Posting mode: Reply
[Return] [Bottom]
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Verification
reCAPTCHA challenge image
 Get a new challenge Get an audio challengeGet a visual challenge Help
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 5120 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • Japanese このサイトについて - 翻訳
    • Attention 4chan extension/user script/archive developers: Some time in the next few days, we'll be rolling out a complete HTML rewrite of the imageboards.
    The design will remain the same, but the underlying HTML/CSS is completely new, and validates HTML5/CSS3 (with some tweaks to account for cross-browser compatibility).

    Please visit this thread to read more about the changes, and here to preview the code.

    As a regular user, these changes should not affect you. You will need to update your 4chan browser extensions/user scripts when their maintainer updates them to be compatible with the changes.
    The official 4chan Chrome extension will be ready to go when the updates happen, and 4chan X should be ready soon. We'll post more details on the day of the migration!
    File: 1336097903.jpg-(705 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0066.jpg)
    705 KB NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/03/12(Thu)22:18 No.1610008  
    Back from the first photo trip of the summer. Went to toadstool again. There were tons of thunderstorms forecasted and non of them hit but overall it was still a damn good trip. Posting as I process, should be a several day process.

    I'll be going up near Bismarck ND next. If anyone is in the area I'd be interested in a meet up.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:18 No.1610009
    are you serious with that gnd?
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/03/12(Thu)22:29 No.1610016
         File: 1336098584.jpg-(777 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0077.jpg)
    777 KB


    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> 621 05/03/12(Thu)22:32 No.1610017
    Mind sharing some PP secrets or tips? Or your workflow?
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:32 No.1610018
    inb4 another 5 pictures that look the same
    >> pantsuit !qn5yTan3wU 05/03/12(Thu)22:35 No.1610021
    inafter butthurt
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:37 No.1610023
    >>1610021
    what's making your butt hurt? :3
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/03/12(Thu)22:38 No.1610024
         File: 1336099134.jpg-(411 KB, 1000x667, _MG_0173.jpg)
    411 KB
    These horses came up to fence and menaced me while I was photographing them.

    >>1610017
    sure, I'll take a vid of one or two of them. Does that sound good?

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/03/12(Thu)22:39 No.1610025
         File: 1336099198.jpg-(272 KB, 1000x667, _MG_0232.jpg)
    272 KB


    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:41 No.1610026
    x<SUP>2
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:46 No.1610029
    >>1610024

    I'd brighten this one up a bit, some more vibrance too.

    >>1610025
    You should soften the bottom edges of those hills a bit. It's awkward the way all those little valleys are all just cut off.

    First two are neat though. I've gotta get me a GND.
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:52 No.1610032
    >>1610024
    this ones really cool. super crisp, perfect colors. everything looks so clean.

    the first two though dont really do it for me though. the gnd is way too obvious. in this situation it probably would have been better to just do two exposures and combine them later.
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)22:56 No.1610035
    >>1610032

    Natureguy's style is heavy GND for some reason. It's in just about every photo of his.
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)23:05 No.1610048
    >>1610035
    'heavy' gnd use is one thing, the light foreground / dark sky isnt even whats bothering me. its the dark mountains on the side of the frame in both the images. thats 'poor' gnd use, and i dont like it.
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)23:09 No.1610052
    >>1610035
    >doesn't know how to use it properly
    >call it style
    Yeah, no.
    The other anon is right, two separate exposure would work better.
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)23:12 No.1610058
    >>1610008
    Do you know when you will be up in North Dakota?
    >> Anonymous 05/03/12(Thu)23:22 No.1610071
    Sup NatureBro?

    >>1610008
    This one is great. Though the hills along the horizon are dark from GND usage it's not terrible on this one and the sky is perfectly exposed.

    >>1610016
    I'm not as big a fan of this one. The sky is just too dark compared to the foreground. I assume this is your 3 stop GND? I have found that most of the time if I am shooting sunrise sidelight (which appears to be what this is) I never really need more than a 2 stop GND especially if the ground is rather light in tone as it is at Toadstool. When shooting into the sunrise 3 or more stops can be handy like the first one.

    >>1610024
    This is an absolutely fantastic image. The sky has much softer contrast and better blue color than you usually do which is just completely great. The image romanticizes the big sky country of the great plains and gives me a very warm feeling. I'm not kidding, this is a very good image.

