In reply to Post #1209
Nice shots mate I have bluebells in the garden but a bit close to the floor for me and tricky little devils to get right. Just a thought if you have one try using a tripod with a remote for your still life's. I have compared my hand held's with those taken on the tripod and there is a big difference. Depending on light you can use a small aperture with a slower shutter speed which gives a sharper image The example attached was in a pot which I shot in doors, because the light was a bit iffy outside. The image was Photoshoped to give an interesting background.
Nice shots mate I have bluebells in the garden but a bit close to the floor for me and tricky little devils to get right. Just a thought if you have one try using a tripod with a remote for your still life's. I have compared my hand held's with those taken on the tripod and there is a big difference. Depending on light you can use a small aperture with a slower shutter speed which gives a sharper image The example attached was in a pot which I shot in doors, because the light was a bit iffy outside. The image was Photoshoped to give an interesting background.
In reply to Post #1210
Some very dramatic shots there Ev. Still think that B&W can produce a much more dramatic effect than colour. Some of the old B&W portraits taken in the Hollywood era of the studio heartthrobs are stunning compared with a lot of the stuff taken today.
Some very dramatic shots there Ev. Still think that B&W can produce a much more dramatic effect than colour. Some of the old B&W portraits taken in the Hollywood era of the studio heartthrobs are stunning compared with a lot of the stuff taken today.
In reply to Post #1209
what camera and lens set up you using and any flash?? colours seam a bit muddy?
have to agree blue bells are hard to get right due to funny angles and depth of field
what camera and lens set up you using and any flash?? colours seam a bit muddy?
have to agree blue bells are hard to get right due to funny angles and depth of field
In reply to Post #1212
have to agree
i have an old book on how to light hollywood stars of the 40s 50s its old but brilliant
here is a moody selfport trying to get some of the old era with modern gear
have to agree
i have an old book on how to light hollywood stars of the 40s 50s its old but brilliant
here is a moody selfport trying to get some of the old era with modern gear
This message has been suppressed by a moderator.
In reply to Post #1215
A big fan of that macro lens of yours. For close up work it just wins hands down every time. I think I need to have some thoughts in that direction if I seriously want to produce top quality close up shots. In fairness to the camera its use was never about taking close up shots as it was used mainly for coverage of events and that kind of application.
EDIT
Have a close look at some of those shots you mentioned. The camera angles are sometimes a bit strange and the focus point is very selective. The classic tip of nose pin sharp with the ears slightly soft. Very dramatic lighting as well. Large format cameras do give you a better view of the finished product, once you get used to everything being upside down
A big fan of that macro lens of yours. For close up work it just wins hands down every time. I think I need to have some thoughts in that direction if I seriously want to produce top quality close up shots. In fairness to the camera its use was never about taking close up shots as it was used mainly for coverage of events and that kind of application.
EDIT
Have a close look at some of those shots you mentioned. The camera angles are sometimes a bit strange and the focus point is very selective. The classic tip of nose pin sharp with the ears slightly soft. Very dramatic lighting as well. Large format cameras do give you a better view of the finished product, once you get used to everything being upside down
Ev.. those pictures were just quick shots as the light was fading, and Yeh i did use flash for one. I'm actually colour blind so colours will always be off and i usually try not to worry about them too much, tending to focus on the subject and what the moment is. also, using a tripod wasn't possible as there was a slight breeze. thanks for your input though guys!
In reply to Post #1217
The colour blindness is a difficult one but could be overcome with a few changes in the cameras setup
Dependent on the degree of the colour blindness sure you could do the same in post processing in Photoshop or gimp if you used a control image and ask someone to tell you when the image looks more punchy colour wise and contrast etc then use the same values to adjust other pics
Won't work on every pic but may give better results
Could even use or make an action for Photoshop to do it auto when you ask it to
I agree tripod is a must but not always in good light it's possible to handhold the shots I put up are all without a tripod
O agree about the large format just missed getting a job using one a 8x10 everyday
I reckon it may be possible to get close using the 51point focus points and selecting an of centre point and selective f number but it's hard when doing selftakes !!!
Still one day may try it out??
The colour blindness is a difficult one but could be overcome with a few changes in the cameras setup
Dependent on the degree of the colour blindness sure you could do the same in post processing in Photoshop or gimp if you used a control image and ask someone to tell you when the image looks more punchy colour wise and contrast etc then use the same values to adjust other pics
Won't work on every pic but may give better results
Could even use or make an action for Photoshop to do it auto when you ask it to
I agree tripod is a must but not always in good light it's possible to handhold the shots I put up are all without a tripod
O agree about the large format just missed getting a job using one a 8x10 everyday
I reckon it may be possible to get close using the 51point focus points and selecting an of centre point and selective f number but it's hard when doing selftakes !!!
Still one day may try it out??
In reply to Post #1215
In the last couple of years I have changed the way that I approach taking photographs and the amount of post production work that I do. Coming from an `old school` background where you took the shot and apart from some work in the darkroom, that was just about it. The skill was in using your knowledge of exposure and composition to get the shot you wanted. Your shot of the bee on the flower shows the benefits of using a macro lens to capture stunning detail and how their limited depth of field can be exploited to give an interesting shot.
