-= T2i / 550D users UNITE! (2) =-

Allan.L wrote in post #12187416
Cheers wolfy! I understand the photo looks a little dark and underexposed, which it is, for a sunny day It was overcast and that is how the light was (or my accurate portrayal of it, didn't change much..) so why try to change it to match a bright sunny day?

Don't mean to sound like i'm being defensive just hoping everyone can enjoy and interpret different conditions. I notice a lot of folks trying to critique based on one 'standard' (if there is such a thing) of photography, yet not really looking into it for themselves? Not sure how to explain this as I feel I could sit here for a few hours doing so.. And wolfy this isn't directed at you i'm just going off on a rant, sorry

And after thinking, could this underexposure be my monitor? I have a fairly recent 20" lcd screen, that I manually calibrated but it could be off... Either way I appreciate the criticism and am usually one to take it all in and learn from it... as i said, just a rant... maybe i'm just going crazy studying. lol.

I don't think it's necessarily underexposed, but more the fact that there's just so much neutral gray in the shot that the subject doesn't really stand out. Again, since you have to work with mother nature in shots like this I don't think anyone can fault you on that. Given the scene there isn't much you could do to improve other than maybe doing another half or full stop more exposure. But again, that's splitting hairs

I realize these aren't very good IQ but it was too late in the day for me to get any good shots

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Sandra0655 wrote in post #12187411
Like this one, Wolfy, I meant to have commented earlier but forgot... I too was like Rafa, noticed the cable to the left. I like it alot.

Thanks Sandra!

Allan.L wrote in post #12187416
Cheers wolfy! I understand the photo looks a little dark and underexposed, which it is, for a sunny day It was overcast and that is how the light was (or my accurate portrayal of it, didn't change much..) so why try to change it to match a bright sunny day?

Don't mean to sound like i'm being defensive just hoping everyone can enjoy and interpret different conditions. I notice a lot of folks trying to critique based on one 'standard' (if there is such a thing) of photography, yet not really looking into it for themselves? Not sure how to explain this as I feel I could sit here for a few hours doing so.. And wolfy this isn't directed at you i'm just going off on a rant, sorry

And after thinking, could this underexposure be my monitor? I have a fairly recent 20" lcd screen, that I manually calibrated but it could be off... Either way I appreciate the criticism and am usually one to take it all in and learn from it... as i said, just a rant... maybe i'm just going crazy studying. lol.

For me it wasn't about trying to match a sunny day (which I would never try to do), but more about trying to bring out some of the bird's features that were dull due the overcast conditions of the shots. I have no problem whatsoever with an underexposed image if that's the intent. Several of my guitar shots that I just posted were purposefully underexposed, and I too know ALL about combatting nature to get the shot. I was just thinking that a half stop or so might bring the bird out just a tad more. Certainly no offense taken, and I know you know there was none meant from my end. Just a friendly suggestion on MY take of the photo. In the end, it is you who should be pleased by your photo!! Either way I really like it! And it could VERY easily be a small difference in our monitor calibrations LOL.

Nice shot Sandra.....

my kids...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

wolfy317 wrote in post #12187607
Thanks Sandra!

For me it wasn't about trying to match a sunny day (which I would never try to do), but more about trying to bring out some of the bird's features that were dull due the overcast conditions of the shots. I have no problem whatsoever with an underexposed image if that's the intent. Several of my guitar shots that I just posted were purposefully underexposed, and I too know ALL about combatting nature to get the shot. I was just thinking that a half stop or so might bring the bird out just a tad more. Certainly no offense taken, and I know you know there was none meant from my end. Just a friendly suggestion on MY take of the photo. In the end, it is you who should be pleased by your photo!! Either way I really like it! And it could VERY easily be a small difference in our monitor calibrations LOL.

