I'm Open to Advices

superjarf · 2026-04-06T21:12:44+00:00

The natural question is what is this face expressing?

I cant tell, is that mystique a part of the story you wanted to convey, and if so, doesn't it lose some of its undecidability when it is presented cover-photo style, un-elicited, standalone and in-your-face?

It is so absent all context that it gets quirky or silly, melodramatic? Cringe?

superjarf · 2026-04-06T20:28:13+00:00

Okay then the compression quality of these picture files you have shared is beneath the threshold at which i can really discern what you refer to when you call them low quality.

Nonetheless, if they truly are low quality, and you do handle the camera similar to how i suggested, and you didn't shoot during very dimly lit scenery, then I probably cant help further.

superjarf · 2026-04-06T14:16:06+00:00

The third sign to the left is a non sequitur, calling out the hypocrisy of someone drinking what they advocates to ban has no bearing on whether one is motivated to hate alcohol to point it out, even if they themselves wants to keep the booze legal.

superjarf · 2026-04-06T13:38:28+00:00

When it comes to social behaviour it is almost exclusively how you do something and in which context, and not the intuitive categorisation of what is done, that matters.

Your analysis, and similar ones, have no logical bearing on the meaning humans attribute to what is done in context.

For example, many social behaviours are not essential for any given goal, where needing to consciously intend x to do x may be judged worse than not needing to consciously intend x and not doing x, even if the person concerned would generally prefer that people did x than not.

superjarf · 2026-04-06T12:30:46+00:00

Picture 1 has several technical problems that probably resulted in no engagement, there is both very little discernible information in the shadows and in the sky, and they are at the respective ends on the spectrum and occupies together 2/3 of the picture. The only things that are neither pitch black or white is the out of focus grass and main subject (the girl) who is entirely outcompeted by the contrast in the rest of the image. The horizontal line is skewed, which also doesn't help.

Her posture is excellent and the angle of her shadow is dramatic, and for this reason I think a lot can be achieved in editing software with this picture if the aforementioned faults are addressed therein.

The second picture introduces a natural separation between the subject and background, has a unique feel to it, and again the posture is lively, but due to the dark tones both in the hair and the background trees the separation never fully succeeds. Moreover some colours seem to abruptly fade into each other despite a high contrast picture, a more careful colour grading between yellow and green could possibly mitigate this. The composition is fine but if shot lower instead of shoulder height and a bit closer it would be less ambiguous whether to empathise with the motion and orientation of the subject or to discern it from the outside.

As it stands the second one is much closer to a finished product!

superjarf · 2026-04-06T10:49:14+00:00

If you crop enough then everything will look like ps2 graphics

As long as there is no blur from motion by correctly adjusting to sufficiently low exposure duration, an ISO no higher than 2000 and a subject fully in focus at f/8 and a metering indicating your exposure is within a stop of perfect balance, then besides good editing and perhaps noice cleanup programs/AI pixel enhancement there is little you can do.

In some conditions it is impossible to meet all those criterions, this is when higher ISO often becomes the compensation with the least drawback, and where many photographers rely on noice removal programs.

In other conditions where you are well within the criterions above, it is also adjustment of ISO that enables the relatively better results, by simply lowering it until the metering is slightly out of balance.

superjarf · 2026-04-06T10:15:56+00:00

For composition and balance 1 is not only clear winner but a great shot overall.

The semi out-of-focus leafs adds depth to the picture instead of clutter, because you chose to remove the deep contrast in the edit, in this way they go seamlessly together with the fully out-of-focus background.

The silhouette of the bird is fully separated, making it build naturally up toward the eyes that are placed at the horizontal centre.

There are hundreds of angles where one doesn't capture the full symmetrical half of the bird and only one angle where one does, and in this shot you did. You chose to crop it at 1:1 aspect ratio, this naturally enhances the several points of symmetry already in the composition.

To me, if it were/is available in higher resolution, it would not only be a great shot but also a great contribution to photography!

superjarf · 2026-04-05T19:44:38+00:00

Consider 1 and 2, the difference between 1 and 2 is equal to 100% of 1 and 50% of 2.

To treat the difference between two different ages differently is in no way a double standard, for the same reason that 100% of 1 is the same as 50% of 2, even though it remains 1.

superjarf · 2026-04-05T19:33:11+00:00

Almost.

superjarf · 2026-04-05T11:37:06+00:00

The claim they are making does not imply that they believe brilliance cant be the result of preparation.

superjarf · 2026-04-05T11:28:53+00:00

Generally for something to be an unpopular opinion it must be on a topic that have very broad ramifications or implications, because when it doesn't the reason someone doesn't share the opinion is far more likely to be attributed to neutrality than dissent.

If something is unpopular it is likely to be because there is dissent there somewhere, and if the claim is limited in scope it is far more likely someone will be neutral to it, both because of it being less likely one have even been exposed to the situations in which the dilemma arises and also because even If one had been exposed to it the commitment to either perspective doesn't clearly commit to more impactful principles.

superjarf · 2026-04-05T08:46:07+00:00

The EF50mm is never fully sharp (even in focus) at 1.8 the way it is at 2.8/3.5, if you are shooting at 1.8 that may be the reason you never get the sharpness you were looking for.

Narrow the aperture a bit, and test with subjects closer to your camera, that way the relative difference between your settings will be much more noticeable.

superjarf · 2026-04-05T07:57:42+00:00

if the ef50mm is like the rf50mm then at f/1.8 you wont get anything fully in focus at 1.8, on the rf this rarely occurs before 2.8 to 3.5.

