File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I spent the night at the Myrtles Plantation in Louisiana the other night. I didn't see any ghosts (no surprise there), but I did take some pictures. It was mostly rainy and cloudy the whole time I was there and I only got about 30 minutes of decent light. I'm pretty much a noob at photography, but I'm starting to grasp it a little. This is what I consider to be my favorite shot from the trip. Some C and C would be appreciated.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerMichaelMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:18 13:39:47Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1296Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
i think it is a pretty decent picture
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
heres one i like that i took.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerMichaelMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:18 14:17:54Exposure Time1/100 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1296Image Height1944RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
anyone?
>> Anonymous
this a megabump since only one person commented and it wasnt even really that helpful
>> Anonymous
>>mostly rainy and cloudy
I laughing because rainy and cloudy is my idea of decent light

a decent shot but, I my monitor at least it could use a bit more shadow detail.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I played with this and I think it looks much better cropped

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTiCamera SoftwarePicasa 3.0PhotographerMichaelMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationUnknownHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:08:18 13:39:47Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/6.3Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/6.3Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length18.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width1296Image Height1133RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardUnique Image ID683d0f02a4f90cc4d181f2bb2080a047
>> Anonymous
>>238520
well i was hoping to get some really well lit photos, but everything was just coming out really dark, and i found out my rebel cant really handle high iso's that well.

so could you give me advice on how to add more shadow detail for future shoots? would you do this in post work in photoshop or is there something i can do while taking the picture? like i said, im a noob, so any advice or tips are appreciated.
>> Anonymous
>>238524
yes thats not bad, it makes the shot a little more focused
>> Anonymous
>>238527
you could do it pre or post shoot. For some reason I can't view the exif for this shot. What was the shutter speed & aperture?
>> Anonymous
>>238539
here you go, i just copied everything
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make Canon
Camera Model Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
Photographer Michael
Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi
Vertical Resolution 240 dpi
Image Created 2008:08:18 13:39:47
Exposure Time 1/250 sec
F-Number f/6.3
Exposure Program Manual
ISO Speed Rating 100
Lens Aperture f/6.3
Exposure Bias 0 EV
Metering Mode Partial
Flash No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length 18.00 mm
Color Space Information Uncalibrated
Image Width 1296
Image Height 1944
Rendering Normal
Exposure Mode Manual
White Balance Manual
Scene Capture Type Standard
>> Anonymous
>>238563
well, your shutter was fairly fast, so the light is not as bad as you thought (at least in terms of brightness) there is no reason why you couldn't have bracketed and shot one and two stops over to see how things would come out.
Also you could adjust the contrast in photoshop. You should print this, even if you don't have a good printer because I think you will find that the shrubs/plants in the background will be very dark. Monitor give a false impression of shots.
>> Anonymous
>>238573
alright thanks for the tip. I really think i need to get a new lense because everything i take has a blur/haze around it. since i dont want to start a new thread, maybe someone could give me some lens suggestions? i was thinking about something medium focal length.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>237903
Well maintained lawns tend to give pretty boring pictures.

>>237930
Pictures of art are rarely art themselves.
>> Anonymous
>>238582
I think, perhaps you are dealing too intellectually on two counts 1) the subject can, on the surface be "boring" and yet be make the viewer feel something
2) not all photo that are great are art. It's not a requirement that a photo be art to be great. Richard Avedon did tons of great shots, I don't recall ever seeing any that I would judge as art. Think of all the pj's that worked sports in in the 40's, 50's, 60's - they were not considered art at the time - only nostalgia ofor those times has transformed them.
I think OP's pic is pretty good. I think patience and reflection would have yielded something even better
>> Anonymous
>>238587
ah thanks for the support. so how in your opinion could this have been a better shot? im genuinely curious as i want to train my eye and instincts
>> Anonymous
>>238587
>>Richard Avedon did tons of great shots, I don't recall ever seeing any that I would judge as art
>>Richard Avedon....don't...art

