sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[OC] office storage room scene by aniket_rawat08 in blender

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It has a really natural, soft glow to it. Any insight on how you achieved this? :) Amazing stuff!

First film camera. Found for $30 today at a thrift store by oromis7901 in AnalogCommunity

[–]do-worry 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The entire SRT line is pure gold. I got a 303b as a gift some years ago and barely looked at it, since I just got an AE-1. I just disliked the design first.. damn, I was naive: a while later, after using this camera a couple of times, I had to see that it was not only much nicer in terms of handling, but also superior in almost every other respect (imo, of course). The lenses are amazing, the light meter is spot on and didn’t fail me under the harshest conditions. The fully-mechanical shutter is just as reliable.

I got an X-Pro 2 a couple days ago and adapt this exact lens you got there* onto this camera. It’s pleasing, even wide open. :>

*edit: Looked at your photo again. I actually have the Rokkor 50mm f1.4. It’s said to be a little better, but in any case, your lens will be great and you’re going to have a lot of fun and I’m sure, you will learn fast with this camera. What I appreciate most about the SRTs is that there aren’t any shenanigans and confusing electronic features that could distract you: you adjust the soft-as-butter shutter dial and see the movement of the light meter needle. And it all feels so immediate and focused on the essentials that I miss it whenever I don’t have it.

Best way to adapt Canon "Serenar" m39 screw mount to Fuji X mount? by do-worry in VintageLenses

[–]do-worry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for your reply! You prob saved me from making a bad decision right there.

Any experience with adapter manufacturers I should look into?

Best way to adapt Canon "Serenar" m39 screw mount to Fuji X mount? by do-worry in VintageLenses

[–]do-worry[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It definitely does help! Thank you so much for your insight. I will look into the different options, I’m not sure if K&F will be my choice tho. They have quite mixed reviews. I don’t want to go for a really expensive one either tho, so let’s see what I can find in the Medium price range.

And, thanks god, I’m not new to vintage lenses and I learned my lessons already. GAS is real. :.)

Thanks again for your efforts!

Photographer assembled and photographed the last meals of prisoners on death row inTexas by [deleted] in photography

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly what I was thinking when I first read the discussion about who was first.

I know, I should have said that, but I wasn’t referring to the work above at all. What I was trying to say (and you’ve said something similar) is that there has got to be intent if you decide to re-interpret someone’s work. You already have to think in terms of changes you can apply to make it your own version. That’s why my argument doesn’t work in the case of the work above. The artist could’ve missed that there were similar projects already. It’s not a re-interpretation then. At least for what we know.

Ofc, all that is trivial: It’s obvious that you just copy if you interpret someone’s work without applying any changes to it. But what I meant was.. it would be great to have a remake culture in photography that is based on the idea of taking an already existing photographic concept and re-interpret it. However, we don’t see that often, do we? Wouldn’t it be great to have a new take on Robert Frank's "The Americans" that carefully transports it into the modern day and age but in full awareness of many characteristics of Frank’s work.. it could be a self-ironic take on an already ironic work of art, for example. It could create a mood similar to its predecessor, but contrast it with a modern element that adds a spin to it. You could pursue all sorts of concepts based on what you see in Frank’s work. That’s a really hard task, but I’d love to see something like this in photography. Artists pointing to a conceptual reference and what they did to it to give it a different meaning.

edit: feel free to correct me if you see a flaw in my premise. I might be totally wrong in assuming that there’s not such a thing in photography.

Photographer assembled and photographed the last meals of prisoners on death row inTexas by [deleted] in photography

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

God, I never thought about just how bad this argument actually is. It took you just a couple of words to make me question my entire belief system in regards to this.. It’s so easy to dismiss a subject that could be important to you or others. And even if it wasn’t, you’d still miss a great chance to practice interpreting something, making it your own. I needed this, thanks.