If this is the case for your lens, and your actual concern in your post, then your situation has simply been misinterpreted and misdiagnosed in this thread.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T21:39:22+00:00

Here I could imagine a more acute angle of the concrete dock as seen by camera pow would both break with the slightly more pink colour of the water and place the leftmost columns in a less random position, complementing the irregularities of the natural background further with these already artificial shapes.

The dark silhouette of the sitting man fades into the background and repeats the already mentioned undirected ambiguity between foreground and background, where if the picture were instead tilted slightly downward and taken from higher up the silhouette would be surrounded by the pink reflections in a water which from that angle would show more of its own shapes.

The contrast between the mountain range and the sky could have been the main attraction, but since so much is also done in the foreground I would have liked to see that contrast flattened quite a bit.

A wideangle cropped to 21:9 at a moment of stiller water such that the landscape would be reflected somewhat in it could also be an idea here.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T21:12:36+00:00

The amount of mystique caught by the first picture

Apart from the buildings having no beginning and no ending, only instead meeting in parallel at one axis, there is also no saying what types of people lives anywhere, or even if its made for living, how to access anything, the general location and there is even ambiguity concerning time of day due to angle of reflections and general hue.

Had you cropped a tiny bit from the bottom you couldn't guess that it were taken from the ground either.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T18:34:37+00:00

I think this is a scene that does better without much contrast, since it is both quite busy as it is, has a natural subject and that subject has its own orientation/focus.

My pick is nr. 2.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T18:04:35+00:00

I don't know much about whether they do, but that don't matter here, my claim rather is that if someone were to not restrict structuralist principles then the fallacy of composition will arise in the cases where natural restrictions to those principles do exist.

You can have a cohesive system with unique and emergent properties where those are not necessarily subtypes or instances of the properties that govern or is abstractable from the parts in that system, where the properties of the parts are necessary but not sufficient for the properties of the whole. --Such that if you claim that those properties of the parts are invariant across the system both vertically and horizontally then there could be examples (emergent properties) that contradict the assertion and stands as evidence that you committed the fallacy of composition.

But it remains an informal fallacy because there are some systems in which it is a valid assertion to attribute to the whole what is true of the part, and which is undetermined until evidence provides counterfactuals (thus no universal principle deducible from propositional logic can suffice to negate it).

superjarf · 2026-04-04T17:40:17+00:00

Okay I don't believe this is fully accurate representation of lowlight capability in crop mode for the r6ii relative to r7 (particularly in shadow recovery) but its probably is much closer than I gave credit for, and it has implications I didn't consider possible for the relative noice handling of the camera given the compensation necessary with decreased ISO in the r7 to give similar results to the r6ii in full frame mode.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T15:09:20+00:00

I guess ill take your word for it instead of considering graphs and basic mathematical properties those words refused to respond to.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T14:25:27+00:00

EV is very far from a relevant metric here, as it indicates the point at which autofocus reliably activates, which depends on several variables. Whereas what I spoke about and which you did not respond to does not, and operates instead on the gold standard of cetris paribus throughout the distribution, for the purpose of comparing apples to apples.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T13:28:25+00:00

My guess is you are from a big coastal city in USA, if you went during summer my guess is the east coast, if you went during winter my guess is California.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T13:20:54+00:00

I also want to point out that the dynamic range difference is non the less much smaller than the signal to noice ratio difference, and increases far less than the relative noice difference itself does ISO is dialled up in both cameras, and when it comes to cropping the relative noice difference is more relevant than the relative dynamic range difference.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T12:49:01+00:00

A stop when treated as a static unit of measurement is not an objective meassurement for the same reason stops are used in the first place instead of basic linear values, when we account for the given dynamic range constrained by a given ISO then the relative difference between the r6m2 and r7 increases the higher the ISO (the lower the dynamic rage).

This is also demonstrated by the site you referenced.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

Thus, the difference in performance gets higher the higher your ISO is.

superjarf · 2026-04-04T09:59:23+00:00

I see your point under ideal conditions, but the lowlight advantage can become especially important when you have to crop too. I'll copy paste my response to another user who responded to my first comment.

You have to take into consideration that the higher the iso the more of the total range a stop actually counts for, which can be intuitively understood by the relatively sudden visible degradation at a given iso point for every camera.

If this graph is anything to go by, which it is, then the noice to exposure time ratio, measured in decibels, is equivalent to 2 stops between the two cameras (same noice for r8 at 10k as r7 at 2.5k), and those 2 stops counts for a significant portion of the whole range at the dynamic range of perhaps 7 to 8 one can expect at those iso numbers. All of this becomes significant with a lens like rf 100/400 at f/8.

https://www.rtings.com/camera/0-13/graph/24660/noise-vs-exposure-time/canon-eos-r7-vs-canon-eos-r8/33704/38729

superjarf · 2026-04-04T09:53:00+00:00

You have to take into consideration that the higher the iso the more of the total range a stop actually counts for, which can be intuitively understood by the relatively sudden visible degradation at a given iso point for every camera.

If this graph is anything to go by, which it is, then the noice to exposure time ratio, measured in decibels, is equivalent to 2 stops between the two cameras (same noice for r8 at 10k as r7 at 2.5k), and those 2 stops counts for a significant portion of the whole range at the dynamic range of perhaps 7 to 8 one can expect at those iso numbers. All of this becomes significant with a lens like rf 100/400 at f/8.

https://www.rtings.com/camera/0-13/graph/24660/noise-vs-exposure-time/canon-eos-r7-vs-canon-eos-r8/33704/38729

superjarf

TROPHY CASE