2days, 2 meals

Sk8man · Jul 16, 2004

these are two of my breakfasts. each from different day.

this was yesterday:

Code:

Make FUJIFILM 
Model FinePix S5000 
Shutter Speed 1/4 second 
F Number F/4.5 
Focal Length 6 mm 
ISO Speed 200 
Date Picture Taken Jul 15, 2004, 2&#58;31&#58;01 PM

and this one was today:

Code:

Make FUJIFILM 
Model FinePix S5000 
Shutter Speed 1/11 second 
F Number F/2.8 
Focal Length 6 mm 
ISO Speed 200 
Date Picture Taken Jul 16, 2004, 1&#58;03&#58;29 PM

i like the 1st one more. what do you say?

hit me...

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

the borders don't do anything for the pictures.
IMO, these pictures are not unique enough. the subjects are common everyday items. The lighting nor the contrast, nor the texture is exceptional enough to be catagorized as photos. But they're nice pictures. I liked'em

Digital Matt · Jul 16, 2004

canonrebel said:
the borders don't do anything for the pictures.
IMO, these pictures are not unique enough. the subjects are common everyday items. The lighting nor the contrast, nor the texture is exceptional enough to be catagorized as photos. But they're nice pictures. I liked'em

What would make them more unique, in your opinion? You say they should not be categorized as photos, but they are nice pictures. I don't get it. They aren't photos because they aren't unique. They are just "pictures"?

Sk8man: I think they are unique, interesting shots. Give them a bit more contrast and saturation, and maybe a little sharpening and they'd be even better.

Good stock photos if you ask me.

voodoocat · Jul 16, 2004

They are a little on the dark side and could use a bit more contrast. Other than that, I like the nice simple composition. These would make great product shots. :thumbsup:

photogoddess · Jul 16, 2004

canonrebel said:
the borders don't do anything for the pictures.
IMO, these pictures are not unique enough. the subjects are common everyday items. The lighting nor the contrast, nor the texture is exceptional enough to be catagorized as photos. But they're nice pictures. I liked'em

CR - that was rude and completely unhelpful! People take photos of everyday items all of the time. Some even make a living at it. To say that these photos aren't "exceptional enough to be catagorized as photos" only makes you look ignorant. From some of your recent posts, I'm starting to think that your goal on this forum is to piss people off.

Sk8man - you made cereal look interesting. Nice work on the lighting. If I was to change anything, it would be to reduce the reflections on the bowl itself.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

Digital Matt said:
What would make them more unique, in your opinion? You say they should not be categorized as photos, but they are nice pictures. I don't get it. They aren't photos because they aren't unique. They are just "pictures"?

Sk8man: I think they are unique, interesting shots. Give them a bit more contrast and saturation, and maybe a little sharpening and they'd be even better.

Good stock photos if you ask me.

On my monitor their lighting is flat. The pictures could be manipulated very easily and improved very much. Lighting perspective can even be added after the fact. A little boost in contrast and a little kick in saturation and BAM! They'll kick butt!

What is a picture:
A picture is a pretty-enough image and it is nice and definitely nice enough to keep. A photograph is more on the order of something you could hang in a gallery. Something like Vonnagy and Gordon W does.
Myself, I've never shot a photograph. All my stuff are pictures. Even manipulation doesn't do anything for them.

Photogoddess, I'm sorry that you thought my critique was cruel. I thought it was honest. I did say that I liked'em, I thought that would count for somethin? If I swoon over everything what value will my critique have?

Please, can you describe what it is about them that you consider outstanding? And would you offer instruction for improvement?

I'm sure that Sk8man posted his pics in the critique section because he wanted sound advice and honest points of view.

Sk8man, I'm sorry if I've insulted you with my critique.

molested_cow · Jul 16, 2004

I've never tried to see "photo" and "picture" this way, because I never see them as superior or inferior.

To me, photos are images of real things, whereas pictures are all others, like illustrations, paintings and so on.

As for the photos of the breakfast.... hmmm. Since you have full control over the subject and composition, I will start by thinking exactly what kind of message, or feeling I want to convey. Currently I don't really get any message other than a static bowl of cereal. The graphics on the bowl kinda gives the photos a little more character but doesn't really do much.

If the theme of these photos is "breakfast", then I will tend to go with something that illustrates the energy or hypeness. Perhaps if I hate the feeling of waking up early and having to eat the same old cereal everyday, I will try to do something else, but probably with the same subject. Maybe I will induce a sense of sacarsm or something.

Try to think about your content and play with the subject to find the feeling you want to show.

canonrebel · Jul 16, 2004

molested_cow said:
I've never tried to see "photo" and "picture" this way, because I never see them as superior or inferior.

To me, photos are images of real things, whereas pictures are all others, like illustrations, paintings and so on.

That will work for me. I like your definition even better than I do mine.

photogoddess · Jul 16, 2004

Your original comment was rude and unhelpful since it contained no constructive critism or helpful advice. No one expects people to swoon over photos regardless of whether the photo is good or not but the comments that they "weren't unique or exceptional enough to be catagorized as photos" was truly below the belt. Adding that they are nice pictures after slamming them like that is something like punching a person in the face and then kissing them on the cheek.

On my monitor their lighting is flat. The pictures could be manipulated very easily and improved very much. Lighting perspective can even be added after the fact. A little boost in contrast and a little kick in saturation and BAM! They'll kick butt!

If you had made this comment the first time around, feathers wouldn't be ruffled.

For what it's worth... from the Merriam-Webster dictionary

Main Entry: 1pho·to·graph
Pronunciation: 'fO-t&-"graf
Function: noun
: a picture or likeness obtained by photography

Main Entry: 1pic·ture
Pronunciation: 'pik-ch&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin pictura, from pictus, past participle of pingere to paint -- more at PAINT
1 : a design or representation made by various means (as painting, drawing, or photography)
2 a : a description so vivid or graphic as to suggest a mental image or give an accurate idea of something <the book gives a detailed picture of what is happening> b : a mental image
3 : IMAGE, COPY <the picture of his father> <the very picture of health>
4 a : a transitory visible image or reproduction b : MOTION PICTURE c plural : MOVIES
5 : TABLEAU 1, 2 <stage pictures>
6 : SITUATION <took a hard look at his financial picture>

molested_cow · Jul 16, 2004

Haha photogoddess you should have that definition in your sig!

photogoddess · Jul 16, 2004

molested_cow said:
Haha photogoddess you should have that definition in your sig!

Great idea!

Sk8man · Jul 17, 2004

thank you ALL for the comments. some were good and some less.

i can't say i enjoyed reading them all but they all gave me some info.

i guess i'll quit photography... hell no!!!

i know that you can't argue with people about what they like or dislike because everyone has it's own opinions and favorites.

it will be like this for ever.

anyways, tnx for the comments.