>>38 Ha, I was there last February. I missed the northern lights though. I wouldn't exactly class myself as a photographer either, but you should have taken pictures because it's a really interesting place. Too bad about them losing all their money though.
I do like running shots through a few filters to take the realistic edge off of them - gives em a more 'arty' finish, but yeah, there is something to be said about the original
>>200 The only things I ever routinely do to my pictures inside PS is sort out the colour balance and contrast (usually just with Auto Levels, Auto Colour and Auto Contrast, nothing flash).
When you start in Photography, its easy to fall back on Photoshop. IN MY DAY we did all the same things in the Darkroom, take pictures and then try to tart them up with "effects" afterwards. I think you learn this is the wrong way to go about it, most of the time. Make the picture in the camera.
Speaking of Photoshop, does anyone know where I can get a free copy of photoshop (not a trial copy) with a working keygen (i.e. one that actually generates a key rather than trying to install virii?)
>>1476 Some of those are really nice. I like >>1472 and >>1473 particularly.
I think we should have more self-taken photography threads.
I was also thinking we should/could attempt a few 365 threads. Have any of you heard of those kinds of projects? Try and force yourself/in a group to take and post a picture every day of the year.
The "photo a day" is an interesting idea if it gets you out and going something. Personally, I'd want to take more than one if I had dragged the camera out. As long as it stays a pleasure and not a chore it can help you avoid a rut or avoiding it out of pure laziness for long. Obviously you'd have to filter the results somewhat when it came to putting them together as a collection or when showing them off. Perhaps a "your best of the week/month". A photo to represent the month in your area or life, perhaps.
>>1478 So we think of a slightly weird theme, that all must conform to. A co-operative effort. 365 days of pictures of rubbish, or bins, or something slightly off the wall.
I know that you're often told about the "rule of thirds", but I think that any such hard composition rule is unrealistic. I think this would have benefited from being more central. The empty space at the bottom adds nothing. I'd also like more in focus (a deeper depth of focus or larger f-stop).
Nice subject though and well spotted. Worth trying again.
Just a snapshot, sorry. It might look nice on his Facebook/Myspace ID but it's meaningless to me and doesn't look good. Looks boring and flat and the lighting isn't particularly pleasant. Dull subject, not so good technically and doesn't say anything to me artistically.
Just a bloke at a fountain. I'm sure it's meant to represent something like man's loneliness or isolation or some such, but I've seen it done very often and better and with more interesting lighting or subjects (etc.). Nothing in that makes me want to look at it or draws my eye across it. A lot of empty space and a subject that doesn't interest me (back of some bloke). You've made an effort in the composition, but just pointing, lining it up for the rule of thirds and clicking isn't enough. It still has to be worth looking at (is it strange, beautiful, shocking, historic, memorable and so on). Thus it ends up boring.
Nice day and I like where you were going with it, but too much sky, tiny subjects and it ends up with someone squinting, saying "oh, a tree" and moving on. Have a look at some of the other attempts at this shot online and in photo books.
Man on bench. Says it all, really. If I said to you that we should rush out the door to look at this scene, would you? You've captured it in a way that the eye could see normally, so there isn't even a new angle on an every day subject. Just another bloke sitting on a bench. I don't like the background and he isn't doing much for me. The way he is positioned and the bench runs off to the side makes my eye want to wander off the side of the picture and look away. After that, the viewer is lost. Not good.
Not bad. Nice scene, but a little over done on the clouds, I feel. It doesn't really work. There's no real focus for me or trail to follow. Just some rooftops and over cooked clouds.
I like this. A little uneven on the left, but it is still nice. Lacks that little something to make it stand out from other coastal scenes. I can imagine that being popped up on a wall in a nice little pub or cafe to brighten the place up, especially coastal places that like this sort of art to please the tourists and make a nice atmosphere. Always good if you can get your foot in the door like that.
In general I really don't like the overuse of filters, poor contrast, funny colour settings, etc. It doesn't make a bad picture good. Just makes it look unnatural and unpleasant. Especially anything that is gimmicky or the current fad (lens flare, cross processing, vignetting, HDR). I think a lot of people would benefit from avoiding the temptation of using all the toys they have at hand. Perhaps even try to take nice pictures without 'shopping the shit out of them later. Just take some pictures and upload them to the PC and see what you can get.
