outie.net Media Portal

The Photography Thread
AznHombre - 12-25-2005 at 10:40 PM

Not everyone is interested in non-professional photography, so how's about we keep our personal pictures here in The Alley and out of the public forums? Here's some stuff I took the other week. Forgot to clone out some stuff, but I'm happy with them.

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3847small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/WonJohnSoup/IMG_3812small.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3754small.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3881croppedsmall.jpg


SilentWish~* - 12-25-2005 at 11:28 PM

those are nice pics.. i see you have a canon EOS.. i'm planning to get a digital SLR in the future as well.. you think nikons are good? which SLRs are better compared to each other?


AznHombre - 12-26-2005 at 01:17 AM

Nikons are fine. You really got to look at the entire system instead of just the camera body, though. Eventually you'll get rid of the body, but the actual lenses you'll keep for many more years, and once you get one brand, all your accessories will be compatible with only that brand. Canon has about 80% of the market, and Nikon is the second biggest.

The bodies in and of themselves are both excellent. You can't really compare them directly to each other though, especially at the low end. The Nikon D50 is not the equivalent of the Canon EOS-300D and the Nikon D70s is not the equivalent of the Canon EOS-350D, both of which are the lowest models for their respective companies. I would prefer the body of both Nikons over the Canons. However, for my purposes, I decided to go with Canon for two reasons:

Better established for sports photography - at the consumer level, the Nikon and Canon lenses are pretty much equal quality, but at the special Canon L-series lenses, they beat out Nikon (I'm going to upgrade eventually to the L-series). Canon bodies also tend to have faster frames-per-second, but Nikon SUPPOSEDLY auto-focuses a bit faster. I went with frames-per-second.

In terms of sheer photographic firepower (slightly less noise at all levels, and SUPPOSEDLY slightly sharper images, but not like even I can notice), the EOS-350D is better than the D50, its closest competitor.

The main points I would prefer the Nikons over the Canons is: 1) Nikon lenses are SO much cheaper and used lenses are SO much easier to find, and 2) for some reason, Canon prefers to give their pictures a slightly 'warmer' (ie, yellower) image out of the camera, which I don't prefer. You'd have to have the pictures side by side and it's nothing you can't fix in Photoshop, but still, I don't like yellow. And this is totally up to the user, obviously, but I've found I like the pictures taken by Nikon users better than the ones by Canon users.

To sum it up: Canon cameras are NOT better than Nikon cameras, even if they outsell them by a wide margin. And second, the pictures are all up to you. I went with Canon and though I do regret it a bit whenever I see how much cheaper the Nikon lenses are and how much easier they are to find used, I'm happy with my decision. Most people who go with either Nikon or Canon usually are, cuz there's nothing BAD about either of them, really.


omega - 12-26-2005 at 09:27 AM

Here's a simple pic I took of my cats the other day. It's with the crappy Minolta camera (the good one's my mom's) :/


AznHombre - 12-26-2005 at 02:28 PM

Nice pic. I usually don't like cat pictures, but that one's pretty cool. What was the EXIF data on that? A lot of highlights were blown out, and I would've liked to see what the cats were looking at, and the cat on top kinda had his face blown out, too. I value composition above all, though, so its still a great picture.

Here's a candid I took at the beach. Didn't notice the lens flare until way too late, and probably should've got rid of the details on the silhouette.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v311/WonJohnSoup/IMG_2430duplicatesmall.jpg


omega - 12-26-2005 at 06:39 PM

Actually, the only editing I did on the picture of my cats was the white border around the image (even though you can't see it). I didn't realize that the EXIF data had been stripped though.

But dude, how do you get so many unique pics? You travel a lot or something?


AznHombre - 12-26-2005 at 07:08 PM

Oh no. All my pics (just about to hit 5000 on my month old camera) were taken all within a 15 mile radius of my home. If they seem unique, it might be just because well, I take lots of pictures everytime I go out. In the beginning I was getting a keeper ratio of about 1:100. Now on my last outing I kept about 10 out of 300, so that was great. Also, I crop like mad (one of the true advantages of 8 megapixels), and often clone out distractions. On yours I would've cropped it down to make the cats fill up more of the frame and remove that distracting green plant in the back.

And you probably already know this, but when I mentioned blown highlights I meant the white-light information was lost in the windows and on the cat's face when you took the picture, not something after photoshopping. Though I'm sure you knew that :)


Ritz S14 - 12-26-2005 at 07:14 PM

Sunset pic is very nice! I bought a tripod that just didn't quite make it thru a year. So time to pick up a quality one this time. Then I'll be off taking more pics.


omega - 12-26-2005 at 07:30 PM

Well, upped the exposure, cuz I thought that excessive light might look.. artistic or something :P guess not. I played a little bit with cropping, I guess I shoulda taken a little more out of the top right.


AznHombre - 12-26-2005 at 07:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Well, upped the exposure, cuz I thought that excessive light might look.. artistic or something :P guess not. I played a little bit with cropping, I guess I shoulda taken a little more out of the top right.


Well, no, it's up to you. It's only perfect when you like it, ya know? ;)

I DO think it would look kind of artistic that way, but I was a bit distracted by the green plant. I think if you filled up the frame and the bright light was especially obvious that way, then I would've thought you did it on purpose. And I only would've preferred to see what the cats were seeing cuz I'm personally not usually moved by cat pictures.

I think one of the few rules that photographers seem to agree on is that the best pictures are the ones that break some 'rule.'


Ritz S14 - 12-26-2005 at 07:47 PM

I think this one was from two years ago. About 6 miles from where I live.

It's a bit overexposed on the rocks, I know.


omega - 12-26-2005 at 08:23 PM

Ritz, I like the colors in that pic, very nice :) But yeah, the rocks are a bit grainy.

*edit* I think it may actually look better with a white frame, rather than black.


omega - 12-26-2005 at 08:43 PM

Here's a pic I took of a go board/stones. Macro ain't so great on my camera :/

Played around some w/ levels, saturation, and cropping.


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 01:20 AM

Wow, I really like that one, Ritz. You have a talent with landscapes :) It's just a guess, but if your pictures are coming out grainy after resizing, maybe you're not clicking the 'Resample: Bicubic' option in Photoshop?

That's a pretty cool macro, Omega. Composition wise, I love it. How'd you get it? Did you just lay the camera down on the board? Cuz if you did that, you could also stop down the aperature and extend the shutter speed next time and get more of the board in focus, unless you wanted only just those two black ones in focus. Which is pretty cool now that I think about it. You might also want to run it through a noise filter. Macros are actually one of my most favorite types of pictures. I can't do it with my current camera though, cuz of the large sensor. I'm waiting for a good used macro lens to pop up, and if I can't find one, I might just plop down a hundred bucks for a set of extension tubes.

Here's some Asiany ones to keep in theme with the forums :P


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3127.jpg



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3113.jpg




Probably should've opened up the aperature a bit to get the background a bit more blurred on the second one, and maybe shifted to the left or backed up to keep the ear from getting clipped like that.

COME ON PEOPLE I KNOW THERE'S MORE OF YOU OUT THERE!!!


Ritz S14 - 12-27-2005 at 09:59 AM

Damn. First pic is amazing, with just a glance they look like hot air balloons. Very nice pics AznHombre. I need to get my pics up to par.


omega - 12-27-2005 at 11:36 AM

Those are some pretty sweet pics, maybe I should haul tail up to Chinatown and take some random shots. But I also need a better camera, this 3.2 mp piece of crap ain't workin out for me so well.

As for noise reduction, I tried using 'despeckle' in Photoshop, but that gets rid of too much detail, blurs the edges. I only have PS CS1, so I don't have the noise reduction filter, which IMO is pretty good at removing noise. Also, I'm running on a Macintosh system, so I doubt there are too many third party noise reduction programs out there for me...


Ritz S14 - 12-27-2005 at 11:58 AM

First pic is at Alameda's retired naval base.
Second and third pic were taken at the Bonfante Garden in Gilroy, CA.


Ritz S14 - 12-27-2005 at 12:01 PM

Hmm.. 3rd one didn't load, cause it said file size was too big.

But here it is again.


omega - 12-27-2005 at 12:29 PM

A pic of my campus, taken several weeks ago in the early morning. Someone mind helping me edit this pic? All I did was change the size...


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Those are some pretty sweet pics, maybe I should haul tail up to Chinatown and take some random shots. But I also need a better camera, this 3.2 mp piece of crap ain't workin out for me so well.

As for noise reduction, I tried using 'despeckle' in Photoshop, but that gets rid of too much detail, blurs the edges. I only have PS CS1, so I don't have the noise reduction filter, which IMO is pretty good at removing noise. Also, I'm running on a Macintosh system, so I doubt there are too many third party noise reduction programs out there for me...


If you want to get a new camera, just make sure you know what you're looking for. 3.2 MP is usually more than enough to post internet-sized pictures. Beyond 4 or so megapixel and people usually can't see the difference in 'quality.' Beyond 3 and the improvement rate also drops down very quickly. Like, a 4 megapixel means it only has like 15% more resolution than a 3 MP, and a 5 MP only has like 10% more resolution than a 4 and so on. It's been pretty much agreed that the 6.3 MP jump from the old EOS-300D to my 8.1 MP EOS-350D was the least of the improvements. More important is the quality and size of the sensor, and the quality of the lens itself. I like Konica Minolta sensors cuz they give great color, but compared to a Canon, they're slightly less sharp and more prone to noise.

And if you want good noise reduction programs, try Neat Image. It's free. The only problem is that it strips the EXIF data if you're using the trial version, and out of the box they set the noise filtering pretty high, which can give people's faces a 'plastic' look. Noise Ninja is better in my opinion, and gives you the option of downloading profiles set specifically for your camera at specific ISO speeds. They also have a Photoshop Plug-in version. I used to use Photoshop Elements 4.0, but my trial ran out, and now I have to use this copy of 6.0 my cousin gave me. I don't like it as much as Elements, but I also can't get a copy of CS :cool:

And Ritz, that third picture is really great! I used to go to school up in the bay area, but I can't begin to guess where that was taken. And as for the first one, you gotta watch out for slow-shutter night shots. They tend to introduce a lot of noise. Cleans up pretty well in a filtering system, though.


omega - 12-27-2005 at 12:47 PM

Ah jeez, noise ninja is pretty expensive... and I hate having trials run out on me. Maybe I'll stick to manually brushing out noise w/ the blur tool. Rofl.

*edit* I tried cropping my unedited picture from before:

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Campus Walk.JPG[/img]


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 12:57 PM

Neat Image is free and doesn't have a time limit. I think the only limitations of the trial version is that it strips the EXIF data and doesn't let you use batch-queing. Out of the box they set the filtering effect to something like 60%, which a lot of people find too high. I just bring it down to something like 45-50%. :cool:

As for editing the picture, my PERSONAL take is that it just kind of has too much sun. Usually you don't shoot into the sun, and if you do, it's very controlled. Like in my previous sunset picture, the sun was even brighter. But by underexposing it, it balances out where the sun still looks fine, and gives a silhouettte effect to the rest of the picture.

If you don't want a silhouette, you REALLY gotta know how to shoot into the sun, which I don't think I'm good enough to give advice on. Plus, shooting into the sun often just gives too much flare no matter how hard to you try to avoid it. Even with an expensive heavily-coated lens, polarizer and lens hood you can easily get lens flare if you don't take care. My cheap single-coated polarizer seems ot INCREASE lens flare, haha. In yours, there's the obvious flare from and around the sun itself, and in the lower right hand side, there's that red mark (like in the middle of my sunset picture). As for editing, I'm guessing just curve/level down the highlight and bring up the midtones? My Leveling skill is subpar, and Curving skill is almost nonexistent. I found it all much easier in Photoshop Elements. And also, my PERSONAL tastes says you can saturate the colors a bit more liberally when it's a non-human subject picture than you can with human subjects before it looks too fake.

As for the crop, I like it much better.

And oh, I just looked at the EXIF data. I don't know what effect it'll have other than getting more things in focus, but maybe you should try stopping down the aperature a bit more? Usually cameras are a bit soft when shot wide open, and for landscape pictures you usually want as much in focus as possible, unless you're going for a specific effect. :)


omega - 12-27-2005 at 01:22 PM

Just thought I'd share some links:

http://xenotaku.deviantart.com/gallery/ <- A deviantART photography gallery I find pretty amazing.

http://www.dirtysamurai.com/ <- A friend's photography portfolio, he's got some pretty neat pics in there..


B0000rt - 12-27-2005 at 01:25 PM

The frenzy when the D70 & A75 was first purchased

Playing around with the macro on the A75
Unedited colours btw, I love the colour of this shot!


Tried to blow out the background looks like I blew out the actual subject too :( (Macro lense on the D70, err as Nikon calls it, 'micro';)


infinite012 - 12-27-2005 at 01:28 PM

http://www.dirtysamurai.com

i don't want to pick out a few pictures. not in the mood lol

edit: sorry, i didnt see that omega already posted my website up :)


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 01:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Just thought I'd share some links:

http://xenotaku.deviantart.com/gallery/ <- A deviantART photography gallery I find pretty amazing.



That guy's freaking nuts :o I usually prefer human-subject pictures, but even I'm in awe of that, haha


omega - 12-27-2005 at 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by infinite012
http://www.dirtysamurai.com

i don't want to pick out a few pictures. not in the mood lol

edit: sorry, i didnt see that omega already posted my website up :)


I personally like the panoramic shots. They're neat-o!


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 02:45 PM

Here's one where I was just testing out the custom White-Balancing on my camera, but apparently some people liked. I should go back and retake this picture, though I'm not sure what editing I can really do to it. All I can see is some composition change. Anyone?

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_3437after3.jpg


omega - 12-27-2005 at 05:42 PM

I think it looks great the way it is now. But I guess you could tweak it a little?

I tried out Neat Image, it works pretty damn well. Spent some time retouching a couple old photos.

Here's some new random pics... (didn't take too much consideration while taking these shots, just average snapshots)

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Campus Walk 2.JPG[/img]

http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Mannequin.jpg

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Seaco Columns.JPG[/img]

http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Desk.JPG


AznHombre - 12-27-2005 at 06:35 PM

Wow, those are a lot better. The colors look a lot mroe vibrant and cleaner, too!

I tried taking pictures around my campus and didn't really get much. I spent maybe more than an hour and I think I'm going to keep maybe only 2 or 3. And one of them isn't even from my campus itself, haha.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4226.jpg



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4263.jpg

Sunset shots seem too 'cheap' sometimes, and I'm not even Christian. That pretty much tells you how little I got from that day.

Dang, just noticed how much barrel distortion is in the second pic. Should've pinched it in photoshop.


omega - 12-27-2005 at 07:10 PM

Ah, who cares if sunset shots are 'cheap'? That church pic looks damn nice! Maybe I should start lurking around outside during dusk hours... catch some nice pics.


omega - 1-1-2006 at 06:23 PM

Took some new pics while in DC today:

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Washington Monument.JPG[/img]

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Warner Theater 2.JPG[/img]


Hewwokitty - 1-1-2006 at 08:35 PM

beautiful pictures, very detailed and colorful ^^


AznHombre - 1-1-2006 at 10:56 PM

Those are awesome, omega. You can really see the improvement! And I really like that one of the Washington monument. Then only big thing I noticed was the car kind of marring the scene. Some cropping, maybe? But those two are great.

I haven't had time to really go out to take pictures. Mostly just got a new monitor calibrator and now just...uhh........'bought' a copy of Photoshop 7.0 :D

Here's some from two weeks ago I think:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4576.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4463.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4416.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4501.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4430.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4454.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4334.jpg



That guy with the guitar is one of my favorite pictures I've ever taken. But can you tell me if you can see a slightly blue sky behind his head? I had to use photoshop to bring it into view, but when I printed it, it just showed up as a white blow-out :scratch:


omega - 1-2-2006 at 06:42 PM

Portraits are always really neat, with lots of character... but I always feel weird taking pictures of people. I don't really see any sky in that picture, mainly just white space. As for those last two pics of mine, I couldn't really crop out the cars (as much as I wanted to) because I needed the base of the monument, otherwise it would just be the monument coming out of nowhere :/

[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Swarovski Bunny.JPG[/img]


Chibi - 1-2-2006 at 08:46 PM

i'll go out tomorrow and take a few pictures and show you my impressive 5 camera skills!


SilentWish~* - 1-2-2006 at 11:44 PM

here are some pics i took downstairs today after playing a game of chess with my brother :)


AznHombre - 1-3-2006 at 01:39 AM

Wow, silentwish, you're getting a lot better, too! I really really like those first two. The composition is fine. It just needs some photoshopping to fix the colors, maybe a little leveling (or maybe a lot, if you want to do some special effects, which a lot of people often do for chess pieces), and definitely some noise filtering. But the most important thing is composition and it looks like your eye is developing for it! :)

The third one is a little weird cuz it's like there are three flowers, but one was cut in half, yet it vies for just as much attention as the others. But it's also out of focus along with the upper left one. Usually you want either all of the them in focus or concentrate on one and get rid of all the other distractions. The fourth one is alright. It's just not as exciting. If you meant to give it a short depth of field and keep just the tip of the middle flower in focus, that's fine, but....I dunno. Maybe it needs to be taken out of the middle of the frame (often one of the worst places to put a subject) or something.

But you're obviously making great improvements. How's that new tripod working for you?

***

Duckies.

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_3889.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_3634.jpg


Yes, swans are duckies, too. Stuck-up duckies.


SilentWish~* - 1-3-2006 at 03:38 AM

thanks for the advice AznHombre~ i will try to pay attention to them next time i go shooting :)
i wanted to do more while shooting the pics.. esp the third pic.. i wanted to do what you've mentioned, putting all other subjects out of focus, but then i only have the compact dcam, fx9, and it doesn't allow ANY manual functions.. so i couldn't really control what to focus on and whatnot.. i gave several tries.. but ofcourse, still can't get the affect an SLR would~ that's why i'm really thinking of getting an SLR~ but because of the money issue, that will be down several years until i get one :P but i DID see the canon rebel for i think $269 at futureshop? is that a good deal? or is it because that model is outdated already? or maybe that was an opened box item.. i dunno.. oh well~
as for my tripod, it's working very well~ haha suits my simple needs for now.. i didn't use them for the four pics i took above tho~
and wow~ you always take nice pics~ i'm kinda lazy to always use photoshop to fix my pics.. haha but maybe i should do that more often~ and once again, thanks for the encouragement :D


omega - 1-3-2006 at 10:11 AM

http://www.ebay.com

eBay has a lot of Canon EOS 350 XT deals... many of them include 3 different lenses, tripods, wideangles, and filters. Around $1200 each though :/


AznHombre - 1-3-2006 at 12:06 PM

That's not really a deal. That's pretty much regular price. They just say it's a $1600 value or whatever by claiming a 1gb compactflash card is worth $150. The demand is so high for the low end digital SLRs for Canon and Nikon that you're pretty much going to pay for near full price on the auction market, but you won't get the gurantees and stuff offered by a mainstream distributor. Best to go the mainstream route for these kinds of things.

And Silentwish, the $250 Rebel you saw was almost certainly a film Rebel. That's around market price for the top film SLRs right now. I wouldn't get it at the store though unless you're totally unsure about if you need a digital SLR. The market price is around $900 bucks for a Rebel XT without the kit lens, and $1000 with the kit lens. Canon is offering a complicated rebate deal that can get you up to $275 if you play your cards right and resell the extra items you have to buy. Look online for the lowest prices, BUT BE CAREFUL. The digital SLR market online is full of ripoffs, right now. Either they won't send you the camera while accumulating interest on your deposit, or say you need to buy the batteries and stuff separately. I bought mine from buydig.com, the most reliable of the cheapest. Watch out, though, their customer support service is known to be really shady, and so if you have to return it, it can take a few weeks and you'll have to fight for it. Might be worse since you're from Canada. Also, the price changes daily on that site. I waited until the black body model was down to $823 (shipping and tax included). Then I did the double rebates and resold the items and so final price for me was around $670 with the kit lens. If you watch slickdeals.net, once every 8 weeks or so a deal pops up linking to dell.com that can bring the final price down to $550 or so without the kit lens. Gotta be persistant, though. Usually they only sell like 500 units at that price or whatever and the sale ends up lasting less than a few hours. The first time I missed it I woke up at 7am and found out the sale started at 6am and already sold out, haha.

I spent several weeks practicing with a compact point and shoot with manual mode just to get me familiar with the concepts. And to make it clear, NO, you don't need to use full manual mode to take good pictures. Most professionals stick wtih aV mode outdoors and only switch to manual mode indoors or when they need it. I go full manual all the time for the same reason I like a manual transmission. It's just more fun, even though I'm sure I suck so much at it I'm probably going slower than the guy with the automatic transmission, ahha.

If you can, try reading up on the manual booklet for your camera. All those "automatic" modes like landscape and sports mode are all just playing with the aperature and shutter speeds. There's nothing special they're doing other than that at all (other than macro mode). For example, your sports mode is probably just keeping the shutter speed as high as possible and maybe being more liberal with the ISO level. Dunno what it does witht he aperature. Portrait mode is keeping the aperature wide-open while keeping the ISO level as low as possible, which means it's slowing down the shutter speed, but just enough to get the exposure, instead of sacrificing ISO speed like in sports mode. Landscape made stops down your aperature as much as possible while keeping your ISO level low I believe. Put them altogether and you can formulate your own aV and tV mode.

Just a word of warning. Go ahead and read the dpreview forums for the 350D. Cuz of the target audience for this level of equipment, you get waaaaayyyy too many soccer moms and dads who think throwing money at a camera automatically gets you good pictures. So the forum is littered with posts from frustrated guys who complain that all they're getting is blurry pictures and can't turn off the flash and their camera is totally messed up. Just a huge waste of money. Which is good for me, cuz they lower the used market prices and I buy all my stuff from the used listings and camera shows :D I was pretty frustrated with my Rebel XT the first few hours I had it, too. Then I went backa nd concentrated ont he concepts I learned instead of relying on the camera and it became a world of difference. I discovered that what this kind of camera mostly does is LET THE USER TAKE PICTURES EASIER, not better. In my opinion anyways.

And learnt o use photoshop. Don't let those photography snobs tell deride you for photoshopping. Pretty much all pictures, even with high-end equipment can be improved with photoshopping. It's always best to get it optically, but a good picture is a good picture even if it needed digital enhancement.

Good luck. Don't hesitate to ask me if you have any questions about a place you're about to buy from. Don't want you to get ripped-off.


SilentWish~* - 1-3-2006 at 12:50 PM

thanks for always being here to give such detailed advices AznHombre :) really appreciate it~ now i know i can still take good pics with the lack of manual mode in my camera~ glad to hear that~ i will try to work on my concepts as well then~ hope improvements will be on their way :P
and yes, i recall now that the $250 rebel i saw did look like a film rebel~ haha.. but then for me getting an SLR will be after a few years i believe.. since they are so expensive.. or maybe not a few years.. maybe a year or so.. cause i'm trying to save up for a trip to japan and hk this coming summer with my friends.. so perhaps after the trip.. when i have $0 left.. lol.. i'll save up for an SLR then~ but then it WOULD be very nice to have an SLR for the trip~ although it will be big to carry around :P oh well~


azncow - 1-3-2006 at 04:00 PM

here r 2 from few weeeeeks ago~


momorokoko - 1-3-2006 at 07:24 PM

woah! has outie became a photographers paradise all of a sudden!?!?!
well the pics are very nice by the way... i never knew aznhombre is such a photo person hahaha
its nice to know that there are somewhat artsy people over here


momorokoko - 1-3-2006 at 08:20 PM

i guess i will contribute with my own pics since everybody has been doing them... sorry they are not as good as the rest...
these were taken over the course of the past 2 years, they were all taken by a very commercial camera (canon a90, very old cam by now)
the last pic has a crazy glare because i was a part of a team shooting a movie in competition (we won second prize woo!) so don't be pissed at the industrial lights lighting up the place :nono:


SilentWish~* - 1-3-2006 at 11:13 PM

wow momorokoko, i think your pics are nice~ no need to say your pics are not as good cause i think they ARE as good as the pics we take here~ :)

very very nice~ we should take more pics and share our nice sightings~


AznHombre - 1-4-2006 at 04:12 AM

Man, i had a lot of fun tonight with my wushu team!!!


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5391.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5395.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5417.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5481.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5510.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5563.jpg



THIS IS WHAT I GOT AN SLR FOR!!!!!


SilentWish~* - 1-4-2006 at 01:40 PM

haha that's exactly what i want an SLR for AznHombre.. i can't really get pics like that with my compact dcam.. or actually.. there is something called the portrait mode where it focuses on the subject and the background is blurred out.. but then it never seemed to work.. maybe i'll give it more of a try.. but yes.. i wanna take pics like that with the background blurred~


AznHombre - 1-4-2006 at 04:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
haha that's exactly what i want an SLR for AznHombre.. i can't really get pics like that with my compact dcam.. or actually.. there is something called the portrait mode where it focuses on the subject and the background is blurred out.. but then it never seemed to work.. maybe i'll give it more of a try.. but yes.. i wanna take pics like that with the background blurred~


The "Clear forground/blurry background" effect is a result of several functions. If you want to maximize it, you want a wide-aperature, a long focal length, and being close to the foreground while having the background far away. With yours, put it on portrait mode, zoom out as far as you can, walk back and forth until the subject fills up your frame to what you want, and if you can, have them stand as far away from the background wall or whatever.

If you look back at my old yellow daisy macro picture taken with my Canon A75 compact, it had extreme "bokeh" (the blurry background in photography parlance) because I had the aperature wide, was like 2 inches away from the subject, and I think the background was like 2 or 3 feet away.


SilentWish~* - 1-5-2006 at 03:26 PM

i've posted this pic in another thread, but i thought it'd belong here as well because i think this pic is pretty nice :P


trixy - 1-6-2006 at 01:31 AM

well ive finally decided to add some proper pics to this thread...

i just went out and took some decent pics for about 10 minutes... and im pretty happy with these... no editing too!!

this is just the place where im currently staying in singapore on holiday...


trixy - 1-6-2006 at 01:38 AM

shit, forgot to post the rest....

the one with the statue is still around the place where im staying at the moment...

and the rest is of some jeweleery i found lying around the house...


omega - 1-6-2006 at 12:07 PM

Here's a thread at a different photography forum which has some pretty neat pictures of people's hometowns:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/328713/0


n-tone - 1-6-2006 at 03:36 PM

they are bit smudgy.. hah. didn't use tripod (didn't bring one) and forgot to use timer (remote control disappeared). first one normal lighting, 2nd one with flickering lights on - (every hour for 10 minutes fyi) and i took it at a wrong angle...haha


Hewwokitty - 1-6-2006 at 11:50 PM

http://cobrakaidojo.net/Gallery/albums/KetAttach/output1.jpg

http://cobrakaidojo.net/Gallery/albums/KetAttach/output1.jpg

can make it bigger


SilentWish~* - 1-7-2006 at 02:53 AM

wow ntone~~ those pics are nice~~ man.. those aren't everyday pics you can see :D

hmm.. Hewwokitty, isn't that a CG rather than a photoshot :P
at first i thought you had a set of all those action figures and took it like that~ :)


trio - 1-7-2006 at 08:01 AM

Wow nice shots guys! Here's a silly contribution

Part 1 (By S700i)


trio - 1-7-2006 at 08:03 AM

Part two (By K750) :%


http://img397.imageshack.us/img397/914/53om.jpg


n-tone - 1-7-2006 at 11:46 AM

trio... i love that cat pic... if u just had the focus direct on the cat be better!! .so cute..is it yours?

the eating noodle one is not bad too.


SilentWish~* - 1-7-2006 at 12:48 PM

man.. camera phones have improved so much~ i can see the exposure and colors in the lens have improved so drastically~


trio - 1-7-2006 at 11:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by n-tone
trio... i love that cat pic... if u just had the focus direct on the cat be better!! .so cute..is it yours?

the eating noodle one is not bad too.


Thanks for ur comments ;) That is my gf's cat, mine is nowhere as cute :D, and i tell ya, her cat just knows that u're taking a pic of her, and she dislikes it!! never successfully took a pic of that cat haha...


eighty-six - 1-7-2006 at 11:18 PM

I've an Canon A75. I know theres a noise issue with the night pic... and the nature pics are too blue and green, but that makes them so awesome. haha


eighty-six - 1-7-2006 at 11:25 PM

btw, i love the esso picture.. theres like a cool halo that surrounds it


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 12:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by eighty-six
btw, i love the esso picture.. theres like a cool halo that surrounds it


lol thanks.. that's what i thought too~ that's why i put it here~ haha..

i love your second and third pic~ very nice composition imo~~ :)


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 01:09 AM

here are some pics i took today at panorama~ i know the quality of the pics are a bit off.. a lot of noise.. cause i was trying to edit the pics.. and i over sharpened them.. don't really know how to edit the pics so that they look like the pics asianhombre takes.. probably the main reason is.. he's using an SLR and i'm not? :P and i dunno how to edit pics..

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030147a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030225a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030237a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030248a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030260a1.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030296a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030299a1.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030304ab.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030308ab1.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030306a1.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030310a.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030318a.jpg

ofcourse the ones with me in them weren't taken by me~ just thought that the positions were pretty neat :)


Hewwokitty - 1-8-2006 at 01:18 AM

very nice pictures =) and Silentwish, thanks lol it's from a game Final Fantasy 11.. too bad i'm not into collecting toys for it lol but my friend made that picture =)


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 01:40 AM

here is a pic cropped from the originals of the above pic and edited by my gf.. which is better than me in photoshop :P


AznHombre - 1-8-2006 at 01:43 AM

[here are some pics i took today at panorama~ i know the quality of the pics are a bit off.. cause i was trying to edit the pics.. and i over sharpened them.. don't really know how to edit the pics so that they look like the pics asianhombre takes.. probably the main reason is.. he's using an SLR and i'm not? and i dunno how to edit pics.. ]


If you like my cooking, it ain't cuz of the pots I use.


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 01:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
[here are some pics i took today at panorama~ i know the quality of the pics are a bit off.. cause i was trying to edit the pics.. and i over sharpened them.. don't really know how to edit the pics so that they look like the pics asianhombre takes.. probably the main reason is.. he's using an SLR and i'm not? and i dunno how to edit pics.. ]


If you like my cooking, it ain't cuz of the pots I use.


hmm.. so you mean it's not your editing that makes your pics look nice.. but your camera lens? is that what you mean.. i'm confused :scratch:


AznHombre - 1-8-2006 at 01:59 AM

It's the cameraman, not the camera.

Here's my personal style: when I try to take/create a picture, what I try to do are two things. One, I try to minimize the negatives. The second is after taking out as many negatives as I can, I make sure there's atleast (and often, at most) one positive. So in the end, the picture has nothing bad, and one good thing. Therefore, it is a good picture.

Photoshopping helps remove the bad things. It CANNOT put anything good in.

An SLR does not give you good pictures. It does not even give you better pictures. You take a bad picture with an expensive dSLR, you just get a really sharp image of a bad picture. And that's onyl if you know how to use it. Too often someone looks at a picture they like and think that all you do is point the camera in the general direction of the subject, press the shutter button, and presto, magic pictures! They don't realize all the extra effort in just PRE-processing, where you look at the area, and fix all the things wrong, whether it be a distracting leaf at the feet of the statue or whatever. Sometimes it can be something like waiting for the perfect time of day when the shadows hit the subject just right, so you have to come back or wait there for a few hours. THEN, you frame the image, calculate the settings you want, and take many MANY pictures with minute differences, such as angle, exposure, etc. THEN, you post-process, correcting all the stuff you still ended up messing up. But like I said, it's all useless if you're taking a crap picture to begin with.

Ansel Adams said it best (and I don't even like Ansel Adams' stuff), "There's nothing worse than a sharp picture of a fuzzy idea."


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 02:04 AM

wow~ thanks for the advice AznHombre~ guess i'll have to work on my concepts before anything else :)

but i was actually refering to the sharpness of your pics.. i was trying to use photoshop to get your sharpness.. i think you misunderstood and thought i was trying to get the quality of your pics in general~ lol ofcourse i know that i won't be able to turn my crappy pics into your good composition, angle, etc. pics~ i was only refering to the sharpness and how your pics have much less noise. Therefore, that was why i was refering to your lens :%


veksonator - 1-8-2006 at 01:55 PM

wow! silent wish that pic of yours, you look like an hkstar for some reason.. the painting background is nice


momorokoko - 1-8-2006 at 02:15 PM

well since i love this topic i guess i will post more pics :D
the first batch are pics that have been altered (color corrected and stuff)
and the second batch are like originally shot pics but i haven't cropped them. any suggestions to make them better?

i really like the colors in the two last pics by trixy, the golden colors makes the red emerald (jewelry) stand out!
the landscape pics by eighty-six are very nice, the composition is simple which is what i like about it.
silentwishes pics are nice because i like the painted background wall, it makes some of the pics look surreal.
the pics with the s700 is interesting, camera phones have actually improved haha.
my last question before the pics come out, does aznhombre study photography or something? he seems to know a lot about photos


momorokoko - 1-8-2006 at 02:18 PM

and the rest. the last one was taken in an underground concert and handheld so don't get distracted by it i guess. i just don't favour using flash in concerts because i believe using the concert lights will give the viewer more of a feel of whats going on in the event


SilentWish~* - 1-8-2006 at 04:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by veksonator
wow! silent wish that pic of yours, you look like an hkstar for some reason.. the painting background is nice


haha thanks for the comment~

momorokoko: haha thanks.. we thought it was a cool background as well~ we spent plenty of time taking pics with that background :P


AznHombre - 1-8-2006 at 04:30 PM

I took a photgraphy class once in high school. It was a black&white film class. A lot of fun. We didn't really learn about composition much, mostly the technical aspects like how to set exposure correctly and stuff. Then he let us out in the field and let us take what we wanted and devloped them ourselves. Personally, I think it helped a lot, even with the little instructions he gave. I honestly don't believe photography needs all that many instructions, especially for us amatuers.

Check out kenrockwell.com if you want to read up on both technical and compositional aspects of photograhpy written by a guy for everyone frm amatuers to professionals. What I love about his site is how he lays it all out that in the end, what you really want is a picture you like. All the technology around just lets you achieve that (as oppposed to achieving it for you). He's constantly throwing out all the detailed advice you see from other professionals, and in the end, ya can't really argue with him, haha.

And most of what I know I know from reading online, stopping by the school library and lots of trial and error. For all you know, I'm blowing smoke up your butt. I'm still a total rank amatuer.

And last night I took over 1300 pictures at a martial arts tournament. Right now I'm just through sorting through the first 300 after 6 hours of photoshopping. So far I'm keeping about 80 of them, which is pretty good (though others would say that if you're keeping that many, you're not trying hard enough). Here are some samples:

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6022.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6023.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6067.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6076.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6082.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6113.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6130.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6052.jpg


n-tone - 1-8-2006 at 07:23 PM

woo i like the flip and the one below! freezing da action! :P


AznHombre - 1-8-2006 at 11:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
wow~ thanks for the advice AznHombre~ guess i'll have to work on my concepts before anything else :)

but i was actually refering to the sharpness of your pics.. i was trying to use photoshop to get your sharpness.. i think you misunderstood and thought i was trying to get the quality of your pics in general~ lol ofcourse i know that i won't be able to turn my crappy pics into your good composition, angle, etc. pics~ i was only refering to the sharpness and how your pics have much less noise. Therefore, that was why i was refering to your lens :%


Sharpness is a function of many things. Everything from sensor size, megapixel number, lighting, aperature value, ISO setting, lens quality, and display size. I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting and just plain don't know about. Sharpness even varies within the picture, usually sharper in the middle, falling out at the edges, and worst in the corners.

In your picture of the blue display case (well done, by the way), it's pretty much as sharp as any pics I'd get from my SLR. You have to understand image sharpness itself, which is very very VERY complicated from what I've pieced together. To break it down severely, sharpness is how much one part of a picture "cuts" from another. There are two things that make up this effect: actual focus (something you cannot fix in post-processing if you didn't get it right), and color blending into one another, which is a function of the sensor. SLRs, by the very virtue of having a much bigger sensor, will help with the latter. You can achieve this similar effect in photoshop, which basically sharpens up the pictures by looking at two contrasting colors, and cuts out any color in between them that seems to blend the two.

For example, if you have a white plane next to a black plane, your camera may put a gray line inbetween the two because it's difficult for the sensor to process the final image. What photoshop does is look at it, and say, "let's get rid of the gray line and make that one pixel black and the other white." There are a ton of ways to sharpen (it's under the Filter>Sharpen menu). I only use Unsharp Masking because it's the only one I know how to use. Suposedly Smart Sharpening is better if you know how to use it, which I don't. It's not easy, and I can't really tell you what numbers to use, as sharpening is almost an art in itself. I find it incredibly difficult to sharpen full size 8-megapixel images for final printing. I'm horrible at it. But once I resize it down to web-size display, say, 8x12 inches on my computer screen, I find a strengthening value of around 175 with pixel strength at around 0.4, 0.5 to be good. Other hold 300% at 0.3 to be good for my particular camera out of the box. I find that setting often works better for low ISO shots. Threshold I change depending on the noise level. Newbies like me tend to oversharpen, which creates a bluish-white halo around objects. Look very very very carefully at some of the above pictures in certain areas and you might see it. I tried blowing up the picture to 300% so I could minimize this to maybe one or two pixels are most, but it's still there. I'm not good enough (or patient) enough to run 4 or 5 sharpening passes directed at specific areas and situatinos like the pros do to eliminate the halo.

