3 days, more than 2000 pictures, here are the best ones. Something for everyone! I swear! - General

Oh man, I got some really cool pictures out of my family reunion/vacation. The ones I picked were either for aesthetics or for subject, there are a few more in the album but I'm posting most of them here. CC/Questions are awesome, I know they're not the best but let me know what I can improve if anything comes to mind. [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902032517/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6007/5902032517_1e516db39a_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902032517/]02Overgrowth[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902035851/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/5902035851_36bbc57c6b_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902035851/]06OddOneOut[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902597942/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/5902597942_33d6bfe721_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902597942/]07Something-A-Brewing[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902036959/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6007/5902036959_3275731e34_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902036959/]08Corridor[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902599148/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6036/5902599148_df2ecd7ee8_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902599148/]09SoDrama[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902038001/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6030/5902038001_b861dd22fc_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902038001/]10Shots[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902038797/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6018/5902038797_a118bcd480_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902038797/]11RingLight[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902601174/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6021/5902601174_86f69dfa01_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902601174/]12OddSortOfBeckoning[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902602048/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5196/5902602048_febc38d79f_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902602048/]13Cardinal[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902602552/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6058/5902602552_96e3b8bbe6_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902602552/]14LooksLegit[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902043003/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6027/5902043003_054b2138d1_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902043003/]17Firelight[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902044119/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5232/5902044119_cbc2b7a092_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902044119/]19DespressinglyUnimpressive[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902045475/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6051/5902045475_23a6c48dfd_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902045475/]20Stargazing[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902046073/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6033/5902046073_75d7a41007_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902046073/]22Coolshaeds[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902047103/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6046/5902047103_749cae81e1_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902047103/]23DistilledAwesome[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902047473/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5272/5902047473_71d64ed17e_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902047473/]24Waiting[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr

Oh shit, cop shades. Gimme dem'.

I got chicken strips the other day.... it was $7.00 :/

[QUOTE=Zeonred;30900501]Oh shit, cop shades. Gimme dem'.[/QUOTE] Actually they're womens sunglasses haha [editline]4th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=mildhotsauce;30900556]I got chicken strips the other day.... it was $7.00 :/[/QUOTE] They were damn worth it, best chicken strips ever.

Some amazing shots here. I especially love 1 & 6. Some of your night time shots are incredibly atmospheric and set the mood perfectly.

[QUOTE=MrEndangered;30900789]Some amazing shots here. I especially love 1 & 6. Some of your night time shots are incredibly atmospheric and set the mood perfectly.[/QUOTE] Thank you! It's my first time using a tripod to do long exposures (a lot of them were 20-30 seconds) outside of just little trinkets in my room, I'm really awed by how much different things can look on the other side of the lens.

I was scrolling down and I got to the stars and I said "i love you" out loud. I've been trying to do that for the past 3 nights but it's so cloudy here and it keeps ending up disappointing.

[QUOTE=Jo The Shmo;30907788]I was scrolling down and I got to the stars and I said "i love you" out loud. I've been trying to do that for the past 3 nights but it's so cloudy here and it keeps ending up disappointing.[/QUOTE] Oh my haha, thank you! I was on an island in the middle of the lake, and it's amazingly clear at night, zero light pollution, very few clouds. It was a 30 second exposure at ISO 6400, I was going to use 200 at 3.5 and do a four minute bulb exposure but I don't have a remote and they just don't turn out right if you're holding the button yourself, but I got lucky and got some really solid pictures for how poorly I was equipped. Still, just keep waiting for a clear night or a vacation to somewhere remote, because I doubt I'll take nice pictures like that for a while.

[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;30900382][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902032517/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6007/5902032517_1e516db39a_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902035851/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/5902035851_36bbc57c6b_z.jpg[/img][/url][/quote] Reminds me of a project I wanted to do a while back involving making Diptychs of images that look related but are contrasting subjects. These images look like they could be part of one shot

[QUOTE=daijitsu;30974935]Reminds me of a project I wanted to do a while back involving making Diptychs of images that look related but are contrasting subjects. These images look like they could be part of one shot[/QUOTE] Sounds pretty difficult haha. Stil, not too far fetched, other than the bad angle, that's exactly what was maybe a foot further down the rail, they ran into the boat dock I was standing on (I mean it was a huge wooden dock with buildings and a boat house and all, but still a dock I believe).

looking at the rail shot again, I keep thinking it would be REALLY friggin' cool if there was an old wooden with its back to the wall of leaves.

