# Since the gun ban has been lifted...



## Josh66

I think *this* is actually the one I originally posted in a thread that was deleted before anyone commented, and not the other (very similar) one I linked to recently...

I think this is the stronger of the two, but that little flake of skin sticking off my knuckle sort of bugs me.  Pretend I already cloned that out, lol.  I'm a mechanic, so my hands are usually pretty messed up...



Original title was "Aggression", I believe.



edit
A few posts down, I posted a video - which I have since removed because it was detrimental to the thread.  There are some comments regarding that video that probably don't make much sense anymore...  Try to ignore those posts.


----------



## robbins.photo

Hmm.. not artistic enough.  Security!!!!

Lol


----------



## SCraig

Yuk!  Glock!  Like the photo though.


----------



## Josh66

SCraig said:


> Yuk!  Glock!  Like the photo though.


Haha!  I was once a 1911 fanboy - I just KNEW that I would hate Glocks, lol.  Gotta say that they have impressed me.  Thanks.


----------



## hopdaddy

I like it Josh ,If I were to see you're work anywhere I would recognize it right off . Love your lighting choices .


----------



## Trever1t

Glad the Admin and Mods lifted the ban. Also like the image.


----------



## EIngerson

Trever1t said:


> Glad the Admin and Mods lifted the ban. Also like the image.



^^^ This.


----------



## Josh66

Trever1t said:


> Glad the Admin and Mods lifted the ban. Also like the image.


Yeah, me too.  Thanks.  Hopefully we can keep things from getting out of hand again.


----------



## SCraig

Josh66 said:


> Haha!  I was once a 1911 fanboy - I just KNEW that I would hate Glocks, lol.  Gotta say that they have impressed me.  Thanks.



I tried, but after shooting double-action Berettas for so long I could never get used to the trigger.  They are fine firearms though, no question of that.


----------



## Josh66

The first time I shot one, I couldn't believe how accurate it was...  I don't know why, but I just assumed that a polymer frame = **** accuracy.  How wrong I was...


BTW, for some entertaining Glock videos on YouTube, check out MattV2099's channel.


----------



## EIngerson

I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol


----------



## Trever1t

omg, is that guy for real? Talk about melting a barrel!


----------



## Josh66

Trever1t said:


> omg, is that guy for real? Talk about melting a barrel!


LOL - obviously it's a parody.  Looped video.  The mags are just taped together.  I do like his "and remember, 30 rounds is standard capacity" motto though.


----------



## 480sparky

Josh66 said:


> The first time I shot one, I couldn't believe how accurate it was...  I don't know why, but I just assumed that a polymer frame = **** accuracy.  How wrong I was...
> 
> 
> BTW, for some entertaining Glock videos on YouTube, check out MattV2099's channel.  My favorite one of his:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit
> NSFW - Language



Funny how the video never shows him firing off more than 20 rounds in a  single camera angle. I noticed after 18 rounds, the camera changed.   After another 18 rds, the another camera angle is used.


----------



## Rick58

Josh66 said:


> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yuk! Glock! Like the photo though.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! I was once a 1911 fanboy - I just KNEW that I would hate Glocks, lol. Gotta say that they have impressed me. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I still am that fanboy: Auto Ordnance 1911. Very cool photo. Love the lighting


----------



## Josh66

480sparky said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first time I shot one, I couldn't believe how accurate it was...  I don't know why, but I just assumed that a polymer frame = **** accuracy.  How wrong I was...
> 
> 
> BTW, for some entertaining Glock videos on YouTube, check out MattV2099's channel.  My favorite one of his:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit
> NSFW - Language
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the video never shows him firing off more than 20 rounds in a  single camera angle. I noticed after 18 rounds, the camera changed.   After another 18 rds, the another camera angle is used.
Click to expand...

Well, it's obviously not "real"...lol.

In the intro, notice how on the last mag, the lips are on the wrong end?  Probably only the first and last mags even have anything in them.


----------



## Josh66

Rick58 said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SCraig said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yuk! Glock! Like the photo though.
> 
> 
> 
> Haha! I was once a 1911 fanboy - I just KNEW that I would hate Glocks, lol. Gotta say that they have impressed me. Thanks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I still am that fanboy: Auto Ordnance 1911. Very cool photo. Love the lighting
Click to expand...

