Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: abc1234
Page: <<prev 1 ... 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 ... 329 next>>
Dec 18, 2013 15:09:48   #
Do not worry Wonky. Someone here will take up the challenge.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 14:29:16   #
Wonk, the back story does not help but how about taking the face from the first post and putting it on to this one? Looks like she is getting food out of her teeth. Then, clone out the lady to the right. Too bad you had the folks on the left. Hey, if Eugene Smith can do it, so can you.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 12:53:58   #
Nightski, I forgot to mention her gloves. Too bad her hands were cut off because I think they would have added some delightful character to the picture.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 12:35:15   #
Nightski, you could be doing streets for fifty years and still have this situation. You cannot help it. You do not have time to wait for the decisive moment or pose people. This is not portrait photography. You usually are paying attention to one person and do not see them until later.

That being said, how good the woman is should be enough of inspiration to do more and the old folks a reason to be a bit more careful.

A final point: cropping off the lower half of her body is not to my liking. However, the smile is still wonderful.
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 12:21:23   #
Nightski wrote:
Andrew, I respectfully disagree with abc1234. If it was a portrait shot, he would be right, but it is a street shot, and therefore needs the context of what is going on around the girl. In this case, I see a sweet smiling girl amongst crabby people, who are probably crabby because it's cold, and they just want to get home. But this one girl, stops to take in what is going on around her. She puts off the cold, dampness of the day, gets outside of herself, and smiles at you. Congratulations for catching that moment.

I don't know if that is the real story, but it is the story I take away from it.
Andrew, I respectfully disagree with abc1234. If i... (show quote)


Nightski, what bothers me so much about the other couple, crabby or otherwise, is they are looking out of the frame while our lady is right at us, drawing us in and engaging us. In other words, the two elements clash with each. For me, the number of people in the scene does not matter but the interplay among them does. The interplay here is pulling in different directions for me.

Are you familiar with Vivian Meyer?
Go to
Dec 18, 2013 11:39:09   #
This is a wonderful, whimsical candid. She looks great. Here comes the "but". The folks on the left killed the picture. They are very distracting and even if you crop them away, the picture becomes too vertical. You might clone away the lady on the right but you still have a problem with the couple on the left. You might go back and shoot the uncluttered background on the left and copy it over.

Grab shots rarely allow retakes. Not much you could have done about it except go back and be patient. It will pay off and perhaps your fetching subject might oblige you again.
Go to
Dec 17, 2013 13:44:42   #
CAM1017 wrote:
Your correct in that ISO 800 was to high. It was less then 1hour till sunset and it was becoming very contrasty so I made a snap decision to go higher on the ISO. Thank you for your comments. :thumbup:


I will stick my neck out on this one. ISO does not affect contrast, only the dynamic range. That is, how black are your blacks and how white are you whites. Adjusting that curve in post-processing affects the contrast.
Go to
Dec 17, 2013 06:38:05   #
CAM1017, given your exposure of f/8 and 1/800, why did you use ISO 800?

Unless I was expecting the eagle to fly aware unexpectedly, I would have gone to f/5.6, 1/200, and ISO 100. At the distance you were shooting, you should have been able to focus accurately so that depth of field would not be much of an problem.
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 17:39:56   #
Nightski, I guess we are spoiled down here in Chicago. If I had to go through all that, I would take a pass on it. Unfortunately, the picture does not indicate how hard getting it was.
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 17:30:24   #
Country's Mama wrote:
Not really making excuses just confirming what you suspected. Well maybe making a few excuses as there is no excuse for not getting the shot. There is always more I could have done. It is just a matter of how important it is for me to do what I would have to do to do it.
Looks like I will have to trek back out again another time. Today's leaf photos were worse than yesterdays. :?


To be serious, going out there in 25 mph winds is tough enough. Be glad to get anything. I have done a similar thing twice. I have a favorite spot in the nearby forest preserve. I went out there once every week for an entire year to capture the change throughout the year. Did it with film and then again with digital. I know what taking pictures out in the cold is.

Another goal for me is to go to the same spot on the first day of each season and shot a panorama.
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 16:13:16   #
Country's Mama wrote:
Thank you.
The light was horrible and the wind strong. I did not have the tripod along. I was snowshoeing and it is all I can do to stay in an upright position without lugging the tripod too. :-D
I went back out today and reshot, but not sure things were any better since the wind was gusting at 25mph. I will see as soon as my camera is done thawing out.


Well I guess you should have brought a wind screen too. What is a little wind, cold and snow to you up there? This is a tough crowd here so no excuses next time!
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 11:53:16   #
Nightski wrote:
:-D


Hi Nightski, glad to see you are on the same page as I!
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 11:34:07   #
Armadillo wrote:
abc1234,

This depends on how you want to view the image EXIF. If you want to view it from a file on your computer you have image editing programs that will display the data. If you want a standalone application there are many free apps available on the Web. If you want to view the image in e-mail, or directly from a Website, there are Add-Ons (Plugins) available. For IE you will have to search.

For Mozilla based systems (Firefox, SeaMonkey, and other Mozilla created systems there are EXIF plugins that will display the EXIF data with a right click on the mouse, and then a left click on Properties. It is how I read EXIF gor images posted as "Download".

Michael G
abc1234, br br This depends on how you want to vi... (show quote)


Jay Pat's link displays more information than Adobe. It even sees certain missing data.
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 11:32:59   #
Jay Pat wrote:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi

This is the one I'm currently using.
Pat


This was the tool. Many thanks.
Go to
Dec 15, 2013 11:25:15   #
nairiam wrote:
Thank you for your comments. I accept all comments if given in the right spirit. The omission of metadata was not a deliberate act which I will try to include in future, although it will remain optional.


I did not wish to suggest that you intentionally omitted the metadata. The likely reasons for not including all of it are simply not thinking to include everything or the program strips it out. One good reason for including some or all the metadata is that it includes any copyright information.

For me, the only relevant data are those relating to exposure, focus and flash if I have a concern about exposure or sharpness. Knowing the camera and lens is merely an extraneous curiosity.

I agree that including the metadata is the poster's prerogative. However, providing it may enrich the feedback.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 ... 329 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.