File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Soup /p/.

I'm not sure whether I like this shot or not. I've been trying to work on my framing, saturation and burn tool. And I can't really tell if the blur of her hand and/or leg is having a good effect.

Got any advice?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:17 21:27:43White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width650Image Height652RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
I like every single thing about this photo.
>> Anonymous
If you have the chance to reshoot it re shoot it with her looking at the camera and without the leg hand movement. If not the later can be photoshooped easily enoug. Looks decent technically wise. Rule of thirds however nigger, do you know it?
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
>>146301
fuck rule of thirds, this pictures framing is gold.

Redo without leg movement = win, however this pic is still major win
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
I think a different background would be interesting. Something nature-ish, perhaps. But keep it simple.

>>146301

I wouldn't go with the rule of thirds with this shot.
>> Anonymous
>>146301
>>>146301
>Rule of thirds however nigger, do you know it?

Fuck off with your rule of thirds and stupid tips that would make this like every trite and ronery model shot that gets vomited onto Flickr.
>> Anonymous
>>146307here
Not OP, just a pissed off bystander. Just making clear.
>> Anonymous
The blur of her hand looks ridiculous, then the legs. LOL. I forbid you from using photoshop.
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
I should clarify. I do like the shot, but the movement is distracting. But regarding my thoughts in>>146306, I just think a different/semi-exotic background would give the photo a little pop, make you say "wha?" instead of "This was shot just where this box thing was sitting."
>> Anonymous
Am I the only person on /p/ who thinks a little motion blur is perfectly fine and often adds a sense of life to a photograph?

And the background works perfectly, IMO. The box fits in well... it's like a house people are just moving into.
>> Anonymous
>>146301
I do know rule of thirds, but it's my first time with that kind of framing so this might explain why it's... Kinda different, I guess.

>>146306
>>146312

You're right about the background, I wish it was different. This wasn't the main place I wanted to shoot but I couldn't get where I first planned to go because there was a convention so there were too many people.

Thanks for the very useful critique though.

>>146310
Forbidden to use photoshop? I wonder if I should take this as a compliment.
>> Anonymous
this is fucking win, try to fix the blur/movement with her legs.
>>146306
The nature thing might be cool.
>> NGT
Great shot. I really like the depth of field. Is 4.5 as open as your lens can go? I would suggest opening her up as wide as she can go (the camera) and a faster shutter/faster ISO (you are inside..). That way you wont have the blur problem on the subject, and the subject would be more distinguished from the background because of the DOF.
>> Anonymous
>>146319
No, you're not. I think the motion blur is great and that a lot of people fail to account for how it can add some motion and tension to a photo.

I think this is a very well composed and executed shot. Congrats.
>> Anonymous
>>146340

Yes it's the further it can go, my lense is a Canon 17-85mm 5.6f and I usually use it for urban exploration pictures (no model, no blur, wide angle ftw) but I plan on buying a new once since I work more with models now.

...Would you have any advice on that? Maybe I should just start a new thread to ask...
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
this is a pretty cool photo. could do without the sepia, though. lessee the original.
>> Anonymous
>>146380
No, this one's fine. Get a 28, 30, or 35mm lens. You used a 33mm focal length here, and normal focal lengths are perfect for all sorts of work, including portraits like this. Plus, it'll be much faster, good for low light.
>> Anonymous
>>146383
Oh, and if you don't have it, the 50/1.8. $80, good lens, medium telephoto, which is great for three-quarter and tighter portraits.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>146382
There you go. Large file, though.

>>146383
I've been looking for a 50mm 1.8f because I've seen a cheap one (I ain't working right now so money doesn't flow) just to kinda experiment and see how it goes for me, and since it's cheap I'd get a better idea on what I would like to buy later.

I'll take a look at those 28/30/35 anyway though, it could end up interesting.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTLens Size17.00 - 85.00 mmFirmware VersionFirmware 1.0.3Owner NameunknownSerial Number2120702125Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationRight-Hand, TopHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:02:15 03:39:05White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width3456Image Height2304RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualScene Capture TypeStandardExposure ModeManualFocus TypeAutoMetering ModeEvaluativeSharpnessNormalSaturationNormalContrastNormalShooting ModeManualImage SizeLargeFocus ModeOne-ShotDrive ModeSingleFlash ModeOffCompression SettingFineMacro ModeNormalWhite BalanceAutoExposure Compensation3Sensor ISO Speed160Camera Actuations622002181Color Matrix0
>> Anonymous
By the way I know it's a little off-focus. Meh.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
there you go.
fuck the rule of thirds,
forget sepia.

its fine.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:17 21:27:43White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width650Image Height652RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID8a73840336a15442419d1cc699d0e587
>> sv !!vC9KZM3Ch/H
>>146389

Haha, I kind of like seeing the whole box thing. It almost looks like she fell down it from the top.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>146396
I'll remember that. I've been trying another picture with single tones (cause right now I really feel like I ain't able to make something good with this) trying different colors because sometimes I get bored of BNW...

Here it is...

I'm mostly working with curves and hue/saturation . Maybe you have some techniques to suggest?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:06 19:41:12White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/5.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/5.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width950Image Height706RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>146409

In fact, this box is a thing where you put newspapers in (she's so tiny!) but I tried making the upper part valuable in vain. :\
>> Anonymous
>>146412

your problem there is that white triangle of snow, its killing my eyes.

your photos look good, i don't think you need to get fancy with tints, black and white is honest, tints can be a bit tiring to look at, if there is no conceptual reasoning for them.

it's obvious you aren't converting to b+w to save a crappy colour photo, you don't need to go any further.

of course there are no hard and fast rules, and i'm no authority.

too much photoshopping will kill it.
>> Anonymous
>>146422
What I am trying with those tints and messy photoshop effets is to look around for different stuff so I can have an idea on mostly everything into post-working. Those pictures are much more tests than anything else, and that's why I'm asking critiques.

But I keep this in mind, but I think the tints on the first pictures looked a little too boring to stay ''colored''. Although, you're right about the conceptual point. It has no meaning at all on this one.
>> Anonymous
I disagree with the "black and white just salvages crappy color photographs" line of reasoning. I doubt, if someone made a magic-color-recovery-device, that a great deal of Cartier-Bresson's work would be as effective in color. (He tried a few rolls of color once. He found the same.)

Or, try this: Is Eggleston just trying to salvage crappy black and white shots? Because loads of Eggleston would be absolute shit in black and white.

And, in fact, the OP pic is marvelous in sepia, but in black and white it's meh.

And no one needs a "conceptual reasoning" for doing anything. Whatever happened to the idea of an artist's instincts?
>> heman
great photot


i would resize to border the shape of the box, i think it goes to wide on either side considering the height of the box.

still a great photo
>> Anonymous
>>146451
Though if I crop the side and still look for a squared image, I'd have to crop on the floor or her legs, I'm not sure what would be nice...

And if I just make it rectangular I don't think the effect of the box would be the same.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>146445

-just + sometimes.

eggleston is king, his photos wouldn't be shit in black and white, they'd just be different. maybe worse, but not even halfway to shit.

his photos are good for a number of reasons, so are bresson's. either could have done amazing colour or black and white work, they chose their medium and stuck with it because it worked.

i'm not discounting an artist's intuition, i just think that sometimes with digital photography (which isn't better or worse than film), people take a bunch of boring photos and photoshop the hell out of them.

it's the same as some people i know using film who take awful photos and take them into the darkroom and automatically put a five filter on it, or solarize it or some shit, without considering the value of editing in camera.

i think the OP's photos stand alone as strictly black and white photos, and i think that tinting is ridiculous looking, always.

but, like i said, it's just my opinion.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0PhotographerWilliam EgglestonImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution150 dpiVertical Resolution150 dpiImage Created2003:10:09 15:13:54Color Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width600Image Height400Unique Image IDc7a3155ab102b7e3939e0436af69f2d5
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>146454

>EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.
>Camera-Specific Properties:
>Camera Software Picasa 3.0
>Photographer William Eggleston

>Camera Software Picasa 3.0
>Photographer William Eggleston

>Picasa 3.0
>William Eggleston

well played, sir.
>> Anonymous
>>146457

what, the picasa?
i'm not on my own computer, are you criticizing my exif data for a quick convert to greyscale on a small eggleston photo i found online two seconds before clicking submit?

sorry i didn't install photoshop cs3 on my dad's computer on easter weekend.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>146459

way to be defensive. i thought it was a well played joke.
>> Anonymous
>>146460

haha, i'm not that clever!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>146396

You nigger. You pretty much used rule of thirds in this crop. The bounding edges of the box shes in both lay pretty close to where the vertical lines would be if we're thinking about thirds, along with her feet horizontally. Nothing HAS to be on these lines, they can be conceptual guides. It's all about the lines they create and how your eye moves around the photograph anyways.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:24 02:24:51White Point Chromaticity0.3Exposure Time1/15 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width527Image Height800RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>146463

not OP, didn't crop
>> Anonymous
>>146465

Well it's still a crop of the original photo isn't it? Is it still not someone saying fuck rule of thirds when the photo they post is using it? Use your noggen skip.
>> Anonymous
>>146463

OP here

I kinda like it, after all.
>> Anonymous
>>146466

hehe, skip.
we all know what the first guy here wanted to see when he asked the OP about the rule of thirds.
>> Anonymous
>>146454
The photograph you posted is actually the one I had in mind. It's overpowering in color... Eggleston has said anything but the actual dye-transfer print doesn't live up to how powerful it is, so I'd really like to see that... but in black and white it's nothing at all. Eggleston without color is like if someone evened out all Rembrandts to a neutral tone.

That they could've done great work doesn't matter. The point is that flicking the color/black and white switch on them would severely lessen their work, because people usually compose with that in mind. Cartier-Bresson could've made masterpieces with Kodachrome and Eggleston with HP5. But they didn't; the photographs they took, by and large, would lose lots if they had done everything the same but switched their rolls of film before they began shooting.

People do take boring photos and Photoshop/ do stuff in the darkroom the hell out of them, but that's not even remotely relevent to someone using Photoshop or darkroom technqiues to just get a fitting look to their photographs. Worlds of difference between Ansel Adams and DeviantArt people.

And as far as the tinting- I don't do it often, and I always go really subtle than I do, but it's important to remember no printing paper is perfectly neutral.