Jump to content

Im Gonna Get Slated For This.. Hahah


Joe Papasnap Maher

Recommended Posts

Why didn't you just take a pic of it during the day B) instead wasting all that time and effort for a lame night pic (N) . bike looks mint though (Y)

Seriously, shut the f**k up. I can't really be bothered to go into it more, but stop dropping the phrase "lame night pic". You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lush bike. dob for the win, have you ridden it yet?

i like how you've used multi coloured tarty stickers, at first i thought it was some sort of uci sticker...

steve

I had a quick 3 hour blast tonight with simpson. It is a beast. So light its untrue.

And yer, sticker idea came from ali/stan/waddy/tarty crew..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

post-91-1204847801_thumb.jpg

Joe: ;)

And you think this is a good pic you dumbar*e. you must be blind as a BAT! what joe should have done with those two spot lights is position them so that one spotlight is facing the frontwheel parallel with the frame, and the other spotlight facing the backwheel. pretty much the standard way of how bike lights are fixed on a regular bike but with the lights facing each other. and take the pic without auto-flash with long exposure. obviously a tripod or something stable to mount the camera will produce a better night shot. even the night shot Phil feeney's bike at southbank looks better esspecially with the city night lights in the background.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture was a joke, hence the fact it looks shit and the "Joe: ;)" bit after it.

First off, your ideal picture suggests that he'd have the "spotlights" (We call them flashes ;)) pointing at the bike, from the front and back.

post-91-1204850368_thumb.jpg

That is almost exactly what Joe has done, hence the position of the highlights on the tubing of the frame, the highlights on the "outside" ends of the tyres (All that is the yellow highlighted part), and the shadows on the "inside" of the tyres (relative to the bike), and the shadow underneath it (Highlighted in blue), which suggests they were raised above the floor on lightstands (Visible in the other pics). So basically, that photograph was taken exactly as you suggested he did it, lighting wise.

Yet again, you're using the term "auto-flash" - what the hell do you mean? Joe used two slave flashes there, again visible in the other pics. They're "auto" in the sense that I think Joe uses wireless triggers, even though I know he'll have manually set the power, so they're not even automatic in that sense. You could do it without flash and with a long shutter speed, but like I explained to you in the other thread, they wouldn't work as well because the bike wouldn't be highlighted in the image (well, hardly at all - only because it was an orange/silver thing in front of green grass and whatever colour Joe's house is). That's why Joe has used flash in this image, to draw attention to his bike. If you wanted more detailing, you could open up the aperture more (After all, the aperture controls how bright the area affected by flash is), and if you wanted to slightly open up the ambient - which Joe specifically didn't want to do - you could lower the shutter speed and burn it in more. However, Joe has gone for a certain look with his images, hence them appearing as they do. I happen to quite like them, but obviously that's my opinion, your's is likely to be different.

I don't have a problem with you not liking pictures, but when you're making shit up to try and talk down on people, it gets a little annoying. Just to provide a bit of context, Joe is currently making a decent amount of money (for a relative newbie :P) doing photography around London for various agencies - if you'd opened up TheLondonPaper recently you'd have spotted some of his work, or if you'd been lurking various celeb-news-based websites you would've done too. I'm currently half way through my second year of a degree course in London doing Digital Photography. So all I'm trying to get across here is that trying to bluff your way through when you give criticism of people's work really isn't going to work, especially if you're calling his slaves "Spotlights" and keep referencing "auto-flash" and so on.

EDIT: Forgot to say - using a longer shutter speed to balance out the ambient with the flash light generally leads to some pretty unpleasant colour-casting from the ambient light (usually at night it'll be streetlighting, but even security lights don't give the same sort of colour as flashes do), so I'd rather have none rather than some mis-matching colours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That picture was a joke, hence the fact it looks shit and the "Joe: ;)" bit after it.

