Real life photography/photo editing

[jakerod 254]

Wow, I definitly need to head to Finland sometime soon. That forest is beautiful. The ones around here are okay but generally speaking you tend to find a lot of man made things in them which kind of ruins it for me. You really can't go anywhere and only see nature there is always something around that ruins it for me.

[BlackScorpion 0]

That's less than 15 miles off the center of Finland 3rd biggest city, Tampere... We have a lot of forest. Thanks.

[Sluganda 0]

2 earl- Great photos!!

[earl 0]

Earl how'd you get this one:

Quote[/b] ]http://www.baconbomb.com/photos/northshore/07.jpg

Were you flying? Are you Superman? Was there just a really tall building you can go up into? Or was there a hill over looking it?

A "hill" yes. The topography around Vancouver is pretty intense. Grouse mountain is one of three ski hills directly north of Vancouver's downtown, only about 45min away. I'm not sure what the elevation difference is, but here is a wider pic from a similar viewpoint:

http://members.aol.com/rashwo3443/grouse1.jpg

The downtown core that you see in my photo is just to the right of the red part of the tower in this image. It was really cloudy that's why I had to abuse the levels in my pic and it looks all grainy.

The inverse view: http://photos.beckettmw.com/albums/vancouver2005/aco.sized.jpg

BlackSkorpion, I have to go there one day as well. My great grandfather came from Karstula (?) area which I think is relatively close to Tampere (north east?). The forest photo is amazing.

[jakerod 254]

Quote[/b] ]A "hill" yes.  The topography around Vancouver is pretty intense.  Grouse mountain is one of three ski hills directly north of Vancouver's downtown, only about 45min away.  I'm not sure what the elevation difference is, but here is a wider pic from a similar viewpoint:

Image

The downtown core that you see in my photo is just to the right of the red part of the tower in this image.  It was really cloudy that's why I had to abuse the levels in my pic and it looks all grainy.

The inverse view: Image

@Earl Thank You for explaining that. That mountain seems really weird to me because I come from Illinois, which is in the center of the country and is all pretty much flat. So the huge mountain just looks out of place to me. Beautiful though.

@Blackscorpion I also like the bird one, birds here would never do that.

EDIT: Fixed weird, quote error/background thingy

[BlackScorpion 0]

Thanks.

And earl, yes, Karstula is about 150 km's or so North, slightly NE, from Tampere.

NOW...

[GoOB 0]

A frosty night and morning fog

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/6089/051020frostnattmorgondimma036b.jpg[/img]

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5351/051020bfrostnattmorgondimma013.jpg[/img]

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/3531/051020bfrostnattmorgondimma039.jpg[/img]

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/8532/051020bfrostnattmorgondimma006.jpg[/img]

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/7513/051020bfrostnattmorgondimma021.jpg[/img]

[im]http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/5442/051020bfrostnattmorgondimma022.jpg[/img]

Is any one of them any good?

I like them all actually, very good camerawork! The first one in particular, great motif. Looked like something from a dream, and the one of the busstop aswell. Very dreamlike! Keep it up

And the blurriness that Earl talked about just makes them better in my opinion, without those imperfections they'd just be pictures of something, now they are something beyond that, they have some form of personality. It all depends on what you like to do the most, and what you consider to be "your" style. Personally I love overexposure, blurriness and all the other imperfections you may find in a photograph. Just don't overdo it, or what the heck, use the camera the way you want, and the way that gets you results that you are pleased with. Techincal quality always comes last, in my opinion.

Something to illustrate my point:

© JH Engström (prominent Swedish photographer)

[Supah 0]

Techincal quality always comes last, in my opinion.

If you are a half decent photographer who has invested some time in learning to use his camera and understanding the principles of photography technical quality should be second nature and be present by default. IMO the pictures you posted as examples are poor and show nothing of interest. Nice of mister Engström that he likes to be experimental but as far as I care he might as well have stuck to pet photography.

