-
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 - Q1
- Thread starter master15
- Start date
- Status
imastalker co.
Banned
AlanHemberger
Banned
I really like this shot.LizardKing said:
imastalker co.
Banned
imastalker co.
Banned
mrkgoo said:
Thanks, it was so weird, but on my first night in Paris my friend and I went t the Lourve but because of how cold it was (I'm guessing) hardly anyone was around. And when we got to the enterance it was absolutely deserted, it was so odd.
Also I was going to ask, I love your night shot with skycity in the backdrop, but have you tried sharpening it at all?
dasein said:Some new stuff with my new Sony H2:
Some lovely shots, I added you on Flickr by the way
Airbrian/Nice shot also.
Dasein and master15 with awesome shots as always.
I like this one. What shutter speed did you use? I can't quite tell because of the photo's size, but maybe the splashes could be a bit sharper. Also, you might want to hold up a piece of paper on the very right of the photo and see how you like the photo with that intrusive object omitted. I would personally crop it out. The shadowy curbside area already gives your photo some needed perspective and context. Otherwise great image.
AirBrian said:
I've got to get out and shoot more. :-(
EDIT: Nikon D70 + 70-300mm ED
I like this one. What shutter speed did you use? I can't quite tell because of the photo's size, but maybe the splashes could be a bit sharper. Also, you might want to hold up a piece of paper on the very right of the photo and see how you like the photo with that intrusive object omitted. I would personally crop it out. The shadowy curbside area already gives your photo some needed perspective and context. Otherwise great image.
Thanks for the compliment.Jado said:Dasein and master15 with awesome shots as always.
I like this one. What shutter speed did you use? I can't quite tell because of the photo's size, but maybe the splashes could be a bit sharper. Also, you might want to hold up a piece of paper on the very right of the photo and see how you like the photo with that intrusive object omitted. I would personally crop it out. The shadowy curbside area already gives your photo some needed perspective and context. Otherwise great image.
It was shot using a shutter speed of 1/1250 @ f/5.0. I see what youre saying about the gutter
Ill have to play with it a bit. I do have a 100% crop that shows the drops more in detail, but I could never get a composition I was happy with. Here it is anyway:
master15 said:Thanks, it was so weird, but on my first night in Paris my friend and I went t the Lourve but because of how cold it was (I'm guessing) hardly anyone was around. And when we got to the enterance it was absolutely deserted, it was so odd.
Also I was going to ask, I love your night shot with skycity in the backdrop, but have you tried sharpening it at all?
Some lovely shots, I added you on Flickr by the way
Airbrian/Nice shot also.
HAven't really tried sharpening, but that image was taken at fairly long exposure on the kit lens... can sharpening help something like that, if blur is caused from motion (eve if really minute)?
Airbrian: lol, wondering when you were going to show up
Cool photo. Ever since I started taking photos a bit more seriously, I want to try my hand at all sorts of photos...seeing your stuff really inspires me. Either that, or i just want to plagiarise. Dasein: great stuff. Man, It's stuff like yours too, that really want me to push my game. I need to get into some post processing. Soemtimes I think trying to stay on the camera side of things is just my excuse for not getting fully immersed into the whole process.
LizardKing
Member
master15 said:What the hell are you talking about, huh?
Another picture from France trip;
I was just talking about that it wasn't getting a lot of action (kept slipping off the front page). But it is now! Keep it up guys. More pics to come later.
LizardKing
Member
some pics from downtown detroit...
canon dig rebel xti..
canon dig rebel xti..
I haven't posted photos since last October, back when I was frustrated with working in digital/color. I learned a bit during my independent study, a portfolio of mainly digital photos with a theme around b&w and color, which I hope to get a few pics of it up soon. Anyway, here are a few very recent photos.
Crab Shaker
Doesn't pay his sources
Am I the only one having loading issues with this thread?
imastalker co.
Banned
safari am cry as far as i can tell.
Miburou said:
Hello! Great choice...