Perhaps picture a day, but every Friday or Saturday (or whenever) it must be on a theme that is agreed upon and then changed next time around. Considering how slow the board is I think it best to make it fortnightly or monthly just to be realistic and give everyone a chance to participate.
It cuts to the bone when someone on the internet posts like that. That'll learn 'em. I'm sure no one will ever wound your tender pride again by daring to post criticism on these interwebs. If they do, follow up with a double whammy by calling them "faggot" too. It always impresses the ladies when you heap on the insults. Just using one or two like that doesn't have the full impact.
>>1487 I agree with >>1486 It pisses me off when someone critiques AMATUER work on here like it's some sort of photography journal. I'm not a professional photographer, but I enjoy taking photos and I like to think that if I take a photograph that I'm particularly proud of, I can post it here without someone completely ripping it to shreds.
I'm not sure if I'm speaking for anyone else, but I'm not really looking for a 'professional opinion' on my photography, your criticism doesn't appear to be very constructive just harsh and unnecessary.
I also assume you're the prick who posted Robert Mapplethorpe out of the blue in a nudes thread and then behaved like a complete twat about it.
That person specifically asked for criticism. That is why I gave it. Don't be so childish about it.
It is pathetic that someone can't even give criticism or an honest opinion here when someone has asked for it first without the tears flowing from outraged egos. If you are that delicate then stick to showing things to your mother, take her blind praise of all you do and never listen to anyone else and never worry about improving or learning. Everything is perfect, you know it all, your opinion is all that matters, everything you make a masterpiece, every time, tra-la-la-la!
Are you expecting me to post lies to keep you happy after you or someone else has asked for criticism? Then what is the point of asking at all? Did you expect to be told you had done everything right in everything form birth? I'd expect adults interested in the field to be able to take it better than this and not lash out and whine about it. Next time don't ask for criticism if you can't handle it. Simple as that.
Personal attacks for giving what was asked. I expected better of you all and this board. Very disappointing. Even your average kid on dA could take it better than this and without tears or insults.
Thanks. Despite the demonising of me here, I don't wade unasked into someone's personal family album online and tear photos of their granny or new baby to shreds simply to be mean and shit on their day. There would be no point. It takes me time and effort with no reward to look through it and think about it, after all. I only comment like that where asked because I presume they want it and I'm trying to help and I do know quite a few other photographers/artists that appreciate it as they know they might not see something or their family or friends won't ever be critical. It is also hard to see something either from someone else's point of view or with detachment. I also know people that are exceptionally hard on themselves when it comes to criticism and I'm the one pointing out when something isn't a "total loss" or "waste of time", as they may put it.
I'm happy to discuss things if the artist themselves wants to go over points or counter something or explain an idea or if it had context that is vital to understanding it (part of a set, triptych, a news story or some other explanation). As long as it isn't both barrels of the rage gun to the face. I'm genuinely happy to help otherwise.
Alright, fair enough, he asked for it, but I believe that exceptionally and flatly harsh criticism should not be doled out unless you happen to be greatly talented yourself. There are far to many people who think 'I know what I like' is enough to allow them to ladle on the punishment, but they are wrong.
I disagree completely. You are advocating lying about your opinion or dressing it up just to keep some fragile diva happy. That also implies that no amateur is allowed to comment on a professional or that you are obligated by some conjured contract to like someone's work who has been at it longer than you. Why should you or I or anyone else gain such a shield at any time? "Well, I've been doing it for three years and you've only been doing it for one, so I'll shit on you and you will have to praise me all day! Now lick my arse!" Nonsense. There are superb amateurs and woeful pros and people blessed with astonishing talent that shines through after a short time and others that shine at 60+. Everyone's tastes differ on art and if you've a thought on something then you should chip in on it, otherwise there's no discussion at all and no one learns anything. Terrible. No one is untouchable or above criticism. We aren't setting up gods for ourselves. No one is perfect and not every shot is either. Learning to be critical with your own and others - especially the work of professionals or experienced amateurs helps improve your eye for it and makes you think about what makes a good picture and what makes a bad picture and how to break down the elements. Everyone should be learning all their lives until they die or let that part of them die. What works and what does not? Why? Why do I like that but not this? Part of the learning process, just as learning to use the camera is.
