DSLRUsers.com

Tell me if Im spamming to much.


If You Fart in the Desert.......


Water Anyone?


Another Old Sign


Car and Stars

Click for larger.

No 1 is interesting, not sure why! But I like it. Nice DOF.

#1 is very aussie. 3 aussie icons, red dirt, bright blue clear skies and hienze baked beans.
I love it!

Love the idea in the last shot. I think i'll try something similar myself one night soon.

Brad

Three of these are really strong images with #4 being the odd one out. The first three have a sense of narrative and #4, while clever, jars with the others for me. It looks too like something I'd see in a glossy car brochure whereas the other 4 are tourist brochure stuff. Hope that makes sense.

Some really beautiful colors here. While number 4 being really unique of the bunch. I really need to try this technique. Whats the difficulty rating?

stubbsy wrote:Brad

Three of these are really strong images with #4 being the odd one out. The first three have a sense of narrative and #4, while clever, jars with the others for me. It looks too like something I'd see in a glossy car brochure whereas the other 4 are tourist brochure stuff. Hope that makes sense.

No, it doesnt really make sense. These photos are all from my trip away. They are just a selection I had made. I wasn't trying to make a narrative. They are photos, nothing else. BTW, Im Todd.

devilla101 wrote:Some really beautiful colors here. While number 4 being really unique of the bunch. I really need to try this technique. Whats the difficulty rating?

Not really that difficult. Its just a matter of trying to paint the car all over evenly with light. As you can see, I didnt quite achieve it properly.

Todd, I like the first one most out of the shots.

norbs wrote:BTW, Im Todd.

Apoligies. For some reason I recalled your name was Brad. I'll make a note that it's Todd for next time.

norbs wrote:

stubbsy wrote:Brad

Three of these are really strong images with #4 being the odd one out. The first three have a sense of narrative and #4, while clever, jars with the others for me. It looks too like something I'd see in a glossy car brochure whereas the other 4 are tourist brochure stuff. Hope that makes sense.

No, it doesnt really make sense. These photos are all from my trip away. They are just a selection I had made. I wasn't trying to make a narrative. They are photos, nothing else.

I suspect that what Peter is trying to say is that the first three of these images are clearly from the trip, from the outback, and they convey that without the need for anything further to be said.

The fourth.... I understand what you're doing, but it's in a different category from the first three, and doesn't seem, to me, to convey the feeling of "this is the outback". And that is fine, btw.

gstark wrote:
I suspect that what Peter is trying to say is that the first three of these images are clearly from the trip, from the outback, and they convey that without the need for anything further to be said.

The fourth.... I understand what you're doing, but it's in a different category from the first three, and doesn't seem, to me, to convey the feeling of "this is the outback". And that is fine, btw.

I can see what you are saying Gary, but really, if you look closely at the 4th photo, its pretty plain to see it hasn't been taken in George St. Sure, its different to the other 3, but as I said on the previous post, they were all taken around the same place and probably only hours apart.

I think also, when I made that post, I was still pretty pissed at another post that Stubbsy had made in my animals thread that I thought stunk of hypocrisy ( I realise I broke the rules after a PM from Geoff). I have settled down a touch now, and I can see where you are both coming from. I may not agree though. I don't see the need for a narrative when posting. I thought this section was for review and critique. Thats what I was after with those 4 photos above. Funnily enough, most people that have seen the Stars and car photo like it and have asked me how it was done.

norbs wrote:if you look closely at the 4th photo, its pretty plain to see it hasn't been taken in George St.

I think I could find quite a few locations within a few KM of Sydney's GPO where that shot might have been made. Maybe not entirely legally, but that isn't quite the point.

In point of fact, I can think of at least two with a view of Sydney Tower ...

So, while it may not be George St, It equally might not be the bush either.

I think also, when I made that post, I was still pretty pissed at another post that Stubbsy had made in my animals thread that I thought stunk of hypocrisy ( I realise I broke the rules after a PM from Geoff).

I'm aware of those posts, as well as Geoff's dialog with you on the underlying matter; Geoff has, I believe, asked you for further details. Have you responded to that request so that Geoff may take up the other issues that you are raising?

With all due respect, and as you have accepted, you were in the wrong in the first instance; Might I suggest that you just try to put it all behind you? We have.

I can see where you are both coming from. I may not agree though. I don't see the need for a narrative when posting.

Just as nobody is suggesting that you have to agree with us, equally, nobody has suggested that there is any need for any narrative. Rather, we are (I believe) suggesting exactly the opposite: the first three images speak for themselves. In spades, in fact, and that is why I (I can't speak on Peter's behalf) these three are so much better than the fourth.

The narrative is implicit within the images; and that is the strength that we're alluding to.

I thought this section was for review and critique. Thats what I was after with those 4 photos above. Funnily enough, most people that have seen the Stars and car photo like it and have asked me how it was done.

Yep.

But a critique is not about simply liking or disliking an image. It's about what makes an image good (or bad), and probably how one can make that image better.

In the first three .... there's little to be done (or said) because they're standing on their own.

While you may know that the fourth image was shot in the country, that really is not evident from the image, and as I've said, i could probably do something similar within sight of Sydney Tower. And no, Sydney Tower would not be evident in the shot from either location I have in mind.

So ... for the fourth image ... a railway crossing or a fence in the background may have helped, or an obvious rough track leading the eye into the vehicle perhaps?

If you can find anywhere in Sydney, where the night sky is like that, I'd love to see it.

As for putting it behind me. I told Geoff in the PM I wouldnt reply to Stubbys smart arsed remarks in the other thread, and I didnt. I was merely explaining my reaction above. I am sure Geoff will expain why I didnt challenge Stubbsy in the other thread.

And yes, I do know the 4th shot above was taken in the bush. It also turned out exactly how I had planned. Void of anything else but the car, some red dirt and a star filled sky. Why I need to point out that it was taken in Broken Hill is beyond me. The thread title says enough. And had anyone clicked the photo, the link would have taken you too Flickr with more info there.

I will try and put it behind me now.

Todd,

I think all Gary is trying to do is give you a critique of your images (which is the purpose of this forum). In his opinion, the first 3 speak volumes because it is obvious they were taken in the outback and include all the character of the setting. In his opinion, the 4th image doesn't have the same impact. I don't think he's saying it is a bad photo or anything like that, but simply from a photographic perspective it doesn't have the same character or contain the wealth of information - story if you like - of the first 3.

Yes, YOU know you took it near Broken Hill, but there is nothing in the image that screams Broken Hill. While you may not be able to get a sky like that in Sydney, there are loads of places you could even though a daylight photograph in the same location would be very different.

Anyway, as already stated, the purpose of the forum is to get people's opinions of your images. It is fine for you to disagree with Gary, but that doesn't mean it is not his opinion.

ATJ wrote:Todd,

I think all Gary is trying to do is give you a critique of your images (which is the purpose of this forum). In his opinion, the first 3 speak volumes because it is obvious they were taken in the outback and include all the character of the setting. In his opinion, the 4th image doesn't have the same impact. I don't think he's saying it is a bad photo or anything like that, but simply from a photographic perspective it doesn't have the same character or contain the wealth of information - story if you like - of the first 3.

Yes, YOU know you took it near Broken Hill, but there is nothing in the image that screams Broken Hill. While you may not be able to get a sky like that in Sydney, there are loads of places you could even though a daylight photograph in the same location would be very different.

Anyway, as already stated, the purpose of the forum is to get people's opinions of your images. It is fine for you to disagree with Gary, but that doesn't mean it is not his opinion.

Yep. Fair enough. And I was just stating my opinion.

norbs wrote:If you can find anywhere in Sydney, where the night sky is like that, I'd love to see it.

Glebe, at the bottom of Johnstone St; you'll find a park with a view back into the city. Shoot from low, towards the west.

Dover Heights, Military Road, on the reservoir. Spectacular view into the city, facing west. Shoot towards the east. You're up high, and at the northern end (IIRC) will be basically above any surrounding buildings.

Shooting towards the east, you're shooting towards the open Pacific Ocean .....

At this time of year, or in August with the winds blowing the smog away, you'll get a pretty good shot of the sky. If you're lucky, you might even get some lightning.

Why I need to point out that it was taken in Broken Hill is beyond me.

You don't, and nobody has asked you to.

The big difference - and the point that you seem to be missing - is that the other three images ooze outback - it's seeping from the borders and onto my desk - whereas this fourth one, absent the title and the information you have provided, could have been shot most anywhere, given appropriate skill and conditions.

Let me put it another way: each of the other three images could have been posted with no title, no information, totally blind, and we can still understand - purely from a quick glance at the image only - that they're made in the outback.

I simply don't believe that can be said of the fourth image.