[brataccas 0]

unedited 100% natural

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/brataccas/DSCN6906.jpg

[GoOB 0]

If you are a half decent photographer who has invested some time in learning to use his camera and understanding the principles of photography technical quality should be second nature and be present by default. IMO the pictures you posted as examples are poor and show nothing of interest. Nice of mister Engström that he likes to be experimental but as far as I care he might as well have stuck to pet photography.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by technical quality. In these pictures, the photographer obviously wanted to make them technically imperfect by traditional standards. But traditional standards are boring, and in my opinion so are those who like to enforce them. The exciting part of photography is creating something outside of your boundaries, and outside other people's boundaries aswell.

It's art. Granted, what you define as art might be a macro shot of your new lens, your girlfriends watch or maybe your friends record collection, instead of something that tries to convey an emotion, or ask a question. Preferrably emotions other than:

"Wow, that lens looks REALLY cool when I fiddle about with the whitebalanance and overexpose the shot a little!"

And if you look at those pictures Iv'e posted in the right context (IE in the Photojournal they are taken from) you might understand them. On their own though, as you so eloquently pointed out, they really are quite meaningless. But still perfect examples of what I aspire to do when I take photographs, and what I want to do after I finish my education.

[sniperuk02 0]

Really nice shots earl!

My camera(Fujifilm S5000) isnt working right anymore, so all the photos I take now dont turn out well.(blurry,faded,to bright,etc)

These are 2 of my favorite pictures and the type I'd really like to take.

But I would need a better camera than my one to take anything like them.

Car park at night.

Road at night.

(Taken from the penny arcade forums.)

[earl 0]

If you are a half decent photographer who has invested some time in learning to use his camera and understanding the principles of photography technical quality should be second nature and be present by default. IMO the pictures you posted as examples are poor and show nothing of interest. Nice of mister Engström that he likes to be experimental but as far as I care he might as well have stuck to pet photography.

Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by technical quality. In these pictures, the photographer obviously wanted to make them technically imperfect by traditional standards. But traditional standards are boring, and in my opinion so are those who like to enforce them. The exciting part of photography is creating something outside of your boundaries, and outside other people's boundaries aswell.

It's art. Granted, what you define as art might be a macro shot of your new lens, your girlfriends watch or maybe your friends record collection, instead of something that tries to convey an emotion, or ask a question. Preferrably emotions other than:

"Wow, that lens looks REALLY cool when I fiddle about with the whitebalanance and overexpose the shot a little!"

And if you look at those pictures Iv'e posted in the right context (IE in the Photojournal they are taken from) you might understand them. On their own though, as you so eloquently pointed out, they really are quite meaningless. But still perfect examples of what I aspire to do when I take photographs, and what I want to do after I finish my education.

First, I don't mean to sound like some elitist pro, i'm just a half-ass enthusiast.  Second, art is subjective, there's no sense trying to tell somebody else what is and isn't art.  You like it or you don't, and they like it or they don't.

Claiming 'artistic style' to excuse lack of effort or lack of technical knowledge is just a cop out.  And yet the most random snapshot sometimes results in the best photos.

If I look back at iNeo's photos (that's how this began?) most are actually not too blurred, it's only that first one that I think would look better if the trees weren't blurred from camera shake.  The whole set gives a feeling of snapshots taken on the way towards something more important, which is why I made my comment.  I think the whole set would look pretty sharp in B&W.

Here's something I saw today (not mine) that I really like, and you can't claim it's technically perfect:  http://www.mrcury.com/photography/film/TMZ3200A_34A.jpg

[GoOB 0]

First, I don't mean to sound like some elitist pro, i'm just a half-ass enthusiast. Second, art is subjective, there's no sense trying to tell somebody else what is and isn't art. You like it or you don't, and they like it or they don't.

Claiming 'artistic style' to excuse lack of effort or lack of technical knowledge is just a cop out. And yet the most random snapshot sometimes results in the best photos.

If I look back at iNeo's photos (that's how this began?) most are actually not too blurred, it's only that first one that I think would look better if the trees weren't blurred from camera shake. The whole set gives a feeling of snapshots taken on the way towards something more important, which is why I made my comment. I think the whole set would look pretty sharp in B&W.

Here's something I saw today (not mine) that I really like, and you can't claim it's technically perfect: http://www.mrcury.com/photography/film/TMZ3200A_34A.jpg

I did say that art was subjective did I not?

"It's art. Granted, what you define as art might be a macro shot of your new lens, your girlfriends watch or maybe your friends record collection, instead of something that tries to convey an emotion, or ask a question."

