ILPhoto Gallery (a thread to show off your pictures)

Yes?

that is not a young man

lol

Hey, I didn't say he wasn't a corporate lackey and a douchenozzle. Be he got her smiling, didn't he?

n/m

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6042/6293120319_de71a077c3_b.jpg
Winter is coming by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6031/6304055018_c37520a84c_b.jpg
DSCF0052-Edit.jpg by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

Lovely textures! Are those mostly out-of-camera, or have you played with curves a bit?

I import into Lightroom, correct for the lens, sharpen a little, then export to Nik Silver Efex Pro 2 for B&W conversion.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6059/6306923677_04cabff028_z.jpg

oh wow, love the atmosphere

thanks!

yeah that is boss

That's awesome.

thanks Gbx and Millsner!

going through my archives and pulled out a troika

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6224/6311088636_e9e285b152_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6220/6310568151_7e4664e151_z.jpg

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6034/6311089060_c4d7f19d54_z.jpg

7 more new pix here:

http://ihardlyknowher.com/idiotcervantes/big

amazing, dayo, for real, everything there
i was looking back at yr older IHKH shots a while ago & was thinking you're into a pretty like open field, generally, shooting more towards 16 - right? they're great, they look kinda 'societal' that way.

but those are all really just something else. the elevator.

dang homey those are great

dayo those pictures are rad man, seriously

Inspiring.

I went out for a drive last Sunday to take some photos, first time in ages.

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/le_bateau_ivre/DSC_0153-1.jpg

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/le_bateau_ivre/DSC_0105-1.jpg

http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu216/le_bateau_ivre/DSC_0146-1.jpg

thanks guys! LBI you've some great atmosphere, esp. in that second shot.

i was looking back at yr older IHKH shots a while ago & was thinking you're into a pretty like open field, generally, shooting more towards 16 - right? they're great, they look kinda 'societal' that way.

hah what does it mean shooting more towards 16?

Thanks Dayo!

I really like those, second shot stands out for sure

i was looking back at yr older IHKH shots a while ago & was thinking you're into a pretty like open field, generally, shooting more towards 16 - right? they're great, they look kinda 'societal' that way.

hah what does it mean shooting more towards 16?

this feels so like being BUSTED, i really don't have the vocabulary to talk about photography so was erring on the side of vagueness. i mean that your aperture is generally closer to being at 16, & leaving everything fairly visible & in focus, rather than limiting the DOF. i would stride in and say 'wide open', but i just heard someone use that to suggest what i thought of as being the opposite - as in like a v narrow field in focus - so i'm all confused. this wasn't meant to turn into a photo-vocab-digression, it's just it seems like such a crucial part of what makes those pics so good & subsequently what must be kind of an ideal in taking street photos, to some degree; that everything is contextualised by some idea of the sprawl of where it's taking place.

oh yeah, totally! I love depth of field. I normally shoot between f/4-f/11, staying around f/8-f/11 if possible. my 35mm lens atm only goes down to 2.8. also I tend to shoots subjects that are at least 10 feet away, it's hard to throw a background out of focus at 10 feet with a 35mm, even if you had a f/2 or f/1.4 aperture. well, maybe with an f/1.4 aperture.

mainly it's for convenience sake, hyperfocusing and all that, but it's also maybe about not relying on background blur for subject isolation.

but yeah I can't think of any street photographer (that I like, anyway) who uses extreme DoF and blur for good pictures

yeah, sure. it is funny, it took me a really long time to begin to think of 16 as an optimum, rather than 1.8/2.8, i think because super-extreme-narrow-focus was one of those first almost trashy thing that seemed magical about cameras to me, along w/shit like MOTION BLUR, & light trails, double exposures, &c&c&c. so i'm reflexively inclined to move the dial more that way. the practicality of removing the delicacy of focus while on the move is a big plus, too, i guess.

(incidentally i am just finishing a roll of 1600 film that's been in the yashica i bought a while ago, &'ve only previously shot one kinda poorly exposed roll on, & might get it printed soon; will totally bring my rangefinder experiments to the yard itt if it comes out okay, i'm intrigued)

but yeah I can't think of any street photographer (that I like, anyway) who uses extreme DoF and blur for good pictures

yeah, this is surprising to me but otm; it was looking at your pic w/the trail of kids that kinda shocked me into specifically noticing it, because the various fore- & background dressings are so essential.

yeah, sure. it is funny, it took me a really long time to begin to think of 16 as an optimum, rather than 1.8/2.8, i think because super-extreme-narrow-focus was one of those first almost trashy thing that seemed magical about cameras to me, along w/shit like MOTION BLUR, & light trails, double exposures, &c&c&c. so i'm reflexively inclined to move the dial more that way. the practicality of removing the delicacy of focus while on the move is a big plus, too, i guess.

