I actually like it like it is, not all of us hunt for threads where we can make stupid "I WANT MORE DOF!!!!"-comments Jeffrey, maybe you shouldn't either?
adamdewilde wrote:
Image is straight out of camera, no photoshopping... I only took it into photoshop to overlay two images as the composition on one of the images wasn't favorable, but the snake's eye was in perfect focus, so basically the left inch of the screen was an overlay from another image of the snake where there was a miss-focus.
I'm not an expert when it comes to online photos, as 99% of my work is shown in magazines, so I've only ever had to learn how to make the design teams happy with my .tiff files...
No color enhancements were done at all, no sharpening, nothing, it's a standard 5dII color shot. This lens is simply amazing.. Oh and the 100% .tiff is spectacular, way nicer then the websized version I'm showing you tonight.
Here are the real specs, as the exif would be wrong as it only pertains to the left one visual inch of the screen.
100 Makro Planar, ZE
1/13th of a second (I have a trick to handholding)
ISO 1600
f/2
Color mode: Standard (as per 5DII)
Sorry that it's a makro shot of sorts, I haven't really had a chance to use this lens on an actual assignment, zooms are just easier to bring to work... ...Show more →
ulrikft2 wrote:
I actually like it like it is, not all of us hunt for threads where we can make stupid "I WANT MORE DOF!!!!"-comments Jeffrey, maybe you shouldn't either?
What's your problem, man? Just because someone is not just like you, you call them stupid? Find another forum to insult people on and get out of here.
What is the matter? First Snowboarder and Wayne Seltzer, then Jeffrey and Ulrikft2?? This alt forum was highly civil and constructive until now, so what is changed? Is the full moon doing this to you guys? C'mon, fellas...
Jeffrey wrote:
What's your problem, man? Just because someone is not just like you, you call them stupid? Find another forum to insult people on and get out of here.
I think I'll stay right here thank you, and your "right" to state opinions is just as important as my right to point out what i think of those opinions, and when you seem to hunt down low dof images on the forum and preach "more dof!!!", I use my "that is a bit stupid"-card. Your comments are not very constructive and it seems to reflect more on a personal hangup on your end (about low dof) than on the quality of the images you critique.
I doubt my personal hangup on people with hangups has anything to do with a full moon...
philber wrote:
What is the matter? First Snowboarder and Wayne Seltzer, then Jeffrey and Ulrikft2?? This alt forum was highly civil and constructive until now, so what is changed? Is the full moon doing this to you guys? C'mon, fellas...
I just can't help it I'm afraid, I could blame it on my soon to be 18 hour day, but it is mostly that i really dislike it when people seem to hunt trough threads to pick on the one thing they really don't like (dof being it in this case).
Get your head on straight. I don't hunt for anything. I'm a vegetarian. And quit making up shit about other members here. It is not appropriate or appreciated. Sorry that you 'just can't help it', but if you actually look and think before insulting others, you'll see I don't do that.
wayne seltzer wrote:
What I worry about in general is that landscape photography becoming less real in the future and in the quest to make ones picture standout from the rest everyone will be trying to make the scene more incredible than it was by over darkening the sky making the lighting on the subject much brighter than the background/foreground, adding lots of contrast and color. This has already happened in portrait/fashion photography where every shot is airbrushed and retouched all over to make the model look perfect.
When I went to Antarctica three years ago with Michael Reichmann, one of the professional photographers who was instructing was Stephen Johnson. I really respected his philosophy of keeping landscape shots as real as possible. His idea is to document the national landmarks in a truthful way as some of these places may not be the same in the future.
And while I am on the topic of fake... ...Show more →
I think it depends on whether you want to communicate information or emotion. If you want to invoke emotion in the viewer, creativity is expected and photography becomes artist's tool to express it. If a photograph is stylized to convey the emotions you experienced when you were there, it does not have to be a fake. On the other hand, millions of realistic pictures are taken every day that show the place or the event, but do not convey the majesty of the Grand Canyon, drama of a storm or love of young people. I would not call A. Adams' photographs a fake just because they are dodged, burned, specially developed and cropped. I would not call impressionist's painting a fake, even though critics called them this way in 1870s. I like photographs that show a piece of photographer's heart, but doing it well requires skill and taste, I am not talking about those HDR things or photographs taken with GND with sky darker than it's reflection in the water.
One thing that is nice about photography is that it attracts both technical and artistic people and everybody can use their own personal mix in their prints.
Sorry on a different time zone, and was sleeping when all this took place..
Guys, the handholding trick is just that.. A trick...
If you press your lens hood up against the glass and hold it there tightly you can shoot at any shutter speed successfully. I have a rapidfire from zucuto and a z-finder and that works EXTREMELY well up to about 1/15th, but I rarely bring it out unless I'm specifically shooting video.
Be sure to not scrape your lens hood across the glass, as those metal lens hoods may scratch the glass and that wouldn't be very nice for the future visitors of the exhibit.
Jeffrey wrote:
What's your problem, man? Just because someone is not just like you, you call them stupid? Find another forum to insult people on and get out of here.
Jeffrey, I hate bringing my tripod with me, but in hindsight I should have brought it, as I do like to experiment with DOF and it would have given me more chances to do such a thing. Honestly though, I like the OOF areas on this shot, I think it adds an element to it. Though, to each there own. Also, a tripod would have been better served as a way to bring down my iso from 1600 to say 800 which would have made for a nicer image.
Ulrikft2 - thanks for sticking up for me, more importantly I like that my photo resonated with you enough for you to speak up. Because of you, I've decided it's worth printing for my abstract collection.
Jeffrey wrote:
Get your head on straight. I don't hunt for anything. I'm a vegetarian. And quit making up shit about other members here. It is not appropriate or appreciated. Sorry that you 'just can't help it', but if you actually look and think before insulting others, you'll see I don't do that.
Vegetarian, oh now you're on my bad side.... Kidding kidding.
Actually I should have myself checked out, but when I eat vegetables, I actually get really ill. My body doesn't seem to like processing vegetables. I am perfectly fine eating all meats, and I can take most fruits, but green veggies kill me. Root veggies are decent, I can eat potatoes and carrots and the likes... Weird eh?
Anyway, back on topic, I'll post a lemur shot later on tonight, but again it's got a shallow DOF... Though I'll dig for one thats shot around 5.6 so people can see the differences..
Thanks, Adam. I'm glad you shoot the way you want to. So do I. It's all OK. We may approach the same subject differently. Both are valid. It's OK to express out thoughts on the other approaches. Why are we posting here, then? Unfortunately, some people feel the need to slam others for having a thought that's not like theirs. Fortunately, that's a minority here.
Good luck with your vegetables. Try some tofu, it may be easier to digest....
Mirek Elsner wrote:
[
I think it depends on whether you want to communicate information or emotion. If you want to invoke emotion in the viewer, creativity is expected and photography becomes artist's tool to express it. If a photograph is stylized to convey the emotions you experienced when you were there, it does not have to be a fake. On the other hand, millions of realistic pictures are taken every day that show the place or the event, but do not convey the majesty of the Grand Canyon, drama of a storm or love of young people. I would not call A. Adams' photographs a fake just because they are dodged, burned, specially developed and cropped. I would not call impressionist's painting a fake, even though critics called them this way in 1870s. I like photographs that show a piece of photographer's heart, but doing it well requires skill and taste, I am not talking about those HDR things or photographs taken with GND with sky darker than it's reflection in the water.
One thing that is nice about photography is that it attracts both technical and artistic people and everybody can use their own personal mix in their prints. ...Show more →
Very nicely put Mirek, couldn't express it better.
