Page 17 of 102

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:28 pm
by Usacomp2k3
I finally got down to cropping some of my pictures into 16:10 ratio backgrounds. So I now have a random cycling of 142 wallpapers for my background. Check them out if you want:
http://usacomp.zapto.org/gallery/Someofmywallpapers

Some are artistic, some are memory, some are just cool, but all were taken by me 8)

EDIT: if anyone wants a more high-res, I can probably provide that. 8)

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:52 pm
by 90º to Reality
nice collection there! quite a few of them are very interesting.

Im lookin for a place to throw up a few images i have shot/edited for one of my classes. Any suggestions?

Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 8:45 pm
by Usacomp2k3
For just hosting, use http://imageshack.us. Or do you mean a more permanent gallery?

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:45 am
by 90º to Reality
imageshack looks like it would do for the short term. Much appreciated, thanks!

i suppose i should kinda look into finding some sort of permenant solution.

time to slim down some of my images i guess.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:05 pm
by 90º to Reality
Edit:The first is the original, the second is photoshopped a bit. Let me know if edited pictures should find another home and i shall gladly remove it.
Image

Edit: Since this is the "photography" thread I moved the edited to here

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 12:13 pm
by FireGryphon
You're a talented 3D artist, 90, but a render doesn't belong in this thread.

It'd be nice to see the original version of the second photo. With the exception of the green, the edit isn't all that bad.

I'm not sure what others think of this, but I'd like to keep greatly edited images absent from this thread.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:28 pm
by Aphasia
Gryphen, why doesnt it? I would say photoshops work just fine. Or where do you draw the line. Cross-processing, dark-room editing, which can all do the same effects. Its not like its a 3D render or something.

To clarify my standpoint a bit. I think its the image that matters, and what it shows, editing or no editing. Retouching is a fact of the real world and you just about doesnt see any image in the daily commercials or anything that hasent been edited. Its one thing to claim you have a perfect documentary piece but you have edited, but as long as one specifies its edited i see absolutely no point in not having them.

Also, its a matter of taste. Drawing the limit for editing goes where? A bit too high bump in the saturation, or the levels, retouching dust, full composites, and so forth.

Take a look at VelvetG's photos in the Perpetual Photography Thread on arstechnica for instance. All of them are tweaked, and are the better for it.
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/groupee ... 1884/p/289

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:33 pm
by FireGryphon
90: That's a beautiful original image. Nice work.

Aphasia wrote:
Gryphen, why doesnt it? I would say photoshops work just fine. Or where do you draw the line. Cross-processing, dark-room editing, which can all do the same effects. Its not like its a 3D render or something.

Otherwise we would have to take out a good deal of the images already posted, and with the fact its underused as it is...


I'm not against editing images. I do it myself -- some contrast, corrected exposure -- it's all part of taking good photographs and making sure they come out right.

I am, however, against taking a photograph and changing colors, hues, and otherwise altering an image wildly from its original form and posting it in this thread. That's no longer photography, as post processing is more important than the actual picture-taking. Such art has merit in its own right, but it is not as pure photography as this thread has become, and belongs in a thread all its own.

EDIT: I like 90's render and his photo alteration very much, and think he should start a new thread that is dedicated to digital art.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:43 pm
by Aphasia
The problem is drawing the line. If you take a look at VelvetG's images there, those are clearly on the photography side IMO. The thing that matters is taste. A single one now and then thats more heavily edited wouldnt matter one bit for me. And also, its not like theres a huge influx of images right now as it is, and i doubht two concurrent threads would live on.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:56 pm
by FireGryphon
Aphasia wrote:
The problem is drawing the line. If you take a look at VelvetG's images there, those are clearly on the photography side IMO. The thing that matters is taste.


VelvetG's images are on the photography side. They are greatly enhanced, but still true to the original photo. If you look at 90's edit, on the other hand, you'll notice that the second photo is completely different from the first. The feel is different, the colors are different, the hues are different... the list goes on. 90's edit is not photography. It is digital art. There's a grey area, but dude... this isn't even close.

And also, its not like theres a huge influx of images right now as it is, and i doubht two concurrent threads would live on.


I think a thread about digital art would be a great idea. It can live alongside a photography thread just fine, being as photography and digital art are completely separate topics.Yes, there's a grey area, but that happens even with regular forums. We move threads around if they're in the wrong forum, so whatever small grey area there is between photography and digital art can be handled in a similar manner.

There's lots of artistic merit in 90's digital artwork. I especially like the render that he has removed since earlier today and would like to see more stuff like it. His photograph is beautiful, considering the difficulty of capturing such a majestic scene. His edit is nice, too, but I'm aghast that you can look at his edited photograph side by side with the original and consider them both photography.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:00 pm
by 90º to Reality
FireGryphon wrote:
90: That's a beautiful original image. Nice work.
Sweet! im glad u enjoy it!

FireGryphon wrote:
EDIT: I like 90's render and his photo alteration very much, and think he should start a new thread that is dedicated to digital art.


I really like this idea. I'll throw something up a bit later, maybe it can even get a sticky! :D

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:01 pm
by Aphasia
I didnt say i considered em both photography, even though they are based in that. What i said was that it doesnt bother me one bit having a heavily edited image in the photography thread as long as it doesnt swamp the thread. And i wouldnt consider the "render" as you call it especially different from a darkroom crossprocessing and solarization or similar.