The "you can't say anything unless you prove you are better" is a childish line of thinking and the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!". You wouldn't take that from a builder that made your house collapse or a doctor that prescribed you bag of live poisoned beetles instead of aspirin ("Well you're not a professional and qualified builder/doctor/whatever, mate, so you can't criticise anything I do, I'm perfect, me"). Reminds me of the "pro photographer" that lost a case in court recently for producing photos that chopped off heads or looked like he was drunk or on drugs and tried to claim that he was keeping the money and that the happy couple's opinion was invalid. What a rogue. We all have eyes (I presume) and an interest in art, so that should be enough. Those are the qualifications you need to get into "Club Art Appreciation". That people would be afraid to comment or criticise because a band of howler monkeys are waiting on the sidelines to throw shit at anyone who dares to criticise defeats half the point of such a board and lowers the tone.
I wouldn't even say that the criticism was that bad (especially remembering it was asked for and on an art board). The post even pointed out that there was some nice parts, but this seems to have been completely overlooked in the rush to pile on pointless hate and rage. Anyone criticising must be attacked on all fronts!
If someone has given invalid criticism, then you counter it and show that it is invalid if you really feel that way. If you can't counter properly it then it is valid and you take your medicine like an adult. You don't rage.
It seems to me that there are people here completely unaccustomed to anything other than the text equivalent of a big old sloppy one for anything they post. On a board specifically for art this should not even be an issue or come up for discussion at all. It should simply be expected and accepted when criticism is asked for. Otherwise it's not really an art board at all and simply a place for people to post wallpapers and stroke each other's e-penises all day. If everything seems fine and there's no criticism then why change or try anything new? It's all perfect from the first time you pick up a camera. Apparently. Learning process over. Begin stagnation.
I'd even go as far to say that someone who has never picked up a camera or taken part in a particular art has perfectly valid criticism, just as anyone else. They have eyes and their own taste in things too. They may have difficulty in expressing exactly why they like or dislike something, but it still matters and is part of their feeling for the picture. Most the people you will ever sell or produce photos for (even if it is only a gift) are not going to be pros (and not likely keen amateurs like the people here) - but it is their opinion that matters in the end. Not yours. They are the customers or recipients of the work. It is other eyes that will be viewing and judging it. They are the ones that are meant to appreciate it (again, either as a paying customer or the gift recipient) and so their opinion is the most important. Customer feedback should always be appreciated too, not simply your peers or (urgh) "betters". That is presuming you are lucky enough to have people considerate enough to go to the effort of giving such comments. A lot of people will look, lose interest when they see nothing they like and move on. This is why we have the criticism here. Speak for the minds that do not or cannot so you can learn from it and change for the better. You can judge whether or not you like a bronze statue even if you have never cast anything in your life. You are not disqualified from liking or disliking something in a medium you do not take part in yourself.
Would you do business with someone who said "Oh yeah, well fuck you because your opinion doesn't count, I'm the pro here, now buy some of my photos you prick"? No one can justify that attitude at any point.
Also, no one is obligated to "soften the blow". That is just stupid and pointless. While there is a difference between heaping on personal insults into the bargain and simply criticising work, if someone doesn't like something, then they should be able to simply say it and why and without worrying about a backlash for giving what was requested in the first place. They shouldn't have to pussyfoot around to preserve egos or lie and say they think it is nice when it is not. There's no point posting anything if all you get are liars and people too afraid to comment. There's nothing wrong with flat and blunt criticism. That's not the same as just calling someone a "prick" or "no-hoper chimp who should take up finger painting instead", that's just insulting and has no relevance to the piece at hand or what the problems with it are. Clearly there is a huge gulf between saying you do not like a photo, perhaps for some specific reason or reasons and lashing out at the artists themselves. Once you can accept comments on your work without taking it to heart as a direct insult to your person, then things get better and you don't mind these things. You will learn more if you accept it - and do it to others! By thinking through and criticising a photo, you are breaking it down and analysing it properly.
I say to everyone: take off the cotton wool your parents wrapped around you at birth and let the learning process continue.
Don't make it or take it personally and stick to comments on the art and I see no problems. We will all learn that way. Everyone starts off in life knowing nothing and able to do little more than that. None of us are perfect or gods. If you have a pair of eyes, then speak up and join in. Even post something by a pro and tear into it why you don't like it. There's no way you'll like every style of art out there, so there's bound to be things you don't like or elements of them. You will learn and others will, I bet. Try it even at home on your own with any photo books or collections you own. You will get more out of it and possibly even enjoy them all the more.
