[ennuipoet]

ZOINKS!

[ennuipoet]

I think including the inanimate is a good idea to increase participation. Face it, a lot of people are uncomfortable shooting portraits and most of us don’t have understanding and/or photogenic family 😆 I will be shooting the Village Halloween Parade tomorrow so I’ve got a lot of street photography opportunities where I plan on shooting trips for this theme, but most people don’t.

As usual, I think broader themes make for better threads.

[ennuipoet]

It snowed for about 8 hours here, we would’ve had several inches but the ground hasn’t enough time to get good and cold. I was hoping for some stronger Fall colors but most of the City is still green.

[ennuipoet]

To play Devil’s Advocate, photography is indeed story telling, but it’s *visual* story telling. In the creative writing classes I took in college, our professor always told us not to tell but to *show* by using the most descriptive, evocative language possible. Photography should be no different, especially because it’s a visual medium. Personally, I tend to stick to minimal descriptive stuff because I’d rather my photos stand (or not) on their own as much as possible. I think the photo in question certainly stands on its own.

So why do newspapers and magazines place their photographs within the context of the story they are reporting? It is a rare photograph (acknowledging there ARE photographs) that tell the WHOLE story. We craft images but without context most of these images are lost, we give to much credit to the audience to understand without the words.

[ennuipoet]

I think I took the pity vote (if no one knew who was in that box it wouldn’t have been so memorable and UMan technically has the lead.

We seem to forget that photography is a story telling medium, we spend so much time on technical details, working composition and exposure that we forget how important the story is. gambitsgirl, I believe you could’ve posted your shot without caption or content and most people would’ve understood immediately the story you were telling. The elements were simple, direct and powerful, the composition of the photograph gathered these elements in a coherent fashion and portrayed them for the audience in a way the could recognize and identify. Don’t apologize for telling a story well in a way your audience can comprehend, and don’t apologize for adding elements to the story to help them along. You took a good photograph and communicated a powerful story, you deserve the win.

[ennuipoet]

I’ll have to look into filesharing for a copy of Lightroom or PS if I decide to buy a legal one too.

Clearly, file sharing is illegal and wrong and anyone who searched for Adobe Lightroom 3 on Pirate Bay and downloaded a torrent like this:

http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5685901/SkZ-Adobe_LightRoom_3_%5BMULTI_FR_ENG_DE%5D_SK4NZ

and then installed that torrent on their computer in direct violation of copyright law would be wrong. Very, very wrong. Particularly in light of the absence of malware, the valid keys and ability to update. They would be illegal and wrong!

[ennuipoet]

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 is usually enough for me, though I have a slew of presets that I use. I also have Photoshop CS2 for heavy duty editing, but I rarely use if for Photography. LR is expensive, but worth the money….or, there are ways that one might use LR if they don’t mind some moral ambiguity.

[ennuipoet]

Early B’s and bad jokes

Striker…Striker…STRIKER!

Poor Frodo…never made it out of Bree

[ennuipoet]

When the roll is done (the winder won’t turn anymore, due to the film being taped to the supply spool), put it back in your changing bag along with an empty reload cartridge. Open the reload, take the film and tape off the 828 spool and attach it to the 35mm spool. Wind the entire length of film onto the 35mm spool, then remove the tape and spool from the other 828 roll. Put the 35mm spool inside the cartridge and cap it. It helps the snot-nosed teenagers at the local film counter if everything faces the same way a standard 35mm cartridge works. A seasoned developer at a pro-shop will figure it out if something’s backwards without any issue. Put some masking tape on the outside of the cartridge and write C-41 on it in big letters. I’ve had *cough*walmart*cough* people tell me “I can’t develop this because it doesn’t say C-41.”

Tell them:
a) It was shot in a non-standard camera, so spacing will be off. No, they did not screw something up.
b) Please don’t cut the negatives. You’ll be less likely to cut uncle Fred in half than they will if the cut the first frame and expect standard spacing from there out.
c) Please return your cartridge.

Then, go home and scan. Yay.

😀

[ennuipoet]

No, wait, never mind! It was Peta Pixel:

http://www.petapixel.com/2011/09/30/candies-photographed-in-water-drops/

With a lovely step by step of the shoot!

I KNEW I’d seen it before! 😀

[ennuipoet]

I love the gumball shot. I think it’s going to fast and furiously make it into the top few spots.

I’ve seen that shot before and it is driving me crazy trying to think of where! It was either a Flickr stream or the Strobist website, or one of the far too many photography related sites that I read. I may have even seen it in a photography book.

If nwdad pops up in this thread, please pass on where your photo has been featured, it’s driving me crazy! 😀

[ennuipoet]

+1 (always up for HDR)

[ennuipoet]

I’ll just leave this here. Consider it an early “B”:

Obviously. by Orionid, on Flickr

Some hold them for charity, some hold them for fancy dress, but when they’re held for pleasure, they’re the balls that I like best.

[ennuipoet]

Nice, put me down for #4 as well, there is a lovely harmony there!

I spent some time yesterday chasing Monarchs in flight at the park, which is a lot like trying to learn the Octaventral Heebiephone*, a pleasantly futile task.

*Special Nerd Bonus for getting this fairly obscure reference.

[ennuipoet]

I have Topaz In Focus which is a similar product. It works good for very slightly soft photos due to camera shake. However if you are shooting at higher ISO you get unacceptable grain very quickly before you clear up the shot. I wonder how it would work on a shot at a wide aperture, f1.2 – 2.8 where you miss focus a bit. My guess is it wouldn’t help at all.

I tend to run into the problem on my 70-200L which a beast of a lens (but that’s ok!) and forces me to choose between high ISO noise or a little bit of shake. So, do I get noise in camera, noise in software or a little loss of crispness when you zoom in? 99.9% I’ll take the shake. I would be curious to see, I think I will see if there is a trial of the Topaz.

[Author]

Posts