atm I <3 brix's the most...coz on my monitor it has absolutely every colour & tone I appreciate...all it one shot. get that very rarely in My Eyes.
Just thought I'd share.
Ahh, thank you, that's lovely
October Photography Competition - Tones & Moods
- Thread starter stowpirate
- Start date
Ahh, thank you, that's lovely
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y41/padcore/2ndeffortcropped.jpg
Here's an experiment I did for college a few weeks ago. Timelapse Edinburgh Skyline.
Hope you like - I'm very proud of it
I sat up Edinburgh's Calton Hill for Sunset one evening took a series of photos and blended them together to produce the timelapse. I used PS CS3. I feel it has the tones of daylight moving into the moody (somber, quiet, relaxing, beautiful) evening.
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
"Road to Aber" is a nice pic. Where was it taken?
Grandma Death
Reconfiguring & Reconstructing
A road to aberystwyth. Not sure which road. I had a DJ residency there for around 9 months and I would either drive from South Wales or Huddersfield depending where I was at the time.
It was just getting dark that day and I remember having to pull over because the view was so breathtaking.
Yes I think that is a superb picture. I like the layers of gradated tones from the distant sunlight area of sky through the different hills getting darker as they get closer to the camera.
Addy
cooking...
Entry 2
Moody Dawg
Moody Dawg
Oh yes I like the moody dawg picture as well. Tis a bit out of focus though or perhaps some handshake, but a good moody picture.
Tis a bit out of focus though or perhaps some handshake, but a good moody picture.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
Addy
cooking...
3rd entry
Spanish Storm
Spanish Storm
QueenOfGoths
Fuck you Dave!
1. Mount Fuji
2. Forever Autumn
3. Prague Evening
Saturation has been tweaked in all of them - Mount Fuji has been slightly cropped from the original
2. Forever Autumn
3. Prague Evening
Saturation has been tweaked in all of them - Mount Fuji has been slightly cropped from the original
boohoo
No.
Is that those duck killa swans from Tooting??
Nina
muftysludge
I am in love with your moody dawg.
Nina
muftysludge
My first entry
west whelks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muftysludge/2742592180/
Lomo LC-A, Cross processed expired slide film
west whelks
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muftysludge/2742592180/
Lomo LC-A, Cross processed expired slide film
Nina
muftysludge
My second entry
England's glory
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muftysludge/2659567142/in/set-72157604988332415/
I used Sepia setting on the neg scanner for this (It was B&W Ilford film in my Lomo LC-A)
England's glory
http://www.flickr.com/photos/muftysludge/2659567142/in/set-72157604988332415/
I used Sepia setting on the neg scanner for this (It was B&W Ilford film in my Lomo LC-A)
Addy
cooking...
Just get your camera out and start snapping.
I'm tallentless with photography, but I'm learning slowly.
My moody dawg pic was taken with a Sony Ericson K800i with me lying on my belly, face to face with old mutley then made B/W in Photoshop.
Its all about subject and perspective from what I have learnt so far.
Addy
cooking...
I really love this image
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/v/u75photocomp/2008-10/2929631140_b995215ce7.jpg.html
But, I'm going to put my neck on the line and say that it looks processed in some way to me... Is it digital or film? If it hasn't been processed then I apologise, but the guidelines state that post-processing effects should be listed.
So this leads me into a couple of other things...
Size of photos - they're tiny - come on this in the broadband era - can we not set a minimum size - one that is a decent size for viewing. As much as I love the image, its pretty hard to really appreciate the size it's been uploaded, my concerns above might just be because the image is reduced in size heavily.
Can we expand the guidelines so people should state what film and film processing they've used - its only fair if digital photographers have to 'fess up to a bit of levels and cropping I think it's only fair we get some background on the film users.
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/v/u75photocomp/2008-10/2929631140_b995215ce7.jpg.html
But, I'm going to put my neck on the line and say that it looks processed in some way to me... Is it digital or film? If it hasn't been processed then I apologise, but the guidelines state that post-processing effects should be listed.
So this leads me into a couple of other things...
Size of photos - they're tiny - come on this in the broadband era - can we not set a minimum size - one that is a decent size for viewing. As much as I love the image, its pretty hard to really appreciate the size it's been uploaded, my concerns above might just be because the image is reduced in size heavily.
Can we expand the guidelines so people should state what film and film processing they've used - its only fair if digital photographers have to 'fess up to a bit of levels and cropping I think it's only fair we get some background on the film users.
It's my pic and it's hasn't been processed in anyway at all. I've not been taking pics that long and I wouldn't know how to use any of the packages like Photoshop. I just haven't got that far with it as a hobby. It's taken on digital, not film.
I was gonna say that!
What, you were going to say that you haven't been taking pics that long?
What, you were going to say that you haven't been taking pics that long?
I capture images dahlin'.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
Thats a great photo. Going by most of the entries, both now and in the past. I think its optional to give extra information. I can imagine most images have been tweaked in some way regardless of starting out as film or digital. Its not a serious competition just a bit of fun or do you lot see it differently? Maybe the mod can clarify this?
Oh really? I see you like this now:
I think he is a bit bigger than that and more of an anarchist
big eejit
She looks like Alan Gilzean
I agree. In cases I've seen where I've seen explanations of what's been done to an image, it's usually fairly meaningless or even misleading. E.g. I saw two pics on here quite close together.
The first person scrupulously detailed every level tweak and curve adjustment etc in Photoshop, which made it sound like they'd changed the pic quite a lot. But the actual result of all that tweaking looked minimal, like a 'realistic' photo, and anything that had been done had clearly been done by someone who knew what they were doing.
The second person had some casual comment that they'd 'just added a layer' to the image in PS. Which sounds like nothing, but had actually completely transformed the image so it looked wholly unnatural.
These are real examples that got me thinking that it was meaningless to explain what you'd done to an image in the context of this comp.
All images are the result of an artificial process and they either work for the viewer or they don't.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
my moods this month (set of 3) there seem's to be a bit of a theme gwan, booze, blur, beautiful people, heh....
friday night, just got paid
saturday night with the lovely ladies
sunday afternoon and relaxing
there seem's to be a bit of a theme gwan, booze, blur, beautiful people, heh....friday night, just got paid
saturday night with the lovely ladies
sunday afternoon and relaxing
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
Thumbs updated - hope I did not miss anything
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/v/u75photocomp/2008-10/
http://www.extracrispy.co.uk/gallery2/v/u75photocomp/2008-10/
Similar threads