I take the time to post here at all because I am trying to do people a good turn. That I was attacked at all for it caught me completely off guard and seemed baffling at first. I wasn't even sure it was serious. If I did not care or thought everyone hopeless then I would not comment at all. Come on, folks. Get into the spirit of things and start learning and throwing ideas about. You are all capable of it.
I've heard that same opinion dozens of times as deadly serious and considering the previous posts it looks just the same as the rest of them here, so there's no way of knowing. Too many people seem to follow that line of thinking. I'd like to see a lot more C&C and discussion here and it seems people just don't want to jump in and do it. It may even encourage more work to be made and posted.
I want to see this board get some activity too. It is half dead. In a coma sometimes. Like it is on autopilot. Anything to see a great Britfa.gs /art/ board come to life at last with tips and guides and comments. A good resource. You know you want it. Look at that lining, sir. You cannot resist. The critiser and the criticised would all like that, I think. MOAR criticism, I say.
Criticism that suggests ways to do it better, constructive criticism is fine. I was kick up a fuss that his criticism (to me) was quite harsh and patronising. There are a few hints/tips in there but all in all he just came across as a bit of a photography snob and a dick. I lost my temper a little and I'm sorry for that. (I also missed the bit where he said it was appreciated, my mistake).
>>1493 I'm sorry, I couldn't be bothered to read all of that (I didn't manage the last two paragraphs), it didn't hold my attention. But much of it I took as patronising again. I have been through almost 6 years of art/design schooling. I fully understand how criticism works, I know how to analyse work that I produce, I know that if you're producing work for a customer who doesn't like it you can't become arrogant and take it as a personal insult and, jesus christ, I know what it's like to have something that I'm incredibly proud of completely slated by a professional.
I don't ever want to become a professional photographer, much of what youre saying here applies to people who aspire to take photographs for a living. I don't know how many people here are like that, or like me. I just take photos for fun, sometimes as research for a design project, but much of the time just for the hell of it. If I post it here, it's more of a 'look at what I did, I'm not huge expert, but itsn't it a nice image?' thing.
If I recieve any criticism I'd hope it would be fair, suggesting a way for it to be improved, rather than just >Just a snapshot, sorry. (Yes I've also studied journalism, I know how to pick and choose my quotes :) )
I don't want there to be any hard feelings or anything, I don't think art is somewhere that needs two warring factions.
>>183>>59>>1113 a few of mine itt, knock yourself out (don't make it personal). And post some of yours/identify if you've already posted, you ought ot to criticise others if no one knows what your work is like.
I agree with the critic chappie, and I don't agree that he has to make or post up any art to be a critic. Ken Tynan said that being a critic was like knowing the way, but not being able to drive the car. Not everyone is any good at either.
I think Mr. Critic's criticism fair and qualified. Criticism isn't meant to teach people how to do anything better. I also liked Bacon's helpful advice about painting, which was 'Don't.'
Goddamnit, I was the one who posted the photos, and I never replied after that. To the person who posted the C/C: Thank you, I appreciate it and agree with most of what you said. The person who attacked you afterwards for your critique was not me.
>>1504 I was thinking the same but was too polite to say. You're a fairly good writer, but Christ on a bike, you surely could have said what you had needed to with fewer words. I gave up reading halfway through.
Apologies. I wasn't trying to troll, just playing devils advocate, as I reckoned Mr. Critic came across a bit full on in the way he was writing. What can I say, it sounded mean and I read the Guardian.
>>1924 When you say you have sigma lenses, I am assuming you have them in the sigma mount. If you have them in a canon/nikon/other mount, they won't fit the SD14.
As for the camera, it delivers exceptionally on what it promised - image quality. The pictures are much sharper at 100% than you would get with any bayer-array sensor. The camera is also very robust and sturdy (albeit quite heavy), as well as comfortable and generally pleasant to use. However, it does not perform well in low light, and 800 ISO is essentially unusable. It also lacks luxuries that you find on many new cameras - this personally doesn't bother me, it depends how dependant you are on such features. FInally, the files are large, they save slowly and the buffer will only hold 3 shots on maximum quality, after which you have to wait about 30-40 seconds for them all to save.
Do not buy it if you do sports, parties, astrophotography or anything else similar. Otherwise, it is a great camera and well worth it for the price it is at now.
