|
beyond_gravity
Oct 3, 2002, 2:09 AM
Post #26 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2002
Posts: 5078
|
I don't know why, The composition just doesnt appel to me...I just started taking pics, look at my top 3 photo's (that arn't that great)...I got two good shots outta 3 rolls! (not all the shots were of climbing, but still) Keep shooting...what bugs me is when someone gets a photo on the front page that they shot with a point and shoot
Don't worry about getting a photo rated high...There is like 5 photogs that get there ass kissed by everyone and have a reputation/authority so not-so-great (in my opioin) photo's get rated high. Not that my photo's are good or anything
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 3, 2002, 2:13 AM
Post #27 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Forgot to say that myself. Shoot more. Of the nearly 50+ rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X I've shot, I have only three pictures I'm proud of. The rest of my "work" that I've hung up was to record a moment, rather than tweak it into art. And find somebody who's got skills who's willing to teach you. If you've got a darkroom, even better. You can do a lot of dodging, burning, and adjusting contrast in the more user friendly (i've found) environment that is the dark room. Heck, if you really get into it, I've heard of (and seen) different times, aperatures, and filters used for seperate parts of the same photograph. Impressive stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 3, 2002, 2:28 AM
Post #28 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
Forgot to say that myself. Shoot more. Of the nearly 50+ rolls of Plus-X and Tri-X I've shot, I have only three pictures I'm proud of. The rest of my "work" that I've hung up was to record a moment, rather than tweak it into art. And find somebody who's got skills who's willing to teach you. If you've got a darkroom, even better. You can do a lot of dodging, burning, and adjusting contrast in the more user friendly (i've found) environment that is the dark room. Heck, if you really get into it, I've heard of (and seen) different times, aperatures, and filters used for seperate parts of the same photograph. Impressive stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
climbchick
Oct 3, 2002, 3:16 AM
Post #29 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2001
Posts: 808
|
Hey Phil
I'm not a photog and I don't usually get into bouldering pics that much, but I think yours is quite interesting. The only problems I see are that the hand is all washed out and you've got all those specks & streaks going on in the background (scanner?).
As for the headcrack guy, don't let him get you down. There are plenty of jackasses in the world, but having decent people around (like jabbeaux and the others here who have tried to help) kinda makes up for it, I think. I'm sure you can learn a lot from them. Maybe the crack guy just felt threatened because you're young & strong & cute and he's not (?) Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
fiend
Oct 3, 2002, 3:22 AM
Post #30 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2001
Posts: 3669
|
The digital touchups are just plain bad, I don't know why you left those big streaks in there but it looks really strange.
Rather than compensating for the washed out hand in the darkroom think about your lighting while taking the shot. Too late for that now, I know, but maybe diffusing the flash would have given you better light balance.
Also hard to avoid, but if you're going for The Shot you'll have to take everything into account...
the black shirt just doesn't work with the dark light. Since it's a night shot you want to be able to highlight the entire climber without washing any part of them out. What ended up happening here is that everything stands out from the background nicely except the climber's shirt which just kind of melts into the darkness.... could be a cool effect, but it's not working here. A simple solution would have been to take off the shirt.
The print quality leaves a lot to be desired but that should come out with practice, no one produces perfect prints of the bat.
I'll echo what everyone else said about practice. Proficient photography is largely the result of practice.
I'd like to see an untouched version of the image, actually, I'd suggest replacing this one with a non-photoshopped version... those black streaks look really really bad
|
|
|
|
|
marcsv
Oct 3, 2002, 4:00 AM
Post #31 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2001
Posts: 358
|
did you develop the roll yerself? if yes i suggest checking your chemicals (they might be old, sp. the last bath before you hang your film to dry). if not . . .try another photo shop (your being robbed). next invest on film sleeves.
on printing check your enlarger. again check your chemicals and photo paper.
on composition. . . your getting there.
on photo retouching. . . i suggest you use the color burn tool rather than the brush (or air brush) then smooth it out. after that go to curves and adjust your contrast.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 3, 2002, 4:38 AM
Post #32 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
I kinda fixed this pic up...any better? The one I fixed is on top, the original on the bottom.
Not a huge difference. I just darkened the foreground a tad and really darkened the background to get rid of those lines that bugged a few people. The image size was a problem in that it might have brought out some imperfections in the print. I noticed that the smaller the image, the better it looked.
Well, so much for that attempt, the pics disappeared and I don't know where they went At least I e-mailed the corrected one to Phil before they disappeared.
