Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (9915.101)
    Sitting on the seafront yesterday as a big load of storm-looking clouds came rolling in.

    Storm Builds 6 - Edited

    Storm Builds

    Storm Builds 2

    Full set here
    • CommentTimeJul 8th 2011
    Those are ferocious! I love the ones looming over the town.
  2.  (9915.103)




    • CommentTimeJul 9th 2011 edited
    i've been busy...

    world deaf cycling championships at Mont-Tremblant, Quebec last month:

    WDCC - 2011
    my fiancee at the opening ceremony for the Cycling Championship

    WDCC - 2011
    one part of the mountain biking course

    WDCC - 2011
    the first time we have a womens' team competing in the championship

    WDCC - 2011
    one of the Norse cyclists

    WDCC - 2011
    a Japanese cyclist crashed on the curve. ended up with a fractured shoulder.

    and then i went elsewhere to film a music video, translating from French to LSQ
    RAP-sourds music video
    it's an unprocessed still, hoping to have everything done by the end of july.

    /oh forgot to add: i'll be leaving tmw to fly off to south africa until the end of the month. quite a boing life i have ;)
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    JonCarpenter, those are scary! i especially love the last two.

    Robin, of course you have a style - you know, those edges that pop, and the sepia-seep in every colour...

    Bankara, thanks! and it's good to hear you use presets; sometimes it seems like cheating, but you guys are right: gotta fake it 'til you make it.
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    Some good discussion about process - too often there is a tendency (I see this on flickr a LOT) to take a bad shot and spend way too much time working on it - cropping, tweaking, going crazy with filters, etc.- to try and save a shot that wasn't worth saving to begin with. It part of the learning process, I suppose. I used to post just about everything I shot - now I try to be ruthless, and toss out anything that I didn't nail "in the camera". A good photo can be turned into a great one with proper processing, (and ruined by bad processing) but the best processing in the world will not save a bad photo.

    Reliance on auto-everything digital cameras gives a false sense of ability - turn off all those features, and set aperture and shutter speed manually, and select your own focus, don't let the camera decide for you. You're gonna get some crap photos (a LOT of crap photos) but eventually, you will start to get consistent results, and really understand WHY it's working, rather than letting a chip in a camera do the work for you. Discipline is the name of the game - always work on proper exposure and composition, and if you don't get it right in a particular shot, THROW IT AWAY. (I NEVER crop photos, for example, get the composition you want when you take the shot!) Don't spend hours trying to save something, just take it as a lesson learned, and strive to do better next time.
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    For cropping, sometimes it's necessary, especially when you're doing sports. The timing or location doesn't allow the chance for good composition oftentimes, so you have to crop it some in post. there's exceptions to every rule, but it's what works for me.
    Doing studio, portrait or planned shots, cropping shouldn't be an option, like Coop says. it's an indicator of a lack of skill. Practice more, which means shoot more. With digital today, pictures are free now (minus the gear purchase, of course) there's no reason now to not shoot every day and analyze your work after.
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    My favourite picture of the summer:

    Taken at the annual Rochester Steampunk Picnic (this little princess came out from Buffalo, though).
  3.  (9915.109)
    It's easy to say you should strive to get everything done in camera when you're working in a studio setting or have a good deal of control over the shoot. It's a good ideal to strive for because it forces you to try and master your tools. But it's a philosophy that's not always practical to follow.


    I feel this is a strong image. You all may not agree and that's fine. This had to be cropped down from the original because I was using a prime lens, in a thick crowd, pointing at the sky. I had to compose quickly and move on because otherwise I was going to get run over by a gang of parents with strollers.

    If I left it as was, I'd have more sky and a few skulls. Those would have taken away from the drummer and his pretty awesome expression leaving it a weaker image.

    Though I do agree with the idea of being more selective in what you show to people. It's easier to maintain the illusion you're competent when no one sees your finger hanging around the edges of the photo.

    And pet peeve: By Crom, HDR is only good in a very few select situations! It's like Auto-tune. Can be done well. Often isn't.
    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    COOP is a much better photographer than I, but I disagree with the theory that everything should be done in camera. When I'm out shooting I do try to nail each shot as if there was no darkroom and no post-processing -- working on technique, shooting in different semi-manual modes (mostly aperture priority).

    Then when I get back home I process the raw files with a variety of intents. Sometimes I process to try to produce exactly the shot I imagined during the capture. Other times I process to turn the shot into something completely new -- often an image which I did not see or imagine until viewing the capture on the computer monitor.

    Regardless, if you shoot raw you're going to use the darkroom to make at a minimum the same series of decisions on saturation, white balance, sharpness, etc. that the camera algorithms would have in producing the jpg or tif. This work flow gives you a second chance (and a second creative process) to achieve the zen moment of creating a new image.
  4.  (9915.111)
    My whole issue with tweaking in post is that when I'm out shooting I'm trying my damnedest to get an accurate representation of what my eyes are seeing in that moment. By the time I get home I've obviously forgotten how it looked in the moment, so any attempts to correct the image feel weird to me (also since I don't have a professionally calibrated display, what might look fine on my screen could look like shit on somebody else's, or when printed, and I have no way of knowing). The only exception is when I do astrophotography, because no matter how dark it is when I'm shooting, a ten minute exposure is going to soak up whatever ambient light there is and make the black parts of the sky not quite black any more, so I'll tweak the white balance to bring it back down.

    Which is not to say that I am making any sort of value judgement on other peoples' process. It's just my philosophy for my own stuff.

    ANYWAY... I went out to the beach on Saturday night to take some farewell shots:

    • CommentTimeJul 10th 2011
    Not everybody has to agree with me, obviously - I started getting serious again about photography a few years ago after getting burned out on painting, and part of the reason is that (to me) photography is meant to be done in an instant, and live with the results, good or bad. This was in reaction to spending ever-longer periods of time working on the same painting.

    The "no cropping" rule for me also has a lot to do with my love of Cartier-Bresson, who was also very hardcore about it. My rules are my own, and your mileage may vary.
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011




    it's weird because i know that, i'm once i'm done posting all these nice-looking, photoshop-free photos, i'm going to go back to the "rejected crap" folder and then do a bunch of photoshopping to salvage everything that's left.
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
    Whether people prefer to work completely in-camera or work on the photos extensively in post, I think we can all agree that the folks on either side who feel they are superior because of that choice are GIANT douchebags.

    Yes? Yes?
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
    i've conditions, so i'm only half a d-bag. rock!
  5.  (9915.116)
    @oldhat: Yes.
  6.  (9915.117)
    I'm going to add a tuppence worth, because it is the internet and I HAZ OPPINYUNZ DAMMIT.

    I sit on the fence with the 'no cropping' idea, I think it's a great aspiration to want to compose entirely in camera (and I respect Cartier Bresson's hardcoreness!), and it's what I try for most of the time, just sometimes it doesn't work - particularly on some of the floral macros I do where I might be photographing something so small it won't adequately fill the frame. Or I might want to crop to a square for a particular impact. Or there might be a distracting detail that I can't remove without breaking the plant or its surrounding plants, but I can crop out afterwards. But I will always shoot mindful of the final crop - I can't be bothered trying to rescue stuff, I think COOP's entirely right on that.

    I also had a really hard time coming to terms with post-processing. I learned to take pictures primarily with slide film and when I switched to digital I went through a long period of thinking all my pictures were rubbish because they didn't look like Velvia no matter how great the light was when I shot them, it was ages before I grew to treat digital images like negatives rather than transparencies. Depressingly, most of my creative endeavours have been hamstrung by these sorts of stupid mental hangups...

    I think we can all agree that the folks on either side who feel they are superior because of that choice are GIANT douchebags.

    I'm sure I've posted before on here about this, but I remember with glee an incident where somebody posted a couple of Cartier Bressons on a photo nerd forum asking for feedback and a bunch of these people nitpicked the images to death (because they weren't cropped, weren't sharp in places etc etc). Not that he should be immune from criticism of course, but it's so easy to miss the point of a picture by obsessing over technicalities...
  7.  (9915.118)
    I find the above stunt unacceptable because it does assume that famous means being above criticism.

    Your approach is your approach and anyone who doesn't like it can go to eich ee double hockey sticks. But that doesnt mean your approach and your results are above being argued over as well.

    In the end, everything from lenses to photoshop all just tools in the belt. Use them as they're needed. Just use them well.
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011 edited
    The stunt was in the delete-me group in Flickr (unless it has happened elsewhere too). In this case it was about pointing out how the comments were more about tearing apart photographs and nitpicking instead of different ways of looking at things. And making flickr explore. Very groupthink type of group. And yes, it was a stunt, and it was snotty. There's probably been other bits of flickr drama since that I'm oblivious since I've not frequented the groups there in a long time.

    I tend to do little post processing, but that has mostly to do with the fact that it feels like homework and I do photography for fun. When it's not fun, I don't really do any. I'd love to see what someone who is brilliant at working a photo do stuff with mine just to see how much better they could be. I respect both sides and those in between - they all create some great photos/art. Right now, I'm learning to be pickier with what I keep.

    And to make up for all the babbling, a photo:
    edit: wrong photo
    • CommentTimeJul 11th 2011
    "I tend to do little post processing, but that has mostly to do with the fact that it feels like homework and I do photography for fun."

    That's part of it for me, too.

    BTW, I hope nobody thought I was laying a "YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG" down on everyone, far from it.