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.
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?
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.
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) :/
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!!!
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.
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...
First pic is at Alameda's retired naval base.
Second and third pic were taken at the Bonfante Garden in Gilroy, CA.
Hmm.. 3rd one didn't load, cause it said file size was too big.
But here it is again.
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...
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
*edit* I tried cropping my unedited picture from before:
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%.
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.
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..
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'
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
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?
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]
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.
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.
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.
Took some new pics while in DC today:
[img]http://www.omegadude.com/Pictures/Photos/Warner Theater 2.JPG[/img]
beautiful pictures, very detailed and colorful ^^
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
Here's some from two weeks ago I think:
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
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 :/
i'll go out tomorrow and take a few pictures and show you my impressive 5 camera skills!
here are some pics i took downstairs today after playing a game of chess with my brother
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?
Yes, swans are duckies, too. Stuck-up duckies.
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 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
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 :/
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 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.
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
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 oh well~
here r 2 from few weeeeeks ago~
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
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
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~
Man, i had a lot of fun tonight with my wushu team!!!
THIS IS WHAT I GOT AN SLR FOR!!!!!
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~
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
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...
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...
Here's a thread at a different photography forum which has some pretty neat pictures of people's hometowns:
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
can make it bigger
wow ntone~~ those pics are nice~~ man.. those aren't everyday pics you can see
hmm.. Hewwokitty, isn't that a CG rather than a photoshot
at first i thought you had a set of all those action figures and took it like that~
Wow nice shots guys! Here's a silly contribution
Part 1 (By S700i)
Part two (By K750)
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.
man.. camera phones have improved so much~ i can see the exposure and colors in the lens have improved so drastically~
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
btw, i love the esso picture.. theres like a cool halo that surrounds it
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? and i dunno how to edit
ofcourse the ones with me in them weren't taken by me~ just thought that the positions were pretty neat
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 =)
here is a pic cropped from the originals of the above pic and edited by my gf.. which is better than me in photoshop
[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.
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."
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
wow! silent wish that pic of yours, you look like an hkstar for some reason.. the painting background is nice
well since i love this topic i guess i will post more pics
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
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
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:
woo i like the flip and the one below! freezing da action!
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~
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.
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.
lol omega.. is the first pic really your drool?
lol oh man.. at first it looked like a crystal thing hanging down from a crystal light or something..
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..
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.
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). :/
Here are some new pics for you guys. Tell me what you think.
woo omega~ i like the mood in your first pic with the 3 glasses.. your other pics are interesting
The objects in the first photo are lamps ^^;
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.
Yeah, I saw a truck with balls, and I couldn't resist taking a picture :P
is the last pic what i think it is?!?! hahaha
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.
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?
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
What do you guys think of this one?
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.
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~
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
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.
alrite~ thanks a lot~ i'll read up on it~
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
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~
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
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
canada rocks guy... we got beavers and shit...
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...
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
some pics i took outside of my church today
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.
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
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~
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
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?
haha unfortunately my camera doesn't have manual ANYTHING.. other than ISO.. and exposure.. everything else is auto~ no control over them
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
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
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.
Ooh, I also have this. My most favorite shot from that tournament.
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.
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
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
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~
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
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.
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 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~ 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
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.....
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.
oh~ lol.. didn't catch the sarcasism with the boarders.. i thought your 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
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? let me try that next time~
and oddly enough.. it doesn't say the focal length at the front of my camera
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
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."
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??)
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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..
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
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
mountie costumes.. sigh.. if i could ever find them i might think about it..
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)
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
Anyways, two more pics from a recent trip to Walmart:
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 , 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
here's something i did.. first time doing this~ kinda wanna get the isolated hope feeling..
here snapped these while in dubai today...
let me know what u guys think of them...
here are a few more... again criticism welcome..
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
what TOYOTA is that?it has a .. merc like logo standing up! its on da hood i suppose? i wana see the car!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Here's a fun one I did when I was playing with the filters. Usually avoid them cuz they're so easy to abuse.
