[QUOTE=rieda1589;30397902]It basically just needs bouncing and diffusing. It's just kinda awkward to do it with the way it's on the camera. It would be nice if they had a swivel head for the flash instead of a pop-up mechanism.[/QUOTE]
I use a piece of white card with a slight curve bent into it stuck under the flash. It works pretty damn well, but the popup flash is not really powerful enough for more than simple messing around. Save the money that they would tack on for such a feature and buy a cheap manual flash with much higher light output.
[QUOTE=cueballv2themax;30395923]because shieldz is a big place man it's where the good men come from
whisky tippin out the glasses big big big blunts puff puff passes[/QUOTE]
What?
Rendering my first [B]real[/B] timelapse now. First time using Vegas pro so it took 3 hours to edit it :v:
You guys won't be able to see it until tomorrow though, it's 4:45 AM here and I need sleep.
Just kidding, here it is
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovhFzU4iDhM[/media]
[QUOTE=magicman1234;30394180]
Took a macro shot of my dog, a little grainy though.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5822805663/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3505/5822805663_f937af962a_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5822805663/]DSC_1729[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60163821@N03/]Sumap1[/url], on Flickr[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5822801009/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/5822801009_8452a17254_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5822801009/]DSC_1753[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60163821@N03/]Sumap1[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5823367526/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/5823367526_a607cc35fc_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5823367526/]DSC_1756[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60163821@N03/]Sumap1[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5823362454/][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/5823362454_52be9fd01e_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/60163821@N03/5823362454/]DSC_1724[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/60163821@N03/]Sumap1[/url], on Flickr
[editline]11th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=booster;30399922]Rendering my first [B]real[/B] timelapse now. First time using Vegas pro so it took 3 hours to edit it :v:
You guys won't be able to see it until tomorrow though, it's 4:45 AM here and I need sleep.
Just kidding, here it is
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovhFzU4iDhM[/media][/QUOTE]
What's the interval time for this?
Boop.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/mk8Ak.jpg[/IMG]
Back into the swing of bikes, didn't turn out as well as I hoped, but still happy nonetheless.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/5823047735/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/5823047735_0bffaab759_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/5823047735/]Will[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/sameiru/]Sam Haberman[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/5823619086/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/5823619086_7cc99c99c5_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/sameiru/5823619086/]Will[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/sameiru/]Sam Haberman[/url], on Flickr
[QUOTE=Sumap;30401647]
What's the interval time for this?[/QUOTE]
It's different for every timelapse. But it's from 1 second to 3 seconds. It all depends on the wind and how fast the clouds move.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/5823518533_27c37e5172_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/]Glenfinnan Viaduct[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bengley/]Bengley1[/url], on Flickr
From my recent trip around the country. I'll post more when I get around to doing some PP on them.
[QUOTE=Bengley;30405205][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/5823518533_27c37e5172_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/]Glenfinnan Viaduct[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bengley/]Bengley1[/url], on Flickr
From my recent trip around the country. I'll post more when I get around to doing some PP on them.[/QUOTE]
pretty cool, I find the OOF side of the train on the far right to be distracting though, if it were possible, I would have leaned out of the train more.
[QUOTE=Bengley;30405205][url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/][img]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3040/5823518533_27c37e5172_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/5823518533/]Glenfinnan Viaduct[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bengley/]Bengley1[/url], on Flickr
From my recent trip around the country. I'll post more when I get around to doing some PP on them.[/QUOTE]
Man that reminds me of Harry Potter.
Amazing picture!
[QUOTE=LarparNar;30395770]Size of the aperture opening.
f/2.8 would mean the aperture diameter is (focal length) divided by 2.8.
Smaller number is thus a wider aperture, which lets in more light and makes the depth of field more shallow. (How deep the area of focus is).[/QUOTE]
So is a shallow depth of field good then?
[QUOTE=Alcapwne;30406385]So is a shallow depth of field good then?[/QUOTE]
it's what makes a lot of ~professional~ portraits look nice. ie:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5761284856/][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/5761284856_d487136f7e.jpg[/img][/url]
but at the same time you might want a deep depth of field for landscapes ie:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5184664790/][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5184664790_c93941b620.jpg[/img][/url]
[QUOTE=H4Z3Y;30406446]it's what makes a lot of ~professional~ portraits look nice. ie:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5761284856/][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2339/5761284856_d487136f7e.jpg[/img][/url]
but at the same time you might want a deep depth of field for landscapes ie:
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5184664790/][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4088/5184664790_c93941b620.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE]
Ah okay, I get it now
Thanks!