First off, your ideal picture suggests that he'd have the "spotlights" (We call them flashes ;)) pointing at the bike, from the front and back.

post-91-1204850368_thumb.jpg

That is almost exactly what Joe has done, hence the position of the highlights on the tubing of the frame, the highlights on the "outside" ends of the tyres (All that is the yellow highlighted part), and the shadows on the "inside" of the tyres (relative to the bike), and the shadow underneath it (Highlighted in blue), which suggests they were raised above the floor on lightstands (Visible in the other pics). So basically, that photograph was taken exactly as you suggested he did it, lighting wise.

Yet again, you're using the term "auto-flash" - what the hell do you mean? Joe used two slave flashes there, again visible in the other pics. They're "auto" in the sense that I think Joe uses wireless triggers, even though I know he'll have manually set the power, so they're not even automatic in that sense. You could do it without flash and with a long shutter speed, but like I explained to you in the other thread, they wouldn't work as well because the bike wouldn't be highlighted in the image (well, hardly at all - only because it was an orange/silver thing in front of green grass and whatever colour Joe's house is). That's why Joe has used flash in this image, to draw attention to his bike. If you wanted more detailing, you could open up the aperture more (After all, the aperture controls how bright the area affected by flash is), and if you wanted to slightly open up the ambient - which Joe specifically didn't want to do - you could lower the shutter speed and burn it in more. However, Joe has gone for a certain look with his images, hence them appearing as they do. I happen to quite like them, but obviously that's my opinion, your's is likely to be different.

I don't have a problem with you not liking pictures, but when you're making shit up to try and talk down on people, it gets a little annoying. Just to provide a bit of context, Joe is currently making a decent amount of money (for a relative newbie :P) doing photography around London for various agencies - if you'd opened up TheLondonPaper recently you'd have spotted some of his work, or if you'd been lurking various celeb-news-based websites you would've done too. I'm currently half way through my second year of a degree course in London doing Digital Photography. So all I'm trying to get across here is that trying to bluff your way through when you give criticism of people's work really isn't going to work, especially if you're calling his slaves "Spotlights" and keep referencing "auto-flash" and so on.

EDIT: Forgot to say - using a longer shutter speed to balance out the ambient with the flash light generally leads to some pretty unpleasant colour-casting from the ambient light (usually at night it'll be streetlighting, but even security lights don't give the same sort of colour as flashes do), so I'd rather have none rather than some mis-matching colours.

What your saying is technically correct but at the end of the day, all the technically jargon/knowledge in the world of photography doesn't guarantee that EVERYONE WILL LIKE THE END RESULT photo. not everyone understands or respects the technical aspects behind photography, people just judge the end result pic by what they see. so there is no sense in getting all worked up or emotionally charged because my comments are contructively sound, or a pile of shit. you forget that we live in a world where people agree to disagree. im sure you've experienced this at some point in your life. its like you taking a trip to some remote part of the world where the people there believe that the world is FLAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fully aware that people are all entitled to their own opinions.

However, the fundamental technical points of your post in this thread were wrong. If you don't like a photo, fair enough, but making stuff up to try and make it seem like you know what you're talking about usually backfires, and is pretty much pointless anyway?

Equally, I'm fully aware that a photo could be technically perfect but people would still prefer to see some point and shoot photo that happened to please their eye. As a photographer looking for work, I have to deal with this a lot. Fortunately, the majority of the people I do work for seem to like the way I do things. But either way, that's by-the-by.

My post was just to point out that your technical suggestions/criticisms were wrong, which is all it said. I didn't say that because Joe put flash #1 there and flash #2 there it was a perfect photo, I was just pointing out you appeared to be talking bull.

so there is no sense in getting all worked up or emotionally charged because my comments are contructively sound, or a pile of shit.

People talking shit (but in a way that implies they know what they're talking about) and spreading misinformation happens to annoy me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why didn't you just take a pic of it during the day B) instead wasting all that time and effort for a lame night pic (N) . bike looks mint though (Y)

Are you actually retarded? Or do you just act it?

Anywho, nice bike Joe, pics are really nice, love the bike, bet it rides like a beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...