I trivialized his tragedy with Photoshop. That's power, baby
Trying out a new border.
I should photoshop that lady out and put in some sexy beach babe or something, haha. Maybe warp her waist in atleast.
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
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~
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
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
the shot with the filter is very nice ^^
it could be a movie poster if you want
here are some shots i took today.. edited a lot of photos.. but i guess just these came outta the crop
two more playing with the color replacement and history brush
Wow, SilentWish, with these last pictures, you can definitely see an improvement in your photography! Great shots :)
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
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
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.
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!"
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~
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:
you are right indeed omega
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~
i've just tried neat image and i have to say it's a VERY convenient program~
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:
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).
Not sure about the colors thing. Maybe you can post up the 256 version you're seeing?
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?
I was thinking more of "WHORE HOUSE!!!!!" but that's good too, hahahaha
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.....
lol oh man~ now that you brought it up~ the yellow sign does resemble the whore house lol
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
This was what i was thinking..
- what is megapixels
- more megapixels will not give better image quality
- when you will need the megapixels
- 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
- 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
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?
Whoa, what a nerd. And that's coming from me!!!
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.
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 ) 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
if the topic didn't have to be related to my field.. i would of been talking about superman or something~
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
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
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~
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
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
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...
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
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:
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
u fool, i simply highlighted my lips and left the colour in them
and desaturated the rest.. there is no make up used
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.
oh well, i shant argue with impressions, it is art after all
and it is in the name of art i make them
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
im sorry, but i was simply calling you a "fool" in a kidding sense...
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..
I used to post a bunch of stuff to deviantART, but not anymore...
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.
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?
haha thanks aznhombre~ i really am glad to know that
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
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
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!
and let us create more masterpieces for our DA pages~
and everyone else who has a DA page should post their link here as well~
Post some links? I've got an interesting link for ya ;)
lol, the photo is pretty famous, i was just tyring out colour isolation, like silentwish
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
lol ooh, how emo of u.. isolation..
what do u like most? nature? macro?, etc etc?
lol speaking L33T now aznhombre? doesn't sound like you
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 i love them all~
how about you?
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:
#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 )
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
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:
Only $400US if you want to buy one!!!!!
His gallery: http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&photo_id=2336985
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
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
i know it's pretty late but..in regards to hombre and omega's sentiment, word of the day -
pla·gia·rism Audio pronunciation of "plagiarism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (plj-rzm)
1. The act of plagiarizing.
2. Something plagiarized.
stay away from it kids, its bad :x
lol.. thanks for the wrap up arasyii, you just had to have the last word didn't you?
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 :/
I have no room in my heart for plagiarists. None.
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..
Testing out my new toy (extension tubes)
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.
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~
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.
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~
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.
haha yes.. the colors look very good indeed~
Guess why I'm posting here.
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:
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.
Oh man, the silueth at 2nd post was so awesome !
Here are a few i took in dubai today
Green and Twiggy were taken in some1s garden and reserved was taken in a mall...
i like the composition of those trixy~ i can see you're getting better~ but where's the "python" post? i think that one's the best~
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.
lol finally.. got something right for the first time
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.
Some pics taken last night..
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.
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
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!
Some pics I took at two new year's festivals today, a Chinese one and a Vietnamese one:
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?
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?
lol this isnt a thread anymore, its simply a place where omega, aznhombre silentwish and moi post lol...
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.
Color corrected. There's just something about the color cast in the original that I like, though. Gonna have to work on it more.
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..
It seems as though AznHombre's pictures are down for now... at least for me.
Outie.net seems to use caches a lot. Just reload. I put them back on my regular server already.
I call this one "Path of Gold"
i like it silentwish, but the qualitys a little icky, especially at night...
hers a picture of the zip on my wallet..
hurah peeps! congrats for making this a sticky lol!
