StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I'd set aside an hour today on the way to a study session to take my Urban landscape shot, and it's raining cats & dogs .
I'll need a bit of an extension if people don't mind .

Sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be afraid to shoot in the rain because sometimes it's the right atmosphere.

My entry:



I chose to make this photograph using RealRaw ProTM to best capture this stream without having to fake the gorgeous color with a Photoshop plugin or lose the sharpness of fine details with noise reduction. I can get as much resolution with film and a decades-old camera as your top-end DSLRs, so I can get great pix on the cheap unlike you suckers whose digital cameras will be obsolete in just a few years! Enjoy spending your time hunched over RAW converters while I'm out shooting!

Sincerely,

Simplicius wrote:

The Grim Squeaker wrote:I'd set aside an hour today on the way to a study session to take my Urban landscape shot, and it's raining cats & dogs .
I'll need a bit of an extension if people don't mind .

Sure, go ahead. But you shouldn't be afraid to shoot in the rain because sometimes it's the right atmosphere.

I love the rain and I like shooting in it.
Shooting with 2,400$ worth of non waterproof gear in the rain without an umbrella and in very heavy rain no less... Well... nah.
(I don't have any rain gear here on campus with me anyway. Or my decent camera ).

I chose to make this photograph using RealRaw ProTM to best capture this stream without having to fake the gorgeous color with a Photoshop plugin or lose the sharpness of fine details with noise reduction. I can get as much resolution with film and a decades-old camera as your top-end DSLRs, so I can get great pix on the cheap unlike you suckers whose digital cameras will be obsolete in just a few years! Enjoy spending your time hunched over RAW converters while I'm out shooting!

Sincerely,

You didn't do any editing at all? It's really, really blue . (I have some equally blue stream water shot, but from Iceland or Alaska).
Was your category imitate Ken Rockwell then?

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Shooting with 2,400$ worth of non waterproof gear in the rain without an umbrella and in very heavy rain no less... Well... nah.

See the talk thread.

You didn't do any editing at all? It's really, really blue .

I edited to increase exposure a little, but the quality of the color is unchanged. I considered kicking saturation up for extra Ken goodness but it was too...much. VC film is saturated enough.

RRoan wrote:Not sure how well I pulled it off, but I like it.

I think it works. You did a good job of keeping the trike from getting lost in the grass (oh, irony). I can't tell if you cut the saturation for effect or if it was just classic winter overcast, and that is definitely good - subtle editing is the best kind of editing.

City skyline at sunset.
Urban Landscape.

Yeah, I ran out of time. The sunset today was spectacular, I snapped this in between classes after climbing over some rooftops and over some ledges.
Taken on a Panasonic TZ1-K.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ddofer/4076052388/

First off, please resize to the 1000-px long side limit. You've got a format-breaker there, and it's much easier to look at at a more reasonable size.

For a cityscape there isn't much city in it. I'm not talking about using a silhouette - that works fine - or even about the predominance of the sunset - a point one can quibble over - but that there isn't enough silhouette to anchor the image. It's top-heavy, in other words, besides the fact that the skyline has a minimal presence in the photo.

Fortunately, it's so insanely easy to fix that you could even do it in MSPaint. Extend the canvas downward some more, fill-in black, and crop until it looks good. Voila:



More city, instantly provided.

Simplicius wrote:First off, please resize to the 1000-px long side limit. You've got a format-breaker there, and it's much easier to look at at a more reasonable size.

For a cityscape there isn't much city in it. I'm not talking about using a silhouette - that works fine - or even about the predominance of the sunset - a point one can quibble over - but that there isn't enough silhouette to anchor the image. It's top-heavy, in other words, besides the fact that the skyline has a minimal presence in the photo.

Fortunately, it's so insanely easy to fix that you could even do it in MSPaint. Extend the canvas downward some more, fill-in black, and crop until it looks good. Voila:


More city, instantly provided.

Actually, that's pretty much how the original photo looked prior to a little cropping .
I was inspired by a cityscape photo by Uri Gersht (one of the best photographers in the world and an Israeli to boot), of a brown nigh sky and only the antennas of buildings showing along with one floor.

Random org gives me: 10 - Multiple Exposure.
HDR eh? .

