The "Creative Photography " Thread [v2] In Memoriam - General

[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5175480400_8ebd1ab615_b.jpg[/img] No post. I liked the way this one came out. I know it's kinda boring, but it was just a quick snap.

Lacks a focal point, there are some great colors to be brought out especially in the branches to the right. If you did some post-processing to darken the background/make it less interesting/added some contrast to bring out the branches it could look great.

[QUOTE=Dr. Punchgroin;26093226]Lacks a focal point, there are some great colors to be brought out especially in the branches to the right. If you did some post-processing to darken the background/make it less interesting/added some contrast to bring out the branches it could look great.[/QUOTE] That was pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking. Its very vibrant all around and I feel like it needs one thing to focus on. Or at least a direction to flow. I'll see what I can do with it and maybe replace the post here.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/22308456@N05/5156382561/][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4108/5156382561_ee9127eeae_b.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/22308456@N05/5156382561/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/22308456@N05/]K r i s[/url], on Flickr

why did you apply a radial blur lol

[img]http://img237.imageshack.us/i/dscn2782e.jpg/[/img] [url]http://img237.imageshack.us/i/dscn2782e.jpg/[/url] [img]http://img833.imageshack.us/i/dscn2823nu.jpg/[/img] [url]http://img833.imageshack.us/i/dscn2823nu.jpg/[/url] [img]http://img339.imageshack.us/i/dscn2463test.jpg/[/img] [url]http://img339.imageshack.us/i/dscn2463test.jpg/[/url] [img]http://img832.imageshack.us/i/dscn2763a.jpg/[/img] [url]http://img832.imageshack.us/i/dscn2763a.jpg/[/url] I'm not sure if the pictures will show up, so I included a direct link. [b]Please[/b] click hi-res on Image Shack.

[img]http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/7792/cimg1403o.jpg[/img] Maybe not so creative, but i decided to post anyways.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tTBncIsm8[/media] Whyyyy?

I love it when he uses the lens as a hammer :ohdear:

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5187584/photos%20and%20random%20crap/18-5-2010%20003.jpg[/img] Random macro. I really like how the paper looks.

Holy shit, now I ain't so paranoid about smashing my camera into stuff, whenever i walk around inside.

[QUOTE=chamon;26099309][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1tTBncIsm8[/media] Whyyyy?[/QUOTE] Fuck. That was painful to watch. Why does he say Nikon that way? Silly brits.

[QUOTE=latin_geek;26100487][img_thumb]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/5187584/photos%20and%20random%20crap/18-5-2010%20003.jpg[/img_thumb] Random macro. I really like how the paper looks.[/QUOTE] I actually really like this shot. The graph paper looks like tile, and the lights look average sized making the pencil look enormous.

[QUOTE=nubscaper;26093183][img_thumb]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4104/5175480400_8ebd1ab615_b.jpg[/img_thumb] No post. I liked the way this one came out. I know it's kinda boring, but it was just a quick snap.[/QUOTE] it looks like a really sunny day which isn't a great time to shoot this kind of scene, and the reflection off the leaves makes the microcontrast obnoxious. it looks mildly overexposed as well so the whites on the leaves are hurt even more. and please don't be in the "no post" crowd, it's not a good excuse for something to have shortcomings, and it's certainly not something to be proud of unless a shot is amazing and you absolutely nailed it in-camera and it can't possibly get better through post-processing

[QUOTE=nubscaper;26101490]Fuck. That was painful to watch. Why does he say Nikon that way? Silly brits.[/QUOTE] How do you say Nikon? I always say it that way, Nik-on. I too am a proud Brit.

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;26101687]I actually really like this shot. The graph paper looks like tile, and the lights look average sized making the pencil look enormous.[/QUOTE] Someone liking my amateur, cheap camera taken pictures? Blasphemy.

So I just got a new camera, pretty decent. But no idea what settings work the best for what lightings and such. All my photos end up grainy and dark. Any advice?