And you have to realize, compact digital cameras often give you sharper images than SLRs. You heard me. The reason is because compact digitals are designed for the masses who don't want to be bothered with post-processing. So it does a lot of in-camera sharpening, which isn't always the best, but straight out of the camera, I wouldn't be the least suprised if your pictures are sharper than mine. A lot of the new guys on the dpreview boards are often posting complaints about how their old point and shoot was sharper than their new SLR (along with questions about how to turn off the flash and being shocked to find out that no, you can't use the LCD screen as the preview screen to take pictures with). I can set my camera to sharpen more, but I prefer to leave it at the factory setting and do my post-processing in photoshop (remember what I said about letting you take good pictures?).

And another thing is, sharpening for the web and sharpening for print seem to be two different things. Monitors almost always display at 72 dots-per-inch. So not matter how many megapixels you have, your monitor will display a 100% image crop at 72 dpi. When you resize, the resultant image depends on the software you use. Some will resharpen to the smaller size better than others. I suspect that's why Photoshop resizing looks so good with the Bicubic option on, while say, Internet Explorer resizing a giant wallpaper picture you're looking at results in blocky chunks. One of the computer experts on this board might answer this better than I.


SilentWish~* - 1-9-2006 at 12:17 AM

wow, once again, another detailed lesson from AznHombre~ really appreciate the time you're putting into typing and teaching me, who is a newbie in photography, so many things~ really appreciate it man~ thanks a lot~ i've learnt a lot from you~ :)


AznHombre - 1-10-2006 at 01:36 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
wow~ thanks for the advice AznHombre~ guess i'll have to work on my concepts before anything else :)

but i was actually refering to the sharpness of your pics.. i was trying to use photoshop to get your sharpness.. i think you misunderstood and thought i was trying to get the quality of your pics in general~ lol ofcourse i know that i won't be able to turn my crappy pics into your good composition, angle, etc. pics~ i was only refering to the sharpness and how your pics have much less noise. Therefore, that was why i was refering to your lens :%


Just saw the other part of the question. In terms of noise, that's mostly dependant on the sensor size and quality, and megapixel number. Too many megapixels packed into a small sensor often found on compact digitals = more noise (and more profit for the maker cuz you just HAVE to have more megapixels, don't you?!?!?!). Just about any dSLR will have a much bigger sensor than a point&shoot, which can handle more megapixels cleanly. So no, you won't really get less noise at the higher ISO speeds when compared to an SLR. However, at the low ISO speeds you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Take that shot of the blue display cases for example. Show it to someone and ask if they can tell what kind of camera it came from. If they say they can, they're lying to you (unless they peeked at the EXIF file).

If you want to decrease noise, download the free version of Neat Image. The trial version has no time limit and does the job great. Just set the default from 60% to something a little less like 40-50%.

Resizing also hides noise. Go to photoshop, resize the image (not cropping) and by virtue of the resizing algorithm, presto, cleaner and sharper picture.

And one last thing that the salesman at Best Buy never tells you about and wouldn't want to, is the dynamic range of color. The bigger and better sensors from dSLRs give you more. More color range = better looking pictures along with a "sharper" effect. To remedy that..........buy an SLR. :P


omega - 1-10-2006 at 02:22 AM

Haven't posted any pics in a while, so here are some new ones:

Hehe, for a description of the first one click here. XD

... I got rid of my old site too, for those of you who didn't notice.


AznHombre - 1-10-2006 at 02:54 AM

I'm assuming you cropped the cat picture? I personally think it would look really good if you recropped it and put back in whatever is to the left. Like, re-crop it so the cat in closer to the lower right side of the composition. I might work.


n-tone - 1-10-2006 at 05:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I'm assuming you cropped the cat picture? I personally think it would look really good if you recropped it and put back in whatever is to the left. Like, re-crop it so the cat in closer to the lower right side of the composition. I might work.


couldn't agree more. werid to put da cat in the middle, composition wise. cuz th cat is looking at something.. window, another pet,.etc or just to show some space... that there is something beyond her sight.

and that green thing ...eww..


SilentWish~* - 1-10-2006 at 07:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Just saw the other part of the question. In terms of noise, that's mostly dependant on the sensor size and quality, and megapixel number. Too many megapixels packed into a small sensor often found on compact digitals = more noise (and more profit for the maker cuz you just HAVE to have more megapixels, don't you?!?!?!). Just about any dSLR will have a much bigger sensor than a point&shoot, which can handle more megapixels cleanly. So no, you won't really get less noise at the higher ISO speeds when compared to an SLR. However, at the low ISO speeds you're not going to be able to tell the difference. Take that shot of the blue display cases for example. Show it to someone and ask if they can tell what kind of camera it came from. If they say they can, they're lying to you (unless they peeked at the EXIF file).

If you want to decrease noise, download the free version of Neat Image. The trial version has no time limit and does the job great. Just set the default from 60% to something a little less like 40-50%.

Resizing also hides noise. Go to photoshop, resize the image (not cropping) and by virtue of the resizing algorithm, presto, cleaner and sharper picture.

And one last thing that the salesman at Best Buy never tells you about and wouldn't want to, is the dynamic range of color. The bigger and better sensors from dSLRs give you more. More color range = better looking pictures along with a "sharper" effect. To remedy that..........buy an SLR. :P


hmm.. in other words.. would you suggest me to set my megapixel down when taking pics with my compact dcam? i'm currently using the full 6 megapixel.. you recommend me setting it down to 4 or something?

and have you heard of a program called ACDsee? just wanted to know your opinion on it.. since you've mentioned that certain programs do better when editing or resizing pics.. and gives a different result..
i personally think that ACDsee is a great program for viewing pics, resizing, rotating, and cropping pics~ :cool:

oh and i got past 500 posts!! i'm a proud senior member! finally!! :headbang:


omega - 1-10-2006 at 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by n-tone
Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I'm assuming you cropped the cat picture? I personally think it would look really good if you recropped it and put back in whatever is to the left. Like, re-crop it so the cat in closer to the lower right side of the composition. I might work.


couldn't agree more. werid to put da cat in the middle, composition wise. cuz th cat is looking at something.. window, another pet,.etc or just to show some space... that there is something beyond her sight.

and that green thing ...eww..


Actually, I didn't crop all that much out of the picture. I wanted the cat to be the main focus, cuz I thought he looked 'majestic' or something sitting up straight and alert like that.

Here's the original pic (resized), before any type of editing.

Oh yeah, and that green thing was a bug crawling around on some wires near my desk. It's my pseudo-macro photography :P


SilentWish~* - 1-10-2006 at 11:15 AM

lol omega.. is the first pic really your drool?


omega - 1-10-2006 at 12:08 PM

Quote:
lol omega.. is the first pic really your drool?


ROFL. Yeah... I wiped my mouth with my hand, and a tiny bit of saliva was hanging from my finger. So what did I do? I whipped out my camera and took a picture.

It may seem like a lot, but it was actually a really tiny strand... I couldn't focus my camera on it, it was too small :/


SilentWish~* - 1-10-2006 at 01:46 PM

lol oh man.. at first it looked like a crystal thing hanging down from a crystal light or something..


AznHombre - 1-10-2006 at 02:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*

hmm.. in other words.. would you suggest me to set my megapixel down when taking pics with my compact dcam? i'm currently using the full 6 megapixel.. you recommend me setting it down to 4 or something?

and have you heard of a program called ACDsee? just wanted to know your opinion on it.. since you've mentioned that certain programs do better when editing or resizing pics.. and gives a different result..
i personally think that ACDsee is a great program for viewing pics, resizing, rotating, and cropping pics~ :cool:

oh and i got past 500 posts!! i'm a proud senior member! finally!! :headbang:


There seems to be a lot of debate over whether setting the megapixels lower on a compact digital (or even an SLR) affects this kind of stuff. It theory, it sounds like it shouldn't, but anecdotes seem to say otherwise. I really can't say. You can do test shots of the same difficult shots with both settings to see, but personally I hate testing out equipment like that. I'm no pixel-peeper. If you really want, it might be a good decision to part with your camera in the classified listings or ebay, and then pick up a used Canon Powershot A70 to A90. Pretty much all the same. I have the A70, it has full manual settings, and satisfied 90% of my needs while I was practicing before I got the dSLR. I have no idea what current Canon digital compacts would suit my needs now, but I saw a deal on the A520 on slickdeals.net. You might actually make out with a profit if you switch your Lumix for one of those cameras I mentioned. I have no idea what the A520 is like.

Nope, never heard of ACDsee, but doubt it really makes too much of a difference if its a mainstream product. If you go with mainstream products in the photography world, you won't really see much of a difference in my opinion. That's why I stick with Photoshop. If it's good enough for the professionals, it's more than enough for me.

For some of your shots, it seems like the main technical problems was noise and color balancing. Compositionally, I would've done a few stuff different like focus the shot more on the people and use the paintings as subtle backgrounds to enhance the subject. As it is, I think the eye is too drawn to the painting, away from the people. If that's what you wanted, then great. I personally think it's too close to being a "record-keeping snapshot" type of thing. Also, some kind of lighting could've been used to brighten up the front of your bodies. The light looked like it was coming from straight down, so there're shadows casted on your faces.

If you want, you can send me the original copy of either that last one of you and your girlfriend or just the last one of your girlfriend holding onto the wall. I think I could do some quick editing with those and show you what I mean. Might take awhile, though, cuz I'm still editing my martial art pics and school just started.


SilentWish~* - 1-10-2006 at 04:38 PM

hmm.. yea perhaps i'll take pics with a lower megapixel to see.. i mean.. unless i'm gonna print huge posters.. i don't need to take pics with the highest megapixel i can get right..? doesn't seem useful to me either..


AznHombre - 1-10-2006 at 05:41 PM

Like I said, there's debate. I don't know what the processor actaully does to get the smaller image. It's conceivable that it's actually taking the full 6 mp image and then resizing it itself in-camera, which almost certainly isn't a good thing. If it's using the sensor in a different way, it can be a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, all things equal, more megapixels is just plain better. The problem is that not all things are equal. I jsut checked up on the A510 and the A520, the only difference between the two being megapixels. After looking at the samples, I'd take the A510, even though it only has 3 megapixels like my A70.

I always take my pixtures at the full 8 megapixels because 1) that's why I bought an 8 megapixel camera, and 2) I crop like mad.


omega - 1-10-2006 at 06:13 PM

The only beef I have with my camera, is that it has a lack of manual controls... the only things I can change are... ISO, and exposure. And that's only to a couple pre-set choices. And the megapixel count is a little low (3.2). :/


omega - 1-12-2006 at 10:50 PM

Here are some new pics for you guys. Tell me what you think.


SilentWish~* - 1-12-2006 at 11:26 PM

woo omega~ i like the mood in your first pic with the 3 glasses.. your other pics are interesting :P


omega - 1-12-2006 at 11:42 PM

The objects in the first photo are lamps ^^;


AznHombre - 1-12-2006 at 11:43 PM

I think that first one is excellent. I wish the upper left one was a bit brighter, but it's still a great shot. The second and third I'm not so hot about, but the last one blows away everything else in this entire thread.


omega - 1-13-2006 at 12:05 AM

Yeah, I saw a truck with balls, and I couldn't resist taking a picture :P


veksonator - 1-13-2006 at 02:05 PM

is the last pic what i think it is?!?! hahaha


AznHombre - 1-13-2006 at 11:43 PM

Here's a heavily processed one. I've been geting into silhouettes lately, especially non-backlit ones. I'm not good enough to take those kind of silhouettes as is, so I gotta kinda have to make my own, haha.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7053.jpg


I like it like that, but I'm wondering if it would work even better if I cropped it tighter so it's mostly upper-body and sword in the picture. What do you think?


omega - 1-14-2006 at 12:21 AM

I think you need to have the legs in the picture for it to balance out. Also I think the negative space up top is comforting; if you cropped too much I think it would look 'restricted'. So the original pic was fully lit? Or was it pretty dark to begin with... I think it looks pretty good the way it is now, although maybe a bit too colorful :)


AznHombre - 1-14-2006 at 12:32 AM

Yeah, it was a sorta, "Legs or all upper-body deal." I think I'll do it again and see which one I like. The thing that bothers me isn't the legs, but the floor. For internet viewing, I can just drop the floor off and still keep the long vertical format, but this particular file came from one I'm going to use for print.

What's also bothering me right now is how it might not be as dark as I like it. I use an LCD, which isn't preferably for image editing if you want to print. I just peeked from a high angle and it looks like a lot of detail and color is still there. I want it to be really dark with just the pink from the shoulders. So if you're seeing too much details in the body, good call, haha.


Hewwokitty - 1-14-2006 at 11:44 PM

http://img484.imageshack.us/img484/3903/mie060114175803a7id.jpg


momorokoko - 1-15-2006 at 07:03 AM

i believe silluottes are much more funner to do if you get the chance to play around with the lighting rather than using what you have. why don't you create a mini studio somewhere availible (your house or your school classroom) and create those kind of shots over there?
i dunno.. the picture you just did looks a little too awkward with the consistency of lighting in my opinion.


AznHombre - 1-15-2006 at 10:53 AM

Yeah. I just got a look at it from my dad's CRT monitor last night. I need to readjust the contrast on mine or something, cuz it was just way too much detail and color. On mine, the body is almost completely black and looks like a real silhouette.


AznHombre - 1-15-2006 at 01:59 PM

What do you guys think of this one?


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/Disney_2020.jpg


I'm thinking I should've left more outline of the legs in and gotten rid of that yellow line in the corner, but I'm about to upload the entire tournament to a site, so I don't think I can make much more alterations. So is it better or worse? Any critique appreciated.


SilentWish~* - 1-19-2006 at 12:05 AM

hey~ just wanna ask about the rebel xt (350d) i'm planning on getting that in the near future.. if my financial status allows me to.. i went to my local camera store today to try out the rebel xt and the nikon D50 today side by side.. and i like the rebel XT more~ because of it's body and how it feels in my hands.. and most importantly.. it focuses a lot faster than the D50 when zoomed in~ a question is.. i've read on forums and i think AznHombre has mentioned before as well.. that the rebel xt's kit lens is not the greatest.. someone in the dpreview forum suggested to just get the body and get a 50mm f1.8 lens to start off with.. now i'm not that familiar with the numbers.. can anyone explain it to me and laymen terms? as well.. do you think that suggestion will be good? to get the body and the 50mm f1.8 lens to start off with? because i've looked at the prices.. and that combination will be a lot cheaper than getting the kit with the body~


AznHombre - 1-19-2006 at 02:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
hey~ just wanna ask about the rebel xt (350d) i'm planning on getting that in the near future.. if my financial status allows me to.. i went to my local camera store today to try out the rebel xt and the nikon D50 today side by side.. and i like the rebel XT more~ because of it's body and how it feels in my hands.. and most importantly.. it focuses a lot faster than the D50 when zoomed in~ a question is.. i've read on forums and i think AznHombre has mentioned before as well.. that the rebel xt's kit lens is not the greatest.. someone in the dpreview forum suggested to just get the body and get a 50mm f1.8 lens to start off with.. now i'm not that familiar with the numbers.. can anyone explain it to me and laymen terms? as well.. do you think that suggestion will be good? to get the body and the 50mm f1.8 lens to start off with? because i've looked at the prices.. and that combination will be a lot cheaper than getting the kit with the body~



Nikons are actually known to focus faster than Canons. Might've just been the conditions and what you were trying to focus on.

As for the 50mm f1.8, it's a no-brainer. Everyone gets it, and so did I. Most people also get the kit lens, too, if they don't already have a wide-angle lens. Wide angle lenses are some of the most expensive type of lenses you can pay for, so for the extra 100 US dollars you pay to get 18mm (it's a 18-55mm zoom), it's pretty good.

Don't worry about the kit lens deal. Everyone new to DSLR asks about it, and really, most of them wouldn't be 1) familiar enough to see the quality difference between it and some other zoom, and 2) probably aren't good enough to really get the most of it anyways. So it's a good starter lens. I got the kit and then bought the 50mm. Later I bought a used 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 mk II.

As for f1.8, it's the aperture. Fixed non-zoom lenses like the 50mm tend to have wider maximum apertures than zooms. 1.8 is very wide, and you're unlikely to be willing to pay for a wider lens (the 50mm f1.8 costs $80 US, the 50mm f1.4 costs $400 US, and you don't want to know how much the 50mm f1.0 costs). Wider lens means two things: easier to take photos in low (especially indoor) lighting, and more background blur for your portraits or whatever (though the 50m f1.8 only has 5 blades, so the "bokeh" blur doesn't really look all that great in my opinion). Quality in photography usually show real differences between classes, not within. Fixed lenses are a class above zoom lenses, so even an amatuer can see the big difference between the 50mm and the kit lens. I took 99.5% of my martial arts photos with the 50mm because of the wide aperture I needed for the dark lighting and fast action.

The 50mm in particular is known as a great portrait lens, because when coupled with the 1.6x crop effect on the less than full-frame Rebel XT sensor, it gives a view very close to that of the human eye. Meaning you can put the viewfinder up to one eye, open the other, and everything looks in proportion. Many people find the natural-looking perspective great for portraits because of this. Every company makes a cheap high-quality 50mm for their cameras, though, so don't think you need to go to Canon for it.

And finally, I don't want to scare you off, but there's been talk of a new 370D coming soon. It's total rumor, so make of it what you will. Personally, I would give the Nikon D70 more consideration. In the long run, if you don't want L lenses (which I want for indoor sports), Nikon can be much cheaper in the long run and offers pretty much the same image quality as Canon at the consumer level.


SilentWish~* - 1-19-2006 at 06:51 AM

wow thanks for the details AznHombre~ as for the focusing speed.. i'm not sure.. but maybe it's only between the D50 and the XT that the canon focuses faster? but anyways.. i feel more comfortable with the canon anyways.. for some reason..

so let me see if i got it right.. the f1.8.. f1.4.. f1.0 stuff are all the aperture numbers? so the lower the wider the viewing angle..? then what about the 15mm and 50mm numbers? what do those mean..?

so should i get the XT with the kit lens then..? cause it's only around $100 difference for me.. it is better than the f1.8 lens in certain aspects is it..? or will i just be using the f1.8 lens most of the time between the two?

and yes.. i've also heard of a new camera coming out in this febuary's camera convention.. so i might wait a bit longer.. maybe to take a look at the new camera.. and consider it.. tho i know prices will be high.. OR just to wait for a price drop in the XT after the new camera is out :)


AznHombre - 1-19-2006 at 07:27 AM

When I said wide I meant the aperture, not the viewing angle. The 50mm focal length designation refers to the "viewing angle." These are very importatnt things to tknow. Unfortuntelyly I dont have time right now. I suggest you read up on it a bit more int he meantime.


SilentWish~* - 1-19-2006 at 01:57 PM

alrite~ thanks a lot~ i'll read up on it~


AznHombre - 1-19-2006 at 03:21 PM

Pull up a seat and pop some popcorn, this is going to be a long one. If you already know some of the things I'm going to say, too bad. I just got a 98% on my bio exam and I'm in a happy mood, and I love to type. So here goes:




Okay, you know those old film SLRs? The ones with film that measured roughly 35mm? Well they're called 35mm cameras and having been the standard for so long, a lot of things in photography revolve around that standard.

One of these things is focal length. Focal length is what you probably know as "zoom." On a 35mm camera, a lens that says 50-100mm, means you get 50-100mm worth of "viewing angle" as you put it. The 35mm in "35mm camera" and "50-100mm" in focal length aren't the same. Try to think of "35mm camera" as "full-frame." Full-frame DSLRs are meant to mimic the old 35mm camera standard. So when you take a 50-100mm zoom lens off your old 35mm film SLR and slap it on your full-frame DSLR, you get the regular 50-100mm focal lengths worth.

People don't normally buy full-frame DSLRs. There's only a handful out there and cost atleast $4000 or so. Us normal people get APS-C sized sensors on our DSLRs, which does NOT mimic an old 35mm film camera. Instead, you usually get a "crop factor" because the sensor is smaller. For Canon, this crop factor is 1.6x. So when you take a 50-100mm zoom lens and slap it on your Rebel XT, you're actually getting a "78-160mm 35mm equivalent." You get MORE zoom than a regular full-frame camera. Sounds great you say? Depends on what you shoot. The crop factor also increases your wide-end, which means you'll have more problems with landscape shooting and shooting in small rooms for group shots. You might also be thinking, "But gee, 100mm turning ito 160mm? That's 60 extra millimeters! And I only lose 6 mm when my 10mm lens turns into 16mm!" Except at the wide-end, actual viewing perspective is more pronounced than the numbers would suggest. Also, having a full-frame sensor is just going to give you better image quality than a smaller sensor, no matter how you slice it.

Now here's the kicker. You know your Panasonic compact? The lens itself is probably something like 5-9mm. Sounds miniscule, right? But coupled with your extra extra small sensor, it balloons to usually something like 28-105mm full-frame equivalent. Some Canon consumer-level digicams are reaching out even further. That's right, for your first few weeks or maybe even months, your digicam is going to outreach your DSLR cuz you can't afford the lens. Now, you can get some cheapie telephoto lenses that'll kick the crap out of your digicam, but you'll be sacrificing a lot of image quality, as the lens is more important than the camera body itself when it comes to quality.

And oh, that 50mm f1.8? It's a fixed lens, which means no zooming. You'll have to use sneaker-zoom, and even that isn't the same, because zooming is not the same as walking up closer. The perspective is different. You might also think that you can just crop the image since you have 8.1 megapixel and just blow up a small portion of the picture, but that gives you a different perspective, too (and lower image quality). I have to crop the overhwhelming majority of my martial arts photos.

As for aperture, that has no impact on "viewing angle." Aperture is how wide the lens opens when you hit the shutter button. The wider the aperture, the more light that comes in. The effect is that the wider the aperture you use (it's adjustable, and f1.8 is just the MAX aperture), the more the background blurs behind the subject you locked onto. And to an extent, sharpness is usually downgraded a bit when you go wide-open. And as you've noticed, the smaller the number, the wider the aperture actually is. A lens with a wide maximum aperture is known as a "fast" lens.

A normal consumer zoom lens will usually have a max aperture of around 3.5 at the short focal length, and closes down to around 4.5 maximum when you zoom out. The numbers aren't linear. Going from f4 to f2.8 is a full stop worth of light as is going from f2.8 to f1.8, and then from f1.8 to f1.4. All of these are the equivalent of bumping up your ISO from say, ISO200 to ISO400. Your consumer digicam usually has from f2.8 to f8.0. An f2.8 constant lens can cost anywhere from $500 to well over $2000. I don't know of any zoom lens that open wider than f2.8.

So there you have it. Better you know now than later. I' jsut telling you because you really have to know exactly what it is you want before you dive in and spend the big bucks. If you're still serious, go ahead and ask. If you're a bit discouraged, there are other options that can suit your needs if what you want is "image quality" and versatility that's approaching that of DSLRs but not the price itself. Look at high-end cameras like the Fujifilm S9000 or the almighty Sony R1 that made some DSLR guys piss their pants cuz they thought their cameras were now obsolete when it came out. The image quality of the R1 is BETTER than that of the Rebel XT when coupled with cheapie lenses.

The only real problem with the Sony R1 is that it's not an SLR. And if you haven't looked up what makes an SLR an SLR, it's in the name. Single Lens Reflex. That means there's a mirror that bounces the image of what the lens sees to your viewfinder, giving you exactly what the lens sees in REAL time (or as real as the speed of light can go). LCD preview screens like the Sony R1 and your digicam has, aren't real time. They're images processed by a computer and spat back out onto a display. Wave your hand in front of the camera. You can't tell me that's real time. For sports, this is important. For other things, not so much so. Eventually I'm sure we'll get some LCDs with refresh rates so fast SLRs will be obsolete. In the meantime, I'm just having fun with what I got and drooling at those Canon L lenses ;)


SilentWish~* - 1-19-2006 at 03:38 PM

first of all, congrats AznHombre for getting such a super grade on your bio exam~ :)

and as well, deeply appreciate your patience of always giving me so much details about photography terms~ i was actually reading the stuff you just typed on dpreview~ haha.. but reading your post again just made my readings even clearer in my mind~ so thanks a lot~

i'm not discouraged in any way~ i've been reading up on certain things in my spare time and has just gotten more interested as i read on~ but i have to say, because the rebel xt is so expensive, i'd have to wait until i come back from my trip to hong kong this summer because i can get it~ but meanwhile, i'll be reading more on photography just for my knowledge~ :)


SilentWish~* - 1-19-2006 at 06:30 PM

hey aznhombre~ remember when you told us about how you got your rebel xt for $670 after "playing the right cards" and selling your stuff..? just wondering what you meant by that..? so you bought the whole thing in a package..? and you sold the stuff you didn't need? just wondering if those deals are still going on now.. but perhaps those deals are mostly for the states.. cause slickdeals are targeted for the states


AznHombre - 1-19-2006 at 06:57 PM

I'm not sure, but you may have just missed the deadline. Canon was offering an up to triple rebate, where the more you buy, the bigger the rebate. I just got the rebate and resold the extra stuff on eBay. They do the rebate thing every year fora few months.

Slickdeals doesn't give you deals, they just inform you of them. Wait awhile for when a Dell deal pops up for it.

And serves you right for being Canadian :P


BYS2 - 1-19-2006 at 06:59 PM

canada rocks guy... we got beavers and shit...


SilentWish~* - 1-20-2006 at 01:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYS2
canada rocks guy... we got beavers and shit...


lol i like that.. are you trying to sound like a dumbass canadian? lol


momorokoko - 1-20-2006 at 05:11 PM

if you wanna do something very canadian, try and play hockey in the middle of the night hehehe
that brings me an idea for a photo thing...


AznHombre - 1-20-2006 at 06:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
if you wanna do something very canadian, try and play hockey in the middle of the night hehehe
that brings me an idea for a photo thing...



Do it in Mountie suits.


SilentWish~* - 1-21-2006 at 12:31 AM

here are pics of ladybugs i took at church~ trying to create an isolated atmosphere for the ladybug.. but the last one looks like a telus commercial (for those who live in toronto and watch tv) they tend to use a lot of animals and insects and make them run around on their screen for the entire commercial.. which is not cute and very pointless imo.. their picture ads on subways and other places suck as well imo


SilentWish~* - 1-22-2006 at 10:01 PM

some pics i took outside of my church today :)


AznHombre - 1-22-2006 at 10:13 PM

Naaassssss........looks like you're really learning how to get that bokeh you've been looking for. On an automatic no less! Skills, boy.

Haven't had time ever since that martial arts tournament to really take any pictures. Here's an oldddd grabshot I took int he parking lot for my coach. One of my first one with this camera, actually. Nothing exciting, just like how clean it came out. This was with the 50mm stopped at f2.5. Supposedely it gets extra sharp from f2.8 to f8 (every lens gets sharp at f8), but not like I ever really notice.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2205.jpg



Just ordered a set of Kenko extension tubes. Should be here in about 3 weeks. FINALLY, I get to do some macros on this camera :headbang:


SilentWish~* - 1-22-2006 at 10:49 PM

haha thanks AznHombre~ but realized i can only to bokeh when putting the camera very close to the subject~ like when doing a macro for example.. so i don't think i can get a portrait of a person with bokeh like those ones you had in the martial arts competition~ haha i guess that's one of the reasons ppl need to get SLRs.. cause i don't think many compact dcams let you take bokeh pics when you're camera is not close to the subject~ i've been playing with SLRs in my local camera store and you can get bokeh like anytime you want~ the auto focus just focuses on whatever you focus on and everything else is blurred~ haha..

oh and good to hear you got a macro lens~~ would love to see some macros done by you~ cause for myself.. i love taking macro pics~ haha.. although i still love landscape pics.. but i think macro lets ppl see the stuff in close up in detail the stuff we won't usually stop our lives to take a look at~ :)

by the way.. does the rebel xt kit lens not allow you take macros?and i've always wanted to ask.. but always forget.. what program you use to put those borders around your pics..? cause i find that the white border gives the picture kinda like.. a space in between the forum and itself.. allowing viewers to not be distracted by the forum page as much~


AznHombre - 1-22-2006 at 11:15 PM

Mmm, I don't know about that. Unless there's something very significant that a larger sensor and longer lens brings to the equation that I don't know about, you should be able to get bokeh as long as the aperture/focal length/distance to subject/subject to background ratio is met. The real problem is getting GOOD bokeh, which is dependant on the lens. Like in your second pic, you see those white blobs of light near the bottom red needles? Kinda funkay. Good bokeh would still have those blobs, but more smoother and the background blur just more pleasing in general.

And the background blur in the viewfinder you see in SLRs isn't the bokeh you're actually getting. When you're looking through the viewfinder, the aperture is wide open, to brighten the viewfinder as much as it can. When you press the shutter button, that's when you actually take the picture, so the shutter closes to the setting you have it, eliminating that bokeh. In other words, the viewfinder pretty much always looks like that when you lock onto anything, even if you have the aperture setting stopped down to f22, which should eliminate pretty much all background blur. It pretty much always looks liek that with any lens, too. That why I disagree with SLR snobs who say that with SLRs, "What you see is what you get." You gotta hit the DOF preview button to stop down the aperture and see the bokeh you'll get, but then the viewfinder gets really dim and if the viewfinder itself is tiny like on the Rebel XT, it's near useless. I never use it.

But yes, all things given, much easier to get bokeh with SLRs. If anything, I often find it difficult to get ENOUGH depth of field when I'm indoors. Instead of just trying to get close to the subject, just try getting the subject further from the background, and find the sweet focal length that still allows you to have a wide aperture. Portrait mode would probably be best.

And the reason it's tough to get macros on an SLR is because the minimum focusing distance on lenses are a lot further than on compact digicams. I'm not sure why, but it might be because the lenses themselves are so much longer/bigger? If that's the reason, I take back my comment about being able to get bokeh from a digicam. And I didn't get a macro lens, I got an extension tube set. I can attach them onto any EF lenses and shorten the minimum focusing distance and create a faux-macro lens. Lots of drawbacks, but when they said, "Extension tubes??? I don't sell that, that's Poor Man's Macro!", well, that's what MADE me want them, ahha :P

And I just increased the background canvas size in Photoshop. Any program should be able to do it, no problem.

Does your camera has manual focusing?


SilentWish~* - 1-22-2006 at 11:38 PM

haha unfortunately my camera doesn't have manual ANYTHING.. other than ISO.. and exposure.. everything else is auto~ no control over them whatsoever~ haha

oh~ so basically what you do with your rebel xt is just put it on a tripod.. and then set the settings you want and take a look at the DOF preview and then take the pic? so you're basically using the LCD screen to take the pic? or am i mistaken..? what if you don't have a tripod and you need to hold the camera..? don't you need to use the viewfinder then?

oh rite~ canvas size~~~ why wouldn't i think of that?? lol :D

but i think you also have a very thin line border around your pic.. how do you do that in photoshop?
sorry for my stupid questions :P


AznHombre - 1-22-2006 at 11:53 PM

Tripod? I never mentioned a tripod. And I never use the DOF preview button. And unless you have those handful of EOS-20Da's out there meant for astrophotography, you can never use the LCD on an dSLR for preview shooting, as I'm sure you've noticed by now. The DOF preview button mechnically squeezes the shutter blades down to the aperture size you've set it at, without actualy taking the picture. This gives you an idea in the viewfinder of what your picture will look like when it's taken. In practice, though, it's pretty much useless to me with the limitations of the Rebel XT. Seems to work a lot better on the 20D because of the much bigger viewfinder.

And I just increase the canvas size three times. Once with a size of 2 black pixels, then again with however many white pixels, and once more with 2 black pixels. For Photoshop, I found it has to be an even number, otherwise one side will get more than the other (or none at all, if you put only 1 pixel's worth). A lot of people just do one big increase with black pixels for a black border. Jumps out more on white pages, and looks "hipper," I guess. I avoid it. Looks too trendy.


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 12:01 AM

Ooh, I also have this. My most favorite shot from that tournament.




http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6688med.jpg



I had to resize it twice to upload it onto another site's server gallery so the sharpness was kinda messed with. I gotta learn how to fix color casts better, too.


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 12:16 AM

wow~ i like the motion on that one.. and the focus on the subject is really clear.. my eyes won't wonder off somewhere else where it shouldn't be :)

lol i misunderstood the meaning of DOF preview lol.. now i get it~ haha thanks~

and thanks for teaching me how to put borders around my pics.. would you mind if i had exactly the same borders as you..? cause imo.. it does make the pic look a bit better for viewing :P

and how did you learn how to make a border like that..? someone else teach you? or you learnt on your own?

here are my pics with borders~ :cool:


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 12:36 AM

I learned it on my own with lots and lots and lots of trial and error. I don't mean to sound snarky, but trust me, I've been saving you lots of time here. I seem to do that a lot for people cuz I'm the kind of guy who goes all out when he finds something new and neat. I learn and cram everything I can, and when someone asks, I know exactly the problems they're running into, cuz I'm still a newb myself, haha.

And no, you can't copy my borders, because white borders are obviously mine :P

I just found this site again. Man I've been looking for it for so long. It calculates DOF for you. I get why DSLRs have so much less of it now. It's dependant on ACTUAL focal length, not 35mm equivalent. So your digicam probably has like real world 5-15mm or something only. Still, according to this, my compact A70 can get some pretty good bokeh if I just stand 10 feet away, with the subject 20 feet (or more) from the background and I lengthen the lens to the maximum and use the lowest aperture.

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 12:43 AM

haha actually.. i'm that kinda person as well~ well.. maybe not that much in terms of photography cause i have you hear to tell me all the stuff i'm confused about :P but i mean.. for other stuff like.. before i become an IT person.. i knew nothing about technology stuff.. (not to say i know a lot now) but i just went around and crammed everything i could as well.. like with cell phones for example.. and now certain ppl would come to me for opinions on such issues.. and i'd be in the same position as you~ :P as well.. i do find making mistakes and going through trial and error gives you a much clearer idea of that particular issue rather than having someone to tell you~

oh~ sorry about the boarders~ i won't be posting my pics with the white boarders when i post on outie then :)

hmm as for my dcam.. i'm really not sure if i really dunno how to use my dcam.. but i've tried so many times.. the aperture is always at F2.8.. which should be able to get some bokeh rite..? but no matter what i do.. how far or how close i stand from the person.. i won't be able to get the bokeh you're getting say.. in your most recent martial arts pic~ maybe my cam sucks.. lol.. just good for looks :cool:


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 12:48 AM

Dude, I was being sarcastic about the borders. White borders aren't exactly the most original thing. Acutally, they're THE original border if you think about it.

And according to someone in another forum, you might want to try setting it in macro mode, but NOT taking a macro picture. Might work for you. And maybe taking picture of smaller objects in comparison to the lens. One person mentions something like if you keep the ratio of the object to your sensor the same as a larger object to a larger sensor, it should be the same DOF.

Input your values in that DOF calculator. And are you SURE it's always at 2.8? Cuz that's pretty wide. Only one of my lenses even goes that wide, and it's usually more than enough for good blur. Granted, your smaller focal length doesn't help, but 2.8 is pretty wide. I think you just need to try different subject/background distances. Closer the subject, the less DOF, but the farther the background from the subject, also the less DOF. DOF isn't a function of technology. It's a function of physics. The camera back doesn't matter, as long as the math works out.

And there's always Gaussian blurring the background in Photoshop.....:D

And oh, what's the focal length printed on the front of your camera? *edit* I see it. 5.4-17.4mm with F5.0 at the long end is actually more than mine. You should be able to get pretty good bokeh out of that, espeically with a Leica lens. Or maybe they only ship crap lenses out to Panansonic and keep the good ones for thier own cameras, haha.


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 01:07 AM

oh~ lol.. didn't catch the sarcasism with the boarders.. i thought your :P face meant you were embarrassed to say that they were copyrighted to you but you still had to say it~ lol thanks~ then i will keep the white boarders~ but then i kinda figured.. a nite scene pic wouldn't look good with white boarders will they..? such as this one

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a162/SilentWish331/P1030237ab.jpg

i think maybe it contracts the pic a bit too much..? or i dunno.. maybe it's just me?

and coincidently.. i've been thinking about using macro mode to take normal pics to see if i can get bokeh for a while~ lol but always forget to try~ cause i was thinking.. since the only mode i'm able to get bokeh in is macro.. why don't i try using macro to take a portait pic? :P let me try that next time~

and oddly enough.. it doesn't say the focal length at the front of my camera :scratch:
all it says is.. 1:2.8-5.0/5.8-17.4 ASPH

which is the aperture values i believe..?
if you search for fx9 on google image.. you will see that the front of the camera doesn't say the focal length.. either that or i just dunno how to read :%


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 01:27 AM

What border you use depends on what you like. In that one, a black border might very well make it look better (to me). I prefer the same border for everything. Gives it that classic "fresh from the photolab of yore" look. I also insist on my prints being given a white border when I go to the photolab, haha. I think it used to be a necessity in the olden days or something, I dunno. I just like it better.

1:2.8 - 5.0 is the maximum aperture. The widest it can go with the lens completely zoomed in is f2.8, and the widest when it's comletely zoomed out is f5.0.