Nothing too special, just a 3-image-panorama I made today... :emo:
[quote][URL="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19827536/panorama_sk%C3%B6vde_fredrik_lund_2011.png"][IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/19827536/panorama_sk%C3%B6vde_fredrik_lund_2011.png[/IMG][/URL][/quote]
[QUOTE=Alcapwne;30406462]Ah okay, I get it now
Thanks![/QUOTE]
The way you want to look at it, is that there are two kinds of lenses in respect to aperture. There are Prime lenses which can achieve the most shallow depth of field (and can often be cheaper). And there are Zoom lenses. Prime lenses can get a beautiful DOF, and still have a miniscule aperture (around f22, etc) to be able to keep the entire image in focus or only a small part, as all lenses can have a smaller aperture, but not all can have such a large aperture. The only downside is that it is very difficult to incorporate zoom into a lens with a large aperture, so Prime lenses (from f1.8 to 1.2 and beyond) cannot zoom. On the other hand zoom lenses generally cannot open their aperture as wide, even $2000 pro lenses don't go much beyond f2.8-2.4 or so. So basically it's Zoom lenses Vs. Prime lenses, and more often than not the zoom lenses will be much more expensive. I mean of course their are other types of lenses but those are generally the most important in terms of focus. Feel free to correct me guys, I'm just a wannabe knowitall haha :[
[editline]12th June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShinyChrome;30408860]Nothing too special, just a 3-image-panorama I made today... :emo:[/QUOTE]
Well, the sky is great, and the stitching appears seamless, the photos themselves are a touch flat in the forest and city. If there was ever a time for a wee bit of HDR, I think it really could have taken this up a notch. Still, I really like the sky, the horizon is beautiful. Good jub, me likeh.
There is great work here on this thread.
I'm going to leave a link here to my online portfolio.
[url]http://diogopereiraphotography.carbonmade.com/[/url]
Feel free to say what you think.
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;30409202]The way you want to look at it, is that there are two kinds of lenses in respect to aperture. There are Prime lenses which can achieve the most shallow depth of field (and can often be cheaper). And there are Zoom lenses. Prime lenses can get a beautiful DOF, and still have a miniscule aperture (around f22, etc) to be able to keep the entire image in focus or only a small part, as all lenses can have a smaller aperture, but not all can have such a large aperture. The only downside is that it is very difficult to incorporate zoom into a lens with a large aperture, so Prime lenses (from f1.8 to 1.2 and beyond) cannot zoom. On the other hand zoom lenses generally cannot open their aperture as wide, even $2000 pro lenses don't go much beyond f2.8-2.4 or so. So basically it's Zoom lenses Vs. Prime lenses, and more often than not the zoom lenses will be much more expensive. I mean of course their are other types of lenses but those are generally the most important in terms of focus. Feel free to correct me guys, I'm just a wannabe knowitall haha :[
[editline]12th June 2011[/editline]
Well, the sky is great, and the stitching appears seamless, the photos themselves are a touch flat in the forest and city. If there was ever a time for a wee bit of HDR, I think it really could have taken this up a notch. Still, I really like the sky, the horizon is beautiful. Good jub, me likeh.[/QUOTE]
great information, thanks a lot :buddy:
@Bengley
Did you get off at Glenfinnan to see the Glenfinnan memorial? Great train journey, I've been on it 3 times.
[QUOTE=topic10;30409287]Feel free to say what you think.[/QUOTE]
Personally, I don't think you have an eye for landscapes. Your fashion and B&W is good though.
I think you need to work on paying attention the quality of the light you're using though. It's really harsh and way too contrasty between what looks like direct sunlight and hard shadows. High contrast is kind of an easy-out to make your pictures look more ~artistic~ than they really are. Try to steer away from that, or at least ease up on whatever processing you're doing.
I'm digging your site, by the way.
[QUOTE=bopie;30409449]Personally, I don't think you have an eye for landscapes. Your fashion and B&W is good though.
