Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day - June 2009
- Thread starter techie4life
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I really love this. When I lived in CA I would head down the beach at night and take some shots. It's pitch black there often and the water is lit by nothing more than the moon. Long exposures on film yielded some amazing results.
Good work, even though the moon is quite bright I love it.
TIMG TIMG!some storm chasin
But as stated in your other thread, not bad.
Dunno about that. What I express is simply my opinion... no more, no less. And when I wrote "everyone's free to express their creatively as they think fit", that was to support people posting the kind of pix they like, not to criticise. I really don't think this warrants a personal attack...
I read Doylem's words more as support for you than for ClixPix, and let's be fair: he's not the self-appointed arbiter you're making him out to be.
What is it with photographers and bees?
Terrific shot. I really like that the bee is slightly out of focus.
Taken with Canon 350D XT & Canon 50mm 1.8 II
more photos to check out at http://www.flickr.com/photos/beckcains/
Dunno about that. What I express is simply my opinion... no more, no less. And when I wrote "everyone's free to express their creatively as they think fit", that was to support people posting the kind of pix they like, not to criticise. I really don't think this warrants a personal attack...
Then, my apologies to Doylem.
Two years of Photo Of The Day's recurring idiocy has made me allergic to the slightest provocation, as evidenced in this thread. I have witnessed very promising and unique photographers come through here and end up leaving because of the insufferable vibe here that kind of resonates of My Poop Don't Stink So I'm Gonna Sit Back and Play Armchair Photography Critic. It can be so utterly nauseating that I totally understand why some don't come back too.
Whoa whoa, cool down people. Well I rarely post photos here these days since I blog about my photos instead, but here is my recent work, hoping to cool things down (although the color is erm....none? except tones of black and white)
Taken from my 7 hours road trip back to my home sweet island
Comments and criticism appreciated, actually I did these before (from a past trip) and posted it in my blog, I shall update my blog with this set of B&W photos soon, meanwhile here was my first attempt, however this time I tried improving those shots, but I felt my first attempt was more dramatic Anything to say bout this?
Taken from my 7 hours road trip back to my home sweet island
Comments and criticism appreciated, actually I did these before (from a past trip) and posted it in my blog, I shall update my blog with this set of B&W photos soon, meanwhile here was my first attempt, however this time I tried improving those shots, but I felt my first attempt was more dramatic
Anything to say bout this?
Thank you...
Dunno about this either. Everyone can post their favourite pix here. Everyone can express their opinions. Anyone who thinks this forum is a shouting match really ought to give some other forums a whirl. Compared with many, POTD is a bastion of courtesy and even-handedness. The price of having opinions freely expressed is that every now and again someone will take offense. C'est la vie...
Thanks, yeah - pitch black I lost almost lost my bag. You can see hardly anything through the viewfinder. Better be wary of bluebottles when your wading through the dark water!
Does nobody shoot this scene in landscape orientation? Seems like it would work better that way.
Oh I beg your pardon. You may find that portrait often works in these instances and that not all landscapes have to be shot in landscape. Clearly landscape worked well if I made a pano (not posted) out of it. I hope your next response is absent of any rules I have broken regarding ONE pic per day.
Lord, people are touchy today...
Generally, what I find to be part of the problem with criticism, especially of "hdr" applications to images, is that the critics focus on the method, and not the image. There seems to be an automatic bias against the term "hdr" in the eyes of some, so they tend to be quite negative about anything associated with it. This is certainly short-sighted and somewhat closed-minded. When we go into a gallery and look at photographs, we either like them for some reason(s) or another, or we are indifferent, or we don't like them. Usually we're 'judging' the work based on our own immediate reactions to them - how they affect us emotionally, aesthetically, etc. If we're not told the methodology of how they were made, we leave our biases at the door, and just experience the final product, for good or bad (and there are lot of different methodologies in producing gallery prints, both in the wet or electronic darkroom to the printing processes available, and on and on.)
Hopefully here, we can just say what we like, or don't like about the offerings, particularly if c+c is asked for, and not bring the methodology into the mix. I'm sure someone could produce an "hdr" image that you wouldn't be able to tell for sure if it used multi-image range extending techniques, or not. But to some, it seems, if it was labeled as HDR, it would immediately conjure up negativity... imagine how Ansel Adams would be received today if his own "HDR" work was dismissed out of hand... for not being straight photography.
Doylem is a proponent of natural light, and patience and waiting for the right moment. It's a disciplined approach, and especially for landscape photography is a proven method for getting masterful landscapes. I also don't thing he was being critical of HDR as a rule, but simply stating that he hasn't been touched by 99% of what he's seen so far, which I'd actually agree with when the subject is uninteresting, the effect doesn't add to the picture, and the person doing it is generally experimenting with software - thus the images leave a lot to be desired as a final product. Many of these images say more about a common look derived from Photomatix when using default settings than they do about the photographer, so basically they're boring after the first dozen or so. Nothing wrong with saying that. It's not a personal thing, and I'm glad Valdore realized that. I can also see Valdore's side and how irritating it can be to see the general harping about "hdr" over and over again. I'd be sick of it, too.
