Any pic's make you say OMG!

RichieO

Not my pic, but made me say it...


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/picture.php?albumid=1133&pictureid=6093

joeKel73

Not seeing any photo?

oshead

Here it is..... That's scary. :eek:

RichieO

foto joe wrote: »

Not seeing any photo?

Me neither and I put it up, always have problems putting up pic's....
RichieO

Thecageyone

Lol, that guy would deserve to get a Darwin award if it were to collapse.

dazftw

Most recently. In a photographic way

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nfl-fan/4507589276/

This one in a proper OMG way

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-o-r-d/3798143486/

Thecageyone

Any ones lately that initially make me think "WOW!" usually end up merely being over processed HDRs or overly manipulated images, upon closer inspection.

PCPhoto

Thecageyone wrote: »

Any ones lately that initially make me think "WOW!" usually end up merely being over processed HDRs or overly manipulated images, upon closer inspection.

the art of capturing an image is dying and being replaced with the art of creating an image.

havent really had the "WoW" factor from pics - more of ...thats looks cool, how did they do that....some people put a lot of work into creating an image which they then photograph.

I admire a lot of landscape stuff and light-painting stuff - mainly because I dont know how to do it and probably dont have the patience/dedication to do it properly.....of course its always great to look at a pic of your own and say... yup - this is nice and evenly exposed - I'm rarely happy with my own work as I NEVER take the time to set up/create a pic....most/all of my pics are spur of the moment.

DaireQuinlan

dazftw wrote: »

This one in a proper OMG way

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-o-r-d/3798143486/

oh man, I actually can't spend any significant length of time looking at that picture. It makes me want to back slowly away from my computer

joeKel73

dazftw wrote: »

http://www.flickr.com/photos/t-o-r-d/3798143486/

Haha I've sat on that ledge - amazing place! Good photo of it here.

They do base jumping off that rock, see this video, it will give you that OMG moment!! :eek: :eek: :eek: http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1724639/single_base_jump/

dazftw

PCPhoto wrote: »

the art of capturing an image is dying and being replaced with the art of creating an image.

This is very true. Photography is becoming more easily available to anyone who wants to try it, and with technically astute people nowadays its also very easy for them to create something with a "wow" "cool" look. You don't need to be very smart to get good at digital photography. It's just too easy!

If you really want to see the "art" of capturing an image you really need to go back to film photography. Go back to when little johnny didn't have a 5000000 GB Xtreme 6 million memory card to make as many mistakes as he likes. He had his little box brownie back in the 1900's and he had to actually put a lot of effort in if he wanted something out of it.

Not saying digital is bad its just Iv'e found a photograph produced from film will be nearly always better than a digital photograph. In a photographic way that is.l

Im starting to ramble now so im going to stop :rolleyes:

sunny2004

I say "OMG" after each time I push the shutter, did I really take that crap

cnocbui

From this Flickr Photographer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisemai/4341612154/

I don't think I have seen a better self portrait. The whole photostream is impressive.

hi_im_fil

This taken by http://www.flickr.com/photos/slinky2000/
I really like all his car shots.

Ghost Train

another cliff shot
http://i.imgur.com/ft77r.jpg

sineadw

dazftw wrote: »

This is very true. Photography is becoming more easily available to anyone who wants to try it, and with technically astute people nowadays its also very easy for them to create something with a "wow" "cool" look. You don't need to be very smart to get good at digital photography. It's just too easy!

If you really want to see the "art" of capturing an image you really need to go back to film photography. Go back to when little johnny didn't have a 5000000 GB Xtreme 6 million memory card to make as many mistakes as he likes. He had his little box brownie back in the 1900's and he had to actually put a lot of effort in if he wanted something out of it.

Not saying digital is bad its just Iv'e found a photograph produced from film will be nearly always better than a digital photograph. In a photographic way that is.l

Im starting to ramble now so im going to stop :rolleyes:

I want to cut this quote to respond to it but I just don't know where. So if I take a shot in film and scan digitally does it make it so so?

And more importantly - does it matter? A good shot is a good shot. Now taking a ****e shot and making it better in LR or whatever is yawn. But that's not to do with the medium. And you can do the same in lightroom or darkroom for the most part.

Barname

there's a story behind the above image.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter

.

Barname

dazftw wrote: »

This is very true. Photography is becoming more easily available to anyone who wants to try it, and with technically astute people nowadays its also very easy for them to create something with a "wow" "cool" look. You don't need to be very smart to get good at digital photography. It's just too easy!