5.8 - 17.4 is the actual focal length. They just left out the mm part. A trick I've found is that if you go zoom completely out, you'll get the f5.0 stated. But often, if you zoom back in just the teensiest bit, you can widen the aperture a bit. The gain in light oftens offsets the loss in zoom usually, for me. Might help you get some bokeh in this case.

And it's, "borders."


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 11:23 AM

ohh~ but f2.8 is a larger aperture than f5.0 rite..? cause the lower f number means higher aperture..? (is it spelt aperture or aperature??) :scratch:

but then why would i get a larger aperture when i zoomed in..? ohhh.. is it because when zoomed out.. i can get more of a max DOF when zoomed out and less of a max DOF when zoomed in?
hmm i'll try zooming and stuff to see if i can get a larger aperture..

and yes.. borders.. lol.. sorry.. it was like 3am last nite :P


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 04:55 PM

Maybe I used the wrong words. When I said zoom out, I meant to "zoom far." By zoom in, I meant "zoom close." Now that I think about it, I probably should've it the other way around.

The longer the focal length used, the more depth of field. At the same time, the longer the focal length used, the narrower the allowable aperture, which in turns cut down on bokeh. So that's why I suggested for you to try to find "the sweet spot" for bokeh for your camera. The point where you'll maximize the amount of bokeh by playing with the trade-offs corectly. Just a wild guess on my part that that spot is somewhere near the far end of the focal length.


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 05:02 PM

haha thanks.. that cleared things up a bit~

and IF i successfully find out how to take portrait pics with bokeh.. i will post them up for sure :D


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 07:13 PM

my gf's in design.. and she's been arguing with me that the white border i put with my pics make the pic look like a child's work.. kinda like unprofessional or something.. cause she says at her design school no one uses white borders.. and they all use black borders.. so i tried it out.. and it seems like black looks a bit better.. because the white kinda.. distracts the eyes because it takes away all the colors.. i'm not sure.. so i'm here to ask you guys for suggestions.. i have four examples here.. please tell me which one is better..

1. original white border
2. white border with black
3. white border with black with a VERY thin black border surrounding the pic
4. black border


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 07:58 PM

Honestly, I hate that black border stuff. It looks like something that could only work on a computer monitor or a cheesy Inspirations-type poster. Could you actually imagine holding a 4x6 print with black borders? Then again, our generation doesn't usually make prints. I'm old school that way. White border is classic. A black stroke on the inside/outside is fine, too, to make it pop and keep the whites from bleeding into the edge.

If you like that "I wannabe different" stuff, try putting a thin black border within the picture and a regular black one on the outside. Like, a concentric ring-border, with the inner ring imposed on the picture, and one of the rings being the picture itself. And then put your watermark on the lower corner of the inner ring, and make sure it's in artsy font with emphasis on the "PHOTOGRAPHY" after your name. Then, slap yourself, point to a mirror, and say, "No!"







To be fair, sometimes black borders seem to work well in both nightshots and shots with snow.


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 08:48 PM

yea.. looking at the black border doesn't look as good as when white separated the colors in the picture.. but yes.. maybe i will keep my pics as a white and black border.. the 3rd choice

hmm.. what does the thin black border around the pic do..? kinda trap the colors inside the pic..? i feel like it gives a distint edge to the pic and kinda make the picture pop out more.. i dunno..


AznHombre - 1-23-2006 at 09:01 PM

If you're going to do the "White inside of Black" border scheme, maybe you should try to make it look like an actual frame. Like, a thin black border outside of a thicker white border. That's what I think of when I see that scheme anyways. If I ever actually display my photos, I'd get a simple thin black frame to complement the white border I always get.

Just a suggestion ;)


SilentWish~* - 1-23-2006 at 09:31 PM

oh~ i think i'll just keep the white border thin.. cause i think.. when comparing the pics.. white border tends to pull your eyes away from the pic other than black.. so keeping the white border small is better for me~ and i don't like the black border by itself so that's why i went with small white border.. and a black border around the whole thing :)

but then again.. it IS still very hard for me to choose from your white border.. and the white and black border.. i think different pics look good with different borders


momorokoko - 1-24-2006 at 10:12 AM

mountie costumes.. sigh.. if i could ever find them i might think about it..


SilentWish~* - 1-24-2006 at 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
mountie costumes.. sigh.. if i could ever find them i might think about it..


hmm.. you lost me there.. what was your post referring to? :scratch:


omega - 1-26-2006 at 04:47 PM

A couple more pics for you dudes, just to keep this thread alive :)

Note: I normally post these pics on my website, I just keep forgetting about the Photography Thread here on outie.net :P

(I've gotta find more interesting subjects for my photos, my campus is getting kinda boring)


omega - 1-26-2006 at 04:54 PM

I don't know why the colors turned out funny in the previous post, but they didn't look like that when I post-processed them in Photoshop.

Anyways, two more pics from a recent trip to Walmart:


SilentWish~* - 1-26-2006 at 04:56 PM

i like your first pic in your first post omega~ the angle of the building and how it goes into the perspective with the poles being all proportional.. i dunno how to explain it.. haha.. i'm not a photography person so dunno the terms to explain your pic~ but i like it :)

yea.. i guess recently aznhombre and i, the frequent posters in this thread :P, have been busy and haven't had time to take new pics and there's nothing new to discuss.. but i think after every weekend, we should have some new pics.. cause we tend to take new pics during weekends.. or i tend to.. lol :D


SilentWish~* - 1-26-2006 at 09:25 PM

here's something i did.. first time doing this~ kinda wanna get the isolated hope feeling..


trixy - 1-27-2006 at 09:38 AM

here snapped these while in dubai today...

let me know what u guys think of them...


trixy - 1-27-2006 at 09:40 AM

here are a few more... again criticism welcome..


momorokoko - 1-27-2006 at 12:22 PM

trixy, i really like the toyota sign shot, it sorta has a message to it.. but i won't artistically BS about it anymore now..

silentwish, this is what i am referring to

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
if you wanna do something very canadian, try and play hockey in the middle of the night hehehe
that brings me an idea for a photo thing...



Do it in Mountie suits.


n-tone - 1-27-2006 at 03:37 PM

what TOYOTA is that?it has a .. merc like logo standing up! its on da hood i suppose? i wana see the car! :D


trixy - 1-27-2006 at 07:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by n-tone
what TOYOTA is that?it has a .. merc like logo standing up! its on da hood i suppose? i wana see the car! :D


haha, its a toyota landcruiser.. 4 x 4....


AznHombre - 1-28-2006 at 12:55 AM

Yeah, I've been really busy, especially with school. Mostly just trying out new techniques for action shots, and photoshopping images for my friends to print out. Here's another old one.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_4877.jpg


Thought I had enough depth of field when I glanced at the LCD screen. That's one thing I don't like about the Canons. The LCD review screen really isn't that useful cuz everything ALWAYS looks sharp, especially on the tiny Rebel XT. Also wanted to clone out the little piggy, but decided this wasn't that great of a shot to begin with and wasn't worth the time and effort.


SilentWish~* - 1-28-2006 at 01:16 AM

haha that's a cute pic.. so the bamboos and laterns are actually small rite..?

so you wanted to have more depth of width rite..? hmm.. yea.. i guess if the whole pic was in focus.. it'd look better.. cause now.. half the bamboos are focused.. and half are not.. haha but that's alrite~ still a nice pic nevertheless :)


trixy - 1-28-2006 at 05:25 AM

just outta interest do ur pics automatically get framed? or do u photoshop them urself?

and what ram do u have on ur com? i find it hard to run anything else with photoshop and i have a 256MB


omega - 1-29-2006 at 12:14 AM

Check a couple pages back, there's a mini-discussion about framing pictures. As for me, a white border of around 40 pixels is enough. :o


AznHombre - 1-29-2006 at 12:57 AM

Here's a fun one I did when I was playing with the filters. Usually avoid them cuz they're so easy to abuse.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_3162bSMALLgood.jpg



I trivialized his tragedy with Photoshop. That's power, baby :headbang:


Trying out a new border.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_4291.jpg


I should photoshop that lady out and put in some sexy beach babe or something, haha. Maybe warp her waist in atleast.


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 12:53 AM

oh man~~ you did that border!!! i was looking at other forums and they had the drop shadow border~ damn~~ how did you do it??

i don't think i'll be copying your border tho :P
just curious at how you did it.. cause i was trying to figure it out myself..

and by the way.. i love the pics.. the mood of it.. the first one.. isolated feeling.. the feeling i always wanna create in my pics :)
and the second one feels like fantasy~ leading your eye to see the never ending horizon~ i love the feeling i get from looking at the second pic~


AznHombre - 1-30-2006 at 01:10 AM

Yeah, just toyed around with it. It's really kind of weird to explain, atleast the way I did it. I've been reading a couple of books on Photoshop and finally got a better grasp of using layers (yep, I've been going all this time without really using layers, haha). So yeah. Drop shadow + layers, basically. Then again, you need a layer to even use drop shadow so that's an obvious step.

And I guess I'll only be posting pictures after someone posts in a gray-background section from now on, haha


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 01:44 AM

haha i should play around with photoshop more often.. i'm too lazy to experiment~ now that i'm always busy with school.. whenever i have free time.. i'd rather go out or do other stuff rather than sitting there and play with photoshop.. i might do that when i have a lot of work but don't feel like doing it :P


momorokoko - 1-30-2006 at 05:58 AM

the shot with the filter is very nice ^^
it could be a movie poster if you want


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 03:59 PM

here are some shots i took today.. edited a lot of photos.. but i guess just these came outta the crop


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 04:00 PM

two more playing with the color replacement and history brush


omega - 1-30-2006 at 04:01 PM

Wow, SilentWish, with these last pictures, you can definitely see an improvement in your photography! Great shots :)


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 04:10 PM

haha thank you thank you~ i've gotten more and more interested in photography~ like.. how the eye actually sees things in an angle that gives a unique feeling :) i try my best to use capture the scene at that particular angle~

i dunno how to use manual functions like aznhombre does.. and my dcam doesn't have any manual functions anyways.. so i'd like to work on how my eye looks at things around me :cool:


AznHombre - 1-30-2006 at 04:34 PM

Yeah, that's really great! I really like that Duracell photo, haha. Things like that just make me go, the heck?? And how'd that Macro mode work out for you? I was just thinking about it and realized it might just work. Here's what I was thinking:

If you extend the zoom and widen the aperture on a digicam, you'll still have considerable DOF. And usually DOF is somewhere around 40 in front and 60 behind. So let's say 4 meters in front and 6 meters behind the subject. So what if you just focus really close to you, say, right onto the ground and have your subject stand 5 meters from you? Just theory at this point for me.Don't really feel like busting out my A70 to try it and upload it on my computer, haha.


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 04:51 PM

haha thanks~

yea.. i just replied to the other thread trixy started about forgetting to play with the bokeh stuff despite i took all the pics i did today :(

but yes, i will definitely give it a try next time~
not with my friends tho.. cause they always go "damn it hurry up and take the pic!" :D

and i understand.. at certain times.. it's the memories of the pic that counts more than how the pic really is.. haha.. so i'll have to find a time for me to try~


omega - 1-30-2006 at 06:08 PM

Might I add though, that your last two pics would look 10x better with a noise-reduction filter applied to them. I think all those little spots really take from the beauty of the picture.

Just as an example, here's the last pic filtered:

http://www.omegadude.com/Temp/SilentWish.jpg


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 06:23 PM

you are right indeed omega :D

what settings do you guys use in photoshop to reduce noise by the way?
cause i can't seem to get the pic as smooth as you omega

are the settings the same in every pic?

cause if it's the same.. i'll just make an action outta it~ :P


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 10:24 PM

i've just tried neat image and i have to say it's a VERY convenient program~


AznHombre - 1-30-2006 at 10:48 PM

Neat Image is one of the most preferred, yeah. Especially since it's free, haha. I think it works really well for non-people subjects. The problem for people pics is that Neat Image can be a little strong and make the faces plasticky. I heard the newest version has a masking brush, so that should help. At the very least most people set the strength a little lower than default and you might want to bump up the sharpening just a tad bit. Noise reduction is definitely a case by case basis. You don't always want to remove all the noise, either. Sometimes it's not worth the loss in details and sometimes it's what you're aiming for. Case in point:



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2331.jpg



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2331c.jpg



More filtering abuse, yay! But seriously, those two were some of my first pics from this camera, according to the file numbers. In this I actually increased the grain (film grain, though, not digital grain). I was going for a nitty gritty old Hong Kong look. And failed miserably. Not sure which one I really like better, though I'm leaning towards the second. It's all wasted though, cuz back then I was still stumbling with my new toy and wasn't able to focus on composition as much as I can now. I took that photo horizontally instead of vertically like I should have, and I was at an angle where there were too many major unwanted highlight blowouts at the bottom (I cropped them out).

*edit*

Not sure about the colors thing. Maybe you can post up the 256 version you're seeing?


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 10:52 PM

i really like the atmosphere the pic is creating for me..~ kinda like.. i'm walking alone at nite.. in the streets of old hong kong.. and i'm poor.. and have a simple life.. everyday is just waking up.. going to the factory to work.. walking home alone at nite.. going to bed again.. haha.. dunno how to describe the feeling.. a feeling of loneliness i suppose.. which i've always been trying to create in my pics~ hehe

but then in neat image.. sometimes.. dunno why.. the output pic looses its quality.. the color level goes down to like.. 256 colors or something

i've tried clicking on profile --> new but it still doesn't work.. unless i close the program and open it again

anyone have similar experiences? :scratch:


AznHombre - 1-30-2006 at 11:11 PM

I was thinking more of "WHORE HOUSE!!!!!" but that's good too, hahahaha :P:P:P


And we need more people posting in this thread, man. Come on, people! Doesn't matter if they're just snapshots or whatever. I'd be posting up a ton of snapshots pics of me and friends at clubs and stuff, if not for the fact that I don't have friends :( Just me......and my camera......my sexy sexy camera.......oh baby yeah.....


SilentWish~* - 1-30-2006 at 11:43 PM

lol oh man~ now that you brought it up~ the yellow sign does resemble the whore house lol :D

anyways.. i'm taking this oral communications class for an elective~ and i'm gonna have to do a 5 minute speech on something.. and i decided to talk about digital cameras for the at the consumer level. I'll need 3 main points, and 3 subpoints for each mainpoint.. my purpose will be to inform the ppl who dunno anything about dcams what the specs list really means when they go buy their dcam at the store~ so it'll just be something not too deep into photography, but kinda like.. explaining the technical stuff for ppl who don't understand technology :P

This was what i was thinking..

1. Megapixels
- what is megapixels
- more megapixels will not give better image quality
- when you will need the megapixels

2. ISO
- definition of ISO
- when does ISO come into play when taking photos
- the difference in image quality when you use low ISO vs high ISO

3. Zoom
- definition of optical zoom
- definition of digital zoom
- How many of each zoom does the average consumer need for a day to day digital camera

i just came up with that without doing any research :P
how would those points sound in a speech? or should i change my points around? i was gonna talk about aperture, exposure, and depth of width.. lol.. since i've learnt a bit from aznhombre~ but then i thought that wouldn't be what the average mom or dad would be looking for when they buy a digital camera to take a pic of their children. And those aren't the first things they usually see on a specification tag in the retail store.

So any suggestions guys..? is there anything i can do to make this speech more informative?


AznHombre - 1-31-2006 at 12:11 AM

Whoa, what a nerd. And that's coming from me!!! :D


If you can, I say you take a pic at one megapixel level, then exactly the same pic with less megapixels, then print it out to 8x10 or whatever to show exactly what the difference is. Heck, you can up the resolution/inch in Photoshop on a really low megapixel one to show how little/much difference there actually is. But make sure you say more megapixel will not AUTOMATICALLY give a better "image quality" than a lower megapixel camera.

Just make sure you know your stuff incase they have a Q&A part. There's always a jerkoff trying to stump you, or some photog major who wants to make you look bad.


SilentWish~* - 1-31-2006 at 12:26 AM

lol i can imagine ppl asking me questions and i dunno how to answer

well.. i really don't have a choice in choosing the topic.. cause the speech has to be related to my field of study.. which is technology.. i was gonna talk about cell phones but the teacher said it wasn't interesting cause everyone has cell phones now (she doesn't understand that we asians buy new cell phones like.. every year :D) and i didn't wanna talk about computers.. and i've been reading up and playing with cameras recently~ so that's how i came up with the topic :P

if the topic didn't have to be related to my field.. i would of been talking about superman or something~ :P


trixy - 1-31-2006 at 05:31 AM

silent wish ur duracell picture is really good, but the only objection i have is how u selected the phonebooth.. at the bottom, it looks really badly selected, theres still a bit of the floor with colour in it

and yeah i realy like colour isolation myself...

heres an example of my most favourite colour isolation pic


SilentWish~* - 1-31-2006 at 07:41 AM

that's a nice pic trixy~

oh is there still color on the ground..? i don't see it..
if you're refering to the color of the bottom of the phonebooth.. i left the color in on purpose~ i wanted to entire phonebooth to be in color :)


trixy - 1-31-2006 at 08:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
that's a nice pic trixy~

oh is there still color on the ground..? i don't see it..
if you're refering to the color of the bottom of the phonebooth.. i left the color in on purpose~ i wanted to entire phonebooth to be in color :)


oh i thought that was an accident


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 01:27 AM

btw did you take that color isolation pic trixy? cause it doesn't have your signature on there ;)
or were you just showing an example..?

cause it's different in style from the pics you use to take~


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 04:37 AM

im getting more into colour isolation lately, as well as macro photography, and i dnt put my signature on my pictures anymore... makes it look shite lol

i cnt be bothered to post photos on outie, as the size is usually too big to be attached...

i now post all my good pics at http://trixy54.deviantart.com


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 05:35 AM

Here are a few of my pictures i took the other day...

1. The Dark Villa - this was taken outside my house, when i was waiting for the bus at 6 in the morning lol

2. The Word of God is Final - while, i snapped this picture on the unsuspecting sister of one of my friends..

3. Tripping - here is just a picture of some friends, the focus was originally crap, so i had to edit it a lot...


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 11:30 AM

well.. you can always make copies of your pics and resize them before posting them on outie.. then you can delete them after posting, since it'll be on the outie server anyways..~ that way, it'd be more convenient for all of us to see your pics better~

yea.. i think black and white pics give the pic a whole new feeling.. i like the mood in your last pic.. the one with your two friends.. it gives me the feeling of living on the streets.. a feeling without a home but have a group of friends that are street kids.. i'm sure the original picture gave a very different feeling.. but in black and white.. and along with the blur.. it makes me feel like i'm looking at some documentary pic of life in the caribbeans or something..~ something i'd see in a caribbean studies book :D


arasyii - 2-1-2006 at 11:47 AM

trixy you wearing make up...

note to self - never click on this thread ever again.

ahmagad mental image.. :(



pics are gone but but.. im still scarred x_x

WHYYY trix WHYYY did you even post snaps of you with make up D:


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 11:47 AM

yeah, i knew, well here are a few more pics

1. CloudNine - A stupid picture of my friend, the bandage on his head is where he got smacked with a branch

2. Make up - a little makeover i gave myself


arasyii - 2-1-2006 at 11:49 AM

...


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arasyii
...



and what is that supposed to meean?


arasyii - 2-1-2006 at 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arasyii
trixy you wearing make up...

note to self - never click on this thread ever again.

ahmagad mental image.. :(



pics are gone but but.. im still scarred x_x

WHYYY trix WHYYY did you even post snaps of you with make up D:



was fun skiming through hombre's post and whatnot.. but did not need to see drag queen action trixy D:

;_;


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 12:01 PM

u fool, i simply highlighted my lips and left the colour in them

and desaturated the rest.. there is no make up used


arasyii - 2-1-2006 at 12:05 PM

you tool. regardless method of alteration, end product at a glance translates to that of a male, having unnaturally perky red lips

i.e lipstick effect.

which reverts to me going 'ewwww'. fool.


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 12:06 PM

oh well, i shant argue with impressions, it is art after all

and it is in the name of art i make them


arasyii - 2-1-2006 at 12:08 PM

i could care less if you consider fly poop smeared on your morning toast as art.

but watch who / when you call someone names especially when it's uncalled for ;)


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 12:10 PM

im sorry, but i was simply calling you a "fool" in a kidding sense...


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 01:08 PM

I've signed up a deviantart page myself as well~ i've been coming across a lot of these pages before i became interested with photography. I've forgotten about this site after i became interested, but thanks for trixy for reminding me about this site with your link~ :)
just wondering.. aznhombre~ do you have a deviantart site?

You've seen all the pics on this forum.. but in the deviantart page, i've tried to relate the images to some thoughts in life.. :P

http://silentwish.deviantart.com/


omega - 2-1-2006 at 02:26 PM

I used to post a bunch of stuff to deviantART, but not anymore...

http://omegachen.deviantart.com


AznHombre - 2-1-2006 at 02:34 PM

Arasyii is freaking awesome.

And trixy, all you have to do is click on "Image>Resize>Percentage" in Photoshop to resize the photos for Internet display. And I hope you realize it's very easy to figure out (and prove) whether or not those photos are yours. You didn't claim credit for the first pic of the red head, which is fine, especially since you linked to the person with the proper credit in your deviant site (well, yesterday), but it's very obvious which ones you have on your site right now that AREN'T yours. We all do stupid things at 15. Don't let something like this be yours.

And no, silentwish. I don't have a deviantart site or any online gallery. I don't feel I'm really good enough to really display my photos to the teeming masses yet and half the people on that deviant site annoy the crap out of me.


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 02:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
And no, silentwish. I don't have a deviantart site or any online gallery. I don't feel I'm really good enough to really display my photos to the teeming masses yet and half the people on that deviant site annoy the crap out of me.


haha oh man.. now you made me feel embarassed~ if you're not good enough to put your stuff on deviantart.. than we should have a deviantart page either~~ i don't think we need to be good to post on deviantart.. i think as long as we have the passion for the type of art.. and have put our efforts into it.. i believe that already qualifies for people's complements and encouragements~ :)
and i find that the ppl on deviantart pretty nice~ haha.. maybe i just haven't met the annoying ones :P

and wow omega~ do you draw comics with illustrator..? or flash..? very nice~ :D


AznHombre - 2-1-2006 at 03:02 PM

Dude, post whatever you want. Don't worry about me. Just another noob's opinion when it comes to me. And ofcourse, if you want to post your pics up and display them, hey, I don't really have anything aginst that. I may or may not like them, but I don't think there's some standard you have to reach before you do.

And I meant annoying as in just what they're about and some of their styles. I don't have anything personal against anyone there, since I don't know anyone on it. And you're fine, Silentwish. If I ever take over the planet and start executing everyone one by one, you'll be one of the last :) Aren't you glad to know that?


omega - 2-1-2006 at 03:47 PM

Quote:
And trixy, all you have to do is click on "Image>Resize>Percentage" in Photoshop to resize the photos for Internet display. And I hope you realize it's very easy to figure out (and prove) whether or not those photos are yours. You didn't claim credit for the first pic of the red head, which is fine, especially since you linked to the person with the proper credit in your deviant site (well, yesterday), but it's very obvious which ones you have on your site right now that AREN'T yours. We all do stupid things at 15. Don't let something like this be yours.


ROFL YOU TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH. Btw, stealing art is wrong. I hope nobody here takes credit for the artwork of others :(

Quote:
and wow omega~ do you draw comics with illustrator..? or flash..? very nice~


Thanks, I use Photoshop. :) I haven't drawn anything lately though... :/


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 10:18 PM

haha thanks aznhombre~ i really am glad to know that :)


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Arasyii is freaking awesome.

And trixy, all you have to do is click on "Image>Resize>Percentage" in Photoshop to resize the photos for Internet display. And I hope you realize it's very easy to figure out (and prove) whether or not those photos are yours. You didn't claim credit for the first pic of the red head, which is fine, especially since you linked to the person with the proper credit in your deviant site (well, yesterday), but it's very obvious which ones you have on your site right now that AREN'T yours. We all do stupid things at 15. Don't let something like this be yours.

And no, silentwish. I don't have a deviantart site or any online gallery. I don't feel I'm really good enough to really display my photos to the teeming masses yet and half the people on that deviant site annoy the crap out of me.


i never said i took that picture, for those who want the author of that picClick Here

and aznhombre, why dont u post ur best pictures, so we can all judge between us how good you really are, albeit ur personal views lol


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 10:35 PM

hmm.. i don't think arguing in this thread is necessary.. this thread is about photography.. someone posts their works up.. another person comments.. end of story.. i don't see arguing relating to photography.. so we can probably just stop the debates and get back to posting our images :)

and yes.. i guess maybe everyone should credit other ppl's works clearly so everyone may know who the piece of work is from.. or at least know it's not their own work~ not pointing at you trixy, but for everyone in their future posts


trixy - 2-1-2006 at 10:52 PM

yes, silentwish, i agree, lets all put down our guns - so to speak, this is for the love of photography, and nothing more, let the photos rein!


SilentWish~* - 2-1-2006 at 10:57 PM

yes trixy :)

and let us create more masterpieces for our DA pages~ :headbang:

and everyone else who has a DA page should post their link here as well~


omega - 2-1-2006 at 11:36 PM

Post some links? I've got an interesting link for ya ;)

http://www.strangezoo.com/content/item/102580.html

:o


trixy - 2-2-2006 at 12:02 AM

lol, the photo is pretty famous, i was just tyring out colour isolation, like silentwish


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 12:22 AM

haha that pic is so cute~ i saw it in trixy's DA page tho~ man.. how i wanna have the chance to take nature pics like those..

and yes trixy.. color isolation gives the subject isolated feeling.. which is my favorite theme in photography :P


trixy - 2-2-2006 at 12:26 AM

lol ooh, how emo of u.. isolation..

what do u like most? nature? macro?, etc etc?


AznHombre - 2-2-2006 at 12:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Post some links? I've got an interesting link for ya ;)

http://www.strangezoo.com/content/item/102580.html

:o



t3h OM3Ga-pWN!!


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 12:42 AM

lol speaking L33T now aznhombre? doesn't sound like you :P

trixy: hmm.. i was trying to decide which types of photography i like the most.. but i really can't decide.. i was thinking macro.. but then i like to take landscape pics as well.. and i loved those lamp posts and building pics i've taken as well.. so.. i really dunno lol :D i love them all~

how about you?


AznHombre - 2-2-2006 at 12:46 AM

You definitely seem like a landscape guy, silentwish. I'm really not interested in landscapes. Except maybe urban landscapes, but I don't think I'd need wide-angle for that.

For me, it's:

#1 Candids
#2 Character Portraits (though I haven't done any)
#3 Action (mostly martial arts, and I often turn them into portraits)
#4 Macros (my extention tubes came today, but I wasn't home so I have to pick them up from the post office tomorrow :wacko: )


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 01:02 AM

yea.. i think i'm more towards the landscape side.. but not entirely~ i try to capture everything i see~

what are candids by the way?
and i think human portraits are hard to do.. maybe cause i have a dcam and not an slr.. hard to set it so that a dcam can take good portraits

haha.. this is turning into like.. a chatroom lol :D


AznHombre - 2-2-2006 at 01:10 AM

age/sex?


*edit*


Bah, dang comment filter. Here, I'll add more.

Candids are sneaky shots of people at their natural state. Usually this will mean they don't know you're taking a picture of them at the time, or just at the moment they realize you're about to take a picture. That last pic of my friend in yellow on page 4 of the thread would be a candid/portrait.


Character portraits are usually portraits that show the life experience of the person, though not always. If you've been curising the forums you might've heard of Andrzej Dragan. He's this Polish guy who's discovered a way to use Photoshop for character portraits in a way no one's been able to perfectly mimic. They call it "Draganizing." It's based off old film post-processing techniques, but actually replicating it is pretty hard. And he's just plain talented.

Here're my two favorites of his:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2354727

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3961055



Only $400US if you want to buy one!!!!! :D

His gallery: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2336985


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 02:00 AM

ohhh.. i see what he's done.. at first i was like.. what's so special about this person..? then i realized he photoshopped like.. his whole face~ lol.. by just looking at that.. i think i wouldn't have the patience to learn what he did~ lol :P


trixy - 2-2-2006 at 07:50 AM

wow, those are superb photos, far better than anything ive seen, especialy from us guys (no offence) i can see why aznhombre's unwilling to post his work, especially when hes comparing himself to the likes of that


arasyii - 2-2-2006 at 08:03 AM

i know it's pretty late but..in regards to hombre and omega's sentiment, word of the day -

'plagiarism' :P

pla·gia·rism Audio pronunciation of "plagiarism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plj-rzm)
n.

1. The act of plagiarizing.
2. Something plagiarized.


stay away from it kids, its bad :x


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 03:00 PM

lol.. thanks for the wrap up arasyii, you just had to have the last word didn't you? :P


arasyii - 2-2-2006 at 04:09 PM

it's a serious offence really, as.. to steal one's work and claim it as one of yours.. what more make profit/a name for yourself out of it.. oh such a rotten of an act :/


omega - 2-2-2006 at 04:21 PM

I have no room in my heart for plagiarists. None.


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 06:15 PM

that's true actually.. especiall after i started putting my effort into photography.. i'd feel very offended if someone took my hard work and said it was theirs.. or not putting credit for my work so other ppl would THINK it's their work.. :(


AznHombre - 2-2-2006 at 06:48 PM

Testing out my new toy (extension tubes)



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7696.jpg


That's not even 1:1 (therefore not true macro), and already the DOF is measured in centimeters, haha. I knew this was going to be tough, but man.


SilentWish~* - 2-2-2006 at 07:46 PM

haha finally picked up the tubes from the post office?

as always.. i envy the clear lens and colors your camera has~

but when is it a good time when we can put the subject in focus in the middle..? cause i thought it was mentioned before that it's kinda weird to put the subject in focus in the middle~


AznHombre - 2-2-2006 at 08:56 PM

Careful, you're falling prey to the camera = cameraman fallacy. It's a test shot. I'm the guy who MAKES FUN of people who use macro on flowers, remember? I was mostly trying to get the feel using it, and trust me, it's not easy.

And it depends. The 1/3 rule isn't set in stone. Espeicially when it's a subject with symmetry, it's often broken and put smack dab in the middle. For that picture, it wouldn't be that bad since it's a macro shot where it's an infocus subject popping straight out of a blur directly at the viwer, isntead of at an angle. And I did puposely take the photo at the angle where one side was being kissed by the sunlight while the other was in shadow.

As for color, I think you over estimate Canon. I rarely have a shot I don't have to color correct. In this case it's not too hard since it has white petals, so you can set the white point off that. The original had some pretty nasty bornw haze, and I cloned out a lot of stuff to get he petals clean.

Most people don't make image quality comparisons on resized, photoshopped web displays. There's......just too many things wrong with that.


SilentWish~* - 2-3-2006 at 12:05 AM

ohh.. haha.. well.. i never had much things against having the subject right in the middle if the pic is nice itself~ just asking~

oh.. and how do you color correct..? is it when you specify the white color in the image.. and then photoshop adjusts the pics color according to the white..? haha i'm interesting in doing color correction~

and that's true.. i know everything on the internet has been edited and resized pics are MUCH better looking than original sized pics~


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 12:50 AM

There's a million ways to color correct, and it depends on what the problem was to start with.

One way is to set the white point and all the other colors will fall in line. Another common way is to play with the saturation levels in individual channels, something I sometimes do with people's faces as I keep an eye on the Info pallete as a guideline. Some people say you should make it totally neutral, but I prefer to just go with what I like, and that's often a little more red than normal. Most of the time I use Color Balance even though professional modelling photographers suggest not to because it's not all it's cracked up to be. But I almost always just try "Auto Color" in the beginning to see if I like what Photoshop wants to do. This time I liked what it suggested, and instead of trusting my instincts and gambling on my whitepoint-finding skills, I placed my trust on the experience of a thousand-man multi-million dollar corporation. Looks fine to me.


SilentWish~* - 2-3-2006 at 01:28 AM

haha yes.. the colors look very good indeed~


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 02:18 AM

Guess why I'm posting here.


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 02:21 AM

The first shot I took as soon as I got into my car and tore apart the package after I picked up it from the post office, haha:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7557.jpg


Check out the depth of field on this thing. I think this was only with the 12mm extension tube and already at F8. It's going to be tough working with these things.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7618.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-3-2006 at 02:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre

Check out the depth of field on this thing. I think this was only with the 12mm extension tube and already at F8. It's going to be tough working with these things.


so you're saying the depth of width of the tube is very shallow..? is that what you're saying..? cause at F8 the background is still so blurred? :scratch:


hyu_zen - 2-3-2006 at 04:51 AM

Oh man, the silueth at 2nd post was so awesome !


trixy - 2-3-2006 at 10:38 AM

Here are a few i took in dubai today

Green and Twiggy were taken in some1s garden and reserved was taken in a mall...


SilentWish~* - 2-3-2006 at 10:48 AM

i like the composition of those trixy~ i can see you're getting better~ but where's the "python" post? :D i think that one's the best~


trixy - 2-3-2006 at 11:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
i like the composition of those trixy~ i can see you're getting better~ but where's the "python" post? :D i think that one's the best~


here it is, ive just reduced it

sorry about the reflection of the car window in the photo, but i couldnt get rid of it....


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 11:59 AM

I like Twiggy the best.


Excellent thread on the difference between P&S and dSLR. Ignore Daniella, though. She's really weird cuz she takes such amazing photos, but has so many misconceptions and stubborness about the technology itself.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=17018470


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 11:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre

Check out the depth of field on this thing. I think this was only with the 12mm extension tube and already at F8. It's going to be tough working with these things.


so you're saying the depth of width of the tube is very shallow..? is that what you're saying..? cause at F8 the background is still so blurred? :scratch:


Yes.


SilentWish~* - 2-3-2006 at 02:34 PM

lol finally.. got something right for the first time :P


AznHombre - 2-3-2006 at 04:07 PM

Muwahhaaa, that calls for some bubble bursting, then.

In actuality, not it's not the tubes that have a shallow DOF. The tubes themselves are empty and simply bring the lens further from the sensor and creates a new minimum/maximum focusing range for the lens. Each lens will be different.

Nor is it just the background blurring so quickly that makes them hard to use. Background blur is simply the most commonly employed technique for narrow DOF. There's also foreground blur, which you just don't see much cuz of the way people usually compose their pictures. If you look at that last picture with my extension tubes, you can see about a third of the image to the right is out of focus, and about a fifth of the image to the left is also out of focus.

Since the tubes change the minimum AND maximum focusing distance, what happens is that it makes a really limited amount of space to work with. Both foreground and background blur show up really fast. I think with just the 12mm tubing the DOF is like 3 cm in front and 4 cm in back of the subject, depending on the distance of the lens to the subject. You aso have a minimum and maximum focusing distance of like 6 to 9 inches from the subject I think. With only 12mm, I still have autofocusing capability, but very little magnification on my 50m lens, therefore nowhere near true macro. I tried the 20mm on the lens and the DOF range is incredibly shallow. I even slapped the 12mm and 20mm together and it's near impossible to work with unless you have a total setup with tripod and all. Haven't even touched the 30mm. Anything beyond 12mm and I find it much easier to simply move the camera back and forth to get focus rather than actually using the focusing ring. Not having an LCD screen to preview the shot makes it all that much more difficult cuz of the physical structure of a dSLR camera.


SilentWish~* - 2-4-2006 at 01:18 PM

Some pics taken last night..


omega - 2-4-2006 at 03:24 PM

I like the first two pics a lot. I think it was a great idea to desaturate the pictures, gives them a lot more atmosphere.


SilentWish~* - 2-4-2006 at 07:57 PM

haha thanks omega~ yes.. i was thinking of using the sephia filter right when i took the pic~ cause the atmosphere goes well with it~ and i cloned some ppl outta the background as well..

if you go to my deviantart page.. you'll see that i have my own thoughts for every pic.. and i needed to clone the ppl out in order for the thoughts to match the pic :P


AznHombre - 2-4-2006 at 11:57 PM

Wow, that's really great silentwish. I really like that second one. I even like the people in the back to give it some life. You're improving a lot!


AznHombre - 2-4-2006 at 11:58 PM

Some pics I took at two new year's festivals today, a Chinese one and a Vietnamese one:



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7735.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7823.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7824.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7957.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_7967.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8081.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8113.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8042.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8120.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8142.jpg

Yeah, I know, I blew out the highlights in the outdoor pictres again. My sky-swapping photochopping skillz suck, so I'm leaving it as is for now.

But MAN, hat was a lot of fun, cuz I was sneaking into places only the press were supposed to be, haha. Have lotus-petal lenshood, will travel, hahaa. I was going to work towards getting this martial arts magazine to give me a press pass in exchange for photos, but it turns out my uncle can get me one like nothing, haha. That's going to be dope.

And that last one is now another one of my all time favorites. I'm going to slowly work on it, especially on the color correction, and print it out big like I did with my guitar guy photo.