    >>1610025
    I don't care for this one. The elements are too far apart and the sky is an odd green color that you sometimes end up with in your photos. You seem to be having problems with color consistency lately.
    >> natureguy !kT29VHeS72 05/03/12(Thu)23:26 No.1610075
    At the advengers now so no new photos for now

    >>1610029
    vibrance is a fantastic idea. I always forget about that tool. >>1610032
    In some cases obvious gnd bothers me as well and I do sometimes just merge photos to avoid that dark. Edge problem. For what ever reason it doesn't bother me on mountains and similar. It used to though.
    >> natureguy !kT29VHeS72 05/03/12(Thu)23:34 No.1610080
    >>1610058
    May 11-14

    >>1610071
    I pulled a bunch of the highlights out of the sky in this will. I'll them back and then we'll see. The problem I was having was lack of shadows in it. I'll just the whole edit and change the order of global and masked edits to see if I can balance it better.

    The green cast is pretty much same problem I was having magenta. I use go magenta heavy and now it's been green. I'll rebalance
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)00:11 No.1610110
    Haha, typical NG.

    Shitty boring photos with retarded dark sky / light ground. Derp.
    >> BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v 05/04/12(Fri)00:15 No.1610112
    Thank you RP!

    2nd one and horses seem strongest. I'd wish that there was some narrative - something happening with the horses, some interaction - I don't know - that would take it from being strong to being really really strong
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)04:18 No.1610249
         File: 1336119483.jpg-(673 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0271.jpg)
    673 KB
    >>1610112
    interaction with people or an inferred interaction with the viewer?

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)04:23 No.1610255
    any info on your sharpening technique?
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)04:37 No.1610259
    Cool stuff. As a GND user, what is your opinion of HDR processing? Do you think you could get the same kind of shots with HDR techniques, or is that just not good enough for your kinds of cool photos?
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)04:40 No.1610261
    >>1610110
    I'm sure hastily-taken snapshots of a traffic cones and police officers, or telephoto shots of children playing in the park would be more to your liking. Fuck off, city-dweller.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)04:48 No.1610264
    You have a unique ability to turn some fucking great landscapes into stunningly tedious photos.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)04:58 No.1610268
         File: 1336121886.jpg-(796 KB, 667x1000, 4.jpg)
    796 KB
    I still love you Natureguy, don't give in to the trolls

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)05:02 No.1610271
    >>1610268
    >trolls
    >s
    >implying it's more than one person
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)05:30 No.1610278
    >>1610008
    the gnd has crossed the horizon too far and the top of the hills are too dark. also, there's nothing whatsoever worth viewing in the foreground (not that there is any more to see in the background) - you composed this wrong. horizon should be on the bottom third. PP is pretty groteseque. whatever you've done darkening the sky or lightening the foreground, the exposure is unbalanced and painful to the eyes.
    >>1610016
    exact same composition as the last, but a bit better. foreground is more interesting and the sky balances it a bit better. the tops of the hills are still darkened, perhaps you could dodge those up a bit to make your gnd placement less obvious. what are you using anyways, a three stop hard + two stop soft? it's a little too much. I know storm lighting is dramatic, but this is too far, it looks like you're lighting the foreground with flash.
    >>1610024
    this is one of my favorite pictures of yours yet. I like the groupings of the horses, especially the capture on the black one in the middle. it's your same typical compositional style but the exposure is balanced this time and there is a foreground interest. no insane storm cloud PP as well. photo still needs one more element to really make it great though.
    >>1610025
    another two hours before or after this and you could have gotten a good shot with a telephoto of the moon rising or setting. also I don't like that the gradient is kind of crooked.
    >>>1610249
    same composition again, much weaker this time. try finding stronger diagonals or arabesque type movements in the rocks in the foreground to lead your eyes to the horizon. I'd like to see you take a picture without the horizon for once, it's not always necessary and becomes badly repetetive. there are only 2 different compositions in the 5 pictures you posted here, you gotta work on that bro.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)06:13 No.1610293
    >>1610249
    Whoa, this is really neat!
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:16 No.1610364
    >>1610261
    That's hilarious because I'm mostly a landscape shooter. Except I actually make good photos. inb4 LOL POST UR FLICKR THEN. sorry, you'll have to come to the gallery to see my exhibit of landscapes, all silver prints.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:19 No.1610366
    >>1610364
    Ok, so where is your gallery? I travel around a lot and maybe I can see it.

