MWGL Photography thread
- Thread starter jaxn slim
- Start date
- Status
tiger roach
Urban Bovine Knievel
Yeah nice use of "existing light."
ken
a good kind of terrible
This photo is one of the finalists for the Smithsonian.com 11th Annual Photo Contest Finalists, one of 60 selected from over 50,000. This is for the Reader's Choice winner. Please vote for mine in the Travel Category #4) if you are so inclined! And you may vote every 24 hours! Wheeeee! Thanks in advance for those who help out!
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/photocontest/photo-contest-finalists-11th-annual-180950372/?no-ist
ALSO: 2 people have asked whether this is a cut-and-paste composite. It is not. The camera settings and details are given in each of my night sky captions, this one indicating it is a single exposure of two sculptures. Except for one photo, which states so in the captions, none of my night sky photos are cut-and-paste composites, fakery, pasting one thing on top of another, etc. They all exist in real life, there for us to photograph or admire.
dmn23
Duller than cardboard
Actually, there wasn't much tweaking in post. I adjust the curves, sharpen a bit, and maybe straighten. Most of the effect is a result of choosing the "cloudy" setting on the camera's white balance menu. I set it on bulb and exposed for about 15 seconds or so with a remote control (that's why my right arm isn't quite as detailed). Here's the original for comparison:
ken
a good kind of terrible
Thanks!
But your processing really brought out the sky. I do a lot of night sky photography. And you rarely need to do much processing, just a little. But you tweaked the contrast and did just enough sharpening, not to much, got the sky to open up a little, and brought out the stars. That's what I mean. You took a really cool image and opened it up through just some subtle tweaks, and it's perfect.
But your processing really brought out the sky. I do a lot of night sky photography. And you rarely need to do much processing, just a little. But you tweaked the contrast and did just enough sharpening, not to much, got the sky to open up a little, and brought out the stars. That's what I mean. You took a really cool image and opened it up through just some subtle tweaks, and it's perfect.
ken
a good kind of terrible
I *love* gig photography in which you get right up on the person. It's intimate. It's in your face. And it's fantastic. I like the St. Paul one (middle) for that reason, and like the last one as well, but also like the last one because of the back lighting. Beautiful. The middle one looks great in B&W also, like it is classic, timeless....awesome stuff.
dmn23
Duller than cardboard
Thank you very much. I didn't mean to sound defensive about post processing — everything I shoot gets something. I think I was just happy that I got lucky and got it mostly right in-camera.
I'm checking out the galleries on your site right now. Your stuff is amazing. I love, love, love the long exposures series.
ken
a good kind of terrible
Thanks! I'm also on www.500px.com/kenleephotography and www.facebook.com/kenleephotography. I'm not very good at keeping these things up to date, but at least it has some photos.
And no problem. I sometimes might get a a little wound up when people say that I am "Photoshopping" something (and by that, they usually mean "digital manipulation' or "cut-and-paste compositing"). No, I'm not. Those are real photos of places that really exist!!
And no problem. I sometimes might get a a little wound up when people say that I am "Photoshopping" something (and by that, they usually mean "digital manipulation' or "cut-and-paste compositing"). No, I'm not. Those are real photos of places that really exist!!
dmn23
Duller than cardboard
I like this one a lot. Nicely done.
- Status