It seems as though this thread has been promoted to 'sticky' level. :)
here r mine mwahahh!!
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?
anyways.. first of all.. congrats to the photography thread to become a sticky~ and thank me everyone cause i suggested the promotion to outie~ 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 .. and it was such a nice day when you took the pic too! 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
alrite guys.. have a bunch of pics i'm gonna post up.. all taken on campus in one day
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
Pics of downtown at night
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
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.
Everyone must take one of these eventually. Tis a rule
Color corrected. Which one looks better?
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
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.
haha glad you're doing something new azn~ that way we'll have new stuff to see~ lol
what's glamour portraiture..?
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..
did it with my eos 300d and resized it
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)
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
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? 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~
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
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~
here are another two
not special.. just sharing
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.
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..
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~
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
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~
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
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:
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.
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.
i need a tripod. above is my ...er.. its a living room but it only has my desk n laptop.
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.
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.
Ken Rockwell seems to like it's versatility.
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.
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..
I think most digicams start around 28mm full-frame equivalent.
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/
Some pictures taken while waiting for the train today:
There are a couple more at my website. :/
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.
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.
So you've gone to candid photography to more of a 'studio' type photography? Looks nice :)
I just found something incredibly cool in Photoshop.
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?
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:
And it's Lens Blur, under the Filter>Blur menu.
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~
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.
haha the girl's expression always make me wanna laugh tho
but yes~ glad you've discovered something new to work on~
heres one i took outside my house today...
well, with my digicam, i cant even edit the shutter speed..
its a sony t-series... one of the older ones... calle "tony"
you use, photoshop to make the green stick out..? how can you do that with photoshop, seem so complicated lol
this pic gives me a calm.. quiet feeling
a feeling i always love to have~
Another way to isolate color, is to use the Color Balance tool.
nwe pix hope u guys lik eit...
Fortune cookies no longer tell fortunes
I can have weird pictures, too.
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
haha azncow, i like the pic with the doggy lol
i took this one in somebody elses garden (yet again) hehe
used ps to edit levels, and saturation
i like the repetition in that pic trixy.. haha fits your title
Dangit stop ending the posts---
---on a white background.
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.
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?
Do the pics show now?
The pics work fine for me. Does anyone else here NOT see them?
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!
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?
haha now i get to post on the white background too~
anyways.. these are some pics i'm putting on deviantart~
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
what a way to destroy a corporate logo....
with the prices of fuel going up and everything, it does get pretty grim and depressing at the pump... =(
nice photos, silentwish.
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..
Some landscapes I actually kinda like
why am i the only ones who cant see aznhombres pictures???
speak for urself chaotic, get off my back
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?
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...
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...
Well, while i was out and about i thought of a new photo series to publish...
smoking is hazardous y'all!
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
here are the last ones
just to let all of u know, this is what is known as sheesha..
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
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.
pics i took on a very cold day~
the first two pics.. just can't figure out which one is the better looking one..
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?
"Plagurism" is claiming something as yours without credit. Like you did.
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?
The true skills of a photographer is in getting the shot.
I have no respect for plagiarists. And not giving credit to where it's due counts as plagiarism in my book. :/
omega u suck at cs... go take more pictures and post them here...
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?
i always get to post on white backgrounds
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?
That last one is breathtaking. Looks quite chilly^_^
haha thanks for dropping by~
yes.. it was quite cold the day i took the pic
here are some pics i took last night..
don't have much opportunities to take good pictures
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.
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..
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?
it's a Nikon D70S as AznHombre said. Manual focus rocks.
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
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.
This was one of the few panning ones I ended up liking:
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?
Eh, I'm sure as hell no photographer, but here's my contribution.
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...
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
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
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.
And there's always the magic of Photoshop, buwahahaaa
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.
lol at first i was like.. wow good shot aznhombre lol
photoshop is impressive
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..?
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.
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
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!
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.