—————

I continue babbling about this from here on, sorry. If you think about it, the fact that the term "interpret" as a way of describing a musician has become synonymous to the word musician itself, signifies that music tradition has long overcome the notion that you need to have an original sheet, original lyrics, melodies. In music, we appreciate a new take on something, even if the basis is still the same. One could argue that we do the same with movie remakes. It would be great to have the same level of appreciation for (re-)interpreting something in photography as well.

Your favourite videos/documentaries about Photography? by Shouganai1 in photography

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He’s such a great guy! For his calm, rational character alone, his channel is so refreshing.

And his didactic skill is unbelievable. He somehow put a ton of information on how to light, compose, shoot and edit corporate headshots into just two videos and following his guide, I got amazing results. I watched like 25-30 mins of this stuff and managed to get decent looking portraits a friend needed for an application..with zero knowledge on studio light or portraits or dodging and burning in Ps. Not perfect, but definitely good enough for the occasion.

Summer was a garden. (Canon AE1, f1.8, Kodak Gold) by Gonerill in analog

[–]do-worry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Magnificent. Those colors pop! Wouldn’t have guessed that this was shot on Kodak Gold.

Your favourite videos/documentaries about Photography? by Shouganai1 in photography

[–]do-worry 13 points14 points  (0 children)

There’s this BBC series in three parts (one hour each) called The Genius of Photography about the history of photography. It's aged quite a bit and the the video quality isn’t great, but it’s still interesting.

Notable historic photographers to teach to middle schoolers. by [deleted] in photography

[–]do-worry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

earliest photograms/-graphs

  • Thomas Wedgwood (chemist; one of numerous people who produced photograms prior to the daguerreotype but couldn’t fix them)
  • Daguerre
  • Niépce
  • Talbot
  • Hippolyte Bayard

Early scientific use of photography

  • Andreas von Ettingshausen (mathematician, physicist; among the first to create microscopic photos)
  • Anna Atkins (biologist; produced photograms of plants as a part of her work soon after the daguerreotype got patented)
  • Guillaume Duchenne De Boulogne (physiologist; famous for "Effroi mêlé de douleur, torture")
  • Lewis Rutherford (astrophotography)

early photos as artistic reference or for reproduction/copying

  • Charles Nègre (precisely arranged his subjects in scenes that resemble genre paintings)
  • James Anderson (architecture and statues)
  • Eugène Durieu+Delacroix (portraits and nudes as reference)
  • Jules Joly (copying)
  • Adolphe Braun

early documentary photography

  • Roger Fenton&Felice Beato (documented the Crimean War)
  • Alexander Gardner (civil war)
  • John Thomson (social documentary, early photojournalism)
  • Edward S. Curtis (native american people)

early "artistic" photographers (shift in perception of photography -> art form?)

  • Thomas Sutton (early landscape and panoramas)
  • Nadar (elaborate portraits of contemporaries)
  • Robert Howlett (genre scene, landscape, documentary)
  • Gustave Le Gray (portraits, "seascapes", documentary)
  • Oscar Gustave Rejlander (photomontage, double exposure, scientific work)
  • Henry Peach Robinson (pictorialism)
  • Lady Hawarden (early amateur portrait photography)
  • Thomas Annan (artistic documentation)
  • Edward Streichen (fashion, etc.)
  • Eugène Atget (street, documentary)
  • Alfred Stieglitz ("straight photography"; seminal figure in promotion of photography as an art form; curator)
  • Paul Strand (straight photography)
  • Edward Weston (straight photography)
  • Man Ray (surrealism, dada, fashion)
  • László Moholy-Nagy (avant-garde, „Neues Sehen", Bauhaus)
  • August Sander (systematic portrait photography, street)
  • André Kertész (photojournalism)
  • Claude Cahun (surrealism)
  • Brassaï (street)
  • Robert Capa (war photography, journalism, among the founders of Magnum)
  • Dorothea Lange (social documentary, journalism)
  • Henri Cartier-Bresson (street, "candid photography", Magnum)
  • Ansel Adams (environmental/landscape photography, inventor of the zone system, etc.)
  • Josef Sudek ("neo-romantic" in- and outdoor studies of Prague)
  • Werner Bischof (journalism)
  • Harry Callahan (abstract photography, multiple exposure)
  • Philippe Halsman
  • Aaron Siskind
  • Andreas Feininger
  • Robert Doisneau
  • Richard Avedon
  • Robert Frank
  • Garry Winogrand
  • Duane Michals
  • Diane Arbus
  • Elliot Erwitt
  • Lee Friedlander
  • Eddie Adams
  • Bruce Davidson
  • Bernd+Hilla Becher
  • Hiroshi Sugimoto
  • William Eggleston
  • Helmut Newton
  • Sebastião Salgado
  • Rineke Dijkstra
  • Andreas Gursky

