File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
hey guys. wanted some photo critique, and what better place than 4chan. My gear isnt too great so I couple it with Pshop/lightroom to help bring out some of the pictures. I use very little color in my pictures, anti-HDR if you will?
>> Anonymous
No exif data?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
chicagoland
>> Anonymous
>>216329
like i said, these are editted, and the originals got destroyed in a recent format so these were all pulled off my DA. Im shooting with an Olympus camedia e10 right now, but im getting a new camera in august with a 500-600 dollar limit. any suggestions? im thinkin a rebel XTI or D40/D40x, maybe a D60
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
These have a whole lot of contrast.. might be a tad much.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216336
I was really disappointed with how the first one came out, too light. I got a print done of it and you cant really see the girls face. heres something a little more colorful shot with a D3

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:06:26 18:50:00Exposure Time1/500 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeAverageFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length12.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width2336Image Height3504RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>216339
my bad, 30D. got em mixed up.
>> Anonymous
wow, thats a big ass picture
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
     File :-(, x)
>>216339

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:07:03 00:39:40Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width750Image Height600
>> Anonymous
stop fucking them all up in photoshop, over the top
>> Anonymous
>>216331

>D40/D40x, maybe a D60

Get a d50, at least that has a focusing motor.
>> Anonymous
>>216345

fukken saved
>> Anonymous
>>216348
arent the lenses for that super expensive since (if i remember correctly) the focus motor is in the lens itself?
that may not be it, but i remember reading somewhere that the lenses for that one were really expensive and proprietary. can anyone confirm/deny this?
>> Anonymous
>>216330

I love this one
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216352
thanks. this set was taken at millenium park with my e10 and editted in lightroom
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
Great work, OP, especially>>216330and>>216358. The others are kinda outtakes, or should be I guess I should say. They're not bad, but they're clearly not the best work you can do.

Keep up the unique style.>>216339is too contrasty, though. (Also, ditch the weird watermark and resize.) The others are fine.

>>216351
D50 will autofocus with any F-mount autofocus lens.

D40, D40x, and D60 will not autofocus with any F-mount autofocus lens that isn't AF-S or AF-I, ones that have the focus motor in body.

There are two Sigma primes, and some macro primes from Nikon, that will autofocus on the D40, D40x, and D60. The rest are either shitty zooms, really expensive zooms, or really expensive supertelephoto lenses.

Why are you switching anyway? You seem to be doing pretty fine with this one.
>> Anonymous
your're from Chicago?

where at?

Lakeview anon
>> Anonymous
>>216331

how about getting a film SLR and actually learning how to take good photos without photoshop?

and don't blame picture quality on gear
>> Anonymous
>actually learning how to take good photos without photoshop

Get the fuck out. The OP is turning out good work, and would keep doing so on film; there's no reason for him to do so, though.

Anti-Photoshop advocates are just as bad as the people who throw on color fake lens flare into a black and white picture of their Converse and call it art.

What, should painters all paint in a realist style, with a natural color palette? Photographers, unlike painters, were technically limited in what sort of looks they could get until now. It's good that those limits are gone and people can start to be creative. This is coming from someone who goes for a more traditional, "normal' look.

Now stop being Louis Leroy.
>> Anonymous
>>216619
you are my fucking god. You said what ive been trying to say for ages perfectly.

11/10
>> Anonymous
lol pshop!!!!!!!!
your skillz very great
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>216619
Isn't the point of using a camera realism?
>> Anonymous
>>216331
Get one of the new evolt series by Olympus if you want to keep some of your gear. Their bodies are really inexpensive and there's some high-quality glass for 'em.

Moving on to the photos...

>>216327
Smart crop. Two things: One, her face kind of blends in with the background a little too much and two, try to find an angle where we can see more of her face next time. Otherwise, interesting street shot.

>>216330
What makes this shot so interesting to me isn't the architecture, but how much the beams above the amphitheater look like they're an extension of the fence at the bottom of your photo. Then there's a moment where I realize it's a huge part of the structure instead of part of the fence. That really makes it for me. There's really not that much else about this photo I want to talk about.

>>216334
Cute. Composition's a little off though. Maybe get a little closer to them instead of having her dead center and him getting cut off. Maybe crouch down and catch the hands dead center with their bodies framing the shot or something like that? Either way, fix the composition.

>>216339
WTF is this shit? Lame-ass frame and fucking watermark BS aside, what's up with that weird oil-like shit on her face and in the water? Was this in Alaska circa 1989 or something? Seriously, is that some shitty filter you put over the shot? Do yourself a favor and delete Photoshop. You need to just stick with Lightroom with training wheels.
As far as the actual photo's concerned, that's a great job at a wide-angle portrait. Those can be tough and not everyone is comfortable with a wide-angle lens. The distortion around her head's getting a little noticeable, but it's not bad.
>> Anonymous
(con't)
>>216354
Different, but not the most interesting shot I've seen. More pleasing photos of this site usually have something interesting going on in the reflection. Here you're not really using the warped reflection to create something new and unique as much as you're relying on it to give YOU a subject (which it really hasn't). Not really bad though.

>>216358
Not bad. The speakers are distracting. What would really add to this is if we had some kind of representation of scale like a person walking by, etc. to show us just how big that overhead structure is. I know it's not really possible from that angle, but it's something to keep in mind. Otherwise, it might look too much like you're just shooting through a fence.

All in all, not that bad. By the order of your shots, you seem to know what's your better work and what isn't, which is the first step towards really improving. It'll let you focus on why those particular shots are better than the others and what you did to make it that way. Keep up the good work.
>> Anonymous
>>216619

if you think photography is limited, you obviously haven't done much work in a darkroom, you can do many of the same things in a darkroom that you can in photoshop
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216653
I disagree completely. If the point of photography is to create the most exact replica of a scene, then what's the point of IR photography, darkroom and photoshop manipulation, abstract, dreamscape, etc. Photography can be used to make an art just as much as any other art medium.

In b4 define art shitstorm.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>216653

No. Tell that to Trent Parke. Pic related.

>>216658

Could you make something that looked like>>216339in the darkroom? (Not that it's an example of *good* processing, unlike the others, but it's the most radical ITT.) I know a lot can be done, e.g. Trent Parke above at least used to shoot film and I would guess still does, but digital can do more and easier.

Also, that doesn't effect one iota the point that the OP is doing fine (that one excepted) and switching to film would do nothing for him.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>216660
The point of all that is someone is to lazy to draw.
>> Anonymous
>>216841
-Infinity/Infinity. GTFO, Meese.
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>216843
WAT
>> Anonymous
>>216339

Disgusting amount of contrast, what happened to getting the best variety of all tones (including midtones) in photography? This looks like a myspace picture where the girl jerks up the contrast because the yellow/white glare that skin comes out as gets rid of blemishes. lol horrid.