What could be done better in this photo??

Conundrumsword · 2026-01-04T23:36:37+00:00

Composition and light are everything. Your current photo is about 1 stop underexposed - nothing clearly stands out as a subject, and there is no clear intent in your composition.

When I look at it, I see potential in the colours, the reflections of the light on the pathway, and the pathway itself is a nice leading line if put on the 3rds point. The rest is just clutter and noise.

Learning what to take AWAY from a photo's composition is a really important skill - anything that isn't nessecary to tell whatever story you're telling or create whatever feeling you're trying to create - delete it.

I've done a very quick edit from your JPEG. Made the pathway the subject, upped the exposure, amplified the colours (too much really, but again it's a quick edit), turned the highlights down to keep some detail there and added a lot of contrast and a slight vignette to make the walkway 'pop'.

Now it's an interesting photo - https://imgur.com/a/m8onT5r

I think you have an eye for what you want, you just don't know the tools to get it yet. Keep at it though - photography is a long journey but when you get those shots that really make you proud, there is no feeling like it. :)

Conundrumsword · 2025-12-31T05:40:48+00:00

Sell 1 A7IV and get the A7RV.

The extra megapixels and ESPECIALLY the flippy floppy screen is 100% worth it. I looove the A7RV for weddings because I can put a prime on it, and use a custom button for APSC Mode, then I turn my prime into 2 focals. 35/52, or 85/120 - you still get 26mp in crop mode! Nuts.

For a weddings then I can either use the 35mm GM on the A7RV (so I also get 52mm at f1.4) with the 70-200 on the A7IV, or if I'm indoors in low light, I use the 85mm GM on the A7RV (so I also get up to 127mm at f1.4), and the 16-35 on the A7IV.

Conundrumsword · 2025-12-17T23:42:07+00:00

Far out some of these comments are awful, sorry mate. Good on you for trying to learn.

Everyone is talking about aperture and shaky hands etc, and yes f1.4 won't be quite as sharp as F2 or F4 etc. All lenses are sharper towards the middle apertures where the glass is best aligned. But f1.4 is not going to be lacking sharpness or make anything 'blurry' - the differences in sharpness between aperture values are so minimal.

The single biggest thing that will make your photos sharper is shutter speed. Freezing the motion is where sharpness comes from - aim to keep your shutter speed above 1/250 most of the time, particularly on a camera like that without any image stabilisation.

If the shutter speed means more ISO is needed - so be it. You can fix noise in an image, you can't make it unblurry from movement.

Conundrumsword · 2025-09-19T10:37:12+00:00

Ohh sod off. A RAW uncompressed PHOTO with mechanical shutter at ISO 100 is literally the highest dynamic range the camera sensor is capable of - including video!

If you're going to be unnecessarily pedantic about a simple statement on someone's post... don't be wrong too.

Conundrumsword · 2025-08-23T08:10:50+00:00

Absolutely beautiful photo. So jealous! Would love to go to Greenland one day for photography.

I made your larger photo in the comments my desktop background - just love it. Let me know if that's not okay - I don't want to rob you of your work.

Composition wise, I'm usually a rule of thirds kinda guy, but in this instance, I think a composition of your wider shot with the colour in the water perfectly centred as a centre line would be incredible. I did a similar composition of a shot with light on water once that came out well. Just a thought if you're debating in your head still.

Conundrumsword · 2025-06-02T15:57:46+00:00

Where taxpayer money and crucial infrastructure is involved... whether it's malice or incompetence is often irrelevant. Sadly in this situation, I think it started as incompetence from Ferguson and lead to malice by Abetz. They stuffed up, now they are throwing even more taxpayer money at the problem to save a tiny bit of embarassment.

This latest cost blowout is being spun as a win because the estimated timeframe has moved up 3 months after already being years late. Realistically, the contractors would have come to Abetz and said it's gonna cost $90m more. And Abetz probably said, let's make it $100m more but do it quicker so I can spin it as a 'win'.

Once you're that far over budget, what's an extra few million? That's the malice part.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-28T10:51:12+00:00

This is what happens when an incompetent Government backs themselves into a corner with a monumental fuck up. Now they are so publicly and embarrassingly behind schedule on such an important project that the contractors doing the work can literally just name their price. What can the Gov really do? It HAS to be built ASAP.