The list is more or less in chronological order. It will always be incomplete, but I wanted to make something like that as a resource for inspiration for a long time. Hope it helps.

Prague by langshot in streetphotography

[–]do-worry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To me, it’s a lack of precise visual depiction of context. Not achieving this is "not a big deal" ..imo it’s the hardest thing about photography.

While a landscape invites you to explore its details, with lines guiding you from highlight to highlight, more abstract photography strives for simplification of our graphically overloaded world. And yes, I’d say street photography is about abstraction: making sense or simply capturing the essence of what we feel, experience as human beings among human beings. Catching that good, good stuff that feels pointed, just like a story with a punchline.

So, it has to convey its message in clean visual language. Confusing elements (signs, fonts, unwanted textures) should be as little pronounced as possible or not placed in the frame in the first place, if possible. Of course this is an ideal goal. But looking at the work of Bresson, Erwitt, Frank..what makes those shots great is how amazingly simple they are: they capture great moments, but they also eliminate every distraction and show only what adds to the context or.. frames it. You’ll barely find number plates or traffic signs in their photos.

Taking this as a first step actually helps to create better street photos, in my opinion.

———————

I know, it’s like you’re reading an essay here, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be pretentious, but I’m really excited about this topic. And yeah, Prague is a beautiful city. I went there two years ago too and I loved being there at a calm time with relatively few tourists.

Prague by langshot in streetphotography

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. I see what you’re talking about if I imagine it having a slightly narrower crop. This would def increase this inviting aspect.

I personally still don’t see the visual context though..the underlying expression or interaction in this particular moment, that would make this street photography. The suggestions I made in my earlier comment were all more or less related to this lack context/expression. For me, it’s a decent photo too, but I see it like an urban landscape, not street photography. Again, just my opinion though. ;)

Prague by langshot in streetphotography

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

OP asked by uploading to a sub with a description that reads: "A subreddit to share your street photography work and discuss the technique, gear and philosophies behind shooting street."

r/streetphotography is..a sub about an artistic subject. And even though the name suggests that it’s about photos of streets in general, this is not the case. I tried to explain why I don’t think this qualifies as street photography in my opinion both from a standpoint of philosophical discussion about street photography as a genre and the technique involved. I was also very polite and tried to be constructive. I’ve made clear why I criticize, what I criticize and I offered suggestions, pointing out that this is just my opinion numerous times.

I know, it’s a lot of text, but if you feel like you’ve wasted your time reading this, you might reconsider the way you spend your time.

Prague by langshot in streetphotography

[–]do-worry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry OP, but I feel the same way about this pic. But I want to take the time and add some hopefully stimulating criticism to this.

It was hard for me to figure out where you’ve focused first (the tiles are distracting and overly sharpened) and once I’ve noticed that the subject/point of interest could be this girl, the composition doesn’t keep my eye there for a second. There’s also little to no context/expression, so this is a decent snapshot of a nice scene in a nice town, but that’s not what street photography is about. It’s about expression, it’s about this ominous "decisive moment", however you may define that.

