• Creative work that doesn't deserve a thread V3
    1,983 replies, posted
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18981353]I didn't like the pressure of the concept of a 365, but I always bring my camera nomatter where I go. My 365 is not based on the days, more the locations and the times.[/QUOTE] That's pretty much what I do to in case anything happens. So I just keep my point and shoot camera on me at all times, in fact pretty much the majority of all my shots were taken with the tiny camera.
[QUOTE=Alex9325;18981606]That's pretty much what I do to in case anything happens. So I just keep my point and shoot camera on me at all times, in fact pretty much the majority of all my shots were taken with the tiny camera.[/QUOTE] carry my camera sling-bag with me everywhere besides stores :v: iphone is always on-hand for crappy 10-second photos, usually of [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=18890983#post18890983]dumb store signage and such[/url].
[QUOTE=peabrain101;18979540]Those aren't blackheads, just tiny little hairs picked out by the flash and immense amount of sharpening.[/QUOTE] Actually I was talking about the blackheads. Anyways yeah sharpness is weird.
[img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4186352129_317996fcd5_b.jpg[/img] 1/40 ISO 3200 F/2.8 at 54mm Picture I took of a member of the senior brass in the Canadian Forces during a service for fallen soldiers in Afghanistan at a regiment's Christmas dinner in Toronto. This not only confirms my belief that ISO 3200 ambient light is even now very usable, but that it is desirable in many circumstances over flash. I much prefer the candle light to the flash shots I was taking during the dinner (Not to mention how inappropriate flash would have been for this shot considering the circumstances). EDIT: A bit fuller res for those interested in looking at the residue noise from 3200: [url]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4186352129_ae7bafc55e_o.jpg[/url]
I have to say your camera handled the ISO noise pretty well for being up at 3200. Amazing shot, I don't think I would have noticed the noise so much had you not mentioned it. and of [i]course[/i] a direct flash would have destroyed the picture, hehe.
3200? My camera's pictures on 1600 look like multicoloured sandstorms. :v:
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18980840]Golden; First note- I figure you're not quite advanced enough to use the manual controls, but there should be some nice easy presets for indoors, landscape, etc. Use it, and pay attention to the settings it chooses between aperture(F/##) and exposure (#/###)/(##"). You might start picking up on good settings per environment, then you can eventually jump on manual and try for what you like. Second, take photos in RAW format, not JPG. Use photoshop's special RAW editor to help with everything from color and white balance. Could easily rip through that haze in the road photo, and bring out... everything and fix the yellow issue in the dog photo. THIRD, composition. Everyone blabs on about "Rule of Thirds". Learn it, then break it like a rebellious teenager. Push boundaries... but don't push TOO hard. Speaking of boundaries, make sure to keep things of interest away from the edges. The road in that picture is way too off-the-edge, it makes me feel like there's much more I could be seeing. Keep at it, maybe take up a theme-project, or a 365 project where you take a picture a day. I might suggest getting a Flickr account or similar so you can upload and showcase your work, it's fun to look back at your progress![/QUOTE] What also helps is reading some good photography books, and with that knowledge you look at photo's by the masters like Cartier-Bresson, Leibowiz, Hartman, etc. The books really help understanding the working of the camera. Advanced Digital Photography by Michael Langford & Efthimia Bilissi is great for the technical aspects and really goes to the bottom (almost physics when he's talking about lenses & ccd's, but he briefly recapitulates each chapter at the end) so you thoroughly understand how camera's work, what lenses you should pick, etc. Perfect Digital Photography by Jay Dickman (lol) (Malestrom) is great for the artistic aspect. [editline]02:09PM[/editline] [QUOTE=peabrain101;18977746][img]http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/3184/photoshopmagic.png[/img] Fucking around in photoshop, I think I might be able to fine tune my technique into something that is actually pleasing to look at.[/QUOTE] Portraits can be sharp but not on the skin areas I think, because that would be too distracting. The eyes are the most important element that has to be sharp. In this case the sharpness of the skin is really way too distracting... The colours are also too aggresive IMO Or not the colours, rather the lighting, and the sharpening worsens that.
[QUOTE=Perfumly;18959470][IMG]http://filesmelt.com/downloader/MADDIEFINISHEDFAGGETS.jpg[/IMG] Graphite portrait of a friend, forgot to color the left iris before I took the picture, but you get the jist of it.[/QUOTE] i think you should stick to photography
Also is it just me or do other people never feel like taking pictures when the sky is pure gray? There are just no shadows D:
[QUOTE=Hammertime;18988001]Also is it just me or do other people never feel like taking pictures when the sky is pure gray? There are just no shadows D:[/QUOTE] My favorite time for texture photography, it's perfect.
[QUOTE=Rusty100;18987451]i think you should stick to photography[/QUOTE] Well it's not like I'll just be able to magically draw perfectly. I did that for some practice. PS. read my post near the top of the page for more info on that drawing
[img]http://large.pictures.boss.dailybooth.com/abcb34f9986efca26b4f07e97726a865_2146200.jpg[/img] first attempt at wildstyle, I will take a picture with my actual camera when I can be bothered.
what does it say? SNE ? Looks nice!
Snp [editline]06:43PM[/editline] thanks man
I never ever go over ISO 800. haha I always have my 50 1.8 on my but when I do get the 7D I might go higher than ISO 800
I don't mind my 500D's noise, it looks nice :D
I'm [i]totally[/i] holding out for the 5DmkII (or nikon equivalent) :buddy:
Doesn't that thing cost a fuckton?
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18992924]I'm [i]totally[/i] holding out for the 5DmkII (or nikon equivalent) :buddy:[/QUOTE] D3x is equivalent right? I'd prefer the D700
Last I saw, the Nikon D3x was $7,999 just for the body, but the 5D mk II was only $3,750. :raise: [url]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/index.htm[/url] ...24.5 megapixels! :aaaaa: screw buying a new car before my current one dies.
last night at a venue of undiscovered metal/rock bands [img]http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/7426/ferfr.png[/img] [img]http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1421/image48.png[/img] my friends
ah, sweet. I'm actually going to a venue and being let in for free by the band this friday, on the grounds that they want me taking pictures. Sweeeeeet! :D the band is "The Glide". They're not really [i]my[/i] kinda music, but still much more fun than 90% of the other things I might have been stuck with :v:
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18994776]ah, sweet. I'm actually going to a venue and being let in for free by the band this friday, on the grounds that they want me taking pictures. Sweeeeeet! :D the band is "The Glide". They're not really [i]my[/i] kinda music, but still much more fun than 90% of the other things I might have been stuck with :v:[/QUOTE] hahaha sounds like what I was doing basically.
[QUOTE=petieng;18986323]3200? My camera's pictures on 1600 look like multicoloured sandstorms. :v:[/QUOTE] I should probably clarify that my camera is the 1D Mark III and is a professional body. That said, the next generation of prosumer cameras are definitely going to have similar performance at 3200 IMO.
"Prosumer"? I like that term. I also like the promise of better performing high ISO, can't wait for the lower end stuff to stop sucking at it so bad :v:
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18993703]Last I saw, the Nikon D3x was $7,999 just for the body, but the 5D mk II was only $3,750. :raise: [url]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/index.htm[/url] ...24.5 megapixels! :aaaaa: screw buying a new car before my current one dies.[/QUOTE] Woah that's like 35mb per image, have fun stocking up external HD's [editline]12:02AM[/editline] Also way too bulky for me... I'd rather have a medium format SLR like the one I have now
[QUOTE=daijitsu;18993703]Last I saw, the Nikon D3x was $7,999 just for the body, but the 5D mk II was only $3,750. :raise: [url]http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/digitalcamera/slr/d3x/index.htm[/url] ...24.5 megapixels! :aaaaa: screw buying a new car before my current one dies.[/QUOTE] okay just the D3 then :v:
Someone should get me a d3s in the gift giving thread. I'll do something in return I promise
I love digging through old Raws and find stuff you haven't opened. [img]http://www.filedump.net/dumped/lifeisgood1261007074.png[/img] "Life is good"
Plasma globes! :science: [img]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/1cd800dsc1999.jpg[/img] The lamp in the reflection changes colour every few seconds, so over a long enough exposure it turns out white, which I thought was kinda cool: [img]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/503800dsc19962.jpg[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.