General Photography Competition #85 [Voting - 1]

[Piacki_117]

Vote for who's photo you think is best
Please vote in both threads


McReis
Michelangelo's Pietá
This week
Panasonic FZ20
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236571&d=1175711525

The_Canuck
An Old Friend
Backyard
This Week
Canon Powershot S3 IS
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236575&d=1175717856

pergarec
Can anyone say... GRAINY!
Dimage Z10
Our high school
4.3.2007
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236576&d=1175718368

Drakkie
13-2-2007
NAI
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Fuji Finepix S5600
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236577&d=1175718749


Waugh-terfall
Reflections
03-04-07
Sony Cyber-shot DSC W70b
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236578&d=1175719811

My Porsche
Back of my lens
Nikkor 60mm f/2.8
Monthish ago
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236598&d=1175723063

70Cuda88
Courthouse Castle
KodakC533
4-1-07
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236612&d=1175725367

speedy_2
Panning at 400+ Knots
4/4/07
Canon 350D & Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX DG HSM
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236622&d=1175729392

Timothy (in VA)
Spring has Sprung
March 19, 2007
Sony DSC-S500
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236627&d=1175730189

Paul
Spring
Month ago
Canon 350d
http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=236643&d=1175734560

[70cuda88]

my vote here is going to speedy, i mean cmon, its the blue angels!..

[Cotterik]

so even a naff picture of the blue angels would win is that what you're saying :p

[70cuda88]

in certain situations, yes

[The_Canuck]

Nobody likes my picture :( :p

[drakkie]

Nobody likes my picture :( :p

Some constructive criticism seems needed. IMO the thing your picture misses most is some contrast. The colours are all kinda brown-ish and dont give a nice contrast. The background is kinda bland.

The composition is nothing special, perhaps it would have helped if you would have kneeled. Getting rid of the top-down view often gives a much better result, especially on cars !

Good luck practicing !

[Vaigra]

my vote here is going to speedy, i mean cmon, its the blue angels!..
Are they a rip-off version of the Red Devils? :p

[my porsche]

no just pretty much the most badass pilot group ever,

[Vaigra]

Ah, my mistake. I was thinking of the Red Arrows.

[Cotterik]

Red Arrows>all

[drakkie]

Red Arrows>all

Voting based on technique and skill > All :mad:

[Wouter Melissen]

Voting based on technique and skill > All :mad:

Once you post a picture which shows technique and skill, I am sure you will win.

[drakkie]

Once you post a picture which shows technique and skill, I am sure you will win.

Give me some constructive criticism then instead of whining. This way i'll never improve ;) I'd love to hear some because I think the composition is the only thing that could be slightly better in my picture. Bring it on !

And I wasn't speaking of my picture only :)

Edit:

Like this better ? Good use of an old trick of my dad. Duct-taping 80's sun glasses to the front of the lense and having fun with it, for almost no money. The composition is good, the glasses give it an oldish feel and everything is well exposed. Nothing wrong, right ?

Location is Rotterdam again, De Hef, Noordereiland. Taken yesterday in the early evening.

[Wouter Melissen]

That whining comment is just too rich. You might want to re-read your own post.

What's the subject? From the looks of it, the subject is that hill in the foreground. You need to focus on the subject first before trying any weird tricks.

[drakkie]

That whining comment is just too rich. You might want to re-read your own post.

What's the subject? From the looks of it, the subject is that hill in the foreground. You need to focus on the subject first before trying any weird tricks.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've had some very long looks at it, as well as my father. We agreed that the houses together with the ending railway make a nice "line" in the picture and that our eyes get drawn first to them. Care to explain yourself a bit more please ?

PS:
It is a great location for shooting. You might want to try it. Also very cheap parking near many more nice locations !

[Sauc3]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I've had some very long looks at it, as well as my father. We agreed that the houses together with the ending railway make a nice "line" in the picture and that our eyes get drawn first to them. Care to explain yourself a bit more please ?

PS:
It is a great location for shooting. You might want to try it. Also very cheap parking near many more nice locations !
This last photo is the most interesting picture you have posted in this thread.
And by that I mean - there's no point of focus. I don't know where to look. There's no subject of interest, at the end of the tunnel there's only a fence, and there's nothing but repetition within the photo. That might be good in certain photos, but in this one it does not work.
The lighting is bad at best, and coupled with a poor composition it makes for a very bland photo.

DOF is incredibly important in photography, and I'm not sure if your camera is not capable of showing it in pictures like this or you choose not to use it, but a large amount of your photos suffer because of the lack of DOF.