    >>1610249
    Also, I already commented on the rest, but this one is also great. Epic dark storm clouds.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:22 No.1610370
    NG, I know you shot LF film before. And you stopped because you didn't like it. Well, I can understand that because you are innately a snapshooter and other than one or two lucky grabs at the sand dunes you haven't produced a single interesting photograph, and even then I've seen much, much better sand dune photos. If you would stop and think about what you're doing, rather than just blindly slapping on a bunch of filters and the barest hint of some clouds your work would not be so vapid and pointless. Seriously, buy a 4x5 and a 3-lens kit and a bunch of Portra 160 (seems like your type of colors, maybe Provia) and re-learn photography.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:24 No.1610371
    >>1610366
    >implying you aren't a basement-dwelling faggot
    >> BJDrew !!LkyLqEm9G0v 05/04/12(Fri)08:28 No.1610372
    >>1610364
    that does sound swell. I'd love to visit your gallery, maybe purchase a print.

    NG still makes good photos.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:33 No.1610376
         File: 1336134792.jpg-(367 KB, 667x1000, 1336097903132.jpg)
    367 KB
    The first image looked abit flat so i tweaked it a little

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:36 No.1610379
         File: 1336135012.jpg-(43 KB, 640x480, 1239316801216.jpg)
    43 KB
    >>1610376
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:38 No.1610381
    >>1610376
    looks better to me, at least for a jpg edit. the first is a little dim after looking at yours
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:44 No.1610390
    >>1610372
    You're about 2,000m away from me up there in NY. I'm sure if you did come this way you would buy a print, assuming you had the capital.

    Unfortunately for /p/ I refuse to post personal information so if you happen to find yourself owning one of my prints you'll probably never know.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)08:58 No.1610401
    >>1610390
    trololololoooo
    0/10
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)09:01 No.1610404
    >>1610390
    because it would be so fucking hard to contact BJ on his "personal" email through his blog.
    >implying that guy isn't a troll
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)09:05 No.1610409
    >>1610024

    Great shot.

    >>1610390

    >selling prints
    >I only buy original artworks
    >get on my level
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)17:15 No.1610776
         File: 1336166121.jpg-(508 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0063.jpg)
    508 KB
    >>1610255
    For the ones posted thus far
    In lightroom I'm just using the default, screen standard
    In photoshop (there's just one so far) I didn't sharpen.

    >>1610259
    I manually blend exposures from time to time as needed. I haven't tried using the HDR tool in photoshop since CS2 and I haven't messed with a dedicated tool since then either. I suppose it's about time I played with it in photoshop again. Everything else about CS6 is so nice so far. Here are two examples (from the same location even) of manually blended exposures.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/reaganpufall/6121907903/
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/reaganpufall/6070915123/

    >>1610278
    I did take several with the bottom third and I prefer it with ground being dominant.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)17:23 No.1610785
         File: 1336166582.jpg-(657 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0454.jpg)
    657 KB
    >>1610278
    I agree with ground being too harsh, I'll see what it looks like when I pull highlights from the foreground and push them back up in the sky.

    What kind of element? There was a fence between us and a power line overhear but those wouldn't work. No wildflowers nearby either. Are talking about a human element? Like a cowboy hat on a fence post between them and I?

    The one with the moon was shot towards the south so a different time would've put it out of the the frame for this area. The moon vexed me this trip because it made it too bright at night for good stars and was high in the sky during astronomical twilight.

    I do need to work on other compositions. It's not so much that I don't take them it's just often I'm not satisfied with them.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> 5hoe !idbqkIQrjY 05/04/12(Fri)17:24 No.1610786
    >>1610776
    That's really slick!
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)17:27 No.1610788
    >>1610785
    this is the kind of shit you should be using your gnd for, not those other shots.

    learn the difference, it could save your life.
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)17:32 No.1610790
         File: 1336167131.jpg-(618 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0259.jpg)
    618 KB
    >>1610364
    >Ok, so where is your gallery? I travel around a lot and maybe I can see it.
    This. If you send me your info in an e-mail, I won't post it on 4chan and if it's in an area I'll be visiting this summer I will stop by and say hello. We can coffee if you want as well. E-mail in the above field. I'm on both coasts usually at least once a year.

    >>1610370
    I own a 4x5 and I take shitty black and whites with it when I feel like sitting in the dark for hours. I won't shoot with it in a serious fashion. It's fun if I'm bored and with friends but for nearly everything I prefer the flexibility of digital.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)17:32 No.1610791
    reminds me of the Mars shots, that came back, from spirit, or opportunity, one of those
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)17:37 No.1610796
    >>1610776
    yea less sky works better
    theres not much going on in the sky and the ground at least has that trail thing

    the horses shot is the best one here
    the others didn't really grab my attention but theyre decent
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)17:39 No.1610798
         File: 1336167592.jpg-(819 KB, 667x1000, _MG_0059.jpg)
    819 KB
    >>1610008
    >>1610776
    continuing with showing composition decisions and trials since there seems to be some interest in it

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)18:44 No.1610833
    Nature Guy. I don't dislike your work, but it really pains me to see you post pictures here while time and time again ignoring advice and subsequently showing zero improvement. There are fundamental mistakes that you continue to make, despite having these issues be pointed out to you every single time you post. I can see ignoring ignorant remarks from trolls, but you get a lot of sound advice from people who know what theyre talking about, yet you seem to just disregard every single post that doesnt gloat over your mediocre pictures.

