General Chat / The Offical Photography Thread

Could be a bit more specific?

if you insist...
http://brucknerandbr..._3.2.06_008.JPG
why is the horizontal branch blurred? it is part of the unblurred part, in the same plane no less, so it being blurred confuses the picture and really is unnecessary even for the simplicity you were probably going for...

http://brucknerandbr..._3.2.06_009.JPG
This picture has its potential, but there is too much blurred....there is only the one small section that is detailed....i can definitely see why some blurring might be wanted, but it's overkill...i'd even consider leaving the leaf detailed but blurring the background...

http://www.brucknera..._3.4.06_005.JPG
the blurred green in the foreground is really distracting and gets in the way of the beauty of the smaller more detailed green in contrast to the large wood background...

http://www.forgotten..._3_4_06_004.JPG
this one is so blurred that the colors don't really have a chance...there is too much blurry foreground to see anything...

http://www.forgotten..._3_4_06_003.JPG
this one has good colors and a decent composition, but i think it could definitely benefit from a bit less blurring so the subject is more readable...

http://brucknerandbr..._3.4.06_002.JPG
I dont see the reason for blurring half the leaf...it would look better unblurred imo

http://brucknerandbr..._3.2.06_003.JPG
why blur half the subject and all the background....pick one...or really, dont blur any of the can and keep the background blurred, that would make the most visual sense and probably look the best as well...

http://www.brucknera..._3.2.06_001.JPG
this one just seems confused as to what should be blurred...there are bits of everything that are blurred and for no apparent reason...i'm not sure why only the edge of the ball is blurred for example...

and before you get too defensive, i do like the photos, I just think the editing could have been a bit more thoughtful and careful.

hopefully that was a bit more specific

I will forgive you, because it is obvious you havn't taken a photography class.

The blur is called depth of field, it is intentional. None of that blur is done in Photoshop. I dodge, burn, adjust contrast, and curves in Photoshops, nothing else.

Almost all of my DOF is intentional, I want specific focus on the subject which I chose. It is not unthoughtful. I do thank you for the critique though. Just for you (and once I get my tripod fixed), I will take some very deep DOF pictures for you, where everything is nice and sharp.

edit: fucking french messing my spelling and grammar.

lol, well thanks....though i do understand why you intentionally blurred them I still think that it was a bit much...

p.s. you can rip apart my photos whenever you feel up to it

Edited by AustinPowers, 21 March 2006 - 12:23 AM.

So, I clicked on this thread to mock all your pathetic emo attempts at photography. I had all this great material picked out and everything.
And then you spiteful dickheads had to go and ruin it by not sucking. This makes me sad.

edit: fucking french messing my spelling and grammar.

N'ecrivez pas sur NE quand tu fais ton devoirs de Francais.

lol, well thanks....though i do understand why you intentionally blurred them I still think that it was a bit much...

p.s. you can rip apart my photos whenever you feel up to it

i haven't had a chance to look. sorry.

I will forgive you, because it is obvious you havn't taken a photography class.

The blur is called depth of field, it is intentional.  None of that blur is done in Photoshop.  I dodge, burn, adjust contrast, and curves in Photoshops, nothing else.

Almost all of my DOF is intentional, I want specific focus on the subject which I chose.  It is not unthoughtful.  I do thank you for the critique though.  Just for you (and once I get my tripod fixed), I will take some very deep DOF pictures for you, where everything is nice and sharp.

edit: fucking french messing my spelling and grammar.

Well, I see what you're doing there, but in some ways I do agree with AP...it's okay to have a deep depth of field, even without a tripod. As a matter of personal preference, I like deeper pictures, I like to see lots of layers of things layed on top of one another.

I can't have it at like F22 without a tripod because the exposure will be too long. A lot of my photos are low light situations.

Just ordered my Nikon D50 w/Quantaray 28-90mm Lens and Domke F5XB camera bag.

But here are some photos taken with my old Nikon point and shoot.

Sorry.  Once I get my camera fixed, want me to go out and take some black and white pictures of pale hands holding dead leaves for you?

YOU SHOULD TAKE A BLACK-AND-WHITE SHOT OF A RAILWAY LINE DISAPPEARING INTO THE HORIZON!!!

God wooden coasters are amazing. Well, atleast that one is.

i love that second pic, chapelz.

steve: yeah, mean streak is a beast possibly my favorite wooden coaster.

tracid: thanks it's one of my favorites too;atleast of the photos i have taken.

well finally unloaded my old nikon. had a ton of photos on and i came across one i really liked that i took on the way to the airport last saturday so, i thought i would put it up.

That is your best one, I think.

As for that last one, I think you could of made it a stronger photograph composition wise if you moved that rail down like 20 pixels.

Just wondering what camera do you use and/or recommend...I have a Nikon Coolpix 4300, older now, but good at the time. Im looking at cameras now and thinking about another Nikon unless anyone has other good suggestions. Thanks.

all my photos were taken with a Nikon Coolpix 3200 but my Nikon D50 with Nikkor 28mm-80mm lens comes in tomorrow afternoon. as for what to get i have never had any problems with the one digital camera or my 35mm slr from nikon. my buddy has a coolpix 7900 and it is pretty badass i would check that out. i have never had any problems with any minolta i have used either and my minolta maxxum7000 is still my favorite camera to shoot with. never really cared for canons but corkscrewed and jb seem to like them so i guess it really goes by camera to camera. but the 7900 is worth checking out.

Edited by chapelz, 28 March 2006 - 09:10 PM.

I am a Canon guy, my family always has been. Plus, the have L glass. Which doesn't really mean anything to you because I doubt you will be dropping $1200.00 on a lense.

It depends if you're going digital or manual. For manual cameras, I prefer ones that are old. The camera I use now is a 30 year old Konica Autoreflex TC. Just a personal preference on my part that I like the older ones, mostly because they're built tougher and I have a tendency to break shit.

Yeah, I use a super old Canon A1 from the 70s. That thing is a beast.

Finally a nice day to test out the camera I purchased over Christmas... (warning! long load time on dial-up!)
Advanced criticism appreciated as this is basically the first time I've ever taken pictures for artistic purposes.