I think you need to work on paying attention the quality of the light you're using though. It's really harsh and way too contrasty between what looks like direct sunlight and hard shadows. High contrast is kind of an easy-out to make your pictures look more ~artistic~ than they really are. Try to steer away from that, or at least ease up on whatever processing you're doing.
I'm digging your site, by the way.[/QUOTE]
Yhea I agree with you. I seriously don't like to photograph landscape in a conventional way. But if I find something interesting like rain and sunset in the same frame, Ill shoot it.
The contrast thing was due the use of analytical photometry. I allways liked to work with about 8 or more stops of difference between highlights and shadows (Allways losing info in highlights and shadows).
But I'm not using that nowdays, it was a rather slugish excuse to not work on post-processing. This reminds me that I need to update my portfolio.
Thanks man.
[QUOTE=Biscuit-Boy;30409202]Well, the sky is great, and the stitching appears seamless, the photos themselves are a touch flat in the forest and city. If there was ever a time for a wee bit of HDR, I think it really could have taken this up a notch. Still, I really like the sky, the horizon is beautiful. Good jub, me likeh.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I always have a bad confidence in my photographs, I really appreciate your response. Unfortunely I only have the standard lens for my DSLR, so I couldn't get a great focus on the city and it ended in a mess, not exactly intended though. :v:
When you mean HDR, is it something I could fix through Photoshop, or is it a process during the photographing?
[QUOTE=ShinyChrome;30409877]Thanks, I always have a bad confidence in my photographs, I really appreciate your response. Unfortunely I only have the standard lens for my DSLR, so I couldn't get a great focus on the city and it ended in a mess, not exactly intended though. :v:
When you mean HDR, is it something I could fix through Photoshop, or is it a process during the photographing?[/QUOTE]
Basically, you're taking a picture of something really bright -the sky- and something not as bright -comparitively, the city and forest-. You can't expose them both properly in one photo, so you take two, or three. One that exposes the sky properly and underexposes the rest (ei your photo but it isn't that bad honestly) and one that overexposes the sky but captures the best detail of everything that is darker. You should also take one that's in between for good measure. Then, in post processing you combine them to get the best detail, light, color, etc possible from both. There are some DSLRs that have this function built in (T2i and newer), but it's very easy to do manually if you have a tripod and a non-moving scene.
Still, your picture doesn't necessarily need it, it's just something to look into.
Thanks again, I shall certainly look into it, and perhaps get a tripod to make it easier. :buddy:
[QUOTE=ShinyChrome;30410533]Thanks again, I shall certainly look into it, and perhaps get a tripod to make it easier. :buddy:[/QUOTE]
^A tripod not only makes it easier but is practically necessary for HDR. Trust me, if everything doesn't line up perfectly it will start to look odd, especially when you only blend certain areas partially.
Instead of HDR can you not just get a Graduated ND filter? Is it better to do the HDR instead (result wise)?
I guess it is more flexible when blending your images but is that the only advantage over just using a filter?
[QUOTE=Emz;30411115]Instead of HDR can you not just get a Graduated ND filter? Is it better to do the HDR instead (result wise)?
I guess it is more flexible when blending your images but is that the only advantage over just using a filter?[/QUOTE]
HDR is free, filters are not. Filters will give a different look too.
HDR I think is a little more flexible - you have more room to work with as far as making sure EVERYTHING is properly exposed. The filter will look different, as Xera said, though I imagine on a per-image basis it'd be slightly easier to deal with and much less time consuming as you don't have to do a shitload of editing.
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/5825623684/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5063/5825623684_e900c39134_b.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/dannimagn/5825623684/]DSC_0186.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/dannimagn/]Dannimagn[/url], on Flickr
Feel free to give CC or whatevs
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824955831/][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2614/5824955831_9f600051ec_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824955831/]DSC_0026.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/tomraworth/]Tom_Raworth[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824832309/][img]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2434/5824832309_f677bf1cee_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824832309/]DSC_0038.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/tomraworth/]Tom_Raworth[/url], on Flickr
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824830859/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5078/5824830859_ac59f6433a_z.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/tomraworth/5824830859/]DSC_0015.jpg[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/tomraworth/]Tom_Raworth[/url], on Flickr
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