Stupid mistake hopefully fixed. Death, is there anything you said in this post that isn't actually here? -S

Little mess now un-fucked.

Death wrote:I was inspired by a cityscape photo by Uri Gersht (one of the best photographers in the world and an Israeli to boot), of a brown nigh sky and only the antennas of buildings showing along with one floor.

There are three key differences between Gersht's photos and yours. One is that the sky itself is the focus of the Rear Window series, while your theme required you to place emphasis on the city. The look of the photo to me is that you tried to do both at once and landed at a kind of uncomfortable compromise.

Second is that Gersht's skies are very minimalist and abstract. His sparse use of building tops is coherent with the minimalism, while showing that the photo is in fact of an Earth sky taken from an apartment window in an Earth city. It's a very subtle explanation of context. In contrast, your sky is very bold and recognizable, and the image is a concrete one. The suit that, the best use of the skyline is in a similarly concrete, recognizable style. Sunsets like that don't exactly mesh with subtlety.

Third is that Gersht's buildings are similar in color and tone to the skies they appear in, keeping the overall effect restrained and keeping the buildings from being too intrusive. Your buildings are a very bold, stark area of solid black that stands out strongly from the sky. They stick out a lot, so they have to be incorporated into the photo as a major contributing element instead of a subtle inclusion.

Random org gives me: 10 - Multiple Exposure.
HDR eh? .

No, something like this or this. It'll take planning and a fair bit of post-production work in digital, so if you want something easier feel free to re-roll.

54 - Photo with an old-fashioned look.

Simplicius wrote:

RRoan wrote:Not sure how well I pulled it off, but I like it.

I think it works. You did a good job of keeping the trike from getting lost in the grass (oh, irony). I can't tell if you cut the saturation for effect or if it was just classic winter overcast, and that is definitely good - subtle editing is the best kind of editing.

I could post the original for you, if you're interested. Glad you like it, though.

Simplicius wrote:Little mess now un-fucked.

Death wrote:I was inspired by a cityscape photo by Uri Gersht (one of the best photographers in the world and an Israeli to boot), of a brown nigh sky and only the antennas of buildings showing along with one floor.

There are three key differences between Gersht's photos and yours. One is that the sky itself is the focus of the Rear Window series, while your theme required you to place emphasis on the city. The look of the photo to me is that you tried to do both at once and landed at a kind of uncomfortable compromise.

The photo i'm thinking of wasn't shown as part of a rear window series but as part of an urban gallery collection in the Tel Aviv museum, I don't think we're talking about the same photo (but I can't be sure).

Second is that Gersht's skies are very minimalist and abstract. His sparse use of building tops is coherent with the minimalism, while showing that the photo is in fact of an Earth sky taken from an apartment window in an Earth city. It's a very subtle explanation of context. In contrast, your sky is very bold and recognizable, and the image is a concrete one. The suit that, the best use of the skyline is in a similarly concrete, recognizable style. Sunsets like that don't exactly mesh with subtlety.

I wasn't going for the "recreate a famous photo" that much .

Third is that Gersht's buildings are similar in color and tone to the skies they appear in, keeping the overall effect restrained and keeping the buildings from being too intrusive. Your buildings are a very bold, stark area of solid black that stands out strongly from the sky. They stick out a lot, so they have to be incorporated into the photo as a major contributing element instead of a subtle inclusion.

Interesting analysis! Thanks.

Random org gives me: 10 - Multiple Exposure.
HDR eh? .

No, something like this or this. It'll take planning and a fair bit of post-production work in digital, so if you want something easier feel free to re-roll.

Ah fuck, yeah, that won't work very well for my constraints. A reroll gives me 46 - Hustle and bustle. Interesting.

#31 Different shades, one hue. Gah, why do I keep getting the weird ones?

edit: And here's my entry for the month, another photo of the Canada Permanent Building, this time, in sunlight.

Hustle & Bustle:


Party photography is HARD. Tricky fill flash.

Any chance that I could resubmit this:

as my hustle and bustle entry? It's still November


New challenge: High Key. Interesting, I actually did a bunch of shots around this yesterday. Pity I don't have the gear for that anymore . (I set up a studio for some item photography for a store).