Photography Thread

Wheelspinner

Flowers can be spectacular when you look closely...

Wheelspinner

Shot this one evening a few weeks ago over at the beach a short walk from home.

Ben6899

BT by Ben H, on Flickr

Wheelspinner

Shag On A Rock

craker

Ben6899 wrote:

...

What lens is that Ben? Amazing detail :-)

Keep them coming everyone, there's some good stuff in here.

Ben6899

craker wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

...

What lens is that Ben? Amazing detail :-)

Keep them coming everyone, there's some good stuff in here.

The BT Tower shot? It's a rather modest Canon lens. EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6.

ayjaycee

Wheelspinner wrote:

Shot this one evening a few weeks ago over at the beach a short walk from home.

As a trained photographer (and ARPS), I check this particular thread now and then but generally choose not to comment on most of photos therein as I don't what to seem over-critical (or, even worse, accused of trolling). However, I'll make an exception in this case - well done on a cracking effort.

Ben6899

I think most would welcome the critique, to be fair.

wolfsbane2k

ayjaycee wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

Shot this one evening a few weeks ago over at the beach a short walk from home.

As a trained photographer (and ARPS), I check this particular thread now and then but generally choose not to comment on most of photos therein as I don't what to seem over-critical (or, even worse, accused of trolling). However, I'll make an exception in this case - well done on a cracking effort.

Interesting! TBH, feel free to critique the heck out of mine, if you can be bothered to waste your time
I feel I've lost my eye, and always work on the "right place, right time" principle, using whatever camera I've got available at the time.. which is nearly always a dirt cheap mobile.

ayjaycee

Ben, You might think that but it's not really something that I am willing to risk! I did once post what were meant to be constructive comments on a picture in the 'Show us your scenic bike pics' thread and was met with what I would only describe as a stream of vitriol in response - after that, I decided never again. The offender on that occasion was widely recognised as a serial tosser who was subsequently banned but I think has since returned with a couple of new identities.

Ben6899

Fair enough AJC, I can't really argue with that if people weren't receiving the critique as it was well-intended. :-)

narbs

ayjaycee wrote:

Ben, You might think that but it's not really something that I am willing to risk! I did once post what were meant to be constructive comments on a picture in the 'Show us your scenic bike pics' thread and was met with what I would only describe as a stream of vitriol in response - after that, I decided never again. The offender on that occasion was widely recognised as a serial tosser who was subsequently banned but I think has since returned with a couple of new identities.

I dip in and out of a photography forum. There's a critique section on there and if anyone dares to offer anything other than wholehearted praise the OP tends to sulk. And very often any critique is based on a lack of perceived sharpness when blown up to 200%. No-one ever seems to comment on composition or the thought process behind the image.

Worse still are the 'nice pic, what camera did you use' brigade, but that's a different rant.

shirley_basso

Milemuncher1 the prat in question. Ignore him. Most people on here are happy for some light feedback here and there.

viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=12966906&p=20355544&hilit=scenic#p20355565

narbs

Shirley Basso wrote:

Milemuncher1 the prat in question. Ignore him. Most people on here are happy for some light feedback here and there.

viewtopic.php?f=40044&t=12966906&p=20355544&hilit=scenic#p20355565

Fair play, those are spectacularly comic!

Wheelspinner

ayjaycee wrote:

....
As a trained photographer (and ARPS), I check this particular thread now and then but generally choose not to comment on most of photos therein as I don't what to seem over-critical (or, even worse, accused of trolling). However, I'll make an exception in this case - well done on a cracking effort.

Thank you!

pinno

Nice boat shot BT.
Love the puffins.

rolf_f

Wolfsbane2k wrote:

ayjaycee wrote:

Wheelspinner wrote:

Shot this one evening a few weeks ago over at the beach a short walk from home.

As a trained photographer (and ARPS), I check this particular thread now and then but generally choose not to comment on most of photos therein as I don't what to seem over-critical (or, even worse, accused of trolling). However, I'll make an exception in this case - well done on a cracking effort.

Interesting! TBH, feel free to critique the heck out of mine, if you can be bothered to waste your time
I feel I've lost my eye, and always work on the "right place, right time" principle, using whatever camera I've got available at the time.. which is nearly always a dirt cheap mobile.

I find many photographs posted anywhere to be a) perfectly nice and b) perfectly achievable with modern kit by just about anyone who can depress a shutter button without sneezing. Trouble is that that makes such photographs ultimately unspecial despite that in film days they would effectively have been far better.

My thing at the moment is butterfly photography - one really nice shot in a 100 is good going but with film you'd be lucky to get one good shot in a 1000 and that costs a lot. When I do get a good shot mostly I blame the creature and my kit rather than my "great" photographic skills so I find the concept of posting photos and expecting adulation somewhat unjustified; mostly they are pics that any careful person could take.

