ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,959

    Faces of downtown L.A.

    Some human, some architectural. Canon EOS DRebel, Sigma 28-80, 70-300

    Ray
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Faces of downtown L.A.-la-man1.jpg   Faces of downtown L.A.-conv-center1.jpg   Faces of downtown L.A.-trinity.jpg  

  2. #2
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    I like this first one.

    It almost has "texture" on my screen!

    Good catch.
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    149
    Good stuff. Nice composition on the first one. Like the colors on the other two. Nicely saturated and pops off the screen.

    Dennis
    "Foolish consistency is the hobgobblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  4. #4
    They call me Andy... ACArmstrong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    470
    You got a great shot of the guy's eyes in that first shot. So much depth to such a tight shot. I really think you nailed it. Great shot.
    Andy Armstrong
    Please visit my photography site - Andy Armstrong Photography

  5. #5
    Ex-Modster Old Timer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    KY, USA
    Posts
    16,848

    Very nice images..

    Quote Originally Posted by schrackman
    Some human, some architectural. Canon EOS DRebel, Sigma 28-80, 70-300

    Ray

    Very nice images Ray! Love #1 you certainly captured the essence of your subject. I am guessing your did this one with the 70-300 or did a close crop after the fact. I really like the results you get with your Sigma lenses.

  6. #6
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,959
    Thanks Rick, Dennis, Andy, Old Timer and Penny! Yes, I really liked the picture of the homeless man best. Interesting story behind it...he came up to our Jeep as I was getting ready to shoot the convention center and he asked for some change. I never like to turn away a homeless person, but on the same token I don't like to just give them just money either. Usually I'll buy them something to eat or drink rather than give them cash. But there was no store around so I made a deal with him–I'd give him $3 if in exchange for letting me take his picture. In other words, I gave him the chance to earn his $3 "modeling" for me. He agreed and away I snapped, after of course I assured him it was only for my amatuer photography purposes and not a police lineup.

    Here's the picture of the convention center I've been working on. Chose to make it a composite since the sky was so empty and bland in the original. The clouds came from some pictures I took last week in Encino. Too much done in PS to list. Hope you enjoy the abstract-like results.

    Ray
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Faces of downtown L.A.-conv-center2.jpg  

  7. #7
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,959
    Very nice images Ray! Love #1 you certainly captured the essence of your subject. I am guessing your did this one with the 70-300 or did a close crop after the fact. I really like the results you get with your Sigma lenses.
    Old Timer,

    Yes, I shot this with the 70-300 at its widest. The original, therefore, wasn't much larger than this since I was so close to him. I didn't change lenses cuz I was all prepared to shoot the convention center, but it turned out well so I'm glad I didn't change. As for the lenses themselves, I am very happy I went with this combo when I bought the camera. Hard to believe the lens set was only an additional $200!

    Ray

  8. #8
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    I like it

    a lot. The contrast between the top of the building and the sky is incredible. BUT there's some "folds?" in the shadowy part of the building that distract my eye. I would say that if the panels of the building were all smooth, you'd have a real winner here as they would mirror the sky better. Just my 2 cents.
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

  9. #9
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,959
    Thanks Rick! But I'm not sure which "panels" you are talking about. These could easily be smoothed out using a soft blur tool brush, but I guess I don't see what you're seeing.

    Ray

  10. #10
    Junior Member pnd1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    35

    A stunner, but a word of caution...

    Ray,

    This is everything an architectural image should be -- it captures the essence of the building and places it into a dramatic context. That sky certainly draws the eye and holds it.

    Allow me to offer a word of caution, however -- you chose to make this a composite image, and because of that, you should assume the obligation of making that clear whenever presenting it in public. You did that here, and I commend you for it.

    With the coming of digital images, many photographers are routinely creating composite images by manipulating them in Photoshop, and not disclosing that fact. To me, it would be unethical and misleading to present this photograph without such disclosure. We are free, of course, to do anything we want to our images as art or personal expression. Advertisers manipulate their images as well -- but everyone takes an ad with a grain of salt. But if we present a composite as fact, and not fiction, in any public medium -- I believe that it is essential to let our viewers know that it was created as a photographic illustration or composite.

    Congratulations on making a fine image even more dazzling by adding the dramatic sky, and for letting us know what you did to this picture and why you did it.

    Phil
    Phil Douglis
    Director, The Douglis Visual Workshops
    Phoenix, Arizona
    pnd1@cox.net

    http://www.pbase.com/pnd1

    http://www.worldisround.com/home/pnd1/index.html

    http://www.funkytraveller.com/Pages/travelogues/travelphotophild.htm

  11. #11
    mooo...wooh hoooh! schrackman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Redding, CA
    Posts
    1,959
    Thank you, Phil! I truly appreciate your comments. And I agree with you 100% about disclosure.

    So, you're the man behind that website? I viewed it earlier this week (from the link provided in a thread on this forum) and was very impressed and inspired by your work. I especially enjoyed the category on composition because I really need to learn more on how to be creative compositionally.

    Thanks again for your feedback!

    Ray

    Quote Originally Posted by pnd1
    Ray,

    This is everything an architectural image should be -- it captures the essence of the building and places it into a dramatic context. That sky certainly draws the eye and holds it.

    Allow me to offer a word of caution, however -- you chose to make this a composite image, and because of that, you should assume the obligation of making that clear whenever presenting it in public. You did that here, and I commend you for it.