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-10-03 07:51 ]
|
|
|
|
|
phil_nev
Oct 3, 2002, 10:35 AM
Post #33 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2001
Posts: 361
|
I didnt develop the roll myself, so i was limited as to the development of the photos.
Thanks heaps for all the advice, theres deffinitly a lot of good people on this site.
U GUYS ROCK!
Jody, i cant belive u actualy did that for me in your own time, now i know what you mean and can see the difference. Thanks a lot, i apreciate it a lot.
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 3, 2002, 3:52 PM
Post #34 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I replaced the pic with the fixed one so this thread can be killed now. I think the picture looks much better, eh Phil?
|
|
|
|
|
rocknpowda
Oct 3, 2002, 4:47 PM
Post #35 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: 418
|
Ease up everyone-Phil is just as good a photographer as 90% of the people on the site. You are always more critical of others' photos and always more defensive of your own.
Let's just dig on others' art and strive to create the best we can on our own.
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 5, 2002, 6:55 PM
Post #36 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Phil...someone just gave this picture a "1". So don't feel bad, there are lots of people who vote good pics down-they're probably jealous!
|
|
|
|
|
caveman
Oct 5, 2002, 7:06 PM
Post #37 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 127
|
you spelled Jimi Hendrix wrong
|
|
|
|
|
crux_clipper
Oct 7, 2002, 4:37 AM
Post #38 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 14, 2001
Posts: 531
|
Hey Phil, yours photos cool. So what if someone doesn't like it. You have to consider that the people whos photos are consistantly in the top ten take hundreds of photos, all the time, every climbing trip. While ordinary people like you and I are just taking the ocasional pic. Look at rrradam's photos. They are awesome, because he sets himslef up in good positions with good equipment. Thats why his photos are so good.
|
|
|
|
|
phil_nev
Oct 7, 2002, 4:47 AM
Post #39 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2001
Posts: 361
|
caveman, dant yu men ay speeelt jummy henrax incaractly??
Like someone else said, who gives a toss.
ICruxie. I think some of rrradam's photos are awesome, some of the others, i dont see why they are highly voted for.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Oct 7, 2002, 4:50 AM
Post #40 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
yeah, some punkass gave the picture below a "1" as well.
Thanks for doing the posting Jody.
[ This Message was edited by: camhead on 2002-10-07 07:36 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Oct 7, 2002, 5:08 AM
Post #41 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Here is camhead's photo:
|
|
|
|
|
phil_nev
Oct 7, 2002, 7:03 AM
Post #42 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2001
Posts: 361
|
Both those pictures deffinitly deserve the top ten!
|
|
|
|
|
eric
Oct 7, 2002, 9:00 AM
Post #43 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2002
Posts: 1430
|
Something I still don't understand, even though this has been discussed and discussed... why aren't we simply displaying every user's votes? That's something I like about photo.net... a little accountability.
And what's funny is that despite all that heated debate, no changes were ever made to how photo voting is done. I agree with Trevor that in general it more or less works, but I do think we could stand to refine it... if it's important to people (which it obviously is)
|
|
|
|
|
joemor
Oct 8, 2002, 1:15 AM
Post #44 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2001
Posts: 609
|
http://www.planetfear.com/climbing/features/howto.html
this pace has 3 or 4 how to shoot photos guides.
have a look, they may help.
joe
|
|
|
|
|
womble
Jan 3, 2003, 3:52 PM
Post #45 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 186
|
I would say that the main problems are that it's impossible to make out any detail, so for all I know the climber could be standing on the ground still- there is no context in which to place the climber. Secondly, the reliance on direct flash blows part of the foreground into whiteness. The black t-shirt also makes it a little surreal- looked at one way it's a disembodied head, arm and leg!
I guess that detail and context would be an inherent problem with night time climbing photography... perhaps you could use radio-synched off-camera flashes if you could afford the equipment and time to calibrate everything carefully.
Good luck,
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
willstrickland
Jan 3, 2003, 4:01 PM
Post #46 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2002
Posts: 51
|
My $0.02
The highlights are completly washed out. There's just too much contrast for the media to handle and therefore you lose all detail in the highlights. Personally, I'd rotate the image 180 degrees so that the climber appears to be climbing up the frame rather than down. Keep shooting, I usually shoot over 50 frames and as many as 100 on ONE boulder problem. Just crank up the motor drive and let fly.
|
|
|
|
|
goingtohellquick
Jan 4, 2003, 8:17 PM
Post #47 of 47
(5688 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 996
|
More "face value" is needed...if you know what i mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