The champagne glass one is lovely. And the ones with space.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;31004230]looking at the rail shot again, I keep thinking it would be REALLY friggin' cool if there was an old wooden with its back to the wall of leaves.[/QUOTE] Next year I'll be back and try and figure something out haha :d [editline]9th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;31007778]The champagne glass one is lovely. And the ones with space.[/QUOTE] Thanks you :D That was one of the more fun shots we took, we were wandering around the main lodge at like 3 am, it was completely deserted and all the lights were dimmed or off, everything looked amazing, even outside the lens. And the sky ones were the product of hours on the dock trying to do bulb exposures and having nothing turn out, only to say "fuggit" and crank the ISO up to 6400, even though it's hardly noticeable in the darker one (perhaps the iso was lower? I forget), still I'm surprised how it turned out.

Great photos! I love the second one.

[QUOTE=Kirby106;31017454]Great photos! I love the second one.[/QUOTE] Thanks! I've always wondered if there was a story behind that one board, but I have no idea who I'd ask, seeing as how everything is practically a million years old there.

The only ones I like is the one with the 2 persons and the clouds and the compass-rose. The rest looks like "hey lets make it artsy by taking a picture of it" to me.

[QUOTE=Killuah;31025320]The only ones I like is the one with the 2 persons and the clouds and the compass-rose. The rest looks like "hey lets make it artsy by taking a picture of it" to me.[/QUOTE] I respect your opinion, I suppose, but if you were trapped on an island for 3 days that you've been to every year since you were 5, so often that you knew every facet of it inside and out, and you just received your first DSLR only weeks ago, you'd have taken pictures of everything you could think of as well. Now I'm not saying I think the subject matter of everything is outstandingly interesting, but I'm more interested in how it looks than what it is for many of them. In each of the pictures, I believed that the visual effect was excellent, they're all photos that I thought "wow, that looks pretty cool". And in all honesty, I think they're all unique subjects, with exception to the lawn chair, the wine glasses, the shot glass, and the sunglasses, perhaps the pictures of the sky, and all of those pictures were kept for the quality or look of the lighting, and the overall effect. The sunglasses are boring, but man, that focus turned out sharp. I suppose I could dump the lawn chair though, so that's one to you. In fact, the picture of the storm is probably the most interesting thing that's happened in years there but it was also the photo that was the worst from a technical standpoint. The focus is soft and I don't even know how you'd expose that properly, it was simply unnatural in person. If you'd like to explain or expound a bit I'm sure I can tell you more about all of the pictures, and why I think they were worth keeping and posting (with exception to the lawn chair) but I suppose opinions are opinions. [/butthurt]

the only problem is that we don't inherently know why each photo is interesting to you. we may just see a picture of "some girl," but it could turn out that it's a picture of your sister an hour before she was run over by a car or something. it may be a crappy picture, or even a great picture but just boring and unoriginal, but it's significant to you because of some back story we're not privy to. I just feel that if you have to explain the meaning behind the picture, then there's no perceivable meaning behind the picture (for someone else) and also nothing really interesting to look at. to me, the most annoying thing is when I look at a picture and think [i]what am I supposed to see? why did they take this picture? is something happening and I'm just blind?[/i] I don't think all the photos are like that, but of the sixteen, only eight of them are interesting to look at for the subject. I firmly believe in not taking a picture unless there's something to take a picture of or a story to tell. and also, I like the bokeh on the champagne glasses. I love creamy circular bokeh.

[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;30900382] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902597942/][img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6023/5902597942_33d6bfe721.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902597942/]07Something-A-Brewing[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/url], on Flickr [/QUOTE] The more I look at this, the more I love it. It's got an amazing atmosphere with just the right amount of that lo-fi goodness our inner hipsters just gobble up. The title is perfect. It probably helps that I spent my summers as a child at a lake house with a view just like that. This brings back memories of watching a storm roll in over the lake with my brothers. The nearly silhouetted figures add a sense of scale and the person with their arms up gives it some emotion. My only 'complaint' is the unbalance in the top horizon caused by the clouds - but at the same time I feel if it were any different it would lose its atmosphere, that 'blanket' feeling from the dark sky moving in to block out the lighter. In other words, the 'vibe' I get from this outweighs any aesthetic imperfections.

The last one is just amazing.

