• Photo Offtopic Thread v.2012.1
    4,005 replies, posted
[QUOTE=altern;35834496]I have to go to walmart and get my second roll of film developed. The first was shitty. Not focused properly and had a blue tinge to almost all of them. Hopefully it's just me being a dumbass and I've fixed it in the second roll and not the lightseals on the camera. I'm going to Washington DC tomorrow and the only camera I have is this minolta xg1. I really don't want to miss this opportunity, because I'll likely never visit Washington again.[/QUOTE] Light leaks usually happen while your camera is sitting around, not while you are taking photos. Bring a bag for it, and when you aren't using it leave it in the bag. Also electrical tape the seals, and wind the film in the canister in the dark. Should leave you pretty safe.
I bought a flash for my Olympus. Never used flash with 35mm before. Have shot a roll on it already, although it hasn't been processed yet... Will see how it turns out.
well fuck me. I'm bringing a kodak c613 point and shoot with me for the one time in my life i'll likely get to go to the capitol of my nation
randomly doing a presentation on advertising for my science communications unit. I designed it well! [url]http://www.haslehurst.net/post/22480950061/advertising-in-planned-obsolescene[/url]
Lightroom 4 worth the money? Looking for a program to use as my dedicated post processing program. But it seems like it has a lot of useless features built in like geotagging your photos, and web/print/slideshow/PDF creating features which I will never use, not sure if getting it for the post processing alone is worth the money.
I'd say get somewhat good at photography before touching postprocessing [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] personal opinion
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35842963]I'd say get somewhat good at photography before touching postprocessing [editline]5th May 2012[/editline] personal opinion[/QUOTE] Fair enough.
Post processing is definitely a skill in itself. It's great for editing most photos, very streamline. To me I think you should get it now because it's something that comes with time and practice much like photography. LR4 just came out so it's not gonna be phased out any time soon. Don't worry about those extra features, its main purpose is to post process, and it does it fantastically. Great library support, backups, export to sites, snapshots, stacking and so on. I hardly use any of the other features except geotagging cause its interesting mapping out where you've been. Build your distinct style and watch it change over time as you take more photographs. And if you're a student it's not too expensive for something as powerful as it is.
Thanks Tekno, I believe it's $79 now so not much at all really, although I did forget to mention that I already legally own photoshop CS5.1 and I know my way around it better than the back of my hand, but I've heard lightroom is a beefed up version of the RAW editor built into photoshop.
i have to agree about lightroom, it's a really user friendly interface to process your photos in, as I said in the creative thread before I simplified the comment massively, everyone's style is pretty representative of themselves, I don't try to go for certain looks because other people do them or something, I go for what I think looks good, and constructive criticism helps to shape that as well.. it's interesting to see how your mood plays a role in it, how your life circumstances play a role in it. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, with processing that's true to yourself it's worth much more [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] also while it might seem limited, using it with the gradients, brushed masks, spot removal, adding or removing lens distortion for subtle effect, things like clarity... you can do it all in photoshop too, but it's just much simpler and more accessible in lightroom. the only shame is I don't think you can actually stitch photos together in it, so if i'm doing a brenizer i'll take the raws into photoshop, stitch them in that, export it as a high res jpg then chuck that into lightroom
They're pretty much the same cept LR4 puts all the sliders in one long list and is designed for the user to start from top to bottom so white balance first, picture highlights/shadows, contrast, levels, saturation etc. If you want to save money you could stick to photoshop but you know how annoying it's to use for a lot of photos at once- adobe bridge sorta helps to alleviate that issue but ultimately lightroom simplifies and streamlines all these processes into convenient modules. It has a studio workflow associated to it and its ability to cache previews allowing you to view photos on demand with little load time when you start processing photos from a bunch after a trip or something saves time in the long run massively. LR4 also interacts with photoshop, passing image from lr4 catalogue to photoshop for more editing and then returns it to lr4. @inzalonus You could load the photos into lightroom, right click and photomerge into panorama via photoshop, photoshop will do its thing and then return it back to lightroom where you can prob stack all those photos into the panorama.
[QUOTE=Tekno;35843244]They're pretty much the same cept LR4 puts all the sliders in one long list and is designed for the user to start from top to bottom so white balance first, picture highlights/shadows, contrast, levels, saturation etc. If you want to save money you could stick to photoshop but you know how annoying it's to use for a lot of photos at once- adobe bridge sorta helps to alleviate that issue but ultimately lightroom simplifies and streamlines all these processes into convenient modules. It has a studio workflow associated to it and its ability to cache previews allowing you to view photos on demand with little load time when you start processing photos from a bunch after a trip or something saves time in the long run massively. LR4 also interacts with photoshop, passing image from lr4 catalogue to photoshop for more editing and then returns it to lr4. @inzalonus You could load the photos into lightroom, right click and photomerge into panorama via photoshop, photoshop will do its thing and then return it back to lightroom where you can prob stack all those photos into the panorama.[/QUOTE] oh... really? i've just been doing it manually by hand, probably why they always end up looking like shit
Well doing it externally independently like you do works quite fine. This just includes it moreso into the lightroom workflow. But I haven't had much luck with photoshop's photomerge lately or I just can't take proper panorama pieces and just get jumbled mess from photoshop but Microsoft's ICE, has been working for me and it also seems faster than photoshop. I just don't get how some people can manually stitch panoramas.
I don't either, I chuck two images down then try to line them up and warp the points and the lining up keeps fucking up on me, it's a massive hassle and i'm sick of trying
Anybody else take pictures of the "super moon" tonight?
we havn't had it yet, how much larger did it seem?
The glow is more yellowish, and it's noticeably bigger. I live in a place with a lot of light though in a flat state, so it wasn't perfect.
it's probably going to have some effect on me, I always get a bit weird around full moons, it'll probably look pretty damn big when it comes out here too
[QUOTE=credesniper;35844026]Anybody else take pictures of the "super moon" tonight?[/QUOTE] Didn't look super to me at all, no pictures 'cause I don't have anything with a focal length longer than 55mm
Prom was tonight so I couldn't take pictures of the moon. On the bright side, I finally got a new camera bag.
complete cloud coverage here for the super moon, got a telephoto and a new tripod i could have used for it too :(
same fuck sake
I got some shots earlier, but it was so low on the horizon that it wasn't very sharp. :(
Taking pictures of the sky would be way easier without that pesky atmosphere being in the way
[QUOTE=latin_geek;35846502]Taking pictures of the sky would be way easier without that pesky atmosphere being in the way[/QUOTE] But if there wasn't an atmosphere, there wouldn't be a 'sky'.
It would make for some really excellent shots of the milky way :v:.
can't wait till i go to cornwall on holiday guys, sky is so clear down there so imma get some suhweeeeeeeet long exposures of the night sky
I feel like I'm losing my passion/touch for photography, I haven't taken a shot I've been pleased with for 3 months. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] Doesn't help a lot of my possessions keep getting lost, damaged or stolen so I can't save up for camera gear. [editline]6th May 2012[/editline] Oh and I got a £135 parking ticket yesterday woo.
I don't mean this to be harsh, because its not. 1.Get inspired, look through flickr. Get shooting more and shoot people, post here. The more bad photos you take the closer you are to taking a good one. or something. 2.Take more care of your shit. 2.Be more careful where you park. Man up, take some photos, keep your stuff close and park correctly!
It probably has to do with the huge mountain of shit life has thrown your way recently, got you depressed or somethin' Blaze is right, go out and shoot more, try a new technique or style.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.