U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2011, 06:58 PM
 
10,845 posts, read 5,481,279 times
Reputation: 7453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Asking "what you guys think" is a way to encourage viewers to take a closer look. And a day later you can see the serious intent to engage in discussion too! If you think he expects to learn anything from you, please be aware that "gullible" is not listed in the dictionary any more.
...........or perhaps the OP was hoping for all praise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2011, 07:19 PM
 
Location: New Zealand
1,671 posts, read 3,771,387 times
Reputation: 2833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Asking "what you guys think" is a way to encourage viewers to take a closer look.
The fact that you keep insisting that these are worthy of "showing off", says volumes.

No offense to you, diddiyo, since you only said that you're looking for feedback, and never said that you're looking for praise only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2011, 07:38 PM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
The fact that you keep insisting that these are worthy of "showing off", says volumes.
I have never suggested any such thing. Nor would I ever claim they are not worthy of showing off.
Quote:
No offense to you, diddiyo, since you only said that you're looking for feedback, and never said that you're looking for praise only.
He didn't ask for praise only, but he also did not suggest he needed to learn basic photography either, particularly from folks who clearly don't understand basic photography themselves!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 01:00 AM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,157 posts, read 9,736,816 times
Reputation: 6927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
And in fact, when people say they have a calibrated monitor, it means almost nothing because they don't say what it is calibrated for, and they probably don't realize it makes a difference!
I use an Eye One Display 2 calibrator and the software that came with it. I'm sure that's not up to your impeccable photographic standards and that I'm a complete idiot, but you can blow it out yer pompous arse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 02:35 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,538 posts, read 4,161,098 times
Reputation: 1787
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdog View Post
I use an Eye One Display 2 calibrator and the software that came with it. I'm sure that's not up to your impeccable photographic standards and that I'm a complete idiot, but you can blow it out yer pompous arse.
Since you feel better hurling insults rather than discussing the topic, I assume you have a good
reason to suggest you are what you said. I certainly didn't say that, or find it necessary to post such remarks.

Regardless, why don't you tell us what your monitor is calibrated to? sRGB? aRGB? 6500K, 5500K, or 5000K? What gamma?

If you view an image on the web, then download it and send it to a printer (your hardware or to a custom outfit like mpix.com), does the print look the same as it did when viewed on the web?

In what way is your monitor calibrated?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 05:42 AM
 
447 posts, read 98,199 times
Reputation: 619
A lot of pompous asses on this board. There are pros, artists, and amateurs on this forum, but all that is important is it is a gathering for ones who like to take pictures.

As a amature hobbyist I like to take photographs for the main reason to preserve my memories of family and travels, but still try to grow learning photography to produce better photographs as I age. I been noticing a lot of snobby, pompous posters on this forum, not just this section. Such as us amateurs just arn't even worthy to respond to because we don't shoot to the expertise and skill set some can. I see that it is pointless in even trying to keep posting on this section of the forum. Get over yourself, modesty is a value in my opinion. I'm done on this section after now reading this thread, and for other reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 07:04 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,727 posts, read 11,496,064 times
Reputation: 9381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Did the OP say anything at all indicating he thought posting here was a way "to learn photography"? He posted thirty some pictures for people to look at! He's a lot more interested in showing off his work than he is in comments from a peanut gallery!

Incidentally, his style is not unlike what is commonly seen with other "car picture" photographers.
This forum is a place to show off photography, learning by sharing and asking for critique that the OP did. Let us stick with that idea, stick with critique of photographs posted as opposed to discussing the OP as a person much less based on assumptions about what he/she might be posting for. To me, the OP appears to be interested in genuine critique, recognizing flaws in photographs and asking for input.

As for a photographer's style, virtually each one of us is influenced by some great photographs we came across, and in your case, as you have admitted, you find influenced by some books that you read. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 12:16 PM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
6,157 posts, read 9,736,816 times
Reputation: 6927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson View Post
Since you feel better hurling insults rather than discussing the topic, I assume you have a good
reason to suggest you are what you said. I certainly didn't say that, or find it necessary to post such remarks.

Regardless, why don't you tell us what your monitor is calibrated to? sRGB? aRGB? 6500K, 5500K, or 5000K? What gamma?

If you view an image on the web, then download it and send it to a printer (your hardware or to a custom outfit like mpix.com), does the print look the same as it did when viewed on the web?

In what way is your monitor calibrated?
Hurling insults you say? Try reading your own posts, my friend. You wrote the book. It's an extremely common practice in photography forums that when critiquing others work that one mentions whether they are using a calibrated monitor or not, and not once have I ever heard anyone take a crack at that statement like you have. I could see attacking a person who claims they have a calibrated monitor if their opinion of a shot is so radically different than what the majority of folks see. But that is such a rare case that I can't recall it ever happening anywhere. To automatically brand somebody who says they're using a calibrated monitor as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is about as pompous a remark as I ever hope to see again. Case in point -- you AGREE than the images are dark, so my monitor calibration can't be total crap. (BTW, I don't disagree with your assessment that the image has a flat gamma curve, but that's a different topic.) So in a data-sample of one, you are proven wrong. So why the hell are you questioning my monitor calibration other than simply to argue the point?

Personally, when somebody says they calibrate their monitor, I take that at face value unless there's some overriding reason not to.

Color management is an extremely complex art, even more so than a science, and is completely beyond the scope of this thread. So I'm not getting sucked into dick jousting match on the topic with you here. However, I believe my work speaks for itself. You have the URL to my personal gallery and if you think my monitor is out of calibration by judging my work then I'm all ears. But I will warn you that I share my photos with photographers a hell of a lot better than you or I will ever be and no one has ever questioned my monitor calibration before. Not that it's perfect mind, you. Monitor calibration is more art than science. I don't think there's anything such thing as perfect because monitors themselves aren't perfect. But in my case, like most folks who take an interest in improving their monitors image rendering, it's better than an uncalibrated monitor.

I've read many articles and books on digital color management by a wide variety of authors, and I don't seem to recall any of them written by you. So for you to claim that you're better than most people in this regard is simply pompous and elitist.

Last edited by kdog; 10-05-2011 at 01:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Whittier
2,096 posts, read 2,067,994 times
Reputation: 1493
Some of the pics seem underexposed and as others have pointed out some of the focus points seem off.

And artistically they are boring.

When I take pictures of cars I personally try to isolate the subject as much as possible. Then I try to focus on a defining detail (much like the first gullwing shot) and then try to make that detail interesting.

Shooting a car next to a group of people only detracts from the photo, unless they are doing something interesting or adding to the photo.

To me, the art and composition of a photo means more than the technical aspect, but you need to have that grasp of the technical and the way light works to make even better photos.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-05-2011, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
30,727 posts, read 11,496,064 times
Reputation: 9381
I think a key word I would use intent. Sometimes, a photo will have a primary and secondary subject(s). In the first photograph, for example, the two cars flanking the Mercedes would be secondary. The next point to address would be, do I want those two cars to show with recognizable prominence or not? Or do I want to show them at all? If I were to choose the former, with some prominence, I would look for the best combination of DOF and the detail, to blur out the background vehicles while preserving and maximizing detail on the tail through the doors (partially or almost full).

The lens doesn’t seem to do a good job at blurring out the back drop. I would have chosen a longer focal length, smaller aperture and made full use of DOF preview (on the lens and/or the camera body) to adjust to the appearance I want. This also applies to the third photograph which actually demonstrates the intent that a series of cars were to be visible at least to some degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top