If you really want to see the "art" of capturing an image you really need to go back to film photography. Go back to when little johnny didn't have a 5000000 GB Xtreme 6 million memory card to make as many mistakes as he likes. He had his little box brownie back in the 1900's and he had to actually put a lot of effort in if he wanted something out of it.

Not saying digital is bad its just Iv'e found a photograph produced from film will be nearly always better than a digital photograph. In a photographic way that is.l

Im starting to ramble now so im going to stop :rolleyes:

Dont blame the latest technology...

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

joeKel73

Barname wrote: »

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

Interesting! *Bookmarks link for post-processing defense in the future...*

dazftw

sineadw wrote: »

I want to cut this quote to respond to it but I just don't know where. So if I take a shot in film and scan digitally does it make it so so?

And more importantly - does it matter? A good shot is a good shot. Now taking a ****e shot and making it better in LR or whatever is yawn. But that's not to do with the medium. And you can do the same in lightroom or darkroom for the most part.

There's more thought that goes into it with film before any shot is taken. You have whatever 12, 24 or 36 shots to get it right. Compared to digital which is a lot more.

It doesn't matter really I just find film better there's more thought put into it. Once you scan film in you can do whatever you like but I like to keep to what would would be possible in the real darkroom instead of going nuts in photoshop.

I don't have the time atm for a longer reply so ill come back to this. I think its a good discussion to have.

melekalikimaka

http://www.flickr.com/photos/2switlightgraff/4459346670/in/faves-melekalikimaka/

i love it, no ps

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

This is very true. Photography is becoming more easily available to anyone who wants to try it, and with technically astute people nowadays its also very easy for them to create something with a "wow" "cool" look. You don't need to be very smart to get good at digital photography. It's just too easy!

If you really want to see the "art" of capturing an image you really need to go back to film photography. Go back to when little johnny didn't have a 5000000 GB Xtreme 6 million memory card to make as many mistakes as he likes. He had his little box brownie back in the 1900's and he had to actually put a lot of effort in if he wanted something out of it.

Not saying digital is bad its just Iv'e found a photograph produced from film will be nearly always better than a digital photograph. In a photographic way that is.l

Im starting to ramble now so im going to stop :rolleyes:

Oh noes, photography is dead. :rolleyes:

cnocbui

I happen to shoot film, but I don't think choice of equipment/medium has much to do with good photography. Ingredients that go into making a great photograph (IMO), in order of importance:

1) Being in the right place at the right time.

2) Having the imagination - 'eye' - for the photographic potential in the time and place.

3) Technical understanding of the equipment and how parameters can be adjusted/contrived to achieve the intended result.

4) Equipment

5) Luck

melekalikimaka

cnocbui wrote: »

I happen to shoot film, but I don't think choice of equipment/medium has much to do with good photography. Ingredients that go into making a great photograph (IMO), in order of importance:

but there is 'something' bout film thats a little bit special

cnocbui

melekalikimaka wrote: »

but there is 'something' bout film thats a little bit special

Sure is; it's expensive and you have to wait a while to see the results.

Freddie59

sineadw wrote: »

And more importantly - does it matter? A good shot is a good shot.

Agree 100%. Is this not how ALL technologies evolved? And improved. Photography was once the plaything of a privileged few. Not any more. And if that brings out the really great photographers ()who may never have gotten the chance years go) then I'm all for it.

I know it's a personal preference, but I don't like images that are over-manipulated in PS, LR, etc. There was a thread with an exhibition on it the other day, and there was an image of Dublin, with the entire sky darkened, lightning, etc.

I know people love them, but it just doesn't do it for me. But that is the beauty of digital - people are free to let their artistic talents run wild. And I think it's great that EVERYONE can do so if they wish - and if they have the talent.

For me, this type of image is an OMG!



And it's in Ireland.

melekalikimaka

cnocbui wrote: »

Sure is; it's expensive and you have to wait a while to see the results.

darkroom in college makes its nice and cheap hehe, and half to beauty is in the dev imo

magicbastarder

Freddie59 wrote: »

I know it's a personal preference, but I don't like images that are over-manipulated in PS, LR, etc. There was a thread with an exhibition on it the other day, and there was an image of Dublin, with the entire sky darkened, lightning, etc.