>>2254 I believe convention dictates that you go out at either dawn or dusk and take pictures of signs and old buildings. At the risk of turning this into a gear thread, what camera do you have?
>>2255 Apparently bought by my dad for £20 in a charity shop then left forgotten in a cupboard until I found it. much nicer than the DSLRs I've played with when it comes to ergonomics and having a decent viewfinder IMO, and there's definitely something to be said for having a battery life measured in years instead of days of use.
I try, I don't pretend any amazing ability, and I need to buy a better camera, as the one I have can't pick up differences between light properly, so I can't photo my primary interests in photography, such as sunbeams on scenes and stuff like that.
>>2265 Sorry, but these are all snapshots, not art.
Your comment about needing a new camera really angered me. Your current camera has manual settings (I checked, you have an S5000), how about you learn to use them instead of just leaving the camera in auto and hoping it captures the scene how you want it?
You are in the early stages of photography that pretty much everyone goes through, you shoot things that you think are pretty without putting much thought in. Those pictures of flowers are immensely boring to everyone else - what's the point of them? Everyone has seen a flower before. There was potential with the first one you posted. Converting it to black and white was a good move, because the focal point of the photo is on the geometry. However, the photo on the whole is let down by the composition, which doesn't seem to have been thought out at all. Your pictures are also all very flat, you should learn some photoshop techniques for processing. Note that this is not the same as editing, which many people have a problem with. All photos require processing to fit the artistic vision you had when taking the shot, this has been the case since the advent of photography, it's just that now you use a computer instead of chemicals in a darkroom.
>>2266 Ok, firstly I'm flowers onward, not the two above.
Is this the S5000 you meant?
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms5000/ Because I have a digimax A40 (yay)
I'll agree I haven't put much thought into any of those, and they don't really qualify as art in any way.
What would your advice on improving to me be?
>>2268 I imported the deer one into photoshop and it said it was taken with an S5000, but never mind.
Looked up the Digimax, it just appears to have a ton of gimmicky settings, which will confuse any newbie wanting to learn.
My advice to you depends on how serious you are in taking up photography as a hobby. The most important thing to learn is what aperture and shutter speed do, and the relationship between them. Next is composition; you need to think about everything in the frame and what the viewer will be looking at. Read the attached guide. Get a camera with basic manual controls (shutter, aperture, ISO, manual focus if possible). If you want a DSLR, get the Nikon D40, or if you want to try film, you can get an old Pentax K1000, the ultimate 'student' camera, for about £50.
It's important that you always keep shooting, and in this respect I think digital will help you learn faster. It's a good sign you're making progress if you keep looking back at your shots from a few months ago and think they are shit.
>>2269 Thanks for the advice. :)
The gimmicky uselessness of the camera is the reason I want to replace it, I tried to make it as manual as possible but the only things it really lets me control are zoom and colour or black and white, I'd probably have to write new firmware if I wanted any sort of real control (obviously not worth it) I'll probably go for the DSLR you recommend, thanks!
do any of you have any really low ISO pictures you have taken? pref three of the same object?
Ive been playing with HDR recently, and want to try my luck with someone else's pictures.
sorry to ask.
>>2313 I'm guessing he is running them through Photomatix, doing a terrible job with the tone-mapping and coming out with a piece of grainy shit. He believes this grain will be reduced by using shots taken at lower ISO. He is an idiot.
>>2486 I'll post the results tomorrow, assuming I haven't been poisoned by darkroom fumes. Here's is what's drying at the moment (there's one on the left rack).
>>2564>>2565 >ITT: Pictures you have taken yourself
it's actually in my back garden, I found it behind an old garden trellis, some of the bits were chipped off so I had to fill them in with putty, ergo it's now part of MY artwork collection.
ORIGINAL CONTENT, DO NOT STEAL
Downloaded from my Facebook and posted here because I was too lazy to plug in my external drive. Would you like the original higher resolution file? Or maybe more shots? I took lots; Hotel Polissia, the sports centre, a few of the sarcophagus etc etc etc
Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER. Get out of here STALKER.
And a final one from the zoo. I need to get out for more interesting subjects. Anyway this was through a glass pane, but I like the colours, although of course they get knocked out a bit uploading to here due to some obscure formatting rule or jpeg compression bullshit I don't know.