I posted a couple of sites I found useful, plus some other tips and hints on the first page of this thread. I'm willing to help with any info, to the best of my knowledge (there is no better way to learn than to teach!).Just trying some stuff:
Friend and pirate baby:
(Same image, with no embedded color profile -set to use sRGB if no profile)
Just wondering...
How much do you guys pay attention to , or know about colour management?
Currently, I use sRGB, mostly because the wider gamut doesn't matter too much for me (there's option for adobe RGB on the Canon SLRs at least).
But thing is, I'm having issues with software. Mac OSX is generally pretty good with colour profiles and colour sync - it's pretty much built in to the entire system, and a reason why Macs are often used professionally in design/media/imaging (I know PCs handle it too, but, from what I understand, not as built into the core system).
Anyway, I have a Powerbook, with the color profile of the LCD set to LCD default (the one that presumably comes with the Mac), and I have attached, frequently, at this time, a Philips CRT monitor (kinda old). I haven't done any colour calibration for that monitor, apart from switching it to 6300K white balance (in the monitor - most computer CRTs use about 9600, which gives the much more 'blue' look to moniotrs - you can notice it when you see a computer monitor is filmed on TV, be aware in normal situations, your eye and brain are automatically providing colour balancing). But that last picture I posted, which was converted to Sepia, looks well, brown (as it's supposed to) on my LCD, and when I drag it over to my CRT, it slightly different shade at first (because of the different colour profile of the moniotr), then switches to use the appropriate one, and looks closer to what it does on my LCD. This is in Preview. But when I upload it to the web, and then view this thread in Safari, it looks fine on my LCD, but looks totally different on the CRT...even when teh same image beside it in preview. In safari it's much more yellow, and looks pretty crap.
What is going on? I did some research, and it kind of seems like images that don't carry it's colour profile get given a default one or something, adn for Macs, it seems like this default one isn't sRGB or something. I uploaded the image to image shack - does image shack remove the colour profile?
What do you guys do for colour management? SHould I be manually calibrating my monitors and LCD panel on my Mac? I tend to want to use the default (surely, Apple knows best).
And what is your opinion on Adobe RGB colour space?
How much do you guys pay attention to , or know about colour management?
Currently, I use sRGB, mostly because the wider gamut doesn't matter too much for me (there's option for adobe RGB on the Canon SLRs at least).
But thing is, I'm having issues with software. Mac OSX is generally pretty good with colour profiles and colour sync - it's pretty much built in to the entire system, and a reason why Macs are often used professionally in design/media/imaging (I know PCs handle it too, but, from what I understand, not as built into the core system).
Anyway, I have a Powerbook, with the color profile of the LCD set to LCD default (the one that presumably comes with the Mac), and I have attached, frequently, at this time, a Philips CRT monitor (kinda old). I haven't done any colour calibration for that monitor, apart from switching it to 6300K white balance (in the monitor - most computer CRTs use about 9600, which gives the much more 'blue' look to moniotrs - you can notice it when you see a computer monitor is filmed on TV, be aware in normal situations, your eye and brain are automatically providing colour balancing). But that last picture I posted, which was converted to Sepia, looks well, brown (as it's supposed to) on my LCD, and when I drag it over to my CRT, it slightly different shade at first (because of the different colour profile of the moniotr), then switches to use the appropriate one, and looks closer to what it does on my LCD. This is in Preview. But when I upload it to the web, and then view this thread in Safari, it looks fine on my LCD, but looks totally different on the CRT...even when teh same image beside it in preview. In safari it's much more yellow, and looks pretty crap.
What is going on? I did some research, and it kind of seems like images that don't carry it's colour profile get given a default one or something, adn for Macs, it seems like this default one isn't sRGB or something. I uploaded the image to image shack - does image shack remove the colour profile?
What do you guys do for colour management? SHould I be manually calibrating my monitors and LCD panel on my Mac? I tend to want to use the default (surely, Apple knows best).
And what is your opinion on Adobe RGB colour space?
