Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Enter ePHOTOzine's Prize Draw, with fab gifts for everyone! Click Here

Activity

takui neko

(Sarcasm mode: off)
...Read More
Profile

A quick view of takui neko's recent activity.

  • Untitled

    Thanks for the kind comments.
    I might be posting more later. Smile
    • 20 Oct 2010 2:16PM
  • Lucy in Buenos Aires

    Thanks to everyone for such kind comments!

    Weather is doing me fine all right (though the winter was harsh compared to mild Tenerife) :o)

    Thanks again!
    • 25 Sep 2009 7:09PM
  • Tess

    Agree with CB and miptog here.

    Some of the cooler color is because of her dress reflection on the skin. Not much that can be done there unless one wants to do a selective color correction applied to the trouble spots.
    A somehow complex thing to do but very possible.

    As for the fan being lost against the background I think maybe next time use a "hair light"* for it or play with the angle of the fan in relation to the camera, at some angle it should be light on the edges thus being separated from the background.

    *For hair light I donít mean necessarily a strobe, just a small mirror can do the trick; since you have good daylight is a matter of angling properly. Old style Smile
    • 13 Jun 2008 3:59PM
  • me

    Good eye contact, good placement of subject. Not black and white though. Smile

    I cannot really give much input here besides style. There is thousand and thousand of this style of images on the net, mix of western-jpop culture and "scene" culture.

    I have nothing against that besides the fact that they all look like a copy of a copy of a copy.

    Style wise I think it could be useful to go to the source, some study on Jpop photography, jpop idol photography and the like would surely yield good results as most of it is very good photography.

    Iím sure that even there are thousands of those images (the MySpace ones) someone will be able to come up with a refined and better set.

    That could be you. Smile
    • 5 Jun 2008 2:12PM
  • group photo

    Nothing much to add to what miptog already said.

    Maybe just a generic rule of explanation on why is good to bounce light.
    As miptog says, diffused light will be softer, that means the shadows will be more diffused having a softer transition between light and dark.

    The bigger the light source in relation with the subject, the softer the shadows will be (and so more evenly lit), the smaller the light source the harsher the shadows will be.

    By bouncing you make the light source "bigger" in relation to the subject.

    That is something to take into account when deciding types of light, as much diffused light tends to be less dramatic (less contrast) and harsh light the opposite. Of course, ambient and drama can be also done with much diffused light, overcast days, foggy mornings, etc...

    For the specific setup you describe, without much equipment, I think bouncing all over is a safe way to go, you can always correct overall contrast and exposure with Photoshop or similar.

    A problem that might arise though is color temperature, window light, a lamp and fluorescent all have different temperatures so it might a bit of a pain to equalize them all. Sometimes is better just to you use one source or two similar ones that you can correct later more easily.
    • 26 May 2008 3:53PM
  • Lord Large

    From a composition perspective it looks good, with the musician and his trusty pineapple placed in the frame where it gets more attention, as if the pineapple is the center of the show and the musician just a side kick.

    From and overall image/lights viewpoint, maybe it could be interesting to just selectively correct light on the image, keeping the atmosphere and adding attention to the pineapple a bit more. Curves and masks maybe?

    I would go for a compromise on both possibilities. The brighter mod adds some details that are lost in the original, yet the original has atmosphere that is lost in the mod.

    As for exposure, it is indeed underexposed, but can't add that as a critique if that was the intention.

    Maybe that should be added to the description of the image?
    • 20 May 2008 5:26PM
  • bucha

    Adding to Adeīs comment:
    The not sharp seems due to back focus, unless that happened during the manipulation process; look how the left arm is somehow more focused than the rest of the image.

    That is normally due to the autofocus point on the camera. I do not know if in yours it can be changed or if it can be locked once you focus where you need in order to recompose later.

    Iím sure the manual will have something written about that; if not, try to have different objects at different distances from you and practice and observe where does your camera focus point is more sensitive.

    From a composition point of view, and this is very subjective, I think that even though it is an interesting one, is also a very trendy one, very MySpace kind of angle...personally I think there is way too many of those, but if you can make them better than those, is always a good thing. Smile
    • 17 May 2008 2:16PM
  • Lets hug some trees and do some fishtank pikturz, then you will fell bettah... :o)