And oh, have I mentioned just how much I dig Taiwanese girls? :P


SilentWish~* - 2-5-2006 at 06:35 AM

haha thanks aznhombre..
yes.. in my second pic.. if you've been on my deviantart page.. you'll know that my theme for that pic is kinda like.. sitting alone at the table without loved ones.. and the ppl in the back just gives a contrast of them having company for each other.. but you're sitting alone and looking over at them with envy~ :)

and wow~ i love the pic with the spinning ride.. really can see the motion and the lights give off a really nice affect~ the one after that with the girl and the crown has really nice lighting and color as well~ and yes~ the last pic with the man and the "lion" is really good as well~

haha you sneaked into places only the press can go? is it because you hold an SLR and just go snapping at everything while you sneak in so they think you're the press? ;)


trixy - 2-5-2006 at 08:24 AM

lol this isnt a thread anymore, its simply a place where omega, aznhombre silentwish and moi post lol...


AznHombre - 2-5-2006 at 10:22 AM

Basically. I think a lot of people do it, especially those who want to go pro (I'm not planning to go pro). I think the main thing is you just gotta act as if you belong there. Blocking the view of the audience and not caring (though they seem to naturally part the waves for you if you just act like you belong there), not hesitating to walk to where you're not supposed to, etc., haha. I just wanted to snap pics, and my lens was too short for what I wanted. I didn't do anything crazy or get in the way of the real pros, though. Then you're just being a jerk. Plus, the pros can tell you're just a poser from a mile away. It's the cops and crowd that's fooled, haha.


AznHombre - 2-5-2006 at 10:22 AM

Color corrected. There's just something about the color cast in the original that I like, though. Gonna have to work on it more.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8142b.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-5-2006 at 01:15 PM

wow~ the color corrected one is much better azn~

lol yes trixy.. like i said early.. this is kinda like a chatroom for us now.. lol we post like.. one line msgs.. and then another replies.. :D


omega - 2-5-2006 at 01:47 PM

It seems as though AznHombre's pictures are down for now... at least for me.


SilentWish~* - 2-5-2006 at 02:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
It seems as though AznHombre's pictures are down for now... at least for me.


hmm.. what do you mean down? you mean the server..? like you can't see the pics? :scratch:

down can mean lotsa things~ ;)


AznHombre - 2-5-2006 at 02:48 PM

Outie.net seems to use caches a lot. Just reload. I put them back on my regular server already.


SilentWish~* - 2-5-2006 at 08:13 PM

I call this one "Path of Gold" :P


trixy - 2-7-2006 at 09:11 AM

i like it silentwish, but the qualitys a little icky, especially at night...

hers a picture of the zip on my wallet..


trixy - 2-8-2006 at 02:06 PM

hurah peeps! congrats for making this a sticky lol!


omega - 2-8-2006 at 04:04 PM

It seems as though this thread has been promoted to 'sticky' level. :)


azncow - 2-8-2006 at 05:19 PM

here r mine mwahahh!!


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 06:21 PM

wow azncow~ has it been a while since you posted? or have i not been in the same posts as you for a long time? :P

anyways.. first of all.. congrats to the photography thread to become a sticky~ and thank me everyone cause i suggested the promotion to outie~ :P haha jkjk.. outie probably would of done it anyway even if i hadn't said anything~

azncow~ you lucky bastard! fx35?? IN WHITE TOO oh man i love white cars.. very very nice~ my next car will be an A3 in white :cool:.. and it was such a nice day when you took the pic too! :D i like your second pic the most~ the back of the clean fx35 with sunshine with the trees and nice sky in the background~ very very nice~ i had a pic of my A4 like that too.. but then that day was a rainy day :(


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 07:09 PM

alrite guys.. have a bunch of pics i'm gonna post up.. all taken on campus in one day :)


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 07:10 PM

more pics of pigeons~
i find that you have to be very lucky to take pics of birds flying~ or maybe my camera's just not right for the job :P


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 07:11 PM

Pics of downtown at night


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 07:12 PM

And the last pic.. i call this one "Going Home" it has a deeper meaning to it.. you can take a look at it in my deviantart page :)


AznHombre - 2-8-2006 at 09:42 PM

I really like that first subway one. And if you wanna take slow shutter shots with a flash, check to to see if your camera can do rear-curtain sync. It gets rid of that "moving backwards" effect.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8394b.jpg


Everyone must take one of these eventually. Tis a rule :headbang:

*edit*

Color corrected. Which one looks better?


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8394c.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-8-2006 at 10:06 PM

lol i was just wondering where you were aznhombre~ i was like.. the photography thread became a sticky and you aren't around!!

anyways.. thanks~ but i don't think my camera has that function of choice.. it can do slow shutter with flash tho

and as usual.. nice pic aznhombre :)


AznHombre - 2-9-2006 at 12:12 AM

Haha, yeah, mostly I've ben busy with school, and with photography mostly I've been experimenting. The other other thing is I'm trying to find some people to test out my glamour portraiture. Got a few girls interested, but first I'm trying to learn as much as I can about the whole process on paper. Then I'll jack it up that much less when I do it for real, haha.


SilentWish~* - 2-9-2006 at 12:20 AM

haha glad you're doing something new azn~ that way we'll have new stuff to see~ lol

what's glamour portraiture..? :scratch:

:P


trixy - 2-9-2006 at 12:45 AM

btw, aznhombre, i much prefer ur first orchid picture.... and of silentwish's new posts, i really really like that one with the clock tower..


tunnelfreaks - 2-9-2006 at 08:43 PM

did it with my eos 300d and resized it


asuran - 2-9-2006 at 10:48 PM

this site has some really nice photos.. especially the nature ones
it has everything from city to nature to artsy stuff... some of the links they even mentioned how they edit the pics or what camera they used etc.. I don't read chinese but they had words such as photoshop CS and nikon/olympus NNN (some model number I guess)
http://www.pse100i.idv.tw/index2.html

here's a few samples:

meh.. these aren't that good but they have better ones on their site.. I used the wrong pics as example.. my bad


SilentWish~* - 2-9-2006 at 11:22 PM

hey tunnelfreaks~
wow~ you have a good camera :)

but i think maybe if you set your aperture to a higher F number it'd be better with A BIT more depth of width~ cause right now.. it's kinda like.. blurring away too fast? :P or maybe i'm wrong~ i'm not the right person to comment on pics cause i'm only a beginner :(

woah asuran~ i don't think those pics are a bad example at all~ i have been craving for a chance to take pics like the second example you posted~ :shocked:


B0000rt - 2-9-2006 at 11:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by tunnelfreaks
did it with my eos 300d and resized it


Vertu? Omg why!!? :p


SilentWish~* - 2-9-2006 at 11:36 PM

hmm.. what do you mean booort?

hmm.. took lots of pics today.. but i don't think any of them made it up to deviantart~ lol :P
but just wanna share with you guys here~

the fire was very hard to isolate.. and i still haven't done a good job.. but oh well~ :P


SilentWish~* - 2-9-2006 at 11:37 PM

here are another two :)
not special.. just sharing :D


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 01:04 AM

bloop bloop


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 01:13 AM

No, that's pretty much the DOF you'll get out of a macro SLR lens, especially with that kind of magnification and focusing distance. We'd have to see what type of lens, though. If not for the fact that I just like playing with my extension tubes, I would say my P&S was way better for macros. By the way, how'd you get that shot, tunnelfreaks? I really like the black background and single light source.

I think it's a really nice product shot. The only thing I would've done different is maybe focus a little lower to get the right side of the phone into view, MAYBE toned down the lights/underexpose to lessen the blown highlights at the top (though I think it works well on the key buttons here), and MAYBE rotated the entire image to get a vertical perspective. If I did that, I'd also bring the bottom of the phone into view and repositioned the phone to keep the bottom left to upper right composition. But I really do like that shot.

Here's one of the macros I've been working on. I'll almost certainly take this back down and post up one I'm actually satisfied with. But it gives you an idea what I've been up to.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8372.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-10-2006 at 01:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
bloop bloop


haha what were you trying to say there? :scratch:


trixy - 2-10-2006 at 07:27 AM

i know this question has been asked a million times b4, and id appreciate it if you could answer it..

but what dSLR should i buy? i dnt want to spend the most amount of money, nothing like $3000, but sumthing that is a reasonable cost, and quite a pro camera, with a noticable difference in image when compared to a dcam..


SilentWish~* - 2-10-2006 at 11:06 AM

haha well trixy.. most of the ppl i talked to.. and including me are planning to get the canon rebel xt.. aka canon 350d in other places~
it's the camera aznhombre has~

you can try to look for reviews on this camera~
or just go to your local camera store to take a look at it~
for me.. if i buy it.. it'd be around $1000 cad in total including the kit lens.. but aznhombre got it for much less~ he got it at the right time when there were certain promotions~


trixy - 2-10-2006 at 11:46 AM

yeah i was looking at the rebel... but im not too sure, it mite be a wee bit too pricey for me, or i mite just ahve to save up a little longer lol


SilentWish~* - 2-10-2006 at 11:51 AM

hmm.. i think most dslr's are around the price..

or you can get the older rebel.. the one without XT
called digital eos digital rebel
i'm sure it's cheaper

or you can also look at the nikon D50.. but then that's not that much cheaper..
well.. perhaps if you look at other brand names..? like fujifilm.. lumix.. olympus.. they all have new dslrs.. perhaps they're cheaper..? but i dunno about the quality.. but then i'm sure it'd have a big differeciation to our compact dcams~ :)


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 03:09 PM

bloop bloop


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 03:10 PM

Not really. I guess you haven't been reading the thread I linked to. Which might be good cuz it's been flooded with over defensive gearhounds recently.

Anyways, there's very little difference in image quality on a computer monitor. There's just as little in prints until you get big, if you're looking at megapixels. I figured you guys came to that conclusion since some of your digicam shots are just as sharp and colorful as the ones out of my XT. I've come to the conclusion that the main advantage of an SLR over a digicam is GETTING the picture, not better pictures. Esepcailly with the Canons, they come out of the camera pretty soft. You're almost certainly going to have to post-process them if you want them to look as good as your digicam, since digicams put so much in-camera processing. And I mean serious post-processing, not playing Photoshop Art (or "pharts" as I've seen them referred to). Most of the most serious guys don't really go for color isolation or grayscale/desaturation Black&White conversions, unless they're good enough to do it right. I personally don't like the majority of them, either, and have juuusst barely come to the point where I think I can tell if it's a custom B&W conversion versus a quick conversion. But hey, if you like it, there's nothing wrong with that.

Blaming your gear is pretty lame. Better camera gear does not deliver better photos. They give you the OPTION of delivering better photos, and only if your skills are up to it. More often than not, the photographer is the limiting factor, not the gear. And if you can't get a certain image you want with your current camera, you can't really give an excuse. The reason? Cuz you don't have to show the picture. There are no excuses in serious photography (whether you're into serious photography is up to you). I always ask, "How'd you get that shot?" and "So where'd I screw up in this picture?" not, "Wow, what camera is that??!!" I couldn't get the images I wanted with my lenses when I was at the New Years Festival. So what'd I do? I ran into the middle of the street right in front of the cops to get what I wanted. Sometimes you have to lie in a ditch for a perspective change, sometimes you have to move your subject around a million times before you get the right angle, sometimes you have to wait for hours for the sun to move so you get the right shadows. That's part of photography, and they'll trump someone with good gear and bad skills any day of the week. A $700 camera will not change this shot from anything other than a snapshot with the flash 5 feet from the subjects under tungsten lighting:

http://www.pbase.com/aaronvicencio/image/55199555

And I mean no disrespect to the guy I took that from. Snapshots are fine, and if you look at his gallery it's waaaay better than anything I got. I stumbled on his gallery cuz of that one awesome wushu photo he's got that obliterates all my wushu pics. And that iamge I linked to looks like it's been totally unprocessed, which means that's pretty much what the images look like straight out of my XT. Nothing mind blowing, is it?

Here're two shots with my 3 megapixel A70 and my 8 megapixel XT. I can just spot some "quality" differences, but if I hadn't had them side by side, I probably wouldn't have been able to. The difference gets even smaller with these new digicams on the market with more megapixels and cleaner images. I'm not joking when I say I had to literally smack my A70 HARD last night cuz the camera just wouldn't work and was giving me nothing but purple bands when I took a picture. Take into account the different composition, different routes in Photoshopping, espcially with the shadows/contrast and color hues, and the fact taht I cropped the A70 image but not the XT. Throwing away pixels when you're starting with 3mp is a lot worse than throwing away pixels when you start out with 8.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8409A70.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8403XT.jpg


n-tone - 2-10-2006 at 03:34 PM

i was gona get the 350D last year april when i was in HK... but it just released bk then and so $.

but for the 350d then lens are diff to other bigger, normal sized DSLR right? smaller or something.... since 350d is a baby dslr. i think for max options to lens, etc, get the big ones?

i duno if i want to get dSLR anymore.. i've been too lazy lately. . only take pics on my mobile - what a shame. :P

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d85/sunyanzi/desktop-02.jpg
i need a tripod. above is my ...er.. its a living room but it only has my desk n laptop.


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 03:45 PM

If you're talking about the sensor crop factor, yes, lenses on a 350D don't give you the "real" focal lengths as compared to an old film SLR, which is what the lens values revolve around. But it has nothing to do with the small size of the 350D itself. Most dSLRs have a crop factor, from Canon to Pentax. All of Canon's dSLRs up to the one-digit series have a 1.6x crop factor. Lenses only "act right" on full frame $5000 dSLRs like the Canon 1D. As of now only Canon makes a full-frame dSLR and nobody buys those but the pros.

Personally, I don't need full-frame and the 1.6x crop factor works to my advantage, cuz I don't care much about landscape photography. The kit lens gives me 18mm (29mm actual) for cheap, which is all I've ever needed for wide-angle.


B0000rt - 2-10-2006 at 04:06 PM

You bet, and the extra .6x can be used for more zoom in your telephoto lenses, if you do indulge in those kinda images.

There's this Nikon lense I've been eyeing since it came out.

The 18-200mm F3.5 w/ VR.

DX only lense, so it'll be a no go in the F/N70 but will be at home for the D70. Insane zoom range! And apparently image quality is pretty decent.
http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/541530721.htm?bct=t13024003%3Bcidigital-cameras-and-accessories%3Bcilenses-for-digital-cameras %3Bcislr-lens%3Bcilenses-for-nikon

Ken Rockwell seems to like it's versatility.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200.htm


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 04:08 PM

Yeah, some of the Canon forums have been screaming bloody murder that we don't have an equivalent of that, haha. They're hoping they'll bust it out in two weeks at the PMA show. I kinda need something beyond the 105mm, but I'm hoping I can find a constant f2.8 for that range I can use for indoor sports. I actually found one for only $550, but for reasons I won't go into it slipped through my grasp. :(


n-tone - 2-10-2006 at 04:09 PM

yes yes... thats what i meant (i think..hehe) well.. what i read last year. thx for clearing up. :)

thats true tho.. as long as it has 18mm, it helps a lot, esp when taking it on holiday/vacations. ppl with the old 35mm film, or even many dcam, have to walk so damn far away to take the photo, so it includes the entire building/ landscape.. :cool:


AznHombre - 2-10-2006 at 04:14 PM

I think most digicams start around 28mm full-frame equivalent.

*edit*

Well, around there. I think my A70 starts at 35mm. I've been finding more uses for my A70 lately, esepcialyl for shots that're too hard to get without an LCD, or are just places I can't/won't put a giant dSLR. You'l see what I mean soon enough, haha/


omega - 2-10-2006 at 06:59 PM

Some pictures taken while waiting for the train today:

There are a couple more at my website. :/


AznHombre - 2-11-2006 at 12:38 AM

This took me almost 2 hours to set up and get the lighting. Still couldn't figure out how to get exactly what I wanted.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8533RAWc.jpg


I saw a picture with a pair of converses and some socks in a magazine. Really liked it and wanted to put a wushu twist on it. You'd understand if you did wushu ;). Too bad I couldn't find my more beat up pair.


omega - 2-11-2006 at 02:31 PM

So you've gone to candid photography to more of a 'studio' type photography? Looks nice :)


AznHombre - 2-11-2006 at 09:11 PM

I just found something incredibly cool in Photoshop.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8575a.jpg



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8575b.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-11-2006 at 09:27 PM

so it's a blur tool?
what's it called..?

but you can kinda tell that it's photoshopped tho~ haha.. not like.. the blur you usually get with your lens~

so you selected the area and blurred it?


AznHombre - 2-11-2006 at 09:41 PM

Really? Looks pretty convincing to me. Might be because my lenses have 6 blades at the msot and I was playing witht he settings at 7 and 8 blades to see what expensive lenses look like. Kinda depends on your selection skills, too. I still can't use Layer Masks correctly.

This one should look more like my 6 blade general-use lens wide-open:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8575c.jpg


And it's Lens Blur, under the Filter>Blur menu.


SilentWish~* - 2-11-2006 at 10:12 PM

well.. i think if you don't pay attention to the pole.. you won't notice that it's photoshopped~ haha.. maybe it's cause you told me so then i pay attention to it and i see how it's photoshopped~

i think maybe it's the thin vertical white bar in the middle that's giving it away..? cause that white bar is like.. jumping out at me :)
but nevertheless~ it's very cool~


AznHombre - 2-11-2006 at 10:34 PM

Yeah, the bar was sorta what got me playing with it. My lens could never do that, cuz the DOF isn't small enough even wide open to be able to isolate the girl from both the foreground and background. Yeah, I didn't even notice the bar, good call. I'm guessing if I select less of the girl around the thin bar before I inverse the selection that should do the trick.

Man, I'm gonna have to brush up on a new Photoshop skill. The tricky part seems to putting in enough blur so that it isn't obvious that there's no way a normal lens could've done that. Cuz that girl was like a foot away from the bar and the guy was nearly brushing up against her. As far as I was, I can't imagine any lens being able to isolate such a small space.


SilentWish~* - 2-11-2006 at 10:40 PM

haha the girl's expression always make me wanna laugh tho :D

but yes~ glad you've discovered something new to work on~


trixy - 2-12-2006 at 08:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Not really. I guess you haven't been reading the thread I linked to. Which might be good cuz it's been flooded with over defensive gearhounds recently.

Anyways, there's very little difference in image quality on a computer monitor. There's just as little in prints until you get big, if you're looking at megapixels. I figured you guys came to that conclusion since some of your digicam shots are just as sharp and colorful as the ones out of my XT. I've come to the conclusion that the main advantage of an SLR over a digicam is GETTING the picture, not better pictures. Esepcailly with the Canons, they come out of the camera pretty soft. You're almost certainly going to have to post-process them if you want them to look as good as your digicam, since digicams put so much in-camera processing.


yes i agree, but after having a play with my teachers dslr ( i wasnt too sure what lens or model it was, except a canon ), i was really impressed with the portrait images i took, i was able to create super effects taht i would never have dreamed about on my digicam, such as focusing on the subject and really blurring the background, so as to bring about a good "feel" on the image...

also, you have to admit that with things such as noise certain slr capabilities are very advantageous...

also Depth of Field, when i take macro photos with my digicam is no way near as good as my teachers dslr, also, as you say, with my digicam, i need to take like 50 photos with slight adjustments to get the effect im looking for especially with all the blur i get when i cant keep my hands still, or when the subject is moving, whereas with the slr just one snap, with the correct settings provides me with a blur-free image.. with everything right...


trixy - 2-12-2006 at 08:52 AM

heres one i took outside my house today...


AznHombre - 2-12-2006 at 01:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy

yes i agree, but after having a play with my teachers dslr ( i wasnt too sure what lens or model it was, except a canon ), i was really impressed with the portrait images i took, i was able to create super effects taht i would never have dreamed about on my digicam, such as focusing on the subject and really blurring the background, so as to bring about a good "feel" on the image...

also, you have to admit that with things such as noise certain slr capabilities are very advantageous...

also Depth of Field, when i take macro photos with my digicam is no way near as good as my teachers dslr, also, as you say, with my digicam, i need to take like 50 photos with slight adjustments to get the effect im looking for especially with all the blur i get when i cant keep my hands still, or when the subject is moving, whereas with the slr just one snap, with the correct settings provides me with a blur-free image.. with everything right...



Right. Other than noise, none of those things are "image quality." Everything you just said backs me up. An SLR removes barriers to getting the image that the photographer sees. It does not deliver better images by virtue of being an SLR. See the great image quality here:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8568.jpg

See how sharp and nicely saturated everything is? No highlight blow outs or nothing, and with my high ISO capability, I could set the shutter speed high and eliminate any chance of motion blur. The ability to put in bokeh gave me the chance to isolate the subject, too (whatever it is in that picture).

Or does it get better if I do this?


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8568bw2.jpg


Nothing worse than sharp images of a blurry idea.

And you must be mistaken if you think macro shots taken with your teacher's dSLR are as good as macros taken with a digicam. Unless you know exactly when you need you bokeh in a macro, you're just mistaken.

As for thinking you won't have to shoot 50 times to get the image you want with a dSLR, you're going to be very disappointed. 1/100th of a second is 1/100th of a second no matter what camera you're using. My keeper ratio is about 2 or 3 out of a 100, tops.

Take it from a fellow noob: I'm absolutely glad I got my XT and I think it's one of the greatest purchases I've ever made, but it doesn't work magic. My photos are almost all crap, and no amount of image quality is going to improve them until I actually get good.


trixy - 2-13-2006 at 06:53 AM

well, with my digicam, i cant even edit the shutter speed..

its a sony t-series... one of the older ones... calle "tony" :D


Hewwokitty - 2-14-2006 at 03:47 PM

you use, photoshop to make the green stick out..? how can you do that with photoshop, seem so complicated lol


SilentWish~* - 2-14-2006 at 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hewwokitty
you use, photoshop to make the green stick out..? how can you do that with photoshop, seem so complicated lol


are you talking about the color isolation..? well.. the way i do it.. is use the color replacement tool.. and choose black.. then color the whole picture.. or you can just use photo filter and choose black.. then the trick is to use the "history brush" which is for getting back the original color of the object.. so you use the history brush on anything you want to have color :) color isolation is fun~ i always do it too~


SilentWish~* - 2-15-2006 at 01:48 AM

this pic gives me a calm.. quiet feeling
a feeling i always love to have~


trixy - 2-15-2006 at 03:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
Quote:
Originally posted by Hewwokitty
you use, photoshop to make the green stick out..? how can you do that with photoshop, seem so complicated lol


are you talking about the color isolation..? well.. the way i do it.. is use the color replacement tool.. and choose black.. then color the whole picture.. or you can just use photo filter and choose black.. then the trick is to use the "history brush" which is for getting back the original color of the object.. so you use the history brush on anything you want to have color :) color isolation is fun~ i always do it too~



really? i simply use the lasso tool, to select the sections i want to keep the colour, then simply desaturate the image, after which i use the levels to mark it darker, something im sure some of u will have noticed i do a lot... all my pictures are quite "dark"


omega - 2-15-2006 at 11:16 PM

Another way to isolate color, is to use the Color Balance tool.


azncow - 2-16-2006 at 08:29 PM

nwe pix hope u guys lik eit...


AznHombre - 2-16-2006 at 11:40 PM

Fortune cookies no longer tell fortunes :nono:


AznHombre - 2-16-2006 at 11:41 PM

I can have weird pictures, too.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_3529.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-17-2006 at 12:08 AM

haha aznhombre.. you like to separate your posts with previous posts do you?

and azncow.. the first pic of the two benches was posted before already :P


trixy - 2-17-2006 at 11:08 AM

haha azncow, i like the pic with the doggy lol


trixy - 2-17-2006 at 12:24 PM

i took this one in somebody elses garden (yet again) hehe
used ps to edit levels, and saturation


SilentWish~* - 2-17-2006 at 11:30 PM

i like the repetition in that pic trixy.. haha fits your title


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 02:19 AM

Dangit stop ending the posts---


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 02:20 AM

---on a white background.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8633b.jpg


Yeah. He's fishing ON ROCKS. Minding blowing, ain't it? It's a little empty, though. I need to add something, maybe to the right or somewhere. No idea what, unfortunetly.


*edit*


Eureka.



http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8633c.jpg


trixy - 2-18-2006 at 02:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Dangit stop ending the posts---


huh? wat do u mean??

and sorry, but ur pictures ddnt show up..


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 02:59 AM

I was playing with the hotlink protection on my server cuz people were linking to my stuff. Try clicking the reload button on your browser. Do they show up now?


trixy - 2-18-2006 at 06:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I was playing with the hotlink protection on my server cuz people were linking to my stuff. Try clicking the reload button on your browser. Do they show up now?


nay they dont


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 10:27 AM

Do the pics show now?


trixy - 2-18-2006 at 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Do the pics show now?


not for me at least, what about urself??

why not just upload them onto outie?


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 11:45 AM

The pics work fine for me. Does anyone else here NOT see them?


SilentWish~* - 2-18-2006 at 02:11 PM

i see your pics.. and lol ipod~ haha..
i think you should sell this to apple so they can get a new target market - fishermen! :D

and i get why you post those weird posts now aznhombre~ you wanna post your pics on a white background~
why does that matter tho..? don't you have a frame already..?
or does the drop shadow have a white background itself?


SilentWish~* - 2-18-2006 at 02:13 PM

haha now i get to post on the white background too~

anyways.. these are some pics i'm putting on deviantart~


SilentWish~* - 2-18-2006 at 02:36 PM

i especially like the last one with the staircase~ it was taken at my home when everyone's asleep~ i guess that's the only time when i can play with the lighting without disturbing anyone :)


Original_OBF - 2-18-2006 at 03:43 PM

what a way to destroy a corporate logo....:D

with the prices of fuel going up and everything, it does get pretty grim and depressing at the pump... =(

nice photos, silentwish.


trixy - 2-18-2006 at 09:39 PM

my favourite picture is the macro one silentwish.. that shots is pretty nice!


here is a picture i took by my friends apartment.. its amazing how decayed this building was compared to the modern-ness of everything else..


AznHombre - 2-18-2006 at 10:40 PM

Some landscapes I actually kinda like




http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8838.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8869.jpg


SilentWish~* - 2-19-2006 at 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Original_OBF
what a way to destroy a corporate logo....:D

with the prices of fuel going up and everything, it does get pretty grim and depressing at the pump... =(

nice photos, silentwish.


oh are you talking about the Shell = hell? lol i thought that was kinda funny as well.. although i didn't like it cause it kinda made my pic look funny when i wanted to give it an isolation feeling again :P and thanks for your comments :) oh btw~ gas prices in toronto have gone down drastically recently~ and stayed for a while as well~ it was at the low 70.0s range~~

haha trixy, i gave you a comment on your pic on DA already.. you get it yet?

and wow aznhombre~ i have to say i LOVE those landscape pics~~ espeically the last one~ i've always wanted to take pics of such scenary~

haha and i'm glad we're finally talking to each other again.. cause i remember before.. for a while.. it was just.. individuals posting their own pics.. and getting no replies.. then another person posts their pics again.. and it's just like.. posting pics for no body~ but i'm glad we're stopping and appreciating each other pics again~ just like we did at the beginning of the thread :)


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 02:54 AM

why am i the only ones who cant see aznhombres pictures???

:'(


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 06:35 AM

speak for urself chaotic, get off my back


Chaotic Fiend - 2-19-2006 at 07:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
speak for urself chaotic, get off my back


speak for myself?? you shouldnt have said that...first of all...i download porn...HOWEVER im 18 and legal...and the second point...i registered a year before you yet im 500 posts behind you...i dont know why you said speak for yourself since we clearly dont show any similarities..THIS is what you shouldve said

"PISS OF CHAOTIC GO EAT DOG TURD BITCH" and i will stop bugging you...


SilentWish~* - 2-19-2006 at 10:01 AM

hmm.. i don't think it's necessary for flaming to start here.. cause it's all over the alley already~ you guys can join the flaming in the alley if you guys want.. but don't start it here as well~

btw trixy~ is there a really big indoor ski thing in dubai? i heard it's the biggest indoor ski facility rite..? you think you can take pics of it and show us? :)


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 01:01 PM

yes

http://outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=15210

http://outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=15446

aparently, ur not allowed to ski on their slope unless u have already had lessons b4 ... but u can learn there... and when i next go there.. which should be soon, il be sure to post up pics...

and i wouldnt be surprised if they charged a helluva lot just to get in...


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 02:44 PM

here;s a shot a mate of mine snapped while in a cafe today..

its spurred on my fetish for "smoking" shots.. and keep watching as i have an idea for the smokin' series...


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 11:17 PM

Well, while i was out and about i thought of a new photo series to publish...

smoking is hazardous y'all!

model: me
photographer: me and a friend

well i ddnt post this in the photography thread, because over there its just random art stuff, but all these have a recurring message ;)


trixy - 2-19-2006 at 11:20 PM

here are the last ones

just to let all of u know, this is what is known as sheesha..


lilxswtxvtxboi - 2-19-2006 at 11:27 PM

i dont get the first pic.. are u about to eat the ash?? and is that a bong in the 2nd and 5th pic??..

nice technique in the pictures though..i like the style


AznHombre - 2-19-2006 at 11:41 PM

I actually kind of like the one of the ashtray and the last one. I might steal one of them. But you seriuosly need to run some of them through a noise filter like Neat Image and maybe play with the colors. And lose the Smoking is Hazardous titling. My opinion anyways.


SilentWish~* - 2-20-2006 at 01:50 AM

pics i took on a very cold day~
the first two pics.. just can't figure out which one is the better looking one..


SilentWish~* - 2-20-2006 at 01:55 AM

two more~

my first portrait pic
not sure if you desaturated one adds more to the mood tho.. :)

btw.. for some reason.. the order in which i attach the pics are always messed up when the post gets posted~ is this happening to anyone of you?


trixy - 2-20-2006 at 03:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I actually kind of like the one of the ashtray and the last one. I might steal one of them. But you seriuosly need to run some of them through a noise filter like Neat Image and maybe play with the colors. And lose the Smoking is Hazardous titling. My opinion anyways.


excuuuse me, what hapenned to plagurism? lol

and ill be sure to look up neat image...


AznHombre - 2-20-2006 at 10:20 AM

"Plagurism" is claiming something as yours without credit. Like you did.


trixy - 2-20-2006 at 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
"Plagurism" is claiming something as yours without credit. Like you did.


if u read correctly, i never said that shot was mine, i said it was an example of colour isolation


AznHombre - 2-20-2006 at 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy

if u read correctly, i never said that shot was mine, i said it was an example of colour isolation


I never said you shot that one. If you read correctly, you would've seen I exmpted you from exactly that shot. It was the others in your gallery (not the featured pics from others section) where even the filename said So-And-So By Trixy.


SilentWish~* - 2-20-2006 at 01:38 PM

trixy, you seem to like to make your pic to have a burnt feeling in them.. is that your favorite type of photography? but nevertheless, the burnt effect works very nice~

do you have other types of pics tho..? cause it makes dubai seem very.. "burnt" everywhere.. like.. it seems that it's all like a 3rd world country over there.. most colors seem to be burnt yellowish.. you got any pics that show a colorful side of dubai? perhaps a pic without your burnt effects?


AznHombre - 2-20-2006 at 06:28 PM

The true skills of a photographer is in getting the shot.


AznHombre - 2-20-2006 at 06:29 PM

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_4611.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_4612.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_4610.jpg


omega - 2-20-2006 at 07:05 PM

I have no respect for plagiarists. And not giving credit to where it's due counts as plagiarism in my book. :/


azncow - 2-20-2006 at 08:14 PM

omega u suck at cs... go take more pictures and post them here...


trixy - 2-21-2006 at 06:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
trixy, you seem to like to make your pic to have a burnt feeling in them.. is that your favorite type of photography? but nevertheless, the burnt effect works very nice~

do you have other types of pics tho..? cause it makes dubai seem very.. "burnt" everywhere.. like.. it seems that it's all like a 3rd world country over there.. most colors seem to be burnt yellowish.. you got any pics that show a colorful side of dubai? perhaps a pic without your burnt effects?



well if u want plain regular images without any editing at all, just look at the pictures in the "dubai: thread.. thats an example...

the burnt effect is probably a phase im going through :P im really digging the burnt effect... i dunno, imo, it just makes the picture look really good...


SilentWish~* - 2-21-2006 at 11:55 AM

haha i agree the shots give a unique feeling with the burnt effect~ kinda like how i always love to take shots of the isolation mood~

where's the dubai thread by the way? :scratch:


SilentWish~* - 2-21-2006 at 01:00 PM

i always get to post on white backgrounds :P


SilentWish~* - 2-21-2006 at 01:02 PM

here are some more pics i took on the same day~

DOUBLE white backgrounds cause it's on a new page now lol~
are you jealous aznhombre? :P


MRirian - 2-22-2006 at 01:01 AM

That last one is breathtaking. Looks quite chilly^_^


SilentWish~* - 2-22-2006 at 01:43 AM

haha thanks for dropping by~ :)

yes.. it was quite cold the day i took the pic


trixy - 2-22-2006 at 02:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
haha i agree the shots give a unique feeling with the burnt effect~ kinda like how i always love to take shots of the isolation mood~

where's the dubai thread by the way? :scratch:


its not specifically a dubai thread, but there are just a few threads about dubai

http://outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=15210

http://outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=15446

as i said earlier lol


idiot - 2-22-2006 at 03:12 PM

here are some pics i took last night..

don't have much opportunities to take good pictures :nono:


MRirian - 2-22-2006 at 03:39 PM

I like the middle two. I can't ice skate for shit, let alone take a camera out there and start snapping pics. They're really pretty.


trixy - 2-22-2006 at 06:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by idiot
here are some pics i took last night..

don't have much opportunities to take good pictures :nono:


haha the car model picture is a nice idea...


idiot - 2-22-2006 at 08:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
I like the middle two. I can't ice skate for shit, let alone take a camera out there and start snapping pics. They're really pretty.


it's dark so it was hard to take good pictures.. had to set exposure longer but i didn't have a tripod so with my shaky hands, i just decided to move the camera around on purpose :P


B0000rt - 2-22-2006 at 09:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
I like the middle two. I can't ice skate for shit, let alone take a camera out there and start snapping pics. They're really pretty.

Hah you gotta move to Canada :p

@idiot
that's hilarious of the model BMW :P I should take some of my 328i Cabriolet when I have the time ;)


idiot - 2-22-2006 at 10:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by B0000rt
Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
I like the middle two. I can't ice skate for shit, let alone take a camera out there and start snapping pics. They're really pretty.

Hah you gotta move to Canada :p

@idiot
that's hilarious of the model BMW :P I should take some of my 328i Cabriolet when I have the time ;)


what's wrong with it besides having too much dust on it :P

I'll clean them better next time I take their pictures, car models are fun to photograph ;)


SilentWish~* - 2-22-2006 at 10:23 PM

i think the depth of width is nicely done for the car.. how the door was blurred because it was in front of the car..
hmm.. how did you do that..? what camera were you using?

i'm not sure if i can do it with my camera.. at such a short distance apart..


AznHombre - 2-22-2006 at 10:30 PM

Looks like a Nikon D70 according to the EXIF (note to Trixy: see how even DSLRs can just as easily give you blurry pictures?). That ice skating rink looked like it's a great place for some creative fun. Maybe you could play with the flash? Cuz if the background is mostly just going to be black no matter what, a flash might've been in order. You could still set the shutter speed slow to bring some exposure for the background and then freeze the foreground subjects with the flash. Plus, you could've played with the rear-curtain sync, something I've been dying to try.

Did you ever pick up that 18-200 VR?


idiot - 2-22-2006 at 10:56 PM

@SilentWish~*
it's a Nikon D70S as AznHombre said. Manual focus rocks.

@AznHombre
I didn't want to use flash because I was scared to scare the other skaters in the ring :p I haven't tried panning with the camera yet (but I've tried with my old one) and I look forward to that during summer XD


AznHombre - 2-22-2006 at 11:12 PM

Ah, good call. I thought those other skaters were your friends. Yeah, I never use flash for sports for the same reason.

And you weren't trying to pan in the third pic? I find it so much more difficult than I first thought. I'm not sure if it's the panning action itself, or finding the right shutter speed.


AznHombre - 2-22-2006 at 11:13 PM

This was one of the few panning ones I ended up liking:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8120.jpg


You can check the EXIF info if it helps. The guy was doing a light jog, and he was maybe 15, 20 feet away from me when I took that?


idiot - 2-22-2006 at 11:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Ah, good call. I thought those other skaters were your friends. Yeah, I never use flash for sports for the same reason.

And you weren't trying to pan in the third pic? I find it so much more difficult than I first thought. I'm not sure if it's the panning action itself, or finding the right shutter speed.


well yeah i was trying to pan, but it's too hard at night because of the exposure is too long and The subject come out blurry too because of unsteady hands.. it's much easier to pan during the day..

i think panning is a combination of what you said.. you need to find the right shutter speed and do the "panning action" with your arms at the same time :P


trixy - 2-23-2006 at 02:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Looks like a Nikon D70 according to the EXIF (note to Trixy: see how even DSLRs can just as easily give you blurry pictures?).


wow, your right, (duh), a d70 took those pics? ho hum..:scratch: lol
maybe i mite me a little more careful with what camera i choose...


MRirian - 2-23-2006 at 12:21 PM

Eh, I'm sure as hell no photographer, but here's my contribution.


SilentWish~* - 2-23-2006 at 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
Eh, I'm sure as hell no photographer, but here's my contribution.


that's actually pretty good :)
looks like a CD cover poster or something :D i like how the path disappears into the horizon.. i always like to take pics like that where the path goes so far and then disappears

and lol.. i could of checked the EXIF myself.. i was just too lazy lol :P


idiot - 2-23-2006 at 08:09 PM

hehe the talk about panning made me want to try it again..

here's my attempt today.. didn't do any digital modification except for cropping...