Well, I guess "I was once..." is misleading, since I do still LOVE 1911's.  I didn't totally abandon them for Glock, lol.


----------



## vintagesnaps

You guys already went from talking about the photo for maybe a couple of comments to a gun collecting type of conversation, don't you think that ought to be in another section? Not that threads don't get off topic often enough... Anyway I think could the photo could use some adjustment, seems rather dark and more gray and black than B&W.


----------



## EIngerson

vintagesnaps said:


> You guys already went from talking about the photo for maybe a couple of comments to a gun collecting type of conversation, don't you think that ought to be in another section? Not that threads don't get off topic often enough... Anyway I think could the photo could use some adjustment, seems rather dark and more gray and black than B&W.



It's not the passion charged debate that the mods are being cautious of. Don't make something out of nothing.


----------



## Virgil

For all u 1911 guys..http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=349193


----------



## Josh66

vintagesnaps said:


> You guys already went from talking about the photo for maybe a couple of comments to a gun collecting type of conversation, don't you think that ought to be in another section? Not that threads don't get off topic often enough... Anyway I think could the photo could use some adjustment, seems rather dark and more gray and black than B&W.


Uh oh, you're not a "there's no white point" purist, are you?  (How's that for getting back on topic?   )  It's not B&W unless there's a WHITE and BLACK point?  For what it's worth, I shot this on B&W film, so this is the best place to put it, IMO.

"Rather dark" was sort of the point.  I guess it's my fault it got off topic - I posted the videos, and that's probably where it started.

It seems to me that it should be "moody".  Low key?  Is that what you would call it?  ...Anyway, I'm not convinced that bumping the exposure up a notch would make it better.


----------



## manaheim

EIngerson said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys already went from talking about the photo for maybe a couple of comments to a gun collecting type of conversation, don't you think that ought to be in another section? Not that threads don't get off topic often enough... Anyway I think could the photo could use some adjustment, seems rather dark and more gray and black than B&W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the passion charged debate that the mods are being cautious of. Don't make something out of nothing.
Click to expand...


Ummm... the spirit of the lifted ban is the discussions should really be adhering to the photography. While, no, this has not spiraled, posting videos and making various comments about the nature of guns and related devices is asking for it to go that way quickly.

Keep these things on the photography, please.


----------



## Josh66

I edited out the videos, just because posting them in the first place was probably a bad idea...

Anyone that saw them, it was parody.  Obviously, there is no 600 round mag for a Glock - I believe the guy that made that video was attempting a commentary on "high-capacity magazine" bans.  THAT will get political, so let's just not talk about it, or something.    Shouldn't have posted it to begin with...


----------



## Tiller

Nice lighting!


----------



## vintagesnaps

I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.


----------



## Josh66

vintagesnaps said:


> I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.


I get what you mean.  Like a rim light for the gun...?  I agree that would be good.  I might try a reshoot this weekend with that in mind...  Trying to figure out the best place for the second light...  I'm thinking maybe snooted and hidden behind my leg...


Two lights will make it harder though, since I used a lightstand set where the gun would be to focus on - I'll have to find something else for that (I only have 2 lightstands) - focus on lightstand, get into place, move lightstand.  I'm sure I have something that can stand in as a focus target.

There are too many "things I want to do" and not enough weekends...


----------



## terri

I actually like the lighting here.   Having the gun shrouded in shadow adds to the menacing feel of this image.   I also agree you should check your hands for the chance *skin flake* ahead of time - a minor nit, but it is a distraction that's easily fixed.         Overall it's a very effective image.   Nice work.


----------



## Tailgunner

manaheim said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You guys already went from talking about the photo for maybe a couple of comments to a gun collecting type of conversation, don't you think that ought to be in another section? Not that threads don't get off topic often enough... Anyway I think could the photo could use some adjustment, seems rather dark and more gray and black than B&W.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the passion charged debate that the mods are being cautious of. Don't make something out of nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm... the spirit of the lifted ban is the discussions should really be adhering to the photography. While, no, this has not spiraled, posting videos and making various comments about the nature of guns and related devices is asking for it to go that way quickly.
> 
> Keep these things on the photography, please.
Click to expand...


