The "Creative Photography " Thread [v2] In Memoriam

[Roswell34]

[QUOTE=tobolateV2;26871428]Ok guys, what am I doing wrong? I want to improve. :)

[img_thumb]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/326/7/7/record_player_by_tobolate-d33eaq1.jpg[/img_thumb]

[img_thumb]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/342/8/d/snow_flowers_by_tobolate-d34i2y4.jpg[/img_thumb]

[img_thumb]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/355/b/b/glowing_mouse_by_tobolate-d35e752.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]

all are nice, try running the first one through noise ninja or some other noise removing program

[mrcsb]

[QUOTE=tobolateV2;26871428]Ok guys, what am I doing wrong? I want to improve. :)

[img_thumb]http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/326/7/7/record_player_by_tobolate-d33eaq1.jpg[/img_thumb]

[img_thumb]http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/342/8/d/snow_flowers_by_tobolate-d34i2y4.jpg[/img_thumb]

[img_thumb]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/355/b/b/glowing_mouse_by_tobolate-d35e752.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]

The first is OK. Maybe give it a little more contrast and crop the bottom right corner a little tighter.

The second puts me off because it's a buttload of mostly dead, ugly flowers. Because there is no specific focus, there is nothing for the viewer to concentrate on. If you insist on shooting that species, get up close and isolate a few blooms instead of the whole plant.

The third is too sloppy and the subject isn't interesting. Use a smaller, dimmer light, a better angle (from the side, maybe), and make your trails smoother. Hell, do them in Photoshop if you want. Light painting is rarely interesting unless you make complex or clever things.

[Roswell34]

[QUOTE=mrcsb;26894047]The first is OK. Maybe give it a little more contrast and crop the bottom right corner a little tighter.

The second puts me off because it's a buttload of mostly dead, ugly flowers. Because there is no specific focus, there is nothing for the viewer to concentrate on. If you insist on shooting that species, get up close and isolate a few blooms instead of the whole plant.
[/QUOTE]

agreed with comments about the first pic

for the second picture, in my opinion, I think it's nice to just break the mold and not really focus on a single point in the picture and instead just fill the frame with some texture

somebody posted earlier in the thread a picture of a scene in some asian factory that kind of expresses this thought where there is no singular focus

[teshok]

more noob stuff

photos from Christurch.
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_52.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_48.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_40.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_36.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_29.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_28.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_25.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e244/teshok/NZCHRISTURCH_33.jpg[/IMG]

[mrcsb]

focusing on the scene is fine if the scene itself tells a story

[mrcsb]

[QUOTE=pedroion;26896068]I personally think the noise gives it a certain charm
Don't ask me why[/QUOTE]

maybe you're associating it with film grain which is a retro aesthetic?

the grain didn't bother me either, it's not like it's nasty color noise

[Roswell34]

[QUOTE=mrcsb;26896197]maybe you're associating it with film grain which is a retro aesthetic?

the grain didn't bother me either, it's not like it's nasty color noise[/QUOTE]

true, some people even add it in post

[➤◉──────────]

i dont mind a little noise in my shots

5D the 2nd @ 6400 is usable without overbearing grain and gives me extra shutter speed to play with

(outake from a 365 demonstrating what im talking about)

[img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5279045403_214f76dd0d_z.jpg[/img]

[Khaos-23]

I want to buy a really sharp new lens with a large aperture for my Canon 550D.

[b]Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM[/b]
[b]Price:[/b] $509.00 AUD

[img]http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Review/Canon-EF-28mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens.jpg[/img]

[b]Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 L II USM[/b]
[b]Price:[/b] $1690.00 AUD

[img]http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Review/Canon-EF-24mm-f-1.4-L-II-USM-Lens.jpg[/img]

I know there's a huge price difference between the two. But I am wondering if the L-series is worth it. Is there that much of a difference? Should I stick with the f/1.8 or is there some kind of lens which is 'in-between' these two?

[➤◉──────────]

Wrong thread: anyway; I've actually considered both personally, I found the 28 1.8 will get the job done, the 24 1.4 will be a luxury.

Honestly with a 550D, I'd go 28 1.8, less risk and you can get a feel for it. Plus with a crop sensor as soon as you find yourself buying a 20something prime to make up for the 50mmcropfactorthing, you should consider a fullframe in the future. Why spend $1700 on a lens compromising for a 50mm 1.4 when you can just upgrade to the 'real deal'?

[Khaos-23]

[QUOTE=bopie;26899490]Wrong thread: anyway; I've actually considered both personally, I found the 28 1.8 will get the job done, the 24 1.4 will be a luxury.