SilentWish~* - 2-23-2006 at 08:50 PM

wow very nice panning~ i tried doing it myself with my compact dcam.. but i don't think it worked.. or i'll try it again when i have time :)

and the A4.. lol.. first time seeing it with a spoiler~
even with a kit~ wow.. haha


idiot - 2-23-2006 at 09:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
wow very nice panning~ i tried doing it myself with my compact dcam.. but i don't think it worked.. or i'll try it again when i have time :)

and the A4.. lol.. first time seeing it with a spoiler~
even with a kit~ wow.. haha


with a compact dcam you need to set it to manual focus somehow through the menus.. hold the button half way through and press it all the way down at the right moment... otherwise it tries to autofocus when you want to take the picture and it ruins everything..


SilentWish~* - 2-23-2006 at 10:57 PM

lol yea.. i know how to do it.. but just.. my dcam isn't capable of it lol
it can't even do manual focus~

well.. i think i can force it to do the panning effect.. let me try it next time


AznHombre - 2-23-2006 at 11:56 PM

Whoa. The black Mercedes is okay, but I think you need to slow the shutter down a bit. Don't be worried about stopping down the aperture, cuz if you pan correctly it'll be thrown out of focus anyways. I don't think 1/200 of a second is normal for panning, atleast for slow moving cars. You see how even the rims have almost stopped moving in some of those?

And Silentwish, I think what he meant is that what you can do is anticipate the subject. Like, say you want to pan a car on the street. Say the car you want to pan between a distance of 4-8 meters. So, lock onto a target 4 meters from you, and hold the shutter release. Then, recompose the shot onto the street, wait for a car to pass, and voila.


AznHombre - 2-23-2006 at 11:58 PM

And there's always the magic of Photoshop, buwahahaaa


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8901blur.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8901noblur.jpg


Not bad for less than 5 minutes. Right background, a little more time and an actual driver in the seat and it can be pretty realistic. I wonder if this is how most car magazine covers are done nowadays, or if they actually still do it the real way.


SilentWish~* - 2-24-2006 at 02:18 AM

lol at first i was like.. wow good shot aznhombre lol :D

photoshop is impressive


trixy - 2-24-2006 at 10:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
lol at first i was like.. wow good shot aznhombre lol :D

photoshop is impressive


hence why its worth over a thousand bucks....



and heres a shot where i myself tried my luck at photohsop... anybody able to help me with what more i can do with this?


SilentWish~* - 2-24-2006 at 12:28 PM

wow nice shot trixy~ i like how the color of the sky is the same tone as the flowers
but i believe the flowers may be a little too dark..?


AznHombre - 2-24-2006 at 12:43 PM

You can post the original, so we can see if it was better as is.

Most of the things I personally don't like were done at the picture taking phase. I don't like how the flower hedge cuts riht through the middle of the picture, with lots of empty space at the bottom. That little patch of blue sky is kind of distracting, and I'm not sure if I'm supposed to look at the sky or the flowers. If you aim higher, which I would've liked, we can see the huge expanse of sky, and this nice little row of flowers to frame the bottom. If you want to emphasis the flowers, aim lower, though there doesn't seem to be much down there. Cropping might improve the composition, and I personally like longer frames for these kind of landscape/still-lifes.

As for the post-processing work, I don't like it. Silentwish is right, you need to bring out the flowers more. And maybe fix the colors. I don't like the red clouds.


xtorox - 2-24-2006 at 08:24 PM

haha here.. i took some pic today.. at the light festival..

1st this is a pic of my 2 friends.. in a middle of ppl.. and i specially sepia them =P

2nd well this is a stair.. in a different viewing angle

3th subway.. i dont know just find this artistic.. lol


AznHombre - 2-24-2006 at 09:30 PM

I REALLY like that first one, man. It's my kind of style. The colors, the blur, I love it. The only things I don't like are the noise and maybe I could do without the grey-out, but if it meant screwing too much with it, forget it, leave it as is. Good job, man!


AznHombre - 2-24-2006 at 09:38 PM

Sometimes the hardest thing when you take a million shots of the same subject from different perspectives is choosing the ONE you want to show. I'm tempted to show the alternatives cuz I like them almost as much, but I find it lessens the impact. Anyways, I really liked this one:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9061RAW.jpg


It was kind of funny. I bought a polarizing filter for my 50m, which has a 52mm filter size. Turns out I rarely use it on that lens. I should've bought it for my kit lens, which I use for landscapes and has a filter size of 58mm. So I actually took the pictures while holding up the polarizer up in front of the lens, haha. Had to be careful not to shake it, cuz I had the shutter open as long as 20 seconds.


SilentWish~* - 2-24-2006 at 11:59 PM

haha xtorox~ i have a pic similar to your subway pic.. i believe it's just back a few pages or something~

and wow aznhombre~ did you photoshop the waters in that pic..? cause if you took that shot at a slow shutter speed.. wouldn't the trees be blurred out cause of moving by the wind? but nevertheless.. very nice pic~

and i agree.. showing a lot of the same pics just lessons the impact.. but i always fail to fight my temptations lol :P


AznHombre - 2-25-2006 at 12:14 AM

There's actually very little post-processing done to that image. I didn't even crop anything cuz I had the time to compose what I wanted since it was a landscape shot. And nope, that's what flowig water tends to look like with slow shutter speed. It's actually still faster than what it should be. At 20 seconds or more the water becomes this really dreamy-like ethereal mist that's really cool. But I didn't compose right in the shots where I was able to get 20 second exposures :mad: I think that one was only like 4 seconds


SilentWish~* - 2-25-2006 at 12:24 AM

haha here's a panning shot i did today~
my friend was going pretty fast with those mini carts..~
this pic was not edited~ just resized~


SilentWish~* - 2-25-2006 at 12:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
There's actually very little post-processing done to that image. I didn't even crop anything cuz I had the time to compose what I wanted since it was a landscape shot. And nope, that's what flowig water tends to look like with slow shutter speed. It's actually still faster than what it should be. At 20 seconds or more the water becomes this really dreamy-like ethereal mist that's really cool. But I didn't compose right in the shots where I was able to get 20 second exposures :mad: I think that one was only like 4 seconds


then that's very good~ everything else is pretty sharp despite the fact that it was a long shutter~ there must have been no wind for 4 seconds or something :P


AznHombre - 2-25-2006 at 12:32 AM

I don't remember there being much wind. But I think just as important is that motion blur unsharpness is reduced a LOT when you resize an image down so much on your computer screen.


trixy - 2-25-2006 at 04:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Sometimes the hardest thing when you take a million shots of the same subject from different perspectives is choosing the ONE you want to show. I'm tempted to show the alternatives cuz I like them almost as much, but I find it lessens the impact. Anyways, I really liked this one:

It was kind of funny. I bought a polarizing filter for my 50m, which has a 52mm filter size. Turns out I rarely use it on that lens. I should've bought it for my kit lens, which I use for landscapes and has a filter size of 58mm. So I actually took the pictures while holding up the polarizer up in front of the lens, haha. Had to be careful not to shake it, cuz I had the shutter open as long as 20 seconds.


wow, i like the effect of the water.. did u slow the shutter time for that one?


IllusionX - 2-25-2006 at 08:31 AM

oh.. pic of my living room i took a while ago...


n-tone - 2-25-2006 at 09:42 PM

nothing exceptional in terms of photographic skills i think :) i just point and click like always. all taken on my balcony in Toronto, back in 2002

first pic: Evil force taking over

second and third pic.. i like the sun rays shinning thru the clouds

4th, just another sunset pic :)


n-tone - 2-25-2006 at 10:03 PM

wops here is the last pic :)
was too big now resized.

actually i think i post these pics long ago,well in 2002 maybe? so older member might recognize? hehe.


AznHombre - 2-25-2006 at 11:40 PM

Wow, some of those are really dang cool. I like how you kept the expanse of sky so big. And more importantly, you were READY for it. I think with a little exposure correction those could be some long-time keepers.

My mom really went nuts for this one for some reason. I just thought it was so so, but like I said, I'm not a huge landscape guy. Urban landscape is cool, but I think I can find a better angle for this:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9181RAW.jpg


MRirian - 2-26-2006 at 12:25 AM

Dang, I wish I could take photographs like you guys. Bet you all have bajillion-dollar cameras, huh? Beautiful:(:)


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 12:52 AM

oh man ntone~ i love your pics~ esp the one with the "evil force taking over" lol :D
man.. i've never seen the sky like that before~ let alone getting the chance to take a pic of it~ :( but very nice indeed :thumbsup:

and aznhombre.. did you use photoshop to make those light rays from the lamps so perfectly star shaped? or did it come out like that itself?


IllusionX - 2-26-2006 at 02:24 AM

there's a filter to make perfect star shaped light rays..


trixy - 2-26-2006 at 03:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
Dang, I wish I could take photographs like you guys. Bet you all have bajillion-dollar cameras, huh? Beautiful:(:)


haha lol, all the others do, but i think its just me and silentwish who have good old digicams which are totally pwned by all those slrs...


oh, and n-tone.. ur sky shots look awesome... i really like how the rays of light cut through the clouds... ;)


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 06:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by IllusionX
there's a filter to make perfect star shaped light rays..



oh which filter is that?

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by MRirian
Dang, I wish I could take photographs like you guys. Bet you all have bajillion-dollar cameras, huh? Beautiful:(:)


haha lol, all the others do, but i think its just me and silentwish who have good old digicams which are totally pwned by all those slrs...


oh, and n-tone.. ur sky shots look awesome... i really like how the rays of light cut through the clouds... ;)


yes trixy~ me and you are trying hard to survive with our compact dcams in the photography war.. and i think we're doing alrite so far..? :P

haha jk.. it's not a war.. we're all having fun in here~ so it doesn't really matter what kinda camera you got~ just post for fun~~ and we can improve together~


trixy - 2-26-2006 at 10:44 AM

speaking of whitch silenwish..

here are my latest two shots i took

1) carrying on my fetish for cards.. the jack of all trades (thx to every1 who helped me with getting how to make the cards look a little old)
2) this is just a random lovely sky shot i like :D


AznHombre - 2-26-2006 at 12:34 PM

If you think your photos don't hold up, blaming the gear is weak.

And I didn't use one of those starlight filters. It's just a natural lens thing. Those filter look pretty cheesy most of the time to me. Maybe they just spin them so it's really strong, but everytime I've seen them the highlight stars are HUGE, even in the subjects' catchlight.


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 01:30 PM

haha.. no.. we don't think that our photos don't hold up aznhombre.. if we do.. we wouldn't keep posting our pics up with frames and stuff~ i just said that we're surviving with our dcams cause i wanted to sound humble.. in reality.. it would sound like "hey trixy, we're at par with everyone else in this thread even with our compact dcams" :P that's why i said "we're doing alrite so far" just don't wanna say that we're good cause not everyone here thinks so~ so keeping it humble will prevent flaming wars~

and trixy.. the sky looks pretty good in that pic~ but then.. do you think you can take away the blue in the building..? cause i think having the building in its original color may have been better.. or maybe it's cause of the sun light that made the building so dark to start off with?


AznHombre - 2-26-2006 at 02:32 PM

Ther problem is that "Oh, yeah, he's got a jillion dollar camera" is used almsot exclusively by people who like what they see and are jealous. It cheapens the skill of the person using the dSLR. Now, will a dSLR help you deliver better photos? If the person's skill is up to it, almost certainly. But does the person saying it mean that? No. They're saying, "Well, I could do that too if I had an expensive camera like him. It's just his camera." It's very obvious, because the person usually show their ignorance of technique, and to the people who know what's going on, they can see that the person is the limiting factor, not the camera. But ofcourse, since the trash talker doesn't know that, he goes on trash talking. And when there's only two people in this thread using dSLRs (not counting the one 300D pic), it's obvious who's accusing who of what.

Some people sounded defensive when mrian said we all must have expensive cameras. I wonder why that is. Could it be that people don't like having their effort stripped away and credit given all to the tools? Maybe I should bust out my A70 that I can't even sell for $110 in the classifieds anymore. Cuz there doesn't seem to be many pics I couldn't have done with it. So why do I use a dSLR? Partly for the same reason I us it in Manual mode instead of Av mode like the pros do: it's fun.

And yes, the building is dark because it was backlit. Basic Photographic Technique 101, day 1. It can be fixed. With Basic Photoshopping Technique 101, Day 2.

On a related note on an issue I've seen popping up several times: not photoshopping an image does not make you a better photographer. The image is NOT more 'pure' than an image that has been photoshopped. If you are using a digital camera, you photoshop everytime you hit the shutter release. Sharpnening, color saturation, all that is applied depending on the model and setting you have your camera on. Landscape? Bumped up greens and blues. Portrait? Low sharpening. You have to SEE what needs to be post-processed before you do it, and that's just a purely artistic skill. You're just leaving the control out by not post-processing yourself. If you want to be a 'pure' artist, shoot film. Though if you shoot film, you're just a lazy painter. And if you're a painter, you're just......well, we can go on.

Concentrate more on the final product, not on if you're being a 'real' photographer or not.


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 02:59 PM

well.. hearing you say many times that the dslr only helps the user take good pics.. it's been embedded into my head already.. and i know that only ppl with skills are able to get good pics even with the dslr.. in fact.. i know that it's even harder to get good shots with a dslr than a compact dcam~ not sure if you're pointing anything towards me aznhombre.. but if you read my posts.. i have no intention of saying that having dslr will automatically take better pics~ all i said was i'm doing just as good with my compact dcam.

i dunno about anyone else.. but i feel that you've gotten less friendly and more picky about what ppl say in this thread.. at the beginning.. you seem to be open with any mistakes we say about photography.. but recently you've been pretty snobby about you having all the skills of using a dslr and no one else here does.. and i agree.. i bet no one else in here have as much knowledge as you in photography.. but sometimes.. being friendly and humble about it will give you a much better result than being all fed up with all the crap we say about photography cause we dunno anything about it. You may not think you're doing this.. but that's the feeling you're giving me at least..

it was cool at the beginning when everyone's been sharing their pics just for fun instead of being scared to post any pics up cause they think it's not good enough


AznHombre - 2-26-2006 at 03:11 PM

I always offer advice where it's asked from me. That's how I learned, from the guys with more experience. They almost always offer advice to anyone willing to ask. You know when they stop? When someone asks, "Oh, wow, what camera is that?" One: it's annoying and insulting. Two: it shows that the advice isn't really going to help cuz you haven't gone past the first basic steps. I'll still offer advice on questions about photography if I have the answer. What I don't answear are thinly veiled accusations hidden under questions. Picky? No. Unfriendly? Only when it's called for.

As for snobby, I never said I have all the skills of using a dSLR. I KNOW I'm still the limiting factor. That's why I bought a 350D. Idiot has a Nikon D70, an entire class above my camera. Do I care? No. He's learning, just like I am, and he doesn't think he's better because he has a better camera.

And I'm still open with mistakes I see. I see mistakes in EVERY picture in this thread, mine included. But when I see a pic I don't like in this thread, you know what I do now? I don't say anything. The person is obviously happy enough with it to show it. I only say something when they ask for an opinion or question on technique. Then I'll point out the mistake (and no, I might not do it veyr friendly like).

And trust me, guys, you DON'T have to worry about whether you think your photos are good enough or if I'm going to rip into you. There're a MILLION guys better than me, and what if they stumble into this thread? They'll make me look the fool, and I'm not stupid enough to open myself up to that, haha. That's why I'm not going to criticize anyone's stuff unless they ask for it.

Now, here's me doing what annoyed me about people who buy expensive cameras: taking snapshots of their pets.


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8960.jpg

http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9005.jpg

http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9016.jpg

http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9036.jpg


AznHombre - 2-26-2006 at 03:20 PM

Here are the critiques: none of them particularly inspiring. Pic 1: a little tilted. Pic 2: Should be in the left part of the frame looking IN to the picture, not out. The backlit hair is okay, but too much blown out highlights for my tastes. Pic 3: Shadow is kind of weird how it stops behind the dog. Should've gotten closer.

Feel free to add more if you care.


AznHombre - 2-26-2006 at 04:08 PM

Aw, now I kind of almost feel guilty. Yeah, I've been a jerk. Okay, no more (unless someone pulls that "oh, you must have an expensive camera crap again). So to bring this thread back on track to what I think it should be, I suggest we dispense with the artsy stuff as much as we can.

Here's my ingrown toenail to show my sincerity.

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/09-06-05_2255.jpg

Here's apparently someone high up at Google that I was behind in the drive-thru of McDonald's:

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/10-22-05_1015.jpg

Here's some shampoo I found at a 99 cents store:

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/13-05-05_2111.jpg

ANYTHING looks good with the right borders.


idiot - 2-26-2006 at 04:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
As for snobby, I never said I have all the skills of using a dSLR. I KNOW I'm still the limiting factor. That's why I bought a 350D. Idiot has a Nikon D70, an entire class above my camera. Do I care? No. He's learning, just like I am, and he doesn't think he's better because he has a better camera.


actually i just got it a few weeks ago.. i'm really noob with it and photoshop.. so my pictures are bad :P

i haven't really got the time to learn because it's still winter right now but when summer comes i'm gonna take more pics and experiment with stuff :D

i had a canon powershot g2 before and it's because of the fiddling of menu that i hate that i got the slr, also my dad has a nikon FM2 i like :P


n-tone - 2-26-2006 at 05:09 PM

oh.. about blaming the gear, i think there is only a valid point .. if you are using a no-optical-zoom cheapy lens, like my old Casio Exilim, the lens sucks, the LCD let dusts go in,.. and the picture qualities really bad.. there was this circlcular halo thing in dead centre of every photo i took :) ... but obviously Casio fixed the problem (I think?) i think i mentioned this before - anyway i lost my trust n faith in Casio, so i won't buy them again!

AND...
thanks guys, i love those pics too personally. but its a praise for the natural environment! i merely open balcony doors and click da button. hehe. nature is beautiful!

silentwish - yeh! i missed my old apartment there, too bad not facing south so that i can see CN Tower, but least i get good sunset views everynight. hmm.. i like living high above with good views! is this a Hong Kong syndrome? in the UK, tall buildings = social housing, no one likes it, tho now the perception is changing...

so Trixy, i see your cards project!


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 05:59 PM

haha everything's cool aznhombre~ i just thought i'd point it out cause you know when ppl say.. "i'm telling you just cause i care.. if i don't care then i won't give a shit"
just cause i thought we're all friends in this forum~ that's why i brought it up~ and as for the insulting stuff we say.. please just don't keep it in mind.. cause we don't even know it's insulting cause we know nothing about it~ and i think when we ask which camera a person's using.. we're just curious~ well.. for me at least~ cause i know you won't take good pics just with a dslr.. as i've said.. it's probably even harder to use an slr than a compact dcam~
but yes~ everything's cool~ and i appreciate you posting up some funny pics :) i think we do need something like that once in a while in this thread~ other than strict "good looking" shots~ just like the "truck with balls" around the beginning of the thread~ and once again~ i've said it before~ but i'll say it again~ i really do appreciate everything you taught us in this thread~ i really have learnt from this thread~

haha yes ntone.. and casio is continuing their lens problems.. they still have mad noise~ and the color has so much fringing in them.. it's very similar to aznhombre's toe nail pic~ now i really can't tell the difference between casio.. and a webcam~ lol.. that's kinda sad :(

oh wait~ just checked the EXIF.. aznhombre used his moto cell phone to take the pic.. 1.3mp.. hmm.. V635?
btw.. i have a V635.. and i'm getting very tired of the moto~ although they have most of the quad band phones.. their software is very crappy.. and they have this common problem of the rf chip dying out on you.. which just happened to me :mad:
so my next phone is officially the W900~ it's rf claims to be as good as quad band phones by local users~ :D


idiot - 2-26-2006 at 06:37 PM

some pics from last summer using my G2


MRirian - 2-26-2006 at 06:37 PM

Hey I wasn't trying to insult anyone with the bajillion thingy. I don't know the first thing about photography. Complimenting people's pictures and asking if they have expensive cameras is simply saying I admire their work and asking a question about their equipment. You're the ones with your speed this and abbreviation that, which is like a foreign language to someone who only uses a webcam and disposable cameras. Seeing as how the past page of arguing was started by my simple question, I just want to say, I didn't intend any cattiness in the least. If anything, the mistake was my putting the two unrelated phrases in the same line.


SilentWish~* - 2-26-2006 at 08:06 PM

we understand MRirian~ don't worry about it~ it's not your fault~ that was what i was trying to point out as well~ i think other than aznhombre, i don't think anyone here has the same knowledge of the photography as he does so we won't know what's insulting to say and what's not~ so it's fine~ don't worry about it~ :) i hope you keep on dropping by this thread and perhaps participate~ just keep in mind that this is all for fun ;) no need to be so serious~

and hey idiot~ i love your landscape pics~ especially the 2nd and third~ what a great view~ i dunno much about composition strictly speaking.. but the view of the shot just attracts me :)


idiot - 2-28-2006 at 03:37 PM

yeah it was at Mount-Tremblant in Quebec, i waited quite awhile to get that sunset shot ;)


arasyii - 2-28-2006 at 05:05 PM

http://www.arasyii.jp/track/DSC_0091.JPG
http://www.arasyii.jp/track/DSC_0099.JPG

pics my cousin snapped from the passenger side, these two chav's were earlier at a traffic light, prolly goin like ooh a mini! a girl driver! must intimidate! revs* tee hee im sure she is scared :x


AznHombre - 2-28-2006 at 11:49 PM

Hi, I'm from America, land of the free.

What's a Chav?


n-tone - 3-1-2006 at 09:45 AM

so ur MiniS is faster than those R32?? (or are they 33?) be so cool, while they are trying hard to catch up buy can't, while your couz snapped those pics! :D ...or did i got the story wrong! :P

i duno waht Chav is.. something like. bloke / guy / ...?


bb_dofu - 3-1-2006 at 10:01 AM

i was wondering if the outie photo club (jk :P) would like to take a look at a few of my photographer frd....

but he does studio fashion/creative shoots tho~

let me knowww


AznHombre - 3-1-2006 at 10:12 AM

What do you mean by take a look at them? I for one want to just see pictures. Modelling stuff would be awesome since we don't really have any of that. Is he/she a pro?

I wanna get into that stuff, but don't really know how to start :(


trixy - 3-1-2006 at 12:06 PM

chavs are like the white guys in the uk, who are all wearing the tracksuits and stuff.. actually recently we had a chav party, here il post some pics

okay, so maybe theyre not the most chaviest pics of them all...

and the last picture isnt much of a chav, but hey lol


BBoy - 3-1-2006 at 01:40 PM

PHOTO!!!sakura!! beautiful pic


omega - 3-1-2006 at 03:02 PM

Um, this is a thread for original photography.

http://asia.elliottback.com/archives/2005/10/10/sakura-blossoms/


arasyii - 3-1-2006 at 04:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by n-tone
so ur MiniS is faster than those R32?? (or are they 33?) be so cool, while they are trying hard to catch up buy can't, while your couz snapped those pics! :D ...or did i got the story wrong! :P

i duno waht Chav is.. something like. bloke / guy / ...?



lol uhm, they were revving, revving, i was lighting a ciggy, then saw them spinning like mad for even launching, so i was like feh why not, and passed them lol. i know kinda cocky to do it on kids, but meh :x

and a chav is like, come on tone, you're in uk! :P a chav's like a poser, in uk, trademark being them in trekkies, and well, burberry caps (usually fake ones) lol for irish 'chav's, we call them 'lout's'

btw, sorry for sidetracking aznhombre, i knew the pics had no actual value or whatsoever, was just bored yesterday in class >,<


eeedit - bbdofu should put up the pics, some portfolio photographers are simply genius. i mean one i had made my portfolio look good, i mean he was really good! :P but the relationship ended when he was trying to get a lilll too close to my bf back then >:x LOL jk


AznHombre - 3-1-2006 at 04:56 PM

Meh, no need to apologize to me. I don't own this thread, and I'd prefer to see more pics like that to balance out all artsy stuff most of us have been trying. And I say you post up YOUR portfolio stuff, haha. I'm been getting more and more into it and wanna learn how to do it, so yeah, both you and BB dofu should do it.

And bb dofu, who took that photo of you in your avatar? Was that a pro shoot? I'd like to see more from that if you don't mind. It looks cool.


bb_dofu - 3-1-2006 at 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
And bb dofu, who took that photo of you in your avatar? Was that a pro shoot? I'd like to see more from that if you don't mind. It looks cool.


umm... i took it... after i got home from a shoot~ my hair looked koool... but my face looked pretty scary........ some creative shit :P hahhaa~


here are a few pics... all are property of Jeff Hui~~from Fizheye Creative Inc.

i wanted to put some other really nice ones... but im sure some of the models have frds here who surf outie... so i guess i shudnt put them up :P~


trixy - 3-1-2006 at 09:38 PM

ooh fancy model pictures!!

btw aznhombre.. going back to SLR's ...
ur saying that a dcam can produce just as good shots as an SLR.. so whats the point of an SLR?? why would people bother with such big heavy equipment if little digicams can do the same thing?


AznHombre - 3-1-2006 at 09:49 PM

Define "good shots."


trixy - 3-2-2006 at 05:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Define "good shots."


for example clarity, noise, and image quality

or in short, tell me what a dSLR has that a digicam doesn't? im interested..


B0000rt - 3-2-2006 at 07:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
for example clarity, noise, and image quality

or in short, tell me what a dSLR has that a digicam doesn't? im interested..


How about the ability to change to a wide variety of lenses? Lets see your P&S do that (well though it's true that some can, Canon G-series, there's nowhere near the amount of lenses you have at your disposal with SLRs) As for the other things mentioned, I only think Noise is where the DSLRs shine in, there ain't no way your latest 98217321 pixel P&S(well maybe not that new Sony one with the huge sensor) will have less noise than an old 2.6mpixel D1H. Why's that? CCD (or CMOS) Pixel size!


AznHombre - 3-2-2006 at 10:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Define "good shots."


for example clarity, noise, and image quality

or in short, tell me what a dSLR has that a digicam doesn't? im interested..



If "image quality" is your definition of a good shot, you need to practice more. Or not, if that's what floats your boat. But your entire premise is off if what you're after is "why is a digicam better than an SLR" or vice-versa. They both have their positives and their negatives to each other. For most professional and serious amatuer applications, an SLR removes a lot of the barriers to getting what they want by offering more room to work with.

As for what a digicam has that an SLR doesn't, there're lots.

1) On average, a much smaller size and thus the ability to be more inconspicuous. I get told all the time to not take pictures when I'm in stores or at the mall. I wouldn't get the same response if I was using a silver digicam. And since it's smaller, you're more likely to have it with you. A digicam you take with you is better than an SLR you don't.

People also tend to shy away and get nervous when you have your face hidden behind a giant black camera. They're much more likely to give you a more natural smile if you're using a friendly looking digicam.

2) An LCD preview screen. Useful for the odd angles and more useful (and accurate in my experience) info for exposure, especially with these new digicams that all seem to have a live histogram display. Why SLRs can't display a live histogram I have no idea (and I don't buy the mirror blocking the sensor explanation. There are ways around that). And who REALLY wants to press their face in a viewfinder all the time.?

3) NOT getting dust in the sensor because the camera is sealed. This is a big one no one ever seems to mention to you when you're about to buy an SLR. I just paid 20 bucks just to have my focusing screen cleaned cuz some hairs were getting on it. That was two weeks ago. There's dust on it again. And judging from some f22 shots I recently took, there's dust on the sensor, too. That's another 40 bucks.

4) Convenience. Not much post-processing or what have you needed if you do it right. Just pull it out of your pants pocket (let's see you do that with an SLR) and press the button. You don't have to worry much about focusing cuz of the DOF and the great ability to focus on the subject, something my SLR seems to have trouble with. It focuses FAST, but I have to use the center point AF all the time and recompose from there.

5) More depth of field. Both a plus and a minus depending on the shot you're after. For macros I usually want more DOF. Half the time with my XT it's been getting ENOUGH dof that has been the problem, not getting less.

6) Digicams are (virtually) silent. My XT is considered pretty quiet for an SLR, but even the mirror flap on it is pretty distracting. If I'm close to someone and I want to take a candid (one of my favorite types of pictures), I probably won't be able to get one or two shots off without them looking up to wonder what's going on. And then they get upset cuz they see some creepy guy with the stalker-type cameras they see on TV.

7) Misc. fun stuff like being able to take movies, etc. I don't normally care about these things, but apparently lots of people do. One of Silentwish's factors in suggesting a good camera way back was the movie frame capture rate and all that stuff.

8) Relatively flat (read:easy) learning curve. People are going on the forums all the time complaining about why their new dSLR shots are so blurry and how their old P&S gave sharper pictures. They also can't seem to turn off the flash for some reason. Not much post-processing is needed for most digicam shots. Easily, 90% or more of my prints are snapshots and happysnaps despite all the pseudo-artsy stuff you see me posting here. I still post-process my digicam shots cuz I LIKE TO, but most people don't, and in that case it's obviously much better to just let the in-camera processing do its thing.

9) They're 8000x cheaper.


As for the ability to change lenses, I never got what's so great about that. I'd much rather have a single 18-200mm F1.8. One doesn't exist right now, so I get lenses that fulfill that range. It's pretty dang expensive. The cost of the camera body itself is pittance compared to what I've spent on lenses and extra gear now. But why in the world the actual act of having to carry around a bag of glass and changing lenses is so attractive I have no idea. I guess you can count that as a big negative for SLRs. I personally do.

And finally, those "image quality" traits you listed has nothing to do with a camera being an SLR. An SLR is what it name means. It doesn't automatically mean it's going to have a larger sensor or what have you. And if you think digicams can't have high ISO and decent noise control, check out the Sony R1. Oh, what, doesn't count cuz it's so big? Check out the Fuji F10, F11, and upcoming F30.

But if what you're after is "image quality," sure, your average SLR with a decent lens will do better than your average digicam. Though you won't see much on a computer screen (I could barely tell the difference between the two flower shots I posted. Could you?) since 72 dpi is 72 dpi. I care a lot more about composition, which a digicam often helps with depending on the shot. And it's not like a digicam will automically ruin the composition. bb_dufo's avatar was taken with a Canon SD300. Looks pretty cool to me. But yeah, if you just want image quality, get a dSLR. Tell us how it goes.


n-tone - 3-2-2006 at 10:48 AM

well remember back in the old days, when there were only big SLR and the small point and shoot cameras? digicam today is more like an updated version of those point and shoot - as HKnese (or Chinese in general) call 'em "Sor Gwa Gay" (Dumb Machine, literally..haha)

put in simplier terms
SLR = for advanced users....

it's like driving a Subaru WRX STi with driver's manual setting for rear differentials, turbo boost controller, different suspension settings, rear wing angle setting, ...etc.

versus...
driving a honda civic coupe with automatic transmission

and both cars can reach 120km/hr (good shot!

something like that :D
and since i'm talking about cars. i took this pics earlier today... and sorry not really 'photography' - just pics of dirty cars. i will post nicer ones later when i get home. :%

EDIT: that VW, i haven't seen a badge like that..4Xmotion. is it new? used to bejust 4motion. so this with an X is it sportier?


SilentWish~* - 3-2-2006 at 11:26 AM

haha ntone.. maybe they wanna enthesize the MOTION so they had to put 4Xmotion.. kinda like.. putting swear words to enthesize your sayings.. like.. 4 friggin motion.. lol jkjk hahaha


omega - 3-2-2006 at 12:59 PM

Some pictures of cardinals in my backyard :)

(Highly edited :/)


AznHombre - 3-2-2006 at 01:02 PM

4 Friggin' Motion would be a pretty sweet name for a car. 4 Friggin' whatever is a pretty sweet name for anything.


trixy - 3-2-2006 at 05:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
But yeah, if you just want image quality, get a dSLR. Tell us how it goes.


hey, thx for all ur help and im really grateful for all the time and effort u spent on that :D


and heres my latest shot.. critique away!


SilentWish~* - 3-2-2006 at 06:27 PM

wow trixy~ that pic is nice~ where did you take it?
but perhaps you should clone out that.. greenish.. black thing near the top of the pic?
and omega~ nice pics~ i haven't seen cardinals for SO long.. use to see them when i was younger.. also blue jays as well!

but just.. dunno where they all went now.. :(


trixy - 3-2-2006 at 06:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
wow trixy~ that pic is nice~ where did you take it?
but perhaps you should clone out that.. greenish.. black thing near the top of the pic?
and omega~ nice pics~ i haven't seen cardinals for SO long.. use to see them when i was younger.. also blue jays as well!

but just.. dunno where they all went now.. :(


i took that shot in the desert, when we went on a safari the other day..


n-tone - 3-3-2006 at 04:04 AM

ohoh. very nice trixy. i thought u grabbed that from some tourism website or soemthing! haha :D

mine is nothing as artistic la, but i copied u guys and add a tiny white border..hehe

took these when i was on my way back to work after site visit, small village called Hadlow. This cool castle with da tower built in the 1800s, but much of have been demolished due to structural safety. but still looks very nice... i love going pass places and discovery such kinds of places...

and the other one is called the Walled Garden. at first i thought it is a public garden with cafe ..but found out that there are ppl living in them. there are few other buildings on site, which formerly were all part of the castle, but now converted to residential houses.

the first pics shows the main entrance to the castle site.


SilentWish~* - 3-3-2006 at 11:42 AM

wow ntone~ that's a nice place~
actually.. i think your third pic.. the pic with the opened door has an artistic sense to it~ :)
and the last pic.. what a nice garden~~


daaznnikeboi3 - 3-3-2006 at 12:46 PM

Hmm, I guess I will post some of my pictures too. They are just some of my shoes.


azncow - 3-3-2006 at 10:36 PM

Camera sony DSCP200
Exposure time 5 sec... mwahahah


SilentWish~* - 3-4-2006 at 12:25 AM

i like your first pic daaznnikeboi3~ i think your shoes looks like a car in that pic.. lol and i think it's a nice pic~

that's a nice pic as well azncow~ perhaps i should try going to niagara falls and taking a pic of the falls with long shutter speeds :P


AznHombre - 3-4-2006 at 01:54 AM

Buwahahaa-----yeah, that first sneaker shot is pretty cool. It's like an ad for a basketball shoe, like you're about to hit the courts and show off your "game," as the hip young kids like to say.


AznHombre - 3-4-2006 at 09:33 PM

Haven't posted a pic in awhile. Thought you guys might like these. I was at my uncle's motorcycle tune-up shop. I just took some pics of it to make him happy and email them to him, so composition-wise, I just breezed through it.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9299.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9301.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9337.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9339.jpg

These two specific model/years aren't even released yet in America or something. They just shipped some copies from Japan to America for the magazines to test out, and since my uncle does good work, they come to his shop for a lot of stuff. And oh, notice the insufficient amount of DOF in the last one, haha.


SilentWish~* - 3-4-2006 at 09:41 PM

the third pic is really nice~ what a nice shallow depth of width for the background blur~


AznHombre - 3-4-2006 at 10:08 PM

That was actually the lens blur filter in photoshop. You can tell, too, cuz I didn't select the handlebar cuz it was too tricky and I didn't feel like spending more time on it, haha.


omega - 3-4-2006 at 11:41 PM

I actually like the first one the best, because the contrasting colors make the picture more interesting to look at.


trixy - 3-5-2006 at 05:47 AM

aznhombre, in the first picture... what is that little blob at the top?


heres a little shot i took at a hotel


omega - 3-5-2006 at 09:37 AM

Some boring pics for y'all. I haven't had any good subject-matter lately :(


trixy - 3-6-2006 at 06:49 AM

ooh, omega that last pic is anything but ugly! i love it! ! :D


omega - 3-6-2006 at 11:46 AM

Thanks trix

Here are some more pics of the birdies that frequent my yard:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Bluejay%202-721153.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Bluejay%201-711776.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Bird-703926.JPG


trixy - 3-6-2006 at 01:05 PM

heres some pictures i took at the burj al arab.. thats rite, u heard me, the BURJ AL ARAB, the only six star hotel in the world! and i managed to sneak in..

keep watch, and i'll post some more pictures up soon... !


AznHombre - 3-6-2006 at 01:41 PM

Hey Omega, have you tried a square framing for that birdie? I find it works out well when I can't decide either.


omega - 3-6-2006 at 02:57 PM

Which bird? I like the framing on the last one, the first two bluejays I didn't put much thought into the composition :/


AznHombre - 3-6-2006 at 05:30 PM

Page 18, your last post, the first two pictures. On second viewing it seems as though they weren't actually the same picture that you just cropped differently. Very similar, though.

I personally find the square format kind of subtle and warm, which works well with certain subjects and helps focus attention on what I want if I do it right. The vertical portrait format supposedly lends dignity, which I agree with. The landscape horizontal format seems to be a catch-all. Just my personal experience.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2465.jpg

I think it would look even better if I could crop in deeper and at the same time keep the horizon in the frame. More Photoshop lens blur filter goodness.


trixy - 3-9-2006 at 10:11 PM

i sometimes find that PS is useful, sure, but if u use it too much... it just doesnt look... rite...


AznHombre - 3-9-2006 at 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
but if u use it too much... it just doesnt look... rite...