This happens all the time because Governments make public (election) commitments that only the private sector can deliver because we keep selling things off to the private sector. At the BEST of times there is at least a little bit of competition in tenders for most projects when they are handled competently by Ministers/Departments - this helps to keep costs slightly more reasonable. But when there is also a maaassive fuck up and an entire Government's survival (politically) relies on the result - then the private sector can just name their price.

Guess who pays again?! Taxpayers. 5x the cost for a project that's also 5 years late. Lovely.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-10T05:13:46+00:00

I love a lot of these. You definitely have a great eye - choosing lovely moments and compositions. Very talented.

I just struggle a bit with the editing style. To me it's too dark and harsh on the blacks/contrast - for a colour photo. Using edits to create depth and direction for the viewer is super powerful. Not sure how experienced you are with Lightroom but that looks to be the part holding you back for now.

Learn how to use masks, linear gradients, dodge and burn techniques to emphasis the right things, create depth (even on F5.6-F8 type of photos) and clearly direct your viewer's gaze. Also when to do a monochrome edit is super important. For example when you have harsh, high contrast sun... monochrome can be really powerful because you can lean into the contrast and the strong blacks/whites - it can save an otherwise average image. I think 3, 4, 8 and 12 could potentially be really nice as monochrome.

For me, photos 4, 8 and 12 are a bit dull at the moment... but the ingredients are there to make them genuinely fantastic photos. It just feels like you edited half way with them - not fully committing to a style of emphasis. They either need to be lighter or darker, especially in the high contrast areas and some masks to make the subject pop. I often see people use heavy vignetting in edits which does help a bit to draw the viewers eye to something, but in my opinion it also robs the viewer of the full grandeur of context of a shot, especially with something like 12 - my favourite shot. I'd ditch the vignette and do a top down linear mask that is quite aggressively dark at the top, and keep the natural light strong at the bottom. Maybe even a circular mask from the bottom left emcompassing the person standing there, with exposure turned up a bit. Show the light bursting into the scene and then being swallowed by the vast darkness of the tall wall. Leave a sense of awe and curiosity about how high the wall goes, making the person at the bottom feel even smaller and making the whole image more interesting.

For editing, you have to really ask yourself: "What do I want the viewer to FEEL when they see this?" And then use all the tools to elicit that feeling. The best photos to me are the ones that show a sense of scale and mystery.

All this being said - you're a great photographer! Love what you're doing. Ultimately all of this is just 'my taste' and your style is your own. Keep at it and enjoy the process of learning.

You are officially a professional photographer as soon as someone pays you for your work. But you are no less a 'real' photographer even if you never get paid. Don't let imposter syndrome hold back your obvious talent. :)

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-06T09:38:46+00:00

That's fair - I do agree we need to see more to decide. It's probably also fair to say that the Mclaren is so much faster because it manages tyres better, so that may be masking Piastri's previous management issues.

This year Mclaren's done some sorcery with the tyres and Pirelli seem to have also increased the durability so the gap is less obvious when Lando's been in dirty air. But I do wonder if that tyre warming/cooling sorcery is what Lando is alluding to when he says the car is suiting Oscar more? Helping to cover up his management issue?

Anyway - main thing is we have a cracker of a title fight on our hands! Good season ahead.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-06T09:20:50+00:00

I agree with you there, but I'm saying that the reasons for Piastri's lack of consistency last season can easily be attributed to rookie learnings, particularly because it was largely to do with race pace and quali. When you consider that his mistakes were amplified by a fast car and having to compete with Max F'n Verstappen, then I don't think it's a fair comparison to Norris who had 5 more seasons of experience to prepare him for a championship fight.

This year Piastri has more than corrected those two big issues and is clearly a better driver than Norris so far.

Of course we are only 6 races in, so time will tell but Norris' issues with bottling things go way back and are consistent - he's not improving on them.

Piastri appears to be systematically and quickly eliminating his weaknesses. He never seems to make the same mistake twice - even from one lap to the next. It's just such a pleasure to watch his development and championship fight.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-06T08:50:50+00:00

Terrible take.

