Jump to content



Photo

A few local photographers who use too many filters.


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#31 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 01 February 2013 - 16:33

i love how anyone with a DSLR things they are a photographer now lol.


The one chick who takes photos for the first photography place, recently had her DSLR Nikon camera stolen out of her car. She then wanted to replace it as soon as possible to start taking pictures again, so she sends me a link asking me if "This was a good camera to buy" it was pretty much a point in shoot, non DSLR. I told her... uh... that isn't the same as what you had.

The second person I linked to, I chatted with about a year ago talking about photography. I asked her what camera she uses .....she had to go look ....


#32 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 01 February 2013 - 17:28

never went to art school huh?... it's definatly not teaching you to be ike others... they teach you the basics and make you go out on your own, then defend why you went that way... definatly not "you didn't do it like the masters you fail" idea.....



there is other uses for vaseline? :o hehe j/k :laugh:


other than smearing on your neutral lens filters ?

:p

#33 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 01 February 2013 - 17:42

Photos Added to first post


Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)
- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.
- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.

The one chick who takes photos for the first photography place, recently had her DSLR Nikon camera stolen out of her car. She then wanted to replace it as soon as possible to start taking pictures again, so she sends me a link asking me if "This was a good camera to buy" it was pretty much a point in shoot, non DSLR. I told her... uh... that isn't the same as what you had.

The second person I linked to, I chatted with about a year ago talking about photography. I asked her what camera she uses .....she had to go look ....


Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.

#34 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 01 February 2013 - 17:46

Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)
- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.
- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.



Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.


The last 3 are from the 2nd photographer. The 1st 3 are from the 1st photographer.

Here are 2 more photos from photographer #2

Posted Image
Posted Image


Here is one that I took

Posted Image

#35 HawkMan

HawkMan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway
  • Phone: Noka Lumia 1020

Posted 01 February 2013 - 18:29

your 2nd photographer is way to fond of ruining picture by making them look like they where taken in the 70's, the first one, isn't always terrible, but sucks at proper focus and positioning. and while the black and white with some color effect can be nice and cool, she's using it all wrong, firstly only one color should ever be present, and in general only one object, sometimes one object but with all the colors on that object.

the framing on that particular photo is also pretty damn bad.

your pic is good, but could have had better lighting on the girl, probably could have benefitted form one or two light reflector/shading plates. of course that could require helpers.

#36 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 01 February 2013 - 18:39

your pic is good, but could have had better lighting on the girl, probably could have benefitted form one or two light reflector/shading plates. of course that could require helpers.


I agree the original turned out way to dark.

Here is one I took for one of the local bar owners in town for his facebook page. Personally I LOVE how this one turned out

Posted Image

I just talked to photographer #1 apparently her editing software of choice is Picmonkey.com. Yes she just applies filters.

#37 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:20

Well

- First and third photo are ok for what they try to be, their problem isn't with the color adjustment, but rather the over sharpening (goddamit, you don't crank sharpness and clarity to 100)
- Second phot, this one is actually ok, Except that the focus plane appears to be in the wrong place. their faces are out of focus, probably a victim of "Hey I got a cool nifty fifty, Let's use it at 1,4 or 1,8 (whatever is the largest aperture the particular model does) cause we absolutely need the extreme values to get good DOF... NO, use 2.8 so you can actually get you target, and the WHOLE object in your focus plane. not their feet.
- Fourth, firth and sixth. THESE however ARE victims of filters. or rather over done post editing as you can accomplish all this in Lr without filters. I can accept amateurs with phones using lomo and 50's,60's,70's camera filters to get a "cool" look to their pictures, I won't respect it, and I'll tell them it's ugly, and that I'm sure their parents wish they had better cameras to take their baby pictures with, and that it's stupid to ruin their family pictures by pretending to live in the past. But for peopel who actually pretend to be amateur+ photographers to do these, that's just idiotic.

if you're going to adjust the photos at least do something creative with color toning to two toning or exposures contrast and such. But don't try to imitate crap old cameras, there's nothing creative about it.

Also judging form the quality on them, I'd say the last three actually appear to be taken with cell phone cameras and adjusted with filter programs on those. though the last two appear to have an overdose of noise removal and clarity -100 in Lightroom, but I'm sure that's part of the effect package in whatever filter app they used.



Well, you don't need a DSLR to take good pictures, for most people a non DSLR would in fact be a better camera to buy. they can take better pictures, faster and without changing lenses. The popularity for everyone thinking they need DSLR or mirrorless today is just stupid.

Also, it's not the tool, but the guy using it. There was a sport photographer recently, during the olympics I think, who took all the photos with an iPhone.


Hey I always shoot wide open :p It's not about shallow DOF, but about learning WHERE to focus, hence why that particular photo the feet are in focus, but I do agree with you however, too many people just shoot 1.8/1.4 just because...
Also the iphone olympic shooter, cheated, as he used LED flashes and lighting help, still pretty good technique and what not, but not truly "iphone only" photos.
And I think most of those 5 photos are way to processed to be lightroom, they seem instagramish if you ask me.

The last 3 are from the 2nd photographer. The 1st 3 are from the 1st photographer.

Here are 2 more photos from photographer #2





Here is one that I took

Posted Image


I remember her! Did you ever hook up? ( way off topic :p :p :p )

#38 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:27

Na...turns out she was engaged. who knew? I not me! Now married. Still friends though.

#39 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:29

she was engaged?!!?!? whoa!! wait are you married or is she married?

#40 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:30

She was engaged now she's married.

#41 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 02 February 2013 - 01:38

I agree the original turned out way to dark.

Here is one I took for one of the local bar owners in town for his facebook page. Personally I LOVE how this one turned out

Posted Image

I just talked to photographer #1 apparently her editing software of choice is Picmonkey.com. Yes she just applies filters.


Pretty good! BUTT that over exposed window in the back... then again i'm nitpicking so don't mind me :p

#42 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 02 May 2013 - 15:58

My Eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Ooook, so apparently this was not taken by photographer number #1 who I thought it was but a different photographer she knew, i'll call her photographer #3

Posted Image

#43 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:38

My Eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Ooook, so apparently this was not taken by photographer number #1 who I thought it was but a different photographer she knew, i'll call her photographer #3

Posted Image

Instafilters I guess...


You know what my beef with these sorta photos/filters, is that there ARE people out there, who tag these sorta pics as "awesome, unbelieveable" and if you say otherwise "OMG YOU PRICK"

#44 OP +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 03 May 2013 - 02:45

Instafilters I guess...


You know what my beef with these sorta photos/filters, is that there ARE people out there, who tag these sorta pics as "awesome, unbelieveable" and if you say otherwise "OMG YOU PRICK"


ya that particular photo got great reviews! one was "Great pic of you guys!" ... I wanted to comment "Filters much"

Then photographer #1 posted a wedding photo

Posted Image

All the comments were "LOVE IT" ... my comment wanted to be... LEAVE THE PHOTO ALONE!

#45 Draconian Guppy

Draconian Guppy

    LippyZillaD Council

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-August 04
  • Location: Neowin

Posted 03 May 2013 - 03:34

Blurry hell, 0 details, you should comment and start a war... war wagon :shifty: