The "Creative Photography " Thread [v2] In Memoriam - General

[QUOTE=ijyt;27212974]Oh god that's awesome. What lens did you use?[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it was my 75-300mm but I'll have to take a look later on.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cornelisjuh/5327023259/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5287/5327023259_a27584815e.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cornelisjuh/5327023259/]DSC_0550[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cornelisjuh/]Cornelisjuh[/url], on Flickr Just taken HDR test taken a week ago : [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cornelisjuh/5293668680/][img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5202/5293668680_9f3cbd7c07.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/cornelisjuh/5293668680/]Snow_HDR1[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/cornelisjuh/]Cornelisjuh[/url], on Flickr

Another photo I took, this time focused on depth of field [IMG]http://i52.tinypic.com/214a2vn.jpg[/IMG] Also a random photo of my gf :D [IMG]http://i55.tinypic.com/6507te.jpg[/IMG] I bet none of you have the camera i have - dmc fz50

why do canon cameras not record lens information but lumixes do

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;27216252]why do canon cameras not record lens information but lumixes do[/QUOTE] uh, but they do (at least mine does)

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;27216252]why do canon cameras not record lens information but lumixes do[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/ijyt/5321446283/meta/[/url] Looks like lens information to me.

ijyt hows the new 60D holding up?

[QUOTE=bopie;27216472]ijyt hows the new 60D holding up?[/QUOTE] It's rad, haven't got a single complaint about it.

nice, could make a nice upgrade for me when i outgrow my 1000D. Then jump to a 5D Mark II [editline]5th January 2011[/editline] oh, it does. Mental [url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5304467578/meta/[/url] < has it

Weird, you have more info, Lightroom must have stripped some of it while uploading.

Guys, I'm heading outside to sleep tonight. -7°C. Will contribute tomorrow! Sleep tight!

[url]http://www.flickr.com/photos/cheesepuff/5304272211/meta/in/photostream[/url] was sent through lightroom

[QUOTE=b l u r;27216770]Guys, I'm heading outside to sleep tonight. -7°C. Will contribute tomorrow! Sleep tight![/QUOTE] Skal du ikke op og på arbejde imorgen? - Good luck!

[QUOTE=Eltro102;27216155] Also a random photo of my gf :D [img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/6507te.jpg[/img_thumb] I bet none of you have the camera i have - dmc fz50[/QUOTE] not to be rude, but both the split-toned editing and the "I have a niche camera" thing just scream hipster, it detracts from everything and I don't even want to look at the pictures in the post anymore because of it. Move away from that trend, it doesn't do anything but make you seem 'deep' or something to your facebook friends, but ultimately won't serve as viable portfolio work or impress most of the rest of the artistic community. The camera also bugs me, that's the one my girlfriend used for a while back at the college. It's built like an SLR but treated like a point and click. I think the part that irritated me most even before using it was the fact that the zoom factor was labeled hugely on the side as "12x Optical", meaning there was some potential digital zoom rabble underneath. Looking at the actual zoom in mm, 35-420mm... Either one hell of a lens or that's just the effect of digital 'zoom'.

Fuckkk, my pentax has like a ton of dust and shit on the inside viewfinder. Does anyone know the best way to clean those things? I tried but I only made it worse.

superzooms have shite lens quality, just lots of big zoomy bits

[QUOTE=Adius Shadow;27222959]Fuckkk, my pentax has like a ton of dust and shit on the inside viewfinder. Does anyone know the best way to clean those things? I tried but I only made it worse.[/QUOTE] Viewfinder or sensor?

[QUOTE=rieda1589;27223731]Viewfinder or sensor?[/QUOTE] The viewfinder, not the exterior part, it was on the inside, I cleaned it off pretty well with some compressed air, it was underneath it. Also blew off the sensor got some dust off it. Phew....never put your finger on the viewfinder piece...fuck

Well as a general rule of thumb, never put your finger on any bit of the inside of your camera. Um, I'd say take it to be cleaned if you are making it worse. Better to get a professional to do it, than do some irreparable damage.

[QUOTE=ijyt;27216479]It's rad, haven't got a single complaint about it.[/QUOTE] The new 60D looks niiicceeeeee

[QUOTE=Eltro102;27216155]Another photo I took, this time focused on depth of field [img_thumb]http://i52.tinypic.com/214a2vn.jpg[/img_thumb] Also a random photo of my gf :D [img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/6507te.jpg[/img_thumb] I bet none of you have the camera i have - dmc fz50[/QUOTE] First photo is okay, but [QUOTE=Eltro102;27216155] I bet none of you have the camera i have - dmc fz50[/QUOTE] What?

[QUOTE=Roll_Program;27226748] What?[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/images/Panasonic-FZ50-lg.jpg[/img] the viewfinder is a mini digital display and sucks ass, manually focusing never lined up though it did have a neat thing where it showed a 1:1 zoom box in the center so you could fine tune... if only it was tuned correctly in the first place.

i find bridge cameras to be rather disgusting

[QUOTE=Eltro102;27216155] I bet none of you have the camera i have - dmc fz50[/QUOTE] We're too busy having good cameras to bother.

-snip- Nobody will miss these.

[url]http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/1797/clouds1z.jpg[/url] Largish image, right click download it.

walked in my bathroom today and saw this nice light [IMG]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/2102/dsc0411g.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=daijitsu;27229860][img_thumb]http://www.digitalcameratracker.com/images/Panasonic-FZ50-lg.jpg[/img_thumb] the viewfinder is a mini digital display and sucks ass, manually focusing never lined up though it did have a neat thing where it showed a 1:1 zoom box in the center so you could fine tune... if only it was tuned correctly in the first place.[/QUOTE] I know what it is, I'm just wondering why he said he had one.

Alright guys, I'm gonna need some help. Been a fan of photography for quite some time, yet I've never really managed to get a good looking shot. I know the rule of thirds and often use my camera in Aperture Priority mode (camera being a Fuji S9600 because I don't have enough money for a proper SLR). Most of my shots just come out mediocre and require a shit load of editing to come out even half decent. Example: [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5162/5329544610_aaf931d28a_b.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5169/5328889113_6876f50ec2_b.jpg[/img_thumb] The first image required a bit of editing in PS to bring out the reds more. As for the squiggly effect, that was done during the shot. The second image, in order to get it to look "artistic" (or just my way of saying "putting icing on a turd") I had to do several things to get the end result. It just doesn't feel right. I'm not sure what's going on, other than I feel that I'm unable to produce anything natural. Any tips? Oh and for the sake of comparison, here's a stock photo and one I edited. Gah. [img_thumb]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4127/5094508308_6c979ee199_b.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5050/5329485066_4159a009b1_b.jpg[/img_thumb]

[quote=KFrohman]bunch o' piczurs[/quote] Wowow I actually quite like the first one. Really creative what you did with the exposure time. It looks like something out of mortal kombat (the final product anyways). As for tips, I'll leave it to tha pros ;)