-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
GAF Photography 2007 - Q3
- Thread starter Humphrey Bogart
- Start date
- Status
Karma Kramer
Banned
Very nice!
sweet shit. Humphrey you take some cool pics, but what is in #3?
also, from the last thread:
assignment fifteen rejects:
1/640s, f6.3, 32mm, iso400
1/640s, f6.3, 41mm, iso400
also. it's not a great picture, but I like how the red came out:
1/10s, f2.8, 17mm, iso400
also, from the last thread:
This is a really good picture! I like it a lot. If you make a flickr account, it'll automatically resize your pictures into a decent size (assuming your account is free).Thriller said:
assignment fifteen rejects:
1/640s, f6.3, 32mm, iso400
1/640s, f6.3, 41mm, iso400
also. it's not a great picture, but I like how the red came out:
1/10s, f2.8, 17mm, iso400
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I took these yesterday. It was a great sunny day
Celery&Lager
Member
One i took for the Retro comp:
and something completely different:
and something completely different:
I went out photo-ing last night, hoping to find something for the 'retro' photo assignment. my retro shots didn't turn out how I liked, but I'll post one of them anyway. All taken with my Fujifilm Finepix F31fd
my 'retro' shot
meh
F/2.8
1/40
ISO 800
Rhythm & Boom on the terrace at Memorial Union, Madison
F/2.8
1/25
ISO 1600
a State Street staple, the dude who spray paints cool but shitty art to Pink Floyd music. always a crowd pleaser.
F/2.8
1/50
ISO 400
...the crowd. can't believe my little camera can take ISO-1600 shots like this.
F/2.8
1/40
ISO 1600
The Exclusive Co. music store across the street. best music store ever.
F/4.9
1/50
ISO 1600
lonely guy playing in front of the book store. Saxamaphoooooone.
F/2.8
1/60
ISO 1600
My only real complaint about this camera is you can't control the aperture and shutter speed at the same time. I don't know why they would make it like that, seems kinda ridiculous to me.
my 'retro' shot
meh
F/2.8
1/40
ISO 800
Rhythm & Boom on the terrace at Memorial Union, Madison
F/2.8
1/25
ISO 1600
a State Street staple, the dude who spray paints cool but shitty art to Pink Floyd music. always a crowd pleaser.
F/2.8
1/50
ISO 400
...the crowd. can't believe my little camera can take ISO-1600 shots like this.
F/2.8
1/40
ISO 1600
The Exclusive Co. music store across the street. best music store ever.
F/4.9
1/50
ISO 1600
lonely guy playing in front of the book store. Saxamaphoooooone.
F/2.8
1/60
ISO 1600
My only real complaint about this camera is you can't control the aperture and shutter speed at the same time. I don't know why they would make it like that, seems kinda ridiculous to me.
Great shot, abq! Screams Sweden with all the yellow and blue.
Here's a few new ones from me. Let me know what you think.
Larger versions can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yonn/
Here's a few new ones from me. Let me know what you think.
Larger versions can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/yonn/
I'm with you, abq, it's time for some summer shots.
I took a drive out to the countryside yesterday, but I was annoyed to find that there was barbed-wire fence just off the road everywhere I went. I managed to find a gap in the fence near a stream eventually.
I think I might try to do a whole dragonfly series this summer if I don't get chased off by a dude with a shotgun.
I took a drive out to the countryside yesterday, but I was annoyed to find that there was barbed-wire fence just off the road everywhere I went. I managed to find a gap in the fence near a stream eventually.
I think I might try to do a whole dragonfly series this summer if I don't get chased off by a dude with a shotgun.
Humphrey Bogart
Banned
chrome pole.el jacko said:
also, i have a question for anyone who might own a Rebel XT. i just got one, and can't quite figure something out. i wanted to shoot in b&w, so i set the camera to monochrome. i did a days worth of shooting, and everything in the LCD screen was coming out in black & white. i got home and uploaded the pics, and they all came out in color.
any idea what the deal is?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Humphrey Bogart said:
Did you switch over to any of the "Non Creative" modes? (Portrait, Landscape, Macro etc) when taking those shots?