*looks at post*

*looks at 90% of trixy's pictures*

Wow. You have a very unusual standard of what "too much" is.


arasyii - 3-9-2006 at 11:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
but if u use it too much... it just doesnt look... rite...


*looks at post*

*looks at 90% of trixy's pictures*

Wow. You have a very unusual standard of what "too much" is.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owned
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwned


:rotf:


omega - 3-10-2006 at 06:31 AM

Rofl... that's maddd funny.


trixy - 3-10-2006 at 10:28 AM

if u call levels, saturation and curves too much.. then thats just u...

but i hardly ever add blurs, or filters, etc


AznHombre - 3-10-2006 at 12:45 PM

Wait wait wait. So all this time you've kept asking how to get "effects" like bokeh and now that you see a lens blur filter that looks near indistinguishable from real bokeh you somehow won't touch it because it's "too much?" But at the same time you play with curves, levels and saturation like mad?


idiot - 3-12-2006 at 12:03 AM

Some pictures from today.. first day of spring!

(files too big for outie server so i uploaded them on somewhere reliable)

many pics!

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0608.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0625d.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0571d.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0595d.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0563d.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0562d.jpg

http://www.cycloneinjapan.com/upload/files/62/DSC_0540d.jpg


trixy - 3-12-2006 at 08:39 AM

qualities CRAZY idiot! lol

do u live near a shipyard or something? i love these tankers hehe


AznHombre - 3-12-2006 at 03:28 PM

Why waste a space when you can upload an avatar to link to?


AznHombre - 3-12-2006 at 03:28 PM

Revised


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2465b.jpg


B0000rt - 3-12-2006 at 04:33 PM

I hate lense flare.....


trixy - 3-12-2006 at 07:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Why waste a space when you can upload an avatar to link to?


haha its watching the two images slap pikachu in wrong sync hehe,.. making me dizzy now...

well anyway, heres another sky shot of mine...


SilentWish~* - 3-12-2006 at 08:14 PM

wow idiot~ i love the views of your pics~ and are those houses in your first pic..? i remember seeing those houses somewhere in pics.. but very nice pics~

and trixy~ that sky pic is impressive.. sigh.. i couldn't get anything like that the last time i tried taking pics of the sky~ well.. i got something similar.. but your sky looks more spactacular


trixy - 3-13-2006 at 09:18 AM

hey silent wish, thx, but its been ages since ive seen u post... where u been?


SilentWish~* - 3-13-2006 at 10:38 AM

lol i've been posting on outie.. but just not the photography thread~ haven't had chances to take any good pics lately.. busy with school work and stuff~ and haven't had any idea of what kinda pics to take after my last few pics i posted~ perhaps i'm still trying to look for better scenes to take pics with than my last pics.. and imo.. it's kinda hard cause i think the last scene i took was pretty nice already~ haha.. i'll have to do some travelling when i'm free from school work some time~


idiot - 3-13-2006 at 03:10 PM

another picture from the same batch


AznHombre - 3-13-2006 at 03:36 PM

Cool, idiot. Where did you take those pictures? And I see you got a border up now. You figuring all the stuff out in Photoshop now?


AznHombre - 3-13-2006 at 03:37 PM

Old one I went back to and re-edited.


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_2519b.jpg


I prefer actual subjects (preferably people) in my landscapes.


azncow - 3-13-2006 at 05:02 PM

wow i like that shot..where is that at?


azncow - 3-13-2006 at 05:03 PM

here r mine 2 of them were from 2 summers ago.. 2 of them were this winter of my sister and her friend.


SilentWish~* - 3-13-2006 at 05:03 PM

man.. idiot.. did you do any sharpening in those pics of yours..? or else the quality of the D70 is AMAZINGLY sharp.. crazy.. :o


idiot - 3-13-2006 at 05:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Cool, idiot. Where did you take those pictures? And I see you got a border up now. You figuring all the stuff out in Photoshop now?


It was at the same place.. the Old Port of Montreal, a few mins of walk away from my place..

And yeah, I'm starting to figure Photoshop out :P Althought I am still trying to make your shadowy border :wacko:

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
man.. idiot.. did you do any sharpening in those pics of yours..? or else the quality of the D70 is AMAZINGLY sharp.. crazy.. :o


Of course I did a sharpening.. I sharpened the entire pic, went back a step and used history brush tool thingy to sharpen what I want (mostly left the sky unsharpened because sharpened sky = noise)


idiot - 3-13-2006 at 06:23 PM

another two.. i think i'm more getting the hang of this.. but i don't think these two are too nice


trixy - 3-14-2006 at 09:46 AM

no ur latest two certainly aernt as nice as the first port-y pictures u posted up....


trixy - 3-14-2006 at 09:53 AM

OK, here is a photo of my favourite artist ever!

he uses HDR meging... but could some1 (ie aznhombre) explain to me, what exacly is HDR, and how to do it?

but these pictures are just so damn awesome!!

check out his work here


SilentWish~* - 3-14-2006 at 10:54 AM

lol damn trixy.. i was just scrolling up the page and i was like HOLY damn you are getting GOOD!! but then i read your description.. lol i was ashamed for a sec cause i thought you improved so much but i made no improvements lol.. now i feel better :P


AznHombre - 3-14-2006 at 06:37 PM

HDR is High Dynamic Range. Digital doesn't have nearly the dynamic range of film, which means that in the same picture, it's very difficult to record both something that's very dark and something that's very bright. That's why you see so many blown highlights (that are unrecoverable in digital but recoverable in film. Digital on the hand has better shadow detail).

HDR merging just means he set up the camera to take two or more shots in bracketed exposures. Or, he took one shot with HDR, converted two or more shots out of it at different exposures aimed at recovering shadow/highlight, and then merged the two, so then you can have a picture with both something bright and something dark. Personally, I don't see what's so great about those shots, though.


AznHombre - 3-14-2006 at 11:55 PM

BOOOOOYYYAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! I'm going to shoot in official capacity for a martial arts magazine next month!!! Suh-weeeeeeettttttt.

Man this is sweet.







Sweeeet.


trixy - 3-15-2006 at 01:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
HDR is High Dynamic Range. Digital doesn't have nearly the dynamic range of film, which means that in the same picture, it's very difficult to record both something that's very dark and something that's very bright. That's why you see so many blown highlights (that are unrecoverable in digital but recoverable in film. Digital on the hand has better shadow detail).

HDR merging just means he set up the camera to take two or more shots in bracketed exposures. Or, he took one shot with HDR, converted two or more shots out of it at different exposures aimed at recovering shadow/highlight, and then merged the two, so then you can have a picture with both something bright and something dark. Personally, I don't see what's so great about those shots, though.



oh thx! well, each to their own taste i suppose.. and CONGRATS on the magazine offer!!


AznHombre - 3-15-2006 at 04:04 PM

Do you have permission to redisplay his work out of his control? I don't think it's required if he had it on a public gallery, but it's still courtesy.


omega - 3-15-2006 at 04:24 PM

Congrats on your new photography position AznHombre. Are you going to be traveling with a team, covering an event or what?


AznHombre - 3-15-2006 at 06:52 PM

Thanx! And oh no, it's not a permanent or even paying position. As it is it's just for this one event. The main thing I'm getting out of this is experience and a press pass. I met the publisher a few weeks ago at another event and she said she liked my photos. I'm not aiming to really go pro, but I'm interested in getting into occasional freelance work down the line. Hopefully I'll do alright, make some better connections to the publication and maybe see if I can cover more stuff later. This is great for me because I just love what I'm going to be shooting and get to add something to my resume, too.


omega - 3-15-2006 at 07:31 PM

Yeah, it really is quite a deal. Great experience, do what you love, maybe do a little more down the road for some cash. Win-win situation. :D


SilentWish~* - 3-15-2006 at 11:52 PM

haha congrats with the oppurtunity aznhombre~ :)


idiot - 3-18-2006 at 09:24 PM

Here's how people take pictures of supersonic jet planes in flight

sort of a copy of this commercial: http://videos.streetfire.net/video/A218F4D7-4EDE-4E9D-8944-D6AF3784D167.htm


trixy - 3-18-2006 at 11:18 PM

haha that sure is badass


AznHombre - 3-19-2006 at 02:03 PM

Buwahahaa-----man that's freakin' awesome. It really made me laugh.

Been going back and re-editing old pictures now that I know how to use Photoshop better. Well, maybe not better. Just know MORE of what everything does.


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8818.jpg


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9548.jpg


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9533.jpg


I just broke 10,000 shots on my 350D. My dad just bought a Sony T5. Gonna start playing with it. I forgot how comfortable an LCD screen can be.


SilentWish~* - 3-19-2006 at 07:01 PM

hey aznhombre.. in the first pic you posted.. did you use a filter that made the pic stretch the horizon further away or something?


AznHombre - 3-19-2006 at 07:44 PM

Mmm...no, not really. I shot that at 68mm, which if anything should've made a "compression effect" that makes the horizon seem closer. I guess it's just a sense of scale.


SilentWish~* - 3-19-2006 at 10:50 PM

then that is a very cool pic~ i love those kinda pics~ :)


xtorox - 3-20-2006 at 01:34 AM

lol my pics are kinda wako.. lol hope u dont mind?!


trixy - 3-20-2006 at 06:13 AM

i love the train effect, yet another one..

say xtorox what camera do u use?

heres one of my first proper b&w artistic photos..


Hattori_Hanzo - 3-20-2006 at 11:35 AM

Heres a good photo i took on the retro classic car show last weekend.


trixy - 3-20-2006 at 11:47 AM

ooh nice hattori! especially like ferraris ;)


idiot - 3-20-2006 at 08:11 PM

from today... just random things :P


GeneralX - 3-21-2006 at 01:30 AM

some boring shots i took years~~~ ago at Niagara Falls

just contribute:)


bb_dofu - 3-21-2006 at 03:02 AM

from 3 yrs ago... doin portfolio for Uni....
stole one of those medium sized pro film cam from ma bro

i think i posted this b4....... but not in THIS photo thread i think~

n i've never done any creative shots after....


asuran - 3-21-2006 at 03:13 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bb_dofu
i think i posted this b4....... but not in THIS photo thread i think~

*cough*cough*
http://outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=9704&page=2

LOL.... my memory is doing great... weird that I remember where it is tho... :blink:
well I had this pic as my wallpaper for a short period.. ;)


trixy - 3-21-2006 at 11:54 AM

haha, asuran the ever knowing mod..

heres a little wee eye fetish shot..


azncow - 3-23-2006 at 09:51 AM

a lil hero my dog coco...


tunnelfreaks - 3-24-2006 at 11:58 AM

1) taken by me outside my window using a casio ex-z3

2) taken by me the dog JJ in a friend's house using a nokia7610


idiot - 3-24-2006 at 10:36 PM

This is a picture of a shirt I got today..


asuran - 3-24-2006 at 10:57 PM

I'm not that good with photography ... but here's just a few shots I took from the balcony of my previous apartment.. 16th floor!!
(I'm still in the same building tho)

took the pics with my old sucky camera...I resized the pics in MSpaint
:D


arasyii - 3-25-2006 at 10:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
ooh nice hattori! especially like ferraris ;)


you're kidding me right?

hattori posted a pic of a porsche.

see logo -

http://www.arasyii.jp/porsche.png

^porsche.


http://www.arasyii.jp/ferrari.png

^scuderia ferrari.


smh - 3-25-2006 at 12:40 PM

nice view..i love mountains
where do you live tunnelfreaks?


n-tone - 3-25-2006 at 07:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by smh
nice view..i love mountains
where do you live tunnelfreaks?


ya TunnelFREAKS.. where you live? judging by the tree style, landform (steep hills) and da tall buildings in the background, looks like Hong Kong?


idiot - 3-25-2006 at 07:42 PM

newest picture.. just some weird VW translations :D


SilentWish~* - 3-25-2006 at 07:55 PM

yea.. tunnelfreaks looks like he's in hk.. or some chinese place.. judging from the window.. lol.. and yes.. the mountain as well :P


tunnelfreaks - 3-26-2006 at 07:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
yea.. tunnelfreaks looks like he's in hk.. or some chinese place.. judging from the window.. lol.. and yes.. the mountain as well :P


yeah the location is somewhere in Mid-Levels on hong kong island by the Peak. if the weather is gud and im free i wud luv to do an 180 degrees shot of the entire area around the Mountain.

dont have my UK one at the moment, but the view is shit anyways:(


Hewwokitty - 3-26-2006 at 05:27 PM

http://www.kachosen.com/FFXI/transworld.htm

this site shows some 3D renders from the game FFXI. I think it's really really well developed :D


AznHombre - 3-27-2006 at 11:16 PM

Okay... not sure why that's in the photography thread, though.


AznHombre - 3-27-2006 at 11:17 PM

Haven't posted in awhile.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_0212.jpg

I believe that cutting off the hands is one of the worst things you can do. Cutting off the forehead is okay if you're cropping in close to just the face.


claudewolfe - 3-28-2006 at 02:50 AM

All photos taken with AF-Nikkor 50mm F1.8

1. Stanford University.
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Shutter: 1/250 sec
Aperture: F/9

2. Pebble Beach Golf Course.
Location: Pebble Beach, CA
Shutter: 1/320 sec
Aperture: F/9

3. Muir Woods Banana Slug.
Location: Muir Woods, CA
Shutter: 1/100 sec
Aperture: F/5

4. Chinatown.
Location: San Francisco, CA
Shutter: 1/250 sec
Aperture: F/8


trixy - 3-28-2006 at 06:38 AM

here are my eye series....

what do u lot think?


AznHombre - 3-28-2006 at 09:55 AM

I think you can try using the flash, though it might blind the guy. Having a catchlight is good, but it's more than just a spot in the eye. Some model photographers do this one kind where's it's a ring. I really don't know how they do it. I'm guessing it's just a direct flash into the eye.

And usually in these eye close-ups, people seem to take them from the side, which I prefer.


trixy - 3-29-2006 at 04:39 AM

lol it was my eye, so i was unable to see what it looked like, even with a mirror.. and im not really into spending too much on photography.. just yet lol


AznHombre - 3-29-2006 at 05:20 PM

You don't need money to move the camera to the side or use the flash.


trixy - 3-30-2006 at 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I think you can try using the flash, though it might blind the guy. Having a catchlight is good, but it's more than just a spot in the eye. Some model photographers do this one kind where's it's a ring. I really don't know how they do it. I'm guessing it's just a direct flash into the eye.

And usually in these eye close-ups, people seem to take them from the side, which I prefer.


AznHombre - 3-30-2006 at 01:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I think you can try using the flash, though it might blind the guy. Having a catchlight is good, but it's more than just a spot in the eye. Some model photographers do this one kind where's it's a ring. I really don't know how they do it. I'm guessing it's just a direct flash into the eye.

And usually in these eye close-ups, people seem to take them from the side, which I prefer.


And?


trixy - 3-31-2006 at 09:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I think you can try using the flash, though it might blind the guy. Having a catchlight is good, but it's more than just a spot in the eye. Some model photographers do this one kind where's it's a ring. I really don't know how they do it. I'm guessing it's just a direct flash into the eye.

And usually in these eye close-ups, people seem to take them from the side, which I prefer.


And?


i thought u meant some sorta ring flash.. i ono


SilentWish~* - 4-1-2006 at 02:09 PM

haven't posted in soooooo long


xtorox - 4-1-2006 at 06:22 PM

http://www.im.tv/VLOG/personal.asp?Memid=289692&FID=238105

check out my little clip =P well I will make better ones in the future.. for the coming ones will b best lo =P


AznHombre - 4-1-2006 at 08:56 PM

I think that last one from silentwish is pretty hot. It almost looks film-like to me in a technical sense.

A couple of photos from a series I'm working on:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9223.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9248.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9271.jpg


SilentWish~* - 4-1-2006 at 09:13 PM

haha thanks aznhombre

i like your first pic~ i like how it seems to create many layers


trixy - 4-2-2006 at 09:50 AM

heh, aznhombre, ur last picture is pretty awesome... i like the red cloth and the dof...


AznHombre - 4-2-2006 at 10:16 AM

That's actually lens blur filter in photoshop. I was using my weakest lens, optically and aperture-wise. I just needed the range. Usually I don't worry too much about optical quality like some people with SLRs.


AznHombre - 4-2-2006 at 10:22 AM

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9338.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9367.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9386.jpg

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9374.jpg

More Lens Blurry filter goodness. The first one isn't so hot. The difficult thing is 1) selecting the subject, and 2) making a smooth and realistic transition for the ground. The first looks the worst to me, while the second looks most realistic. The third one shows what happens when you get lazy and use just the magnetic lasso for something too intricate instead of pen/quick masking.


n-tone - 4-2-2006 at 04:03 PM

hey AznHombre.. whats that shoe brand these Shaolins are wearing? blue + red strips ;)

and ya the first pic with the entire crew is so cool.. like they are ready to fight the intruders in their temple!

and below is what i took earlier today. i like this kinda tree.. "Lau Shu" (or is it?) - what are they called in English?


SilentWish~* - 4-2-2006 at 07:53 PM

wow ntone~ that's nice~ is the shutter speed slow or something..? or the leaves on the tree very thin? i love the motion in this pic~


n-tone - 4-3-2006 at 03:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SilentWish~*
wow ntone~ that's nice~ is the shutter speed slow or something..? or the leaves on the tree very thin? i love the motion in this pic~


haha..:D i duno shutter speed. its auto on my N70.. but doubt its slower, cuz it was quite bright at that time - sunset + reflect from the water. it's just super windy at the time.


omega - 4-3-2006 at 08:23 AM

I have no subject matter. So here's some random picture of a cap from a bottle of Smirnoff Ice.

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Smirnoff%20Cap-796925.JPG

Even if it is a girly drink, it still tastes good. ;)

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Hong%20Kong%20Hi%20Tec%20C%20Postage-761108.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Hi%20Tec%20C%20Tip-770114.JPG


MRirian - 4-4-2006 at 03:45 PM

Omega- I really like the bottle cap pic. I like how the cap has the same shimmers as whatever it's sitting on. I like the angle of the stamp picture, and it's cool how you make the pen look kind of scary.


As I've said before, I'm not a very good photographer. But, I'm so hooked on these Japanese photobooks with pictures of females that just mesmerize me, and I've become kind of obsessed with the photos and how they're created. (My father's been a professional photographer, editor, camera man and news man, so that aspect is somewhat a hereditary interest.)

Anyway, as a result of my obsession, I've tried to teach myself hair and make-up, and am working on learning how to pose and aim a camera, and lighting and whatnot. My dream would be to be involved in photoshoots someday as a make-up artist maybe.

These are mostly taken around my house and Housetek's, so please don't look at the messy rooms and whatnot. The backgrounds aren't part of my pics, just the main subject, as what I do is try to make myself look different ages and have different images, etc. Most are very low quality, because all I have is a webcam, but a couple from when I was at Housetek's house were taken with his digicam. Sorry about the long post...



http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture359.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture401.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture236.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture393.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/DSC00695.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture72.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/0726512f.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/rt.jpg

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a371/tsukinomaggie/Picture404.jpg


omega - 4-4-2006 at 11:08 PM

Thanks for the comments MRirian. Your pictures kick ass too... and I bet you can guess why. ;)


trixy - 4-5-2006 at 03:52 AM

haha, ur make up looks very good, especially on you lol

and omega, i absolutely love your pencil photo.. it looks so... swank hehe


sobakchi - 4-10-2006 at 06:27 PM

lol dare i post my own pic? hahah here's my girly hand wid my 8 rings n a sword~
*prays lol

pic is not edited in anyway excpet size (7Megapixel camera kills space lol)


AznHombre - 4-10-2006 at 10:11 PM

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9921.jpg


That was a very tiring event. Took about 1500-1600 images over the course of 16 hours I think. It's going to take me awhile to sort through them, and the ones (if any) that the editor selects I can't release. So I'm not really going to post any up for now except for that one, since I already showed it to my friend herself at the tournament.

And they published my old photos from the last tournament, yay.


trixy - 4-11-2006 at 08:39 AM

some more arty pics from my DA site..


jengasama - 4-12-2006 at 02:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by sobakchi
lol dare i post my own pic? hahah here's my girly hand wid my 8 rings n a sword~
*prays lol

man mad rings! my fingers are too think to fit into normal rings...
sobakchi the way u wear ur rings reminds me of kurapika from hunter X hunter! if only u had the chains etc! well u can get them at anime shops haha! yeh its mad


idiot - 4-14-2006 at 02:14 PM

Another picture by me :D


trixy - 4-16-2006 at 06:48 PM

wow idiot, i really like that one..

heres a litle thing i played about with... i was thinking it could belong in some magazine, like the front cover or summat :P lol


1babygirl - 4-17-2006 at 04:38 PM

new to this thread..and i just wanted to share 2 of my pics...the first one is taken in pei...its of the confederation bridge. i didnt use any editing b.c....i dont think i need to. i lost the ones i took in france...but i shall find it one day. :)...the second one is a simple editted pic of me and my bf at 360 (cn tower) . this was taken with my 20 dollar disposable camera (without flash)...b.c the date was a surprise and i didnt bring my digital.

++ good job hombre..i really like yur photos...esp how you made it blurry. it makes me dizzy after starin in the background after awhile...i'll try that next time =)


Jia - 4-18-2006 at 12:54 PM

n-tone I really like that tree shot!

here's a really old one, may post more later:
http://www.pmgz.net/205.jpg


Jigoku - 4-19-2006 at 01:06 PM

love that photo babygirl.. too bad that red timestamp @ the bottom right is there >_<


i tried to remove it for you :)


http://click2host.us/006/baby.png





edit: MRirian your eyes are beautiful :cool:


SilentWish~* - 4-19-2006 at 08:32 PM

Jia~~ that is one amazing sky shot!! where did you take that btw?


Jia - 4-21-2006 at 03:36 PM

Thanks SilentWish~*

I took that in St.Catharines (20 min north west of Niagara Falls)
It's lake ontario, across the lake from Toronto

took this the other day.

http://www.pmgz.net/406.jpg


idiot - 4-21-2006 at 06:01 PM

from my new lens today!


MRirian - 4-21-2006 at 09:38 PM

Wow, idiot, how do you get a shot like that? That's awesome.

I feel so bad calling you "idiot"... :(


Jia - 4-21-2006 at 10:01 PM

that's awesome pic man, great job!


idiot - 4-22-2006 at 05:30 AM

@ MRirian

It was a candid shot, the kid doesn't even know I took his picture.. I used a zoom lens 70-300mm and I was pretty far.. I was watching him play and took a picture of him like that. The blurred background is autofocus' work :p

@ Jia

Thanks..

Here are two other pics.. quality are kinda bad because I put them on my msn space and took them from there (too lazy to turn the other computer on)


tunnelfreaks - 4-23-2006 at 02:31 AM

a few of my recent pics off my phone.


tunnelfreaks - 4-23-2006 at 02:35 AM

the first 2 taken in hong kong, the last few taken in the uk.


Jia - 4-24-2006 at 01:57 PM

An NSX and a Enzo, damn I hope to see that while I'm in HK


B0000rt - 4-24-2006 at 02:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by idiot
@ MRirian

It was a candid shot, the kid doesn't even know I took his picture.. I used a zoom lens 70-300mm and I was pretty far.. I was watching him play and took a picture of him like that. The blurred background is autofocus' work :p


Pedo stalker! ;)


trixy - 4-25-2006 at 08:21 AM

wow, these shots are really looking nice..

however, im about to invest in a dSLR.. the Canon 350D in fact, and im looking at lenses.. could somebody please explain to me what the f-stop/f-number exactly means?

in addition to this, what does the 50 in 50-200mm mean?

and (sorry for the lengthy questions) what do u guys prefer? an autofocus or a manual focus?


Arbalist - 4-29-2006 at 09:16 PM

sigh... after lookin through u guy;s pics i feel lame posting here lol
so neways what u use to edit ( get the dates off the pic ) :P

i just recently got into photography cuz i find it pretty fun :P so please teach the newb!


SilentWish~* - 4-30-2006 at 05:01 AM

glad to see more ppl posting in this thread :)
a thing to keep in mind is that we're all here to have fun and share our stuff~ this is no professional forum here.. so don't worry about how your pics are~ just post them and we will all learn and see interesting perspectives together~

i having been taking much pics lately.. but i'll be going to japan/hk on may 2nd~ so i think i'll have lots of chances to take new scenery pics~ :thumbsup:


trixy - 4-30-2006 at 09:45 AM

well now, heres another lovely picture of a horse.. her names moyster.. and shes a doll :P


idiot - 4-30-2006 at 07:53 PM

Enough with children, now come the ducks..


AznHombre - 5-2-2006 at 12:06 AM

Wow, idiot, you're getting a lot better. Was the blur int he first pic digitally added? Cuz when people do that they sometimes leave the head a little sharp for the bird. I think it looks dope that way. Whether it was or not, those are some great shots.


AznHombre - 5-2-2006 at 12:07 AM

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_3036.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_2930.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_3005.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_3099.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_3109.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/DayWithoutImmigrants/IMG_3084.jpg


idiot - 5-2-2006 at 05:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Wow, idiot, you're getting a lot better. Was the blur int he first pic digitally added? Cuz when people do that they sometimes leave the head a little sharp for the bird. I think it looks dope that way. Whether it was or not, those are some great shots.


Actually, the blur in the first pic is real, and intentional/accident.

I took some shots in shutter mode and forgot to switch it back so when the duck started running I just kept on panning it. However, the shutter was too long for me and it turned out quite blurry. The picture only looks good small like that :P

I did my best to fix the duck by sharpening it.:)


omega - 5-3-2006 at 08:50 AM

Aznhombre, those are an awesome set of photos. If I didn't know any better, I'd say those belong in a newspaper or magazine.


trixy - 5-3-2006 at 07:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Aznhombre, those are an awesome set of photos. If I didn't know any better, I'd say those belong in a newspaper or magazine.


i agree.. i especially like the one with the guy waving the american flag.. with the backdrop of the crowd.. all of them are very moving..


idiot - 5-4-2006 at 08:24 PM

some from today.. i hate the color tone in my pics, but don't know how to fix it.. i try to take pics of different subjects..


AznHombre - 5-5-2006 at 02:03 PM

What's wrong with the color tones? They look great to me. Maybe you just need to calibrate your monitor?


idiot - 5-6-2006 at 06:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
What's wrong with the color tones? They look great to me. Maybe you just need to calibrate your monitor?


I don't know, maybe I changed them too much in PS so they look weird to me :P


AznHombre - 5-6-2006 at 08:06 AM

I'm sure you know this alraedy, but if you really don't like any color cast or overall tone, you can apply a color filter. I believe it's in Adjustment Layers. Or if you shoot in RAW, you can do it even better, either with the color temperature slider or even the color wheels. Your images look maybe a little cool to me, but I'd imagine it's just the subjects themselves. The first one looks a little warm on the bird's body, but it's probably just dirty. The white of the girl's sweater and whites of the car's roof look fine. If it was a cloudy day, yes, you might get te slightest bit of color cast. Usually cool.

Nikons and Canons do have the slightest bit of temperature differences, but if you edit the colors, it's so slight it's pretty much overridden by any adjustments you make.


idiot - 5-6-2006 at 11:34 AM

I shoot in RAW, and sometimes I am too scared to mess around with the color temperature. I mostly mess with exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, and shadow..

I shot those during a cloudy day so the colors don't look very warm.

It's just that they are so many combinations of settings I can mess with that I don't know which to give priority to first (like, change exposure or brightness to increase the light)


omega - 5-6-2006 at 12:43 PM

Summertime!

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Buddha-706409.jpg


AznHombre - 5-11-2006 at 05:12 PM

Let's bring this thingamajigger back to life, shall we?


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/Tokyo2006/IMG_2194.jpg


John Lee - 5-11-2006 at 08:45 PM

awwwwwwwwww .... the cat was sooo adorable omega... i wanna have cats as pets now... they dont do that everyday do they ? hehe... seems like they're as normal as human being.. glances at the window like that


omega - 5-12-2006 at 07:18 AM

My cats aren't indoor cats, so they go outside all the time. They actually do spend a lot of time just staring out of the windows... outside is like heaven for them. Plus it was winter, so they were keeping their asses warm on those air vents. :)


Jia - 5-13-2006 at 06:42 AM

I wish I had a DSLR - it really opens up many more options in what I could take. Too poor to buy dslr...or I just spend my money on other things like my car. lol.

Nice photo's though everyone.


AznHombre - 5-13-2006 at 09:08 AM

Post pics of your car


AznHombre - 5-13-2006 at 09:09 AM

Randomly took this while trying to think up compositions for a jewelry shoot I'm doing for my friend today.


http://xb2.xanga.com/6f9a05640813253844549/w36088313.jpg


Jia - 5-13-2006 at 09:31 AM

I also took pics of a model gun I have.
Many many years ago - before digital cameras at least.

http://www.pmgz.net/530.jpg


AznHombre - 5-13-2006 at 09:32 AM

That's hot. And why do you have real bullets??

AndI wonder why car guys and martial arts guys are so often into photography.


omega - 5-13-2006 at 08:53 PM

Went hiking today, and took some pics too. These aren't all of them, the rest are at http://www.omegadude.com/2006/05/trip-to-virginia-tech.html.

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Stream2-722640.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Steps-725531.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Cascades%202-762338.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Minifalls-734978.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Minifalls%202-730791.JPG

Hope you guys like these. :)


Hattori_Hanzo - 5-16-2006 at 12:27 PM

a little tip: use a grey-filtre and increase exposure, then u get really nice waterfall-shots.


Hattori_Hanzo - 5-16-2006 at 12:31 PM

like this (image found on the web)


omega - 5-16-2006 at 02:16 PM

Unfortunately my camera doesn't really have too many manual controls...

Most of those pictures are heavily post-processed.


AznHombre - 5-16-2006 at 04:13 PM

What's them being post-processed got to do with anything?

And I prefer to just use my circular polarizing filter. Too expensive and a hassle to carry a bunch of filters around. Cuts down a good amount of light, and usually for this kind of stuff you're doing scenic type stuff anyways and it rarely hurts to have the effects of a polarizer for landscape shots.


http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_9061RAW.jpg

Old image I already posted, I know. But just an example of hand holding a polarizer in front of the lens (the polarizer wasn't the same size of the lens, so I couldn't just screw it on). The waterfall's a little static, but I'm happy with it. Shutterfspeed of 20 seconds I believe. Might've been TOO much, haha. I think it looked flowier at the shorter speeds, but I also wanted really deep color saturation, and slow shutter speeds at dusk seems to help that.


AznHombre - 5-16-2006 at 04:14 PM

http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/Tokyo2006/IMG_2604.jpg


Should've changed the color of the woman's kimono on the left. Takes a little away from the red of the umbrella.


omega - 5-16-2006 at 07:23 PM

No, I meant, most of the pictures I just posted are heavily post-processed. You should have seen them before I edited them... >_>

I generally shoot pictures with post-processing in mind. :/

I'm thinking about getting a new digital camera though... but not a DSLR. Just a high-end digicam. I'm looking towards the Canon Powershot S3 IS. It's got a ton of manual controls, low noise at high ISO settings, and image stabilization. Any other recommendations?


Jia - 5-16-2006 at 07:50 PM

nice shots aznhombre, i agree about the kimono.


AznHombre - 5-16-2006 at 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
No, I meant, most of the pictures I just posted are heavily post-processed. You should have seen them before I edited them... >_>

I generally shoot pictures with post-processing in mind. :/

I'm thinking about getting a new digital camera though... but not a DSLR. Just a high-end digicam. I'm looking towards the Canon Powershot S3 IS. It's got a ton of manual controls, low noise at high ISO settings, and image stabilization. Any other recommendations?


For once I actually think the Sony equivalent at that level seems better. I forget the name. I don't read much on gear anymore, but I think I breezed through an article in Pop Photo or something where they compared a bunch of those "prosumer" point and shoots. The colors looked better, and I forgot what else. Usually I hate Sony cameras, but for once it seemed to be the better piece of gear. Dunno, just suggesting something incase you wanna look around ;)


omega - 5-17-2006 at 10:31 AM

I think I'm going to stick with the S3. It's got plenty of semi-automatic and manual settings, and what really impresses me is the power of the DIGIC II chip, which is the same as the ones they use in their DSLR cameras.

Plus, all of the high-end point and shoots are all basically the same... huge zoom, image stabilization, wide ISO ranges, yada yada yada. I don't think I'll be losing all that much by choosing one over another. The S3 has that neat-o swivel LCD; it may be gimmicky, but w/e it's still kinda handy. Also, I think I'd like to try out their stich-assist mode to make some panoramic shots.


AznHombre - 5-17-2006 at 11:32 AM

Yeah, the best camera is the one you like and take with you.

A lot of that stuff though is pretty standard. I think the DIGIC II chip is in pretty much all current Canon cameras (though I have no idea what it even means to have a DIGIC II chip). Stich panorama has been on every poitn and shoot I've ever owned.

But definitely, get it and tell us how it goes!


momorokoko - 5-17-2006 at 12:08 PM

aznhombre i hope you become a famous professional photographer in the future
its only becasue you seem to have all the qualities that a model artist should have: modesty, honesty and helpful
seeing how this thread of yours has been built up i just can't believe how far it has gone to.. i mean you taught silentwish to become a better photographer than he was to begin with.. oh well i just wanted to share some thoughts with you guys


AznHombre - 5-17-2006 at 02:16 PM

Wow, thanks for the kind words, man. But I guess you weren't here when I was having my period a few pages back, haha


omega - 5-17-2006 at 09:27 PM

I just tried my hand at some HDR photography. I took 5 pictures total, with exposure values of: -2, -1, 0, +1, and +2. Used a crappy ass mini-tripod, and the self-timer to make sure I didn't move the camera.

Merged them with a simple free program, Photosphere (Mac only).

First image is an original 0 exposure value shot, and the second is the HDR image.

Maybe tomorrow I'll try some more shots, maybe outdoors.


trixy - 5-19-2006 at 07:13 AM

well im not too sure if you guys care..

but my canon eos 350d just arrived in the post :D and boy, is she beautiful!!

i also bought an 18 - 20 sigma lens, a 50 - 200 lens, and a 70 - 300 lens *with an additional macro capability* (i believe its jsut a cheap telephoto lens that can also double up as a macro lens)

and well, here are some shots ive taken.. im so in love with this camera!!


omega - 5-19-2006 at 09:48 AM

In my opinion, this last set of photos of yours seem a bit boring. I think you need to find some more interesting subject matter; taking pictures of dirt, random people, and grass doesn't interest me much. :/


AznHombre - 5-19-2006 at 11:19 AM

http://www.slickdeals.net/#p7532

A deal on the Canon S3 you were looking at. Dunno if it's really that great a deal. Retail seems to be $400. You should compare it to pricegrabber (and only pay attention to the reputable camera shops).


omega - 5-19-2006 at 01:31 PM

Fuck you Aznhombre, I just bought that shit yesterday for $470. I wonder if I can cancel an order through Amazon... it'll save me fucking $120.


omega - 5-19-2006 at 05:08 PM

I tried my hand at making a tilt-shift effect in photoshop. It's supposed to resemble a model set or something... miniaturized. I don't think I pulled it off too well. :/

Btw, it's a picture of a building somewhere on the Virginia Tech campus.

*edit* I think it would have worked better if there wasn't so much sky in the picture, and I had a more downwards-angle on the buildings.

Some more tilt-shift photography


AznHombre - 5-19-2006 at 06:03 PM

Hmmm.....never heard of using it to make something look miniturized before. I've always heard the tilt-shift effect being used in architechure and macro shots to either tilt the focusing plane so you get more of the object in focus (to counter act the short DOF of SLR macros hots), or to correct the bottom heavy effect you get from angling a lens upwards to get a building shot.

http://wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_8787.jpg

Like how the bottom of the building looks wider than the top, and how the top slightly curves in. I left that stuff in and didn't use t/s in photoshop to correct it cuz I thought it looked better that way in this picture.


http://wonjohnsoup.com/IMG_4263.jpg

Another example of the problem. Like, how the building on the left has vertical lines that converge near the top instead of running straight up and down parallel. There was also barrelling in this shot that I removed in PS, which I think also helped counteract the converging-verticals problem for the part of the building in the center.

I supposed it WOULD help make it loook likea miniture if you played with the perspective that way. I've just never seen it done, other than extreme aerial shots of stadiums, but I think it was also a natural effect due to something else. Not too sure about t/s stuff.

*edit*

Ohh, haha, I see. That's pretty dope!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kros/sets/72057594072552818/


mkdc - 5-21-2006 at 03:14 AM

that's a really cool pic jia


AznHombre - 5-22-2006 at 12:08 AM

Not everyone was kungfu fighting. I was taking photos :(


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4183.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_5023.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_5409.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4163.jpg


omega - 5-23-2006 at 05:10 PM

Very cool, high quality pics as always, Aznhombre. I especially like the one with the guy bending the metal bar.

