ILPhoto Gallery (a thread to show off your pictures)

The Zone System is so complicated Adams had to break it up into five books, IIRC. It goes far beyond basic exposure rules into pre-visualization, exposure, developing, printing, dodging/burning/etc..

his most popular work (moonrise over a desert in NM, I think) is kind of funny, because it was a quick shot that has to be extensively dodged and burned when printed

i have an app on my ipod but i use it abt 50% of the time and the rest of the time i guess but it really helped me figure out what will look like what. like i actually take a photo that looks like somthing on every frame now which is a long way away from how i started.

playing with my new X100, my housemate is unenthused

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6134233911_73bb18fb31_b.jpg
Roomie by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

Just had a mess with Silver Efex Pro in lightroom, seems ok, will have to spend some time with it.
1st shot using Silver Efex pro...
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6158/6136067390_02e3b85e50.jpg
Media City by carljgodwin, on Flickr

I guess Flickr changed my image URL afterward...

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6156/6134233911_7df171c3ac_b.jpg
Roomie by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

milo that's a beautiful shot

Didn't have my wide angle while out today. Managed to get some good results with the nifty fifty.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6168/6150592034_8bfa6c9074.jpg
Dovestone Reservoir by carljgodwin, on Flickr

Looks better here,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/carljgodwin/6150592034/lightbox/

Very nice! I love the deep shadow and the detail within.

Thank you.
More reflection stuff
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6155370202_3fc8b6325b_z.jpg
Untitled by carljgodwin, on Flickr

Added a little saturation, otherwise straight out of camera.

Tremendous.

Just some guy. But he has a great nose.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6207/6161237564_861267db9c_z.jpg

Drama.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6169/6164841351_d089fa6fd9_z.jpg

http://ihardlyknowher.com/ev4nsk0w/big

i guess this is where i'll be putting my "better" pictures---my other flickr is too crowded/disorganized

some new stuff, mostly old stuff, reworked

obv there is google proofing in there

aw man these are great, gbx; the colours really pop in the colour stuff (cf blue guitar), & the b/ws are awesome.

i took a few pictures of a cravat wearing dog a couple of days ago, maybe i can contrast him against the lil guy outside the store you shot once printed.

i think we saw one of the b&w shots in colour on here, a while back; are the others all shot in b/w or are there any changes? just curious.

thx man! i love alfred and the blue guitar. i explained this elsewhere on ilx, but the best part of that pic, for me, is knowing that he doesn't actually play. he just asked to pose with it when i asked to take his picture.

xp actually, all of those are digital---i just liked the way they looked in B&W a little better. virtually all of them have been posted here, i think? :-/ nagl, i know

i mean, i ~tweaked~ them, redid the cropping (not so many squares, dayo)

but the best part of that pic, for me, is knowing that he doesn't actually play. he just asked to pose with it when i asked to take his picture.

ha, that's great. feel like we are getting slightly into the territory of that errol morris book, here.

actually, all of those are digital---i just liked the way they looked in B&W a little better. virtually all of them have been posted here, i think? :-/ nagl, i know

ha that's crazy, they're all great & go well together; i don't think ilx syndication is too damning. i followed the flickr links to check out the cameras involved & was surprised they were all digital - there's something super appealing about the contrast & darkness of some of the shots & i think i'd assumed they were film.

i feel weirder & weirder reading some of the photo threads here because i think i'm pretty bad on a technical level & am probably stubbornly butting my head against analogue, because ~at its apex~ it is superior, to me, when realistically i could probably be doing better in some senses with digital or whatever. i took this photo of some friends a couple of weeks ago (& a bunch that are similar), w/old expired 1600 film, & i like it fine, can handle the visible deficiencies of it not being especially 'clear', but feel pulled up short when i see the radiance/clarity of either great!, well-taken!, digital stuff, like yours - the guy in the shirt with the road in the background -- or of properly exposed film stuff elsewhere.

redid the cropping (not so many squares, dayo)

lol. all of this is really throwing me off your trail, dimensions are the easiest clue to unscramble, for me.

aw thanks man

i was basically cheating on a lot of those ugandan shots, tho, bear in mind---shooting a 28mm summicron on an m8 did a lot of the heavy lifting. aside from framing and being in the right place, the only "decision" i made was to selectively meter the highlights sometimes (w/o adjusting, tho, cuz i didn't know what i was doing). that's why shots like that one from the bus came out like they did, i think.