Cheers brotha, I agree and I take all criticism seriously, upping the exposure does work It's not like upping the exposure would turn the grey sky into bright blue sky hehe. I just went off on a rant like I sometimes do haha. Honestly, i like to please OTHER people too, even though in the end bla bla I should be happy with my 'art' LOL. Of course 'I' come first to some extent but when I portray things naturally and everyone enjoys them and I please others, it's a win-win. I think were on the exact same page, same paragraph in fact I can't keep up with this thread post by post but youre shots appeal to me, I played classical guitar for 11 years straight, stopped when I was 14-15 (almost 20 years old now) at a high level competitively and of course have ripped up the electric heh. I really love how the internet (forums) brings everyone together, I really feel if everyone is open to suggestions etc that we will all benefit immensely in the end.

Great looking kids there Peter.

2 more and you can start a mini-soccer team. haha

Peter2516 wrote in post #12187616
my kids...

Great shot of some good lookin' kids Peter. Your son looks like he's trying to give his dad the cool tough guy look for the camera.

Allan.L wrote in post #12187652
Cheers brotha, I agree and I take all criticism seriously, upping the exposure does work It's not like upping the exposure would turn the grey sky into bright blue sky hehe. I just went off on a rant like I sometimes do haha. Honestly, i like to please OTHER people too, even though in the end bla bla I should be happy with my 'art' LOL. Of course 'I' come first to some extent but when I portray things naturally and everyone enjoys them and I please others, it's a win-win. I think were on the exact same page, same paragraph in fact I can't keep up with this thread post by post but youre shots appeal to me, I played classical guitar for 11 years straight, stopped when I was 14-15 (almost 20 years old now) at a high level competitively and of course have ripped up the electric heh. I really love how the internet (forums) brings everyone together, I really feel if everyone is open to suggestions etc that we will all benefit immensely in the end.

It does move fast, and yep. I'd say we are on the same paragraph...maybe even the same sentence or 2!. Thanks for the compliments too. I've been playing guitar for 20ish years. No classical for me, though I wish I would have learned it earlier on. If it weren't for the suggestions and critiques of the awesome people on this thread, I wouldn't be anywhere near as far along as I am. And I have to comment on the pleasing yourself comment I made. In hindsight, I'm my own worst critic and hardly EVER happy with my own work hahahah. Hence why I asked people to help me pick one to post to the contest hahaha!

Mookalafalas wrote in post #12186521
I bought the Nissin 622. It is just over 100 bucks, and powerwise is (I believe) not far behind the middle canon flash (the 430?) but doesn't support some off camera triggers and things that people who are into flashes soon start using.

Must be a lot cheaper in Taiwan than the US.
Cheapest price I see for the Nissan Di466 is $139; Di622 mark 2 is $215.
Found this video that compares those 2 Nissans and an Alzo.
http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=eFvMduklmWo

I rarely use the flash, though I might ask for one for my b-day just to have for when I do need one.

Wow there have been a lot of great shots today. Sorry to not give feedback on any one person's pictures, but collectively the pictures have been really enjoyable. Here is one I messed around with today.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/56792528@N05/5​602543474/

marubozo wrote in post #12186540
Well I obviously need to practice this setup a bit more, but I tried dropping some red colored water into some milk tonight. I think there is a lot of promise here with some trial and error.

Cool shot Jeremy. I like the fact that it's the same technique as a water drop shot but of a different medium. Nicely lit too. It's not blown out which could have been easy to do since it's mostly white. Did you think of adding the color after a few tests of just milk?

ofwiah wrote in post #12186706

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …s/flipspecial/5​601614615/
IMG_1334 by flipspecial, on Flickr

Nifty fifty lens
exposure 1/100
f/1.8
ISO1600
manual mode
elvaluative metering
custom white balance
No flash

Nice portrait. I love Yorkies, they're are the cutest of all dogs I think.

Trugga wrote in post #12185468
As we had had a glorious day, in anticipation of a glorious evening, I drove over to high area (the Long Mynd) this evening. Sadly, there was still evidence of light polution, even so:

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

20 second exposure with flash painitng

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HDR sunset

HTTP response: 400 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Star trails with torch painted dump truck.