[drakkie]

This last photo is the most interesting picture you have posted in this thread.
And by that I mean - there's no point of focus. I don't know where to look. There's no subject of interest, at the end of the tunnel there's only a fence, and there's nothing but repetition within the photo. That might be good in certain photos, but in this one it does not work.
The lighting is bad at best, and coupled with a poor composition it makes for a very bland photo.

DOF is incredibly important in photography, and I'm not sure if your camera is not capable of showing it in pictures like this or you choose not to use it, but a large amount of your photos suffer because of the lack of DOF.

Thanks. That was of use to me I guess. It is something I am still practicing with. I really hope to improve on that ! Putting the diafragm settings higher would have helped, don't you think ? This one was at F3.2(minimum) with 1/125 and ISO64.

In the one I attached now, i see the same blandness problem. A real pity because the composition is interesting. By now I'm thinking of going back there again today. Any tips are welcome before I go !

[Wouter Melissen]

You are too far away to get a good DOF and it also looks like your lense does not really deliver the DOF you are after.

This is what my 500mm does at F4.5.

[drakkie]

You are too far away to get a good DOF and it also looks like your lense does not really deliver the DOF you are after.

This is what my 500mm does at F4.5.

This is my best attempt at it. It explains a lot if it would be my lense, because I am sometimes really struggling to get the effect. It is more a touch of luck than anything else. This was f3.2 at a distance of about a 2 meter. I guess this is mainly because of the place I focussed on. Other pictures in a similar set-up don't get the result ...

[Wouter Melissen]

This is my best attempt at it. It explains a lot if it would be my lense, because I am sometimes really struggling to get the effect. It is more a touch of luck than anything else. This was f3.2 at a distance of about a 2 meter.

The effect is also further enhanced with long zooms, like the 500 I used. The wider the angle the larger the depth of focus is. It's almost impossible to get a 14 mm shot out of focus.

[drakkie]

The effect is also further enhanced with long zooms, like the 500 I used. The wider the angle the larger the depth of focus is. It's almost impossible to get a 14 mm shot out of focus.

Might go and try it out then. Gonna loan an Eos from school with the right lenses. I think the buildings in the city centre would be a perfect place to practice.

By the way, i'm going to take portraits of people on fairgrounds for a company. I am planning to save the money I earn with this job and get some proper equipment. The shortcomings of this Fuji become painfully clear now I really start to get more serious...

[Wouter Melissen]

Might go and try it out then. Gonna loan an Eos from school with the right lenses. I think the buildings in the city centre would be a perfect place to practice.

Buildings require wide angles ...

[drakkie]

Buildings require wide angles ...

But not details. Take a clock on the wall for example or an antenna or the signs over CS. Or shooting along the glass walls of the buildings... Think of the idea I try in the attachment below. It is nothing special because it misses the DOF... Plus they don't let it loan you longer than a day, so it limits my options. ..


PS:

This was on the first day when I got back to shooting some stuff after an absence of almost a year, now two months ago.. The composition and the white balance are both way off too, but it just illustrates the stuff i meant.

[Pinto_PT]

I am planning to save the money I earn with this job and get some proper equipment. The shortcomings of this Fuji become painfully clear now I really start to get more serious...
Know what you mean. With the S5600, the only way to get a decent DOF is using full zoom and/or macro mode.
From what I've read it's due to the small sensor (1/2.5").

An example with full zoom (380mm), F3.5 and macro mode:

[Cotterik]

Drakkie the only advise I can give you is not to rush. Some of your photos seem like youve ran into the street and taken it quickly. The buildings dont seem alligned. When taking photos of buildings, I like to stand and look at the whole area for about 15 minutes before taking photographs just to gather the atmosphere. Try and involve the sky, and think about perception, line of sight, subject matter etc. With this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cotterik/386549808/) photo I tried to line up the buildings where the sky would reflect from the windows, while the bright colours still stood out. Same for this (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cotterik/387984848/) one.

Like Sauc3 said, you should also think about the subject matter of your photo, especially with street photography there has to be a point in the photo that gives interest. This (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cotterik/386577888/) photo I planned for about ten minutes and eventually worked out that the bridges shape works perfectly with the line of sight to lead the eyes of the viewer to the building beyond.

This was all done with my old canon P+S. Go try out some things like that, It works for me :) Good luck!

[Pando]

For someone that isn't that into the photography terminology, what's DOF? ...and Fx.x for that matter?

[Cotterik]

Depth of field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field), and Aperture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture). :)

[2ndclasscitizen]

This is what my 500mm does at F4.5.

http://www.africa-nature-photography.com/images/Lens-on-car-door-with-door-bracket.jpg?