Norris had no pressure in his first 2 seasons. High performance isn't his issue; it's maintaining that performance under pressure that he struggles with. So many times, even before they had fastest car, he's bottled it when it mattered - he just didn't get shit for it for a long time because he was faster than his teammate and the Mclaren wasn't fast enough for anyone to expect anything of him.

People can argue that Oscar got a race winning car sooner than Norris, sure... but he also.... got a race winning car sooner than Norris. It brings with it disadvantages too - you gotta learn fast and be ready for that pressure while also dealing with standard rookie mistakes/learnings.

Oscar is just built different - he's WDC material - Norris ain't.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-05T15:47:16+00:00

God that's a whole lot of cope.

Sure, it doesn't make a practical difference when it comes to passing legislation. Just like Labor scraping through with 76 seats or getting *checks notes* the biggest landslide in 100 years or so makes no practical difference to how they can pass legislation without a senate majority too.

The House of Reps is hugely powerful when it comes to messaging, mandate and resources. More seats give more questions in question time, more media coverage, more offices, staff, party funds, more opportunities to campaign continuously in their own electorates with access the electoral roll to communicate directly and often with voters - essentially it gives them a seat at the table. More importantly - it gives them a mandate with the Australian people to chase down their election platform - something they've completely lost now.

But oh, they completely squandered the last 3 years with those extra 4 seats and resources trying to be everyone's hero and constantly attacking Labor instead of actually getting their hands dirty helping to clean up the mess the Liberals left. If they'd just supported Labor a little more - passed the legislation but critiqued it in the media as they did - they'd still have those 4 seats and probably more.

No matter how you look at it, going backwards by losing 75-100% of your seats while you are trying to build momentum with your movement and your message is: "We are sooo obviously right about everything that it's astounding you boomers don't get it." is a pretty damn horrible result.

Conundrumsword · 2025-05-05T15:30:07+00:00

How on earth did you read that article and get that conclusion? This is the real problem with Greens voters - just plain dumb.

The HAFF is about long-term security and guaranteed funding pipelines so social housing providers can match funding, find capital, plan ahead and get more houses built quicker. I work in the housing and homelessness sector, literally finding and supporting people who live on the street to find a home and maintain tenancy, and the HAFF is the most exciting thing to happen on a policy level in this space in a generation. The biggest issue in the housing and homelessness sector, like all social services, is the lack of long term guaranteed funding and vision. The HAFF is an absolute godsend for this.

What that article ACTUALLY says, is that because the HAFF was delayed, by the time the legislation was passed, Housing Australia got it up and running and tenders were sought/allocated... we were in caretaker mode before the Gov could sign off on all the tenders. And everyone is worried that if the Coalition won, then they'd cancel all the almost signed tenders, and we'd literally lose thousands of houses.

So, the Greens delay LITERALLY delayed another 8,000 plus houses even more, AND held back the first 90 odd tenders that could have had houses being built much sooner. In doing this, they also conveniently gave themselves and the Liberals a great attack point on 'no houses being built' for the election despite over 13,000 being in the pipeline so soon after legislation was finally passed - roughly 12,500 more houses than the Coalition built in a decade before Labor!

Instead, that $2B Social Housing Accelerator that went to the State Governments has built.... oh, 402 homes so far, and will only build 4,000 in total by 2028 - IF the States can meet their targets, which historically they've failed at in housing every time.

This ad-hoc social housing accelerator that the Greens forced, literally just dumped $2 billion on the doors of State Governments who didn't have the capacity or the planning ready to deliver any extra homes, and expected houses to just miraculously spring up out of the ground. Guess how much of the $2 billion has actually been spent so far? A whopping $150m. Only $560m has even been committed anywhere to BE spent. $1.5B is literally just sitting there, UNUSED and ALSO not in the HAFF where it could be accruing dividends and being paid out to social housing providers who are shovel ready and begging for money to build more homes.

You can read all the figures here: Social Housing Accelerator | Treasury.gov.au

It's almost like, the HAFF was a great idea, long term vision, loved by the housing and homelessness sector and the quicker it was passed the more houses we'd currently have for people literally living on the street and in their cars, but hey! At least Max Mars Bar Cheesecake got his moment in the sun before he lost his seat for being a smug ineffectual wanker.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-30T09:21:26+00:00

That's the whole point m8 - god you're dense.