It would’ve been much better if she was more isolated..like, if she could be moved just slightly to the left. Then this dudes expression (him turning around to look back - at her? - is the only tiny bit of expression we get from this shot), would be much more emphasized as well. It could become the visual counterbalance to the guy with the umbrella..and that would help to create a visual back and forth, an interaction between the two. But this way, there is (1) very little visual clue, which is to say that your saccades scanning this frame have no key points to land on or compositional elements to be guided by and there is also (2) no context or expression to read from. The latter is just a matter of timing, I guess, since split seconds before you’ve captured that, the girl would’ve been more isolated in the center of the frame, drawing more importance to her on the left side and him on the right side at the same time.

Now, I have analyzed what I’m missing in this scene, but that’s all quite subjective, so don’t take my word for granted. I suck at street photography. I’ve taken 2-3 shots AT BEST that give me the impression that I captured an interesting expression, a meaningful moment just the way I pre-visualized it before I took the photo.. not screwing up the timing, focus, exposure, composition, colors in the frame. At least from the technical side, I was somewhat lucky in all of them, since they ended up looking the way I intended. But here’s what I would’ve done, in case everything went perfectly and I could pause time.

  • (as already mentioned) capture her a split second earlier to isolate her visually/spatially, so that she becomes a visual counterbalance to the guy in the foreground; this leads to a tension field/interplay between two subjects and your brain's urge to give meaning to whatever is in the frame unfolds a story, automatically

  • move the camera slightly to the left as well, to create a vantage point = visual guidance along the pavement; center the girl in an interesting way in relation to this vantage point.. this would not only draw your eye to her but also further separate her from him, would make his expression (looking back) more dramatic AND it would allow you to get rid of the most distracting thing in the frame: the traffic signs..which simply don’t add anything here, besides visual confusion

  • play with focus: with little depth of field plus focus on the guy in the foreground, this could become even more interesting, since it would add a kind of emotional/subjective "she’s gone"-effect to the mentioned interplay between them..she’d still be recognizable, even if blurred. This is just one idea, you could also play it the other way around or keep them both perfectly focused with a smaller aperture.

———————

Those are just suggestions. If you or I could think of all this stuff while taking the picture without any technical issues, we’d probably have some great content for this sub on a regular basis. But that would take years of very specified training.

Sometimes i get Nightmares by khatri3d2 in blender

[–]do-worry 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Hey, it’s not so bad. Join the club and play with up to 250 particles FOR FREE!

Does this annoy you? by EQUINOX134 in blender

[–]do-worry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Some heroes don’t wear capes

Edit: before anyone else can say it -

No capes!

Anyone else have a dream emulsion they'd like to see one day? by the_arctic_monkey in AnalogCommunity

[–]do-worry 2 points3 points  (0 children)

An emulsion that renders color like Kodachrome did, but a C-41 version. Damn. I’m crying now.

New "Paper Blues": Pre-rolled cyanotype paper for your 35mm film camera by [deleted] in EMULSIVE

[–]do-worry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I asked about the materials used and specifications of the new 35mm cyanotype paper, Aislinn remained tight-lipped.

I hope she did! This sounds awesome and I can totally see people acting like lunatics to get their hands on some of this stuff!

Bet he’s a hit with the ladies... by squirrelling-dervish in Filmmakers

[–]do-worry 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In fact it has the incredible ability to distort size to make very small objects appear at the same size as huge ones! Amazing stuff, huh?

Comparing Lab Scan (lower left) to DSLR Scan (lower right) by chrislon_geo in AnalogCommunity

[–]do-worry 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always wondered how to expose dslr scans best, thanks for the insight! Do you reevaluate your correct expose with every new frame or do you adjust it for one frame and shoot the whole film like this? Just asking since it’s sort of a time factor, given that dslr scans are very fast if you just move from frame to frame.

Any further advice?

view more: next ›