The "Creative Photography " Thread [v2] In Memoriam
5,003 replies, posted
[QUOTE=b l u r;26207103]Something from my 365...
[img_thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/jacobthuesen/SVHTyh0G6MrhdFBcw2yBiXrLiGZWYbWYkabRY7nHR0iswnctGqxROafufHmD/Fisker.jpeg.scaled980.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1290373186&Signature=WbpRhEM0gcIq20F2yVX4e2Bd%2Bvc%3D[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.posterous.com/jacobthuesen/vfcpoc7EMUJE6Zr3aHU0znkW5YhN2JP7aslNcBv8YbZDyxxdOwvKxTyf9PyR/Shortcut.jpeg.scaled980.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1290373309&Signature=9x%2BRIpFOQPGi03QKU2GLdXxPQ4Q%3D[/img_thumb]
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
Some C&C:
It annoys me because it isn't sharp. But the composition is great! And I love the tones and the feel it has. But why would you put (your?) name on it like that? It kinda ruin it.[/QUOTE]
He could bump up contrast a bit to get it looking crisp. Playing around with other stuff could also work. I really like it as well.
[QUOTE=Adius Shadow;26194827]I am creating an army
[img_thumb]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/4824/imgp3809h.jpg [/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
You have the same camera as me. Your face is quite blurry in those.
[editline].[/editline]
Oh Wait, that is actually quite clear for a ten second shutterspeed.
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=gothiclampshade;26173266]woot, photos
[img_thumb]http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/484/dscf0149g.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2320/dscf0141x.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/4985/dscf0266f.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/4272/dscf0283d.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
Editing them with GIMP doesn't help you very much. If you want to post process download the trail of CS5.
woo I can read metadata I'm cool
[QUOTE=Dolton;26210533]
Editing them with GIMP doesn't help you very much. If you want to post process download the trail of CS5.[/QUOTE]
GIMP isn't all bad (I used it for a short while long time ago), especially if you don't need an extreme photo makeover.
I almost exclusively use Lightroom since it's just so simple, when I open the image, it automatically fixes my lens disortions/falloff (except on my 14mm that is the only lens I'd really [B]need[/B] it fixed) adds some saturation, a bit of denoise.
And after that I usually only need to crop and set the exposure/levels - All of this apart from automatic lens geometry corrections should be easily done in GIMP without any additional packages.
All it takes is spending at least few hours of learning the concepts of image editing with some tutorials, and shooting RAW.
Usually the pictures wind up slightly half-assed, but I'd rather take pictures instead of spending over 10 minutes with each even decent picture I've taken.
Good and fast workflow I get with Lightroom means I can easily process 40-50 non-shit RAW photos out of 200 I've taken in around one hour - With GIMP it would be a lot longer, although I'd get the same results...
Woah sorry for opening up here.
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=CodeMaster;26203840]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ole-martin/5118490917/][img_thumb]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1212/5118490917_a183c962a6.jpg[/img_thumb][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/ole-martin/5118490917/]Untitled[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/ole-martin/]Ole Martin J[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE]
I like this one, but then again I have some odd fetish when it comes to taking pictures of roads.
[QUOTE=evilking1;26210897]GIMP isn't all bad (I used it for a short while long time ago), especially if you don't need an extreme photo makeover.
I almost exclusively use Lightroom since it's just so simple, when I open the image, it automatically fixes my lens disortions/falloff (except on my 14mm that is the only lens I'd really [B]need[/B] it fixed) adds some saturation, a bit of denoise.
And after that I usually only need to crop and set the exposure/levels - All of this apart from automatic lens geometry corrections should be easily done in GIMP without any additional packages. All it takes is spending at least few hours of learning the concepts of image editing, and shooting RAW.
Usually the pictures wind up slightly half-assed, but I'd rather take pictures instead of spending over 10 minutes with each even decent picture I've taken.
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
I like this one, but then again I have some odd fetish when it comes to taking pictures of roads.[/QUOTE]
Gimp really can only adjust levels, saturation, and contrast. Photoshop and light room offer a lot more minuet changes and is far easier to use.