This, lets keep this subject about photography. 

Anyhow, I absolutely love the lighting in this photo.


----------



## manicmike

At first I felt like the gun could use more light but now I agree with Terri.


----------



## Warhorse

Powerful image of the "fantastic plastic".

Nice job.


----------



## Helen B

EIngerson said:


> I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol



I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.


----------



## peter27

Helen B said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.
Click to expand...


The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.


----------



## cmhbob

Artistically, I really like the shot.

But the gun safety part of me is screaming "finger off the trigger!"


----------



## snerd

I like it. However.......... booger-hook off the trigger!!


----------



## RichieT

I like the dark mood of the picture, but I also think you need a slight touch more light down the barrel. There's a bit of a disconnect with the front sight just floating there.


----------



## manaheim

peter27 said:


> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.
Click to expand...


There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.

Let me try to make a few things clear.

One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.

Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here.  Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.

Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only _nearly_ every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace.  There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.

Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.

Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south.  This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.

I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.

*Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.*


----------



## Josh66

cmhbob said:


> Artistically, I really like the shot.
> 
> But the gun safety part of me is screaming "finger off the trigger!"



Might be hard to tell since it's in shadow, but my finger actually is off the trigger.  Anyway, it was obviously not loaded...  (Not obvious in the "you can see that" sense, but in the "I'm not a moron" sense, lol.)


----------



## Josh66

RichieT said:


> I like the dark mood of the picture, but I also think you need a slight touch more light down the barrel. There's a bit of a disconnect with the front sight just floating there.



Yeah, I considered just cloning out the front sight, but thought that would look worse.  I think I will try adding another light on a reshoot, just to see if it looks any better.


----------



## EIngerson

Helen B said:


> EIngerson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that magazine will be illegal in New York and California. lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.
Click to expand...


I didn't bring politics into a thread. It was a joke about a ridiculous video.


----------



## Helen B

manaheim said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.
> 
> Let me try to make a few things clear.
> 
> One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.
> 
> Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here.  Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.
> 
> Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only _nearly_ every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace.  There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.
> 
> Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.
> 
> Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south.  This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.
> 
> I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.
> 
> *Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.*
Click to expand...


Why did you let the politics on page one stay in the thread? Isn't that asking for trouble? It is still there, and it does make you look biased. The legality or otherwise of large magazines has nothing to do with photography, but you don't seem to object to it being raised. That is what seems weird, I think.


----------



## Rick58

Here we go :roll:


----------



## manaheim

Helen, fair question. (not trying to slight Rick in that, btw)

Point 5 probably should have been that we moderators try to have a light hand. We try not to edit posts, delete, or lock them. We try more to guide with our own remarks and hope that the thread contributors will correct their own actions (as Josh did in this case- thank you, Josh.).

That's why.


----------



## terri

manaheim said:


> Helen, fair question. (not trying to slight Rick in that, btw)
> 
> Point 5 probably should have been that we moderators try to have a light hand. We try not to edit posts, delete, or lock them. We try more to guide with our own remarks and hope that the thread contributors will correct their own actions (as Josh did in this case- thank you, Josh.).
> 
> That's why.



And the comment really _was_ just meant as a joke, in direct response to the satirical video that Josh had posted (and quickly removed). EIngerson tried to explain himself already.    I understand how it could read otherwise, but as Mana says we're really, really trying to give our members the benefit of the doubt, and we don't want to pounce on every gray utterance.   

We all need to get used to this.      Perhaps we should PM one another if any comments seem to beg clarification, and give the poster a chance to quietly remove, edit or expand on what may be misunderstood.   That is better than direct challenges in the middle of a thread which sends things spiraling down.


----------



## amolitor

Well done. Like many a good photograph, it evokes reaction, but that reaction is ambiguous and depends on the viewer. Some people are going to see it one way, others will see it another, but there's a common theme underlying all the reactions.

This is kind of what we hope for when we make art, I think. So, victory!


----------



## Designer

Josh66 said:


> Original title was "Aggression", I believe.



As a photograph of "gun" it misses the mark.  In my opinion this shot is more about how one would hold such a weapon, and not so much about "gun photography".  Perhaps more light on the gun itself might improve the shot.


