I have looked for a photography thread on here and am surprised that one has not been made (if there has, then I must have missed it and apologize for a repost). I personally love photography and especially love National Geographic's photos of the day.
Share some of your favorite photos.
Spoiler: Eldridge Street Synagogue
For 50 years, the place served as a meeting point for the new immigrants arriving at the new world. There, they received a hot meal, information on odd jobs, apartments or any other need raised by the community. Over time, the community dwindled and the place was deserted by the end of the 20th century.
In 1996, the Eldridge Street Synagogue was designated a National Historic Landmark, and in December 2007, after 20 years of renovation that cost $20 million, it reopened to the public.
Spoiler: Catch of the day
WINDY WORK On a windy day, a fisherman works his nets in Ningde, Fujian, China. Fishing is a huge part of the local economy, exporting everything from eels to oysters.
Image courtesy of National Geographic
Spoiler: The Dust Monster in IC 1396
The Dust Monster in IC 1396
Image Credit & Copyright: Anis Abdul
Explanation: Is there a monster in IC 1396? Known to some as the Elephant's Trunk Nebula, parts of gas and dust clouds of this star formation region may appear to take on foreboding forms, some nearly human. The only real monster here, however, is a bright young star too far from Earth to hurt us. Energetic light from this star is eating away the dust of the dark cometary globule near the top of the featured image. Jets and winds of particles emitted from this star are also pushing away ambient gas and dust. Nearly 3,000 light-years distant, the relatively faint IC 1396 complex covers a much larger region on the sky than shown here, with an apparent width of more than 10 full moons.
Courtesy of Astronomy Picture of the Day via NASA.
I'd really like to start getting into photography. Unfortunately the only camera I have is on my iPhone 7. It's not a bad camera, but it's far from a professional one.
I have officially retired this account. My new account is Virtuoso.
In general, yes your iPhone is nowhere near a professional camera. But a lot of what people love about professional photography comes from editing afterward. Balancing light and such. The skill in photography comes from knowing how to shoot and what to look for. And for that aspect, your iPhone does just fine. Most people just don't know how to use the camera on their iPhone.
I have an iPhone 7plus now, and the camera is omg amazing. However, the following photos were al taken on my 5c. Not professional quality, but better than the average iPhone photo quality.
In post 2, Chickadee wrote:But a lot of what people love about professional photography comes from editing afterward. Balancing light and such. The skill in photography comes from knowing how to shoot and what to look for.
If you ever feel like talking about this, I'd love to listen. All I know is that I know very little.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
I live in a beautiful city in Maryland called Havre de Grace. I went out for a nice walk this evening and took some photos of the lovely place. HdG is rich in history and beauty.
Fun fact: Havre de Grace was one vote away from becoming the US capital.
This is a photo of the Concord Point Light House. It was built in 1827 and is the oldest lighthouse in continuous use. The lighthouse became automated in 1920 and is still in use today. If I'm ever down there after dark I'll be sure to get a photo of it lit.
You can still go inside the lighthouse on weekends. I've been up there and it's so small and scary.
I took some other beautiful panoramic photos that can be found on my Facebook. Sadly I don't know if this site supports panoramic photos.
Had a nice discussion with dee about this. With post 5 what I meant mostly is about composition. The kind of picture I'm trying to learn how to make are anaglyphs, 3d pictures you can see with those silly two coloured glasses. This has a bunch of associated issues, as a result that they often don't come out the way you'd want them to.
On the editing side: reds don't work whatsoever. Either you lose them, or if you are unlucky and there's bright red area's they flicker as your brain tries to makes sense out of seeing it only through one eye. So you have to edit those out. The filters, even if they are quite good, darken and flatten in terms of colour so you are forced to overdo the editing by quite a bit. Then, green and red are really different, but not in wavelength, so in rgb colour space high brightness tends to shine through via green into the red filter, your left eye. So high contrast means you get the left eye seeing bits intended solely for the right eye. If the contrast isn't with green mixed in your are on your way to solving things but I admit that I don't quite understand the theory behind that, though it seems to work somewhat?
