Kazooie Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 To be honest, your photography isn't good at all. There is no obvious subject. I just don't like it. If you go onto a professional photography forum they would tell you they hated your photos. Give up on this and do something else. I ice my wrist because I piss on glitches You can suck my diznick if you can take this pizzes You don't like my disses, give my butt some kisses Yeah you know what this is, cause it is the bizness EDIT: Oh darn, you got me stared... Here we go! Cause I pull up and I'm stuntin but I ain't a stunt man Yes I'm rockin jordans but I ain't a jumpmaaan Glitches play the back cause they know I'm the front man Put me on their dollar cuz I'm who they trust in Ayo Kazoo, what the fudges good? We ship platinum, them does be shipping wood Them nappy headed does, but in my kitchen's good I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish, I wish a dude WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUULLLLD take good photos Your thoughts would me so much more appreciated if give realistic reasons instead of making asinine comments that you obviously know nothing about. How about instead of being an idiot you go read some books and learn about photography? Link to comment
Kazooie Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 How about instead of posting your images in my thread you post your stuff in a thread you create. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 How about instead of posting your images in my thread you post your stuff in a thread you create. I wanted you to critique them. Link to comment
Bishop Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 A picture of it mating would have been a good shot or maybe something like fighting a bear or pack or squirrels. Looking at you would have made it a great shot even. This is what makes photography hard. Getting shots of animal asses and other uninteresting shots is just part of it. Sent plenty to the trash can myself. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 A picture of it mating would have been a good shot or maybe something like fighting a bear or pack or squirrels. Looking at you would have made it a great shot even. This is what makes photography hard. Getting shots of animal asses and other uninteresting shots is just part of it. Sent plenty to the trash can myself. Aminal Panet has plenty of animal sex tapes if you care to watch. Just YouTube it. Link to comment
Kazooie Posted April 30, 2012 Author Share Posted April 30, 2012 I wanted you to critique them. No. Please remove your images from my thread, or I will report you. A picture of it mating would have been a good shot or maybe something like fighting a bear or pack or squirrels. Looking at you would have made it a great shot even. This is what makes photography hard. Getting shots of animal asses and other uninteresting shots is just part of it. Sent plenty to the trash can myself. Hmm, I can see what you mean. I did have one of her looking at me, but the bit of snow was directly behind her head and really overexposed. I figured that the snow would be too distracting. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 No. Please remove your images from my thread, or I will report you. I did. You're welcome. Link to comment
Bishop Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 with each picture you post, I start to question what camera you use. To be honest, they all look like they were taken with a cell phone. I was suprised when you mentioned the moose was 15 feet away. the image quality looks like it was taken from 150 feet away with a low end 55-250mm lens. The old man is so out of focus that if it wasn't for the shallow depth of field being noticed, it could easily pass for a lower end cell phone image. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 with each picture you post, I start to question what camera you use. To be honest, they all look like they were taken with a cell phone. I was suprised when you mentioned the moose was 15 feet away. the image quality looks like it was taken from 150 feet away with a low end 55-250mm lens. The old man is so out of focus that if it wasn't for the shallow depth of field being noticed, it could easily pass for a lower end cell phone image. +1 Might I add there was no obvious subject in the picture of the old man. Link to comment
Bishop Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Might I add there was no obvious subject in the picture of the old man. It's obvious that the subject is the old man. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 It's obvious that the subject is the old man. I didn't get that. I was more focused on what was behind him. I try to look at things abstractly. Link to comment
alaskan84 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 While I think most all amateur photographers have room for improvement, I like your photos man. There is some definite improvement from the start of your thread. Link to comment
