Posts for: DougP
Oct 14, 2011 11:20:11 #
Is there a place online that will print/mount/frame large format panoramic photos (36 inches wide)? Oh - and not break the bank!
Oct 14, 2011 11:17:57 #
Is there a place online that will print/mount/frame large format panoramic photos (36 inches wide)?
Sep 30, 2011 15:48:43 #
All kidding aside, that's EXACTLY how you learn how to use this photo editing software. Play around with Sasquaches on logs for a while and suddenly you'll figure out how all the little tools work.
Sep 30, 2011 10:12:52 #
I was going to do juggling panda bears on unicycles on either end of the log but your sasquach teeder todder does the trick just nicely. Saved me about a half hour of totally wasted time. Thanks.
Now THAT's a balancing act of nature!
Now THAT's a balancing act of nature!
Sep 30, 2011 10:07:20 #
Here's a constant supply of droplets to practice on. Just have to wait until winter. :XD:
Sep 30, 2011 09:19:29 #
I rarely comment but your portraits are worth a quick note.
First and foremost - great job overall.
In my opinion #2 has the model too straight on - no angle or head tilt. Also positioned dead center. You run into symmetry problems when you do this and it detracts from the beauty of the photo.
BY FAR, I love #4 the best. By filtering this photo you can really get a feel of the light/dark value present in all of the curves of the body and face. The pose and composition is just fantastic and you should be very proud of this one.
Please do me a favor now. Tell me what method you used to filter this photo (I can see it's not a b&w). Also - if so inclined, please post the original color version for comparison.
This may just be me but I am drawn to desaturated photos for their contrasting values - but when you see a really good photo like this one and then see the full color version, you can't help but wanting the added color.
What I also like about the filtered photo is the hair. I'm not too fond of the hair color in the other photos so by filtering it out, it gives the model a more natural look (vs artificial).
Thanks for sharing!
First and foremost - great job overall.
In my opinion #2 has the model too straight on - no angle or head tilt. Also positioned dead center. You run into symmetry problems when you do this and it detracts from the beauty of the photo.
BY FAR, I love #4 the best. By filtering this photo you can really get a feel of the light/dark value present in all of the curves of the body and face. The pose and composition is just fantastic and you should be very proud of this one.
Please do me a favor now. Tell me what method you used to filter this photo (I can see it's not a b&w). Also - if so inclined, please post the original color version for comparison.
This may just be me but I am drawn to desaturated photos for their contrasting values - but when you see a really good photo like this one and then see the full color version, you can't help but wanting the added color.
What I also like about the filtered photo is the hair. I'm not too fond of the hair color in the other photos so by filtering it out, it gives the model a more natural look (vs artificial).
Thanks for sharing!
Sep 29, 2011 09:27:52 #
Never possible??? Just open your aperture in the middle of the day and check your light meter. It's possible.
But I think the subject of this post was more about the inner workings of the camera at speeds above the camera's flash sync speed. Correct me if I'm wrong but this thread has gotten a little off topic.
My opinion (for what it's worth) about that subject is that the difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 is pretty insignificant. Unless you're shooting a Nascar event. I mean, what kind of motion are we trying to stop here? I've been able to freeze splashing water droplets using 1/1000 without a problem.
As for the capabilities of individual cameras and flash sync speeds, I think that would depend on the type or quality of the camera itself. Just like someone mentioned about video cameras - the better the camera, the more frames per second captured at higher resolutions. As with anything - you get what you pay for.
But I think the subject of this post was more about the inner workings of the camera at speeds above the camera's flash sync speed. Correct me if I'm wrong but this thread has gotten a little off topic.
My opinion (for what it's worth) about that subject is that the difference between 1/4000 and 1/8000 is pretty insignificant. Unless you're shooting a Nascar event. I mean, what kind of motion are we trying to stop here? I've been able to freeze splashing water droplets using 1/1000 without a problem.
As for the capabilities of individual cameras and flash sync speeds, I think that would depend on the type or quality of the camera itself. Just like someone mentioned about video cameras - the better the camera, the more frames per second captured at higher resolutions. As with anything - you get what you pay for.
Sep 16, 2011 17:04:01 #
Even if you take a normal photo and crop it to a panoramic size, it is difficult to find a stock frame and paper to print on.
Sep 16, 2011 16:49:31 #
Here's a critique - and again, with all due respect. . . these photos are boring. Sometimes it's tough to hear constructive criticism but more times than not you will learn a lot more form some harsh honesty than from people who over compliment.
When you look at your photos, ask yourself, "Would I print and frame this and hang it on my wall?" "Where would this fit in?"
So often amateur photographers see a scene (such as a colorful sunset)and think everything they see with their eyes can be captured in a 8x10 photo. Not an easy thing to accomplish. The most important thing, when you see scenes like the ones you captured above, is to compose your shot.
Look into some basic composition formulas (like the rule of thirds for example)and find ways to include the brilliance of what you are seeing into an appropriately sized rectangular image.
Make your photo "not boring." An eye opener for me was when I first tried submitting some of my photos to these popular stock photo websites. There are many of them - they accept photos from anyone but they first have you submit a small sample of some of your best work. They look at it under a microscope for clarity, composition, subject matter and a variety of other photographic details. After getting rejected many times, you start to look through your lens differently and then start to SEE what it takes to become a better photographer.
Hope this helps.
When you look at your photos, ask yourself, "Would I print and frame this and hang it on my wall?" "Where would this fit in?"
So often amateur photographers see a scene (such as a colorful sunset)and think everything they see with their eyes can be captured in a 8x10 photo. Not an easy thing to accomplish. The most important thing, when you see scenes like the ones you captured above, is to compose your shot.
Look into some basic composition formulas (like the rule of thirds for example)and find ways to include the brilliance of what you are seeing into an appropriately sized rectangular image.
Make your photo "not boring." An eye opener for me was when I first tried submitting some of my photos to these popular stock photo websites. There are many of them - they accept photos from anyone but they first have you submit a small sample of some of your best work. They look at it under a microscope for clarity, composition, subject matter and a variety of other photographic details. After getting rejected many times, you start to look through your lens differently and then start to SEE what it takes to become a better photographer.
Hope this helps.
Sep 16, 2011 15:40:07 #
On a similar subject, has anyone had success in printing panoramic photos with a home printer? The only way I have been able to do it is to chop up the panoramic into 3 photos that are 8x10 each and then splice them together trying the best I can to hide the seam.
To my knowledge, HP doesn't make photo paper rolls. I have gone to kinkos in the past for a pan print but the print quality is not as good as on the HP photo glossy paper. I would like a more reliable and cost effective way to print and frame odd size photos without having to go to a print shop and then a frame shop. It could cost $200 or more to print, matte and frame a panoramic photo. Would love to be able to do it myself if possible.
To my knowledge, HP doesn't make photo paper rolls. I have gone to kinkos in the past for a pan print but the print quality is not as good as on the HP photo glossy paper. I would like a more reliable and cost effective way to print and frame odd size photos without having to go to a print shop and then a frame shop. It could cost $200 or more to print, matte and frame a panoramic photo. Would love to be able to do it myself if possible.