Canon 60D Users, Unite! (2)

JAPE wrote in post #12954629
The eyes on the right seem to be in focus, but the girl on the left's eyes are not . It seems like I have bad lighting from the sun as well. Seems a bit soft for a sigmalux. Any other critiques?

I checked out the exif and it says your shutter speed is only 1/60? That could cause some blur since it's so slow. I wonder why it's so slow in bright light??
<--------------- (not an expert nor do I play one on TV)

From a quick sunrise shoot(first one so be easy) haha in Myrtle Beach, SC...

Been a long time since I posted here need to get back into it!

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/31268598@N07/6​055045156/

LemonScent wrote in post #12955093
I checked out the exif and it says your shutter speed is only 1/60? That could cause some blur since it's so slow. I wonder why it's so slow in bright light??
<--------------- (not an expert nor do I play one on TV)

Yes 1/60 could be the problem, my hand held technique isn't the best. hmm. I did have it in aperture priority. I maybe should have shot in manual. It was a quick shot before they went to the Katy perry concert.

Wow, I couldn't even tell MondayShift stamped his images! I had to really look for it, hah.

Rivest wrote in post #12953455
^^Mancry, you're missing the point. I'm doing it for publicity. Every picture I upload on Facebook has my watermark on it. People see it, people remember it. Point made.

If they grab my picture with my watermark on it to use as their desktop's wallpaper, they're making me publicity.

Not everyone has photoshop and the skills required to remove a watermark.While Mondayshift one's would take 5 seconds to remove, the one below would take longer and more skills to have it done completely seamless :

I can show you how easily I can remove (flawlessly) that logo from your picture.

And this is what I'd say about your hunger for publicity; that's fine, I understand you want to get big, and I wish you the best, but, chances are if most people actually care about the image they'd put in some effort to find out who was responsible for it. It's not like someone is going to look at an amazing photograph and say: "Oh damn, that's too bad, it's not signed so I guess I'll never know!" Not to mention it's....On your facebook? That has to be riddled with your name, websites, et cetera.

I wouldn't put my work at the consequence of my desire to be known, and credited.

EDIT:

macroshooter1970 wrote in post #12953723
Because they want to and advertisement. You have to have quality stuff to do that, so I guess that's why you don't know why people do it. Learn to train your brain and eyeball to see past certain things, it's not hard to do.

Passive aggressive insult followed by statement that makes absolutely no sense and has no realistic argument to back it up. First off, friendo, thanks for the uplifting words but, just FYI; I'm an audio designer and composer and have only been doing photography for seven days. You can see my video work and pictures within this thread. Secondly, friendo, I appreciate the advice on "brain control" but I am going to stress this small point once more in hopes that it'll sink in for you this time around:

Whilst I can look past the digitally signed image, it's unnecessary and ruins the experience of viewing it. And I honestly laughed at loud at the absurdness of your comment, basically insinuating that you have trained your brain to ignore water marks, signatures, et cetera. Isn't that defeating the point of advertising (the people you are defending) to begin with? And I don't believe what you're saying either, you have not "trained your brain" to look past it, you simply don't care and that's not the same thing as training your eye to optically apply an illusion to a photograph. And I have to stress this point: What you said about professionalism being the determining factor in watermarking images isn't always going to ring true, for instance, this thread could be used as an argument against that considering some of the finest and most phenomenal pictures listed thus' far have had no watermark.

Calm down, no one is angry, I stressed an opinion and I'm entitled to it. Insinuating people aren't "talented" enough to understand is childish and only makes you look bad, not to mention I was asking a question about why, and then making a statement about how "I" felt.

EDIT: Also, isn't the fact that you're saying I have to learn a special exercise in brain control (something you have apparently mastered and are an authority on) just to enjoy a photograph a testament to digitally signing images being....Well....Bad?

macroshooter1970 wrote in post #12953749
+1 It's funny how some spend on nice gear to post crappy pictures.

I think photography and art are up to interpretation, your senses and ideas of what makes something 'great' won't always catch every subtle detail. The fact that you'd even insinuate you can determine what is a crappy picture (and dismiss it with a snappy quip) is just rude, I really hope you wouldn't tell that to someone (even though you insinuated I was bad above) because it really might hurt their confidence and desire to keep doing photography.

babel_fish wrote in post #12955028
Hey Corey, i get malware popups on your site re: newportalse.com

Hmm.... Is that an issue with my site I wonder? I don't get any popups. I will have to look into that! Thanks!

P.S. which site?