[QUOTE=GraniteMouse;31033547]the only problem is that we don't inherently know why each photo is interesting to you. we may just see a picture of "some girl," but it could turn out that it's a picture of your sister an hour before she was run over by a car or something. it may be a crappy picture, or even a great picture but just boring and unoriginal, but it's significant to you because of some back story we're not privy to. I just feel that if you have to explain the meaning behind the picture, then there's no perceivable meaning behind the picture (for someone else) and also nothing really interesting to look at. to me, the most annoying thing is when I look at a picture and think [i]what am I supposed to see? why did they take this picture? is something happening and I'm just blind?[/i] I don't think all the photos are like that, but of the sixteen, only eight of them are interesting to look at for the subject. I firmly believe in not taking a picture unless there's something to take a picture of or a story to tell. and also, I like the bokeh on the champagne glasses. I love creamy circular bokeh.[/QUOTE] I feel like that may be the situation, from some of the pictures it's hard to tell just how striking the context is. But like I said, I'm a beginner photographer, a lot of the pictures I posted were because the result looked good and I wasn't expecting it. The stars may not be amazing, but it took me a million tries to get a workable picture or two so I'll be damned if I wasn't going to post some of them. I literally stayed up until one in the morning two nights in a row just sitting on a dock holding down the shutter release, for three minutes at a time over and over again. And then of course the pictures with no stories, are ones that just look like they're well done. The sunglasses are just sharp, the water, hell I surprised myself like no other with that one, but ones like the hallway and the windowsill were practicing just being able to capture the transition from light to dark, and like a said the lawn chair was just a toss. I understand the importance of taking pictures of things that are...well...important...but I feel like that's waaay to gray of an area. "It's just a cat, why'd you take a picture of it?" "Well it's my cat, I dunno." "That's lame, I don't really care about that at all." or "It's my sister right before she died." "Lol fag" What if you took a really cool picture of a bird and it turned out really well. "I don't get this picture, why is this bird so important." "What? It's-...well...-I mean-..." I think that sometimes you should be able to just take things for the sake of taking pictures. And yes that can be abused, a-la the "Hipster" and "~art~", but if the picture looks [i]good[/i] then I don't see much of a problem. Like I said I agree some of mine are tosses but at least they all have a subject and are exposed properly, and I haven't applied some lame sepia filters and captioned them. (SOOC actually *nudge nudge*). Still I think that as long as you're not claiming some ridiculous level of importance, there needs to be some acceptance of just having fun with it, telling something important with a photograph is not something you can just do because you're supposed to, more often than not there isn't going to be a story to tell. It's just a bunch of glasses, or it's just water, or it's just the sky, or just some pieces of wood. Maybe there's a middle ground, but if I only took pictures when there was really, [i]really[/i] something to take a picture of, I can tell you I definitely wouldn't have filled 32GB of hard drive space with pictures in a month, let alone 1GB. Also, thanks, glad u love mah bokeh :D I agree, it's really awesome how they start to blend towards the back. [editline]11th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=bopie;31041882]The more I look at this, the more I love it. It's got an amazing atmosphere with just the right amount of that lo-fi goodness our inner hipsters just gobble up. The title is perfect. It probably helps that I spent my summers as a child at a lake house with a view just like that. This brings back memories of watching a storm roll in over the lake with my brothers. The nearly silhouetted figures add a sense of scale and the person with their arms up gives it some emotion. My only 'complaint' is the unbalance in the top horizon caused by the clouds - but at the same time I feel if it were any different it would lose its atmosphere, that 'blanket' feeling from the dark sky moving in to block out the lighter. In other words, the 'vibe' I get from this outweighs any aesthetic imperfections.[/QUOTE] And that's awesome haha, that's exactly how I felt when I was there, I was actually in a bit of disbelief that a lake could look so supernatural, it was just amazing to be there. I'd have taken a hundred more pictures if it hadn't started raining. I also think this is one of the few pictures where the subjects could make up for the technical imperfections, I'm glad you like it. [editline]11th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=killerteacup;31042729]The last one is just amazing.[/QUOTE] I was super excited when I saw it just sitting there, I was talking with my relatives in the next room and I saw it and thought "hot damn that's gonna make a ~dramatic~ picture!" so I ran to grab my camera and tripod, and the rest was history. I really was just drawn to that picture sitting there by itself in the dark room, it was really pretty awesome to look at.

