OnBreak.

@scottbb wow. Stack seems to be on life support

Feelin' another 6 or so month hiatus coming on

Now even that level of community appears lacking

In reference to photo.stackexchange.com/questions/122506/… ... when I severely dropped off my participation on this site, there were unfit questions but the community still attempted to be helpful.

Study up on composition as taught to art students. People have been studying and deducing what makes good composition for hundreds of years before the camera ever came along. The camera is our new tool, but the lessons of composition do not change.

You say that you zoomed in because you didn't want to lose the detail...what detail? The patterns and texture in the bark? If something like that is your focus, then you need to get closer still! Get in there and really show that detail and remove distractions from the frame! Consider br.pinterest.com/pin/11822017743308123 and theartbytrees.com/tree-art/… for example

Consider the compositions of these two similar subjects: abstract.desktopnexus.com/wallpaper/1532615 and fineartamerica.com/featured/…

(still #1) The background tree adds nothing for me and I think that it should have been thrown out of focus to further isolate the dead tree. The subject matter of death and life is inherently interesting - the composition of this image is simply not that strong.

@Vikas with #1, the Y-shaped dead tree acts as a leading line, my eye starts just above the middle of the frame and I follow the tree down until I'm staring back at my keyboard. You've lost my attention and I'm left wondering. It's like a funnel that has sucked me in only to let me fall out at the bottom.

I find it exciting to go back through my portfolio of images from years and years ago - an image that I passed over then may intrigue me now. So what if it takes hours, days, or longer to edit a single image? Why do you feel like investing in your own art isn't worth your time?

Maybe it's a full day spread out over weeks. The time investment doesn't really matter. This is a hobby and I do it for me, not anyone else. I don't have deadlines or clients and can take as long as I want and iterate a hundred different ways.

@gerrit One doesn't have to be a pro to want to spend time perfecting an image. How long did Ansel Adams spend on a single photo? How long did it take to paint the Mona Lisa? I could spend all day out hiking, setting up for rivers, golden hour sunsets, birding and macro shots...I may have nearly 1,000 shots out of that day...but there will generally be only a handful that are truly special to me. I'll spend whatever time it takes to get the image looking the way I want. Maybe that's an hour...

@gerrit if you are looking to expand your post pro skills, questions that supply a starting image and an ending concept are generally well received and you get various ways of doing the post pro as answers. This answer by Tetsujin is a site-favorite example: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/97686/…

It's really no different than my process in the darkroom - selectively exposing areas at various contrast grades and burning and dodging as needed. It's even rarer there that I get an image that looks the way I want it straight from negative to print

@gerrit that surprises me. While I do advocate for getting the shot right in camera (proper exposure, use of grad. ND's when needed, polarizer, etc), there is usually quite a bit of processing to really finalize the image. I generally create composites where curves, white bal, color, sat, hue, etc. are adjusted for local areas in the image and then blended together to create a final image. Rarely do I find the post processing a singular, straightforward activity - though it does happen

Bringing an artistic vision to life requires post pro - it did back in film and does now in digital. But, not everyone has artistic visions, and for most, a snapshot will do.

Even the RAW...I've printed to a transparency to then take into the darkroom for a wet print. Mostly for experimentation's sake.

I say RAW, but the truth is it could be RAW, 135 film / 120 film / 4x5 film ... could be scanned, could be wet printed

I guess it depends why you are photographing. Snapshots of the family? JPEG and go. I'll do some batch editing if needed. Artistic photography? RAW + hours and hours of editing over the course of days, weeks, months, or years.

@Tetsujin love my formatt hitech bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1371543-REG/…

I see one of my answers was just marked as "This answer was marked as spam or rude or abusive and is therefore not shown" Thanks SE! You're a dick! (photo.stackexchange.com/questions/101921/…)

This stack has no life. No pizazz nor personality. Just the empty soul of a robotic snail that refuses to change course. Thank you, Michael, for helping me to realize that. I hope you enjoy the solitude and wish you the best of luck.

Stay safe out there guys and gals

Well, nCov has shut down most of where I'm at (PacNW USA)...might be time to go camp out next to some scene and just wait out the panic by trying for great landscape shots. The weather is definitely variable enough this time of year to provide many different skies...

Also note that this stack has somewhat of a battle going on between users when it comes to good subjective / bad subjective questions but, most would like to see many more photo critiques being asked on this site. Don't get discouraged if you get a close vote or two.