Do you use that at race meets?

[Pando]

Depth of field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field), and Aperture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture). :)
Cool, now I learned what another function on my camera does. Guess I really should familiarize myself with the manual... if I find it somewhere.

While we're on the topic of stupid questions, what do one need raw-format for? Are they just unnecessarily large files which gives me the option to edit stuff I don't have any idea how to do to begin with after I've taken a picture?

[drakkie]

Cool, now I learned what another function on my camera does. Guess I really should familiarize myself with the manual... if I find it somewhere.

While we're on the topic of stupid questions, what do one need raw-format for? Are they just unnecessarily large files which gives me the option to edit stuff I don't have any idea how to do to begin with after I've taken a picture?

Try it out and you will quickly understand what we talk about. I just shot some RAW-shots and kind of messed with the slider bars.

A real answer now. It basically gives you the option to edit all kinds of settings of your camera afterwards. For example the Whitebalance. It is also great for editing out minor imperfections. For example you get an annoyingly bright reflection on a building's windows. You slide the " Highlights" bar a bit and your annoying reflection disappears.

I especially find it helpful to increase the contrast in a photo and to get certain effects that are otherswise impossible (split toning for example).

Play with it and you'll love it as much as I do now ! I use it for 2 months now and shoot almost exclusively in RAW now, except when requiring large numbers of shots.

I hope this answers your question ! If not, just ask !

[Wouter Melissen]

http://www.africa-nature-photography.com/images/Lens-on-car-door-with-door-bracket.jpg?

Do you use that at race meets?

Not quite, but something similar.

[Pando]

I hope this answers your question ! If not, just ask !So pretty much what I though then... Perhaps I'll give it a try later today to find out for myself.

[Sauc3]

Try it out and you will quickly understand what we talk about. I just shot some RAW-shots and kind of messed with the slider bars.

A real answer now. It basically gives you the option to edit all kinds of settings of your camera afterwards. For example the Whitebalance. It is also great for editing out minor imperfections. For example you get an annoyingly bright reflection on a building's windows. You slide the " Highlights" bar a bit and your annoying reflection disappears.

I especially find it helpful to increase the contrast in a photo and to get certain effects that are otherswise impossible (split toning for example).

Play with it and you'll love it as much as I do now ! I use it for 2 months now and shoot almost exclusively in RAW now, except when requiring large numbers of shots.

I hope this answers your question ! If not, just ask !
Apparently Photoshop CS1 doesn't allow for Konica Minolta RAW files, I've never been able to edit a RAW file.

[2ndclasscitizen]

Have you updated to the latest version of ACR? Or give RawShooterEssentials a go, it's free.

[Sauc3]

Have you updated to the latest version of ACR? Or give RawShooterEssentials a go, it's free.
Dunno what ACR means, but no.

And I'll look for RSE now, cheers.

[drakkie]

Apparently Photoshop CS1 doesn't allow for Konica Minolta RAW files, I've never been able to edit a RAW file.

CS3 is also the first programme to support fuji RAW files.. Not even Fuji themselves had programmes that supported it... kinda stupid.. :o

[Pinto_PT]

CS3 is also the first programme to support fuji RAW files.. Not even Fuji themselves had programmes that supported it... kinda stupid.. :o
Are you sure? ...'cause I use CS2 for the RAF files that the S5600 generates.

It doesn't recognise the file as a Photoshop file, but opens it.
Just right-click on the file -> open with... -> photoshop cs2.

[drakkie]

Are you sure? ...'cause I use CS2 for the RAF files that the S5600 generates.

It doesn't recognise the file as a Photoshop file, but opens it.
Just right-click on the file -> open with... -> photoshop cs2.

I wish i'd have known that before.. I tried to open them once and it didn't work. It gave some unrecognized file type error. For now CS3 is so much better, i never want to go back !

[2ndclasscitizen]

Dunno what ACR means, but no.
ACR = Adobe Camera Raw. It's the plugin program for Photoshop for processing RAW

[my porsche]

I wish i'd have known that before.. I tried to open them once and it didn't work. It gave some unrecognized file type error. For now CS3 is so much better, i never want to go back !

Where'd you steal your copy from?

Any idea how much it is to upgrade from CS2 to CS3 for those of us who aren't theives?

[Sledgehammer]

Once you post a picture which shows technique and skill, I am sure you will win.

My last weeks photo had niether technique nor skill, I shot it from a Cheap P&S camera on my way to the top of the mountain, I took it right before the helicopter was surrounded by clouds. Proves that technique might not be everything, but it does turn average photos into eye grabbing photos.