Hardcore wrote in post #12955245
Hmm.... Is that an issue with my site I wonder? I don't get any popups. I will have to look into that! Thanks!

P.S. which site?

"Warning: Something's Not Right Here!
www.coreyhardcastlepho​tography.ca contains content from newportalse.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site."

^^^^I just got it as well - People have these issues when using Tumblr presets as website designs (if you are), I've run into this a lot.

tman2782 wrote in post #12931078

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/thetman/5966593​213/
Lamp post silhouette by The T-Man, on Flickr

I love this! This is how watermarking should be done IMO, doesn't hurt the image and acts as a gorgeous border around the photograph. When and if I have to stamp my pictures I'm going to try and follow in your suite.

Mancry wrote in post #12955262
"Warning: Something's Not Right Here!
www.coreyhardcastlepho​tography.ca contains content from newportalse.com, a site known to distribute malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site."

^^^^I just got it as well - People have these issues when using Tumblr presets as website designs (if you are), I've run into this a lot.

Hmm... Seems to be a vulnerability in the timthumbs.php. Updated that file, but I have no idea if that was the actual cause.... How are you guys testing the site? What browser are you using?

Thanks! You can pm me if you want as well.

Corey

Hardcore wrote in post #12955346
Hmm... Seems to be a vulnerability in the timthumbs.php. Updated that file, but I have no idea if that was the actual cause.... How are you guys testing the site? What browser are you using?

Thanks! You can pm me if you want as well.

Corey

No worries! I tried it on both Fire Fox and Google Chrome, it gave me the same error message.

Mancry wrote in post #12955169
I can show you how easily I can remove (flawlessly) that logo from your picture.

And this is what I'd say about your hunger for publicity; that's fine, I understand you want to get big, and I wish you the best, but, chances are if most people actually care about the image they'd put in some effort to find out who was responsible for it. It's not like someone is going to look at an amazing photograph and say: "Oh damn, that's too bad, it's not signed so I guess I'll never know!" Not to mention it's....On your facebook? That has to be riddled with your name, websites, et cetera.

I wouldn't put my work at the consequence of my desire to be known, and credited.

EDIT:

Passive aggressive insult followed by statement that makes absolutely no sense and has no realistic argument to back it up. First off, friendo, thanks for the uplifting words but, just FYI; I'm an audio designer and composer and have only been doing photography for seven days. You can see my video work and pictures within this thread. Secondly, friendo, I appreciate the advice on "brain control" but I am going to stress this small point once more in hopes that it'll sink in for you this time around:

Whilst I can look past the digitally signed image, it's unnecessary and ruins the experience of viewing it. And I honestly laughed at loud at the absurdness of your comment, basically insinuating that you have trained your brain to ignore water marks, signatures, et cetera. Isn't that defeating the point of advertising (the people you are defending) to begin with? And I don't believe what you're saying either, you have not "trained your brain" to look past it, you simply don't care and that's not the same thing as training your eye to optically apply an illusion to a photograph. And I have to stress this point: What you said about professionalism being the determining factor in watermarking images isn't always going to ring true, for instance, this thread could be used as an argument against that considering some of the finest and most phenomenal pictures listed thus' far have had no watermark.

Calm down, no one is angry, I stressed an opinion and I'm entitled to it. Insinuating people aren't "talented" enough to understand is childish and only makes you look bad, not to mention I was asking a question about why, and then making a statement about how "I" felt.

EDIT: Also, isn't the fact that you're saying I have to learn a special exercise in brain control (something you have apparently mastered and are an authority on) just to enjoy a photograph a testament to digitally signing images being....Well....Bad?

I think photography and art are up to interpretation, your senses and ideas of what makes something 'great' won't always catch every subtle detail. The fact that you'd even insinuate you can determine what is a crappy picture (and dismiss it with a snappy quip) is just rude, I really hope you wouldn't tell that to someone (even though you insinuated I was bad above) because it really might hurt their confidence and desire to keep doing photography.

i use my watermark as a signature and part of my overall picture. not as protection or anything. and i know a lot of people, friends and not friends who were surprised that i took a picture that was posted on facebook. so now i watermark pics i took.

just like how you said "photography and art are up to interpretation, your senses and ideas of what makes something 'great' won't always catch every subtle detail" then you should maybe take more consideration at a picture you thought was ruined by a mark or sig.

i think saying that a watermark " hurts the picture, it detracts from the experience of viewing it" is just as rude to the photographer whos vision included that. it's just as dismissive. who am i to say where and what a watermark should do and be on a picture i didn't make or take. it's not my vision, so i would be the rude one to say something is ruining a picture just because I would not do what was done to a picture.

