I agree Jason, the invention of digital photography has revitalized the hobby and in a sense brought it to the 21st century.

I do believe that film is a great medium to learn in. Slide film acts much like our digital images. Very narrow dynamic ranges and rather unforgiving. I think in time, digital technology may infact begin to duplicate texture found in film. I'm going to hazard a guess that it will either be Sigma or Fuji that does it.

In anycase, telling people to use film is only one half of the equation. If they use film, but don't write their exposures down and analyze them later it's of no use either. As well, different films have different qualities in that pushing or pulling the film may enhance your photographs. Hmmm... I feel another workshop coming on...

Oh and Mike, I sensed the sarcasm. I just don't want newbies and other amateurs getting in their head that the equipment makes that big of a difference.

It's funny... go into any pro-audio forum and you hear almost the exact same things about the advent of digital audio, especially in the last dozen years or so. People recording in their basements now, who have no idea about audio or techniques or laying down good tracks in the first place... just fix it all later in ProTools, chop chop. People making music who have no business making music because they didn't learn it the hard way...

And yet, more musicians, some of whom ARE worth hearing but may never had got the chance before, can now share their music because they don't NEED to go into an expensive studio to record a full pro-sounding album.

It was funny (and slightly distressing), when I was working at CDIS, we'd regularly get video students who didn't want to mess around with the analog decks and switches and learning how to do manual sync and transitions and such, all the old-school systems - they just wanted to grab the fancy DV cameras and start slicing stuff up in Premiere...

Dynamic range was a little high so it's pretty hot where the sun hits the lighter colored trees. But, I really liked the reflection and wasn't able to wait 4 hours for the sun to go down... here it is anyway.

http://www.justin.threesixtyphoto.co...s/IMG_0301.jpg

I loved the texture of the tree. I decided to tint the black and white to a red color to give it some warmth.

http://www.justin.threesixtyphoto.co...s/IMG_0261.jpg

^ Very nice shots! :)

Here's one a snapped last night. I wanted to show the sunset most importantly, then our yard, and then the city.

I think it might look a little surreal though because the yard is "lite up" but the city isn't. Comments?

http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/2...522copyrg1.jpg

More Pender Island
 

here are a few more from my trip..


http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/3492/img0783px1.jpg

and

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/1711/img0898zm1.jpg

Out shooting yesterday. Here they are. Enjoy!

http://www.pbase.com/nevermorez/imag...7223/large.jpg


http://www.pbase.com/nevermorez/imag...3976/large.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/nevermorez/imag...4113/large.jpg

Exposure looks good overall, it does look a tad interesting with the exposure differences between the rest of the city and your yard.

The tilt in the horizon doesn't add to the photograph.

I would say that as a photograph composition, too many things are fighting for my attention.

Re: More Pender Island
 

I definitely like the first one. It has character to it. The saturation and contrast are very fitting to the photograph.

The second one I like the concept, but I find the clamshell may be a little washed out in the photograph. A little more contrast or punch to it would promote more balance to the photograph.

I'm going to try a different type of critique. I think it may help some people in the forum. Hope you don't mind Jerry.

Here it goes:
Your exposure is off. My guess is about +.75EV. You tried to save it in PS, but in actuality, your dynamic range is WAY to far apart. By the looks of it you are in a dynamic range of about 8-10 steps.

1 - The highlight is completely white where it should be, which tells me that the face would have been very dark. I can see a reflecting substance of some sort used to bounce light back on her face. It's situated on camera left and looks to be fairly even to her body. For some reason, I'm guessing it wasn't enough. You lightened the area but it's not enough as the skin is still grey in color. If you did use a reflector you did well in feathering the light so as not to cause your subject to squint. I can't see it being a flash as I don't see a glimmer in her eye that would indicate so.
2 - There is a significant contrast difference between the bottom of her pants and the blouse she's wearing. This tells me that in post processing you've already tried to create more contrast. Either by vignetting or by adjustments.
3 - If your image is slightly washed out, I'm guessing that you are getting lens glare. Judging by where the sun is coming from (using it as a kicker/highlight) light would have bounced into your lens, giving you a washed over kinda look. If it was intentional, then great. For some reason, I don't think it is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

4 - There is a fair lack of shadow depth in her face. It looks a little flat to me. The only other way I can think of getting that would be that you exposed for the subject at +0.75EV to wash out details intentionally.

WHAT I THINK IS SUCCESSFUL OF THE PHOTO:

1- The pose is natural, she's not uptight. Good spacing of hands and good tilt of the head to promote balance in the photograph.

2 - The idea of using the sun as the highlight. I think it helps bring life to your image

WHAT I THINK CAN BE IMPROVED:

1 - Shaving off the knuckles of her left hand sucks. Yes intimate is great, but more of her had would go missing if the person were to matte and frame the image.

2 - Controlling flare and lighting ratios. The image is good overall, but I think that out of the camera, it may have needed more caressing (Is this a correct assumption?)


For Jerry: I will critique the others in private for you so I don't bog up the thread.

For the rest of the people in this forum:

Was this a useful way of critiquing for you?

Fine with me.

is this critique or is this fortune telling? all of the "I can see that your last life", " i can see your next life" stuff haha


just kidding. yeah that's what i wish we can have, experienced photographers sharing their insights! sounds great, now i should start taking pictures!

by the way i think a gold reflector is used in that picture? isn't Gold for sunset shots and stuff?

the exposure is fairly weird on the shots with the blue shirt, but i really like the one with the black and white outfit and her sitting in the shade..that one works very well.

Who's the girl :). Haha

Gold reflector would be stronger. She'd practically be yellow.

My new found model. She is fun to work with. Heehee :D

Your gf know about this? haha. Why is she fun to work with ;).

Felt like so long since my last post...

http://www3.telus.net/peazs/mar07/IM...ited_small.jpg

Spent a couple hours at lighthouse park tonight..


http://www.dynamicperceptions.com/ph...ure%20360_.jpg



Cheerios,
~S

beautiful salar! :) i'm jealous

Wow everyone is really stepping up their photos lately, the last couple pages have some reeeally good stuff on them. Amazing work people!

Have I stepped up my photography too :D

Stuck in my bubble of confusion

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/175/4...4a335098_o.jpg

^ phat/fat! :D

GORGEOUS!!

Is that pic made up of multiple exposures? How long was the shutter open?

Fab shot Salar. I love the warm tone, the use of foreground to lead to the lighthouse. I do have a couple of questions though:

1) Is it barrel distortion that makes me feel the horizon is off slightly?
2) On the monitor that I'm looking at it with, I see banding in the water. Did you shoot JPG or RAW?

One more before I hit the bed

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/4...7cadd25b_o.jpg