*drool*
<3 mugen

http://photos.imageevent.com/inspire...e/DSC_0806.JPG

:D

Maybe next time try two exposures?

:o

i just ps the way like that.

what does it mean by using two exposures?

1 exposure = 1 picture.
like how a roll of film has 24 exposures, meaning you can take 24 pictures. So what they're talking about is taking 2 pictures and combining them.

yeah
stacking.

Two exposures for when you have different things you want to capture in the pohoto with different light levels.

IE.. bright sky, dark foreground... room with lights.

You'd basically expose one frame for the light and one for everything else and then combine them.

Domani, what you said made no sense.. :D

I suggested two exposures so you could get the texture of the wall without having the light blow it out... i think it's really distracting especially since the car is pretty dark.

wrong term or not.


but anyhow, it dosn't matter, i know the light blow out i did it
on purpose, just adjust the contrast until my liking.

No, actually what YOU said didn't make sense.

He obviously knew what he was doing. He WANTED to blow out those lights, and over expose so that he could get contrast. In this case here, it's not about "going by the rules and getting a perfect exposture", but rather Domani wanted a shot where there would be contrast. Dulling the light would effectively cancel out all the "interesting" elements of this photograph.

And.....it IS called "stacking".

so in stacking, you would put the 2 different exposures/layers in ps and play with opacity or crop things out? or how would u combine them?

yep
pretty much....

u can stack as many images as u one.. as long as it helps u
get the final result that you like.

SHAT UP MAH FUCKING BABIES!

*sigh*

for starters, the term of the technique you're looking for is called a 'double exposure'! it's when you take two images without advancing the film to the next frame in the camera. THUS you get two images ontop of each other.

stacking is something done ONLY in ps. when you put two layers very simular incontent over each other in ps, and then make your adjustments (ie. dodge/burn/layer mask/opacity...etc). This is basically the electronic way of braketing with traditional film.

now ALL this aside domani mentioned this was the type of shot he wanted to get, high contrast. it doesn't mean everyone must like it, fuck, its art afterall.

lets just all try and be impartial when giving comments suggestions.

on that note, personally the above image is great. i love the blown out wall and really big dark shadow to the right of the image. they help balance the image.

what does bother me, is the rear glass. cause its green and i can see through it, bothers me. i would have tinted it all dark., easily done in ps.

woot.. finally understand wtf is being said... hahaha...cuz before that it all sounded like n00b mumbo jumbo to me without any actual "certainty" of being real.

:werd:



cool... good eye on the rear glass... i should burn that in...

i like the burn out light and the high contrast look. but the headlight+turn signal reflection on the right in the background is kinda odd... i guess u dodged out the head lights (i can still see a little :D) but the reflections is still there on the ground :D

that was from a car on the street... :)

I'd agree with that.

No one tints their front windows and not the back... :D

I was answering dub.dubs question!

It happened to come after domani's post, so fine I should have been more clear.

Gee... I must be stupid for not catching on what he was "obviously" doing. :rolleyes:

What the hell is the point of a photography forum if you don't DISCUSS pictures. I was giving feedback based on my OPINIONS. If he doesn't want to take them and is happy with his photos, then all the more power to him.

whoa it's getting to look like fight club here :D i consider photography as an art. and AS AN ART everyone has their priviledge of taking a stab at it. if one considers his own photography as an art then you should consider urself as an artist. this is the hard part. no matter how inexperienced the audience may be in the field, they still have a sense of beauty and what looks good and what doesnt. so the artist's job is to take into consideration of what they say AND balance that with their original ideas, and ways of portraying themselves. it is this balance that makes a good piece. good art is what appeals to everyone, even if it is strange and odd, it still has to been viewed by everyone and anyone and get a reaction of "it works" from them. got art is not something that gets "great" from one group but "wtf" from another. this is what makes a good artist so hard to come by. i think we all should listen to what others have to say about our work that they are not satisfied with and adjust it accordingly while still keeping our own unique ways. this is the stepping stone to perfecting our skills.

i don't get a lot of criticisms... i want more! haha meaning i gotta take more

to everyone!!!!!

i dont think the issue is on whether we should comment on each others work. You're correct, being in the photo forum is about showing off some work and hearing what people have to say.

I think the more important thing to learn here, is how to deliver the message/comments/suggestions. Because photo is art, and art is often a physical manisfestation of emotion, then one could be sensitive towards their photo. we just need to be sensitive to how someone else might take it.

sooooooooo, lets all be happy family and continue. yes we still want to hear your comments dafonz!

i don't agree at all :D here's why.

-i dont think artwork has to be viewed int he same positive way, for it to be considered 'good' art.
-what is 'good' to me, might be the opposet to the masses. what makes their perception of 'good' artwork more creditable?

ie/ look at maxim's photography. in a whole, i think its mostly crap. does it appeal to a large audience? YES!

when i read your above statements, in regards to the correlation between a widely accepted piece of art and 'good' art, i instead make the correlation between financial success and a widely accepted piece of art. i think if you want to be succesful financially in photography, you have to have images that are demand, therefore popular. if they're not, you'll have a hard time selling.

either way, imo, art is art. we're all entitled to draw the boundaries between 'good' and 'bad' art.

such as the pictures on "boys are stupid. throw rocks at them"
those cartoons = art... :D