I know people love them, but it just doesn't do it for me. But that is the beauty of digital - people are free to let their artistic talents run wild. And I think it's great that EVERYONE can do so if they wish - and if they have the talent.

i think (badly processed) photography suffers from the uncanny valley - with a painting, your reaction is not one of 'that looks unnatural', because you are not expecting it to. with photography, that expectation is there, and the brain seems to have an inbuilt reaction to something which looks fake.

anyway, photography is not like most other artforms, in that it has split into two disciplines - the photography itself, and the post-processing. but people usually conflate them, and assume that skill in one means skill in the other, which is not the case.

but i do think that you can become lazy with digital. i'm speaking as someone who grew up on film, and still prefers shooting on it, so i'm biased (which is no bad thing), but when i started i didn't have the option of curves and levels, etc., so you had to learn from your mistakes. digital gives you a greater margin of error.

dazftw

Fenster wrote: »

Oh noes, photography is dead. :rolleyes:

I never said it was dead. I said the opposite in fact! Its easier now so a lot more people are trying it!

I think people are misunderstanding me.. I'm not saying digital is bad i'm just saying it makes it easier for everybody to try which in my opinion isn't always good thing.

Prime example! That wedding photographer on judge brown. "Its cheap its easy hey maybe I can make some money even though i'm not as good as other photographers"

Your right its got nothing to do with what format its taken with. Just IMHO digital makes it easier for the cowboys which I don't like.

If you take a look at the "big picture" article that's on boston.com they always have amazing photos on there that are probably 99% digital.

At the end of the day my opinion is a photograph taken with film will be nearly always better.

I dunno...

sineadw

dazftw wrote: »

At the end of the day my opinion is a photograph taken with film will be nearly always better.

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly about the cowboys, I just don't get the above sentiment. I shoot film at lot, but when I'm shooting digital for personal stuff I take just as few shots. Having a DSLR doesn't mean you're automatically going to go into machine gun mode.

Or is it that you mean if you shoot film you're probably a better class of photographer?

Andrew33

cnocbui wrote: »

From this Flickr Photographer: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisemai/4341612154/

I don't think I have seen a better self portrait. The whole photostream is impressive.

Beautiful but NOT an OMG pic! missing the point of this thread completely.

Andrew33

hi_im_fil wrote: »

This taken by http://www.flickr.com/photos/slinky2000/
I really like all his car shots.

Whats OMG about this???

dazftw

sineadw wrote: »

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly about the cowboys, I just don't get the above sentiment. I shoot film at lot, but when I'm shooting digital for personal stuff I take just as few shots. Having a DSLR doesn't mean you're automatically going to go into machine gun mode.

Or is it that you mean if you shoot film you're probably a better class of photographer?

No not better class at all.I just prefer film that's my opinion.

Its hard to explain without sounding like a complete dick but as photography gets easier and more people get into it. The quality level is dropping and becoming less original. More and more bog standard photos are appearing on here and other forums I go on. Everyone can take a photo of a sunset but now we have photoshop and lightroom to make it actually good.

I sound like a complete arse saying that because a lot of these people would only be starting into photography so obviously its not going to be great.

I think it all depends on what kind of style you develop into.. The first maybe 2 years I got into photography I was taking pictures of sunsets and flowers all the time :eek: Now I try my best take photos of stuff no one else has before. Im trying to capture something significant.

Again I dunno all this stuff makes sense in my head

RichieO

This thread never started out as a battle ground between film and digital, you are way off topic! Just accept that these are two different media, each with it's own place and use... It's NOT a case of which is better, It's more to with what suits you and gives pleasure... BOTH have good and bad points...

My own view is, if you have never used a manual camera, (nothing auto) and developed a roll of your own film and processed your own prints, you have missed out on a really great experience that brings with it a great deal of pleasure and knowledge about photography that you will never get near with digital.

It helps you learn the difference between a snapshot and a picture...
And to all those who swapped over to digital,
If snapshots were all you took on film, that's all you'll get on digital.

Just accept that these are two different media!

Now, where are the OMG pic's? Not the Wow or AAAHHHHHH or WTF..

hi_im_fil

Andrew33 wrote: »

Whats OMG about this???

That pic really enhances the lines of the car and makes me appreciate that car.

Although I think I might have missed the point of the thread. For me that pic makes me go wow rather than omg...

sineadw

That makes more sense to me daz... But it's more about experience and developing an eye than the medium.. And for the record and on topic, if a shot makes me go omg it's usually for the wrong reasons:-D

oshead

I suppose everyones OMG is different. For me seeing this in the farm the other day was mine..... :eek: Difficult to depict a smell in a photo.

dazftw

Nothing wrong a bit of healthy debate but right back onto the topic at hand.. Ill post a few wow photos



Photographer by the name of Dana Stone! He was friends with the actor Errol Flynn's son Sean Flynn. Both were captured and held by the vietcong for several years before being executed.





taken by this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/harry_kaufmann/

Also someone on here took this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13111789@N00/3963747973/

wish I could imbed it..