    With the coming of digital images, many photographers are routinely creating composite images by manipulating them in Photoshop, and not disclosing that fact. To me, it would be unethical and misleading to present this photograph without such disclosure. We are free, of course, to do anything we want to our images as art or personal expression. Advertisers manipulate their images as well -- but everyone takes an ad with a grain of salt. But if we present a composite as fact, and not fiction, in any public medium -- I believe that it is essential to let our viewers know that it was created as a photographic illustration or composite.

    Congratulations on making a fine image even more dazzling by adding the dramatic sky, and for letting us know what you did to this picture and why you did it.

    Phil

  12. #12
    ...just believe natatbeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,702

    It's another planet

    Very Cool Ray....this is right up my alley--- I like that's it combined images... wondered if you can somehow "soften" (barely the edge of the building where it peeks right in the upper right hand corner.... something about it tips me off to the fact it's composed of two images....

    You have an amazing eye.....for these types of details...as always in awe ;)
    "I was not trying to be shocking, or to be a pioneer.
    I wasn't trying to change society, or to be ahead of my time.
    I didn't think of myself as liberated, and I don't believe that I did anything important.
    I was just myself. I didn't know any other way to be, or any other way to live."
    .
    Bettie Page

    My Temp site...

  13. #13
    Faugh a' ballagh Sean Dempsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    maine
    Posts
    375
    should assume the obligation of making that clear whenever presenting it in public

    You mention that it is unethical to do so? I disagree with this enough to respond, which is rare. It is not unethical. Ethics are defined as:

    "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation"

    or

    "set of moral principles or values, a theory or system of moral values"

    There is no governing body or association over photographers. We don't have to have a degree and a license. Having to disclose that an image is a composite, heavily doctored, or shot in a game preserve as opposed to the "wild" is totally up to the photographers discretion. I guess I am posting this because I find those blanket statements like there's some sort of law or rule to what someone wants to do. Are we also obligated to the public to say "that's not an actual honey bee, thats just printed out on paper, which is why it's not moving".
    A good craftsman never blames his tools.

  14. #14
    Viewfinder and Off-Topic Co-Mod walterick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Phoenix AZ
    Posts
    4,655

    Let's see...

    if I can describe it.

    The reflective panels at the "point" of the building ie top left are smooth and reflective. I like that contrast between sky and reflection. To me that works. Then travel down and to the right in the building and the reflective panels seem to take on a more "textured" look as they go. As I write this, it seems more and more like a nit-pick. But I'll say that the "wavey" glass panels toward the bottom right of the building detract from the overall effect of the image to me.

    Boy, that sounds nit-picky! Take it as you will my friend.
    Walter Rick Long
    Nikon Samurai, Mamiya Master, Velvia Bandit


    Check out the Welcome Thread

    My photography on Myspace

  15. #15
    Junior Member pnd1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    35

    More on ethics

    Hi, Sean,

    Thanks for your view on the points I raised here about the ethics involved in photographic manipulation. I agree with you that photographers are free to do whatever they want to do to their images if those images are made for personal expression. But if images are used in journalistic media or on the web to express factual content, I think it's only fair to let the viewer know if the facts are, in fact, fiction. In such cases, we do have an obligation to our viewers. And that's where ethics come into play. I think it's the right thing to do. And "right and wrong" is, in the end, comes down to a matter of ethics.

    I agree with you that photographers are not required to work under any "blanket rules" -- and we certainly don't have to point out to viewers that our photo is actually a representation of reality, and not the real thing itself. (I assume our viewers can tell the difference between your honey bee and that photo of a honey bee.)

    I posted my comment on Ray's LA image because as a teacher of photographic communication, I feel that we are gradually losing one of photography's most significant values -- its credibility. Ever since the invention of the camera, people have trusted, at least to some degree, the validity of the photographic image. But as we move into the digital age, that trust is eroding. It may soon be gone altogether. If we want our images to communicate, they must be perceived as credible. And we can do this by simply letting people know whenever we choose to digitally alter the facts -- as Ray did in his wonderful LA image.

    Thanks, Sean, for responding to my comment. By discussing such issues in such forums as this, perhaps photographers will give more thought to these issues. Which is a good thing.

    Phil


    Quote Originally Posted by Sean Dempsey
    should assume the obligation of making that clear whenever presenting it in public

    You mention that it is unethical to do so? I disagree with this enough to respond, which is rare. It is not unethical. Ethics are defined as:

    "the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation"

    or

    "set of moral principles or values, a theory or system of moral values"

    There is no governing body or association over photographers. We don't have to have a degree and a license. Having to disclose that an image is a composite, heavily doctored, or shot in a game preserve as opposed to the "wild" is totally up to the photographers discretion. I guess I am posting this because I find those blanket statements like there's some sort of law or rule to what someone wants to do. Are we also obligated to the public to say "that's not an actual honey bee, thats just printed out on paper, which is why it's not moving".
    Phil Douglis
    Director, The Douglis Visual Workshops
    Phoenix, Arizona
    pnd1@cox.net

    http://www.pbase.com/pnd1

    http://www.worldisround.com/home/pnd1/index.html

    http://www.funkytraveller.com/Pages/travelogues/travelphotophild.htm

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Downtown pictures
    By Sebastien B in forum Photo Critique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-12-2004, 11:31 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •