It's definitely an improvement over your previous animations. It's got a very 'Halo 2' feel. The left hand looks a bit off the way the fingers barely move. I don't know about you but I don't keep my fingers stiff under many circumstances, especially not when reloading a gun.
August 11th, 2008, 01:31 AM
Con
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
I don't remember if I told you when you showed me before, but I agree that the fingers caught my eye in addition to the other things I said. The only way I can explain it is that they're sticking out like a sore thumb LOLBADJOKE
August 11th, 2008, 05:27 AM
ExAm
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conscars
I can take pretty picturez? take 2!
edit: fack, imageshack resized them. oh well.
Why the hell do things always look better in photos than in real life?
August 11th, 2008, 06:14 AM
Reaper Man
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conscars
I can take pretty picturez? take 2!
[pics]
edit: fack, imageshack resized them. oh well.
Nice stuff, I really like the closeup of the rock, looks like a photo of a cliff taken with a selective focus lens. The bee photo seems a bit underexposed, but it's pretty sharp which is awesome. The background is somewhat distracting as the depth of field, although low, could be lower, but I guess, seeing as you're shooting with a compact powershot, there are limitations to that. Could be further enhanced with some photoshop lens blur maybe. Also, next time you scale a photo down, use bicubic sharper interpolation as it wont give you blurred details.
Also, when shooting with bright backlighting like that, try metering with the centre-weigted meter or even the spot meter, instead of the default matrix.
Here's what it should look like properly exposed (also added a tad bit of sharpening). It got a bit noisier due to pushing the exposure.
Ooohhhhh, I has a pretty picture too!
[photo]
Whatchu think?
Not a big fan of it. Dragging up the contrast of a photo to make the colours all 'pretty' does not equal a good photo. The subject of your photo (the dumpster) is potentially interesting, but the way you composed it seems as if you just walked up, took a shot and waked away. What you did with the contrast completely blew out the highlight detail on the lid of the dumpster. To be honest, if you're going for the high contrast look, chances are it'll probably look better in black and white.
Another tip is to shoot the details, instead of the whole scene. A dumpster like that is covered in interesting textures of paint and rust with graffiti on top, try taking close ups of these that suggest a dumpster, but not actually show it. You could even include a bit of the background to show some context.
At the very least, unless intended, keep keep horizontal lines horizontal, the top of the dum
August 11th, 2008, 11:21 AM
Corndogman
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
Thanks for the tips reaper man, also I would have taken more pictures of it, but i took it out of the car window as we were pulling out of a gas station. It was just something that caught my eye so I snapped it.
I know the contrast kinda of ruined the lid of the dumpster but the photo was pretty boring before I edited it. BUt thanks for the advice I'll keep it in mind next time i take pretty pictures.
August 11th, 2008, 11:38 AM
Con
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reaper Man
Nice stuff, I really like the closeup of the rock, looks like a photo of a cliff taken with a selective focus lens. The bee photo seems a bit underexposed, but it's pretty sharp which is awesome. The background is somewhat distracting as the depth of field, although low, could be lower, but I guess, seeing as you're shooting with a compact powershot, there are limitations to that. Could be further enhanced with some photoshop lens blur maybe. Also, next time you scale a photo down, use bicubic sharper interpolation as it wont give you blurred details.
Also, when shooting with bright backlighting like that, try metering with the centre-weigted meter or even the spot meter, instead of the default matrix.
Yeah, the bee one was kind of rushed because I didn't want to fumble around changing settings/exposure lest the thing fly away. The picture you see is actually edited in PS already because the exposure was quite low. I'll try the PS lense blur, good idea. Also imageshack resized it for me, bastards :shakefist:
Thanks for the tips Reaper <3
edit: I could always find some sort of lens to decrease the DOF. I don't know much about lenses at all, all I know is my camera can use:
"separately sold Wide Converter WC-DC52, Tele-converter TC-DC52A and Close-up Lense 250D (52mm). In order to attach these lenses, you also need to use the separately sold Conversion Lens Adaptor LA-DC52G"
Atleast I have a mini-tripod :haw:
August 11th, 2008, 12:25 PM
Reaper Man
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
I guess the close up lens or the tele-converter would do it, but I really wouldn't bother with conversion lenses right now to be honest. Plus they're usually a rip-off.
Also, corndog, I don't think I've seen any other photos you've taken. Got any you'd wanna post? I'm curious.
August 11th, 2008, 12:31 PM
Corndogman
Re: The Studio Quick-Crit Thread
Well I've only recently started trying to do "photography" so I dont have many, and I dont have a fancy camera or anything, but I'll upload some stuff that I just took in the smoky mountains.
Well I've only recently started trying to do "photography" so I dont have many, and I dont have a fancy camera or anything, but I'll upload some stuff that I just took in the smoky mountains
This whole "fancy camera" thing is a misconception. You don't need a fancy camera to take good photos. A fancy camera, like, say an SLR allows you to be more creative because of technical freedom, as well as producing higher quality images.