A Picture I took 2016

Jeremiah_Bostwick_-_Chris_Webb_-_20160307_-_0166.jpg


On 500px.
 
Neutrino said:
btw what did you do to get that sepia-ish tinge?
Click to expand...

It's just color grading. A curves adjustment. I also consider it just to be warm yellow sunset tones. But our eyes see what they see. So it's interesting to hear what other people think.
 
Last edited:
Nice lighting, UnknownSouljer. But I don't know if you know this (or even if you care), but quite a few worldwide cultures consider it an insult when someone shows the bottom of their feet to others. It's kind of a "you're beneath me" message.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
It's just color grading. A curves adjustment. I also consider it just to be warm yellow sunset tones. But our eyes see what they see. So it's interesting to hear what other people think.
Click to expand...

I do quite like the color, I just had the impression it was done in post rather than (the better option) at sunset :)

Daggah said:
Nice lighting, UnknownSouljer. But I don't know if you know this (or even if you care), but quite a few worldwide cultures consider it an insult when someone shows the bottom of their feet to others. It's kind of a "you're beneath me" message.
Click to expand...

I think this is an insult in the middle east correct? Nowadays you will find someone to take offence at pretty much anything anyway.

Between the idiots that will use any perceived insult as justification to commit violence to the professional victims that will scramble to find reasons to be offended in a desperate bid for attention.

in the end IMHO freedom of expression > anything else

PS. Btw hopefully I did not come off as too abrupt - I do tend to get a bit of a knee jerk reaction on this subject :)
 
It can be offensive in a lot of Asian cultures as well.

I mean, I'm not saying that freedom of expression should be curtailed. But somehow I don't think that his foot being specifically that angle to show the bottom of his foot towards the camera was that integral to the shot in this case.
 
Neutrino said:
I do quite like the color, I just had the impression it was done in post rather than (the better option) at sunset :)
Click to expand...

It was shot at sunset, but I didn't gel the light. Even still, I often find grading necessary. A lot of the time I find that I white balance to neutral and then color grade even during sunset. Sometimes I don't. I've been trying to figure out different "best methods" to do things.



Daggah said:
Nice lighting, UnknownSouljer. But I don't know if you know this (or even if you care), but quite a few worldwide cultures consider it an insult when someone shows the bottom of their feet to others. It's kind of a "you're beneath me" message.
Click to expand...

I am unconcerned. I am not a in a race to be "the least offensive" photographer possible. People, especially here in the US, are always trying to find the next thing to be offended about. If I catered, I wouldn't shoot anything.

If you shoot a woman without a hijab, you've offended a bunch of muslims. If you shoot a woman with a hijab, you're offending feminists. I would argue both positions are equally crazy, but that's besides the point.

I would say: it is what it is and I do what I do. If you like what I do, great. If not, move along. If you want to be offended you're the only one in distress, because your offense isn't a concern for me. If that comes off as "rude" I'm sorry. But I won't apologize for the world being a big place and having a perspective outside yours.


EDIT: Just as a side note, if my client cares, then I care. Otherwise, it's the above.
 
Last edited:
Alright, this is the last I have to say about it. That reaction to be defensive makes sense if I were pointing out that a critical part of the photo/theme encroached on someone's overly-PC attitude. But the bottom of the foot there isn't critical. If anything, it makes the pose look awkward, and the shoe is dirty, so it detracts from the overall image even without being a cultural faux-pas in numerous countries across the world. It's stupid to seek out opportunities to be offended, but it's also stupid to have a knee-jerk Donald Drumpf-esque attitude and appear to celebrate giving offense as well.

So the image could be offensive to people from nearly every single country in the eastern hemisphere...for no good reason. An awkward pose and a dirty shoe was probably not part of your "freedom of expression," which I'm guessing was just an attempt to ape Nike's jump pose anyway.
 
Daggah said:
Alright, this is the last I have to say about it. That reaction to be defensive makes sense if I were pointing out that a critical part of the photo/theme encroached on someone's overly-PC attitude. But the bottom of the foot there isn't critical. If anything, it makes the pose look awkward, and the shoe is dirty, so it detracts from the overall image even without being a cultural faux-pas in numerous countries across the world. It's stupid to seek out opportunities to be offended, but it's also stupid to have a knee-jerk Donald Drumpf-esque attitude and appear to celebrate giving offense as well.
Click to expand...

What I said was probably the least defensive statement I could've made. I'm guessing that no matter what statement I would have said other than an apology, a retraction, or agreeing with you would have been met with: "you're being defensive". Calling me "Donald Drumpf" as the new lightning rod is also a terrible way at trying to win an argument if your goal is to actually get me to change my position. Not least of which, as I just noted, because it is categorically not true.

The way you're positioning yourself is essentially stating that your opinion is the only valid one and if I disagree with you all of a sudden I'm an unreasonable bigot instead of someone who doesn't share your ideology. If anything your viewpoint and position is significantly more narrow than mine. I'm okay with people disliking my work as the result of their ideology and viewpoints. You on the other hand feel as though I should therefore conform to that viewpoint or I'm a terrible person. I would argue that is the more intolerant position.


