Blaze, I feel that you should have a knife in that picture.
Blaze, I feel that you should have a knife in that picture.
Got bored today, so I bought some sirup, and got naked in the shower:
Went out with my camera for the first time today to what was supposed to be a big amateur photography gathering and ended in me and another random dude walking around taking pictures.
clock by Latin Geek, on Flickr
flower thing super bokeh edition by Latin Geek, on Flickr
shroom by Latin Geek, on Flickr
He happened to have some old photog equipement including a full metal analog tele, first lens I've used besides my kit, it was ssoooo fucking awesome to use.
manual everything is fun by Latin Geek, on Flickr
title says everything
probably the best picture containing a person i've ever shot by Latin Geek, on Flickr
This could probably use a crop but
teeny house by Latin Geek, on Flickr
The only one I really like is the teeny house and even there ou could have worked with the background to even make the house look more "natural" by using the window I see there or using the wall to make it more seperated.
All in all they look like point n shoot which is fine and dandy for learning and tryig and getting a lucky shot here and there but not really something you should show off.
Tip: It's only called Bokeh when you see light sources, everything else is called "deth of field" (but I got a "lol you got that from gmod" comment for using the term DOF in here too so who knows..)
The clock could be fine too if you'd have paid attention to framing and composure, the star here is the architecture, the litle nooks and all, not your way of photographing it( but you can emphasize something of course) so maybe for future pictures my tip would be paying attention to whether you want to break the frame or not.
Cheers, keep on.
Thanks for taking the time to critique, man. Not really showing off, but it's not like there's a "dump your amateur crap here and get critique" thread I posted it here. Yeah, I recognize framing/composing is one of my weak points, and looking through pictures again I can see how I could have improved them. Any books/blogs/reads you guys could suggest on that subject or is it just practice?
And that's weird, someone told me it was Bokeh when the background was softened, even without the light sources showing.
Indeed, bokeh is the actual blur, resulting from a [lack of] depth of field - which is a measurement of the distance based 'zone' in which things will be in relative focus.
still working with black and white, been getting back into skate photography. it's been really fun.
you're seriously nailing the b/w thing. processing is ace (images are sweet too), can't wait to see more stuff
been messing with our old friend the brenizer method again :)
Never understood what the hell the Brenzier method was
Nice games collection btw (is that original PS2 Half Life?)
haha, cheers buddy and yes it is!
that was shot with an old 50mm at f/5.6 but because its old its on a k-mount so i use an adapter for it, due to this it zooms in with about 2.5x magnification so when taking one image it would shoot about the size of 1/3rd of one of the shelves in the cabinet.
Golden hour is amazing with fog, nice shots man!
But that's not it at all. One of the factor for bokeh/dof is the aperture/sensor ratio. That's not changing at all. I think the point of it is that the longer the focal length, the shallower the DOF and thus the "bigger" the bokeh.
So the stiching is used because increasing focal length by zooming forces you to take smaller portions of the scene because you can't change your distance to the scene.
Alternatively to brenizer you could just zoom in to the max and then walk back far enough to get the same frame.
Edit: Rethinking it, increasing sensor seize is the same as zooming in.
No, that's it exactly. Go shoot some medium format and come back when you have learned enough to realize we know more about what we're talking about than you do.
Stitching is effectively increasing the sensor size, period.
1. Increasing sensor size is the "same as" [more like] zooming out.
2. No. Again, shoot medium format and come back when you actually have experience with different 'sensor' sizes.
[sub]I can't believe you actually thought you were in a position to tell us we don't understand photography.[/sub]
The idea behind extracting 'more bokeh' from stitching/larger sensors, is that you maintain the lack of DOF from a longer lens but with a wider field of view.
DoF does not decrease with a longer focal length.
If you shoot at the same aperture the DoF will be the same, what you are talking about is compression which makes it look like you have more blur on a longer lens.
Scroll down to "Background blur" and read / look at the images.
EDIT: Forgot the link duh.
Took a few photos whilst visiting one of my city's museums the other day, only just got around to uploading them.
_MG_1831.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1829.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1828.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1826.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1825.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1822.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1820.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1817.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1816.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
_MG_1814.jpg by Legend286, on Flickr
So in reality the depth of field doesn't change, but the distance between objects change. Light physics is awesome.
But I do agree with you, it's just unfortunate that I don't have the ability to go somewhere that isn't full of boring buildings and uninteresting scenery.
Photography is as much a documentative process as it is an art medium
not to mention this thread is for creative photography, not point and shoot (wrong term? cant remember) photography.
He put thought into them, it's not like they are bad pictures. They show us stuff that he saw at the museum. Can't really do much else with it. And I'm pretty sure most photography is fine, you don't have to pull semantics on it.