----------



## peter27

manaheim said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Helen B said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that we were meant to keep politics out of these threads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with this so called policy is that it is only held up as a stick to beat down those who find this kind of image offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are so many levels of wrong to that remark that I just don't know where to begin.
> 
> Let me try to make a few things clear.
> 
> One, we moderators are not here to beat down anyone. We are here to enforce rules. We do so with as even hand as a bunch of part-time people with other lives and other responsibilities can, and I daresay I've seen very few cases where someone was treated unfairly... and when that happened, I've seen the mods all kinda make the "oooo..." noise and give that moderator a sour look.
> 
> Two, the rules are here to keep the forum on track and to keep the owners out of hot water. That's it. This forum is about photography, and so it is photography that is discussed here. Like any forum, there are the occasional side-tracks and exceptions, but it's a drop in the bucket- as it should be- because we're a photography forum.
> 
> Three, guns... politics... religion. These things are considered banned topics in not only _nearly_ every forum on the internet, but also considered social taboo in social gatherings, family events and the workplace. There's an obviously good reason for that, and pretending like TPF is the only place that does it- and does it for some insidious reason- is intellectually dishonest at best.
> 
> Four, and this is the one that galls me the most, the moderation team lifted this ban because they felt like it was unfairly punishing those who wanted to share this kind of photography, all because SOME PEOPLE could not be MATURE ENOUGH to handle a conversation around the art, without making snide comments, freaking out at pictures of firearms, or otherwise escalating a thread which should be about PHOTOGRAPHY... not about GUNS.
> 
> Since we have lifted this ban, I've seen two gun PHOTOGRAPHY threads and BOTH of them went south. This one I TRIED to correct, and some folks were good enough to go "oops, sorry..." but then you had to jump in with that remark, and like a turd in a bowl of oatmeal, it couldn't be let by.
> 
> I'm one more thread like this away from insisting that we just ban this topic once again.
> 
> *Keep your NON-PHOTOGRAPHY comments TO YOURSELF.*
Click to expand...


I have sent you a PM with my thoughts on this.


----------



## Josh66

Designer said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Original title was "Aggression", I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a photograph of "gun" it misses the mark.  In my opinion this shot is more about how one would hold such a weapon, and not so much about "gun photography".  Perhaps more light on the gun itself might improve the shot.
Click to expand...

I never said it was about "gun photography", or even an illustration on how to hold a gun.  All photos with a gun in them (no matter the "intent" of the photo) were banned till recently.

The title, which you quoted, should have told you as much.  If this were just meant to show the gun, I would have called it "Glock 22" or something.  It is possible to have a photo with a gun in it without it being "just a picture of a gun".

It's a photo of "aggression", not "gun".


----------



## Warhorse

Josh66;3135384
It's a photo of "aggression" said:
			
		

> And a darn good photo it is.


----------



## snowbear

Josh66 said:


> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I get what you mean.  Like a rim light for the gun...?  I agree that would be good.  I might try a reshoot this weekend with that in mind...  Trying to figure out the best place for the second light...  I'm thinking maybe snooted and hidden behind my leg...
Click to expand...


I don't even to pretend to know enough about lighting, but, since your're going monochrome with this, would effect would a color light (maybe blue or green) have?


----------



## Josh66

snowbear said:


> Josh66 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vintagesnaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> I knew you shoot film so thought this might be a B&W film photo, but maybe it's more that a dark object against dark background just seems to get kind of lost, hard to see. Maybe more light/highlights to show more of an outline around more of it would be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> I get what you mean.  Like a rim light for the gun...?  I agree that would be good.  I might try a reshoot this weekend with that in mind...  Trying to figure out the best place for the second light...  I'm thinking maybe snooted and hidden behind my leg...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even to pretend to know enough about lighting, but, since your're going monochrome with this, would effect would a color light (maybe blue or green) have?
Click to expand...

In B&W, probably very little.  

Depending on the spectral sensitivity of the film and which filters I was or was not using, it may have an affect on contrast - but overall I don't think the color of the light would matter much.  In color, it would be an entirely different story.

I'm like 50/50 on whether the end of the gun being lost in the darkness is good or bad...  I do want to do the reshoot though, just so I know - either way.