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
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 I think that one was only like 4 seconds
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~
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.
oh.. pic of my living room i took a while ago...
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
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.
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:
Dang, I wish I could take photographs like you guys. Bet you all have bajillion-dollar cameras, huh? Beautiful
oh man ntone~ i love your pics~ esp the one with the "evil force taking over" lol
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
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?
there's a filter to make perfect star shaped light rays..
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
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.
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" 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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Here's my ingrown toenail to show my sincerity.
Here's apparently someone high up at Google that I was behind in the drive-thru of McDonald's:
Here's some shampoo I found at a 99 cents store:
ANYTHING looks good with the right borders.
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!
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!
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
so my next phone is officially the W900~ it's rf claims to be as good as quad band phones by local users~
some pics from last summer using my G2
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.
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
yeah it was at Mount-Tremblant in Quebec, i waited quite awhile to get that sunset shot
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
Hi, I'm from America, land of the free.
What's a Chav?
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! ...or did i got the story wrong!
i duno waht Chav is.. something like. bloke / guy / ...?
i was wondering if the outie photo club (jk ) would like to take a look at
a few of my photographer frd....
but he does studio fashion/creative shoots tho~
let me knowww
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
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
okay, so maybe theyre not the most chaviest pics of them all...
and the last picture isnt much of a chav, but hey lol
PHOTO!!!sakura!! beautiful pic
Um, this is a thread for original photography.
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.
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?
Define "good shots."
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.
driving a honda civic coupe with automatic transmission
and both cars can reach 120km/hr (good shot!
something like that
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?
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
Some pictures of cardinals in my backyard :)
(Highly edited :/)
4 Friggin' Motion would be a pretty sweet name for a car. 4 Friggin' whatever is a pretty sweet name for anything.
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..
ohoh. very nice trixy. i thought u grabbed that from some tourism website or soemthing! haha
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.
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~~
Hmm, I guess I will post some of my pictures too. They are just some of my shoes.
Camera sony DSCP200
Exposure time 5 sec... mwahahah
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
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.
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.
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.
the third pic is really nice~ what a nice shallow depth of width for the background blur~
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.
I actually like the first one the best, because the contrasting colors make the picture more interesting to look at.
aznhombre, in the first picture... what is that little blob at the top?
heres a little shot i took at a hotel
Some boring pics for y'all. I haven't had any good subject-matter lately
ooh, omega that last pic is anything but ugly! i love it! !
Here are some more pics of the birdies that frequent my yard:
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... !
Hey Omega, have you tried a square framing for that birdie? I find it works out well when I can't decide either.
Which bird? I like the framing on the last one, the first two bluejays I didn't put much thought into the composition :/
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.
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.
i sometimes find that PS is useful, sure, but if u use it too much... it just doesnt look... rite...
Rofl... that's maddd funny.
if u call levels, saturation and curves too much.. then thats just u...
but i hardly ever add blurs, or filters, etc
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?
Some pictures from today.. first day of spring!
(files too big for outie server so i uploaded them on somewhere reliable)
qualities CRAZY idiot! lol
do u live near a shipyard or something? i love these tankers hehe
Why waste a space when you can upload an avatar to link to?
I hate lense flare.....
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
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
hey silent wish, thx, but its been ages since ive seen u post... where u been?
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~
another picture from the same batch
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?
Old one I went back to and re-edited.
I prefer actual subjects (preferably people) in my landscapes.
wow i like that shot..where is that at?
here r mine 2 of them were from 2 summers ago.. 2 of them were this winter of my sister and her friend.
man.. idiot.. did you do any sharpening in those pics of yours..? or else the quality of the D70 is AMAZINGLY sharp.. crazy..
another two.. i think i'm more getting the hang of this.. but i don't think these two are too nice
no ur latest two certainly aernt as nice as the first port-y pictures u posted up....
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
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
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.
BOOOOOYYYAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! I'm going to shoot in official capacity for a martial arts magazine next month!!! Suh-weeeeeeettttttt.