    Normally I wouldn't care, but you have a lot of potential and seem to be rather passionate and serious about your landscape photography. It's not so much your work that pisses me off, it's your attitude and squandered talent.

    You do a decent job at hiding your ego here, which is probably for the best due to how people who don't are treated, but you're not fooling me. You're not as good as you think you are. You're certainly not above criticism, that's for damn sure. If you're happy with your current level of mediocrity then by all means, keep it up. But if you want to improve, which I sincerely hope that you do, you need to really open your ears and listen to what people are telling you.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)19:17 No.1610842
    >>1610833
    >you have a lot of potential
    ehh...
    >> natureguy !kT29VHeS72 05/04/12(Fri)20:17 No.1610884
    >>1610833
    Well do you want to help me sort through the trolling and actual advice thus far and have an discussion about it with me then? I'm game if you are.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)20:37 No.1610893
    >>1610261

    I don't hate NatureGuy, but telephoto shots of children playing in the park would be more interesting than most of his shots.

    He needs to try something different. Maybe leave his wide angle at home and just use a telephoto. Include more human elements. Try different/extreme angles. Or whatever...
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)20:41 No.1610895
    >>1610884
    you can't tell trolling from real advice?
    are you an assburger?
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)20:55 No.1610905
    so much samefag itt
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:02 No.1610910
    >>1610833
    can you post some of your own work so we can see if your criticism is valid? it doesn't sound you have any working knowledge of photography
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:08 No.1610919
    >>1610910
    you don't need to know how to play the guitar well to tell someone sucks at it
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:16 No.1610928
    >>1610919
    Yeah but if you don't play guitar then you'll be hopeless at helping them improve their technique.
    I know what you're saying though.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:51 No.1610953
    >>1610919
    how do you know they suck at guitar if you can't play though? perhaps they're in 5/8 and you're just too much of a faggot to understand.

    face it, you aren't on the same level. your shallow and pedantic attempts at trolling by giving piss poor critique says a lot about your own abilities - namely, that they are piss poor. trying to defend your baseless and puerile criticism by saying that it doesn't matter if you've never taken a decent photograph in your life is absolutely pathetic. if anything, you should be studying everything about these photos and trying your best to come up with something half this good, not running your mouth off like some 3rd grade autistic mongoloid
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:53 No.1610958
    >>1610953
    would you say your jimmies have been rustled?
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:54 No.1610960
    >>1610953
    Hi there, NG.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)21:55 No.1610962
    >>1610958
    aww, babby still trolling? I'd say your argument has been rustled and now you're going to disappear into anonymity like the little pussy faggot that you are.
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)22:06 No.1610976
    >>1610962
    b-b-but i've always been anonymous
    also, in the probable case you're really as dumb as i think you are, i'm not the guy who wrote that post dissing naturegay for ignoring advice
    i'm here just to troll you tripfag dick sucking whores

    natureguy is okay at best, 95% of his shit looks exactly the same
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)22:12 No.1610983
    >>1610976
    if natureguy is ok at best, than you're at ass pirate at best
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)22:18 No.1610990
    >>1610983
    lol wut
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)23:17 No.1611036
         File: 1336187821.jpg-(393 KB, 1000x667, 05_01_2012_122.jpg)
    393 KB
    >>1610893

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)23:22 No.1611038
    >>1611036
    i like the mountain but too much sky
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/04/12(Fri)23:33 No.1611047
         File: 1336188800.jpg-(530 KB, 1000x667, 05_01_2012_144.jpg)
    530 KB
    I used content aware delete thingy in this. O god this tool is fucking scary.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/04/12(Fri)23:34 No.1611049
    Deer NatureBoy: how do you get to these places.

    Sincerely: electric fan.
    >> Rescovedo !..../VODKA 05/05/12(Sat)00:59 No.1611143
         File: 1336193963.jpg-(136 KB, 1000x664, lol.jpg)
    136 KB
    >>1611049

    He developed a supernatural ability that allow him to leave his house and go explore the world.