----------



## snowbear

Josh66 said:


> Depending on the spectral sensitivity of the film and which filters I was or was not using, it may have an affect on contrast - but overall I don't think the color of the light would matter much.  In color, it would be an entirely different story.
> 
> I'm like 50/50 on whether the end of the gun being lost in the darkness is good or bad...  I do want to do the reshoot though, just so I know - either way.



I thought about that after I posted -- like color lens filters.  Low-power light from behind (snooted or not)?  Looking forward to whatever you come up with.


----------



## terri

Hey all - comments in this thread from here on out should be _only_ about the posted image.   Anyone who would like to chat about others' comments, please feel free to do so, just take it to PM.   (Sorry robbins.photo!)   

Thanks!


----------



## Josh66

terri said:


> Hey all - comments in this thread from here on out should be _only_ about the posted image.   Anyone who would like to chat about others' comments, please feel free to do so, just take it to PM.   (Sorry robbins.photo!)
> 
> Thanks!


Just realize that some people are going to comment before reading the whole thread (I know I do it all the time).  Not sure what to do about that...


----------



## crimbfighter

I think that as a photo, it looks technically really good. Other than the floating front sight.. Yeah, perhaps a little more light on the gun itself, but I think it looks good either way. 

As to the feeling of "agression" as you mention, I'm just not feeling it. I think because, for me anyway, I see aggression on a daily basis. Hazard of the job. But that aggression is coming from a person, not whatever means they are expressing it with. A firearm in your case. If it were me, and I were trying to convey aggression, and utilize a firearm, I would want to capture more of the person behind the aggression, such as body posture, or seeing more tension in the hand. SOMETHING that conveys the aggression of the person holding the firearm. I also think part of the reason my mind doesn't think aggression with this photo, is because I know far more firearm owners and users who aren't aggressive people, so I never associate aggression solely with a firearm, I need something more. Anyway, those are just my thoughts.

On a side not, I could tell it wasn't loaded because your ejector wasn't protruding.. And I almost commended you early on for keeping your finger outside the trigger guard!


----------



## Josh66

crimbfighter said:


> On a side not, I could tell it wasn't loaded *because your ejector wasn't protruding*.. And I almost commended you early on for keeping your finger outside the trigger guard!


Very small detail to notice, lol.

The whole finger on the trigger thing - I get it, but, IMO, there is a point where you have to give a little 'artistic freedom'.  (It was outside the trigger guard, but like I said, it's hard to tell in this photo.  Look at where my finger is in comparison to the ejection port if you don't believe me.)  Movies would never get made if you couldn't touch the trigger till you were ready to 'kill' whatever was in front of you.  I think, that sometimes it has to appear that you are ready to fire for some shots - to be believable.  *Obviously*, take precautions - like making sure the gun isn't loaded, etc...

For "absolute realism", maybe a spent case in the chamber, to get that ejector sticking out a little.


----------



## Gavjenks

I get the whole dramatic lighting thing, okay, but you're drawing vastly more attention to the side of the guy's hand here, in this image.  Not the gun.  It's way too dark and low contrast by comparison, which I doubt is the intention.

Maybe a very narrow spotlight to add some catchlights on the gun without affecting the rest?


----------



## crimbfighter

Josh66 said:


> Very small detail to notice, lol.
> 
> The whole finger on the trigger thing - I get it, but, IMO, there is a point where you have to give a little 'artistic freedom'.  (It was outside the trigger guard, but like I said, it's hard to tell in this photo.  Look at where my finger is in comparison to the ejection port if you don't believe me.)  Movies would never get made if you couldn't touch the trigger till you were ready to 'kill' whatever was in front of you.  I think, that sometimes it has to appear that you are ready to fire for some shots - to be believable.  Obviously, take precautions - like making sure the gun isn't loaded, etc...
> 
> For "absolute realism", maybe a spent case in the chamber, to get that ejector sticking out a little.



I suppose it doesn't make or break the photo if the ejector isn't protruding  I noticed right away your finger was outside the triger guard! And I was never worried you weren't being safe. 

