The "Ive taken a pic and I kinda like it" thread

[CrippsCorner]

That looks wicked mate. I might enter a competition at work which is black and white only, and must be of building/architecture around the hospital... any tips!?

 

[Geddes]

That looks wicked mate. I might enter a competition at work which is black and white only, and must be of building/architecture around the hospital... any tips!?

Thanks, i saw it as a leading line lol. See things much more differently now. Shooting building and architecture is one of many areas i really want to get into too and a weak point for me. I think you need to look for leading lines, get a main point of the building in the centre of the shot??. How about standing up close to a building and pointing the camera up at a certain point and angle say 3/4 of the building and 1/4 of it clouds?

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

@Geddes Don't get hung up on view counts/favs etc. It's not the be all and end all..
Have a look on Flickr explore. You'll see some very average shots (imo) with ridiculous views and favs, then you can spot another shot which you think is superb with very little interaction.

Your previous shot is edited pretty nice imo. Nice bw conversion too.


@kayzee Which hospital is it? Is it modern looking, old? Might be some decent angles.

 

[Designn]

This as I was leaving the farm yesterday. Love practically living in the country sometimes.

 

[Tonys]

@Geddes I like it mate, looks good in the black and white too. Aaron's right, don't worry too much about views etc... just carry on with what your doing, its going well.


Been trying to get down and get this shot for a while. Pretty pleased with the timing.....


To Find Another Race by
Tony Sellen, on Flickr

 

[Geddes]

@Tonys @Aaron.. thanks. I'll try and not get worked up over it, it's my anxiety kicking in.

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

First and foremost, photography should be something that you enjoy. If others enjoy the images you create than that's a bonus.

 

[Yanoo]

First and foremost, photography should be something that you enjoy. If others enjoy the images you create than that's a bonus.

I absolutely agree with you.

 

[Yanoo]

Here is a fresh pic from me, taken yesterday. Repetition is one of my favourite theme.


┘┘┘┘┘┘┘┘┘┘ by <-Y->, on Flickr

 

[Geddes]

quit like that one like. Got it lined up in the bottom left and top right. Is repetition like abstract?

 

[Yanoo]

Repetition is similar to abstract but it is closer to pattern or texture.

 

[Mr Burns]

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

A couple more from Italy. I'll probably sort a thread out once I've edited more.


Veneza by Aaron, on Flickr


The Gondolas by Aaron, on Flickr

 

[Yanoo]

Sunrays by <-Y->, on Flickr

 

[CrippsCorner]

Thanks, i saw it as a leading line lol. See things much more differently now. Shooting building and architecture is one of many areas i really want to get into too and a weak point for me. I think you need to look for leading lines, get a main point of the building in the centre of the shot??. How about standing up close to a building and pointing the camera up at a certain point and angle say 3/4 of the building and 1/4 of it clouds?

I took this one ages ago just on my iPhone, pretty crap but I do like aiming high lol...

 

[Geddes]

I took this one ages ago just on my iPhone, pretty crap but I do like aiming high lol...

Yeah something like that, need a tripod or something to get it dead centre and you know it wont move. Try get in closer if you can. That's the sort of stuff i'm trying to attempt in Liverpool next weekend lol. Fingers crossed. As for the clouds, you need good cloud formation i think over cast is a no. A good break up with blue sky will be good or even a long shutter speed depending on weather

 

[CrippsCorner]

@Geddes Don't get hung up on view counts/favs etc. It's not the be all and end all..
Have a look on Flickr explore. You'll see some very average shots (imo) with ridiculous views and favs, then you can spot another shot which you think is superb with very little interaction.

Your previous shot is edited pretty nice imo. Nice bw conversion too.


@kayzee Which hospital is it? Is it modern looking, old? Might be some decent angles.

Southend, there's modern and old...

Need to just take my camera to work and walk around with it I think

 

[Geddes]

i can see some good lines on the roof/white windows of the first pic, esp on the overhang on the far left, i'd look there first. And the send pic straight up shot i think for that one???

 

[Geddes]

Still not happy with the editing, as soon as it goes into JPEG it goes darker. Any one have any ideas? It's very annoying. Had a pop down to Seaham after work, spent 3 hours on this beach the clouds on the horizon were pretty good like. Next lens is going to be a Wide Lens something like 24-70mm. Really need to concentrate on my landscapes like. This course i'm doing every week there's homework and every week it's something different this weeks is Portaits and i have no clue how to compose the shot and tell people what to do lol.
F-11 AT 250th sec, i think i should of changed to F16 should of had enough shutter speed to give it more depth/detail in the cloud, does that sound right??

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

What are you using to edit? It might be something in the export/save settings.

I thought you had a 24-105 lens? If so, you don't need to buy a 24-70 unless it's going to be a 2.8

Id look even wider depending on your budget. There's a Canon 8-15 mm I think but off the top of my head it's not cheap.

Or, if you fancy a manual lens, there are 16mm 2.8 zenitar from Russia for £99 plus p&p which is what I might go for next,they are pretty solid and it'll be decent for night scapes.

 

[Geddes]

What are you using to edit? It might be something in the export/save settings.