    Also, if you're bald, use sunscreen on your head while doing landscapes on the sun.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)01:02 No.1611150
         File: 1336194154.jpg-(543 KB, 1000x667, 05_01_2012_149.jpg)
    543 KB
    >>1611049
    in car and then on foot?

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)01:29 No.1611179
         File: 1336195755.jpg-(448 KB, 1000x663, 05_02_2012_252.jpg)
    448 KB


    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)01:41 No.1611192
         File: 1336196477.jpg-(454 KB, 1000x667, 05_02_2012_275.jpg)
    454 KB


    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)05:56 No.1611296
    >>1611192
    got a colour version of this?
    also bump for NG
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)07:24 No.1611347
    Stop abusing the GND, also leave your tilted wide angle home next time, okay? It's like I'm watching the same exact picture over and over again; 2/3rds foreground, 1/3rds sky and sharp transition between them caused by the GND.
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)09:37 No.1611410
    >>1611347
    This.
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)10:05 No.1611418
    >>1610376
    >so i blown highlights a little

    NatureGuy, I like your photos, they are something that makes /p/ less GAY. Post moar.

    Your style is a bit samish BTW. I do not know many ways yo shoot some landscape though.
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)10:06 No.1611420
    >>1611418
    P.S.

    >>1610025
    GND is way too heavy here.
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)11:58 No.1611541
         File: 1336233493.jpg-(529 KB, 1000x667, 05_02_2012_448.jpg)
    529 KB
    >>1611296
    I could process it up in color. Would come out looking a lot like
    >>1610249

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)12:51 No.1611615
         File: 1336236678.jpg-(88 KB, 700x1061, ftlincoln1.jpg)
    88 KB
    >>1610008
    >>1610008
    Bismarck, ND here. Meetup would be rad..

    Pic from Ft. Lincoln (just south of Bismarck) yesterday...

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)13:12 No.1611643
    >>1611615
    shoot me an e-mail and we'll set up something
    >> junk !!281YB8Oy2bZ 05/05/12(Sat)13:25 No.1611660
    you can't even do kitsch properly
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)13:37 No.1611672
    >>1611541
    1920x1200 version would be nice to use as a wallpaper!
    >> NatureGuy !!tg3hbUo06u8 05/05/12(Sat)13:42 No.1611678
         File: 1336239743.jpg-(1.43 MB, 1920x1200, _MG_0448-2.jpg)
    1.43 MB
    >>1611672

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)14:11 No.1611720
         File: 1336241489.jpg-(819 KB, 667x1000, 1336098584755edit.jpg)
    819 KB
    >>1610016
    my favourite, this looks better with some darkening of the foreground trenches.
    Hope you don't mind, just did a quick edit to show what i was meaning.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)14:32 No.1611748
         File: 1336242756.jpg-(53 KB, 308x451, 1336239743269.jpg)
    53 KB
    >>1611678
    I believe you used the wrong lens on this shot. (to put it in so many words.) what do you think? pretend this is sharp, etc. would you ever take a picture like this? I feel like the sun and the foreground here does nothing but ...look like your other photos, which are better.

    [EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)16:00 No.1611849
    natureguy you seem to have the hard part of nature photography down pat. you can get to really nice locations at just the right times. now you just have to work on the easy part, which is learning how to actually take good pictures of these scenes.
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)16:16 No.1611860
    >>1611720
    I agree that this does look a little better or at least somewhere in between the original edit and this one.

    >>1611849
    How is a comment like this supposed to help NatureGuy? I have been to this location and I actually found it quite difficult to photograph. The area is actually rather small and many of the rock formations are cluttered messes. For him to be able to come out of there with any images that bring order to that mess is quite an accomplishment.

    With several trips there over the last year and at least a good dozen decent images of it, he likely has the largest quality portfolio of Toadstool out there. At least he's shooting images in his own style in a unique location.

    Do I love all NatureGuy photos? Nope. I've seen him struggle with a new location over the last few years and it's been a slow process but at least he's still taking photos and getting out there. Also, this is a board for critique, anyone that posts photos here is hopefully using /p/ to help them trim the fat choose a few epic favorites for each location.
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)16:24 No.1611864
    >>1611860
    >gnd everytiem no matter wat
    >portrait orientation as much as possible
    >implications of his style
    >implications you dont see this "style" errywhere
    >> Anonymous 05/05/12(Sat)16:41 No.1611877
    >>1611864
    >gnd everytiem no matter wat
    Stopped reading here. If he wants a picture of the sky, he wants a picture of the sky. Go be a pedantic fuckstick somewhere else.

    [Return] [Top]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]