Let's just accept each other, and the work we choose to do. We bring it here to share, not to compete with each other. I've learned a lot about photography coming here, and also learned a lot about my own photography and how some of it I thought was good didn't really do anything for others, and some I didn't think much of really elicited positive responses. I'm always curious, sometimes disappointed, other times rewarded beyond expectation... but never offended. Hopefully we can all stay on this level... peace, and out!
Generally, what I find to be part of the problem with criticism, especially of "hdr" applications to images, is that the critics focus on the method, and not the image. There seems to be an automatic bias against the term "hdr" in the eyes of some, so they tend to be quite negative about anything associated with it. This is certainly short-sighted and somewhat closed-minded. When we go into a gallery and look at photographs, we either like them for some reason(s) or another, or we are indifferent, or we don't like them. Usually we're 'judging' the work based on our own immediate reactions to them - how they affect us emotionally, aesthetically, etc. If we're not told the methodology of how they were made, we leave our biases at the door, and just experience the final product, for good or bad (and there are lot of different methodologies in producing gallery prints, both in the wet or electronic darkroom to the printing processes available, and on and on.)
Hopefully here, we can just say what we like, or don't like about the offerings, particularly if c+c is asked for, and not bring the methodology into the mix. I'm sure someone could produce an "hdr" image that you wouldn't be able to tell for sure if it used multi-image range extending techniques, or not. But to some, it seems, if it was labeled as HDR, it would immediately conjure up negativity... imagine how Ansel Adams would be received today if his own "HDR" work was dismissed out of hand... for not being straight photography.
Doylem is a proponent of natural light, and patience and waiting for the right moment. It's a disciplined approach, and especially for landscape photography is a proven method for getting masterful landscapes. I also don't thing he was being critical of HDR as a rule, but simply stating that he hasn't been touched by 99% of what he's seen so far, which I'd actually agree with when the subject is uninteresting, the effect doesn't add to the picture, and the person doing it is generally experimenting with software - thus the images leave a lot to be desired as a final product. Many of these images say more about a common look derived from Photomatix when using default settings than they do about the photographer, so basically they're boring after the first dozen or so. Nothing wrong with saying that. It's not a personal thing, and I'm glad Valdore realized that. I can also see Valdore's side and how irritating it can be to see the general harping about "hdr" over and over again. I'd be sick of it, too.
Let's just accept each other, and the work we choose to do. We bring it here to share, not to compete with each other. I've learned a lot about photography coming here, and also learned a lot about my own photography and how some of it I thought was good didn't really do anything for others, and some I didn't think much of really elicited positive responses. I'm always curious, sometimes disappointed, other times rewarded beyond expectation... but never offended. Hopefully we can all stay on this level... peace, and out!
Oh I beg your pardon. You may find that portrait often works in these instances and that not all landscapes have to be shot in landscape. Clearly landscape worked well if I made a pano (not posted) out of it. I hope your next response is absent of any rules I have broken regarding ONE pic per day.
View attachment 174225
I was confused by your mention of a pano and posting of a vertical. I readily agree that some landscape shots work well in portrait orientation, but this one really seemed to cry out for landscape...and indeed, the one you just posted is really lovely and a big improvement over the vertical one to my eye. That horizontal rock formation offers the perfect counterpoint to the vertical waterfall, and seeing more of the beautiful blue color adds a lot too.
Understood but you have to see both have merits. It's clear that people won't agree all of the time. I felt the waterfall was lost in the landscape and that was my point of the excursion. However, it should be clear based on me being able to produce a landscape version that I saw the beauty in the landscape as well. My point of posting vertical was choice and in response to Gary. Nothing more.
I shoot plenty of landscape, I just find merit in portrait as well.
Baby Mouse!
Taken with my 70-300mm Macro, little mouse was no more than 2" long and was the cutest little thing ever!
Taken with my 70-300mm Macro, little mouse was no more than 2" long and was the cutest little thing ever!
@pdxflint; Amen to your post. I am a long time viewer of this thread an am impressed with everything I see here. I don't have a "trained" eye. I only know if something looks good or it doesn't look good, to me and only me. My wife always says to me, "there's no accounting for taste". So please, no fighting. I LOVE this thread. Keith
Personally, if I was afraid of someone's opinion of my photos I wouldn't post them. If someone here hates one of my photos, so be it. I don't think that they are personally attacking me, whether their criticism is constructive or not. So often Art is subjective, and the reaction to the Art being the whole point. I'm sure some hate Jackson Pollacks art, but it is still art nonetheless. For every person that hates a piece of art there may be one who loves it. If one of my photos evokes a negative reaction, I will either take what I can from the reaction and try to improve, or disregard it, shrug my shoulders and move on. Life is too short. <end of rant>
I agree, why should we let labels determine what kind of photos we can take. Besides, often times waterfalls are better represented in 'portrait' mode, it eliminates the extraneous.
Motel Sierra Vista
I agree, why should we let labels determine what kind of photos we can take. Besides, often times waterfalls are better represented in 'portrait' mode, it eliminates the extraneous.
Motel Sierra Vista