Daggah said:
So the image could be offensive to people from nearly every single country in the eastern hemisphere...for no good reason. An awkward pose and a dirty shoe was probably not part of your "freedom of expression," which I'm guessing was just an attempt to ape Nike's jump pose anyway.
Click to expand...

So, I'll restate: if you don't like my work. That's totally fine. Move along. I obviously do. Attempting to "pick apart" what I did, and then "see into my creative process" as a method for deconstructing (and then slighting) what I do will not change that. You consider it to be a dirty shoe and an awkward pose and think I'm a Nike imitator. Great. Conversely "dirt" whether on people or on shoes doesn't offend or bother me. I think the pose is interesting and carries visual interest. And I happen to dislike Nike as a brand in general and own and have owned precisely zero of their products.

If your goal is to attempt to have less cultural faux pas, I reiterate to you what I said earlier. But to continue on that line: I think you need to stop being a hypocrite and start only posting women with covered heads and faces with less form fitting clothing.
 
Last edited:
:facepalm:

Way I see it, there's three possible scenarios. Maybe a fourth, but I can't find a way that would make sense.

1) The foot twisting that way is unintentional, and you just went with it, not knowing it was offensive to probably close to half the population of the planet. (Most buddhist and hindu cultures find it offensive. I'm not defending/singling out Islamic/Arabic cultures.)
2) The foot twisting that way is intentional, but you didn't know it was offensive.
3) The foot twisting that way is intentional, and you meant to offend.
(and hypothetical, unrealistic 4th scenario, is that the foot twisting that way was unintentional, but you meant to offend. I find that unlikely.)

I assume that option 1 is the likely scenario here. The pose is awkward and weird, and it's part of an action shot, so I could completely see a body part going in a direction that wasn't 100% intended. I don't see any reason for 2 to be true because there's nothing particularly interesting about the bottom of the shoe. It's just a dirty shoe. And option 3 just makes you a dick.

If there had been a purpose to it, I wouldn't even be having this conversation. I'm not saying that we all should make sure none of our photos offend anyone. Actually, if you had taken a picture with a message, like, say, an Arab woman in a bikini burning a burka or hajib, I'd probably be cheering you on. I never said anything about you being a bigot. In fact, I assumed from the start that you didn't know that the bottom of the feet was offensive in many parts of the world. :rolleyes:
 
Easy guys, it's just some dude jumping over a concrete thing.

All good points, but I feel like we're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and beating the dead horse at the bottom of it.
 
Nice shot UnknownSouljer. I never would have noticed the foot thing in one of my shots, but yeah if I had one that pissed a lot of people off I'd take it as a badge of honor. I have no idea if this is more or less offensive to other cultures than like the middle finger is here, but I say throw up some middle finger shots too just to get the point across fully. If that's what the client wants to show, then everyone else can just deal with it. :p

I took a ton of pics in Nashville last week, some cool architectural stuff, some at a motor museum, and a bunch at the zoo. Still just starting to process those, but hopefully I'll have some to show off soon (for my first time this entire year).
 
I'm surprised you used flash... typically this scares the bugs. In my limited macro experience, depth of field is the primary limitation of the photo. Too much DoF and it gets blurry (e.g., F32 & higher). Too little and it loses all focus. IMHO, it looks pretty good compositionally.

FYI... I think that butterfly is a Tiger Mimic Queen.
Butterflies and Moths of North America | collecting and sharing data about Lepidoptera

Domingow said:
So, I'm trying to figure out what I did wrong, or right in this image. Is it good? Crap? Artsy? Compositionally hard to understand?


butterfly032416-1-2 by Domingo Washington, on Flickr
F5 @ 105 ISO 100 with flash.
Click to expand...
 
Tulip time again in Skagit Valley. FIrst shots with my new (refurb) 70D replacing my 50D. Like it. A lot.

2016_03_30-tulips-0034.jpg


2016_03_30-tulips-0058.jpg


Live view with an articulated touch screen is a revelation.
2016_03_30-tulips-0066.jpg
 
Have to say that all of these photos are incredible. Such talent we have here at [H]. Thank you for sharing.
 
Lots of great work, guys! Love those water drop shots, Domingow!

I'm finally getting around to processing my ton of shots from Nashville a few weeks ago, first time this year I've taken time to do some fun photo work of my own - finally some I can put in this thread! We did a night shoot in down-town nashville, lots of cool architectural sites the next day, & went to the zoo on day 3. Plenty more incoming soon.

Sorry for the giant file size on this one. Loved all the detail in this bird face and had to share in high-res. :D

LorikeetCloseup-3.JPG
 
Last edited:
Is that picture cropped? If so, can you move the crop up a bit so we see the top of Laura's hair, and also down a bit so the door handle isn't chopped in half?
 
Daughter and son-in-law wanted some "official" baby announcement pics, so we went to the tulips again for some golden hour goodness. Of course, an incoming front killed the light while we were driving to the fields to just... cloudy. I had brought reflectors, but left my flash at home. :/ I also somehow set exposure comp to -1... so the first half of the shoot was horrendously underexposed. Ah well, good enough for facebook. :)

2016_04_03-tulips-Travis%252BJacqui-0199.jpg


2016_04_03-tulips-Travis%252BJacqui-0226.jpg


2016_04_03-tulips-Travis%252BJacqui-0324.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top