04-21-10 – Potent Potables
-
Got it. It was certainly on topic, though!
Man, there were all kinds of pictures I could have used except for the fact that they’re potentially embarrassing and/or have people in them who would not want their picture posted. Sooo yeah, just two for me tonight.
I love your self portrait this week. I looked through the whole series. Have you considered doing the series again with multiple models? I think it could be even more fantastic.
Thanks alot!
I haven’t had the thought of repeating the series with other/multiple models, but I have thought about a different series making slides out of some of my other photos and projecting those onto a model. Basically, the thoughts in my head are using existing photos to project texture onto various abstract curves of the female form.
Thanks alot!
I haven’t had the thought of repeating the series with other/multiple models, but I have thought about a different series making slides out of some of my other photos and projecting those onto a model. Basically, the thoughts in my head are using existing photos to project texture onto various abstract curves of the female form.
oh! that sounds interesting. Good luck with it should you go through with it 🙂
Got it. It was certainly on topic, though!
Man, there were all kinds of pictures I could have used except for the fact that they’re potentially embarrassing and/or have people in them who would not want their picture posted. Sooo yeah, just two for me tonight.
Thanks! I’d intended to use a different one (the Beer Garden post) but I guess I brain-farted at work.
I could have gone waaaay back in my archives for some really amusing stuff, but we’re both entering stuff in the county & state fairs, and the deadline for those are both this week too 😛
Basically, the thoughts in my head are using existing photos to project texture onto various abstract curves of the female form.
Like a big rocket.
/nudge, nudge, know-what-I-mean
HAHAHAHA!
/Edited to add: I like where you’re headed with this, but I was actually thinking things like this and this.
HAHAHAHA!
/Edited to add: I like where you’re headed with this, but I was actually thinking things like this and this.
Those would look very cool especially if you could isolate the texture to the model only without using photoshop.
Here’s a quick lighting diagram of how I set up my shots, it’s just my sb600 on a cable bounced off a sheet of white foam core. The glass was further back than the flash.
Help!
I haven’t posted in a few weeks, and I seem to be having problems with imageshack (my usual hosting service).
Not sure if I am over the max image size (140kb). Anyone got any good free hosting service they can recommend?
Please?
Quite a few of us use flickr
I wondered about Flickr. That means getting a Yahoo account, right?
Actually, there appears to be a bigger problem: Fark is down…
Well I missed out on entries this week. Apparently all the drinking interrupted any decent photographing. Such is life. I should have entries next week, though. Lots of good material in that category.
I have a question about file sizes.
I resize my horizontal pictures to 600 by 450, and my file size is then around 140kb. Most farkers resize to around teh same size, yet there file size is much smaller; a couple of guys seem to have slightly larger dimensions, yet very small file sizes. How does that work? I would be delighted to reduce my file sizes if possible, unless it means shooting the original picture in a low quality format.
(And was Fark down for anyone else a few hours ago?)
I have a question about file sizes.
a lot of us use the “save for web” feature in photoshop. it allows you to select the file size in kb by selecting the quality. with a simple photo, subject against solid background, you can get a small file and decent quality. with a detailed photo you are going to have a bigger file for the same quality setting.
while the size in pixels and kb of the original plays a part in the re-sized photo it’s not the controlling factor. how simple or busy the photo is makes more of a difference. and the amount of detail usually can’t be seen well at 640 pixels which is why so many folks have the “bigger here” tag.
I have a question about file sizes.
a lot of us use the “save for web” feature in photoshop. it allows you to select the file size in kb by selecting the quality. with a simple photo, subject against solid background, you can get a small file and decent quality. with a detailed photo you are going to have a bigger file for the same quality setting.
Ah, thanks. No photoshop here. My image editor (which came with the camera) doesn’t have the feature, at least I don’t think it does.
While I appreacite how busy a photo is will affect file size, I was seeing a substantial difference for relatively similar pictures (bar and booze pictures!), which made me wonder.
- The topic ‘04-21-10 – Potent Potables’ is closed to new replies.
.
