• Photo Offtopic Thread v.2012.1
    4,005 replies, posted
Is it just me or all you needed to shoot a music video in the late 90s/early 00s was a couple squares of suburbs, a dolly and a fisheye lens
[QUOTE=Richy19;36440821]Hi, I want to get into amateur photography and have read that you guys suggest film over digital because it teaches you to take better shots(or better said to not waist shots). I just wanted to know if anyone knows about or can recommend getting a [B]Canon AE-1[/B] as I have found a pretty cheap one that comes with a lens(I think its just the stock lens that would have come with the camera but I cant afford that much so it should be fine for starting out).[/QUOTE] Honestly, I'm against film for beginners. Well, not against, but I'd recommend digital first. The reason being, you get instant feedback. You can take 1000 shots of the same subject but with different angles and different settings. This way you get to learn without wasting a single penny on developing. You also don't have to wait to find out about shots. If you've overexposed a shot, you get to fix it right then and there; you'll learn how to correctly adjust for different situations without worrying about burning through film. The downside is the upfront cost. You can get a whole host of film equipment for dirt cheap. You'll have to drop some serious cash if you want a solid beginner's setup (although you can find some good deals if you look around). So if you are really committed and think photography is for you, I'd go digital. Learn about being conservative and getting the right shot after you actually learn to take photos.
Plus if you start off with film and stick to it for a long time, you turn painfully pretentious
have you edited your DP there Jaanus? or have those big eyes always been there (only just noticed them today) [editline]23rd June 2012[/editline] looking to buy a new dslr in between 1000 and 2000 AUD, not really sure what I should get though..
Jaanus, do you really have a television show? I need to watch it [editline]22nd June 2012[/editline] the more i think about it the more i think you may have been kidding...
Just remembered I acquired an oldish scanner from a skip and it seems to work. Later on I'll try to make some modifications to try and scan negatives. Its a HP Scanjet 2400. Its not that bad at scanning 4x6s [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7426899570/][img]http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5319/7426899570_56028d58dc_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/communistwolf/7426899570/]Test Scan[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/communistwolf/]CommunistWolf[/url], on Flickr
Are Red one's actually capable of taking stills? I've always been under the impression that they're broadcast quality (or above really) video cameras and aren't used for photography.
does anyone else feel bad about their pictures after looking at bopie's?
[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;36457799]does anyone else feel bad about their pictures after looking at bopie's?[/QUOTE] Yes everytime I look at his picture I think Why don't my pictures look so hipstalicious aka no
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;36458090]Yes everytime I look at his picture I think Why don't my pictures look so hipstalicious aka no[/QUOTE] wat i thought this was hipster: [img]http://ny.racked.com/uploads/2009_01_lomogallery.jpg[/img]
(It was sarcasm/a joke/whatever the fuck)
[QUOTE=Inzalonus;36450538]have you edited your DP there Jaanus? or have those big eyes always been there (only just noticed them today) [editline]23rd June 2012[/editline] looking to buy a new dslr in between 1000 and 2000 AUD, not really sure what I should get though..[/QUOTE] I don't know the cost in Australia, but what about the Pentax K-5, or the K-30 when it's out? Since you're using Pentax already.
[QUOTE=Slippery-Q;36458205]wat i thought this was hipster: [img]http://ny.racked.com/uploads/2009_01_lomogallery.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I think that looks pretty clusterfuck. But it still has its beauty, even if it's vague.
I bought a new tv few days ago. It was only 100 euro's for a 32" full hd tv. Only downside was it had no standard to stand on and I can't order one. Are wall-mounts universal?
Not exactly universal, but the wall mount I have is adjustable. Specifically, it's a series of rails which you can slide to match the brackets, screwholes, or what have you on the back of your TV. I'd look for something like that.
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;36459688]I bought a new tv few days ago. It was only 100 euro's for a 32" full hd tv. Only downside was it had no standard to stand on and I can't order one. Are wall-mounts universal?[/QUOTE] would it not be a VESA mount?