Oh 90, i like the editied version, it gives a good surreal look to the whole thing.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:05 pm
by FireGryphon
Aphasia wrote:
I didnt say i considered em both photography, even though they are based in that. What i said was that it doesnt bother me one bit having a heavily edited image in the photography thread as long as it doesnt swamp the thread. And i wouldnt consider the "render" as you call it especially different from a darkroom crossprocessing and solarization or similar.


Then it's merely a communication issue. :) I'd just rather see digital art in another thread.

As for the "render", 90 actually posted a 3D render of a scene. It was very nice indeed, but it was a complete fabrication -- so much so that even you might question its place in the thread ;) He has since taken it down and replaced it with the original photo of the lake. I can't wait for him to post it in another thread so I can see it again. :D

EDIT: By all means, let's let some other people chime in on this. You all know where Aphasia and I stand :wink:

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:13 pm
by Aphasia
DOH :oops:

Ahh, never did saw a 3D render, thought you meant the heavily edited version of the lake-photo. I havent had time to cover the fora at all today. Well, perhaps we dont think that different after all. :D

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:28 pm
by steelcity_ballin
90º to Reality wrote:
FireGryphon wrote:
90: That's a beautiful original image. Nice work.
Sweet! im glad u enjoy it!

FireGryphon wrote:
EDIT: I like 90's render and his photo alteration very much, and think he should start a new thread that is dedicated to digital art.


I really like this idea. I'll throw something up a bit later, maybe it can even get a sticky! :D


oooh I'll post volumes in it. Get it up soon! I love digital art. I think you should do this asap.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:56 pm
by 90º to Reality
pete_roth wrote:
90º to Reality wrote:
FireGryphon wrote:
90: That's a beautiful original image. Nice work.
Sweet! im glad u enjoy it!

FireGryphon wrote:
EDIT: I like 90's render and his photo alteration very much, and think he should start a new thread that is dedicated to digital art.


I really like this idea. I'll throw something up a bit later, maybe it can even get a sticky! :D


oooh I'll post volumes in it. Get it up soon! I love digital art. I think you should do this asap.


roger that!
I have some other pictures i shall post once i get them cut in size a bit. Also i edited my previous post to show only the original picture. The edited one is now in the digital art thread.

Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:17 pm
by Captain Ned
Since 90 has moved his digital art to another thread, let's keep "digital art" to that thread and photography to this thread. Yes, I know that the boundaries between the two are not well-defined and quite fluid. My attempt at dividing the baby goes like this:

If it's clearly photography, it goes to the photography thread.

If it's clearly digital art (all pieces of the image are computer-generated), it goes to the digital art thread.

For those mixtures of photography and post-processing, if it still looks "real" it's photography. If it looks "generated", it's digital art. I know, I wasn't much help here.

Given the nature of these threads, I'm confident that posters will take the time and put their pics in the proper threads. Given phpBB's inability to reassign posts from one existing thread to another existing thread, any comments I make as a mod will be along the lines of "please repost in the proper thread and delete from the improper thread".

I'm posting this to both threads and stickying the digital art thread.

Any questions/comments/gripes/solutions for world peace, please PM me.

Posted: Fri Dec 02, 2005 7:19 am
by JavaDog
Back to Photos! :lol:

Some at took at the abandoned Bethlehem Steel Plant in Buffalo, NY.

Image

Image

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:13 pm
by 90º to Reality
Twas a cold brisk night out, perfect for taking some pictures.

A shot from on campus.
Image
click for full size

and 20 miles away.
Image
click for full size

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:23 pm
by APWNH
The other day I took a rather nice picture of some of my mom's flowers.

Image

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:27 pm
by Usacomp2k3
Image
Took this in the line to Poseidon's Fury here at Islands of Adventure. Just FYI, it was close to pitch-black in there. After about 10 minutes of my eyes adjustment I noticed there was something on the wall, so I used the camera to see what it was. Using the exposure time setting, I set it to 2.5 seconds, and shot it. It was great. (that's one of the first pictures that has actually turned out good, and that's because I almost knew what I was doing as opposed to using the auto setting.

Just for context, here's what the 'auto' shot.
Image

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:48 pm
by FireGryphon
That's pretty darn good for a 2.5 second exposure. You did that handheld? Good man!

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 8:56 pm
by SpotTheCat
I couldn't do that for 2.5 seconds. that's crazy.

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:07 pm
by Usacomp2k3
SpotTheCat wrote:
I couldn't do that for 2.5 seconds. that's crazy.

Mini-tripod set on the railing. And looking at the EXIF info, it was actually 4 seconds.

Posted: Tue Dec 20, 2005 10:10 pm
by FireGryphon
mini tripod, that makes sense :P

4 seconds probably counts the dark frame for noise reduction.

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 12:24 pm
by thegleek
FireGryphon wrote:
That's pretty darn good for a 2.5 second exposure. You did that handheld? Good man!


i dont get it... both pictures look black. what did u take a pic of???

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 1:49 pm
by FroBozz_Inc
thegleek wrote:
both pictures look black.


Same here?

I'm digging the first steel mill pic. Nice. :)

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 7:47 pm
by Aphasia
Second is supposed to look black. If the first one also does, you REALLY need to setup your screen properly. I run on a calibrated screen and it looks real nice. But abstract. Reddish.

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:17 pm
by APWNH
They're probably on CRT's.

Posted: Wed Dec 21, 2005 8:47 pm
by FireGryphon
I'm on a CRT (check sig) and I see the first pic just fine. More yellowish than reddish, but I haven't calibrated this screen. Still looks nice though.