Thanks, mrkgoo!mrkgoo said:HAven't really tried sharpening, but that image was taken at fairly long exposure on the kit lens... can sharpening help something like that, if blur is caused from motion (eve if really minute)?
Airbrian: lol, wondering when you were going to show up
Dasein: great stuff. Man, It's stuff like yours too, that really want me to push my game. I need to get into some post processing. Soemtimes I think trying to stay on the camera side of things is just my excuse for not getting fully immersed into the whole process.
Even though I haven't been shooting much, I'm always looking at these threads. It's been really cool seeing everyones' shots and how they've improved over the quarters. I'm not sure who's idea it was (phanto maybe?), but it was a damn good idea posting by quarter.And Jado, I love the first two pics. I'm a sucker for the subject to be in the same color scheme as the background though. I know some people don't like it, but I think it almost always makes for a great photo if done right.
Thanks for the compliments, guys. Oh, and pirate baby w/ mustache. :lol
Hah, bunnies? These aren't kangaroo rats. Maybe chinchillas. These were taken at the Bronx Zoo, some through smudged glass and in really low lighting conditions, sans tripod or monopod. I didn't do any post-processing on these. Spent a semester working almost entirely in RAW and doing plenty of post-processing. I wanted to get away from that and go back to my old style of "getting it right" during shooting and doing little to no post-processing, so I shot in large jpg.
My camera is set to adobe rbg but this means nothing to me right now. Sorry I can't be of more help. If you want to calibrate your monitor, I've read of the Eye One Display 2 as being recommended as a tool used by professionals. Seemingly pricey but supposedly getting a professional to calibrate your monitors was once the norm, and much more expensive than this thing costs. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CR78CO/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Hah, bunnies? These aren't kangaroo rats. Maybe chinchillas. These were taken at the Bronx Zoo, some through smudged glass and in really low lighting conditions, sans tripod or monopod. I didn't do any post-processing on these. Spent a semester working almost entirely in RAW and doing plenty of post-processing. I wanted to get away from that and go back to my old style of "getting it right" during shooting and doing little to no post-processing, so I shot in large jpg.
My camera is set to adobe rbg but this means nothing to me right now. Sorry I can't be of more help. If you want to calibrate your monitor, I've read of the Eye One Display 2 as being recommended as a tool used by professionals. Seemingly pricey but supposedly getting a professional to calibrate your monitors was once the norm, and much more expensive than this thing costs. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000CR78CO/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Ugh. I took a closer look at my pics and some of them have a generic RGB color profile attached.
Just realised something..doing more delving into some background. Looks like iPhoto up to 5.0.2 had a bug whihc, when you edited a photo, would then embed a 'generic RGB' color profile, replacing any if any you had already.
5.0.3 fixed this, but introduced a crashing bug.
5.0.4 (the one I use) fixed this, but I think, the color bug has returned. Upon closer inspection, all the pictures which I have edited in iPhoto have a new generic RGB profile instead of the default sRGB put in by my camera.
Just realised something..doing more delving into some background. Looks like iPhoto up to 5.0.2 had a bug whihc, when you edited a photo, would then embed a 'generic RGB' color profile, replacing any if any you had already.
5.0.3 fixed this, but introduced a crashing bug.
5.0.4 (the one I use) fixed this, but I think, the color bug has returned. Upon closer inspection, all the pictures which I have edited in iPhoto have a new generic RGB profile instead of the default sRGB put in by my camera.
Bah. More reading.
Looks like the bug pertains to the images having no embedded profile...so when it edits, it creates one. Apaprently it will choose your display profile, then call it Generic RGB. Or maybe it just chooses Generic.
Argggh!
I dunno. And I dunno why this is bugging me so.
Curiosity: Do the cameras actually embed the colour profile? Or just record, as an exif tag, the color space used to record the data? I think it is the latter.
Man, I really need photoshop.
Looks like the bug pertains to the images having no embedded profile...so when it edits, it creates one. Apaprently it will choose your display profile, then call it Generic RGB. Or maybe it just chooses Generic.