As for Wheelspinners pic - I do like it. There is something magical about the visual ambiguity of the scale of the foreground which looks either like small rocks on the shore or mountains and forests on the shore.

pinno

Rolf F wrote:

My thing at the moment is butterfly photography - one really nice shot in a 100 is good going but with film you'd be lucky to get one good shot in a 1000 and that costs a lot. When I do get a good shot mostly I blame the creature and my kit rather than my "great" photographic skills so I find the concept of posting photos and expecting adulation somewhat unjustified; mostly they are pics that any careful person could take.

I find myself agreeing with you. However, many really great shots are realised by default rather than design.

Ben6899

Don't do yourself a disservice, Rolf. Your kit won't spot an opportunity and compose the shot.

rolf_f

Ben6899 wrote:

Don't do yourself a disservice, Rolf. Your kit won't spot an opportunity and compose the shot.

True - might post the odd butterfly to illustrate that. I think my main problem with modern photography is that it is so often really unimaginative however good technically. And that isn't really anyones fault because even if someone finds a new way of seeing things it isn't necessarily better than what came before nor would it necessarily be interesting once everyone else has taken it up.

For butterfly photography there is a mindset that says that the only "good" photo of a butterfly will be one with its wings open square to the camera (to keep all in focus) and with a fully blurred background courtesy of a relatively long macro lens. Effectively the creature ends up looking like it is a dead specimen from a Victorian book. They look great but they all look exactly the same. Another bloke has started posting amazing wide angle close ups of the creatures in flight - in their natural habitat. It's a breath of fresh air and hopefully technically difficult enough to put a lot of people off!

This isn't the fault of the butterfly community alone - the artistic photography stasi in general seem to regard separating foreground from background as compulsory and anything else as poor by definition.

Alejandrosdog

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Don't do yourself a disservice, Rolf. Your kit won't spot an opportunity and compose the shot.

True - might post the odd butterfly to illustrate that. I think my main problem with modern photography is that it is so often really unimaginative however good technically. And that isn't really anyones fault because even if someone finds a new way of seeing things it isn't necessarily better than what came before nor would it necessarily be interesting once everyone else has taken it up.

For butterfly photography there is a mindset that says that the only "good" photo of a butterfly will be one with its wings open square to the camera (to keep all in focus) and with a fully blurred background courtesy of a relatively long macro lens. Effectively the creature ends up looking like it is a dead specimen from a Victorian book. They look great but they all look exactly the same. Another bloke has started posting amazing wide angle close ups of the creatures in flight - in their natural habitat. It's a breath of fresh air and hopefully technically difficult enough to put a lot of people off!

This isn't the fault of the butterfly community alone - the artistic photography stasi in general seem to regard separating foreground from background as compulsory and anything else as poor by definition.

Agreed re the Stasi, one of the worst thing that happened with digital photography is that it became even more pictures by numbers.

Alejandrosdog

Ben6899 wrote:

BT by Ben H, on Flickr

Thats a difficult subject to get right.

ayjaycee

Rolf F wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

This isn't the fault of the butterfly community alone - the artistic photography stasi in general seem to regard separating foreground from background as compulsory and anything else as poor by definition.

Rolf - Differential focus has always had it's place in photography but if you're interested in seeing examples of pictures that show sharp focus across the frame, I suggest that you seek out images by members of the 'f64 Group' (there's a good clue as to their aims in the name!). All it's members were masters (or, I suppose, mistresses) of the craft but two in particular, Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, are amongst the greatest photographers of all time in any genre (IMHO anyway!). Another genius was O Winston Link who specialised in railway photography, often using [very complicated] flash setups. With all of these guys, seeing their pictures on a relatively small computer screen is one thing but seeing seeing them printed on paper at A2 and larger is an entirely different experience.

Ben6899

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

BT by Ben H, on Flickr

Thats a difficult subject to get right.

Hence why I'm not completely happy with it!

rjsterry

Anyone on here spent 8 years setting up a shot?

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... nt-of-moon

ayjaycee

I mentioned briefly in another post that I went to Tate Britain yesterday to see the current Don McCullin exhibition. Fantastic and the best photo exhibition that I have ever seen by a long way (and I’ve seen a lot of them). Also, I’ve seen (and photographed) far too many war zones myself but I still had damp eyes on more than one occasion whilst looking at the pictures on display. An incredible body of work from one of the greatest of all time. If you get the chance and have even the slightest interest in photography, go and I promise you won’t regret it.

Ben6899

Good tip off, AJC. I'll see if Miss6899 fancies it tomorrow afternoon.

We saw the Only Human (Martin Parr) exhibition at the Portrait Gallery, last week. Also recommended, if you're looking to fill an hour or two.

ayjaycee

I would be interested to know what you think. Also, you might want to have a quick look on the Tate website for ticket availability. I walked and got a ticket straight away yesterday but it was quite busy and a Saturday might be different matter

Ben6899

Took some photos of my Gios at the weekend.

Gios by Ben H, on Flickr

rolf_f

Ben6899 wrote:

Took some photos of my Gios at the weekend.

Gios by Ben H, on Flickr

Technically, that is not a picture of your Gios. And your tyre is just a teeny bit misaligned to the left

Says a lot about the photographer does this pic......