^^^totes. i was very very guilty of narrow DOF omg bokeh shots when i first got my gf1. seems like a p common indulgence of the new photographer

yeah the chief advantage of a large sensor camera is the ability to selectively focus. but really, it's just another tool in the toolbox - there are some great, classic shots that lean real heavy on the thin DoF, and there are just as many that don't. it's all about how you make that tool work to craft your vision

protip: instead of getting that f/1.4 or f/1.2 or f/1.0 lens for that thin DoF, just move in closer. DoF decreases significantly the closer you move in to a subject.

(I should say, DoF decreases significantly with closer focal distance)

I tend to try to stick to f/4-f/8 on 35mm or APS-C - deep enough depth of field, but distant objects are sufficiently blurred to not be a distraction.

'bokeh shots' are the worst - even if your lens has 'nice' bokeh, if your eye is completely distracted by the sheer amount of OOF area it's probably a terrible composition

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6056/6316651672_63469a00d5_b.jpg
DSCF0075-Edit.jpg by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

aha, i love the before and after there

i had a kickass pumpkin this year but it crumbled and died before haloween. i had to throw it out on the 30th

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6102/6320238582_9ecb96e86d_b.jpg
DSCF0098-Edit.jpg by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

Found out there's a opacity slider for some of the things you can do in Color Efex Pro, so this is less garish than the last:

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6224/6320957663_e62b8f0b2f_b.jpg
good while it lasted by celluloidpropaganda, on Flickr

drank a little last night and did some drunken editing, uploaded 10 more pix

http://ihardlyknowher.com/idiotcervantes/big

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6108/6321284694_68c0a26e1e_z.jpg

straight frikkin fire

:)

1st shot in ages, started new job and it's been quite full on.
Anyway, here's one of the views (probably the best) from the office.
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6211/6322798457_89aa9ef138_z.jpg
Manchester by carljgodwin, on Flickr

yeah i haven't taken any new photos in a while, i've been busy going back to school and you can't just start taking pictures of people you just met its like rude.

yeah damn dayo they are something else. i hate being inquisitive about people's photos, as if q & a is gonna produce a OH SO THAT'S WHY IT'S GOOD response, but: you're using like hi-speed (or lo-speed i guess) film, there, for some of those, right? like 1600?? that is what stuff like the rad shot of the streets or the marlboro logo makes me think but i am wrong w/this stuff, so wondered.

hey plax are you still just carrying your camera around? bc i liked all the still-lifey kinda stuff you were shooting, even if you can't take pics of yr new friends

Oh man oh man.... gf out of town for a bit and lots of negatives coming back soon, so it's gonna be many hours of scanning ahead for me. Fun!
Dayo... I like that shot of the guy eating. The kinda built physique and the striped shirt really make it I think. I mean in addition to the downcast eyes, hand placement, etc.

This has been sitting as my most recent on flickr for quite awhile (was out of town snapping away in SF for a bit, and visiting the awesome store CAMERA HEAVEN in the Tenderloin):

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6092/6304230579_9bc69736a6_z.jpg

thanks guys! schlump almost everything is either 400 or 400 pushed to 1600 (the high contrast ones are I think).

after going through those photos I think I have a problem w/ chronic underexposure - will need to remind myself to expose a stop or two higher than I have been.

thanks guys! schlump almost everything is either 400 or 400 pushed to 1600 (the high contrast ones are I think).

ty! i am counting this as me being 1000% correct, i was near enough. i haven't developed all of the rolls i've fucked around with in various ways, but it feels like you can be pretty flexible w/BW film & get something good back, at least if you're pushing it up. those pics testify to the virtues of exposing well imo, they're so strong, the tones are so deep.

nice to see yr pic chinavision, yr photz are still reminding me of jeff wall somehow.

I like that... thanks! I dig the shots that are in fact candid but I think look posed. The Jeff Wall fakeout.

It's not just a library, it's a LIBRARY! It's an obnoxious building, tbh.

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6233/6326012061_909476b610_z.jpg

Still, I like the way that it's so damn big that it can be dawn on one side of it and still night on the other side.