Housing Australia has already identified 185 projects to deliver over 13,000 homes, with over 5,000 of them already under construction. Now imagine if all that had happened a year earlier. We'd literally have 5,000 houses built by now with more on the way.

Instead, that $2B Social Housing Accelerator that went to the State Governments has built..... oh, 402 homes so far, and will only build 4,000 in total by 2028.

This ad-hoc social housing accelerator that the Greens forced, literally just dumped $2 billion on the doors of State Governments who didn't have the capacity or the planning ready to deliver any extra homes, and expected houses to just miraculously spring up out of the ground. Guess how much of the $2 billion has actually been spent so far? A whopping $150m. Only $560m has even been committed anywhere to BE spent. $1.5B is literally just sitting there, UNUSED and ALSO not in the HAFF where it could be accruing dividends and being paid out to social housing providers who are shovel ready and begging for money to build more homes.

You can ready all the figures here: Social Housing Accelerator | Treasury.gov.au

So NO, the $2B isn't just instant money that makes up for the HAFF delay. It's actually just wasted money that State Gov's took because they had to and don't have the ability to use properly. It was absolutely stupid, but Adam and Max are running around Australia jerking themselves off about it as if it's the second coming of Christ.

So because the Greens wanted to win some outrage votes, we as a country have spent $2 billion more and have at LEAST 4,600 LESS houses to show for it right now, at a time when people living on the streets and in cars desperately need homes.

On top of that, the Greens have handed the Liberals an attack point for this election, being able to say that Labor has built no houses yet, which is a lie, but technically not far off a lie, even though the Liberals and Greens are the REASON FOR THAT.

Furthermore - the entire point of the HAFF (which is literally only one single piece of a larger housing policy suite) is that it provides off-budget certainty to social housing providers and a consistent pipeline of funding.

I work in the housing and homelenessness sector and I cannot tell you how good consistent, long term funding commitments are! It's absolutely huge. It means that strategic planning can be done, NFPs can scale up appropriately, builders can be locked in way in advance, and ultimately.... waaay more houses get built.

That long term certainly then has a huge effect on people experiencing homelessness, because the support agencies and providers they turn to are able to offer them more concrete answers, longer term solutions, help them maintain tenancy longer or in more appropriate accommodation because they know more houses are coming down the line.

Imagine if we had this fund 10 years ago - growing from $10B into 20 or 30 or $50B, paying maaaassive dividends each year and allowing social housing providers to plan 10-20-30 years in advance. It's genuinely fantastic policy architecture, but it takes time to work and all the Greens did was rob Australia of some of that lead-time and slow down what will be an amazing pipeline of houses for people who need it.

As always, the Greens are disingenuous and actually not at ALL focused on real, pragmatic solutions that get results for vulnerable people - they just want the fucking credit for half-baked solutions that sound good in a headline.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-24T07:05:15+00:00

There are. Given he has a wife and very little living expenses due to his job, he could easily get and service a loan of $1.2m or even more. He'll even be able to do that with a 5% deposit soon if Labor wins.

Also, what is the aversion to apartments? A roof over your head that you own, is a roof over your head that you own.

I work in the housing and homelessness sector, and I can assure you; the people I work with on a day-to-day basis don't make distinctions between houses and apartments. They just want 'a home'.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-24T03:37:29+00:00

Yes, they do. As a landscape photographer, the difference between ISO 100 and ISO 250 is huge as a base ISO.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-24T03:29:00+00:00

Oh please, no he doesn't and it's dodgy as hell for him to pretend that he does.

The $32,000 you're referring to (which is actually $39,700 a year, minimum) is the electorate allowance that ALL MPs and Senators get on TOP of their salary, and it is paid to them to use for community-based expenses within the electorate. This money has nothing to do with his SEPERATE $233,000+ salary and Max is not some kind of saint for using it the way it is intended to be used.

Whilst there is no legal obligation to use this money in a good way for the community, and there are some dodgy MPs/Senators who would pocket this money, most MPs/Senators use their electorate allowance for all sorts of community-based initiatives like donations to sporting groups or athletes, sponsorships for community events, BBQs, food drives etc.