Man this is sweet.
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.
Congrats on your new photography position AznHombre. Are you going to be traveling with a team, covering an event or what?
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.
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
haha congrats with the oppurtunity aznhombre~
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
haha that sure is badass
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.
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.
hey aznhombre.. in the first pic you posted.. did you use a filter that made the pic stretch the horizon further away or something?
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.
then that is a very cool pic~ i love those kinda pics~
lol my pics are kinda wako.. lol hope u dont mind?!
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..
Heres a good photo i took on the retro classic car show last weekend.
ooh nice hattori! especially like ferraris
from today... just random things
some boring shots i took years~~~ ago at Niagara Falls
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....
haha, asuran the ever knowing mod..
heres a little wee eye fetish shot..
a lil hero my dog coco...
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
This is a picture of a shirt I got today..
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
nice view..i love mountains
where do you live tunnelfreaks?
newest picture.. just some weird VW translations
yea.. tunnelfreaks looks like he's in hk.. or some chinese place.. judging from the window.. lol.. and yes.. the mountain as well
this site shows some 3D renders from the game FFXI. I think it's really really well developed
Okay... not sure why that's in the photography thread, though.
Haven't posted in awhile.
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.
All photos taken with AF-Nikkor 50mm F1.8
1. Stanford University.
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Shutter: 1/250 sec
2. Pebble Beach Golf Course.
Location: Pebble Beach, CA
Shutter: 1/320 sec
3. Muir Woods Banana Slug.
Location: Muir Woods, CA
Shutter: 1/100 sec
Location: San Francisco, CA
Shutter: 1/250 sec
here are my eye series....
what do u lot think?
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.
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
You don't need money to move the camera to the side or use the flash.
haven't posted in soooooo long
check out my little clip =P well I will make better ones in the future.. for the coming ones will b best lo =P
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:
haha thanks aznhombre
i like your first pic~ i like how it seems to create many layers
heh, aznhombre, ur last picture is pretty awesome... i like the red cloth and the dof...
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.
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.
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?
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~
I have no subject matter. So here's some random picture of a cap from a bottle of Smirnoff Ice.
Even if it is a girly drink, it still tastes good. ;)
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...
Thanks for the comments MRirian. Your pictures kick ass too... and I bet you can guess why. ;)
haha, ur make up looks very good, especially on you lol
and omega, i absolutely love your pencil photo.. it looks so... swank hehe
lol dare i post my own pic? hahah here's my girly hand wid my 8 rings n a sword~
pic is not edited in anyway excpet size (7Megapixel camera kills space lol)
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.
some more arty pics from my DA site..
Another picture by me
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 lol
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 =)
n-tone I really like that tree shot!
here's a really old one, may post more later:
love that photo babygirl.. too bad that red timestamp @ the bottom right is there >_<
i tried to remove it for you
edit: MRirian your eyes are beautiful
Jia~~ that is one amazing sky shot!! where did you take that btw?
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.
from my new lens today!
Wow, idiot, how do you get a shot like that? That's awesome.
I feel so bad calling you "idiot"...
that's awesome pic man, great job!
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
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)
a few of my recent pics off my phone.
the first 2 taken in hong kong, the last few taken in the uk.
An NSX and a Enzo, damn I hope to see that while I'm in HK
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?
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 )
i just recently got into photography cuz i find it pretty fun so please teach the newb!
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~
well now, heres another lovely picture of a horse.. her names moyster.. and shes a doll
Enough with children, now come the ducks..
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, those are an awesome set of photos. If I didn't know any better, I'd say those belong in a newspaper or magazine.
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..
What's wrong with the color tones? They look great to me. Maybe you just need to calibrate your monitor?
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.
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)
Let's bring this thingamajigger back to life, shall we?
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
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. :)
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.
Post pics of your car
Randomly took this while trying to think up compositions for a jewelry shoot I'm doing for my friend today.