Fenster

dazftw wrote: »

No not better class at all.I just prefer film that's my opinion.

Its hard to explain without sounding like a complete dick but as photography gets easier and more people get into it. The quality level is dropping and becoming less original. More and more bog standard photos are appearing on here and other forums I go on. Everyone can take a photo of a sunset but now we have photoshop and lightroom to make it actually good.

I sound like a complete arse saying that because a lot of these people would only be starting into photography so obviously its not going to be great.

I think it all depends on what kind of style you develop into.. The first maybe 2 years I got into photography I was taking pictures of sunsets and flowers all the time :eek: Now I try my best take photos of stuff no one else has before. Im trying to capture something significant.

Again I dunno all this stuff makes sense in my head

It is impossible to not come across as a dick if you are saying "one medium is inherently better than the other, period." Quality hasn't changed. Photographers were bitching about the dearth of quality on mailing lists twenty years ago; in photography clubs thirty years ago; in magazines forty years ago. In another forty years they'll be bitching about that newfangled technology that is displacing digital and film. No matter how far back you go, you will find photographers bitching about the impending death of the art and how kids these days are tramping all over their proverbial lawns.

No medium should ever be looked at as anything but a means to an end, or as a list of advantages and disadvantages. Holding either one up as a sacred cow is foolish and bigoted.

eas

dazftw wrote: »

. The first maybe 2 years I got into photography I was taking pictures of sunsets and flowers all the time

how long ago was that and was it with a digital camera? Would you even have bothered with photography yourself if you had to learn on film?

joeKel73

Freddie59 wrote: »

For me, this type of image is an OMG!



And it's in Ireland.

I had some similar lake reflection shots and sumbitted them for C&C in our college photo soc... the American society auditor wouldn't believe that they were in Ireland..... then continued with plans for a photo trip to either Brussels or Venice! :mad:

cnocbui

Andrew33 wrote: »

Beautiful but NOT an OMG pic! missing the point of this thread completely.

The original poster said "Any pic's make you say OMG!"

OMG is a matter of personal interpretation. That pic is far more OMG to me than someone on the edge of fjord.

Fluffybums

Barname wrote: »

there's a story behind the above image.....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carter

.

That makes your stomach sink.....

thecommander

cnocbui

Andrew33 wrote: »

Whats OMG about this???

Gold coloured rims on the front and silver ones on the back - as in OMG, how could they!

dazftw

Fenster wrote: »

It is impossible to not come across as a dick if you are saying "one medium is inherently better than the other, period." Quality hasn't changed. Photographers were bitching about the dearth of quality on mailing lists twenty years ago; in photography clubs thirty years ago; in magazines forty years ago. In another forty years they'll be bitching about that newfangled technology that is displacing digital and film. No matter how far back you go, you will find photographers bitching about the impending death of the art and how kids these days are tramping all over their proverbial lawns.

No medium should ever be looked at as anything but a means to an end, or as a list of advantages and disadvantages. Holding either one up as a sacred cow is foolish and bigoted.

Good thing I don't think that so. I prefer film but I don't think its superior its all down to the photographer.

eas wrote: »

how long ago was that and was it with a digital camera? Would you even have bothered with photography yourself if you had to learn on film?

Iv'e been taking photos for about 5ish years 5 this year I think. Ive been using film only a year. The last year funnily enough iv'e started to develop on a certain style.

If I had of started on film? I don't know.. I probably would have for this simple reason! I got into photography because of skateboarding and reading skate magazines. Iv'e never been very good at but ill be doing it ten years next year. I just enjoyed for what it was and thought taking photos would be the same feeling. At the time when I bought my 1st camera I didnt know anyone that knew anything about photography. My only knowledge was from reading magazines like "digital photographer" and "digital photography 101" so I guess I was cornered into the medium

magicbastarder

Fenster wrote: »

It is impossible to not come across as a dick if you are saying "one medium is inherently better than the other, period."

i'd disagree, simply because i find opinionated people more interesting to those who toe the 'they're the same' party line.

film and digital are not identical. it's foolish and a cop-out (not accusing you of advancing that argument, btw) to argue that they are, and the trickle down effects of that influence photography. the best way to acknowledge that is not to insist they exist on a mathematically provable level footing, but to celebrate their respective strengths.

dazftw

Someone make a new thread for the discussion side of this thread. Leave this to the photos.

RichieO

RichieO

Heebie

OMG! I bet THEY had a fun afternoon! (but their parents probably had a real pisser of an evening!)

RichieO wrote: »