You should really think about submitting some photos to this competition:

http://prophoto.microsoft.avitivacorp.com/Site.aspx

Grand Prize:

$20,000 cash
Dell Precision M65 Workstation computer
Personal portfolio review by Corbis stock agency
Canon EOS 30D digital SLR
Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer
Adobe Creative Suite 2
ACDSee Pro Photo Manager
3 year subscription to Digital Railroad
5 year Membership, National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP)
5 year combined Membership, Student Photographic Society (SPS) and, when eligible, Professional Photographers of America (PPA)

And 3 individual prize packages for first place photo in each category:

$2,000 cash
Dell Precision M65 Workstation computer
Canon EOS 30D digital SLR
Epson Stylus Photo 2400 printer
Adobe Creative Suite 2
ACDSee Pro Photo Manager
1 year subscription to Digital Railroad
5 year Membership, National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP)
5 year combined Membership, Student Photographic Society (SPS) and, when eligible, Professional Photographers of America (PPA)

Not bad if you ask me; especially for a free-entry competition. ;)

Hurry though, deadline = May 31st.


omega - 5-24-2006 at 01:41 PM

New camera arrived today. I've found that it's much easier to create a dof effect with the aperture-priority mode on this camera...

Here are some test-run pictures:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/IMG_0039-781045.JPG

Super-macro mode:
http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/IMG_0029-787758.JPG

And a blossoming flower among those beginning to wilt:
http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/IMG_0041-774601.JPG


omega - 5-25-2006 at 05:27 PM

Some more pictures from my new S3:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Green%20Plant%20in%20Foyer-736605.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Lion%20Seal%202-723336.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Chess%20Set-741616.JPG

I tried for a little more of a set-up shot on this one:
http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/IMG_0053-719624.JPG

While I don't think this camera has allowed me to take better pictures, I think it's been really helpful in allowing me to take the kind of pictures that I want.

*edit* Oops, my second picture turned out kinda huge, so I just posted the thumbnail...


idiot - 5-28-2006 at 06:54 PM

Here are some pictures from today..

Do you guys know how I can fix the boat splashing picture so that the water is less reflective (in photoshop)?


AznHombre - 5-28-2006 at 07:11 PM

Not really. Reflections usually mea blown highlights, and there's very little digital can do about it. You can level the whole thing down and you'll still just see these white spots ina sea of black.

That said, there are plug-ins you can download that mimic polarizers (the only real way to control reflections that I know of). You can also use Image>Shadow/Highlights to tone the highlights down a bit.

Nice pics, by the way.

Some more marital arts pics (that's right, marital):


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4645.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4863s.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4591.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_4537.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/San%20Diego%20Grand%20International%205-20-06%20045.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/SDGN2006/IMG_5231.jpg

They're finally paying me and I've got a couple of events set up down the road. Some people also want me to cover their banquets and stuff. I'm reading up on wedding photography. Lots of people do it (and not very well in my opinion) and get paid tons. Mo' money, mo' money, mo' money!!!


idiot - 5-28-2006 at 08:01 PM

nice pictures, I wish I had some events I could go to and try to take some pics :p

by the way, I read that one of the most overpaid job in the USA is wedding photography.. you can make big bucks with that :p


AznHombre - 5-28-2006 at 08:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by idiot
nice pictures, I wish I had some events I could go to and try to take some pics :p

by the way, I read that one of the most overpaid job in the USA is wedding photography.. you can make big bucks with that :p


Eeehh, ya gotta go out and look for these things. A lot of people say that when they feel stuck for a subject, but when that happens ya gotta ask yourself if there's REALLY nothing around. In my case I was assigned to this, but I still had to drive over a hundred miles to get to the event. Then just yesterday I went down to the local temple community center and took pictures of a pingpong tournament. The head of the tournament then asked me to cover his upcoming banquet.


http://x86.xanga.com/d34a311b2823256784155/w38056616.jpg

And for some people still-lifes are more their thing, so you just gotta see what's for you.

And totally, wedding photgraphers are SO overpaid.....man. It's so weird how people think it's all the camera when they screw up a pic, and then think it's all skill for wedding photography and then fork out the big bucks. But I've never done a wedding, so maybe I should withold that opinion, haha.


omega - 5-28-2006 at 09:23 PM

Congrats on landing a paying gig. You planning on making a profession out of this, or just tryin to make a couple quick bucks?

Here are some photos from recently:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Creek-745723.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Blue%20Flower-774366.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Sun%20through%20Clouds-733038.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/Butterfly%20on%20Purple%20Flowers-762770.JPG

More pictures at my website.


Jia - 5-28-2006 at 10:58 PM

I didn't take this, but I'm driving.

This was taken yesterday.

I taught my friend how to take this kind of shot, and eventually after many tries she got it.

so, here's a pic of my car:

http://www.pmgz.net/596.jpg


Kirbaza - 6-5-2006 at 03:00 PM

Very beatiful photos omega (others as well), espically the sky one. I love the nature ones, not saying the others aren't(some are very artistic). Seem like you do a lot of traveling.

Missed this amazing thread the whole time @_@a hmm... tarded me.
Maybe I should start taking pics too. :cool:


AznHombre - 6-10-2006 at 06:56 PM

Dang it's been awhile.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/CultureShow/IMG_8809b.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/CultureShow/IMG_8829.jpg


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/CultureShow/IMG_8827.jpg


idiot - 6-11-2006 at 07:13 AM

it's been raining all the time here.. so I didn't take many pictures.. but I might go to the Ottawa airshow and will go to the Canadian GP so i'll have more pictures soon :P

AznHombre I noticed you like to put dark shadow around your subjects :p

Here are two night shots.. my first time.. rather bad


AznHombre - 6-11-2006 at 09:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by idiot

AznHombre I noticed you like to put dark shadow around your subjects :p



Only when there's a busy background and if it's better than leaving it in. Obviously it'd be better if it was real lighting, but those are your options when you're not working with a studio I guess.


idiot - 6-11-2006 at 06:52 PM

From today.. some tradiation chinese opera..


idiot - 6-11-2006 at 06:54 PM

and some modern dance


AznHombre - 6-13-2006 at 09:46 PM

I need a white background. :P


AznHombre - 6-13-2006 at 09:47 PM

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6160.jpg


Man, that was NOT easy.


AznHombre - 6-18-2006 at 12:42 AM

Need more white backgrounds :P


AznHombre - 6-18-2006 at 12:43 AM

I call this masterpiece, "stinky dog poop with corn in it"

http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6212.jpg


claudewolfe - 6-19-2006 at 03:11 AM

AznHombre. It's amazing how you frame your subjects.

I've never met anyone who understands the technical aspects of photography (i.e. depth of field, f-stop, aperture, light, etc) and is also able to use that knowledge to take great photos.

Thanks for the great pics.


omega - 6-19-2006 at 01:07 PM

Some pics taken at my old chinese school's annual picnic:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/Kids%20by%20the%20Creek%202.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/ECS%20Picnic.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/Eric%20Chau%20Throwing%20Frisbee.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/Kids%20by%20the%20Creek%203.JPG

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/Jon%20Chen%206.JPG

And... a funny license plate I saw there:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/ECS%20Picnic/6969%20License%20Plate.JPG


azncow - 6-19-2006 at 09:11 PM

DUDE WTF!?!?!??!?! WHY WASN'T I INVITEED TO THAT SHIT... OMFG....... WAS SHARA AND MY COUSIN THERE?!?!?!?!?!?


azncow - 6-19-2006 at 09:12 PM

btw i think i see my aunt and my cousin


omega - 6-19-2006 at 09:14 PM

Dude, did you really want to go? It was actually kinda boring... Sarah and Angela were there though, and your cousin Jo. You don't need to be invited either, just show up next time. Rofl.


hikariliang - 6-23-2006 at 02:01 PM

nice to see so many cool photos.
here's mine taken at houston museum of natural science.


idiot - 6-27-2006 at 06:34 PM

Alonso and Michael Schumacher


hikariliang - 6-28-2006 at 03:13 AM

Sugarland RSX meets with approximately 30 RSX's.


AznHombre - 6-28-2006 at 09:28 PM

Man, so much hot stuff lately in this thread! Here's a semi-selfportrait I whipped up practicing some new lighting stuff I've bene reading so much on.

Cut off the hand and burned out the forearm in postprocessing, but it took me long enough to even get this.

rarr hombre smash puny outiens


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_5961.jpg


LuftWaffle - 6-29-2006 at 02:48 PM

Here are some pics untouched per Rukawa's comments.


omega - 6-29-2006 at 04:38 PM

Oh dang. Luftwaffle, you've got a Nikon D1X? Nice photos btw, I especially like the last 3.


AznHombre - 6-30-2006 at 05:38 PM

The hell are you talking about? You don't think the green picture is me?


triguntf - 6-30-2006 at 05:56 PM

Of course its you. Photoshopped worth1000 LOL :D

Talk about cajones when you're the one kicking a man down. YUAN CHAO EXPOSED AND DEVALUED! I'm done here.

hikariliang- you are a RSX lover aren't ya? those sure don't look stock. At least your pictures aren't heavily altered. :P


AznHombre - 6-30-2006 at 06:09 PM

Not really. Other than the color, I didn't really photoshop it much. Believe what you want, I guess.


LuftWaffle - 7-1-2006 at 08:34 AM

Some more of the DX1 shots. Hope " ya'll " like it!

Fly the angry skies*


trixy - 7-2-2006 at 03:36 AM

oh wow LuftWaffle i especially like the 3rd and 4th photo up there...

i know i havn't posted in a while... but here are some photos i've been taking with my new SEX canon 350d....

or digital rebel XT to u americans *methinks*


omega - 7-2-2006 at 10:57 AM

I really like your cat photo trixy. I've never seen a cat with eyes like that before; striking! I like the composition too. Also, I think your photos look a lot better without that HUGE border + text that you had before... >_>


trixy - 7-2-2006 at 11:23 AM

thx a lot, and yeah i agree, the big borders and writing looked much too cheesy, yet i was blind to see it at the time lol


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 12:34 AM

That's not too bad at all, Trixy! I think that second one would work pretty well as photojournalism, where we would have some context as to what's going on with it. The last one, too, but personally I think it could've been done a lot better. Seriously though, I really like that second one.

So how long have you had your new toy? I see you're still using normal exposure mode. It worked out alright int he second picture, but next time you're out in the bright sun like that you might want to just go ahead and lower it down to ISO100. ISO800 like in that picture is just overkill in outdoor sun and I know how much you hate image quality degradation.

Did you do any post-processing? I think the first one could use some.

But yeah, really, that's a great start. Welcome to the club, haha.


Here's something way better, though :P


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_6336.jpg


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 01:14 AM

haha, when u say exposure.... ur talking about iso?? i thought the two were completely different, iso being sensitivity of the sensor? and exposure restricting how much light to effect the sensor via adjusting shutter speed?

and u know how u like kenrockwell? at http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

well on DA, theres a pretty damn good artist called http://cweeks.deviantart.com and in his blog HERE: http://www.barbequediguana.com/blog/ he slags off ur ken rockwell lol, just like to hear what u think... lol


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 01:34 AM

Looks like im going to egypt lol, im moving there this summer, and on my recon trip i snapped some more shots...


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 01:40 AM

One, choosing your ISO is one of the three main ways to control final exposure.

Second, I think the guy needs to calm down. I personally don't think the composition of Ken Rockwell's work is anything special at all. But his understanding of the technical aspects appears sound and his overall attitude towards photography I agree with very much. I hate pretentious "photgraphic artistes." I don't know if he really read Rockwell's site, either. As far as I know, Rockwell doesn't advocate buying the crappiest quipment like a Holga. The guy himself has some pretty expensive gear. He just warns against becoming a gear hound, which trust me, there's are a lot out there. They're the ones always overworrying about sharpness and noise levels and other image quality issues IN LIEU OF composition and technique.

Third, I disagree with you and personally don't find the DA guy's stuff all that interesting. You can make the point that he's doing shots of celebrities, but that makes little difference to me.

Fourth, "MY" Ken Rockwell?

And I hope you realize I'm trying to be nice. If you want to be back where we were, just say the word.


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 01:47 AM

well i ddn't mean to offend , and if i have im sorry...

but i only said it was "your" ken rockwell, cause i believe it was you who first directed me to his site..

personally im neutral about his photos, i think theyre pretty decent...

and i suppose the celebrity factor improves the photos in my eyes, and the fact he can get such clear photos amidst the hustle and bustle of the red carpet.... again u could always complaing that hes a paparazzi..

and the iso issue, the main thing lol.... im still a wee bit confuzzled, what are the "things" that one could use to control exposure then?


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 01:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
and the iso issue, the main thing lol.... im still a wee bit confuzzled, what are the "things" that one could use to control exposure then?


You should really get a handle on that. Otherwise like I said in the email, you'll have thrown away half the reason for having bought the dSLR.

I don't really have time to explain it, cuz I'm sleepy. I think I did it earlier in this thread (though probably badly, since I was a lot more noobie than I am now. Now I'm just semi-noob). I think the best is to just read up on Ken Rockwell's site. I imagine he probably wrote an article on it, and with his writing style, he probably wrote it out in a really easy to understand way.


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 02:07 AM

well i sent a U2U to aznhombre, and he felt it could benefit the community, so here you all go!

Quote:
again, regardless of the photographer, i was wondering if you could help me out...

the photo below ...

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d41/weekschris/1july2006journal/cmw06262006-6173.jpg

is the DOF created by the lens? or PS? or some other new fancy means?



This is something you should just ask in the photography thread since it can help others. Technically, I don't think you can really say if it was photoshop or the lens. But 99.999% it's probably just the lens.

I'm guessing you bought the 70-300mm Canon EF. I believe the aperture at the long range is pretty small at around F5.6? I think you might still be able to get something close to that picture, with just a tad bit less background blur. On resized images like these there's not nearly as much of a difference as some people would like to insist. All you need to do is get out of normal exposure mode and control the camera yourself. Otherwise you've just thrown away half the reason for having bought that dSLR




and aznhombre i ddnt get th canon version, i think it was either too expensive or wasn't available.. instead i got sigma 70-300mm... (with a macro function)


omega - 7-3-2006 at 03:28 AM

I heard it's good to shoot in P, or Program mode. If you spend too much time fiddling around with buttons (messing w/ shutterspeed and aperture) you could miss what could potentially be a great shot. Unless of course, you're going for a very specific type of shot, and have time to setup for that sort of thing.


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 09:43 AM

P mode is actually pretty good. Most pros seem to use Av mode for most situations, which is what I've defaulted to now cuz I got tired of giving my finger cramps from Manual mode. I forget if P mode chooses ISO for you, though, which is what I don't want. I remember trying it out and it was pretty convenient. The only problem is that I don't feel the 350D's auto exposure program is that accurate, and I'm so used to Av mode now that I can dial in my prefence pretty well. Av and P mode actually uses slightly different metering modes from what I understand, so that maybe be why. And then when you throw in hotshoe flash work, Manual and Av mode seems to be best for that. I prefer to stick to Av mode 90% of the time and switch to M mode for tricky or flash work now.

The problem is that Trixy really really wants depth of field control but he's in Auto mode, not P mode. Unless you're just getting really close to the subject and magnifying it large, I think Auto mode usually tries to give you as much depth of field as possible, which is exactly the opposite of what Trixy wants. And if you're outdooors in bright sunlight and chose ISO800, you're almost guranteed to get large DOF from the aperture closing down in order to compensate for the high exposure value it would get otherwise.


omega - 7-3-2006 at 10:24 AM

Yeah shooting ISO800 in direct sunlight is not a very good idea at all, especially if you want a shallow DOF, for the exact same reasons AznHombre explained above. You'll get a very small aperture (aperture values get smaller as the f-numbers go up, and let in less light), which will most definitely expand your DOF, and keep more things in focus.

I think that the only time I would use a high ISO in sunlight, is if I were shooting sports photography... and needed the extra-fast shutterspeeds to 'stop' motion. Unless, of course, you have a really fast lens.

BTW, Trixy: more bokeh = less depth of field. If you want more bokeh, do as AznHombre does, and shoot in Av mode. That's Aperture-Value mode, or Aperture Priority mode. It allows you to set the aperture value, and it will calculate the shutter-speed for you. Set the aperture to the smallest value possible to get the shallowest DOF. And if you want even MORE bokeh, try zooming in to the maximum telephoto focal range, that should help.

Quote:
and the iso issue, the main thing lol.... im still a wee bit confuzzled, what are the "things" that one could use to control exposure then?

= aperture, shutter-speed, and ISO. I really thought you would have picked all these things up by now trixy! Read your camera's manual, I'm sure there's a ton of useful information in there about all the different modes, and how to use them.

I'm not 100% sure about all this stuff, so if I made any mistakes, somebody please correct me before trixy picks up a bunch of nonsense. :)


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 10:44 AM

I'm not particularly anal about it, but "bokeh" technically isn't the same as "shallow depth of field." Just a heads up, cuz I once mis-used it that way and some photo-nazis tried to tear into me.

Then I reached through the monitor and choked him. Or so I wish was a feature on the internet.


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 11:46 AM

well aznhomre, i dont shoot in auto mode, i use P mode all the time anyway...

and yes with the 350d you can choose iso in any mode *except auto i think*

and yes omega i had worked out about av mode, however, it seemed that everytime i increased the apperture value, the shutter speed would slow down, and nearly always create motion blur.. which i hate...


omega - 7-3-2006 at 12:04 PM

Why are you increasing the aperture value? That creates MORE dof... I thought you were trying to do the opposite.


AznHombre - 7-3-2006 at 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
well aznhomre, i dont shoot in auto mode, i use P mode all the time anyway...

and yes with the 350d you can choose iso in any mode *except auto i think*

and yes omega i had worked out about av mode, however, it seemed that everytime i increased the apperture value, the shutter speed would slow down, and nearly always create motion blur.. which i hate...


If you're shooting in P mode you need to learn exactly how shutter speed, aperture and ISO affects things. Otherwise you would be better off in Auto mode.

And closing down the aperture in Av mode will ofcourse slow down the shutter speed because it's trying to achieve the same exposure value. If you want to keep the same shutter speed, you need to dial in some negative compensation. Though you then need to understand why you would want to do that.

I don't know why you would compain about Av mode though. P mode decreases the shutter speed the same way Av mode does when you close down the aperture. Again, because it's just trying to keep the same exposure value. Incase it's too confusing, these exposure modes like Av and P and Tv and all that are just convenient time savers. None of them make the picture better or worse in anyway just by using them. 1/100 of a second at F4 is 1/100th of a second at F4 no matter what exposure mode or camera you use.


trixy - 7-3-2006 at 12:44 PM

yeah, as you all know im still noobish at this.. but what i do realise is what affect the shutter speed and aperture all have ,,

and i know iso increases the sensitivity of the sensor, etc....

maybe whilst i was trying out av mode, the lighting was exactly ideal then.. hmm, ill go on an experimenting spree this summer


couldn't resist posting one more for tonite ^_^

let me know what you think...

i believe theyre the equivalent of mounted police lol


trixy - 7-4-2006 at 02:40 AM

moving aside from what we've been most familiar with over here in this thread.... i was wondering, what do you guys think about film photography? cause of the shots i've seen everything seems so much... *better* i mean the colours, the DOF, the aura, it's just so serene...

anybody got any experience with it out here and could perhaps recomment a cheap slr? for future reference of course :P


AznHombre - 7-4-2006 at 10:35 AM

A lot of people argue over it because the definition of "image quality" isn't set in stone, but I for one believe that film has better image quality than digital. Digital's main asset is giving the person the ability to more easily edit the image later, which in the end can give you an image you otherwise would have trouble getting. This final image can trump the one shot on film, because film is a little more rigid. Digital also has better shadow detail and cleaner images at higher ISOs, but I personally think all that pales in comparison to the "ease of use" of digital.

Film has better exposure lattitude, which is what you're seeing in the "better" colors you mention. In this picture you posted: http://www.outie.net/forums/attach/imwithstupid_trixy54.jpg , do you notice how the sky is nearly gone? On film it would've been more saturated with say, blue, or whatever it was that day, instead of nearly white like it is in that picture. And a lot of film users on the internet that you see shoot landscapes, which is non moving. So what ends up happening is that they'll use film like Fuji Velvia 50, which has incredible saturation and lattitude, BUT it's ISO 50, which makes it very difficult to use for things other tan landscapes and subjects in bright sunlight. Plus, then they have to get the film developed and scanned to display on the computer, no cheap task after awhile. Film is also usually sharper than digital.

It's all give and take. So to reiterate, in my opinion, film has better "brute force" in terms of image quality, but digital has better control. And I think as we've seen all these years, the ability to control composition trumps sheer image quality any day of the week. Ken Rockwell wrote an article on film versus digital quality. He often shoots medium format film, which he rated at around 100 megapixels in digital parlance. For 35mm film, I've seen estimates anywhere from as low as 6 to as high as 40 megapixels.

Also, there are ways around the drawbacks of both film and digital. Some pros like to use film and scan the negatives straight into the computer, giving them both the exposure lattitude of film and the ease of editing of digital. Expensive, but they're pros. And then there are digital shooters who just spend hours editing an image to get what they want. And then there are film shooters who just shoot tons of rolls.

P.S. It cracks me up when you get some of these new Asian digital SLR buyers who only entered photography in the digital age and bought it cuz they thought image quality was the biggest difference between the great shots they see on the internet and the snapshots they were getting on their point&shoots. Then they start buying all these expensive lenses and insist on shooting only in ISO100 at all times to reduce noise at the sacrifice of actual composition. Then finally, their heads explode when they find out film actually had better image quality, cuz what the heck?? Didn't we move from film to digital BECAUSE the image quality was better???? LOLZERS at those fools.


omega - 7-4-2006 at 12:39 PM

I think most of the new Asian DSLR buyers are moving from digital P&S to DSLR. I hardly know anyone anymore to still uses a film camera. :/

I wouldn't mind having a DSLR though... my P&S really does suck indoors / low-light conditions.


AznHombre - 7-4-2006 at 12:50 PM

I've been playing with film. I just borrowed an old film body from my uncle.

Here're some scans of me as a baby. These negatives were shot with an old rangefinder (so probably without a quality lens). Not bad for 20 year old film, eh?


trixy - 7-4-2006 at 03:39 PM

see, if the lens had been better, that alst pic would be brilliant.. and the saturation is just so much coooler lol, what i hear, maybe it was you aznhombre who told me this, but its better for people to start off with digital, to get used to an actual slr as it would be expensive to start and learn with film, as your first shots are bound to be crap...

but dof with film *accompanied by a good lens of course* is just so much nicer... as for noise, at times it's very handy for creating mood

the only thing that would bug me is that films have fixed ISO's and i would have to shoot an entire roll to change iso, which wouldnt suit me, as the majority of my shots are taken when the mood hits me, rather than set up, etc


omega - 7-4-2006 at 05:12 PM

I don't think I would ever shoot film, unless I were doing it professionally. It's just too damn expensive.


AznHombre - 7-4-2006 at 11:25 PM

I don't think you can normally tell the quality of a lens based on a resized photo that small. My point was that even though it was probably a bad lens, it looks just as good as it can get (with a little PS sharpening, ofcourse).


omega - 7-4-2006 at 11:42 PM

A nifty photoset on flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/alternate/sets/199123/

All taken w/ a P&S Nikon, I believe. An E4500 is a point-and-shoot, right?


trixy - 7-5-2006 at 01:06 AM

damnit my ISP has blocked flickr.. grr


claudewolfe - 7-5-2006 at 03:35 AM

Hey AznHombre,

Are you still into film? About three years ago, I went and got myself the last brand new titanium Contax G2 I could find in Southern California. Leica M series were just way too expensive and not practical for my purposes. I'm at the point in my life where I don't really care for cool gadgets and toys anymore. As you may have guessed, I'm a nerd who has mastered everything technical about photography (You should see my discussion on other forums on technically why increasing ISO does not actually increase noise in digital photography. Almost no one, except an electrical engineer, would have understood or believed me.) Regardless, I have almost zero interest in anything artistic about photography.

Anyways, I'm not trying to pitch or sell anything, but if you know anyone or anybody who wants to buy my virtually pristine and unused Contax G2, let me know. (Not even one roll of film has gone through this gorgeous Japanese Rangefinder). The 45mm F2 Carl Zeiss lens pictured is the sharpest normal lens ever tested by Photodo.

I did a pretty crappy job of photoshopping out the serial number on the lens. . .

Thanks.

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
I've been playing with film. I just borrowed an old film body from my uncle.

Here're some scans of me as a baby. These negatives were shot with an old rangefinder (so probably without a quality lens). Not bad for 20 year old film, eh?


B0000rt - 7-5-2006 at 10:11 AM

Commenting on film, atleast w/ film, you won't ever get funky artificats when shooting mosaic/checker patterns ;)


omega - 7-6-2006 at 05:07 PM

Quote:
As you may have guessed, I'm a nerd who has mastered everything technical about photography (You should see my discussion on other forums on technically why increasing ISO does not actually increase noise in digital photography. Almost no one, except an electrical engineer, would have understood or believed me.) Regardless, I have almost zero interest in anything artistic about photography.

Here's some stuff that may interest you:

http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

Some articles this guy has written on post-processing techniques. He gets pretty technical about how the sensor reads light and stuff. Just reading the first page of the sharpening series, my head started to hurt. :)


AznHombre - 7-6-2006 at 06:19 PM

Haha, I read that once. I guess if he stated his point about what he's intereted in then it's all good, cuz at the time I was like, "Is any of this crap actually necesarry???"


AznHombre - 7-6-2006 at 06:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by claudewolfe
Hey AznHombre,

Are you still into film? About three years ago, I went and got myself the last brand new titanium Contax G2 I could find in Southern California.


Haha, cool, but I think I have enough cameras now. I got my dSLR, a 13 dollar Minolta film SLR from ym uncle, and another Rebel S film body from the same uncle. Now all I need is a point&shoot. Haven't had one in like a year now.


omega - 7-6-2006 at 06:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AznHombre
Haha, I read that once. I guess if he stated his point about what he's intereted in then it's all good, cuz at the time I was like, "Is any of this crap actually necesarry???"

It's actually kinda funny, cuz I particularly find any of his photos awe-inspiring. :/


omega - 7-13-2006 at 05:51 PM

A quick attempt at an HDR image. Processed w/ photomatix.

+2 / -2 EV; In the original image, the entire sky was blown out.


trixy - 7-14-2006 at 05:49 AM

i love HDR, as i've said before, the mood depicted is just soo karaaazy, and it's usefull for indoor shots where u want to see outside :)

omega, may i ask, that bench... was it originally darker down the middle? it looks like it's been kinda burnt...

and what camera did u use?


omega - 7-14-2006 at 10:23 AM

Used a Nikon D70s, shot handheld. The trees moved a little bit due to wind, so they look a little funny. The bench was originally a little bit lighter...

Original exposure:


omega - 7-14-2006 at 02:13 PM

Here is a recent pic. Two beetles, sharing an intimate moment... w/ an onlooker. :O

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/1665/beetlessmall3db.jpg


angelic.gothika - 7-14-2006 at 02:17 PM

mother nautre is beautiful but woah thats kinda scary in a beautiful way ahah ok i dun make sense. but once i went to this site about spiders and they had this super huge pic of a spide and u cud see every strand of hair comingout from it...


omega - 7-14-2006 at 03:50 PM

Some more:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/071406/Red%20Flowers%20Small.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/071406/Sunflower%20Small.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/071506/Sunflower%20Alive%20and%20Dead%20Small.jpg


trixy - 7-15-2006 at 03:28 PM

no offence omega, but i find flower shots very boring, and cliche'd ...

it takes a lot to make a flower shot attractive *to me, at least* and i feel taht that is when the focus of the shot is <i>not</i> on the flower... for example ur last shot, there is a lot more space, making the photo look more like a portrait, hence detracting attention, making it nicer :)

mee riding, in egypt :D


angelic.gothika - 7-15-2006 at 03:38 PM

wow that sounded so pro or r u juss tlaking jibberish?


trixy - 7-15-2006 at 03:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by angelic.gothika
wow that sounded so pro or r u juss tlaking jibberish?


it makes sense to me lol

ooh, and heres one of a donkey in cairo... the main method for farmers for getting around...


omega - 7-15-2006 at 06:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
no offence omega, but i find flower shots very boring, and cliche'd ...

it takes a lot to make a flower shot attractive *to me, at least* and i feel taht that is when the focus of the shot is <i>not</i> on the flower... for example ur last shot, there is a lot more space, making the photo look more like a portrait, hence detracting attention, making it nicer :)

None taken. I actually find flower shots kinda cliche as well, and I tried hard to think of some interesting compositions for them. Actually, the last one is probably one of my favorites also (but the small version doesn't really do it justice).

Here's a bigger version of it: http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/071506/Sunflower%20Alive%20and%20Dead.JPG

And an attempt at a black and white conversion:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/071506/TEMP%20SMALL%20IMAGES/Black%20and%20White%20Flower%20copy.jpg


trixy - 7-16-2006 at 01:51 AM

ooooh i really like that black and white version :)


angelic.gothika - 7-16-2006 at 08:30 PM

ahhh the flower looks so fragile..nice;)


onebroke240sx - 7-17-2006 at 10:10 PM

That black and white version of the flower is nice! I also like the thread starters pictures.


trixy - 7-19-2006 at 10:41 AM

aznhombre, i forget if u mentioned this earlier, but i've forgotten...

what canon eos do u use? and what lenses do u have? ur pics seem crystal clear!


AznHombre - 7-19-2006 at 02:49 PM

I use the same camera you use. Lenses I've run through several as I've traded up and down through the used market. But it really doesn't matter much for internet-sized postings. Sharpness is pretty hard to compare unless you're looking at 100% crops. Contrast and color are almost always manipulated somehow in Photoshop with most stuff I post.

From my last event:


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/KStar2006/IMG_7743b.jpg


trixy - 7-21-2006 at 11:50 AM

true, but i ahve to say, im absolutely in love with the L series of canons lenses...

and i recently saw, in a magazine, that the d50 was rated better than the 350d.... their issues were the handling, the fact that 8MP isn't that important when ur not a pro...

and the automatic white balance was a bit off....

just out of interest :)


trixy - 7-21-2006 at 11:52 AM

and heres some pics of a retired clown i saw.. :D


AznHombre - 7-31-2006 at 01:36 AM

Just something neat I did with my friend's pics


trixy - 7-31-2006 at 07:27 AM

hehe azn hombre thats really nice!

heres a kitty with walking bravely amongst cars. i saw her strutting her stuff along the road... she just screamed attitude ;)

and two "locals" :P


AznHombre - 8-1-2006 at 02:36 AM

I need a white background


AznHombre - 8-1-2006 at 02:38 AM

Didn't really get this the way I imagined it, but after the first 90 minutes and then another hour calibrating my monitor, I was just too tired to try again. Wish I knew how to do graphics in photoshop to add a more interesting background.


http://www.wonjohnsoup.com/Pictures/IMG_0059.jpg


omega - 8-21-2006 at 07:01 PM

asdf


n-tone - 8-23-2006 at 02:55 PM

haven't really been taking any pics.. and this is by a nokia. :) so it's not really 'photography'


KniveZ - 9-3-2006 at 01:36 PM

Hrrm how about a close up
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/6035/eyecryingze0.jpg


trixy - 9-8-2006 at 02:38 AM

well then here's a few.. seeing as i havnt posted in a while..


omega - 9-17-2006 at 12:05 PM

Two random shots


n-tone - 9-20-2006 at 02:08 PM

Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK


trixy - 9-22-2006 at 03:58 PM

i have too much free time, being cooped up in a hotel all day.

model is me.


azncow - 9-23-2006 at 01:49 AM

that is madddd fuckin tripppyyy/scary.... it looks like one of thos " The Gruge" pics...


trixy - 9-24-2006 at 10:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by azncow
that is madddd fuckin tripppyyy/scary.... it looks like one of thos " The Gruge" pics...

ha! cheers.

you won't guess whats on tv rite now... its... the grudge. :o no joke


dragon208 - 9-26-2006 at 03:40 PM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-05-22_12-54.jpg


trixy - 9-30-2006 at 05:51 AM

experimenting with bw conceptual stuff.


dragon208 - 10-1-2006 at 10:58 AM

Macro mode on my phone about a year ago...

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/05-11-02_14-59.jpg


trio - 10-1-2006 at 06:20 PM

was using my old old camera :%


omega - 10-4-2006 at 09:52 AM

akgJAdkgALka

more here: http://www.omegadude.com/2006/09/Neptune_Festival/


chiseen - 10-8-2006 at 09:28 PM

a few of mine...

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/flyonlimes.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/flower.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/Disney%20World/castlewhite.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/Disney%20World/epcot1-1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/Disney%20World/castle2.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/Disney%20World/waterfall.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/Disney%20World/dolphin.jpg

I miss Disneyworld :(


jeedub - 10-9-2006 at 10:55 PM

A couple of rolling shots of my friend's cars and mine.


trixy - 10-10-2006 at 12:29 PM

wow, is it just me or has the standard of photography around here gone up?

well, here's one i took for a friends art project...

and one of some kitties i saw at the Cairo Bazaar.. check out http://trixy54.wordpress.com for more info :) and more pics ;)


trixy - 10-10-2006 at 12:30 PM

oops forgot the one of my friend ;)


Hattori_Hanzo - 10-11-2006 at 01:39 AM

Here some more pics from me


hybrid_SI - 10-12-2006 at 05:40 PM

few of mines shot couple weeks ago

http://img278.imageshack.us/img278/9226/mallgb8.jpg

http://img304.imageshack.us/img304/2543/viewbo4.jpg

http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/4672/view2ho1.jpg

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/1115/92602854lud1.jpg

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/9434/sunset1qw8.jpg


omega - 10-13-2006 at 11:43 PM

Whoa, nice night shots hybrid.

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/hand/DSC_0566-Edit%20Bigger.jpg


hybrid_SI - 10-26-2006 at 04:22 PM

http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4517/105492382lxo8.jpg

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1166/103722999obq0.jpg

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1823/dsc038220061025020351fk0.jpg

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/1326/panaromicsetwb9jj2.jpg


Jigoku - 10-26-2006 at 04:53 PM

awesome shots.

you make me want to move to hawaii. lol :cool:


outie - 10-26-2006 at 05:13 PM

I think I will make a new special forum for sharing these awesome pictures.


hybrid_SI - 10-26-2006 at 05:32 PM

oh in that case....i'll post more! im just having a hard time in choosing which ones to post due to having tons!

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/8575/103231723oev4.jpg

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/5243/103232604omo4.jpg

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4096/img0510000ly9.jpg

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2191/133996593f2feeb4be0il6.jpg


early morning sunrise
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/6429/83195754f7749cc2cboal3.jpg






this is what i'm using to shoot all my photos.

taken with my camera phone :)
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/1235/rebelxtnm0.jpg

taken with my point and shoot SD550
http://img285.imageshack.us/img285/526/lenstc1.jpg


hikariliang - 10-27-2006 at 09:26 PM

9/16/06 Austin RSX meet.


mugenized - 10-28-2006 at 01:35 PM

SICK!!!!....RSX!!!
Any more pix from the meet?


idiot - 10-28-2006 at 03:37 PM

Some laterns from Jardin Botanique in Montreal


eighty-six - 10-28-2006 at 07:45 PM

wow, hybrid.. your photos first made me envy.. now i'm just inspired.. awesome stuff man.


eighty-six - 10-28-2006 at 08:17 PM

Hope you guys enjoy these. They were taken between 2005 and 2006.


mugenized - 10-28-2006 at 08:25 PM

Ahhh....nice...good ol' robarts.


xtorox - 10-28-2006 at 10:37 PM

Here is a picture.. hope it's good na..


trixy - 10-29-2006 at 10:08 AM

how emo.


B0000rt - 10-29-2006 at 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mugenized
Ahhh....nice...good ol' robarts.

I was gonna say "Is that the Peacock's ass?" heh


trixy - 10-29-2006 at 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by outie
I think I will make a new special forum for sharing these awesome pictures.


really? that'd be awesome outie..


and hybrid. I see you use a 350D too! please tell me thats not the 70-200 L lens is it?

and seeing as this could be big. I better step up my game :)


hybrid_SI - 10-29-2006 at 05:13 PM

Quote:
and hybrid. I see you use a 350D too! please tell me thats not the 70-200 L lens is it?


this is what i currently have..

canon 70-200 f/4L
canon 17-40 f/4L
canon 50 f/1.4
canon 430EX flash
canon BG E3 Vertical Grip
canon EF 1.4x II Extender

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/868/105490244lfj1.jpg

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/6595/105684463lfs2.jpg

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3530/105951201ldn3.jpg

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/849/106092230lfr5.jpg


trixy - 10-30-2006 at 03:51 PM

oh my, im envious...

here are some more.


n-tone - 10-30-2006 at 05:01 PM

pic from an exhibition at dusseldorf. all glass staircase, by Seele, the company who makes the ones for Apple stores.


hybrid_SI - 10-30-2006 at 07:58 PM

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2885/airport002copyjn2.jpg

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/1224/freewaycopywx6.jpg


arasyii - 10-31-2006 at 07:34 AM

kuya post ari's pics lidat :p


hybrid_SI - 10-31-2006 at 07:45 AM

cant oi....its a pic that i didnt shoot


arasyii - 10-31-2006 at 07:47 AM

take new anden bumbai others wont see her cuteness :x


hybrid_SI - 10-31-2006 at 02:42 PM

was messing around doing HDR. this is the first time i tried....not too bad imo

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9962/bikepc2.jpg


dragon208 - 10-31-2006 at 04:38 PM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-05-22_12-54.jpg


hikariliang - 11-1-2006 at 07:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mugenized
SICK!!!!....RSX!!!
Any more pix from the meet?