I also took pics of a model gun I have.
Many many years ago - before digital cameras at least.
That's hot. And why do you have real bullets??
AndI wonder why car guys and martial arts guys are so often into photography.
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.
Hope you guys like these. :)
a little tip: use a grey-filtre and increase exposure, then u get really nice waterfall-shots.
like this (image found on the web)
Unfortunately my camera doesn't really have too many manual controls...
Most of those pictures are heavily post-processed.
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.
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.
Should've changed the color of the woman's kimono on the left. Takes a little away from the red of the umbrella.
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?
nice shots aznhombre, i agree about the kimono.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
well im not too sure if you guys care..
but my canon eos 350d just arrived in the post 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!!
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. :/
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Ohh, haha, I see. That's pretty dope!!
that's a really cool pic jia
Not everyone was kungfu fighting. I was taking photos
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:
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:
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.
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:
And a blossoming flower among those beginning to wilt:
Some more pictures from my new S3:
I tried for a little more of a set-up shot on this one:
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...
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)?
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):
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!!!
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
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:
More pictures at my website.
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:
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.
Dang it's been awhile.
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
AznHombre I noticed you like to put dark shadow around your subjects :p
Here are two night shots.. my first time.. rather bad
From today.. some tradiation chinese opera..
and some modern dance
I need a white background.
Man, that was NOT easy.
Need more white backgrounds
I call this masterpiece, "stinky dog poop with corn in it"
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.
Some pics taken at my old chinese school's annual picnic:
And... a funny license plate I saw there:
DUDE WTF!?!?!??!?! WHY WASN'T I INVITEED TO THAT SHIT... OMFG....... WAS SHARA AND MY COUSIN THERE?!?!?!?!?!?
btw i think i see my aunt and my cousin
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.
nice to see so many cool photos.
here's mine taken at houston museum of natural science.
Alonso and Michael Schumacher
Sugarland RSX meets with approximately 30 RSX's.
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
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
Here are some pics untouched per Rukawa's comments.
Oh dang. Luftwaffle, you've got a Nikon D1X? Nice photos btw, I especially like the last 3.
The hell are you talking about? You don't think the green picture is me?
Of course its you. Photoshopped worth1000 LOL
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.
Not really. Other than the color, I didn't really photoshop it much. Believe what you want, I guess.
Some more of the DX1 shots. Hope " ya'll " like it!
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*
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... >_>
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
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
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
Looks like im going to egypt lol, im moving there this summer, and on my recon trip i snapped some more shots...
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.
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?
well i sent a U2U to aznhombre, and he felt it could benefit the community, so here you all go!
again, regardless of the photographer, i was wondering if you could help me out...
the photo below ...
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Why are you increasing the aperture value? That creates MORE dof... I thought you were trying to do the opposite.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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
I don't think I would ever shoot film, unless I were doing it professionally. It's just too damn expensive.
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).
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?
damnit my ISP has blocked flickr.. grr
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. . .
Commenting on film, atleast w/ film, you won't ever get funky artificats when shooting mosaic/checker patterns
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???"
A quick attempt at an HDR image. Processed w/ photomatix.
+2 / -2 EV; In the original image, the entire sky was blown out.
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?
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
Here is a recent pic. Two beetles, sharing an intimate moment... w/ an onlooker. :O
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...
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
wow that sounded so pro or r u juss tlaking jibberish?
ooooh i really like that black and white version
ahhh the flower looks so fragile..nice
That black and white version of the flower is nice! I also like the thread starters pictures.
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!
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:
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
and heres some pics of a retired clown i saw..
Just something neat I did with my friend's pics
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"
I need a white background
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.
haven't really been taking any pics.. and this is by a nokia. so it's not really 'photography'
Hrrm how about a close up
well then here's a few.. seeing as i havnt posted in a while..