"i like the picture, but the watermark distracts me" is fine. i think any photog or artist can take that. but saying it hurts a picture, just because I don't like it or understand it can also hurt a persons confidence and desire to keep doing photography.

i too am just a starter in photography, but everything i put in my picture is intended. understood or not. but being told that i ruined a picture or something i do is stupid to quote another member is beyond a critique, helps no one and is stifling to creativity.

Mancry wrote in post #12955281
I love this! This is how watermarking should be done IMO, doesn't hurt the image and acts as a gorgeous border around the photograph. When and if I have to stamp my pictures I'm going to try and follow in your suite.

Thank you.

mondayshift wrote in post #12955404
i use my watermark as a signature and part of my overall picture. not as protection or anything. and i know a lot of people, friends and not friends who were surprised that i took a picture that was posted on facebook. so now i watermark pics i took.

just like how you said "photography and art are up to interpretation, your senses and ideas of what makes something 'great' won't always catch every subtle detail" then you should maybe take more consideration at a picture you thought was ruined by a mark or sig.

i think saying that a watermark " hurts the picture, it detracts from the experience of viewing it" is just as rude to the photographer whos vision included that. it's just as dismissive. who am i to say where and what a watermark should do and be on a picture i didn't make or take. it's not my vision, so i would be the rude one to say something is ruining a picture just because I would not do what was done to a picture.

"i like the picture, but the watermark distracts me" is fine. i think any photog or artist can take that. but saying it hurts a picture, just because I don't like it or understand it can also hurt a persons confidence and desire to keep doing photography.

i too am just a starter in photography, but everything i put in my picture is intended. understood or not. but being told that i ruined a picture or something i do is stupid to quote another member is beyond a critique, helps no one and is stifling to creativity.

Great post, and thank you for responding with what appears to be no offense (<3), but, I have to say that you shouldn't be offended (if you are, and just masking it). It's not the picture, nor the photographer that is being insulted when I say watermarking hurts the product. It's the watermark itself, which isn't anything but a generated font (sometimes a logo) slapped on the photograph in, what, 2 seconds or less? I don't see it as apart of the artistic process, and I can't see how anyone could say it is unless you specifically take pictures based on where your watermark is going to go. <----You explained this part in your post below, I felt it was a reasonable response and I understand.

In my "opinion", it hurts the picture. It'd be similar to adding in a high frequency beep in one of my songs to let someone know it's me doing it, or, in the intro saying "This song is brought to you by Aker!". I wouldn't find offense if people found it annoying, after all, it has nothing to do with the creation and is purely a product of me wanting to be associated with it, rather, then it being it.

To me art comes through us, much like how the Greeks thought a Genius was something living in your room or body (ie; it wasn't you who was talented, nor was it you who was awful, your art and ability was at the consequence of your Genius, hence, you could not attach ego to your work, nor misery) and we as people often get in the way 'of' art. We like to make it a product of us, rather, then a product of the world around us.

EDIT: And just to clarify, I never called anyone or said anything was stupid! That was a different gentleman posting below me.
EDIT2: Good friend of mine here ( http://www.gemmaflemin​g.com/ ) and I don't recall ever seeing her water mark an image. The argument about all professionals watermarking doesn't apply 100%, take that from someone who lives in Soho, NYC and lives their life entirely from photography / videography ( not me, her! )

Hardcore wrote in post #12955245
Hmm.... Is that an issue with my site I wonder? I don't get any popups. I will have to look into that! Thanks!

P.S. which site?

Sorry Corey, didnt want to frighten you I sit behind a pretty hardcore firewall and am not really worried about it BUT, to the laymen that might run into your site they might get spooked. Ill look at my log and PM you what services were interupted when I hit your site. Like I said, its nothing to worry about just a heads up for your information,

Take Care,

Wow is this tough, but I think I succeeded considering this crop is about 15% of the original sized picture

http://farm7.static.fl​ickr.com …55241492_a0b320​2e94_o.jpg
IMG_9634 by David Monzingo, on Flickr

Hardcore wrote in post #12955346
Hmm... Seems to be a vulnerability in the timthumbs.php. Updated that file, but I have no idea if that was the actual cause.... How are you guys testing the site? What browser are you using?

Thanks! You can pm me if you want as well.

Corey

Hey Corey, sorry for the hasty first post. I did check my log and all I could find was a skipout, that didnt tell me much.

EDIT: I think you fixed it, whatever divtag you edited seems to have worked. Thanks.