| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2008 12:50:21 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:26:46 PM · #2 |
I'm not crazy about the posed tree shots as they look rather stiff to me. However, I really like the rest of them. The setting is great and the poses work for me. Is there one with the whole family (is that you in red?)
I forgot to add... don't know if this is your family, but regardless, it is a "model" family. The girls are beautiful and the boy is very cute. The mom is stunning.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 13:28:33. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:41:25 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by jpochard:
I'm not crazy about the posed tree shots as they look rather stiff to me. However, I really like the rest of them. The setting is great and the poses work for me. Is there one with the whole family (is that you in red?)
I forgot to add... don't know if this is your family, but regardless, it is a "model" family. The girls are beautiful and the boy is very cute. The mom is stunning. |
Yeah, I kinda agree about the posed tree shots. They were the first pics in the session, so we hadn't all loosened up yet. Perhaps taken them later in the session would work as we'd all be more comfortable.
That is not me in the picture, it's my best friend and his girlfriend. I agree that they're photogenic. The group shot I have of all of them is nice, but I felt these were the best of the shoot.
Thanks for your comments,
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:42:36 PM · #4 |
| Gorgeous lighting! Mom is a stunner! My nitpick would be the crop of the girls & mom. Right at or below the breasts (on the tree shots)seems to really call that area to attention. I would bring their heads closer to the top and show more torso. That's really a beautiful family, very photogenic! |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 01:47:08 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Gorgeous lighting! Mom is a stunner! My nitpick would be the crop of the girls & mom. Right at or below the breasts (on the tree shots)seems to really call that area to attention. I would bring their heads closer to the top and show more torso. That's really a beautiful family, very photogenic! |
Now that you mention the crop, you're right. I'll pay closer attention to that next time around... I have another shoot this Monday with several families.
Thanks,
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 02:06:01 PM · #6 |
| I would like a smaller DOF in the shots with the tree in the BG, so the tree will blur. Lighting is great. I'm sure your friend is happy. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 02:12:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by caba:
I would like a smaller DOF in the shots with the tree in the BG, so the tree will blur. Lighting is great. I'm sure your friend is happy. |
For some sessions that may be a great option, but this is the first year they put up the tree together after he hadn't put a tree up for almost 4 years, so the tree was a major part of this shoot. I think on Monday's shoot I will try some more shallow DOF.
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:13:09 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:31:17 PM · #9 |
very nice! the lighting you used is great, and the shots look wonderful, i would have to say the only thing i found a bit distracting in some od the shots, is the fireplace and cristmas tree i dont really like both of them in the shot together, i knowticed in some the fireplace was cut/croped in half i think maybe like do some shots with the fire as the back round and use the tree for others, but they all look great, i would have to say my fave is the last one i belive with the husband and wife kissing with the fire behind them, great job!
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:35:56 PM · #10 |
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership?
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:41:33 PM · #11 |
I like the work, like the lighting and the photos are very good. Of course it doesn't hurt to have some pretty good looking models to start with and some talent behind the lens.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 05:48:19 PM · #12 |
The women in the shots kinda look a little plastic to me and the teeth a funny white colour.
Others wise lovely |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 06:06:51 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 06:47:27 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
Yeah, I can agree with that, too. I didn't see that SC had edited your post. These are perhaps the most ridiculous size allowances on all of the internet, ESPECIALLY when considering challenge submissions. Come on DPC, get with the times.
E
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 09:19:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
Uh, portfolio images are not subject to either of the 640 or 720 size limits for challenges. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 09:21:28 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
Uh, portfolio images are not subject to either of the 640 or 720 size limits for challenges. |
Uh, my image is hosted from my site, and doesn't affect their bandwidth does it? I think it's rediculous, always have and always will. A photo website should allow large images so that fine details can be seen.
-danny |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 10:17:55 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. |
Really? What if you put the img tags before and after the url: [img]//www.your link.com[/img]
By the way, how big was your soft box. Lighting looks very smooth & nice
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 22:20:14. |
|
|
|
12/18/2008 10:24:44 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
Uh, portfolio images are not subject to either of the 640 or 720 size limits for challenges. |
Uh, my image is hosted from my site, and doesn't affect their bandwidth does it? I think it's rediculous, always have and always will. A photo website should allow large images so that fine details can be seen.