Argggh!
I dunno. And I dunno why this is bugging me so.
Curiosity: Do the cameras actually embed the colour profile? Or just record, as an exif tag, the color space used to record the data? I think it is the latter.
Man, I really need photoshop.
mrkgoo said:Hello! Great choice...
Thanks for the info. I read most of your posts, but I guess I missed the one with the links (found it now).
Do you do a lot of post processing on the photos? I bought my camera recently, and then went immediatley to Japan, and took lots of pics without really knowing much about photography, other than choosing one of the automatic settings. It's too bad because I won't get a chance to travel again for a while.
Miburou said:mrkgoo said:Hello! Great choice...
Thanks for the info. I read most of your posts, but I guess I missed the one with the links (found it now).
Do you do a lot of post processing on the photos? I bought my camera recently, and then went immediatley to Japan, and took lots of pics without really knowing much about photography, other than choosing one of the automatic settings. It's too bad because I won't get a chance to travel again for a while.
Cool beans. Actually, after your previous post, I went back and added another link
I hardly do any post-processing, partially as an excuse to be more 'camera-centric' for now, but mostly because I don't have the best facilities. I don't really have access to the programs that I want (photoshop, aperture etc...), though I one day plan to get a better computer with more hard drive space, better processor for handling photoshop (waiting for universal version, plus new MAcs). Also, my recent frustration with color space is driving me nuts, and the more I learn about iPhoto 5, the less I want to deal with editing using that.
Anyway, that is one of the best things about photography as a hobby - it's as challenging as you feel you want it to be. Starting just from the composition/subject side is a great start - you can forget manual stuff, and just snap away. As you feel you want to learn more, you can move up bit-by-bit, introducing manual modes as you go, or trying different styles, different subjects, getting different toys, such as tripods, flashes, filters, ...and that's not even considering the options you have for post processing. You only need to move on if you feel like it, which the beauty of it all.
I went from a ultraportable point and shoot to my 350D. I never used the automatic modes, and basically went straight to P-mode, which is kind of controlled automatic, but nearly instantly went to one of the priority modes. I mostly use M now, trying to learn more about correct exposure, and let the camera handle stuff like focus.
It's not a bad thing to use the auto modes- especially if you want really good shots, but aren't confident you can pull them off. But as you learn, you will have those photos as reference so you can look and consider what you would change if you had the opportunity again!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joshschwartz/
i took some cool pictures of the ice covering everything this morning, those were the first ones uploaded, obviously the auto show ones aren't going to be great shots since it's kinda crowded in there.
my favorite ice shot was the basketball net, it is completely frozn in place.
i took some cool pictures of the ice covering everything this morning, those were the first ones uploaded, obviously the auto show ones aren't going to be great shots since it's kinda crowded in there.
my favorite ice shot was the basketball net, it is completely frozn in place.
LizardKing
Member
joshschw, i live in detroit and got pics of the same ice storm... These are from around Walled Lake.
joshschw said:
That is great shot, how cold did it get?
Jado said:
Brilliant shots, really nicely framed and great colours
mrkgoo said:
I've become a real stickler when it comes to image quality and I think applying a sharp filter particulary with some of my night shots really brings out the colour and particulary with structures in the foreground provides some definition.
Taken in Euro Disney, which I have to confess was one of the coldest days in my life :lol
Full size
Full size
LizardKing said:
These are good, nothing nice around me so i didn't get any wide scenic shots like that, hopefully it doesn't warm up too much and i'll get a few tomorrow.
master15 said:
not very cold actually, that's how come everything gets covered in ice, it's from an icy rain. if it's really cold it'll just snow, and if it's too warm it just rains, that's why this doesn't happen often.
I want snow damnit! A few years ago there would have been two feet of snow, this year and last year have had barely any snow! It snowed here yesterday for the first time in a month, and I'm in eastern Canada.. Completely ridiculous!
