[erond]

It’s logos and advertising that make my brain go into “something wrong” mode on miniatures. I think it’s a case of “if it’s clear enough to read, the person put way too much work into trivial detail”.

I have an image that I’m fighting with because I can’t effectively crop a billboard out, and it’s distracting to the rest of the image along with “why is there a detailed ad?”

[erond]

Tilt shift with tiltshiftmaker:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/3609055879/

With selective masking in Gimp:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/3609055871/

The Gimp version needs some fine-tuning, but compare the two tall buildings in the middle of the image.

[erond]

How creative can we get with local adjustments? Is “no spot adjustments” in full force, but you can do something like a gradient-mask blur or, in keeping with how a true T/S lens actually changes the focal plane, you you selectively mask/adjust the image to give the same effect (e.g. a really tall building will have the top blurred with global processing, but a T/S lens would keep it mostly in focus).

[erond]

Tilt-shift meets wide-angle. It’s really hard to get a good DoF at wide-angle even with tilt-shift.

I try to shoot realistic/natural (no special effects in post). but I’m not really feeling the effect with these shots:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/sets/72157619266538411/

For what it’s worth… I like them, especially the first two.

I’ll second that. Have you been using the tilt-shift website or doing everything manually in photoshop/gimp? I think I’ve been getting better results with the tilt-shift website than through gimp, but that could just be because I haven’t gotten the process for this in gimp down all that well yet.

Neither. I’ve been using an actual tilt/shift lens (Canon TS-E 24mm). It just seems like the innate huge DoF of a wide-angle makes it hard to get narrow DoF even using the tilt and shift features. Of course, I could also be using the lens wrong. 🙂

I touched-up the red train with a gradient-mask blur in Gimp:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/3601791637/

I think it does look a little bit better, but it offends my desire for “natural” images.

[erond]

Tilt-shift meets wide-angle. It’s really hard to get a good DoF at wide-angle even with tilt-shift.

I try to shoot realistic/natural (no special effects in post). but I’m not really feeling the effect with these shots:

[erond]

C’mon.. the 100-400mm is a dust pump, not a penis pump. 🙂

[erond]

I didn’t think I was going to have any for this week, but decided to get away from my normal literal interpretation.

Alas, this poor guy didn’t make the cut (it was a rough choice, though):

[erond]

OK… I really like the golden gate bridge one…

I like bridges. In this case, they seem to lend themselves pretty readily to the “you are looking at something really wide” intent.

[erond]

My “panoramic” is wide-angle (24-45mm) shots cropped 3:1.

Don’t know if these will be the final pics, but am I going down the right path?
http://flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/2794131644/sizes/o/in/set-72157594414561522/
http://flickr.com/photos/tenesmusphyre/2793281927/sizes/o/in/set-72157594414561522/

[erond]

Dang.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a contest, whether I participated or not, where there are so many “yeah, that looks right/good” shots.

[erond]

I’ve been looking for definitions of silhouette to see whether caradoc’s image was a “silhoette”, and found one reference to “… the primary subject…”, but other than one definition mentioning “primary”, everything else is just outlined, dark object against light foreground, etc.

I would tend to think that the photographer IS a silhouette, but the eyes (mine, at least) are caught by the model first which would diminish the impact.

And, just to throw a fly into the soup, dictionary.com has the following as some of the definitions:
n. “1. an outline of a solid object (as cast by its shadow) “
v. “1. project on a background, such as a screen, like a silhouette”

I think that as long as the “no shadows” restriction is followed that anything involving “dark object on a light background”-style or other definitions should be allowed and let the voters decide.

[erond]

Do bad exposures count?

This isn’t what I was going for (I’ve learned a lot since then about shooting birds against the sky… ;)), but one man’s mistake… ?

I wouldn’t argue it’s entry, but I wouldn’t vote for it either. It’s not all that attractive.

I probably wouldn’t vote for it either, even if I submitted it. 😉 It was just a sample I had at hand of various different sets of images that are “camera exposure isn’t what I wanted”, but could fit the theme.

[erond]

Do bad exposures count?

This isn’t what I was going for (I’ve learned a lot since then about shooting birds against the sky… ;)), but one man’s mistake… ?

[erond]

I’ve briefly played around with long-duration/ and multiple-flash exposure (dark room, long-exposure, position subject, flash – move – repeat), and was interesting but not impressive. More work would have probably got some “oooh” pictures. When the lighting is too bright to get a long exposure, use ND (neutral-density) filters (or even a big pair of sunglasses) over the lens. It reduces the amount of light and increases the needed exposure when you can’t get the film speed slow enough or the aperture small enough.

[Author]

Posts