Kazooie Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 with each picture you post, I start to question what camera you use. To be honest, they all look like they were taken with a cell phone. I was suprised when you mentioned the moose was 15 feet away. the image quality looks like it was taken from 150 feet away with a low end 55-250mm lens. The old man is so out of focus that if it wasn't for the shallow depth of field being noticed, it could easily pass for a lower end cell phone image. No offense, but I don't really understand how you see them like that. Could you please elaborate? While I think most all amateur photographers have room for improvement, I like your photos man. There is some definite improvement from the start of your thread. Thanks... I think. Lately I've been experimenting with different subjects, techniques, ect. The one of the old man, which was titled 'Vivid Sleep' (because of the colors of the sign in the background) had a small f-number because I wanted to draw attention to his eye, to create a bond between the viewer and subject. Granted, some of my more recent ones are, to say the least, funky. But the best way to learn is through failure, so I'd say I'm learning some. Another experiment. The goal I had in mind was that you had to look at it twice, once to glance, then a second time to realize that it is the silhouette of a girl. The new thing for me about this was intentional heavy blurring, which I believe works quite well here. Link to comment
yoshii Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The one of the old man is grainy, but looks kinda cool Another experiment. The goal I had in mind was that you had to look at it twice, once to glance, then a second time to realize that it is the silhouette of a girl. The new thing for me about this was intentional heavy blurring, which I believe works quite well here. I've been staring at this for too long and I still don't see a silhouette of a girl? Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 The one of the old man is grainy, but looks kinda cool I've been staring at this for too long and I still don't see a silhouette of a girl? I think the dark spots are hair? Correct me if I'm wrong... Link to comment
Bishop Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 No offense, but I don't really understand how you see them like that. Could you please elaborate? Some of them could just be the way they are handled when uploaded to a picture hosting site but they always look extremely soft. There is no sharpness to the images at all. It's clearly not camera shake or blur. they are just simply super soft like if they were shot with a cheap lens at wide open aperture and a 100% crop cut out. The old man shot really bothers me because it is so out of focus and soft that all of his beard is blurred together. I could understand more if it were a shot in very dim lighting and the ISO was pegged out to get a proper exposure. Link to comment
Kazooie Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 The one of the old man is grainy, but looks kinda cool I've been staring at this for too long and I still don't see a silhouette of a girl? Thanks. The lower darkspot is her eye, the upper her eyebrow. The line connecting is shadow. Some of them could just be the way they are handled when uploaded to a picture hosting site but they always look extremely soft. There is no sharpness to the images at all. It's clearly not camera shake or blur. they are just simply super soft like if they were shot with a cheap lens at wide open aperture and a 100% crop cut out. The old man shot really bothers me because it is so out of focus and soft that all of his beard is blurred together. I could understand more if it were a shot in very dim lighting and the ISO was pegged out to get a proper exposure. I think I might know the problem. When I re-size them for upload, I (just recently) found out I was setting them too small and so they were getting stretched out on all the forums I post on. Granted, I do only have cheap lenses, but I've never gotten about f11 or lower than f4.5, and I try to keep the ISO about 800 or so, unless it's glaringly bright out or something. But again, the one of the old man had an intentionally low f-number, because I wanted the focus point to be his eye. Could it be your computer screen by any chance? Or do the other viewers see it as well? For the most part, I do try to include at least one section to be blurred to counteract the rest of it. Link to comment
yoshii Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Thanks. The lower darkspot is her eye, the upper her eyebrow. The line connecting is shadow. Granted, I do only have cheap lenses, but I've never gotten about f11 or lower than f4.5, and I try to keep the ISO about 800 or so, unless it's glaringly bright out or something. Oh I saw that, I thought you meant it was a full body silhouette 800 ISO? gah.. Link to comment
Kazooie Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 Oh I saw that, I thought you meant it was a full body silhouette 800 ISO? gah.. Nah, just a closeup. From what some other people have been saying, it helps if you look at it from a little farther away. What's wrong with 800? It's a nice number for darker rooms and low-light outsides alike. Link to comment
castiel Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Nice shots of the girl, the colours in her dress really pop. The background isn't great though ... then again sometimes you just have to work with what you get. Link to comment
Euphyllia Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Oh yay I was right! The dark spots were hair! You should make that picture black and white. That would be as fly as a pencil box. Wer ist sie? EDIT: Sorry, forgot... Qui est-ce? Link to comment
mmcguffi Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Nice shots of the girl, the colours in her dress really pop. The background isn't great though ... then again sometimes you just have to work with what you get. -1 I think the background is great! great pics, great colors! Imagine you just took the ideal photo of the most ideal subject. For example, your taking pictures of all your favorite girls at the concert. lol what a creep i mean fer srsly Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.