Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

submit a photo to the urban75 critics

firky said:
Meh, don't do anything for me.

3 does for me but tidy-up or make the edges of the frame more definative...looks like you jus nabbed the side of the frame on the scan rather than given it purposeful boundaries...

I reckon petals suit thing type of thang but sharp_complex structure doooont.

When I saw 3 this morning I thought I'd quite like a print of that...but the grain would have to be fkkn excellently sharp. :)
 
Hagal said:

I really like the feel you are going for in these, and the abstraction is something that works well with this type of shot, but I think they are a little too abstract for me. Don't get me wrong, I do like them, but I would like them more if the subjects were more a part of the photograph. It's almost like you need to re-set the balance between the subject and the mood, at the moment it's all mood and little subject - they could do with a bit of both :)
 
Vintage Paw said:
I really like the feel you are going for in these, and the abstraction is something that works well with this type of shot, but I think they are a little too abstract for me.
I like them. Just abstract enough for very abstract photos, for me.
 
I actually went out with Boris yesterday :oops: I only went as far as the park then came home again.

I'd like your opinion of this shot, either in colour or black and white.

photos here

Thanks :)
 
Bonfire night point-n-click

reet, i'm in no way in the league of some professional shooters on these boards, just a simple point-n-click of tonights bonfire and firework display....

2006_11040067.jpg
 
sorearm said:
reet, i'm in no way in the league of some professional shooters on these boards, just a simple point-n-click of tonights bonfire and firework display....
Crop out the left and top - dead space that does nowt for you.

Maybe use dodge and burn to bring out the lighting around the people. They would make this shot work - otherwise it's just a firework - but they don't stand out enough. Something perhaps a bit nasty in the sharpness of the firework too - how did you resize it? It's got potential but needs to be altered to make that happen, I think.
 
Vintage Paw said:
I actually went out with Boris yesterday :oops: I only went as far as the park then came home again.

I'd like your opinion of this shot, either in colour or black and white.

photos here

Thanks :)
I love the colours in the first one - dunno if you're seeing what I'm seeing, since my monitor's all calibratey and quite unusual - but it's kind of unique and has a lovely feel to it. Something I like about this is the almost vignetted look - I know it's not but the dark corners add to it. Focus and DOF are bang on apart from the sharp grass in the bottom left; very minor gripe really. Care to reveal any PP secrets there? ;)

Black and white better? - I really don't know. It's just as good, yet very different. Works for the same reasons but has a different feel to it. It's fairly objective that you've done the best B&W conversion possible, but subjective about which is better. Both are great.

And get out more! :D
 
Hagal said:
I know what you mean.

These are attempts to make nice pictures of a tin of soup:
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4372/heinz5qu5.jpg
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/258/tomato1rz2.jpg
I think the second one nearly works, but it's just not an appealing composition IMO. Just because it's abstract doesn't necessarily mean all the rules go out the window. Maybe a top right crop with the same ratio would help.

I'd keep trying but really plan how to make it work instead of relying on the concept to cover the execution.
 
mauvais said:
I love the colours in the first one - dunno if you're seeing what I'm seeing, since my monitor's all calibratey and quite unusual - but it's kind of unique and has a lovely feel to it. Something I like about this is the almost vignetted look - I know it's not but the dark corners add to it. Focus and DOF are bang on apart from the sharp grass in the bottom left; very minor gripe really. Care to reveal any PP secrets there? ;)

Black and white better? - I really don't know. It's just as good, yet very different. Works for the same reasons but has a different feel to it. It's fairly objective that you've done the best B&W conversion possible, but subjective about which is better. Both are great.

And get out more! :D

Thanks mauvais :)

The coloured version - I used the curves posted in the link in Ms Ordinary's thread about cross-processing and just tweaked slightly. It hasn't given a proper x-pro look, but it seems to be slightly 'retro' for want of a better word.

