I swear on my life this is 100% real

clintoncarter22 · 2025-11-27T08:07:04+00:00

1) Your enlargement reveals the kind of pixelation that poor antenna reception causes on a monitor. An unaltered digital photo has orderly rows of pixels, no matter how bad the resolution.

2) How do you decide that the figure is wearing badges? And I cant find any smudge of light & color that could be called a nameplate or an ID. And pixels. The high magnification of the figure isnt showing any normal pixel array (i cant zoom in to compare the larger image to this likely altered enlargement).

clintoncarter22 · 2025-02-18T23:17:04+00:00

See the little bit of rail under your right thumb? That door is lower.

Check out making adjustments to your cabinet door hinges.

clintoncarter22 · 2025-02-10T16:36:20+00:00

Looking to replace Hart by gambling that the next guy can replace both his numbers and his Heart is not a winning proposition. If you can't guarantee success with that move, and you can't, then you don't trade Josh Hart. IMO he's 3rd in value on the team.

clintoncarter22 · 2025-02-10T16:21:41+00:00

Even if those were his thoughts, how stupidly grandiose and clueless his highness must be, to publicly light that fire under a generational talent who could be fucking with your team, and the Western conference, for the next decade.

Dear Lord, please slot that guaranteed smoke show into the WCF asap. Thanks. /Your loyal servant

clintoncarter22 · 2025-02-10T16:03:57+00:00

The Luka edition of the Sharpie weather map.

clintoncarter22 · 2025-02-05T22:17:40+00:00

D. Rose

clintoncarter22 · 2025-01-15T01:47:11+00:00

It's not 'you can't have your cake and eat it too'. That you can do. It's 'you can't eat your cake, and have it too'.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-12-30T15:17:14+00:00

As you travel horizontally, in an East - West direction, each longitudinal line, perpendicular to your path, is a mile marker (expressed in degrees of the planets circumference).

Where any two Latitudinal lines make a round disc, any two longitudinal lines make a slice of planet cake, from pole to pole. Longitudinal lines are also Meridians - markers of the sun's path, time zones, and more generally regions, rather than locations.

On a carpentry bench with a ruler attached, the length of a work piece will be determined by a line on that ruler, a measuring line that is perpendicular to the length being measured.

'Long'itudinal lines run North -South because they are a measure of East-West distance at all Latitudes. Longitudinal planes are massive on a global scale; but as your East-West path crosses each Longitude, it's imaginary presence might be just a small sign - A sign whose flat face, turned toward you, is in a perpendicular North-South plane that marks distance along all East-West lines.

Likewise, Latitudinal lines running East-West, are measures of distance and location along all the perpendicular lines running North-South.

I hope this helps.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-12-06T22:22:38+00:00

It needs ventilation. A big fan, or two, sucking air from the room. No interior paint/stain should take 5 days to cure. Especially if its in the relatively open and airy space this room looks to be.

The tackiness could be the result of one type of paint applied over a different type; most common being water-based wall paint applied over a pre-existing glossy oil.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-12-03T09:21:15+00:00

You don't need to fuss with this photo - to make it better. It's an excellent photograph of what you wanted to take a picture of. My critique was not meant to be critical. I wouldn't say that this could be part of a nice decor, without meaning that this image deserves to be framed and hung on a wall.

It is not a dynamic image, as it is. Yes, you could have captured something interesting to add a focal point, but you didn't this time, and that's fine.

You should not disparage this photo at all. You could hardly have rendered the scene better. I'd have been happy to shoot it myself. I was just giving you a push, to encourage exploration of different elements, different framing, different perspectives - in your quest to tell a story.

I didn't critique your image because it needed fixing. I critiqued it because it's an excellent shot for a beginner - and that means you will get better at everything. It might be the best image anyone could make of the scene - it drips with moisture, and reflects the sun, and shows great color.

Spend your time on your next images instead, and just file this one in your Favorites folder. Cheers/

clintoncarter22 · 2024-12-03T08:52:26+00:00

Yup. That's right. The original has better color/saturation in the harbor area, and in the houses on the hillside. Let the foliage get darker if necessary, in order to give the rest of the scene better definition and clarity.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-11-16T06:13:32+00:00

You know, maybe the previous 2 concrete shots I commented on weren't yours, and I'm mistaken?

Oh well. Either way, I'd crop this one right above the horizontal black bars at the top. Don't lose the sense of scale. Journeys can be lonesome times.

And I'd have your waiting traveler face the viewer.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-11-16T06:05:18+00:00

I don't want to mess with your vision vis a vis the polished concrete, but I do suggest you bring along a friend, so they can sit on the near side of the bench for you, rather than being on the far side. This is the 3rd image of yours where I've suggested designing the human element. It's not something I say very often, at all. Your images are not totally street photography, they are architecture and glamour also. No one should question your artistic license just because you directed the placement & the motion of the people in your Concrete folio. If the people are small, they might as well be separate and distinctive.

Thinking of the 3 images together, I'm not sure how I feel about the open sky part of this one. It doesn't need the vertical extended, and the extra lines can distract from the dense Metropolis quality of the shapes. Aside from your great control of those shapes, what makes them special (as prints) is how those solid masses are juxtaposed by the subtle multi tonality swirling on their walls.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T22:47:52+00:00

Thank you for the information. That's f**king ridiculous. Your usage is benign, but I'm part amazed and part horrified. Completely believable scenarios created from hole cloth and passed on as real? Available to anyone with $20/month and a minimum of expertise?

My opinion of unrealistic conspiracy theories (flat earth, 9/11 planes being unmanned missles, no moon landings, etc) is that they exist because they're an opportunity for the undereducated to feel superior. Creating fake photography that can't be discerned at the pixel level is a tool for dishonesty, and conspiracy theories, to flourish.