Normally, I take the side of the majority and explain to the butthurt OP that he needs to learn to accept criticism. However, here I have to agree with Biscuit-Boy: People take pictures because it's fun. People look at pictures because they look good. If it's pleasing to look at, there's no reason not to. The subject may not be particularly interesting or meaningful, but it can always be good practice for composition and technique. Does every one of these pictures need to be shared? No. But if it's something you can show people and have them say "hey, that's a cool shot!" or "man, that lighting is great!", even if the subject is a bit bland, there's really no reason not to take the shot. That's not to say the shot's shouldn't be critiqued, however. If someone has a suggestion for improvement in a shot like that, it's always good to be open and receptive to it: "This lawn chair is amazingly lit, perhaps if someone was sitting in it gazing up at the stars the shot could be more meaningful." "I like the sharpness in these sunglasses, maybe a reflection of some action elsewhere in the room could add a more dynamic feeling to the photo." Criticism that actually provides suggestions for improvement, instead of just what you did wrong, as well as an open mind on your part, will really help to improve your photos.

[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;31048601]I feel like that may be the situation, from some of the pictures it's hard to tell just how striking the context is. [b]But like I said, I'm a beginner photographer,[/b] a lot of the pictures I posted were because the result looked good and I wasn't expecting it. The stars may not be amazing, but it took me a million tries to get a workable picture or two so I'll be damned if I wasn't going to post some of them. I literally stayed up until one in the morning two nights in a row just sitting on a dock holding down the shutter release, for three minutes at a time over and over again. And then of course the pictures with no stories, are ones that just look like they're well done. The sunglasses are just sharp, the water, hell I surprised myself like no other with that one, but ones like the hallway and the windowsill were practicing just being able to capture the transition from light to dark, and like a said the lawn chair was just a toss. I understand the importance of taking pictures of things that are...well...important...but I feel like that's waaay to gray of an area. "It's just a cat, why'd you take a picture of it?" "Well it's my cat, I dunno." "That's lame, I don't really care about that at all." or "It's my sister right before she died." "Lol fag" [b]What if you took a really cool picture of a bird and it turned out really well. "I don't get this picture, why is this bird so important."[/b] "What? It's-...well...-I mean-..." I think that sometimes you should be able to just take things for the sake of taking pictures. And yes that can be abused, a-la the "Hipster" and "~art~", but if the picture looks [i]good[/i] then I don't see much of a problem. Like I said I agree some of mine are tosses but at least they all have a subject and are exposed properly, and I haven't applied some lame sepia filters and captioned them. (SOOC actually *nudge nudge*). Still I think that as long as you're not claiming some ridiculous level of importance, there needs to be some acceptance of just having fun with it, telling something important with a photograph is not something you can just do because you're supposed to, more often than not there isn't going to be a story to tell. It's just a bunch of glasses, or it's just water, or it's just the sky, or just some pieces of wood. Maybe there's a middle ground, [b]but if I only took pictures when there was really, [i]really[/i] something to take a picture of, I can tell you I definitely wouldn't have filled 32GB of hard drive space with pictures in a month, let alone 1GB.[/b] Also, thanks, glad u love mah bokeh :D I agree, it's really awesome how they start to blend towards the back. [/QUOTE] I think that's the idea of an interesting+beautiful picture is what separates amazing photographers from the rest of us. But see, the thing with the bird is like... not a lot of people take pictures of birds. The ones who do /confuse me/ tend to be into birds for their own sake. When I see bird pictures, I'm like, "Bokeh, DOF, Focus, Lighting." If none of those things are spectacular/different, then I move to the next picture. Macro and portraits can run into this, too. (Well, almost anything can run into this but that's the whole question of interesting+well done.) Maybe I'm reading too much into something meant to be a simple example. :v: That's the question of finding a balance between taking pictures and taking pictures that matters. /okay that sounded like an insult but I don't mean it to be/ There's the idea of having to do something 10,000 times, or for 10,000 hours in order to be good at something. Then there's the balance to find between taking 10,000 terrible pictures and taking 10 good pictures. Either way, you're not much closer to your goal. and I think(?) I was agreeing with you, before and now. or at least, I didn't mean to disagree. I was mostly just spouting off. haha

[URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902036959/"][IMG]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6007/5902036959_3275731e34_z.jpg[/IMG][/URL] [URL="http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganmcdaniel/5902036959/"]08Corridor[/URL] by [URL="http://www.flickr.com/people/loganmcdaniel/"]Logan McFrickinDaniel[/URL], on Flickr The fire extinguisher and alarm in the top right corner set it off a bit not much you can do to change that though. Really nice anyway

20Stargazing is breath-taking, gotta say.