Two random shots
Bodiam Castle, East Sussex, UK
i have too much free time, being cooped up in a hotel all day.
model is me.
that is madddd fuckin tripppyyy/scary.... it looks like one of thos " The Gruge" pics...
experimenting with bw conceptual stuff.
Macro mode on my phone about a year ago...
was using my old old camera
more here: http://www.omegadude.com/2006/09/Neptune_Festival/
a few of mine...
I miss Disneyworld
A couple of rolling shots of my friend's cars and mine.
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
oops forgot the one of my friend
Here some more pics from me
few of mines shot couple weeks ago
Whoa, nice night shots hybrid.
you make me want to move to hawaii. lol
I think I will make a new special forum for sharing these awesome pictures.
oh in that case....i'll post more! im just having a hard time in choosing which ones to post due to having tons!
early morning sunrise
this is what i'm using to shoot all my photos.
taken with my camera phone
taken with my point and shoot SD550
9/16/06 Austin RSX meet.
Any more pix from the meet?
Some laterns from Jardin Botanique in Montreal
wow, hybrid.. your photos first made me envy.. now i'm just inspired.. awesome stuff man.
Hope you guys enjoy these. They were taken between 2005 and 2006.
Ahhh....nice...good ol' robarts.
Here is a picture.. hope it's good na..
oh my, im envious...
here are some more.
pic from an exhibition at dusseldorf. all glass staircase, by Seele, the company who makes the ones for Apple stores.
kuya post ari's pics lidat :p
cant oi....its a pic that i didnt shoot
take new anden bumbai others wont see her cuteness :x
was messing around doing HDR. this is the first time i tried....not too bad imo
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
^he just said he's never owned a camera, silly.
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?
i'll take constructive critism
tbh...it wont matter much because i wasnt standing in the center of the dock.
I believe HDR was already discussed in this thread. Check the previous pages for more info. :|
HDR (high dynamic range) is combining multiple shots at different exposures. A good and fairly easy program to use is photomatix.
A few shots I took when I was back home last week.
^^^ I really like the first shot, nice!
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?
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.
canon eos on guy fawkes night (5th november)
A few shots I took from my visual diary.
Probably not the best camera to use but oh well.
just a little something when i was bored
both with camera phone
first was during class
second is my keyboard
that's his co-worker's r6. this was his r1-
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.
From Gold Coast, Australia:
shot these a few days ago.
couple pics of my echo from last summer...
Some Pics I took Recently
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
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?
my rep work haha
done in grade 12
At Union Station, DC for a Starbucks event:
Took this in florida on sunday
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...
I can't see the pictures of the post... disapointing, I wonder id it's because of my internet connexoin?!?!
took it in Macao last December. Cages to prevent kids from falling? more so to keep theifs away!
one of my boy's whipp~~~
I think this is my first post...
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
i guess my first post didnt go too well...
anyways, i hope the pics work now =)
A shot i took on the Arc of Triumph
this picture any good? i took it with my w900
^ nice G35 coupe
newww picsss.. my new hamsterrrr
got a brand new canon 50mm f/1.8 mkII....
this is a tray... he kinda pops by... and we give him food... and he doesnt really leave us alone anymore lol
mussels that i had last week the leftovers - my space saving way to stack up the shells
Quick shoot, just messsing around with the diecasts
lol i thought the first picture was real.
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
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 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 ) 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 heeh it cost a fair bit back(at least to me ) and was a pretty good model at the time, so im praying it can do the job for an amateur camera for photography
whoa nice pics omega is that your band? and if so, what kinda music do you play?
Nah, I don't play too much music... those are my friends.
Hey i just found this:
it was my first pic taken with my first Cam, its now about 5~6 jears ago....
Here are some dark pictures of mine.
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.
my apple tree =3
(took it with my cell camera)
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...
just a few shots taken with my point & shoot at the spur of the moment...
I like that crab pic. Very nice.
