A few recent pics.

[Daegurth]

excellent. turns out i can post from wordpress. maybe i'll edit my other thread to reflect that at some point.

anyway... back in chopwell for the christmas holidays, so i've been out and about with the camera, trying to have a little more purpose (achieved with flickr... massive source of inspiration) than i usually do. so here's what i've taken so far. nothing special, but it's going to take time to get back to where i was a few years ago:

blog post with captions and a line of commentary on each one: http://daegurth.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/some-recent-photos/

hope you like them, but criticism is also accepted.

 

[hiho]

very good. thanks for sharing

 

[skinny1]

Very nice good pics

 

[malente]

fantastic thanks for sharing!

I bet the panorama looks fantastic as a large print!

I could imagine the b&w would also look good in duoton, maybe brown (Not sepia

how can you post from wordpress, via plugin (e.g. lifestream)?

Cheers &
ATB

Mike

 

[Shewie]

Great pics fella, any shopping ?

 

[Daegurth]

thanks guys.

the panorama is 3 photos manually stitched together, and i have to say it looks pretty good at 1920px wide on this monitor... i'm looking forward to getting these images printed out and put on the wall.

they would probably look really good in duotone, yeah. sadly the source image is black and white, so i don't have a chance to find out... unless, perhaps, i have a little play in photoshop...

no, i suppose i didn't mean post, perhaps i should have been clearer... i can host on wordpress, which is handy- i've tried from twitpic and possibly facebook in the past, but they change the image url for some reason.

edit: yeah, quite a lot of 'shopping by my usual standards, but i was after particular effects in this set. it seems really obvious to me in the last one which i was a little heavy-handed with, but so far it seems that it looks ok to others.

 

[shep]

Lovely pics Daegurth

 

[Shewie]

edit: yeah, quite a lot of 'shopping by my usual standards, but i was after particular effects in this set. it seems really obvious to me in the last one which i was a little heavy-handed with, but so far it seems that it looks ok to others.

I'm only just starting to have a play with p'shop myself so I can't really spot anything unless it's totally obvious like a filter layed over the top etc.
There's a couple of guys in the office who are very average photographers but by the time their work ends up on flickr it looks completely different courtesy of p'shop and they get great ratings.

As an example I took this shot on a trip to Scotland recently ....

I showed it to one of the guys in the office, he did his usual thing and then sent it back to me ....

The birds are his trade mark, or sometimes it's a random donkey.

 

[shep]

Shewie, his mods look great, but I totally disagree with the appoach. It's like going 'camping' in a motorhome, or playing a fishing computer game!

The satisfaction for me comes from recording what was there and getting most of it right in-camera. I do tweak levels for contrast, tone B+W pics and occasionally clone out distractions. Anything else just isn't photography IMHO.

I think on a photography forum within a bushcraft site this sort of thing should be banned.okenest:

 

[Daegurth]

ouch. WAY too much unsharp mask applied to that. people do like to use photoshop as a sledgehammer rather than a feather duster though.

here's my yellow filter interpretation of your pic (maybe more sunset grad ):

it could be better, but it was a 10 minute job.

as for the level of photoshopping allowed... it's a debate that rages endlessly, and generally my viewpoint is this: if it can be achieved in-camera (although maybe not in your model), then it can be photoshopped and still called photography. anything else is digital art. although usually i don't care. whether photography or digital art, a great image is a great image. the same amount of effort and skill has usually gone into it- using photoshop well isn't as easy as people tend to think.

 

[Dougster]

Great photos all - but the bottom one is really striking.

 

[shep]

as for the level of photoshopping allowed... it's a debate that rages endlessly, and generally my viewpoint is this: if it can be achieved in-camera (although maybe not in your model), then it can be photoshopped and still called photography. anything else is digital art. although usually i don't care. whether photography or digital art, a great image is a great image. the same amount of effort and skill has usually gone into it- using photoshop well isn't as easy as people tend to think.

Totally true. I'm hopeless with it and don't have the patience, yet strangely I used to happily spend a whole day in a darkroom.

I now stick with basic tweaks in Lightroom, low flickr ratings and the moral highground.

 

[Shewie]

The guy at work who likes to tinker with his photos has quite an impressive Flickr account if anyone's interested. Most of his shots are taken during our lunch break and then he turns fairly ordinary pics into masterpieces. Some even look like paintings.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martynstarkey/page1/

He doesn't mind me putting up a link to his work and he welcomes any comments from Flickr users.

 

[gsfgaz]

Brilliant picture's ...

 

[shep]

The guy at work who likes to tinker with his photos has quite an impressive Flickr account if anyone's interested. Most of his shots are taken during our lunch break and then he turns fairly ordinary pics into masterpieces. Some even look like paintings.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/martynstarkey/page1/

He doesn't mind me putting up a link to his work and he welcomes any comments from Flickr users.

Ah, fair's fair. He's not just a photoshop whizz. Those are just great photos.

 

[Daegurth]

yeah, some of his shots are pretty spectacular.

 

[Shewie]

Didn't mean to sorry Rob

 

[Daegurth]

ah, it's alright; it's not often that a thread actually stays on topic on the internet anyway.