The advanced settings (like B&W and ISO levels) aren't adjustable in those modes. You need to stick in Aperture, Shutter priority, Manual etc modes.
If you did set it as B&W and stayed in the creative area than yeah, thats weird
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
tokkun said:
I agree with this. And with Photoshop you have better flexability with the conversion process (instead of just straight up B&W from the getgo). Like messing with color levels and bringing out highlights.
GeneralKird
Member
Shinobix said:
It's a good photo, but the center being blurred is something that if I were a judge, I'd dock for points. Have you tried using photoshop with the center highlighted to try and reduce some of the motion blur that is occurring? Also slightly increasing the motion blur even more outside of the center might help make the center look more sharp.
I work as a wedding photographer, so I do know a little bit about judging photos. Although I do not usually think the same way most art students do, who will probably be judging you.
Humphrey Bogart
Banned
i was shooting in manual.BlueTsunami said:
don't you get a lot more shades of grey when shooting in black & white though? surely that's gotta help the tone.tokkun said:
What a way to start off a new quarter! This has been an awesome page, so far!
A Couple of the standouts:
The colors are incredible. I'm really envious of your ability to draw such amazing colours from whatever you photograph.
I like the creative use of angles and lines. I've always loved taking photos like this and I wish they were half so charming as this set.
That camel is pure gold, he totally looks like someone who would post here on GAF. I laughed out loud when I saw it, it's a good thing no one else is here at work with me, yet!
A Couple of the standouts:
abq said:
The colors are incredible. I'm really envious of your ability to draw such amazing colours from whatever you photograph.
Guess said:
I like the creative use of angles and lines. I've always loved taking photos like this and I wish they were half so charming as this set.
Slurpy said:
That camel is pure gold, he totally looks like someone who would post here on GAF. I laughed out loud when I saw it, it's a good thing no one else is here at work with me, yet!
My girlfriend and I took a bunch on our cruise.. all of the ones on flickr are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/abellwillring/collections/72157600550806913/
Some of my favs:
(disposable camera)
Some of my favs:
(disposable camera)
Humphrey Bogart said:
To the best of my knowledge, that's only true when shooting with b&w film cameras. I believe that every digital camera just discards the color information to obtain a b&w shot. I tested it once by taking identical shots in color and b&w, then converting the color shot in photoshop. They looked identical on my screen. I'm not an authority on the subject, so someone can correct me if there are exceptions to this.
Humphrey Bogart
Banned
i did some research, and it turns out this was happening because im shooting RAW. turns out though that when you're shooting jpegs, you are indeed getting more info when shooting in b&w.
so, who here has a DSLR, and isn't shooting RAW? if so, why?
so, who here has a DSLR, and isn't shooting RAW? if so, why?
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Humphrey Bogart said:
I've been shooting jpegs but it was due to having a very small Memory Card I was working with. I'll probably start shoowting RAW now (bought a 2GB CF card)
Squirrel Killer
Member
DSLR, no RAW here. Two reasons mainly, it adds to post-processing time (and complexity if my wife ever uses it) and I don't have software to support it. Maybe when GIMP adds support for it.Humphrey Bogart said:
LunaClover
Member
Haven't taken pics in a while...had some friends over Saturday and they let me play.
So over the weekend I completely re-did my website. I made good use of the Simpleviewer application GKB posted, and I'm really pleased with how it works. Overall, I really like the site a lot, although I am curious what others think.
http://www.jack-lichten.com/
Shinobix: I think it's well composed; I'd agree with the previous comment regarding the motion blur, though. Also, I'd recommend adjust the brightness and contrast a little bit, since it looks a little dulled/washed out.