also i've realized (and had explained by dayo) that getting properly exposed stuff outside is waaay easier than inside, i think?

yeah, for sure. taking photos indoors i am mainly concerned with getting something to show up, tbh, for posterity. having lots of light to play with, outside, is just a joy, & makes it easier to bring a sense of decision-making to the process, on account of like having the actual horizon as a factor in your depth-of-field decisions.

i am on ebay looking at leicas btw, this is never going to happen.

haha, yeah, i realized when going through a lot of these last night that square-cropping really was a thing i was leaning on, and for no good reason? nice for portraits, i think, but looking over some older ugandan photos i saw that i was cropping out stuff that i thought was "extraneous" but was actually kind of interesting as ephemera. (cf the cam in that portrait of my friend jonah, in the wig---friend of mine told me to crop that out and i think it makes the picture way more interesting)

anyway blah show me some of yr stuff dudes. dayo why are yr flickrs just pics of cameras i want to own???

xp lololol i have spent approx 45min/day of the last WEEK looking at M3s and M4s on ebay

have 'issues' so not posting urls, but click my name for a link (warning link will expire after 24 tense hours).

re: leicas, really i think the worst thing that could happen would be me ever getting one, i prefer having the crutch of imagining some vast leap in quality were i to obtain a great camera.

thx for the link man, i will keep yr secrets (i was p hesitant to my govt named link up there, but i figure a lot of ppl on ilx know who i am by now anyway, and ILP is a ~backwater~)

it's cool as long as we all have enough on each other to make sure no-one squeals. now keep it quiet about what my dad looks like.

― forced to change display name (gbx)

^^ sage move

haw

really love the dancing pic and the one of the men playing cards, btw! and the whole look yr getting (with old stock yeah?) is p cool

I really like your work, gbx. That shot of the woman with her walker kills me.

Was at a tiny gig this past weekend and shot a bunch of pictures, but I was a disappointed with how they came out in the low light. This one seems to have a retained a little impact, anyway:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6153/6168397740_f698032f52.jpg

hey thank you! i feel like the guys playing cards* is a little generically 'otherly' somehow, but the guys' expressions are great, so. stock is mainly just outdated film, so mainly just faded out (through economy rather than aesthetics, really); the super grainy kinda midnight cowboy stuff is a few rolls of like velvia 50, iirc, shot in mid-summer. ty anyhow.

* i actually kinda like that it's ill-exposed enough to bleach out whatever it is that's happening on the table, so you can read it just as guys socially sharing an introspective moment of blankly staring at a table

yeah that's a good one, mills. yr shooting a gf1, too, right?

and schlump ha that's hilarious about the table, i wondered what it was that drew me. like wtf r u lookin at

also q for mills: is tumblr easy to upload to (like via LR), or is it more "manual"? per the talk upthread about places to display photos that aren't flickr (and milo's thread on 500px), i'm wondering if IHKH is the best bet for the long-term, or if i should make something myself or w/e

yeah, I've been using a GF1 all through 2011. it's been awesome, but a little iffy once you're into ISO 800+ territory.

AFAIK there are plugins that will upload from lightroom/aperture/whathaveyou, but I add few enough pictures to mine that I'll usually just export a full-res JPEG and upload it manually. the tumblr 'dashboard' is actually p nice. I have barely any followers, but it's always a boost when some random person likes/reposts something I've shot.

hmmmm. manually might prevent photorrhea on my part. the whole reason i set up a diff flickr was to force myself to edit more judiciously

aside from framing and being in the right place,

don't sell yourself short! this is the hardest thing to do in all of photography. don't think any less of a picture you made because all you did was 'press the shutter' - by putting yourself in a position to take the picture you did 99% of the heavy lifting already. when I first saw the phrase 'f/8 and be there' bandied about as a photography maxim I was all "???" - but now I realize it's the be there part that's the point. I mean, I would wager that all of HCBs, or Winogrands, greatest shots were probably made using 2 or 3 exposure settings* - the technical stuff washes out once you have 'it'.

anyways lol yeah my flickr is all stuff I am trying to sell/have sold. I have a tumblr but I am getting really close to getting drunk one day and deleting it. still marinating about what a good photo website should be like. maybe start a separate thread.