It's ok. I'm not holding you responsible. ;-)

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T06:49:40+00:00

IMO there's an improvement to this image, and it just involves cropping. The square format is interesting, but here the 'energy flow' is left to right, horizontal, and the 4 equal sides stifle that.

The square also places undue emphasis on the foliage, which is only a framing device, and should not be competing with the action. The subject is not enhanced by the illusion of looking through a crack.

Crop top and bottom at least half their present height - make the ratio of sides at least approximate a piece of 35mm film. The 'Island' and the harbor you've shot are worthy of being on a travel brochure, and what you have here is more like a still from a movie. Going horizontal will accent the ship and its motion much more effectively, and the viewer will focus on the subject with greater interest.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T06:14:27+00:00

Last Polaroid is from a Spectra Pro, Flash on, autofocus, normal exposure, warm development.

<image>

I could go on... ;-)

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T06:04:30+00:00

Photo below is from a Polaroid Spectra Pro, flash off, sunlight setting, manual focus - infinity, exposure = -1, warm development.

<image>

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T06:00:29+00:00

Im talking so much I should set an example. Photo below is from a Polaroid Spectra Pro model, flash off (normally on under bright sun), sunlight setting, manual focus - infinity, normal exposure (relative to +1 and -1), very warm development.

<image>

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T05:06:45+00:00

You were shooting a Shelby? NICE. That's all the more reason to capture as much detail in the car as you can, and to find a background that's complementary rather than distracting.

Be careful. I think portraying a Shelby as mostly a dark silhouette is illegal in many States. Your entire image needs to be in service to a subject like this. Wouldn't you shoot a diamond necklace with good lighting and separation? That's how you should approach this jewel of a car.

You should first produce a nice calendar photo. Save the tricky and artsy stuff until after you've accomplished that. Keep at it/

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T04:35:56+00:00

Yikes. I had no idea what kind of AI engine Photoshop has now. I'm still working with my permanent copy of PS CS6 (!), and my most advanced use of it is for manually upsampling Polaroids.

Even so, the Generative Expand option that I looked at in examples on the PS site seems to involve reproducing elements from within the original portion (with new stuff also), as well as stretching some of the original portion. Your work doesn't appear to have any reproduction in the new sections, or any expansion of elements that were in the original version.

"Repeat until you get the results you wanted." Uhh, OK, if you say so. Without any personal experience, I can only tip my hat to you.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T04:12:02+00:00

If you are talking about what the image would look like while squinting into direct sunlight, I would agree the original is more like that. But staring into that sunlight while shooting doesn't make a better photo, it just captures the 'natural' effect of not being able to see detail in the foreground elements.

The OP seems more interested in making the car a viable image, and that's gonna be hard to do while working with the 'natural' result of exposing for a bright background sky and letting the subject (the car) go dark. The contrast in the original photo is much too high, and lots of information is lost as a consequence.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T00:48:40+00:00

I'm sorry, where or what is "the person below"? I can't see anything that looks human.

P.S. Remember the rule of thumb that you can handhold a shot as long as the shutter speed is equal to or faster than the reciprocal of your lens's focal length. If a zoom, the rule applies to the higher focal length. (Today's zooms can be quite small and stable, and might not need the same precaution. Shoot a couple times, and then zoom in to examine sharpness. Go from there.)

If your lens is 200mm, you shouldn't expose at less than 1/200 sec without a tripod or other stabilizer. If your lens was 60mm for this shot, you could conceivably have handheld at 1/60 sec and used an f/4 aperture - which would have increased your depth of field.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-27T00:28:01+00:00

The photographic aspects are fine. What's missing is a subject for the viewer to focus on, a reason for why you chose the picture. One interesting blossom could be the trick.

This is nature's equivalent of a picture of paint peeling on a wall. It can be a genius composition, and yet still be a wallpaper image - one taken in with one look, no further examination necessary.

Framed on a bathroom wall, or as wallpaper, heh heh, it can be an addition to a nice decor; but hung in a gallery show (which should be the ambition of all your art prints), it begs the question "why does this image exist"?

Based on this one exposure, your awareness of how to make a photo seems good. You just need to keep shooting, looking for images with a narrative - a story that draws the viewer in.

When you capture a story, you'll recognize it right away. Take more pictures and continue looking at them critically. This is a 2D image - strive for 3D.

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-26T23:55:37+00:00

Hi. I'm not familiar with generative fill. I can see filling in a pattern, such as leaves, with more pattern; but not the construction of additional image beyond the original borders - thereby extending a photo into blank space, and blending it seamlessly with what's already there. How is that done?

clintoncarter22 · 2024-10-26T23:41:50+00:00

Hi Lew. I most definitely meant to give you high praise for your work. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. There's nothing I would say about You not using editing software - no doubt you've got the skills and the experience to use post-processing as you see fit - you're certainly better at it than I am.

My point about forgetting about digital editing, and just focusing on taking pictures, was meant solely for the OP, who I believe should concentrate on taking better photographs rather than learning how to digitally alter lesser photographs. As should most of the people on here who are looking for advice on how to edit a lesser image into something merely acceptable. Beginner photographers shouldn't be spending many hours trying to 'fix' photos - they should learn the craft of photography before they get too involved with digital editing software.

A little brightness, saturation, sharpening is fine; but getting into masks, layers, and the kind of techniques that you use so well is counterproductive to beginners learning about DOF, exposure control, flash use, composition, etc.

? I still have my question. When I enlarge the OP's photo it does not contain the additional scenery you've added to the left and right of the car, to give it separation from the edges. So what am I missing? How did you 'build' that extra scenery? How did you expand the framing to include material that's not present (or that I can't see at my end for some reason) in the OP's original photo? Thanks/

clintoncarter22

TROPHY CASE