I did take some photos today to celebrate the snowfall:
I did take some photos today to celebrate the snowfall:
Holy crap.
I finally figured out what was going on with my colour profiles.
Here's the story:
I use iPhoto 5 (waiting for iLife '07, Leopard, Photoshop CS3, New Macbook Pros to arrive and pounce on a new setup). I've been having a few colour profile issues.
Basically, what I have figured out is that iPhoto 5 does not embed colour profiles into the images. It tags the iamge as having been taken in RGB colour space, but does not actually embed the files on import with the ICC profile. I believe iPhoto 6 has the option. But here;s the kicker - when you use the built-in editor, it assigns the Generic RGB profile to the file. Which changes the viewed colours somewhat.
Anyway, this means that my entire history of photos I ahve taken to date have no colour profiles assigned to them. Which is not really a problem, becuase the fact is the files have not been 'damaged', just don't have the appropriate colour assigned to them for viewing. IT just annoys me, because I have created a workflow that involves me not having to reproduce too many files - i Like iPhoto for it's non-destructive ordering - and it means that, to date, I have been showing a lot of my photos to people with them looking a lot less than they could be.
But I ahve now learnt a lot more about colour profiles. And, I have now learnt that iPhoto 5 CAN embed the color profile, but I have to do a bit of hacking around in the .plist for iphoto5.
Any way, I'm happy this is the 100th post, so I can inform people who are as stupid as me to not use a proper editing program, and an old buggy one (I hear iPhoto 6 doesn't have these issues).
Time to share:
On left is the picture as I shoot it with the built-in Camera RGB profile embedded (I think - this profile only appears when I have my 350D connected). On the right is the version that has no profile embedded, and is utterly dependent on your Display profile (ie, how close it is to my camera RGB - if I understand it correctly - so if your display profile matches my camera profile, the colours will look the same, but for me these look quite different - right is a lot more subdued). Please let me know what you see.
so...anyone else actually pay attention to the colour profiles? This is all new to me - I just did a lot of experimenting and reading... please let me know if I have got this all wrong or not.
I finally figured out what was going on with my colour profiles.
Here's the story:
I use iPhoto 5 (waiting for iLife '07, Leopard, Photoshop CS3, New Macbook Pros to arrive and pounce on a new setup). I've been having a few colour profile issues.
Basically, what I have figured out is that iPhoto 5 does not embed colour profiles into the images. It tags the iamge as having been taken in RGB colour space, but does not actually embed the files on import with the ICC profile. I believe iPhoto 6 has the option. But here;s the kicker - when you use the built-in editor, it assigns the Generic RGB profile to the file. Which changes the viewed colours somewhat.
Anyway, this means that my entire history of photos I ahve taken to date have no colour profiles assigned to them. Which is not really a problem, becuase the fact is the files have not been 'damaged', just don't have the appropriate colour assigned to them for viewing. IT just annoys me, because I have created a workflow that involves me not having to reproduce too many files - i Like iPhoto for it's non-destructive ordering - and it means that, to date, I have been showing a lot of my photos to people with them looking a lot less than they could be.
But I ahve now learnt a lot more about colour profiles. And, I have now learnt that iPhoto 5 CAN embed the color profile, but I have to do a bit of hacking around in the .plist for iphoto5.
Any way, I'm happy this is the 100th post, so I can inform people who are as stupid as me to not use a proper editing program, and an old buggy one (I hear iPhoto 6 doesn't have these issues).
Time to share:
On left is the picture as I shoot it with the built-in Camera RGB profile embedded (I think - this profile only appears when I have my 350D connected). On the right is the version that has no profile embedded, and is utterly dependent on your Display profile (ie, how close it is to my camera RGB - if I understand it correctly - so if your display profile matches my camera profile, the colours will look the same, but for me these look quite different - right is a lot more subdued). Please let me know what you see.
so...anyone else actually pay attention to the colour profiles? This is all new to me - I just did a lot of experimenting and reading... please let me know if I have got this all wrong or not.
- Status