Grainy could be because of high ISO settings. There are also many factors that affect lighting.

But high iso would make the image lighter. Maybe it's the shutterspeed or aperture.

That's true. It's probably what chamon said. What was the lighting around you like?

[QUOTE=mrcsb;26101911]it looks like a really sunny day which isn't a great time to shoot this kind of scene, and the reflection off the leaves makes the microcontrast obnoxious. it looks mildly overexposed as well so the whites on the leaves are hurt even more. and please don't be in the "no post" crowd, it's not a good excuse for something to have shortcomings, and it's certainly not something to be proud of unless a shot is amazing and you absolutely nailed it in-camera and it can't possibly get better through post-processing[/QUOTE] Sorry about that? I'm trying to learn how to use this camera, and I've only had it for about a week. Thank you for the C&C though. [QUOTE=Barnhouse;26102558]How do you say Nikon? I always say it that way, Nik-on. I too am a proud Brit.[/QUOTE] I say it like Nye-Con. Nye as in Bill Nye. Con as in Con Artist. Just went for a bike ride and took a few shots before it started raining. I'm really enjoying my new camera, even if I suck at taking pictures. [img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1266/5182887318_58cc56faa7_b.jpg[/img] C&C if you are so tempted

[QUOTE=nubscaper;26103324]Sorry about that? I'm trying to learn how to use this camera, and I've only had it for about a week. Thank you for the C&C though. I say it like Nye-Con. Nye as in Bill Nye. Con as in Con Artist. Just went for a bike ride and took a few shots before it started raining. I'm really enjoying my new camera, even if I suck at taking pictures. [img_thumb]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1266/5182887318_58cc56faa7_b.jpg[/img_thumb] C&C if you are so tempted[/QUOTE] The tree on the right hand side is distracting. Either incorporate it more into your picture or make sure to keep it out entirely.

Although still shaking the gay off myself after these photos, I think they came out well. The photos don't really bother me, my friend wanted a picture of his new tattoo and he's proud of his body. full sizes and more pictures on my flickr [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/38272964@N04/[/url] [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4144/5183122040_58b8e9db29.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1040/5183123102_0ccdff5b4a.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1030/5182525649_ff2b2e50fa.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1017/5182521005_047861d0c5.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5182512261_744bed955f.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1019/5182514371_b00df0590f.jpg[/img] don't have alot of experience with portraits and all that, sort of just taught myself/improvised. thoughts?

tell him he has a good body but his tattoo is shite.

Maybe its me, but your shots seem a little under exposed.

[QUOTE=bopie;26105679]Maybe its me, but your shots seem a little under exposed.[/QUOTE] yeah i'll give you that, my lenses don't operate well with low light conditions, and didn't really want to put the ISO up because anymore noise ruins it. [editline]16th November 2010[/editline] though personally I feel enough light that is needed gets across, not really bothered about arguable details

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/38272964@N04/5182525649/]you were shooting ISO 100 with a 50 1.8 at 1/60sec.[/url] You could have at least taken it to ISO 400. Not trying to argue, just help. Yeah you've got enough light to see the guys face, but it's dull. A key aspect of visual arts is aesthetics.

ISO 400 on my D60 gets enough noise to annoy me, I am aware of what settings I shoot with :v:

Yeah, bumping it up to 320 would have greatly enhanced your shots without adding much noise. In fact many people feel that 320 is the next best step up from 100. I've also taken shots, and I feel like my camera performs better at 320 than at 200. [B]Edit:[/B] Yeah multiples of 160 is what I was talking about. Basically they are the steps (160,320,640, etc.) with the others being intermediaries. I usually just go from 320 to 640 on my D90 since there is virtually no difference between 500 and 640 (besides the obvious benefit of faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures). Just shoot with those if you can and you'll be set. Not to mention what bopie said below. Nikon has really solid low light performance even on lower end cameras.

[url=http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page18.asp]400 is [i]so[/i] unusably noisy.[/url]