Here are the rest of the RSX's.


genki - 11-1-2006 at 09:37 PM

i cant even look at this thread..
my shitty computer is at the point of crashing when i look at these photos

i've always enjoyed beautiful photography..but never practiced it myself
never owned a camera
havent even taken a picture of myself


trixy - 11-2-2006 at 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by genki
i cant even look at this thread..
my shitty computer is at the point of crashing when i look at these photos

i've always enjoyed beautiful photography..but never practiced it myself
never owned a camera
havent even taken a picture of myself


well, go on then. Shoot some!


omega - 11-2-2006 at 11:55 AM

^he just said he's never owned a camera, silly.


trixy - 11-3-2006 at 06:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
^he just said he's never owned a camera, silly.


doesn't mean he can't go out and buy a camera.. even a disposable one, or borrow somebody elses?


hybrid_SI - 11-4-2006 at 12:39 AM

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1871/1ed6.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/381/2te2.jpg

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/5338/3ps2.jpg


trixy - 11-4-2006 at 12:41 AM

wait, wait, guys.. what is the point of this photogrpahy thread, just out of interest?

Are we allowed to critique? or comment?

or are we simply going to post photos for the sake of it?


hybrid_SI - 11-3-2006 at 01:16 PM

i'll take constructive critism


trixy - 11-3-2006 at 01:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hybrid_SI
i'll take constructive critism

hrm.. in that case, may i suggest you re-crop the middle photo? the one of the deck?

it seems like the deck is leading off-centre.. and i the boats surrounding it are .. kinda unbalanced... at least thats what i call it :)


hybrid_SI - 11-3-2006 at 01:59 PM

tbh...it wont matter much because i wasnt standing in the center of the dock.


mugenized - 11-5-2006 at 01:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hikariliang
Quote:
Originally posted by mugenized
SICK!!!!....RSX!!!
Any more pix from the meet?


Here are the rest of the RSX's.


thanks!!


azncow - 11-5-2006 at 07:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by hybrid_SI
was messing around doing HDR. this is the first time i tried....not too bad imo

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9962/bikepc2.jpg



what is HDR?!?


drujai - 11-5-2006 at 11:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by azncow
Quote:
Originally posted by hybrid_SI
was messing around doing HDR. this is the first time i tried....not too bad imo

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9962/bikepc2.jpg



what is HDR?!?


i was just about to ask.. cause that is one sick effect.. TEACH!


omega - 11-6-2006 at 12:18 AM

I believe HDR was already discussed in this thread. Check the previous pages for more info. :|


hybrid_SI - 11-7-2006 at 03:22 AM

HDR (high dynamic range) is combining multiple shots at different exposures. A good and fairly easy program to use is photomatix.


trixy - 11-7-2006 at 08:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hybrid_SI
HDR (high dynamic range) is combining multiple shots at different exposures. A good and fairly easy program to use is photomatix.


another way of doing it is to simply use Photoshop CS2


mel5582 - 11-8-2006 at 05:47 AM

A few shots I took when I was back home last week.


Jia - 11-8-2006 at 03:06 PM

^^^ I really like the first shot, nice!


hybrid_SI - 11-8-2006 at 06:12 PM

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/24/1565984loz7.jpg

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/2751/108885639lih3.jpg

http://img366.imageshack.us/img366/4691/100660143lad1.jpg


omega - 11-8-2006 at 06:21 PM

Nice pics hybrid. The second shot could use some horizon-straightening though... :P

What kinda post-processing do you do w/ your pics, if any?


Jia - 11-11-2006 at 12:33 PM

this was taken with my cell so don't be in awe about the quality

I just thought it'd would be a nice pic, I didn't put the poppy flower there either, it was already there.

http://www.pmgz.net/1126.jpg


incomparable_jon - 11-12-2006 at 08:26 AM

canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)


borimor - 11-13-2006 at 02:10 AM

A few shots I took from my visual diary.

Probably not the best camera to use but oh well.


sp0rkE. - 11-13-2006 at 08:41 PM

just a little something when i was bored
both with camera phone
first was during class :D
second is my keyboard


lilxswtxvtxboi - 11-14-2006 at 06:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by hybrid_SI
was messing around doing HDR. this is the first time i tried....not too bad imo

http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9962/bikepc2.jpg


is that you're r6?? pretty nice. i think the white fairings take away too much from the picture though. the bike would be hott if the fairings were red too


arasyii - 11-14-2006 at 06:09 AM

that's his co-worker's r6. this was his r1-


lilxswtxvtxboi - 11-14-2006 at 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by arasyii
that's his co-worker's r6. this was his r1-


WOW, thats beautiful. This is my R6, still workin on it, but it wont be as nice. I just want to do a few more red accents here there like brake lines and angel eyes. Definitely need to remove my reflectors and get a fender eliminator


hybrid_SI - 11-15-2006 at 11:17 PM

thx for posting the pic zura

as nice as it may have looked. it was a pain keeping water spots off after riding in some rain. i also had a polished custom long swing arm made but never got around to installing it before selling the bike.


joyce - 11-17-2006 at 07:53 AM

From Gold Coast, Australia:


joyce - 11-17-2006 at 06:39 PM

The Beach:


DingDong88 - 11-19-2006 at 08:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by incomparable_jon
canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)


hey how do you that? ive seen people writing stuff.. how u do that with a camera?


trixy - 11-20-2006 at 10:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by incomparable_jon
canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)


hey how do you that? ive seen people writing stuff.. how u do that with a camera?


it's called using a "slow shutter speed" where you expose the sensor to light for a longer period of time. As a result, you can create different "impressions" on your picture... it also makes things a lot brighter, so it's best to do this in pitch black.

here's an example of experimentation with it ..


DingDong88 - 11-20-2006 at 01:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by incomparable_jon
canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)


hey how do you that? ive seen people writing stuff.. how u do that with a camera?


it's called using a "slow shutter speed" where you expose the sensor to light for a longer period of time. As a result, you can create different "impressions" on your picture... it also makes things a lot brighter, so it's best to do this in pitch black.

here's an example of experimentation with it ..


can i use my cellphone to do that? i have a sharp 903 3.2mp


trixy - 11-22-2006 at 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by incomparable_jon
canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)


hey how do you that? ive seen people writing stuff.. how u do that with a camera?


it's called using a "slow shutter speed" where you expose the sensor to light for a longer period of time. As a result, you can create different "impressions" on your picture... it also makes things a lot brighter, so it's best to do this in pitch black.

here's an example of experimentation with it ..


can i use my cellphone to do that? i have a sharp 903 3.2mp


I'm not too sure you have the ability to control shutter speed on a cellphone.. However, you could try setting your camera to night mode. Then place it on a still surface.. make sure it doesn't move, and shake a torch around :p

btw, here's a sample from a shoot i did with my gf :)


chiseen - 11-24-2006 at 11:25 AM

shot these a few days ago. :)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/treesnam1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/tower1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/poststrees.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/bench.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/tower1.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g19/ggiang/tower2.jpg


HGCman - 11-26-2006 at 01:37 PM


IllusionX - 11-27-2006 at 01:30 PM

couple pics of my echo from last summer...

http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0366.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0368.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0369.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0370.jpg


dragon208 - 11-27-2006 at 02:48 PM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-11-25_20-581.jpg


dragon208 - 11-28-2006 at 03:19 PM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-11-25_20-58.jpg


dragon208 - 11-28-2006 at 04:12 PM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-11-25_20-19.jpg


HGCman - 12-4-2006 at 03:33 AM

Some Pics I took Recently


DingDong88 - 12-4-2006 at 07:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by IllusionX
couple pics of my echo from last summer...

http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0366.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0368.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0369.jpg
http://illusionx.dyndns.org/echo2005/CIMG0370.jpg


you failed to hide your license plate.. nice echo :P


momorokoko - 12-4-2006 at 01:21 PM

isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


trixy - 12-5-2006 at 12:38 PM

egyptian street.


DingDong88 - 12-5-2006 at 09:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


yea i think it is.. near that hochelaga street.. is it? :scratch:


trixy - 12-7-2006 at 08:35 AM

hrmm.. question guys...

i have been asked to photograph a model, and create a portfolio for him...

do any of you guys have any experience with portfolios? what should i do with him?


kimtaro - 12-9-2006 at 03:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


Oh my, that looks like the maxii close to my house...
is it near a Canadian Tire and a lot of other stores? above Sherbrooke?
PS: nice echo,


sobakchi - 12-10-2006 at 10:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
hrmm.. question guys...

i have been asked to photograph a model, and create a portfolio for him...

do any of you guys have any experience with portfolios? what should i do with him?


go wild
choose a style or just go GQ look kinda
make it seem like he is versitile in all forms like maybe do some ad style photos


sobakchi - 12-10-2006 at 10:57 PM

my rep work haha
done in grade 12


i2ik - 12-12-2006 at 12:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


yea i think it is.. near that hochelaga street.. is it? :scratch:


I doubt its near Hochelaga street. I used to live in the corner. Thats still in the east side of the city tho. I know there is a road for bikes there, there is a brigde not too far from it and a park just after that was used for the event : Tour de l'ile 2 years ago... can't remember the name of the street..


omega - 12-13-2006 at 06:48 PM

At Union Station, DC for a Starbucks event:


nyoneway - 12-14-2006 at 07:35 PM

Took this in florida on sunday


muthasucka - 12-18-2006 at 11:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by i2ik
Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


yea i think it is.. near that hochelaga street.. is it? :scratch:



I doubt its near Hochelaga street. I used to live in the corner. Thats still in the east side of the city tho. I know there is a road for bikes there, there is a brigde not too far from it and a park just after that was used for the event : Tour de l'ile 2 years ago... can't remember the name of the street..


its near St michel , joliette metro , and there is a petro canda right beside


t - 12-19-2006 at 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by muthasucka
Quote:
Originally posted by i2ik
Quote:
Originally posted by DingDong88
Quote:
Originally posted by momorokoko
isn't that the abandoned trainyard near st.michel street? it looks very familiar...
the pics are nice in terms of framing-wise but if the sunlight was there it could have been better (for the shadow effect), but it's good


yea i think it is.. near that hochelaga street.. is it? :scratch:



I doubt its near Hochelaga street. I used to live in the corner. Thats still in the east side of the city tho. I know there is a road for bikes there, there is a brigde not too far from it and a park just after that was used for the event : Tour de l'ile 2 years ago... can't remember the name of the street..


its near St michel , joliette metro , and there is a petro canda right beside


On the street Rachel? with the bike road and the 97 bus thats passes there? i go to school near there, a few streets on the other side:headbang:


sobakchi - 12-20-2006 at 12:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dragon208
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/06-11-25_20-58.jpg


ray man tats the swarovski tree lol~ EATON CENTRERRRRRRRR


Jookwarrior - 1-5-2007 at 01:11 PM

A selection from my website...I use a Rebel XT...variety of lens but recently switched over to the 28-135mm IS as my basic walk-around. I also use a 70-200 f4 L for long range photography...


strike_12 - 1-6-2007 at 09:10 AM

I can't see the pictures of the post... disapointing, I wonder id it's because of my internet connexoin?!?!


Jookwarrior - 1-6-2007 at 08:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by strike_12
I can't see the pictures of the post... disapointing, I wonder id it's because of my internet connexoin?!?!


hmmm they are kinda large...i'll resize them at some point and replace them


n-tone - 1-13-2007 at 03:44 AM

took it in Macao last December. Cages to prevent kids from falling? ;) more so to keep theifs away!


azncow - 1-23-2007 at 06:17 PM

one of my boy's whipp~~~


cieman - 2-16-2007 at 01:59 PM

I think this is my first post...:D
I just got into photography a short while ago, so my photos arent that fascinating.
The Sunset photo was taken from my balcony.
The living room pic is slightly out of focus, but i thought it had vibrant colours so i posted it :)


cieman - 2-16-2007 at 02:04 PM

i guess my first post didnt go too well...
anyways, i hope the pics work now =)

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/cieman/sunset.jpg

http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o246/cieman/livingroom.jpg


trio - 3-1-2007 at 06:43 AM

A shot i took on the Arc of Triumph ;)


skyneverdie - 3-3-2007 at 09:08 AM


skyneverdie - 3-3-2007 at 09:09 AM


eiXo^87 - 3-11-2007 at 01:08 PM

this picture any good? i took it with my w900


skyneverdie - 3-11-2007 at 03:38 PM

^ nice G35 coupe


azncow - 3-20-2007 at 07:27 PM

newww picsss.. my new hamsterrrr


dragon208 - 4-2-2007 at 01:16 AM

Macro Mode
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/DSC00167.jpg


trixy - 4-3-2007 at 04:53 AM

got a brand new canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII....


trixy - 4-3-2007 at 04:55 AM

this is a tray... he kinda pops by... and we give him food... and he doesnt really leave us alone anymore lol


n-tone - 4-7-2007 at 04:46 PM

mussels that i had last week :) the leftovers - my space saving way to stack up the shells


idiot - 4-15-2007 at 08:39 PM

My M3s..

Quick shoot, just messsing around with the diecasts


Housetek - 4-17-2007 at 09:50 PM

lol i thought the first picture was real.

Any ways
was bored and got me a burnt copy of photoshop so decided to mess around.
*still figuring things out and new to photoshop so there not great*

1st is me and my girl
2nd is my friend Sparta break dancing


Veneros - 4-19-2007 at 11:38 AM

Hey guys, I've got a normal digital camera, the sort us young ones carry around to events to snap pictures, a canon ixus 40 to be exact :D Do I need one of those big SLR(is that what tehy call them , the ones with the big ass revolving lens thing you can twist etc :P) to get into the photography scene? As i have macro , and all these highlight tools on my camera functions etc which i have no idea what its for, is there any good websites anyone can provide the link for(sorry i know its off topic) to get me into the photography scene?

Abit lost where to start, and yeah since i just snap pics with my normal digi cam i haven't really any knowledge when it comes to photography =(

Lemme know what you think if anyone else has a canon ixus 40 :D heeh it cost a fair bit back(at least to me :D) and was a pretty good model at the time, so im praying it can do the job for an amateur camera for photography :D


omega - 4-20-2007 at 01:28 AM

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_3067-Edit-copy-769102.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2930-Edit-copy-773858.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2764-Edit-copy-753292.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2563-Edit-copy-764734.jpg


Prox - 4-21-2007 at 02:14 AM

whoa nice pics omega :D is that your band? and if so, what kinda music do you play?


omega - 4-21-2007 at 03:33 PM

Nah, I don't play too much music... those are my friends.

Some more:

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2778-Edit-copy-753212.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2835-Edit-copy-738787.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2281-Edit-copy-768900.jpg

http://www.omegadude.com/uploaded_images/DSC_2619-Edit-copy-704820.jpg


Hattori_Hanzo - 5-1-2007 at 03:14 PM

Hey i just found this:

it was my first pic taken with my first Cam, its now about 5~6 jears ago.... onionrelaxed


EvilMike - 5-14-2007 at 06:09 PM

Here are some dark pictures of mine.

My camera:
Model: Canon PowerShot A520
Shutter Speed: 1/60 second
F Number: F/2.6
Focal Length: 6 mm

Kinda old... but it makes the job done.


Jookwarrior - 5-17-2007 at 06:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Veneros
Hey guys, I've got a normal digital camera, the sort us young ones carry around to events to snap pictures, a canon ixus 40 to be exact :D Do I need one of those big SLR(is that what tehy call them , the ones with the big ass revolving lens thing you can twist etc :P) to get into the photography scene? As i have macro , and all these highlight tools on my camera functions etc which i have no idea what its for, is there any good websites anyone can provide the link for(sorry i know its off topic) to get me into the photography scene?

Abit lost where to start, and yeah since i just snap pics with my normal digi cam i haven't really any knowledge when it comes to photography =(

Lemme know what you think if anyone else has a canon ixus 40 :D heeh it cost a fair bit back(at least to me :D) and was a pretty good model at the time, so im praying it can do the job for an amateur camera for photography :D


actually the small point and shoots are actually better than our cropped frame dslrs (rebel et al) for macro. You guys have your lens really close to your focal plane which allows for great wide angle and macro. i wouldn't discount pics taken using point and shoots. we have to spend hundreds of dollars to get our cameras to do better at that length. Telephoto on the other hand... :-)


chocochoco - 5-17-2007 at 06:40 PM

my apple tree =3
(took it with my cell camera)


trixy - 6-6-2007 at 11:42 AM

This is Mr Ahmed Ezz... the Richest and arguably the most corrupt man in Egypt.

He sponsors our school... says a lot about the school... despite it being the best in Egypt...


hybrid_SI - 6-7-2007 at 06:09 PM

just a few shots taken with my point & shoot at the spur of the moment...

http://img175.imageshack.us/img175/896/img0587zs4.jpg

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/4988/img0563eu2.jpg

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/7199/img1403ul2.jpg

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/4239/img1195dl5.jpg

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/4900/img1196cw9.jpg

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8810/beachpanaramicln2.jpg


omega - 6-7-2007 at 09:43 PM

I like that crab pic. Very nice.


HGCman - 6-12-2007 at 01:10 AM

Recent picks I took with Canon 30D and 17-40mm f/4L


omega - 6-12-2007 at 01:15 AM

corona + lime, on the balcony of a beachfront hotel... that was a good weekend.


dragon208 - 6-16-2007 at 12:51 PM

some shoots i took of my car...

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/DSC00490.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/DSC00500.jpg


hybrid_SI - 6-18-2007 at 02:01 PM

just a few quick sunset shots

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8392/img1577kg8.jpg

http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/990/img1571hy0.jpg


sunset reflection on the titan bed
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/7705/img1588xk0.jpg


henrlee - 6-25-2007 at 10:05 PM

some corals from my saltwater tank. first picture was taken with my friend's Canon Powershot in macro mode and no flash. second picture was taken with my Nikon CoolPix in macro mode, white balance to flourescent, and no flash.

"fire and ice" zoanthids
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/henrlee/1.jpg

"whamin' watermelon" zoanthids
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/henrlee/nice.jpg


claudewolfe - 6-26-2007 at 06:21 PM

1) Picture looking down on the 405 Freeway, Los Angeles, CA
2) Picture looking across the lawn of Griffith Observatory towards Mt. Hollywood.


HGCman - 6-27-2007 at 06:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by claudewolfe
1) Picture looking down on the 405 Freeway, Los Angeles, CA
2) Picture looking across the lawn of Griffith Observatory towards Mt. Hollywood.


you have dust on your camera sensor bro...right in the middle of the second picture. If you have a canon slr take it to the canon repair shop in irvine and they can clean it for you.


claudewolfe - 6-27-2007 at 10:20 PM

Yeah,

I know. I actually have the convenience of working in the same building as the North America Nikon Service Center. They occupy the bottom floor along with a silly mini-Nikon Museum where they have 24k gold Nikon FM2. . .

They suck. I had no dust on the D70 sensor until I got them to service it! Now the dust is like GLUED onto the sensor.

I have some bottles of Eclipse fluid and a sensor swab, but I'm just not feeling a whole lot like cleaning the camera.

Quote:
Originally posted by HGCman
Quote:
Originally posted by claudewolfe
1) Picture looking down on the 405 Freeway, Los Angeles, CA
2) Picture looking across the lawn of Griffith Observatory towards Mt. Hollywood.


you have dust on your camera sensor bro...right in the middle of the second picture. If you have a canon slr take it to the canon repair shop in irvine and they can clean it for you.


joyce - 7-11-2007 at 05:57 AM

my puppp
she's fat and getting old


bleh - 7-22-2007 at 05:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by joyce
my puppp
she's fat and getting old


omg she looks like my dog I had while growing up. She was a mutt though so I never found out what was her cross. What kind of breed is it?


Crimsoneyes - 8-1-2007 at 01:47 AM

Looks like a flat fur Husky.
What a beautiful dog. How old is she? She doesn't look that fat haha =]


n-tone - 8-2-2007 at 08:39 AM

me browsing mobile phones during my holiday in hokkaido last month... I want to go on holiday again!


eiXo^87 - 8-6-2007 at 03:09 PM

omg wow ^ , in japan do they put all the cellphones out like that? you just take one and goto the counter?


takway - 8-7-2007 at 11:49 PM

wow. looks like hallmark.. but with phones


omega - 8-8-2007 at 09:14 AM

http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i135/omegachen/three_sixty_five/DSC_6426copy.jpg


jeedub - 8-26-2007 at 07:14 PM

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/jeedub/gti/IMG_9506editS3.jpg


omega - 8-28-2007 at 12:48 PM

whoa, nice shot, nice dub, and nice location


jeedub - 8-31-2007 at 09:12 AM

Thanks. :)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/jeedub/IMG_9567editS.jpg


n-tone - 8-31-2007 at 11:10 PM

view towards Happy Valley


iChi - 9-13-2007 at 11:53 PM

a few pics from summer


iChi - 9-13-2007 at 11:53 PM

one more


Jokaiz - 10-9-2007 at 11:41 AM

i have a fetish with skies... *fap fap fap* ahahha

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_3673.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_4076.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_0581.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_0587.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_0582.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_0507.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/IMG_4216.jpg
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/aznjokaiz/sky/picture4375.jpg (my fav)


rb26dett - 10-13-2007 at 10:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by jeedub
Thanks. :)

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/jeedub/IMG_9567editS.jpg


hey i got the same rims on my car: work emotions cr-kai's, mine are 18*9.5, so their a bit wider, hence more cavey if u know what i mean:

dam cant post the pic properly


epitaphex - 10-27-2007 at 12:13 AM

Stuff i took not too long ago, for reference to draw/paint


jeedub - 10-27-2007 at 10:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rb26dett

hey i got the same rims on my car: work emotions cr-kai's, mine are 18*9.5, so their a bit wider, hence more cavey if u know what i mean:

dam cant post the pic properly


That's actually my buddy's car... but I know what you mean... sunken faced I think it's called? Got any pics? I love the look of sunken faced rims. :D


Moochan - 10-29-2007 at 04:54 AM

My last Snow trip before I went to the marines in 2003... How I miss the memories


n-tone - 11-2-2007 at 09:13 AM

@Elements 圓方, Kowloon MTR station

http://www.elementshk.com/


rb26dett - 11-9-2007 at 11:11 AM

some pix


afterwinte12 - 11-19-2007 at 04:41 AM

some pics i took of where i live
and the last one is at Huntington lake during a regatta.


pap3r - 11-19-2007 at 11:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by jeedub
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y191/jeedub/gti/IMG_9506editS3.jpg


looks like my car minus the fogs, rims and cleanliness :headbang:...nice dub


omega - 11-28-2007 at 05:35 PM

http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs22/f/2007/332/a/b/gti___hdr_edition_by_omegach.jpg


pqp413 - 12-4-2007 at 10:39 PM

This one is off my coworker's balcony
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2097/1797405786_f959348be7_b.jpg

This one is on the 21st floor of Fallsview in Niagara
DRI ranging from ~45sec to 3sec
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/2067084937_15de1d37a4_b.jpg

a few more of my friend's 328xi
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2329/1865626703_a533b5aa5f.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2102/1866455910_8b0a466a0c.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2354/1867449869_0bf581562d.jpg


gookie - 12-9-2007 at 09:58 PM

Whoa.. nice photos... i think i've seen the BMW pics before..
Rocky is that you?


pqp413 - 12-12-2007 at 07:30 PM

lol..yea..who are you....


claudewolfe - 12-15-2007 at 01:48 AM

I was just having some fun messing with different aperture settings and seeing how narrow I could get my DOF.


omega - 12-15-2007 at 09:22 AM

rofl claudewolf, wanna see narrow DOF? pay attention to the narrow strip of in-focus area at the bottom of this pic:

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2007/344/f/4/Pilot_Hi_Tec_C_0_3mm_by_omegach.jpg

shot at 1:1


natayee - 12-20-2007 at 07:33 PM

some photos of my bf's car ;) i love the rain drops
if u pay attention on the 1st one, u can see a drop that has a lighter colour in the middle ~ makes it stands out :cool:


ChuNN - 12-27-2007 at 11:35 AM

http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/1916/leparciedv5.jpg


+ Any tips on taking photos?


IllusionX - 1-10-2008 at 08:53 PM

Was playing with the focus.. leaving the aperture size auto...

http://illusionx.dyndns.org/pub/CIMG1538.jpg


omega - 1-21-2008 at 03:03 PM

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/020/b/8/TR2_by_omegach.jpg


rb26dett - 1-26-2008 at 12:21 PM

only pix i tkae are pix of my car

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/z_tuned/IMGP0542.jpg
http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/z_tuned/IMGP0552.jpg


omega - 1-30-2008 at 11:40 PM

two random shots from today

http://fc.deviantart.com/fs23/f/2008/030/2/2/Nut_Splash_no_2_by_omegach.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs24/f/2008/030/a/9/Nut_Splash_by_omegach.jpg


brandqtips - 2-6-2008 at 08:55 PM

dude...these are awesome pictures! what kinda camera do you guys have? iam looking to invest in a d40


omega - 2-6-2008 at 11:34 PM

thanks bro

i've got a nikon D70s. the D40 is a great camera, go for it! :]

some more shots from the same series:

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs26/f/2008/037/c/8/Nut_Splash_no_6_by_omegach.jpg

http://fc05.deviantart.com/fs25/f/2008/037/1/1/Nut_Splash_no_5_by_omegach.jpg

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs26/f/2008/031/4/4/Nut_Splash_no_4_by_omegach.jpg


silversiva - 2-21-2008 at 05:57 PM

[ KIT ]

Canon 40D
Canon 17-40 f/4.0L
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Canon BG-E2N Battery Grip

[ WEB ]

www.tenzinphoto.com
A website I've been working on for a couple hours now with a small collection of some of my earlier photos. Hopefully I'll keep up with updating daily, but who really knows when you're juggling work/girlfriend/moving/photography.

Hope you enjoy it! Comments and criticisms always appreciated :headbang:

http://www.tenzinphoto.com/gallery/facebook/large/facebook08.jpg
http://www.tenzinphoto.com/gallery/facebook/large/facebook09.jpg
http://www.tenzinphoto.com/gallery/facebook/large/facebook03.jpg


azncow - 2-23-2008 at 10:29 PM

shots from lately~

btw thats my cousin in the prego pic!


omega - 3-1-2008 at 06:25 PM

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/6437/stereographic4copyjf7.jpg

http://img507.imageshack.us/img507/9363/diningroomstereocopyan6.jpg


azncow - 3-2-2008 at 01:51 PM

damn omega.. when did fuck did u get that fish eye.. and any more pics of ur place?


omega - 3-3-2008 at 12:30 AM

not a fisheye

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/5089/backyardstereocopycr5.jpg

the backyard


Prox - 3-3-2008 at 02:14 PM

how did you do that? it's amazing o_o, panorama manipulation?


omega - 3-3-2008 at 05:25 PM

pretty much. for 360x180 panoramas, there are a lot of different projections: equirectangular, mercator, cylindrical, rectilinear... etc

the one i used to get a 'little planet' is called a stereographic projection


omega - 3-5-2008 at 01:53 AM

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs30/f/2008/065/a/7/Parking_Lot_Pano_by_omegach.jpg


berage_x - 3-7-2008 at 05:04 PM

awesome panorama


was bored, original photo/no edit, taken with my phone, k800 :wacko:

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/berage_x/watsonwater.jpg

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/berage_x/keyboard.jpg


Prox - 3-16-2008 at 10:56 AM

I stumbled upon this during my daily browsing just thought some of you would like to try it, it's a PSD containing some Hue/Saturation along with some curves adjustments + a nice little frame lol..

found at [link]

a tutorial from scratch at [link]


Xenos - 3-22-2008 at 05:51 AM

I shot this with a Nikon D80, 50mm f/1.4. Nice camera. Nice lens. Not so nice picture. :P
No Photoshop. My 6-year old computer can't take it. :%


outie - 3-23-2008 at 11:05 PM

Wow those pics from omega and silversiva in this page are nice. I wish I could do that...


omega - 3-24-2008 at 10:32 PM

dam, there's almost no noise @ ISO 1600 on a 40D...

this is what ISO 1600 looks like on my camera, rofl


Hisaishi - 3-26-2008 at 09:39 AM

I'd like to share a few of my normal non-edited, no fancy lens photos I took in rural side of china

i'd just like to point out in pic 2, it's broad daylight, the light reflected in the water and made that effect, in pic 4 the horizon is not clouds, this was taken on a fairly large lake, and if you look closely, it's a mountain

camera was fujifilm finepix A500 lol


bcheng81 - 4-1-2008 at 03:42 PM

First time showing off my uber photography skills here (beuark).... Taken with Casio Exilim EX-V7, the smallest pocketcam with 7X optical zoom and full manual functions!

1. French crepes
2. Sammi, my cat in bedsheets.
3. Sammi, my cat after a grooming session.
4. Another shot of her grooming session.


oracle0711 - 4-1-2008 at 06:03 PM

A few pictures taken from the zoo in Singapore... let me know if you like it...


oracle0711 - 4-1-2008 at 06:13 PM

And here's 2 studio + photoshop edited pictures taken some time last year. Let me know if you would like to see more from this series... (Uppz my points if you like but don't zap me :))


oracle0711 - 4-1-2008 at 06:25 PM

Here's 2 more from a series that i shot this year. Not sure if fine art nudity photography is permissible in this thread and thus I am posting only 2 pics that were non-nudity but simply suggestive in nature.

If the moderator allows fine art nudity pics in this thread, do let me know so that I can post more of the remaining series. Otherwise, for those who are interested, you can visit this external link to Flickr site of Oracle0711

Cheers


oracle0711 - 4-1-2008 at 06:31 PM

Here's one last one for the day before i go out...

my favourite watch by IWC, bought in Europe...


fobboyray - 4-18-2008 at 02:24 PM

Anyone want to teach me about photography? haha

I just bought a SD 750 and it's been reading through the manual first
Seems like there is so much to know about taking the right/best pictures


kennyg - 4-20-2008 at 04:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by trixy
Quote:
Originally posted by omega
^he just said he's never owned a camera, silly.


doesn't mean he can't go out and buy a camera.. even a disposable one, or borrow somebody elses?


using this pix as my wallpaper, ty


brandqtips - 4-21-2008 at 07:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fobboyray
Anyone want to teach me about photography? haha

I just bought a SD 750 and it's been reading through the manual first
Seems like there is so much to know about taking the right/best pictures


hmmm, the best way for you to learn photography is play around with all the settings...you can always just google "photography" or go to your local book store and read up on it.


brandqtips - 4-21-2008 at 07:07 PM

heres a pic i shot couple weeks ago--


salcha4u - 4-23-2008 at 08:51 PM

Oracle, I LOVE your pictures! Please post more from that set!!


Jia - 5-10-2008 at 08:46 PM

Omega your pics are really nice. Nice play with HDR the VW Golf.
The panoramic effect is interesting, is that done in CS3 or something similar?
I also really like the water series.

I shoot mainly cars these days, I'm not a pro, budget camera. Here's my recent pic.

Pentax k100d
iso 800
no tripod cause I didn't even expect to shoot that night
IS on
shitty .45x adapter on standard 18-55 lens
colour balance pp

car: 04 TSX

http://i133.photobucket.com/albums/q41/phoms/tsx/Cathedral.jpg


omega - 5-11-2008 at 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Jia
Omega your pics are really nice. Nice play with HDR the VW Golf.
The panoramic effect is interesting, is that done in CS3 or something similar?
I also really like the water series.

thanks man. i use a couple different programs to stitch those panos... hugin/ptgui/cubic-converter... but i also have a special tripod head to minimize errors during stitching

here's a pano from yesterday...

http://tn3-1.deviantart.com/fs26/300W/f/2008/132/c/7/Skyline_Sunset_Pano_Version_by_omegach.jpg

click the thumbnail for a huge version... i don't want to fuck up the forum layout, rofl


Jia - 5-11-2008 at 03:09 PM

+rep for you man, you must have lots of hardcore gear and knowledge in photography. I mean, lots of people have dough to spend on the best cameras and lenses, crazy tripods and what not, probably less than 10% know how to use them.

I never even heard of tripods made for pano-stitching, that's pretty dope.

Thats why I stick to cheap stuff heh.

I would even like to see you shoot someday.


omega - 5-11-2008 at 05:50 PM

i probably have like $2k tied up in photography gear... really not all that much considering a good lens will easily cost $1.5k, haha...

ain't nothin wrong w/ cheap stuff either, as long as it gets the job done

if you're ever in the DC area, give me a holler and we'll go shooting, rofl


borimor - 6-10-2008 at 07:24 AM

@outie: you drive a porsche? Please tell me its not a Porsche SUV.


outie - 6-10-2008 at 07:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by borimor
@outie: you drive a porsche? Please tell me its not a Porsche SUV.

Porsche Cayenne does not use a key like that. It has a flipping mechanism that releases the actual key. What's wrong with a Porsche SUV anyways? I wish I had one to add to the family.

http://www.outie.net/forums/viewthread.php?tid=16669&page=13#bottom


iChi - 6-14-2008 at 11:10 AM

a new pic i took while i was at "lau fau san" during a ..red rain in HK...it was like flooding...but none the lesss..enjoy~


mel5582 - 6-16-2008 at 08:28 AM

Very easy to do those little planets.. you can use PS filter "Polar Coordinates" to do that effect. Make sure to resize your panoramic photo to an exact square measurement.


omega - 6-16-2008 at 06:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mel5582
Very easy to do those little planets.. you can use PS filter "Polar Coordinates" to do that effect. Make sure to resize your panoramic photo to an exact square measurement.

:]

yes, you can achieve a decent 'little planet' pano w/ the polar coordinates filter in photoshop... but if you want to do it the right way, you'll either use mathmap w/ gimp or the stereographic projection in hugin


mel5582 - 6-17-2008 at 02:09 AM

Haha yeah, just thought I'd suggest that for a quick little treat fix :P


sobalo - 7-2-2008 at 06:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by omega
Here's a simple pic I took of my cats the other day. It's with the crappy Minolta camera (the good one's my mom's) :/


is the black/white cat still with u right now? it looks just like my cat~


omega - 7-3-2008 at 09:22 PM

:]

http://fc02.deviantart.com/fs26/f/2008/181/b/f/Hei_Yu_on_Deck_by_omegach.jpg


Jia - 7-4-2008 at 12:31 AM

my first test using strobe:

http://i26.tinypic.com/spc2kw.jpg


claudewolfe - 7-8-2008 at 10:21 AM

2005. Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA.


omega - 7-13-2008 at 08:26 PM

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5300/20080713dsc2709editrv2.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/379/20080713dsc2722edit2yb1.jpg

http://img362.imageshack.us/img362/1254/20080713dsc2730editdu0.jpg

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7791/20080713dsc2749editji8.jpg

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/5160/20080713dsc2715editmt2.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/3331/20080713dsc2735editzs2.jpg


dragon208 - 7-16-2008 at 05:36 AM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/SBSH0001.jpg


dragon208 - 7-16-2008 at 05:38 AM

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/DSC02687.jpg
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f88/dragon208/DSC02690.jpg


ShogunGT - 7-16-2008 at 06:10 AM

omega!! woah!! did you get to drive that thing?


omega - 7-17-2008 at 07:11 AM

in my dreams!


claudewolfe - 7-28-2008 at 01:12 AM

Pictures from Grant's Farm, St. Louis, MO. Canon S2 IS.


claudewolfe - 7-28-2008 at 01:16 AM

Pictures from Getty Villa in the Pacific Palisades, J. Paul Getty's model of the Villa dei Papyrii from the ruins of Herculaneum.

Photos: Nikon D70, Tamron XR DI 28-75mm f2.8.


Kurogashi - 8-4-2008 at 06:03 PM

^
what the... is the statue's eyes really glowing like that or is it some kind of reflection off some light


claudewolfe - 8-4-2008 at 09:02 PM

The Romans normally paint the eyes white on all their statues for some funny reason.


omega - 8-6-2008 at 05:52 PM

wewt. hdr

http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/9316/20080803dsc2809tonemappgc2.jpg

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/4145/20080803dsc2831tonemappue6.jpg


jtype - 8-16-2008 at 04:34 PM

My first post :D


jtype - 8-16-2008 at 04:42 PM

second :headbang:


illiso - 9-1-2008 at 08:10 PM

an old pic i took few months ago, couldn't find the original raw pic but yeah, here it is..
and omega, what did you do to make your 2 last picture on those car to be that way?
i really don't know anything about photoshoping or photography, i just go out to take picture from time to time, it's like a hobby, but in teh same time it isn't since i don't do it often


omega - 9-3-2008 at 01:30 PM

it's hdr photography. :P


Vazachi - 9-11-2008 at 11:22 AM

Um... do these count? :P


Tilter - 9-16-2008 at 07:14 PM

My friend's award winning shot. Anyone from UofT recognize it?


Kurogashi - 9-17-2008 at 02:59 PM

^ haha thats a pretty cool picture
that photographer is a dumbass :P (refering to the guy in the picture)


omega - 9-22-2008 at 11:33 AM

http://fc06.deviantart.com/fs36/f/2008/264/9/d/Tunnel_by_omegach.jpg


4PK - 9-26-2008 at 09:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Vazachi
Um... do these count? :P


wow u got a 6th gen celi? r u on 6gc.net?