I do like tumblr as a website but I feel any photo website that how do I shot serious is gonna get sucked up by the tumblr subculture of hyper-fast posting and going viral and all that. a distraction. IHKR looks really nice, I might start using it as a stopgap...

*iirc HCB liked to shoot at f/8, 1/125, with focus set at 5 meters, whenever he was outside. his printer had to deal with the rest. must be nice, not having to print!

Dayo, I have to admit I liked your flickr stream of cameras to sell! Even with the Leica, I've always liked the look of the Canon rangefinders. How are they to use?

depends on how much of a tactile person you are! I am a very tactile person so I pay attention to small details. I've owned a canon 7 and P. the viewfinder is nice, about as big as a leica but not as nice to look through. the rangefinder patch is a circle but doesn't have a clearly defined boundary, so it's fuzzy and not as nice. the shutter sound is a little bit harsher and more strident than a leica but not by much. the film advance is notably rougher than a leica, and I've heard that's the case even after a CLA.

on the other hand, they are cheap and getting cheaper - $150 should get you a canon p, which is one of the greatest looking cameras. of all time. of all time!

http://www.kuroneko-camera.com/images/lenses/canon_50_22_2.jpg

xp lololol i have spent approx 45min/day of the last WEEK looking at M3s and M4s on ebay

― forced to change display name (gbx), Wednesday, September 21, 2011 10:06 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark

hahah don't get them from ebay - if you aim a serious leica, there are better and more reliable deals to be had. private sellers will always offer a better deal if yer patient enough.

That's reassuring to know about the Canon. I was very close to buying one + lens and viewfinder last winter for, maybe $300-400? but my girlfriend talked me out of it saying "you really want a Leica, so just wait and get a Leica." It was good advice.
And *actually* when I picked up the Leica M2 I got it on eBay for a cool $400. It was low because the leatherette was worn and it was a little dinged up, and, I dunno, I bid well? But the seller was local so I could just pick it up in person.

$400 is a really great price for a m2! yeah there is a theory with equipment buying, that you might as well buy what's top of the line, so that way you can never convince yourself that it's your equipment that's the limiting factor, not you.

My eBay standard operating procedure served me well on that one, which is: find what the *lowest* an object I'd like has ever gone for (in decent condition) and then just keep bidding again and again with that amount as my max (usually entering it 5 minutes or so before ending).
And as for not buying the Canon rangefinder, I'd already spent more than enough money on compact fixed-lens rangefinders, or Soviet stuff, or point and shoots, etc., and realized that the Canon would be more of the same. Better to wait a little longer and get the real deal.

Oh and I love and use all my compact rangefinders, point-and-shoots, Soviet cameras, etc., but how many do I really need?

Didn't realize Canon Ps were that cheap. I didn't need to know that.
Pretty much all of my bookshelves have an old, cheap camera on them - Agfa Clicks and Clacks, a Canonet, a Rolleicord that I haven't dared test since it went flying during a panic stop five years ago. I restrict that collection to 120 and 35mm, so I could theoretically use them if I got a scanner.

I have a Click, a Clack, an Isola and an Isola II. I need to figure out what else I need to be an Agfa completist

so bummed my canonet broek :(

manually might prevent photorrhea on my part.

Not if you really want to take pictures. Because if you really want to take pictures, you will, and lots of them. The framing and focus may be more carefully considered, but some will be slightly out of focus and unusable, just like with autofocus or point and shoot, where many of your shots are badly framed, and just as bad as if they were all fuzzy. You'll spend more time on each shot, maybe, and maybe some of your shots will be better, and maybe you'll learn more about how your lenses work than you knew before. But don't expect a dramatic drop in the number of shots you take unless you just stop caring to take pictures as much as you used to. Manually focusing and framing a shot does not take that much more effort than merely manually framing a shot.

*iirc HCB liked to shoot at f/8, 1/125, with focus set at 5 meters, whenever he was outside. his printer had to deal with the rest. must be nice, not having to print!

ha, this is fascinating dayo. i think my furtive explorations of how great photographers actually took their shots always run into just vagueness or obfuscation, like you never get hard replicable facts in the books i've read.

Didn't realize Canon Ps were that cheap. I didn't need to know that.

^^^