-danny |
Danny its not about their bandwidth, they are concerned with that used by members who have to pay for their internet based on how much they use, or some are limited on how much they get each month.
IMHO this could be remedied with a large image warning in the title. And yes I do think the limit is ridiculous myself. This site is used by people who have limits but they chose to use it and arent forced to. So by their own choice they chose to use their allowance on this site. Allow larger images so people can enjoy what this site is all about.
Matt
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 11:31:55 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by danny:
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
I've had that happen too. I guess site council is on dial up or sumthin. I've never seen any complaints on any other site, photo or not. Only here. Dunno the real reason. Over at fred miranda folks have been known to put full res images into posts - as in 3500 pixes or bigger - and NO ONE COMPLAINS!
I've done it (instered images here) cause I see no point in uploading the same pic to multiple sites, member or not.
Message edited by author 2008-12-18 23:32:20.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2008 11:37:44 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by crabappl3:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
I don't like clicking links. Why not just buy a membership? |
It's not a matter of membership, it's a matter of my 800px being too large as deemed by site council. Puh-leaze. Everyone, almost, on the planet has high speed internet. I believe they can handle 800px images at 160k or larger. This is a freaking joke that a PHOTOGRAPHY site won't allow you to embed images from another site large enough for people to actually see!!!
What-evah!
-danny |
Uh, portfolio images are not subject to either of the 640 or 720 size limits for challenges. |
Uh, my image is hosted from my site, and doesn't affect their bandwidth does it? I think it's rediculous, always have and always will. A photo website should allow large images so that fine details can be seen.
-danny |
at least the complete lack of reality-based decision making is consistent across the board .. |
|
|
|
12/19/2008 01:09:43 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
I've done it (instered images here) cause I see no point in uploading the same pic to multiple sites, member or not. |
That's my issue. I don't want to have to resize an image for my site, photo sharing sites, then downsize it for this site. There are forums that if the image is larger than their preferred size, they have a utility that shows it smaller in the post, but you can click the image and it shows the larger one. So why not implement something like that here?
-danny |
|
|
|
12/19/2008 01:59:35 AM · #22 |
I've just looked through your links at the portraits and they are very impressive. The lighting, focus and compositiion are spot on and having read through the posts here, the advise and comment given is very good as well.
I have just one small nitpick and that is with the fire - it appears to be REALLY roaring - overly so as a result of a longer exposure I guess. I think it looks out of place because everything else is so serene.
I don't know how you would avoid it or even if you would want to but it did stand out when I looked.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2008 02:13:45 AM · #23 |
Just for the record...whenever there are large photos embedded in a forum thread, we get a staggering amount of "Report Post" complaints.
We try to keep the forums enjoyable for everyone. Clicking on a link isn't THAT much of a hardship, is it?
BTW, Danny...The photos are very good! |
|
|
|
12/19/2008 08:18:12 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by sher:
Just for the record...whenever there are large photos embedded in a forum thread, we get a staggering amount of "Report Post" complaints.
We try to keep the forums enjoyable for everyone. Clicking on a link isn't THAT much of a hardship, is it?
BTW, Danny...The photos are very good! |
Yes, though I'm not one of the reportees, I hate having my computer lock up on me 'cause someone embeds large images.
These are FORUM threads, not image threads, and please keep in mind that there are those of us out here who cannot even upload files bigger that 500KB 'cause they cannot get hi-speed service no matter how much they plead.
Trust me, it's a special kind of Hell being a photographer and not having broadband.
You may be inconvenienced by having it take six seconds to click another link, but just imagine what I have to go through when it rains and I have an upload time out seven times 'cause it's raining......and the file that times out is 237KB.
|
|
|
|
12/19/2008 09:18:42 AM · #25 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
These are FORUM threads, not image threads |
This forum is for Individual Photograph Discussion... I do believe it's an IMAGE thread. If you have slow internet, don't come in here as you know it'll have images. This is the 21st century folks, let's get with the program, most people have faster than 56kbps. And if the page is loading too slow for you, hit the backspace button and your browser will take you to the previous page you were browsing.
-danny |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 11:14:45 AM EDT.