Recent picks I took with Canon 30D and 17-40mm f/4L
corona + lime, on the balcony of a beachfront hotel... that was a good weekend.
some shoots i took of my car...
just a few quick sunset shots
sunset reflection on the titan bed
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
"whamin' watermelon" zoanthids
1) Picture looking down on the 405 Freeway, Los Angeles, CA
2) Picture looking across the lawn of Griffith Observatory towards Mt. Hollywood.
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.
she's fat and getting old
Looks like a flat fur Husky.
What a beautiful dog. How old is she? She doesn't look that fat haha =]
me browsing mobile phones during my holiday in hokkaido last month... I want to go on holiday again!
omg wow ^ , in japan do they put all the cellphones out like that? you just take one and goto the counter?
wow. looks like hallmark.. but with phones
whoa, nice shot, nice dub, and nice location
view towards Happy Valley
a few pics from summer
i have a fetish with skies... *fap fap fap* ahahha
Stuff i took not too long ago, for reference to draw/paint
My last Snow trip before I went to the marines in 2003... How I miss the memories
@Elements 圓方, Kowloon MTR station
some pics i took of where i live
and the last one is at Huntington lake during a regatta.
This one is off my coworker's balcony
This one is on the 21st floor of Fallsview in Niagara
DRI ranging from ~45sec to 3sec
a few more of my friend's 328xi
Whoa.. nice photos... i think i've seen the BMW pics before..
Rocky is that you?
lol..yea..who are you....
I was just having some fun messing with different aperture settings and seeing how narrow I could get my DOF.
rofl claudewolf, wanna see narrow DOF? pay attention to the narrow strip of in-focus area at the bottom of this pic:
shot at 1:1
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
+ Any tips on taking photos?
Was playing with the focus.. leaving the aperture size auto...
only pix i tkae are pix of my car
two random shots from today
dude...these are awesome pictures! what kinda camera do you guys have? iam looking to invest in a d40
i've got a nikon D70s. the D40 is a great camera, go for it! :]
some more shots from the same series:
[ KIT ]
Canon 17-40 f/4.0L
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Canon BG-E2N Battery Grip
[ WEB ]
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
shots from lately~
btw thats my cousin in the prego pic!
damn omega.. when did fuck did u get that fish eye.. and any more pics of ur place?
not a fisheye
how did you do that? it's amazing o_o, panorama manipulation?
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
was bored, original photo/no edit, taken with my phone, k800
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]
I shot this with a Nikon D80, 50mm f/1.4. Nice camera. Nice lens. Not so nice picture.
No Photoshop. My 6-year old computer can't take it.
Wow those pics from omega and silversiva in this page are nice. I wish I could do that...
dam, there's almost no noise @ ISO 1600 on a 40D...
this is what ISO 1600 looks like on my camera, rofl
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
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.
A few pictures taken from the zoo in Singapore... let me know if you like it...
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 )
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
Here's one last one for the day before i go out...
my favourite watch by IWC, bought in Europe...
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
heres a pic i shot couple weeks ago--
Oracle, I LOVE your pictures! Please post more from that set!!
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.
no tripod cause I didn't even expect to shoot that night
shitty .45x adapter on standard 18-55 lens
colour balance pp
car: 04 TSX
+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.
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
@outie: you drive a porsche? Please tell me its not a Porsche SUV.
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~
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.
Haha yeah, just thought I'd suggest that for a quick little treat fix
my first test using strobe:
2005. Embarcadero, San Francisco, CA.
omega!! woah!! did you get to drive that thing?
in my dreams!
Pictures from Grant's Farm, St. Louis, MO. Canon S2 IS.
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.
what the... is the statue's eyes really glowing like that or is it some kind of reflection off some light
The Romans normally paint the eyes white on all their statues for some funny reason.
My first post
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
it's hdr photography. :P
Um... do these count?
My friend's award winning shot. Anyone from UofT recognize it?
^ haha thats a pretty cool picture
that photographer is a dumbass (refering to the guy in the picture)