I thought you had a 24-105 lens? If so, you don't need to buy a 24-70 unless it's going to be a 2.8

Id look even wider depending on your budget. There's a Canon 8-15 mm I think but off the top of my head it's not cheap.

Or, if you fancy a manual lens, there are 16mm 2.8 zenitar from Russia for £99 plus p&p which is what I might go for next,they are pretty solid and it'll be decent for night scapes.

Yeah i have the 24-105 Aaron, I think i was meaning the 17-40mm F/4 lens for the price. Nah not manual lenses.

I'm using Elements 11 and that's all i have apart from the DPP that i got from Canon but far prefer to use Photoshop. Lightroom will be really good for me but i don't think i need it at the miinute.

Do you think it could be in the settings like Aaron?

 

[Geddes]

All i can see is 2 big black squares, can't see my pics at all. If you lot can see them, one is a colour and the other in B&W, wasnt happy with the tide this time round

 

[Geddes]

I've literately got no f**king patience with this at the minute

 

[Scott™]

Been a while since I showed my face in here. Some lovely pictures as per guys.

 

[Scrooge]

Over edited but I liked the finished result. The camera wasn't my main priority today and 'id had a few Ciders before I even got it out...

Romney Marsh 5 by Ant McCreadie, on Flickr

Romney Marsh 3 by Ant McCreadie, on Flickr

Romney Marsh 1 by Ant McCreadie, on Flickr

 

[Yanoo]

Yeah i have the 24-105 Aaron, I think i was meaning the 17-40mm F/4 lens for the price. Nah not manual lenses.

I'm using Elements 11 and that's all i have apart from the DPP that i got from Canon but far prefer to use Photoshop. Lightroom will be really good for me but i don't think i need it at the miinute.

Do you think it could be in the settings like Aaron?

Why not manual lenses? An ultra wide lens has very big DOF, it gives sharp result from 2-3 meter if the focus distance is set to infinite. Although I have AF UWA lens, but I usually set it to MF because no need to focus at all if the focus distance is set to infinite. That is perfect for landscape if the f number is above 4 and astro landscape / night sky if the f is 2.8. There are some chepaer lens options if you do not stick to AF lens: Samyang 14/f2.8, Rokinon 14/2.8, as Arrond said: Zenitar 16/2.8 etc.

Or a relatively cheap but wonderful AF lens: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX II. I have got this one, I love it. You could use it on Full Frame body as well (above approx ~14.5 mm).

 

[Geddes]

Why not manual lenses? An ultra wide lens has very big DOF, it gives sharp result from 2-3 meter if the focus distance is set to infinite. Although I have AF UWA lens, but I usually set it to MF because no need to focus at all if the focus distance is set to infinite. That is perfect for landscape if the f number is above 4 and astro landscape / night sky if the f is 2.8. There are some chepaer lens options if you do not stick to AF lens: Samyang 14/f2.8, Rokinon 14/2.8, as Arrond said: Zenitar 16/2.8 etc.

Or a relatively cheap but wonderful AF lens: Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 AT-X Pro DX II. I have got this one, I love it. You could use it on Full Frame body as well (above approx ~14.5 mm).

I wasn't 100% sure on what was meaning by MF, is this where the lens doesn't have a AF on it, just MF? I wan't a lens where it has both MF and AF. Sometimes i find it hard using MF to get things in focus where i want it as i cant see it properly. Is infinite basicly front to back focus all the way through?

 

[Yanoo]

Yes, it is where the lens doesn't have an AF on it, just MF. But if you use your ultra wide lens for landscape / astro landscape/ night sky photography, it is not problem. You have to set the focus to infinity (set the distance scale to ∞), use higher f number (it is evident, a decent landscape shot is taken between f/5.6 - f/11), that's all. All things will be sharp in your landscape pic.

 

[Geddes]

Yes, it is where the lens doesn't have an AF on it, just MF. But if you use your ultra wide lens for landscape / astro landscape/ night sky photography, it is not problem. You have to set the focus to infinity (set the distance scale to ∞), use higher f number (it is evident, a decent landscape shot is taken between f/5.6 - f/11), that's all. All things will be sharp in your landscape pic.

This is where sometimes i get myself confused on when to use what aperture on my landscapes. I've been told of the guy at class to use F22 but i've found that that's not always the case. After seeing some videos the best range for landscapes as you say Yanoo is around mid range Aperture, in my landscape photography i like to have a bit of foreground in it so like to have detail at the front all the way to the back, if i set a landscape pic to say F11 and set it to infinity and don't bother with the 1/3 rule and stick it in MF the whole scene will have detail and in focus? If i've got this right

Recently they've been a few times where i could of had a ultra wide lens, what about panorama style, like stiching pics together on photoshop does the PSE 11 have this option?

 

[Yanoo]

This is where sometimes i get myself confused on when to use what aperture on my landscapes. I've been told of the guy at class to use F22 but i've found that that's not always the case. After seeing some videos the best range for landscapes as you say Yanoo is around mid range Aperture, in my landscape photography i like to have a bit of foreground in it so like to have detail at the front all the way to the back, if i set a landscape pic to say F11 and set it to infinity and don't bother with the 1/3 rule and stick it in MF the whole scene will have detail and in focus? If i've got this right

Recently they've been a few times where i could of had a ultra wide lens, what about panorama style, like stiching pics together on photoshop does the PSE 11 have this option?