I think you're right, though. Small touches like having your finger on the trigger can speak volumes about the intent behind the actions. I think with a few subtle changes like that to your image, it would really help convey your message of aggression, because again, I think aggression is a human characteristic, which needs to be conveyed a bit more.


----------



## Josh66

Gavjenks said:


> Maybe a very narrow spotlight to add some catchlights on the gun without affecting the rest?


That was the idea, initially.  The finish on the gun is pretty effective at killing reflection though.  I think if I can highlight the edges of it, I'll call that 'good enough'.


----------



## Josh66

crimbfighter said:


> Small touches like having your finger on the trigger can speak volumes about the intent behind the actions.


Some people are just preoccupied with "the rules", it seems.  I know better than to play around with loaded guns...


I posted this picture on a gun forum once:





The "Finger on the trigger!!!" comments were never-ending.

And it's a single action revolver.  I don't expect that to mean anything here, but on a gun forum, I expect them to know that, lol.  Hammer is not cocked.  Finger on trigger or not, it CAN NOT fire as pictured.


----------



## crimbfighter

It's hard to tell from the small photo, but is that a Redhawk? With a scope!? 

I think it's the nature of gun folk to jump the gun (pun fully intended) about the rules. In a photography setting, though, we need to remember to let that go.. 

I think your second image does a MUCH better job telling a story. I can actually imagine him (you?) creeping through a ghost town fraught with zombies! Or hunting down a killer on the loose!


----------



## Josh66

Yes, me.

Ruger Super Blackhawk Hunter (.44 Mag), with Leopold scope.


----------



## crimbfighter

Ooooooh, duh. Blackhawk.. I forgot about those. I have a Super Redhawk in .454 Casull. No scope though. I take it out every now and again. Fire it. Promptly remember how much it hurts to shoot. Then put it away until I've forgotten the lessons of firings past....


----------



## Josh66

Yes, it's fun to show people that a .44 Mag really will kick their ass if you let it, lol.  I can only imagine what .454 must be like.

Fun to shoot one-handed, lol!




For the next person that says we're getting off topic, post a picture of a camera and see how long it takes before everyone is talking about the camera instead of the photo...  Worry about your own threads, lol.  As long as the political stuff stays out of it, I don't see the harm in discussing a topic that obviously quite a few members here enjoy.

There just seems to be a double standard.  Off topic discussion seems to be OK, unless it's about guns, then it's all OMG - they're talking about guns!!


----------



## kathyt

Hi Josh. I like the image, but I think your black are probably clipped. Maybe bump your blacks and your shadows some without losing the moodiness.


----------



## pixmedic

man....
I don't understand some of you people. 
certain types of photos were banned because a _*lot*_ of threads concerning them went south. 
nudity being one of them. eventually, nudity was allowed again, but in the subscribers section. 
(the subscribers section is far less moderated BTW, for picture content _*and *_discussion..its like the wild west in there)
that's how the owners want it, so that's how it is going to stay. Take it or leave it. 

guns were banned for the same reason. pictures of guns were posted, and the thread inevitably turned into a fight. 
Recently however, the moderation team has taken a number of PM's from members into consideration and with the blessing of the admins,  the decision to lift the ban on gun pictures was made with the hope that gun enthusiasts could post pictures and get C&C like any other type of photo.  

aaaaaand here we all are...
i mean really. there is just no pleasing some people. 
Members weren't happy about a gun ban. we drop the gun ban, and _*day one*_ there is already a thread circling the drain. 
If you want completely unadulterated, unedited, and unregulated forum action, go to 4chan or something and have at it till your hearts content. 
the site owners do not want that kind of environment here. as for the Gun -vs- Boobs debate...you can see plenty of guns on regular daytime TV, whereas you cannot see nudity there. More importantly, the NSFW section is where the _*owners*_ want it, so that's where it will likely stay. 

we have let this thread go in the hopes that the initial shock of having guns back on the menu just caused a little bit of temporary insanity from the overwhelming excitement. Any further derailment of gun threads, or open harassment of the moderators will be considered an act of sedition, and treated as such.


----------



## manaheim

Unbelievable. I really expected a much more mature response to this.

The rule is pretty explicit. As far as guns go, it's pictures and photographic discussions only. Period.

Going forward if I see any topic that veers off path, I'll lock it.


----------