[QUOTE=skinzpoison;31093346]The fire extinguisher and alarm in the top right corner set it off a bit not much you can do to change that though. Really nice anyway[/QUOTE] Thanks. I thought that too, everything seems so old and dull and atmospheric, and then there's this bright red modern fire extinguisher, which for some reason turned out super sharp and vivid. I didn't notice the alarm actually, but good point. [editline]14th July 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ijyt;31099731]20Stargazing is breath-taking, gotta say.[/QUOTE] Thank you! I get a lot of mixed opinions on that, some people don't quite get the perspective or what anything is, or don't like the ISO because you notice it if you look too closely, and some like it. I'm glad you're a fan though, and I love to hear you think it's good.

I spent the better part of monday night trying to figure star photography out for myself, I have to say that's a pretty good balanced shot you have there. a LITTLE tracking on the stars, but it's not too much of a bother. on that note, I should mention I heard about the "rule of 600" for star photos. Basically, it's 600 divided by the focal length you're shooting at (full frame equivalent?), which gives you the maximum amount of seconds you can shoot before you get noticeable star movement. So, @50mm, you can have a maximum time of 12 seconds before you get streaks.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;31104477]I spent the better part of monday night trying to figure star photography out for myself, I have to say that's a pretty good balanced shot you have there. a LITTLE tracking on the stars, but it's not too much of a bother. on that note, I should mention I heard about the "rule of 600" for star photos. Basically, it's 600 divided by the focal length you're shooting at (full frame equivalent?), which gives you the maximum amount of seconds you can shoot before you get noticeable star movement. So, @50mm, you can have a maximum time of 12 seconds before you get streaks.[/QUOTE] My friend was telling me about a new camera that takes your GPS coordinates and the image stabilization built into the lens to automatically calculate and correct star tracking, I don't remember who did it but that sounds pretty awesome. Also, thanks for the tip! It's probably not such a bad thing that none of my 300+ second exposures turned out then, I feel like that probably wouldn't have looked the best anyway, although streaking is unique in it's own way if you don't butcher it, sometimes it can be a neat effect.

[QUOTE=Skyhawk;31048825]Normally, I take the side of the majority and explain to the butthurt OP that he needs to learn to accept criticism. However, here I have to agree with Biscuit-Boy: People take pictures because it's fun. People look at pictures because they look good. If it's pleasing to look at, there's no reason not to. The subject may not be particularly interesting or meaningful, but it can always be good practice for composition and technique. Does every one of these pictures need to be shared? No. But if it's something you can show people and have them say "hey, that's a cool shot!" or "man, that lighting is great!", even if the subject is a bit bland, there's really no reason not to take the shot. That's not to say the shot's shouldn't be critiqued, however. If someone has a suggestion for improvement in a shot like that, it's always good to be open and receptive to it: "This lawn chair is amazingly lit, perhaps if someone was sitting in it gazing up at the stars the shot could be more meaningful." "I like the sharpness in these sunglasses, maybe a reflection of some action elsewhere in the room could add a more dynamic feeling to the photo." Criticism that actually provides suggestions for improvement, instead of just what you did wrong, as well as an open mind on your part, will really help to improve your photos.[/QUOTE] The problem I have with this is that you suggest a seperation of subject and shooting technique and that is really wrong. The way you take the picture adds, emphazises, directs, hides and generaly interacts with the subject. Now you are saying "The subject may not be particularly interesting or meaningful, but it can always be good practice for composition and technique. Does every one of these pictures need to be shared? No. But if it's something you can show people and have them say "hey, that's a cool shot!" or "man, that lighting is great!", even if the subject is a bit bland, there's really no reason not to take the shot." The problem here is that the lighting IS the subject in this examplecase and it shows in the OP: Those clouds above the woods are just AWESOME and the fuzzy focus is what emphasizes the heavy but flowing contrasts. The eye is not distracted by unecessary details, the contrast is what could be seen and is what he is SHOWING(a major difference) The glasses and the corridor and the bottle+glas however just look like he didn't find anything interesting. Thus the subject of the picture is not WHAT he shot but rather the way he shot it. And that is boring. Of course you can always use a photo to look for tips in your technique but then you really shouldn't promote them as your "best pictures" and even if so, at least comment them.

I'll concede to your argument there, and I agree that such pictures should not be promoted as your better work, but I still don't believe it can hurt to practice taking photos, as long as you can acknowledge why the shot is uninteresting and how you could have improved it.