I'm quite pleased with those for a quick edit.

Lawrence

Great shots Lawrence. The first looks like it could be an ad for an off road vehicle.

RafaPolit wrote in post #12185491
This a composite image of a 12 minute span of time (2 images as my ND filter was good only for 3 f-stops). As you can see, the time of the image allowed for blue sky, orange sky, purple clouds, and they have movement and it looks like daylight, but the city is lit for night:

Some think this looks unnatural, and that is precisely what is interesting of this long exposure images to me.

Best regards,
Rafa.

Love this one Rafa. If you hadn't pointed it out I'm not sure I would have questioned why the city was lit for night and yet the sun had not gone down yet. I guess that means that to me it doesn't look unnatural..or i'm not very observant

wolfy317 wrote in post #12184614
4. Brick House:

http://wolfy317.smugmu​g.com …G8R#1244543712_​RvJrT-A-LB

This is my favorite. I like the earthen tones of the gravel, guitar and wall. I like the mix of textures gravel, smooth guitar and brick. The guitar's prominently lit but not overly so. The guitar is set up at just enough of an angle to look like it was casually placed there and not look staged. I just hope that the headstock wasn't scratched by leaning up against the wall. Otherwise good luck I hope you win with whichever one you choose to submit.

Vectoria wrote in post #12186382
Gawain Very nice pictures I wish I could carry my camera everywhere I go but I where I leave you can not do that unless it is be side me at all times:/

TeleFragger I think you did really great with taking pictures of your dogs moving really fast I know it is hard sometimes to catch them LOL

Thanks Vectoria. Luckily I live in a small town and all my workmates already know I'm a bit strange... LOL They think nothing of me toting an SLR around with me.

Craig

postscript: Oh, I was up trying to capture some lightening this evening. It's 3am here. What shutter speed is good for far away lightening? (got my 15 dollar remote shutter release today...LOL)

Allan.L wrote in post #12187416
...I notice a lot of folks trying to critique based on one 'standard' (if there is such a thing) of photography, yet not really looking into it for themselves? Not sure how to explain this as I feel I could sit here for a few hours doing so...

Allan, I absolutely agree, that's why I'm always careful to say: "The 'standard' framing" and "IMHO" or "from my tastes and perspective". This is all very subjective stuff. What I do feel though is that any art needs to be partly conscious... I'm sure Pollock could paint very realistic drawings and chose not to, same as Picasso.

So, I believe that if a photographer can summon every 'standard' of framing and yet decides on a tilted portrait framing half and eye and 3/4s of the nose, then that was his decision. A 2 year old can come with the same composition by mistake.

So, I believe we should prove ourselves capable of the 'standard' approach, to know for certain that when a weird framing occurs, it was 'intentional' (in the strict sense that it was born of a true intent as opposed to pure luck, even if the decision is not really conscious).

I have no idea how this is sounding to everyone else reading, I swear I'm more convincing and eloquent in my own language .

Allan.L wrote in post #12187416
And after thinking, could this underexposure be my monitor?...

It could be... how are you seeing most of the images here? Ultra bright? I wrote a little 'how to calibrate your monitor' a while back, but I think the principles still stand. Also, there are links to check for correctly exposed situations and see if you are really off.

Here's the link:
http://forums.rampants​peculation.com/showthr​ead.php?t=2475

Hope it helps,
Rafa.

Sandra0655 wrote in post #12187530
I realize these aren't very good IQ...

Sandra, quite the contrary, I believe the IQ is just superb for the conditions you described! Late afternoon shots are really hard and you pulled it off with no noise and no blur. Great technique! I wish I could see a bit more of what is happening in the ground as there is a hint of a van and people handling strings.

Nice picture!

Peter2516 wrote in post #12187616
my kids...

Peter, lovely to see your young ones! The image is full of color and youth attitude, each one has his own opinion according to their expressions, which is priceless.

Nice image!
Rafa.