The b&w conversion is a 'fake infrared' technique I read about. Channel mixer -> check monochrome -> red = -50 green = 200 blue = -50. I tried other b&w conversions but this brought out the right contrast for the subject, everything else seemed too flat.
 
mauvais said:
Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/hay.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/mine.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/golden_car.jpg

More where that came from if you so desire. Personally I think the PP is a bit shoddy but only in the detail like sharpening - couldn't completely be bothered for obvious reasons! :D

I think there's too much going on. In the Hay shot my eye is first drawn to the odd 'cloud' of trees, then to the pylons and lastly to the hay in the foreground. Each of those could make a strong photo but all together they're not interacting in kind of interesting way.

Same kind of issue with Mine: the pair of towers on the left and the solitary one on the right both look very photogenic, but together you end up with a photo with too much sky and less of a composition.

Golden car just looks like a frame taken from a dull car advert, sorry.
 
mauvais said:
Here's three from me. Rode for 78 miles today! Found some things to photograph! I was well chuffed!

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/hay.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/mine.jpg

http://crap.wapoc.com/mansfield/golden_car.jpg

More where that came from if you so desire. Personally I think the PP is a bit shoddy but only in the detail like sharpening - couldn't completely be bothered for obvious reasons! :D

Is the superb exposure of your photos the result of technique or technology?
 
Hagal said:
Is the superb exposure of your photos the result of technique or technology?

All exposure is a result of technique or technology...stooopid question IMO...be more honest about what you are asking...or don't ask at all.:p

Bet you would have dared asked Ansel Adams how often he got it wrong or how often he had to reprint his picutres to get them to a standard so they would look good in print?

...coz I know they would have looked shite in RL!!!1 :D
 
Heh! I sort of see what they're asking. How much work did I do, and how much do they come out of the camera like that?

Depends what you mean by exposure. Does the camera get it right, with decent enough dynamic range? Yeah. I set EV compensation as appropriate - probably +/- 0.3 to 0.7 on each of these, but I could get away without.

Then in terms of contrast and detail, I do dodge and burn to improve on things, and I'm careful with me curves an' that! Bit of both but I can't pretend it's a great personal achievement!
 
Bernie Gunther said:
Well, I've been experimenting, again. I'd be grateful for some reactions to this stuff.

Windy

Bumble

For the Birds
Imo, the tree in windy is misplaced somewhat. I'm assuming you were looking for an offcenter feel, but there's too much sky in the tree to sky ratio. That type of shot might work better if you were closer to the tree, and looking up more.

As for the last one, the beauty of closeup shots, is the clarity of focus in relation to the unfocused background. Your shot looks like it was done on auto, with the camera dialing in some sort of 'average' focal length.

The picture would work better imo, if the focus on the near object was sharper.
 
OK, thanks JC. Watch out for the ghosts of those baby seals now :)

The last one is a bit dodgy. I was ill, so I was shooting through a window, with a resulting loss of contrast and tried to fix it with PP.
 
For what it's worth though, despite our political differences JC, I do value your comments on this kind of stuff 'cos I've seen your photos and they're superb.

I know the tree didn't quite work, but there is something to be seen there that I'm going to keep trying for.
 
Bernie Gunther said:
For what it's worth though, despite our political differences JC, I do value your comments on this kind of stuff 'cos I've seen your photos and they're superb.

I know the tree didn't quite work, but there is something to be seen there that I'm going to keep trying for.

And I enjoy the fact that a committed political commentator like yourself has an interest in photographing flora. It's nice to see other sides of a person.
 
Heh, thanks JC. Your critique above inspired me to spend my lunchtime trying to improve my manual focussing a bit. Albeit under gloomy and unhelpful lighting conditions. Autofocus is all very well, especially for those of us with older eyeballs, but I am a bit fed up with it thinking it knows better than me what I'm trying to focus on, so I think I'm going to make more of an effort to avoid it when photographing things where I've got time to fiddle and do sums.
 
Back
Top Bottom