color count is 8,087. and i searched thru all those colors using
nattyware's pixie, and no greens are anywhere.
Of course, you're just using a pointlessly arbitrary definition of "green" whatever that may be. There's definately green there, and a quick perusal of the pixel values confirms its presence.

Aphasia wrote:
Actually, if you look through a decent color-palette that gives the RGB, values you see they arent perfectly greyish, there is a tiny bit of green in the tuft, and also a tiny bit of yellow in the light straw.

Ive just desaturated it just enough so its just beyond grey. The original is much more green.

pwned

FroBozz_Inc · Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:45 pm

FireGryphon wrote:
pwned

LOL @ Gleek

thegleek · Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:49 pm

mattsteg wrote:
Of course, you're just using a pointlessly arbitrary definition of "green" whatever that may be. There's definately green there, and a quick perusal of the pixel values confirms its presence.

PSP8 doesnt do that, if it does, how do u do a perusal of pixel values?

Klyith · Thu Jun 23, 2005 1:49 pm

thegleek wrote:
PSP8 doesnt do that, if it does, how do u do a perusal of pixel values?

Use the color dropper and hover over the grass blades. Look at the RGB values. If all three aren't the same (or within a percent or two) then it isn't grey. You can see lots of stuff like 70-80-70 or 60-75-60, generally about 15% saturation on the green. The brownish blades are even more saturated but for some reason our eyes don't see a lot of color in brown.

thegleek · Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:01 pm

Klyith wrote:
Use the color dropper and hover over the grass blades. Look at the RGB values. If all three aren't the same (or within a percent or two) then it isn't grey. You can see lots of stuff like 70-80-70 or 60-75-60, generally about 15% saturation on the green. The brownish blades are even more saturated but for some reason our eyes don't see a lot of color in brown.

ok FINE! but the point is the grayscale (or close enuff) of that original
pic that isnt colored, there is no physicaly GREEN to be seen anywhere.
most ppl associate green cuz it's grass and that is how frobozz got fooled.

mattsteg · Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:24 pm

thegleek wrote:
ok FINE! but the point is the grayscale (or close enuff) of that original
pic that isnt colored, there is no physicaly GREEN to be seen anywhere.
most ppl associate green cuz it's grass and that is how frobozz got fooled.

Dude, perhaps you need to visit an optometrist to check for colorblindness or you need to purchase a new monitor. The green is very much there. No one's being fooled except perhaps you.

Perhaps this would be of use.

Klyith · Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:51 pm

Pictures I took this weekend. Still trying to figure out macro mode on my digicam. I'm having trouble with the lcd not displaying enough information to know if I'm focusing right... I also got several macro photos that ended up with nasty light blooms from sun-lit stuff in the background. Anyone got advise on this?

(links to 1024x768 size)

Dianthus barbatus, aka Sweet William
A nice non-hybrid variety that "volunteered" in the garden.

A species columbine. This must be one of the Canadian or rocky mountian varieties, since it's done very well in zone 4.

Aphasia · Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:13 am

ok FINE! but the point is the grayscale (or close enuff) of that original
pic that isnt colored, there is no physicaly GREEN to be seen anywhere.
most ppl associate green cuz it's grass and that is how frobozz got fooled.

On a good calibrated screen, there is still a hint of green left in the blades after the desaturation. Trust me, i made the damn thing.

Crayon Shin Chan · Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:54 am

Wow looks like a lot of photography guys are here too!
I'm just a n00b, trying stuff with my RICOH Caplio G4 "wide" (28mm, whatever that means). I went to Japan recently. These pictures are already on my blog, but check it out and tell me if I did a good job:

Aphasia · Thu Jul 14, 2005 11:54 am

Crayon Shin Chan - I like the the 5 best, the others (except 5th and 4th) are very much... swamped with tiny details that drown out everything else...

FireGryphon · Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:12 pm

CSC: I can tell by your pics that you have the 'bug', but you shoudl work on your composition a bit. Some suggestions:

1) Try to keep lines straight. In the last pic, the building closest to the camera slants towards the top center of the image. At best, the building should be perfectly vertical. Take level shots with the camera.

2) Remember the photo grid. Imagine a tic-tac-toe board over the scene you're going to photograph, i.e. two horizontal lines, one of them 1/3 of the way from the top of the frame and one 1/3 of the way from the bottom, and two vertical lines, one 1/3 from the left and one 1/3 from the right. Your subjects or points of interest in the scene should be aligned along one (or more) of those lines.

In your second photo, if you had moved the frame over to the right a little bit so that the point where the windows intersect the ceiling was a little further left in the picture, it'd be aligned on the rightmost vertical line. The reason for doing this is that aligning subjects in this fashion is that when someone looks at the photo, it'll stand out more to them and the aesthetic of the picture will be overall more pleasing.

For a further example, if you want to photograph someone facing to your left, line his body up with the rightmost vertical line, with his head at the intersection point of the rightmost vertical line and the topmost horizontal line.

I hope I explained that well... they're valuable lessons that I learned over the last few years.

EDIT: For a solid example, check out Aphasia's pic of the grass. The tuft is aligned on the rightmost vertical line. In almost all of his other pics, you can see the left/center/right divisions clearly. The wall the bycicle is against is the right third. The two people walking have a rock wall on the right third of their pic. The overpass borders, for the most part, the left third.

Aphasia · Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:49 am

Still, one shouldnt be affraid to break the rules, but to break em, you need to know em first. And the "rules" is more of a recommendation taken from what most people generally feel is more pleasing to the eye.
Rule of thirds, golden mean, etc.

Most important is to think about what you do, and think of the image you see through the camera as a photo, and not a scene. Think 2D and not 3D. Else you might miss a pole that seems to stick out of somebodys head or something.

Another good exercise is to try and peel away everything but what you choose to pass on to the viewer of the photograph. Like thinking in lines and surfaces instead of objects.

Straight lines can be good, but also think diagonals, and S-curves, etc. Mostly, even without camera, go around thinking about this and snap photos with your eyes. Only straight lines at right angles tends to give you a very static composition and diagonals may give a downhill/uphill feeling, etc.

Read some books, look at other peoples works and analyze a bit, which photos to you like, why do you like em. Then try to put it into practice and use the rules as exercises as not to become a total slave under them. After a while, you will probably start going more on feeling. Which is good. Although, some stuff will probably stick so other people will say, thats done after a rule of thirds, or the golden mean, which is proably correct as those compositions is often pleasing to the eye, photographers and viewers alike.

Usacomp2k3 · Sun Jul 17, 2005 10:50 pm

A dead dragonfly I found at a friend's house today. I decided to play with the macro settings on my new a520.
2.6F, manual focus.

Aphasia · Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:40 am

Nice bug.

Oh, i redid the habanero shot by cropping another one i had from a slightly different angle.

I was also fooling around with some other stuff. See if you can guess what this is. :lol:

[/url]

Grumpy_Eel · Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:29 pm

I bought a camera a while ago but i havent used it much. Im gonna start using it alot though.

Can anyone give me any tips on taking pictures of people? My pictures of my friends and stuff always turned out like crap. How do you take candid pictures of people that dont look like crap? Mine were always shaky, out of focus, etc.

If i find some of my old ones ill post to show how they looked.

bhtooefr · Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:32 pm

Solder?

TR Forums

General photography thread [img heavy]

Some general advice for everybody newly bitten by "the

Who is online