Humphrey Bogart: I don't use RAW and I have the same camera as you, largely because the clients I've had get very frustrated with RAW and it saves space on my memory card. It also slows down my computer and iPhoto, and I don't honestly have the programs to make good use of the format. I'd like to, and did for awhile, but it really just wasn't worth it.
LunaClover: I really like the last two pictures, although I'm not sure how I feel about the large white space in that last photo.
http://www.jack-lichten.com/
Shinobix: I think it's well composed; I'd agree with the previous comment regarding the motion blur, though. Also, I'd recommend adjust the brightness and contrast a little bit, since it looks a little dulled/washed out.
Humphrey Bogart: I don't use RAW and I have the same camera as you, largely because the clients I've had get very frustrated with RAW and it saves space on my memory card. It also slows down my computer and iPhoto, and I don't honestly have the programs to make good use of the format. I'd like to, and did for awhile, but it really just wasn't worth it.
LunaClover: I really like the last two pictures, although I'm not sure how I feel about the large white space in that last photo.
el jacko said:
One change I would suggest is to add links to go back when you click into one of the galleries. For example, if I click photos then people, I have to click the back button in the browser to get back to photos. There should be a link in the site to click to go back. It's just an ergonomics thing
That software is really cool, though. I'll have to play with it on my site.
I took the shots I posted with a Canon S3 IS which aI bought a few days ago. I love the camera so far, but Im considering either moving up to the S5 (the only major diff for me is a larger + higher res LCD, but which is a big draw personally), or just taking the plunge with an SLR (Rebel Xti most probably). Im really tempted to have that jump in flexibility and quality.. but I just dont know if Im ready for the added costs+complexities of lenses, etc, above the initial investment. Not sure if its worth it, especially since its not like Im currently making any $ from my photography, which is basically a hobby that I love. Any thoughts from people who have moved up to SLRs would be appreciated.
LunaClover
Member
How sad is it that I got excited to see that I even got a comment?? :lol
Anywho, I agree, there is way too much of the white showing, its edited at home but I couldnt do it here. Im completly insecure about taking photos, but I always love coming to these types of threads to learn more and practice.
LOL btw, she's dancing in the background to the music we played. We just came back from swimming...she was DRUNK
Anywho, I agree, there is way too much of the white showing, its edited at home but I couldnt do it here. Im completly insecure about taking photos, but I always love coming to these types of threads to learn more and practice.
LOL btw, she's dancing in the background to the music we played. We just came back from swimming...she was DRUNK
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
I just took this one which I worked from RAW
Canon's RAW support in their program is nice. But its the only program I've used so I don't really have a point of reference :lol
I do like how fixing bright or dark exposures is easily done
Canon's RAW support in their program is nice. But its the only program I've used so I don't really have a point of reference :lol
I do like how fixing bright or dark exposures is easily done
I have a K-M Maxxum 5D and I shoot RAW because it straight up captures more information that allows you to do less lossy manipulation in post. Also, most RAW development programs like Lightroom and Aperture save only the changes to the photo, so you keep the original as shot and any subsequent versions without taking up much more storage space.Humphrey Bogart said:
Awesome start to the thread, guys!
El capitan, that first one is amazing!
I hopped the pond and spent a day in Stockholm. I didn't really take any shots of the city, just the people living in it. Please let me know what you think! For larger versions (and more pics) go to my flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/yonn
I hope that wasn't too much... I would really appreciate comments!
I hopped the pond and spent a day in Stockholm. I didn't really take any shots of the city, just the people living in it. Please let me know what you think! For larger versions (and more pics) go to my flickr: www.flickr.com/photos/yonn
I hope that wasn't too much... I would really appreciate comments!
