Photo of the day

[cgipson1]

Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.

wow... you don't sound POMPOUS at all, do you?

That was kind of the point. Miss subtleties much?

No.. not usually.. but you weren't being subtle!

 

[vandal]

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.

 

[cgipson1]

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.

I never attacked "your work".... merely said that you should post some photos, to show us that you have some credibility when making statements like you have been making!

Because people with pompous-ass attitudes and condescending tones deserve to have their bubbles of pseudo elitism popped, that's why. The OP could be an it for all I care.

For all we know, you are all mouth, with nothing to back it up! As far as me being a dick.. well, I don't deal well with bull$hit... so put up or shut up!

 

[thereyougo!3]

Ok.......... is there a book, article or anything about "cutting off body parts" in composition...... becuase it's really confusing to hear someone say "NEVER cut off body parts in landscape" and then you say it's ok to cut off body parts just not limbs?? and I wasn't comparing my work to theirs in terms of anything other than the cut off bodies.

You have a picture of a girl obviously standing in the snow yet you cut off her lower legs. Why not chop it so the legs arent showing at all and get rid of the ground completely? In the links you posted - they were upper body shots without the half missing legs. I believe that is what was meant by "cutting off body parts to shoot in landscape never works."

Exactly what I meant. Apologies if I wasn't clear enough, Elizabeth. You can go against the 'rules' or guidance, once you understand the rules/guidelines. There has to be a reason. Looking at a shot where there is lots of wasted space around and yet the body is cut off just makes it look like a mistake was made.

 

[thereyougo!3]

Freaking snobbery. And wrong. Just plain wrong. Landscape mode is very useful in portraiture, it just takes a bit more attention to things to make sure it works well.

There's nothing wrong with landscape portraits and I like what he's trying to do. A whole bunch of options exist to make that picture work better within the Landscape mode, or maybe he can try square, with the subject on one side and something to try and build the magic triangle. Maybe he can try an aperture with a shallower DoF to bring more focus on the subject but still have some surrounding stuff. Maybe he can try fill flash. A lot of options for suggestions other than "you've obviously never taken an art class" which makes you sound like a boob.

Perhaps rather than name calling you could provide your own example of a portrait taken by you in landscape orientation to demonstrate what you mean. That may show Elizabeth the way. Very few of the landscape orientated shots posted have worked as there is too much dead OOF space. As I have said, landscape orientation CAN work, but it must have a compositional reason or else it doesn't work very well. Cutting off body parts to get a landscape orientation never works. Keith isn't showing snobbery, just applying the principles. Your self righteous attitude helps no-one.

I'm sorry, but I find it snobbish and condescending to say that someone has never taken an art class. My self righteousness helps me. Kind of the point, huh?

Kathleen Connally's Photoblog - Landscape & Portrait Photography :: Durham Portfolio


Brad Young Photography :: Professional Portrait and Landscape Photography


Fine Art Photography on Etsy - Abstract, portrait, landscape photography

Careful with the absolutes.

Which of these is yours? I asked for your examples of your own photos where you can demonstrate how it works. It's easy to make judgements isn't it when you don't put your own images out for judgement. Elizabeth has at least stuck her images out there to be looked at. I wasn't talking absolutes. If someone has used aperture to make something OOF, it means it's not the focal point. Since when should what is not the focal point take up 60+% of the shot? Sometimes, but not usually this will be the case, but not in these shots.

 

[manaheim]

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.

Seems like you were the one who started calling others snobs and such. I believe people are (understandably) trying to determine if you're an edgy expert we should pay attention to, or just another Internet blowhard.

The longer you take to back up your words the more weight you put on the latter half of the scale.

 

[MLeeK]

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.

Wow, you just came here to be a colossal ass, didn't you? You launched by calling basically anyone who is trying to teach a newbie who wants to learn the basic guidelines a snob. Then calling Charlie a dick for pushing back at you being an ass. Wow.
Gotta love the internet for trolls.

 

[MLeeK]

Wow, Charlie, you're quite a dick, aren't you. What's my "work" have to do with this? I never attacked your work. But now somehow it's OK to call me out? What a tough IT guy you are.

Seems like you were the one who started calling others snobs and such. I believe people are (understandably) trying to determine if you're an edgy expert we should pay attention to, or just another Internet blowhard.

The longer you take to back up your words the more weight you put on the latter half if the scale.

My vote!

 

[The_Traveler]

My guess is that vandal has vandal-ized and departed.

 

[KmH]

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/rma/lowres/rman10262l.jpg

 

[JustinZ850]

I had to go grab a bag of popcorn at page 2, carry on

 

[manaheim]

I hate it when I throw down and they run away.

I mean, I know it's because basically the dude pretty much realized he just got kicked in the groin and has pretty much nothing he could possibly say at this point without making himself look like a total [deleted], but still... I like to see 'em try.

 

[MLeeK]

 

[ph0enix]

I'm not a fan of the lighting in that one

 

[greybeard36 8]

Hi Elizabeth30,
1st of all, it looks like you have gotten metering in the snow down. I like your exposure just fine. Any little problems can always be corrected post production. Back before all this fancy "through the lens, spot metering, etc. etc. we would use a hand held meter, check the scene and add 2 stops more exposure, worked like a charm.

Becoming a better photographer is a process. Everybody starts out learning the basics of their camera and how it works. Looks like that is exactly what you are doing. Not that you can't be working on composition and lighting while you are working on understanding the camera, it should definitely be and is your 1st priority. Metering for me has always meant having enough light on the main subject. Most meters calculate exposure to an average of neutral gray. That is why your snow will come out gray and you subject too dark if you don't compensate or use spot metering.

Mastering depth of field or I like to call it DEPTH OF FOCUS (DoF) is another very important camera technique you should read up on. It lets YOU control how much of the scene in front of and behind of the main subject is in acceptable focus. To over simplify it, bigger numbered f stops like 11,16,22 mean deep DoF and smaller number f stops like 2.8, 4, mean shallower DoF. There are other important factors that play into DoF but that is the start of it.

good luck and keep pushing that button


Corrections added about the f-stop numbers.

small f-stop numbers means a big opening letting a lot of light and shallow Dof
larger f-stop numbers means a smaller opening letting in less light and a deeper Dof