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;36459920]would it not be a VESA mount?[/QUOTE] That's the four-screw mount thing right? Because I'm not sure. I have a Philips 32pfl5405h/12 It's a shame I can't just order a new stand
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;36462234]That's the four-screw mount thing right? Because I'm not sure. I have a Philips 32pfl5405h/12 It's a shame I can't just order a new stand[/QUOTE] yeah it is also one thing led to another and i made this [img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/168558_3858712538730_2045122890_n.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;36448968]Honestly, I'm against film for beginners. Well, not against, but I'd recommend digital first. The reason being, you get instant feedback. You can take 1000 shots of the same subject but with different angles and different settings. This way you get to learn without wasting a single penny on developing. You also don't have to wait to find out about shots. If you've overexposed a shot, you get to fix it right then and there; you'll learn how to correctly adjust for different situations without worrying about burning through film. The downside is the upfront cost. You can get a whole host of film equipment for dirt cheap. You'll have to drop some serious cash if you want a solid beginner's setup (although you can find some good deals if you look around). So if you are really committed and think photography is for you, I'd go digital. Learn about being conservative and getting the right shot after you actually learn to take photos.[/QUOTE] I know its not the idea type of camera but would something like a high-end 2007 Samsung S-series or Panasonic Lumix cameras be any good?
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;36458433]I don't know the cost in Australia, but what about the Pentax K-5, or the K-30 when it's out? Since you're using Pentax already.[/QUOTE] yeah, i was considering getting the k-5 for that reason, haven't heard about the k-30 before though, will look into it well fuck, the k-30 is gonna be 900usd (according to some sites, 1100aud by the looks of it if I buy it from australian sources though) with the 18-55mm lens, will probably get that. I really dig pentax cameras and it's not like i'm doing any professional stuff that'd require more than 16mp anyway, + would get to keep using these lenses that I really love that i've got laying around, and it'd still be an upgrade from what I have now. Will probably get this, thanks for pointing it out
[QUOTE=Richy19;36462447]I know its not the idea type of camera but would something like a high-end 2007 Samsung S-series or Panasonic Lumix cameras be any good?[/QUOTE] Lumix G2 is the camera I have and i've had no complaints with it thus far! performs well up to about ISO 1200 and the kit lens that comes with it is really sharp. Controls all work really smoothly once you get to know them and its small body is hella light and doesn't feel like a burden at all (i found when using a friends 550D that it felt really heavy and clunky and huge but then again I've never had a larger camera before so I'm just used to my tiny little G2). The only niggle I ever have a problem with is that the colours and sharpness are increased when looking through the viewfinder purely because its an LCD display of what the camera see's not a periscope type viewfinder, thats why it's a mirrorless system, and this saddens me when I go to load up photos in photoshop and they are a bit duller than I remember so most photo's that aren't in hella dynamic light need to be processed to be a bit darker and bit higher contrast in my opinion. Other than that I'm so happy I got it because it has served me so well since I got it last september!
I'm going on vacation to the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolomites]Dolomites[/url] in a week. And I need some advice if there are any tips or tricks when shooting in such environments. Anything would help.
wide angle lens and a small aperture :)
Well the widest I got is an 18mm. But at what f stop are we talking when we're talking "small" here? 3-7?
that would probably be fine for landscapes, nooooo no no small as in a high number, f/16+ so you get everything in focus!
[QUOTE=Him1411;36465254]Lumix G2 is the camera I have and i've had no complaints with it thus far! performs well up to about ISO 1200 and the kit lens that comes with it is really sharp. Controls all work really smoothly once you get to know them and its small body is hella light and doesn't feel like a burden at all (i found when using a friends 550D that it felt really heavy and clunky and huge but then again I've never had a larger camera before so I'm just used to my tiny little G2). The only niggle I ever have a problem with is that the colours and sharpness are increased when looking through the viewfinder purely because its an LCD display of what the camera see's not a periscope type viewfinder, thats why it's a mirrorless system, and this saddens me when I go to load up photos in photoshop and they are a bit duller than I remember so most photo's that aren't in hella dynamic light need to be processed to be a bit darker and bit higher contrast in my opinion. Other than that I'm so happy I got it because it has served me so well since I got it last september![/QUOTE] sorry, by my comment I meant the compact line of cameras
just taken a look at them, seem rather over-priced tbh
part of me wants a gf1 with m42 glass or something snazzy like that
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;36467072]part of me wants a gf1 with m42 glass or something snazzy like that[/QUOTE] Using m4/3 is the most fun I've had shooting digital, nothing comes close other than film, especially for candid photography.
[QUOTE=David Tennant;36470975]Micro 4/3 are the funnest I've found to shoot with so far, nothing comes close other than film, especially for candid photography.[/QUOTE] compact as well, would be good fun
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.