Honestly with a 550D, I'd go 28 1.8, less risk and you can get a feel for it. Plus with a crop sensor as soon as you find yourself buying a 20something prime to make up for the 50mmcropfactorthing, you should consider a fullframe in the future. Why spend $1700 on a lens compromising for a 50mm 1.4 when you can just upgrade to the 'real deal'?[/QUOTE]

When I bought my 550D I wasn't taking into account the crop factor, I found out about it later. But I only just bought it so I'm not going to swap it for a 5D anytime soon. I'm happy with "compensating" for full-frame at the moment. When I hopefully go all professional I'll get a full-frame.

Thanks for the help though, appreciate it.

[Fan-Fanatic]

Some random shots at my school:
(media tagged because of hugeness)
[media]http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq270/Fan-Fanatic/IMG_0572.jpg[/media]
[media]http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq270/Fan-Fanatic/IMG_0568.jpg[/media]
[media]http://i454.photobucket.com/albums/qq270/Fan-Fanatic/IMG_0563.jpg[/media]

[/B/rother]

Hipster.

[buttspoonce]

boring shots i shot around the house out of boredom because i am boring

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysp/5285396078/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5081/5285396078_c4cd12c3b4_b.jpg[/img][/url]

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/andysp/5284799479/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5284799479_cc144706ba_z.jpg[/img][/url]

will be going to the country this weekend so i finally have an excuse to take my camera outside.

[booster]

Does anyone here have any pictures from those "endless" wheat or cornfields. Like in South Dakota.

After I saw "Into The Wild" I couldn't help but to fall in love with that place. And if it's actually that beautiful, I someday gotta go there and take photos.

[/B/rother]

I simply love that movie. I still remember sitting in the movies with my dad.
Good times, before he got married and turned into a whiny control freak.

[Roll_Program]

[QUOTE=bopie;26898729]i dont mind a little noise in my shots

5D the 2nd @ 6400 is usable without overbearing grain and gives me extra shutter speed to play with

(outake from a 365 demonstrating what im talking about)

[img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5001/5279045403_214f76dd0d_z.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]

Grain is different to noise, by the way.

[hzy]

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;26903217]Grain is different to noise, by the way.[/QUOTE]

care to enlighten us?

[editline]23rd December 2010[/editline]

Also here is an edit playing with colour photos in black and white, it gives you so much control.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5285167209/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5088/5285167209_8716c34c4f_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5285167209/]light emitting diode[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/jhaslehurst/]jhaslehurst[/url], on Flickr

[Jaanus]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;26862746]define "not that expensive"... at least in your case. Not that getting a digital back won't still cost me an arm and a leg, but my research has only proven Chicago's camera stores are jerks about used equipment and I don't trust eBay much. :argh:

also, how bout that weather, eh? Foggy as all hell out here, I had to drive 90 miles with visibility barely reaching anywhere safe [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/fd88d27cfa021a006a24a183ea70b951.png[/img_thumb]

[img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/138abd1adaf9065a6dd30e9edcb28c29.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]

Not that expensive compared to H4D

[hzy]

Also did an edit from a shoot I did a few weeks ago

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5285268887/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5285268887_58a613d0d2_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5285268887/]Rising Over Water[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/jhaslehurst/]jhaslehurst[/url], on Flickr

[Bek___]

That's beautiful.

[Pickwickian]

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5266552181/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5266552181_8c83736d28_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5266552181/]DSC_9423[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr

Foggy day.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5267155670/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5267155670_38a3fec1b4_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5267155670/]DSC_8138[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5267154296/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5208/5267154296_b82d0cd41a_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinquast/5267154296/]DSC_8124[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/edwinquast/]edwin.quast[/url], on Flickr

All from Stanthorpe, Queensland.

[/B/rother]

[IMG]http://i56.tinypic.com/2gwtbpy.jpg[/IMG]
C&C, please?

[Roll_Program]

[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;26903899]care to enlighten us?
[/QUOTE]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise[/url]

[dai]

toying with turning new digital shots into vintage without feeling like a total hipster and just adding vignette and split toning

[img]http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1369.snc4/164178_185132811498668_149477491730867_669000_5900600_n.jpg[/img]

meh?

[codenamecueball]

good attempt, i like it

[hzy]

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;26908484][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_grain[/url]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise[/url][/QUOTE]

so one's digital and the other film, meaning that in the majority or circumstances it would be acceptable to use them interchangeably?

[dai]

[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;26910086]so one's digital and the other film, meaning that in the majority or circumstances it would be acceptable to use them interchangeably?[/QUOTE]

film grain doesn't cause horrific color splotches and sparkly technicolor static.

[Pickwickian]

I agree with H4Z3Y.
They are seperate things, but today, with the huge use of digital, I don't think using 'grain' to describe noise is wrong.

[dai]

I still think there's a definable difference, I'd at least refer to the odd discolored specks as noise rather than grain. The variance in light-to-dark which does still happen amidst noise, is the grain.