Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[Renegade Retard]

This was taken by my 15-yr old niece who is an aspiring photographer. I believe she recently entered it into a contest. I thought it was pretty good for a beginner.

Blurriness due to my copy of the pic.

 

[Rambowjo]

That sure is a macro photo that right there

 

[JohnDoe641]

This was taken by my 15-yr old niece who is an aspiring photographer. I believe she recently entered it into a contest. I thought it was pretty good for a beginner.

Blurriness due to my copy of the pic.

I love the photo. I hope she wins and it. :tup:

 

[DarkED]

... and I can't see any way it could be fixed on to a tripod ...

Actually, there's a lot of tripod iPhone mounts on the market today.

It's not fast enough (neither in shutter speed nor in reaction and focus speed), and can't be used with speed lights, triggers etc etc.

I'm not going to say that can't use it for professional work but I have to say that it wouldn't work for my line of work. I will have to agree with Israphel and many of his points.

Ditto. I don't claim to be the best photographer even though my company has a focus on photography, but the vast majority of our work are candid shots done in bars and music venues in low light without a flash. A cellphone could never be fast enough and the quality would never be good enough.

Here's one out of the party album

 

[BillyBadAss]

Hey folks!

Unless you live under a rock I'm sure you have all heard about Nikons new D800.

I'm in a toss up right now whether I will upgrade to the D800E or the D3s. I will of course be keeping my D700. Lot of great features for wedding and dance photography but I'm just not sure the D800 will be the best fit for what pays the bills. I crave more detail, but I've gotta have better low light capabilities. D800 is only about 1/2 stops better. All the High ISO samples I've seen are beautiful at 6400. Much cleaner and they look outstanding when you down res them to D700 size.

Tough choice.. but at least I have 3 months to think about it.

I'm wondering what you guys think.

I am seriously thinking about picking it up. As you know I usually shoot film, but sometimes I want a digital camera for something quick. This thing is very sexy. I of course want to see some full resolution images to examine first. I am more concerned with how must contrast it can get with things such as lots of white before going hot.

The extra hot thing is all the old lenses I can readily get my hands on over here. It's fucking insane. With that said; if I'm going to buy the D800 I should also pick up a Nikon FM2 since I can share the old lenses between them.

 

[IronMonkey]

Fotoshop by Adobé

Here is the UK, we have advertising industry self-regulatory body called the Advertising Standards Authority. For the most part it's a bunch of toothless apologists (witness the sophistry that still allows "unlimited" in broadband claims) but every so often something comes along that it can't ignore.

A couple of weeks ago, it woke up and noticed that L'Oreal was advertising some skin care snake oil by making 41 year old Rachel Weisz look like she was barely out of her teens (story and pic here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/01/asa_loreal/).

The point of this post is not the excessive post-production but the video linked to in the register's follow-up story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/02/fotoshop_by_adobe/

How much post-production image improvement do the professionals do for things like wedding shoots?

I ask, because I was recently beat up by my wife and her sister for a proposing to print a head shot of my niece without first removing evidence of her facial spots from the photo.

I thought I was printing a nice picture of a real person, strong and confident in herself (my niece is in her early twenties) but the pain and the snapping sound from my leg bones quickly convinced me otherwise.

My wife and her sister were very happy with the photo once I had removed the spots but I feel "artistically compromised"

 

[BillyBadAss]

I have no problem with removing a zit or other blemish. What I won't do is contort them into something they are not. At that point it's no longer photography and just photo manipulation. If she had a wrinkle or something that made her look older than she normally does IRL then I might remove that since that was most likely caused by a lighting issue.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Interesting topic Iron Monkey.

Most blemishes will come and go within days. Anything that is not permanent such as moles, scars or wrinkles stay. All blemishes go away in my wedding photos.. but not in all of the photos, just the ones where they are very noticeable. With that being said, I will lessen wrinkles, moles and scars so they are not the main focus but I certainly do not take them away unless requested.

It can be quite controversial if you start messing too much with their face. Some like it, others are offended.

I do think that selling skin care products based off of a photograph of an actress wearing make up is a bad call. Its a skin care product right? How about showing us the actual skin?

Make up is the original blemish remover. Photoshop just makes it quick and easy.

 

[flo0tz]

Revisiting and re-editing my old Korea photos (2010). Putting up some I never published.


Seongsan-ri by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


Let there be light by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


Majesty by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


So You Like Shopping? by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


It's Different Here by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


A Mighty City - Colour by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr


Incheon and Beyond by Andrew Irwin, on Flickr

 

[DarkED]

[SCREENSHOT]http://gallery.nodanites.com/upload/2012/02/18/20120218000429-0305b93e.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

[SCREENSHOT]http://gallery.nodanites.com/upload/2012/02/17/20120217235759-002f1d47.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

[SCREENSHOT]http://gallery.nodanites.com/upload/2012/02/18/20120218000642-fab42cf7.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

 

[Rambowjo]

I think you should change the watermark, right now it looks very unprofessional. It really ruins those photos for me.

 

[DarkED]

I think you should change the watermark, right now it looks very unprofessional. It really ruins those photos for me.

I don't see any problem with it, it's there to drive traffic and it serves that purpose admirably. What would you do differently?

As an aside, judging photos based on the watermark instead of the actual work is a bit elitist, don't you think? I think you'll find that the vast majority of viewers and clients don't care about that. It's just brand recognition.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

Well it makes the brand look unprofessional, but you probably weren't trying to achieve something that looked very formal or anything anyway.
It's not the nicest of fonts, but it looks jovial and casual, that's probably what you wanted rather than something more sleek/formal?

Also, drop shadow.

 

[shadow_dragon]

It's not really a watermark, it's just a web address.
At being a web address, it functions perfectly fine.

 

[DarkED]

Well it makes the brand look unprofessional ...

But why?

(I already talked to Rambowjo about this and got his input. Let me have yours, if you don't mind?)

... but you probably weren't trying to achieve something that looked very formal or anything anyway.
It's not the nicest of fonts, but it looks jovial and casual, that's probably what you wanted rather than something more sleek/formal?

Right.

Also, drop shadow.

I'm on it.

 

[M.A.D.X.W]

It looks sort of comic sans-esque, or it has that same sense you know.
It's like it belittles the name because the font looks so casual, but not structured.
It's a happy font.

You could find a sans font that still doesn't look to formal, but is uniform and minimal enough that the brand has a sense of professionalism.

It's just unnatural; it's an obvious design choice, as in its apparent that someone decided to use that font. If you get a nice font people will just take it for granted.

It doesn't look as bad on the website but, I'd imagine it would look a lot better with a more minimal sans font.

 

[Faded Soul]

I think you should change the watermark, right now it looks very unprofessional. It really ruins those photos for me.

Literally the watermark was the first thing I noticed, and it bothered the hell out of me I didn't even look at the pics closer since it threw me off. As mentioned id go for a more minimal professional looking watermark.

 

[OO7MIKE]

Its not the best looking watermark but its hardly the most distracting. Put a 50% opacity on it and it will look better. I think its fine and it will due the job

 

[Faded Soul]

Its not the best looking watermark but its hardly the most distracting. Put a 50% opacity on it and it will look better. I think its fine and it will due the job

I think its just my strange OCD on that I don't like it not sitting in the bottom right corner of the pic with a plain sans font *shrug*

 

[Rambowjo]

Its not the best looking watermark but its hardly the most distracting. Put a 50% opacity on it and it will look better. I think its fine and it will due the job

I was thinking that the watermark drew a lot of attention, which sort of ruined the photo. Like an obnoxious lens flare or something.