That's what I tried to say with that anyways :P He might not call it art, but I do. I didn't try to tell him "That's art, like it or else!" Sorry if I came off like that

And I'm not saying that you can claim lack of effort or lack of technical skill as "artistic style" - All the "fine art photographers" that I have read about, know very well how to do techically perfected shots. Since that is how they started off. But opt not to in many situations, since they feel that making their shots technically imperfect, makes them much more effective.

To develop a niche that you can call your own, you have to have something to start from, and that's usually doing "technically perfected" shots of whatever comes in your way until you get bored of that and start doing something new.

Yeah, but that's what I liked about that picture. Maybe that's because I've seen those exact same trees IRL. They really look evil in iNeo's pic, like the camera had a bad acid trip or that the shot was taken in some freaky dream.

Foggy morning in Uppsala.

Tried some new pants today. Selftimers are lovely things.

Then I went to a friends house.

As Bridges Burn played at Grand (moshpit photography).

[Gagamel 0]

[killagee 0]

GOOB and Earl:

There is a line between technical proficiency and abstract "incorrect" arty shots that can be crossed at any time, often within a few seconds of each shot. Some of my favourite shots are ones i have taken accidentally between the perfect shots i was looking for, and vice versa. i will try to find a few examples from my stash of photo's... Which ones do you think were intentional and which accidents? I am sorry if i have posted any of these before...

[killagee 0]

Here are few random shots from the last week. I am intending to actually go on another photo mission soon... hopefully you will see the results by the end of next week.

First a few cheesy self portraits

A water reservoir 20 mins from my house

[killagee 0]

Lately i have become quite good at travelling TIME and SPACE.

The other day i went back a few years...

And then i went to the moon...

P.S. I have some images available on ALAMY.COM now...

Follow this link here:

Chris Gee at Alamy

[GoOB 0]

As usual, awesome shots Killagee

The water reservoir one is especially cool!

Well, I bought a new toy yesterday. The D70S, I think I picked the wrong lens to start out with though. But I got more bang for my buck with a 70-300mm than with a 18-50mm one. But hey, come next month I'll buy one anyway

Here are two pictures I'm satisfied with so far. They aren't good, but hey...

P.S Killagee, I remember one of your shots had a natural "zoom effect" which you had acheived by zooming whilst the camera was exposing, how did you do that? Did you use a tripod? And what lens did you use? D.S

[killagee 0]

Hey Goob.

What 70-300mm did you get?

You can do a zoom effect by zooming in or out as you pless the shutter release. Its best to start zooming before you release, get a lot smoother that way. You can do it hand held if you like, just keep you shutter speed slower than 1/100 sec or so. If you do have a tripod, you can make it a long exposure and zoom in or out just at before the end Hope this helps. Welcome to the D70 owners club!

[blackdog~ 0]

just bought 20d

[blackdog~ 0]

0k 1 m0r3

[Dallas 9]

I have no actual skills or controle of the aperture yet, but I'm trying to get to know my new KM 7D. This is my first dSRL and actual my first decent camera. I've been browsing this thread for a while and I've finally decided to contribute. Thanks for many great and inspirational pictures.

Family fox terrier:

Amager beach

[blackdog~ 0]

7h47 d0g 4lm057 l00k5 57uff3d!

un0 m0r3

& badly compressed lvt5 minus turret

[Supah 0]

I have no actual skills or controle of the aperture yet, but I'm trying to get to know my new KM 7D. This is my first dSRL and actual my first decent camera. I've been browsing this thread for a while and I've finally decided to contribute. Thanks for many great and inspirational pictures.

Family fox terrier:

[ig]http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/1820/tessa1jy.jpg[/img]

Amager beach

Nice shot of the dog! The head is sharp and the aperture settings here give a nice effect. Best way to learn how to use them is to mess around with them a bit, also note how changing aperture settings affects your shutter times.

On the beach shot I'd have tried to get a higher vantage point to show more of the beach and windmills. Also I'd have waited for the cloud thats blocking the sunlight to pass

[Guest major gandhi]

just bought 20d

http://www.surfacezero.com/piccy.gif

lol I first thought that would be a screenshot of Lock On  

edit: please do note quote image