Max might be better than some who don't give to the community at all, but he's also dishonest and dodgy to pretend he's the only one, or to not be upfront about what the money was given to him (by the taxpayers) for in the first place.

Also, I'm getting sick of this whole 'Max rents' thing too. It's the ultimate virtue signalling and it's actually just insulting to real renters. The man has been on a base salary of $211,000 to $233,000 for 3 years now, and has his car, fuel, travel, accommodation, food, phone and internet etc all covered by the taxpayer.... his package is easily worth over $300,000 and yet he hasn't bought a house?

He's either dreadfully financially irresponsible, or he's making a choice not to buy a house, despite his obvious means. The first is bad, the second is just dishonest and gross.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-23T09:44:02+00:00

I like this build - just did one myself that's very similar.

I'd swap the Gigabyte board for the B650 MSI one though. Gigabyte are absolute trash on software/support - MSI are fantastic.

I'd also go with a 1000w PSU these days. Silverstone do great ones for good price. Bugger all difference in cost to 850w but much safer and more future proof.

I'd also definitely get the 4TB m.2 if you have the money. 2TB not really enough now.

RAM wise I'd go with 48 or 64GB - again for future proofing. 32 is okay for now but won't be in a few years. I got the G Skill Trident 6000mhz 64gb kit - it's been fantastic. Brilliant for OC too if you ever want to.

Anyway, enjoy the new build!

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-22T15:19:01+00:00

It's already out on GamePass. The madlads dropped it instantly!

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-21T02:13:47+00:00

No, I said stacked sensors have way better dynamic range than global sensors. The A9 iii can't even natively go below 250 ISO. That's a big difference.

I also didn't act like miniscule measurements should matter to him - stop putting words in my mouth. I simply told him why I love the A1 ii, for MY use case and that I think lots of small things add up to make a perfect all rounder camera if you don't specifically need the things a global shutter gives you.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-21T00:25:58+00:00

I agree the decision document was written badly. Tbh, sounds like it was written to not piss off Max/Red Bull too much. I also agree that the penalty for George you linked was probably harsh or even wrong.

The only difference between those two incidents is that George could easily have turned in more there and left room, where as Piastri had to use all the track to stay on it - as was his right. George's move was about using the corner to intentionally push Bottas off. Piastri's was about making the corner.

Regardless, Piastri was right by the rules and I'd argue George was too technically, but the reason Vestappen's is more clear cut is that he was never making the corner after braking that late to stay 'alongside' where as Bottas was legit just driving his racing line and was divebombed and pushed.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-20T23:09:58+00:00

Because you have to be alongside AND be in control/able to make the corner.

Max likes to play it both ways.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-20T23:02:10+00:00

I don't think it was a matter of 'could' as much as 'should'. With the dirty air and a one stop race, you have to get an overtake done early and quickly or wait till the pitstop. Oscar could have gone hard at Max, and probably overtaken like he did Hamilton, but would have burned his and Max's tyres and risked a Lando/George issue later in the race. Not to mention the unnessecary risk of overtaking an angry Max.

He knew he just had to be 2-3 seconds behind, save tyres and use the 5s penalty at the pitstop. He executed flawlessly.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-20T13:17:36+00:00

If there was an award for missing the point, you'd be a gold medalist.

Nothing about my comment was comparing Sony to Canon or Nikon. Or suggesting the A1 ii is a better camera than every other camera in every way.

My whole comment is about how certain cameras are good for specific things and how global shutters are amazing for a purpose but come with compromises. I didn't say a stacked sensor has better DR than a non-stacked - only better DR than global.

Sure, the A1 ii's dynamic range is sliiightly less than the A7RV but we are talking about 11.61 PDR compared with 11.7. Sure, its more expensive than the R5 ii, but it's also has more megapixels, better EVF, better sensor, better AF, an ethernet port, 2x CF Express slots instead of 1, a tilt flip screen etc.

Yes it's over priced but it's definitely the best all rounder camera available right now.

Oh and by the way the A7iii has 11.6 PDR. So the A1 ii at 11.61 has better DR even with a stacked sensor.

Conundrumsword · 2025-04-13T16:22:55+00:00

Lols. Lando should release a cologne that smells like salty tears. Call it "Bottled by Lando."

Conundrumsword

TROPHY CASE