[quote]woo I can read metadata I'm cool[/quote]
Oh fuck off, most pictures posted here don't have the EXIF data because they were uploaded somewhere that gets rid of it. I only mentioned it because I rarely see people with the KX.
[QUOTE=Dolton;26210533]You have the same camera as me. Your face is quite blurry in those.
[editline].[/editline]
Oh Wait, that is actually quite clear for a ten second shutterspeed.
[/QUOTE]
Thats not me it's my friend and I love this camera
[QUOTE=Dolton;26211172]Gimp really can only adjust levels, saturation, and contrast. Photoshop and light room offer a lot more minuet changes and is far easier to use.
[/QUOTE]
You can do denoising, BW, layers, cloning, spot removal, dodging, burning, artfag-filters, and almost anything you'd need in regular usage- the question is that what GIMP can't do that PS can.
Are you thinking of paint.net or something?
When it comes to real image editing though PS has some good features that GIMP doesn't have (like contextual remove is quite fun and fast - although random)
Lightroom is easier and way faster to use due to good workflow, and has a good RAW converter, that's the reason I use it.
[QUOTE=Dolton;26211172]Gimp really can only adjust levels, saturation, and contrast. Photoshop and light room offer a lot more minuet changes and is far easier to use.
Oh fuck off, most pictures posted here don't have the EXIF data because they were uploaded somewhere that gets rid of it. I only mentioned it because I rarely see people with the KX.[/QUOTE]
I disagree. GIMP is perfectly capable. I've used it quite a bit, and while photoshop is a way better program (of course, you have a multimillion dollar development cycle) GIMP is quite nearly as powerful when it comes to basic post-processing.
It seems to be fine for what he's using it for. I use Lightroom because of what evilking said, it's really simple to do things fast since it works like a gallery. I'd much rather use photoshop to work because when I do need to do some more complicated editing it's already got the features I need, but the workflow isn't nearly as good as Lightroom's. Not to mention Lightroom is entirely non-destructive, where-as photoshop is only as non-destructive as the user sees fit.
[QUOTE=Dolton;26211172]
Oh fuck off, most pictures posted here don't have the EXIF data because they were uploaded somewhere that gets rid of it. I only mentioned it because I rarely see people with the KX.[/QUOTE]
You can see them in flickr through some link in the picture, but they aren't in the image.
Hey evilking do you have adobe Photoshop cs5? The new denoise functions are amazing.
Haven't been here in so long. Some of the pictures here are insane!
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/5077077875_08574ee4a7.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1351/5119986104_ae4a6f2d25.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/5173354713_0c1352e296.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;26219547]Hey evilking do you have adobe Photoshop cs5? The new denoise functions are amazing.[/QUOTE]
I have tried the trial, but I don't really [I]edit[/I] my images that much as to justify buying it. And even if I did, I'd probably use lightroom since it's so fast.
My camera has good enough high-iso performance and fast lenses... on ISO 25600 I'd need some denoise though lol.
[QUOTE=evilking1;26210897]GIMP isn't all bad (I used it for a short while long time ago), especially if you don't need an extreme photo makeover.
I almost exclusively use Lightroom since it's just so simple, when I open the image, it automatically fixes my lens disortions/falloff (except on my 14mm that is the only lens I'd really [B]need[/B] it fixed) adds some saturation, a bit of denoise.
And after that I usually only need to crop and set the exposure/levels - All of this apart from automatic lens geometry corrections should be easily done in GIMP without any additional packages.
All it takes is spending at least few hours of learning the concepts of image editing with some tutorials, and shooting RAW.
Usually the pictures wind up slightly half-assed, but I'd rather take pictures instead of spending over 10 minutes with each even decent picture I've taken.
Good and fast workflow I get with Lightroom means I can easily process 40-50 non-shit RAW photos out of 200 I've taken in around one hour - With GIMP it would be a lot longer, although I'd get the same results...
Woah sorry for opening up here.
