i

KEYBOARD
SHORTCUTS


F full screen W read words

13th February 2011
madero triangles
i'm not entirely sure whether it's a good idea that i have a link to the original photograph with each picture i post. a few times when i've been looking at the site with someone else they've liked a picture, and then felt disappointed or cheated when they saw the original. "oh, so you're not actually that good at photography, you just know how to use photoshop" seems to be their reaction, which i find difficult to deny. i do try and argue that in most cases the image that comes out of the camera isn't the same as the image i saw with my eyes, therefore the original isn't necessarily any more realistic than the final shot i put up. of course i'm also prone to fucking about with images just so (i think) they look good - so it may not be clear which is which. ultimately i don't regard it as that important - for me a shot that looks nice is enough - and the extra image is just a interesting point of contrast. on this occasion the original image shows the left hand side of the building overexposed and blown out, however with magic of raw i was able to bring out the details that were hidden in the original and present it in the final shot.

so after all that rambling, here's the original
name
website (optional)
leave this field blank
comment
are you human?

i've posted 871 photos taken with my nikon d60 - here are the last few i posted - view the rest here

i've posted 63 photos taken with a shutter speed of 1/1000 sec - here are the last few i posted - view the rest here

i've posted 264 photos taken with an aperture of f/5.6 - here are the last few i posted - view the rest here

i've posted 87 photos taken with a focal length of 18.0 mm - here are the last few i posted - view the rest here

i've posted 5 photos taken on 24th January 2011

13/02/2011
madero triangles
i'm not entirely sure whether it's a good idea that i have a link to the original photograph with each picture i post. a few times when i've been looking at the site with someone else they've liked a picture, and then felt disappointed or cheated when they saw the original. "oh, so you're not actually that good at photography, you just know how to use photoshop" seems to be their reaction, which i find difficult to deny. i do try and argue that in most cases the image that comes out of the camera isn't the same as the image i saw with my eyes, therefore the original isn't necessarily any more realistic than the final shot i put up. of course i'm also prone to fucking about with images just so (i think) they look good - so it may not be clear which is which. ultimately i don't regard it as that important - for me a shot that looks nice is enough - and the extra image is just a interesting point of contrast. on this occasion the original image shows the left hand side of the building overexposed and blown out, however with magic of raw i was able to bring out the details that were hidden in the original and present it in the final shot.

so after all that rambling, here's the original