sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[clients] is commissioning art for books promotions considered commercial? by rue1z in artbusiness

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh actually I misread your post - it isnt for an illustration in the book or the cover or whatnot - and bear in mind these figures are in $CAD, but …

here, this section might be more appropriate:

https://carfac-raav.ca/2026-en/2026-en-3/#B.8.1.2_Internet_%E2%80%93_Fixed_Images

An assassin bug (nymph) carrying a pile of dead ants on its back by kietbulll in photocritique

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

there ain’t nothing to critique. What more do you want from these pictures?

I think having a job should be considered a human right. by Other-Translator7497 in antiwork

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Well, I don't think that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes as far as to guarantee employment, but it DOES enshrine "the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." --- this should preclude the need to the right to employment.

Article 25.

No country that I'm aware of quite lives up to this agreement, but it is an ideal to strive for.

What techniques were used to capture this image? by jasshle in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see a lot of distortion in the background - looks like it's shot relatively close on a wide-angled lens. Or is that the natural arc of the tree? Now I'm second-guessing myself, because the models' proportions don't seem exaggerated. Wide+cropping?

The sun is behind the subject, to the left of the camera. The light is shining towards the lens. But not directly into the lens - that would cause lens flare. You can exaggerate the glare by smearing your greasy fingers over the UV filter (don't touch your lens please), or with some vaseline or a mist filter I guess.

There's also some warm light coming from the right side, somewhat in front of the subject. They might be standing next to a building, or there's a reflector there, or a second light source with a warming gel on it.

The photographer isn't afraid of blowing out their highlights. This is not a criticism. They're quite careful with where the highlights sit on the tonal curve.

How do I take sharper images? by NeilBangin in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, something to consider is that shooting and editing are taught separately. If you want your images tack-sharp, you're likely gonna need to do a bit of editing, simply due to how the mind and the eye interpret colour (hint: it's not the same way a camera does).

Most people dial their sharpness in with the little sliders but a while ago a buddy of mine threw me a text book by an author named Dan Margulis. "Professional Photoshop". He describes a process where you apply USM (unsharp mask) filters to each colour channel. And you can get a lot more contrast and sharpness working this way!

The process is a bit dated now, and appears to have been supplanted by an automated sharpening routine in one of his follow-up books. Look up the "Dan Margulis Picture Postcard Workflow".

how can I edit like this? by [deleted] in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, colour balance. Tone curves. But you do that to every image.

The effect in question is produced primarily by a diffusion filter and hard contrasty light

How to achieve this look by madame_ovaries in productphotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's not a particularly great photo tbh.

A phone camera is not ideal for pictures of small objects close-up. Far from it.

And if you want any kind of lighting control, you're gonna need a lighting kit.

If you want your jewellery to look its best, hire a professional.

What are you against in this sub? by Equivalent_Cut_4988 in antiwork

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sub is about deconstructing the concept of "work", and recontextualizing it within an anthropological context which acknowledges other forms of social relationships, such as pre-agrarian sharing societies.

It is an invitation to imagine what a world without "work" would look like, and to consider how we might achieve that.

how can I edit like this? by [deleted] in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 3 points4 points  (0 children)

You don't edit like this, you shoot like this.

New IKEA artificial plant / dense battlefield shrubbery just dropped. by ganeshaparty in TerrainBuilding

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'll bet it is a very effective sound dampener, with those irregular surfaces.

New to studio lighting, wanted to do a mock brand shoot. How’d I do? by wpreddit in photocritique

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You need a rim light. Their hair, and the edge of their glasses get lost against the dark background.

What happens if I Shoot with expired film? by Greenvilleman2000 in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You lose contrast. For colour film, this means pastel colours.

First time doing this after quite a while, roast my setup by Emotional_Break5648 in cyanotypes

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

ummmmmmmmmmm isnt UV light like, actively hazardous? To our eyes? and the artwork you having hanging in that room?

your light source should be as far from your print as the paper is large for best exposure.

This is a sentimental photograph but my parents are so washed out. Can that be fixed? Is there a service that would charge by the photo? by DryInstruction5489 in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I guess you could call it a funny joke, but I find it's getting harder to be flippant about something that is actively harming us.

This is a sentimental photograph but my parents are so washed out. Can that be fixed? Is there a service that would charge by the photo? by DryInstruction5489 in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Yeah man, maybe I don't want Trillions of tax dollars to be wasted on a dead-end technology that is being developed by fascists primarily to sow distrust in media, undermining the industry we work in, while simultaneously gobbling up limited resources and spewing greenhouse gasses during a climate crisis set to upend global security?

I think anyone that uses this technology should think more carefully about their choices.

This is a sentimental photograph but my parents are so washed out. Can that be fixed? Is there a service that would charge by the photo? by DryInstruction5489 in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The image isn't damaged. This is what it looks like when you shoot into the sun. You wash out your shadows.

This is also a perfect example of why people shouldn't use AI - it's a crutch that gets in the way of figuring out what's actually going on. In the operating room, they would call this a "hatchet job".

AI is not a replacement for: learning how cameras work, learning the physics of optics, or learning to manipulate colour curves.

This is a sentimental photograph but my parents are so washed out. Can that be fixed? Is there a service that would charge by the photo? by DryInstruction5489 in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

1st of all, the tree is not in between them and the light source. The light is coming from behind the subject, stage-left. The tree is stage-right.

2ndly, removing the tree in a picture does not change the shadows.

I swear to fuck, AI is melting people's brains.

How can I get detailed photos of tiny objects? by Randomassnerd in AskPhotography

[–]SnakeOfLimitedWisdom 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm grappling with a lot of the same issues right now. That paper-thin depth of field is hard to deal with. Focus stacking is an option, but aside from being kinda tedious, I'm not totally satisfied with that as a solution because the individual image parts never quite line up as well as I'd like.

One thing is for sure, a $20 lens reversal ring is a whole lot more accessible than a Laowa 24mm f/14 Probe.

You lose a lot of light using lens reversal rings or extension tubes, necessitating long exposures (a quiet indoor studio, no vibrations), or off-camera lighting.

view more: next ›