It occurred to me a while back that a lot of photographs you see are very similar, flowers are a good example. Some are better quality than others due to the equipment used and the skill of the person taking the shot. Architecture is another field where you see a lot of similarities, especially the well known monuments. People taking these photos to a large extent are standing in countless other peoples shoes and producing the same results. It is very difficult to produce something different that stands out in the crowd.
To add interest I have been playing around with some Photoshop applications, mainly the Poster Edge effect on a number of shots, some are in the next post.
The city centre shot was developed to bring out the texture of the wood and the cool greens of the foliage coupled with the linear lines of the building.
The flower shot came about by accident. The natural light just hit the flower arrangement in the lounge and it was a case of grabbing a camera to record it before the light went.
The football shot was my one and only attempt to photograph a game from the stands, applying an effect post production I felt lifted this shot up a couple of notches.
In the last couple of years I have changed the way that I approach taking photographs and the amount of post production work that I do. Coming from an `old school` background where you took the shot and apart from some work in the darkroom, that was just about it. The skill was in using your knowledge of exposure and composition to get the shot you wanted. Your shot of the bee on the flower shows the benefits of using a macro lens to capture stunning detail and how their limited depth of field can be exploited to give an interesting shot.
It occurred to me a while back that a lot of photographs you see are very similar, flowers are a good example. Some are better quality than others due to the equipment used and the skill of the person taking the shot. Architecture is another field where you see a lot of similarities, especially the well known monuments. People taking these photos to a large extent are standing in countless other peoples shoes and producing the same results. It is very difficult to produce something different that stands out in the crowd.
To add interest I have been playing around with some Photoshop applications, mainly the Poster Edge effect on a number of shots, some are in the next post.
The city centre shot was developed to bring out the texture of the wood and the cool greens of the foliage coupled with the linear lines of the building.
The flower shot came about by accident. The natural light just hit the flower arrangement in the lounge and it was a case of grabbing a camera to record it before the light went.
The football shot was my one and only attempt to photograph a game from the stands, applying an effect post production I felt lifted this shot up a couple of notches.
City Centre
impromptude shot
loads of post production on this shot, I especialy liked the texture and colour of the flower on the right
In reply to Post #1218
A 10x8 is in a whole league of its own. I have used, for studio work a Linhoff mono rail in 5x4 format and on site the `Baby Linhoff` which was in 3 ½ x 21/2. In the darkroom we used DeVere enlargers in 5x4 format. My business partner at the time would not look at sub miniature cameras and thought they suited the `fashion` guys down to the ground. Take lots of shots and you are bound to get a good one eventually. At the time the studio worked in the field of industrial photography, which was either very small bits of kit or huge lumps of machinery. All this happened many years ago and it is not until recent times that I have taken an interest in photography again
A 10x8 is in a whole league of its own. I have used, for studio work a Linhoff mono rail in 5x4 format and on site the `Baby Linhoff` which was in 3 ½ x 21/2. In the darkroom we used DeVere enlargers in 5x4 format. My business partner at the time would not look at sub miniature cameras and thought they suited the `fashion` guys down to the ground. Take lots of shots and you are bound to get a good one eventually. At the time the studio worked in the field of industrial photography, which was either very small bits of kit or huge lumps of machinery. All this happened many years ago and it is not until recent times that I have taken an interest in photography again
In reply to Post #1221
Well I have not been in my darkroom for years now, just sold my 6x6 gear and film processor
And totally agree with workflow back then, one of my heroes is still using kodak ir film even though it's not made anymore he has loads in his freezer !!!
The amount of dodging and burning that goes into his work is mind blowing and if you have any time in a darkroom you will understand why
I rarely use Photoshop to change any aspect of the image all my work is done through aperture and I find it gives me the results I like with less hassle
Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop too but I feel it has it's place slot of peole can overdo what's needed and the image seen at point of pressing the shutter is not what you get at the end of the process
Each to their own I find , as for taking the same shots of the same objects and monuments
All it takes is a little thought to be different and digital is great for this as you can see what you get and make a change accordingly till you get the result you want
I have a few ideas myself on a few places but still in the planning stages
Well I have not been in my darkroom for years now, just sold my 6x6 gear and film processor
And totally agree with workflow back then, one of my heroes is still using kodak ir film even though it's not made anymore he has loads in his freezer !!!
The amount of dodging and burning that goes into his work is mind blowing and if you have any time in a darkroom you will understand why
I rarely use Photoshop to change any aspect of the image all my work is done through aperture and I find it gives me the results I like with less hassle
Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop too but I feel it has it's place slot of peole can overdo what's needed and the image seen at point of pressing the shutter is not what you get at the end of the process
Each to their own I find , as for taking the same shots of the same objects and monuments
All it takes is a little thought to be different and digital is great for this as you can see what you get and make a change accordingly till you get the result you want
I have a few ideas myself on a few places but still in the planning stages
In reply to Post #1208
In reply to Post #1223
Puff balls Peter?
Is the image upside-down ??
Puff balls Peter?
Is the image upside-down ??
In reply to Post #1223
no ev mushrooms in my garden
no ev mushrooms in my garden