On the composition side, seeing 3d is only so much about having two eyes. At some distance, and this isn't even too far, a couple of tens of meters, the paralax difference becomes too tiny for you to notice. It's like children counting. 10, 20, 30, a lot. Two eyes helps you catch a ball. It doesn't help you see how quickly a car comes at you at a crossing, is it going 50, 60 or a 100? You don't really know. Your brain pieces depth together through positions and what it remembers at that point. Too close, within 2 meters or so and you are cross eyed. So if your main object isn't between 3 and ~30m, you might as well not make the attempt (or force it through having more extreme camera positions and a stationary object). Then, it is a bit of trickery to put that on a photo, and when your eyes roam that it is a bit like a cardboard box that you put objects in, but every other distance your eyes will have to adjust artificially. If you don't have a good starting point, and lead the eyes through your picture, you might end up with a headache and really the 3d effect won't pop up and make sense like you'd want it to. Dee had some very nice insights and keywords that I could search for on that, because I really know nothing. I made the pictures then realized they didn't work whatsoever, and now know slightly what I'm looking for.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to describe for editing or composition here, myko.
For composition, what precisely is your issue? What type of camera are you trying to take it with? I don't want to launch into any explanation without understanding the issue even if i have an idea of the answer.
I can give you an example that I've been trying to make work for me for the last year and a bit:
Spoiler:
left
right
These two are taken at the same moment, ~10 cm apart. If you do a decent bit of editing because this picture is a bitch for basically all the reasons described above, then showing one in cyan, the other in red and superimposing these two, you get this (this was my first draft ~11 months ago or so which I still had saved somewhere. Since then I do do a couple of things different so please don't take this as a finished product).
Spoiler:
Now one eye would get the "red" image, the other the "cyan", ideally, and 3d would form because your eyes crossed as if you would look into the picture. Ideally, because this particular picture is a bitch about it, but that's just editing.
The problem I have that I just need more knowlegde for is how to guide a viewers eyes through a picture. If you start looking at this, where you start is ~the 2nd player away from you or a little behind him, then the ball (it pops up in 3d, it's the white spot a little beyond), then your eyes fall into the crowd behind, after which your eyes start roaming towards the other players, the flag to the left of the stands and the C in the stands (partially because they created artifacts, partially because they are bright). You might even wonder why the picture isn't cropped on the right and look towards the ref and cycle back to the tall guy with a hat. That's sort of fine in a "flat" picture, but here with every bit your eyes have to readjust as if you are suddenly looking at somewhere close, then far away, etc. The only direction that the picture gives you where to look next are the two white lines in front, as that's the direction play takes place in.
The description above is already with the conversation with Dee in mind, I wouldn't have put it the same way otherwise. I just know the picture was a pain, idk, I must have dozens of drafts, different editing, different cropping. Now I'll have a little more goal with new pictures how to go about it, without just using paths or rivers that go into the distance. The resulting picture I would want is one were your eyes get "led" through the picture so that depth unfolds gradually rather than has to be adjusted for with every jump. If not that, the eyes would have to settle somewhere, with one focus within the picture.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
That bothered me meaning that was tonights project. So a couple hours and a few attempts in, I think this is where I'd settle for now:
Spoiler:
Between first guy looking at him from the left, the lines going from there, and him being much more central now, 2nd guy is hopefully a more natural focus. Did more to have the opposing team stand out and the background be less distracting, and by having the ball only slightly off center try to continue the movement from second man -> ball -> opponents in one swoop. I think that plan might even work.
Last edited by mykonian on Mon Aug 28, 2017 7:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
Hobby. Pictures for which it works turn out very nice, there's more life to them. Like this particular picture, if it's a single picture you barely notice the ball. Someone has to tell you basically, it's so tiny, might as well someone holding up something in the sun in the stands. In 3d, if you indeed have your eyes settle on the 2nd dude and keep in that focus, it pops out and seems to float midair, while you are around the field.
Also it's fun to learn about it. There's so many mistakes I've already made around it. The above picture forced me to learn about gimp, it being such a bright day and so many contrasts meant it had a myriad of artifacts that picture-wide anaglyph makers couldn't fix. That did retroactively allow me to fix some previous pictures too. But still I'm slightly embarrassed about the actual amount of succesful 3d shots in the last ~5 years? maybe 6, even though most pictures I know I'll just take one of the two anyway. Which got me to ask Dee about things she thinks about when choosing what to take a photo of, because very often I take the picture of something pretty but don't have a goal how I want it to be seen and consequentaly, don't know how to make depth work for me. It's too random.
And I still haven't made a picture that has the stereotypical "pop out of the frame" effect! Because the only limit to where the projection of the picture is that the edge of the photo should be "further" away than the frame (otherwise it'll clash at the edge you know it can't be in front of the frame you are holding, and it makes for really tiresome viewing), as if it's a box you are looking into. But nothing is said about the middle of the picture!
So I'm making pictures which are sometimes pretty and it's fun to discover things about it. It's an adventure!
Surrender, imagine and of course wear something nice.