Get out. Avedon did a lot of fine art, if you think that none of his work was art, then lolomg, you're an idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>238587
I think if you waited a bit you could have taken another shot of the same scene with better balance contrast-wise. The darkish background, and excessive darkish foreground distract my eye from your subject. You could have gotten closer and framed horizontally - that would do tow things 1) no more excessive foreground, and better sharpness for the subject.
What I do like is that the framing is not overly played with. The slight tilt gives the impression of some glancing over at something, as opposed to staring at it, if it were framed more formally. I think the focus is fine.
You are the creator - what did you want to express with this? Did you succeed? This is the most important thing - even if people don't like you pictures.
Technical issues really mean nothing and people who worry about then generally have nothing to express.
I'd recommend you take some time to view some well done pinhole photos - with all the color shifts, and diffraction and and imperfections the best of them manage to be high evocative. Not saying the tech expertise should be your goal - if that's what you want. I am saying that with somthing to say (whether it's art or not) that tech is pretty useless. Take a look at the guy Ken Rockwell - I've still nver seen a shot of his that did anything for me
Have to go now - I have dinner plan. Good luck to you
>> Anonymous
>>238601
oh wow thanks for the advice!
>> Anonymous
>>238594
listen - I didn't say that NO one consider Avendon's stuff art. I said I didn't. When the day comes that everyone has to have the same opionion, humanity is going to be in pretty rough shape. I don't consider Avedon's stuff art - as much as I like it and as much I admire him. Here's a kick in the balls for you - mister conformist - I don't like Ansel Adams - his stuff does ZERO for me even though I recognize that he was an absolute master in both the field and darkroom. On the other hand, the few portraits he did (in comparision to landscapes) - with just a few exceptions SUCK. There's a photo he took of Weston, that's just an embarassment. Take that in your pipe and smoke it. One day when your become an adult you'll realize that someone disagreeing with you does not make him an idiot
Good night, John-Boy
>> BurtGummer !!RRMHFHglFsy
>>238607

PHEW - Sure is enormous replies in here...
>> Anonymous
>>238607
lol, you disliking/liking something doesn't change how it falls under the scope of fine-art. But let's rage some more about how we're mega super adults yes?

P.S. you're probably 18-20, lol.
>> Mr. Higgzbuffonton !!Xsltv1VWxZT
>>238627
>P.S. you're probably 13-16, lol.

fixed, sadly.
>> Anonymous
>>238607
There's a difference between a disagreement and being just plain wrong. Avedon did art, he made photographs intended to communicate/express/show things/concepts/people/experiences/etc/whatever with people. That's art. That's not a value judgment, it's fact.

Textbook, clichéd example: I hate Damien Hirst, have zero respect for him as an artist and only the most begrudging "well, he's human, too" respect for him as a person, but the unbelievably bad, pretentious, nihilistic, commercialized shit he turns out is art. Bad, pretentious, nihilistic, commercialized, shitty art.

"Bad, pretenting, nihilistic... shitty" are value judgments. Those people can disagree on. "Art" isn't, what Avedon and Adams did, no matter how much you dislike them, is art. What Damien Hirst does is, no matter how much I dislike it, art. It's an attempt to communicate something to other human beings through form. That's art.

Explain to me, why exactly is Avedon's non-commercial, non-fashion, etc. work not art?

>>238608
That's not an enormous reply.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>238587
I think perhaps you misread my meaning.
>1) the subject can, on the surface be "boring" and yet be make the viewer feel something
Agreed. But in this particular case, it does not.
>2) not all photo that are great are art. It's not a requirement that a photo be art to be great. Richard Avedon did tons of great shots, I don't recall ever seeing any that I would judge as art. Think of all the pj's that worked sports in in the 40's, 50's, 60's - they were not considered art at the time - only nostalgia for those times has transformed them.
Disagree. I would say that any good photograph qualifies as art. Others in this thread have argued more eloquently (or, at least, more thoroughly) against this part of your post, and I'm lazy, so I'll leave it at that.
>> Anonymous
>>238627
there are two different things here
1) whether or not I like something
and
2) whether I think it's art .
I like like Avedon very much. But for ME. I am speaking for myself. It's not art. I don't know why that frightens people.
And no, I am much older than that
>>238667
please read the earlier reply - I never said anything was shitty, and I said I liked Avedon's work
>>238684
>>Disagree. I would say that any good photograph qualifies as art.
I don't consider any good photo art. But that's OK - I don't expect everyone to have my view, but know youcan understand how I can like something and no consider it art.