It is unnecessary to use too high f number (f/11 and above - it depends on what lens you use) because too narrow apperture can cause diffraction (it ruins the sharpness). https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-diffraction/
You have got that right. If the foreground is not too close (2-3 meter, it depends on the aperture), your pic will be sharp. It is a base and easy method. In most cases it gives good result.
There is an another technique, it is better but it is more difficult to use. First you have to determine the hyperfocal distance (or use hyperfocal distance table or calculator) then you have to set the focus to hyperfocal distance and select correct aperture. With this method the close foreground also will be sharp. http://digital-photography-school.c...-hyperfocal-distances-and-aperture-selection/

I'd recommend you to use the latest Adobe Camera Raw to stitch photos. It can handle RAW files and works very well. The fact it uses RAWs is truly awesome, resulting image contains all of the desired shadow, midtone, and highlight information with all of the editing flexibility that comes with RAW.

 

[Geddes]

It is unnecessary to use too high f number (f/11 and above - it depends on what lens you use) because too narrow apperture can cause diffraction (it ruins the sharpness). https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-lens-diffraction/
You have got that right. If the foreground is not too close (2-3 meter, it depends on the aperture), your pic will be sharp. It is a base and easy method. In most cases it gives good result.
There is an another technique, it is better but it is more difficult to use. First you have to determine the hyperfocal distance (or use hyperfocal distance table or calculator) then you have to set the focus to hyperfocal distance and select correct aperture. With this method the close foreground also will be sharp. http://digital-photography-school.c...-hyperfocal-distances-and-aperture-selection/

I'd recommend you to use the latest Adobe Camera Raw to stitch photos. It can handle RAW files and works very well. The fact it uses RAWs is truly awesome, resulting image contains all of the desired shadow, midtone, and highlight information with all of the editing flexibility that comes with RAW.

Thanks for the help Yanoo, just had a proper read on those links, when i first read them quicky i didn't understand so i had a good look and sat down and i more understand on it now. I've always shot my landscapes quit high, i'll shoot a bit lower to get more sharpness :smile: Let's say i'm on my tripod, all composed and that. I set it to say F11 in AV mode and there's a rock say 4 metres in front as a fore ground i then auto focus that or auto focus lock then rocompose the shot and then put it into MF and set it to infinity if there's a horizon say? Does that sound about right

 

[Matt_90]

I have been away shooting in CY this last week, thought I would share some of my previews.. Sorry for Facebook upload sizes, quality. I CBA uploading to Flickr lol.

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

Seen a few of those on FB Matt, really nice style you have.

 

[CrippsCorner]

Not even proposed yet (maybe when the car's repaired) but I already know I want @Matt_90 as my wedding photographer! :tongueout:

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

Been at the BDS today (practice) and managed to get a few alright shots. Not been on a hill with my camera for years!

TwentyTwo/FiftyTwo - BDS Practice by Aaron, on Flickr

http://acrowephotography.com/2015/05/30/2015-rose-bikes-bds-llangollen-saturday-practice/

Rain forecast for overnight tonight, that should make tomorrow very interesting. And more rain tomorrow during the day! Should be fun.

 

[Ay Ay Ron]

A few more from the weekend. Too much bloody track tape though!

Colour version of the above (Gee Atherton).

Gee Atherton by Aaron, on Flickr

Danny Hart

Danny Hart by Aaron, on Flickr

Joe Smith (Elite Winner)

Joe Smith BDS rd3 Elite Winner by Aaron, on Flickr

Kye Forte (Masters Winner)

Kye Forte- BDS rd3 Masters winner by Aaron, on Flickr

 

[Yanoo]

Thanks for the help Yanoo, just had a proper read on those links, when i first read them quicky i didn't understand so i had a good look and sat down and i more understand on it now. I've always shot my landscapes quit high, i'll shoot a bit lower to get more sharpness :smile: Let's say i'm on my tripod, all composed and that. I set it to say F11 in AV mode and there's a rock say 4 metres in front as a fore ground i then auto focus that or auto focus lock then rocompose the shot and then put it into MF and set it to infinity if there's a horizon say? Does that sound about right

Set the focal length to low, put it into MF, set f/8-11 and set the focus into infinity and compose the picture. If the equivalent focal length (focal length * crop factor) is small (say 24 mm or less), your pic will be sharp if the foreground is not too close (take a pic and check the sharpness of the foreground on the LCD). Or use the above linked hyperfocal method.

 

[Yanoo]

Not even proposed yet (maybe when the car's repaired) but I already know I want @Matt_90 as my wedding photographer! :tongueout:

I wanted to write the same

 

[Yanoo]

Hello summer by <-Y->, on Flickr

 

[Matt_90]

@Aaron.. You got any shots of the 44Racing Diamondback riders? I can get your shots some good coverage if you have

Thanks for the comments chaps.