Also, post a single image. If you post a portfolio, the question will be closed for being too broad.

They had a very specific question related to the composition of the photograph. If you are going to ask for feedback, please guide the conversation to the feedback you are looking for, whether that is in regard to composition, lighting, editing, etc.

Note that the poster didn't just post a picture and say "is this good?"

@JamesP. sure, please see this as an example: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/20927/…

Especially since OP seems to have peaced out without a second glance

Damn, this question blew up with more responses than I thought it’d get: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/114773/camera-for-teenager

@barlop what is the point of the film? Entertainment, training aid, something else entirely? What is enforcing the camera's position to where you can't move it elsewhere if needed?

@MichaelC do you know if it is within the realm of possibility that the Photo stack get changed to lower the threshold for vote counts?

Seems to me there are very few people who are willing to put the effort into good, solid answers that may actually help people.

@xenoid I've played this game before here: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/113534/…

Yea...more writing on the wall I guess.

@MichaelC done and done. Interestingly, I found an old similar question. The disparity in answers then vs answers now is...telling...

Is this type of shooting the only thing you'll be doing with the camera or is this a hobby you're trying to get into? If the latter, what else do you envision shooting?

@foreverlearner4 I don't see anywhere where you tell what the output of the photo needs to be...? Is this just for your own edification/skill growth/enjoyment or is there a professional/paid-for component here? Do the resulting images need to be of the quality that would line a full magazine spread advertisement or...?

I don't know what came first, the common name or the original file type, but I do know that CRW (Canon Raw) is old, predating me in this industry. So, the name RAW does appear to have roots related to file types

It needed a name, a way for all of us to communicate about it. I much prefer talking about a RAW image or process and having it be product agnostic, rather than referring to a CR2 file only to have my Nikon buddies look at me quizzically wondering what the hell I'm talking about

@MichaelC I don't see it as a bad practice simply because RAW is not an acronym. Digital shooting was brand new back in the day and shooting an image in a lossless format a novel idea - certainly nothing comparable exists in film.

@MarkMorganLloyd I would guess because RAW is a placeholder for a specific idea and file type. It’s synonymous with “that filetype that has a lot of data and flexibility to losslessly change capture settings“ but it is itself a different file type among the brands. The file type itself is not all that important to most shooters, as long as their chosen software can handle it. So, saying RAW is a stand in for CR2/DNG/...and allows us to talk about the RAW file without having to fret over the specifics of a single brand’s chosen file type.

@htmlcoderexe follow the link through to the article: keh.com/blog/… where they have a gif overlaying every example image. If you still can't recognize the difference, maybe you've had a stroke and have Prosopagnosia?

@PeterM Unfortunately, the days of fast color films have died off due to digital being a stronger player in that market. If you find a good deal on Fuji Superia 800 or 1600 and it's been stored cold, then buy it! Otherwise, you're limited to Portra, pushing (meh. I'm not a fan of pushing color films), and Cine films like CineStill's 800 Tungsten balanced film. None of these will have velvia's saturation or tonal response...that'll have to be done in post. :-/ sucks, I know.

@bdsl I think you misunderstand the point of the statement and example. The point is that captured reality is manipulated through the choice of lens and, indeed, the perspective chosen. One can slightly alter the appearance of a person through lens and perspective, and we often do as we find headshots made using ~85mm to 150mm lenses to be very pleasing photographs of ourselves. I could have just as easily chosen a landscape photo example...we've all seen images where rivers look large and soft and breathtaking...only to see them in life and note that they are somewhat small.

@SethR indeed, I thought about it. And that led me to thinking about tetrachromacy and the very rare, but out there, women who possess the ability. What is "real" may be very different even between our own brains!

@Tetsujin 400 f/5.6 FT (economical) W.

Alex P, The Olympic pistol competitions use targets at 25 meters. - These shooters are placing a .22LR round into a whole smaller than a Euro. Your soldier needs to place a .45ACP into a TORSO. Obviously they will be able to do this at much further ranges than 25m. Also, while many people have shot plate armor to show a bullet go right through it - I'm unaware of anyone shooting through plate armor + chain mail + padded gambeson. My point is: we have no evidence for the effective range of .45ACP when it has to travel through all of that armor. Please provide evidence for your claims

Saw the downvote on this and thought that I had stumbled into Politics.SE. Wait, I'm in Law? Scary to see a thought out argument downvoted, no rationale given, over here.