[editline]21st November 2010[/editline]
I like this one, but then again I have some odd fetish when it comes to taking pictures of roads.[/QUOTE]
I really need to learn how to edit my photographs.
levels and curves, that is you mantra while editing
Yeah, but I'm not great at judging how far to go.
[QUOTE=evilking1;26220419]I have tried the trial, but I don't really [I]edit[/I] my images that much as to justify buying it. And even if I did, I'd probably use lightroom since it's so fast.
My camera has good enough high-iso performance and fast lenses... on ISO 25600 I'd need some denoise though lol.[/QUOTE]
Yeah you have the 5dmII so noise isn't a very huge factor for you.
My 7D racks up alot of noise at iso 3200 and up, but with the CS5 function it looks like iso 400.
oh god I sound like an adobe informant
[QUOTE=DoubleDD;26223495]Yeah you have the 5dmII so noise isn't a very huge factor for you.
My 7D racks up alot of noise at iso 3200 and up, but with the CS5 function it looks like iso 400.
oh god I sound like an adobe informant[/QUOTE]
That's not a bad thing seeing as Adobe is pretty fucking awesome.
[QUOTE=Edthefirst;26223585]That's not a bad thing seeing as Adobe is pretty fucking awesome.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. I just tested it with ISO 12800. It removes like 70 percent of the noise but the loss of detail is noticable. Still, it's incredible how much better looking the images get.
I always kept my limit at ISO 1600 with my 7D but I think I can atleast move it to 3200 if it's needed.
[url]http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/_images/books.jpg[/url]
I've heard that topaz adjust is also good when it comes to denoise, that's iso 25600 on 5d mk2
Some of my pics from the class London trip :)
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451844.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451845.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451846.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451847.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451848.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451849.png[/img]
[img]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451850.png[/img]
That's human flesh isn't it.
It's the new immigration policy.
[QUOTE=Mr.Egg;26226883]Some of my pics from the class London trip :)
[img_thumb]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451844.png[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451848.png[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
Well these two shots are just amazing, the colours on the second one are great. Stunning job!
[QUOTE=evilking1;26225455][url]http://www.topazlabs.com/denoise/_images/books.jpg[/url]
I've heard that topaz adjust is also good when it comes to denoise, that's iso 25600 on 5d mk2[/QUOTE]
Yeah i've used Topaz' denoise for a while and its also quite good. Haven't tested them both together but you can get excellent results with high iso pictures in both programs.
Just got back from a wedding, expect a couple of pictures.
Mah dog.
[img_thumb]http://i53.tinypic.com/zycbj4.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i51.tinypic.com/6sf6ts.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/2m2dlrc.jpg[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://i55.tinypic.com/33a5l5z.jpg[/img_thumb]
bonus
[img_thumb]http://i53.tinypic.com/2rhtqhk.jpg[/img_thumb]
i wish i was better at photography
I was overshadowed by the photographers at the wedding, and since I only had a standard lens all my photos were pretty bad and grainy, so I'm not really going to bother with those.
Instead, here are some photos I took this morning when I woke up in 1970.
[img]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/326/8/2/drugstore_by_billcronin-d33e8p4.png[/img]
[img]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/326/0/7/train_car_by_billcronin-d33e98c.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Mr.Egg;26226883]Some of my pics from the class London trip :)
[img_thumb]http://www.rehost.org/images/1290451844.png[/img_thumb]
[/QUOTE]
I absolutely love this shot, but I can't help but feel that this picture would be greatly enhanced if it was zoomed out a tad bit. That way you can see the entire building, and the fencing wouldn't be so cramped up against the left side of the image.
[QUOTE=BANNED USER;26232090]I was overshadowed by the photographers at the wedding, and since I only had a standard lens all my photos were pretty bad and grainy, so I'm not really going to bother with those.
Instead, here are some photos I took this morning when I woke up in 1970.
[img_thumb]http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/326/8/2/drugstore_by_billcronin-d33e8p4.png[/img_thumb]
[img_thumb]http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/326/0/7/train_car_by_billcronin-d33e98c.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
I really like the second picture aside from what appears to be selective colorization?
