Could I interest you in condescending me in regards to a few photos?

These were taken around the 7 week mark for me (with a 40D):

1)

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/54805847@N06/5​287049386/

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I like #2... good comp... the other 2 are just kind of there... like snapshots... imho

These are okay, if you like pointless snapshots that could have been taken from any of todays <$99 point and shoot cameras.

I think if you had better gear, you'd have taken better pictures.

Is that condescending enough?

#1 is an HDR image compiled from 5 exposures. I merged them in CS3 and spent a good deal of time making it NOT look like your typical HDR image.

1. ?
2. Obvious use of blur tool to attempt to create separation of a subject. Was probably better straight out of the camera. Shooting perpendicular to a wall should not result in some parts being oof and other parts being sharp, except maybe at the very edges.
3. just a f'ing guy in and offensive f'ing t-shirt thinking he is cool because he has the f'word on his shirt. burn the shirt and grow up. facial expression also looks slightly unsure, doesn't match shirt and tats.

you wanted condescending.

Thanks so far!

you might want to list what kind of gear you are using. when I started on here I thought it was weird that everyone did that, like they were bragging, but it really helps to know if you were using a camera phone or a 1Ds, etc.

40D with a tamron 18-250mm f/1:3.5-6.3

#2 is alright.

I actually thought #2 was kinda cool, I' dont like the blur thats been added. But experimenting is important so keep it up. I like the rest of the processing you did on it. Seems like such a character, that's the best thing about it for me.

#1 was my least favourite, technically fine which is great and everything but technically perfect photos can still be bad. Personally I like the story and emotional side of photos more, that comes with time I think.

If #1 and #3 are self portraits I'm digging some of your tattoos.

MindlessConsumer wrote in post #11485218
#1 is an HDR image compiled from 5 exposures. I merged them in CS3 and spent a good deal of time making it NOT look like your typical HDR image.

1) The whole point of HDR is to get that look. It seems you spent a great deal of time working to get an underexposed snapshot which could have been accomplished in about 1/125 of a second. I dont get it. What were you trying for???

2) I like the shot. I would have made the OOF area a straight line running up the side of the photo. Also i think the jacket is way to over sharpened. Also it seems that the desaturation touches everything but the tie. Maybe you did that to call attention to it...IDK.

3) Agree with the other poster. Just a F'in guy in an offensive shirt. Maybe if I could see the tats better...... Maybe not.

lecherro wrote in post #11491363
1) The whole point of HDR is to get that look. It seems you spent a great deal of time working to get an underexposed snapshot which could have been accomplished in about 1/125 of a second. I dont get it. What were you trying for???

Here is why:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Mckinley ....you hit the nail on the head ...thank you

1) hard to tell it's an HDR and the white balance looks off. Big giveaway is the bluish/purple cast on the white shoes and shirt. Composition could use a bit of work too.

2) I'm not a fan of brick walls but this is your best shot a good capture.

3) F*ck it

Can you get me the tshirt you're wearing in #3?