BlueTsunami
there is joy in sucking dick
Love this one
This one is awesome too :lol Catching the pigeon midstep = cute
Slurpy said:
Well, I moved up to my Pentax K100 from an S3. You can see where I pondered this choice in this thread. While I did find the S3 to be a nice point & shoot, I found that I still couldn't get the shots I wanted because of the noise levels that the little sensor chips in P&S's have. I do have to say I am more pleased these days with what I get out of the K100, but it did cost a lot for a hobby-I've spent over $800 on the camera, lenses (I have 5, counting the crappy kit lens I don't use anymore), and various filters and accessories over the past 4 months-and my camera is considered kinda low-end in the SLR world. There are 2 things that I miss about the S3-its portability (my kit bag weighs a frickin' ton) and the ability to shoot movies. I might pick one up again as a running-about camera when I can get it for less than $150 (which shouldn't take too much effort considering the S5 just streeted in the past couple of weeks).
I was waiting for the Q3 thread.
Shinobix... your photo is nice, but it's blurry all over which is not good in most instances. Your friend looking into the camera with his peace sign up pretty much kills any artistic merit the photo might have at a competition. Just seems like a vacation/weekend/summer time "snapshot." Also, it seems faded/too light overall.
There's some discussion going on here about shooting in RAW or JPEG and and the shades you get out of b&w with a dSLR whick I'll get to... there's never an instance where you will get more information out of a jpeg than a RAW. Jpeg is a compressed, lossy 8-bit format that immediately throws out a lot of photo information when the photo is taken and gives you less to work with. If you're doing editing, photos start looking worse quicker with Jpeg, especially if you keep saving over the original Jpeg. RAW is lossless and keeps everything intact. If your jpegs look better than your converted RAWs, it's because you haven't put them through Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop, or because you're not good enough with either to get the desired results.
From what I have read and been told, film cameras have more range (lights to shadows) than a DSLR. I don't know too much about it, but you can do experimental stuff or get more range out of your images by messing with the HDR function in Photoshop.
El Capitan, I like the binocs. Excellent shot. The "dead pan"-like shot of the trailer coupled with the dull grays is nice too.
SLurpy, some of your animal photos remind me of the ones I took at the zoo last Jan, especially the peacocks..quite nice.
Guess, I like your shots as well. They're vivid as heck even just using simple subjects like a math sheet and pencil.
Shinobix... your photo is nice, but it's blurry all over which is not good in most instances. Your friend looking into the camera with his peace sign up pretty much kills any artistic merit the photo might have at a competition. Just seems like a vacation/weekend/summer time "snapshot." Also, it seems faded/too light overall.
There's some discussion going on here about shooting in RAW or JPEG and and the shades you get out of b&w with a dSLR whick I'll get to... there's never an instance where you will get more information out of a jpeg than a RAW. Jpeg is a compressed, lossy 8-bit format that immediately throws out a lot of photo information when the photo is taken and gives you less to work with. If you're doing editing, photos start looking worse quicker with Jpeg, especially if you keep saving over the original Jpeg. RAW is lossless and keeps everything intact. If your jpegs look better than your converted RAWs, it's because you haven't put them through Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop, or because you're not good enough with either to get the desired results.
From what I have read and been told, film cameras have more range (lights to shadows) than a DSLR. I don't know too much about it, but you can do experimental stuff or get more range out of your images by messing with the HDR function in Photoshop.
El Capitan, I like the binocs. Excellent shot. The "dead pan"-like shot of the trailer coupled with the dull grays is nice too.
SLurpy, some of your animal photos remind me of the ones I took at the zoo last Jan, especially the peacocks..quite nice.
Guess, I like your shots as well. They're vivid as heck even just using simple subjects like a math sheet and pencil.
This one is hillarious! Its like he is trying to sneak by you.
Thanks for the comments fellas! I live in Lake Tahoe. Found some water falls the other day that i will post in a sec...here ya go!
These roots were so vibrantly red it was crazy.
I'd like to go back at night and see if i can capture any stars in the sky behind.
Yonn said:
Thanks for the comments fellas! I live in Lake Tahoe. Found some water falls the other day that i will post in a sec...here ya go!
These roots were so vibrantly red it was crazy.
I'd like to go back at night and see if i can capture any stars in the sky behind.
- Status