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

just set a little goal then, to tinker and figure out a way to make it look OK for now. Maybe you'll discover some interesting concepts that you can apply later.

dai: 1000d or 30d [editline]30th November 2010[/editline] thats an xs btw

[url=http://www.camera-catalog.com/compares/popular/canon_eos_1000d_vs_canon_eos_30d]1000D[/url], looks to be better of the two. Also, saw you mention your parents think it may not be worth it; only the 1000D has live view, so if they're camera-illiterate and rely on using the back view-screen to take family photos you can use that as a bargaining chip :v:

thanks for the feedback dai, I will reshoot later. On a different note it's funny how in this thread people are used to seeing good photos so they just get glanced at and people move on. Now I'm not trying to say ratings are everything but my same picture, posted here and in the Arduino thread has received 2 artistic ratings in the Arduino thread and not a single rating here in the photography thread. just an observation.

[QUOTE=daijitsu;26406495][url=http://www.camera-catalog.com/compares/popular/canon_eos_1000d_vs_canon_eos_30d]1000D[/url], looks to be better of the two. Also, saw you mention your parents think it may not be worth it; only the 1000D has live view, so if they're camera-illiterate and rely on using the back view-screen to take family photos you can use that as a bargaining chip :v:[/QUOTE] Shit, wrong thread :v: But yeah, my dad and mum used old film cameras for years, my dad used to be a photographer for couples on boat trips, some old SLR and i've been learning through his old Pentax ME Super and my mum shot on an old Ricoh up until it died a few years back. Most likely won't be used by them, I am quite territorial and they have a high end sony point-and-shoot. In terms of sensor and processor, the 1000D kicks it dead but that quick control dial, 5fps shooting, beautiful magnesium body and sexy pentaprism are pulling me over

it comes down to what you're going to shoot. If you lean towards carefully planned shots where you have time to get the composition just right, go the 1000D. If you are going to be literally running around with your camera or if you will be shooting fast sequences then go the 30D. from what I can tell the 30D has "nice" features that you won't really use in practise.

decide what's more important to ya. If you're not printing above standard printer paper sized stuff (or at all), 8 megapixels is all you'd ever need so that shouldn't be considered.

[QUOTE=Roo-kie;26395258]straight off the camera (:jerkbag:) [img_thumb]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_oaHtF5FxSEA/TPRcC1vcezI/AAAAAAAAASs/Ra2oSKjhZL0/s720/IMG_5793.JPG[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] did no one notice this is a map made in hammer?

So what about this? I know it doesn't look super realistic, but it's better than the last. [IMG]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/5220984777_4efff72cbe_z.jpg[/IMG]

I like the original better.

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;26406877] In terms of sensor and processor, the 1000D kicks it dead [/QUOTE] [url]http://dxomark.com/index.php/en/Camera-Sensor/Compare-sensors/(appareil1)/179|0/(appareil2)/270|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon[/url] uhh wouldn't really say less than 1% more dynamic range nor 2,5% more colour depth "kicking dead", especially when 1000D has slightly shittier low-light performance and no ISO3200.

fine 30D it is [editline]30th November 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=Roo-kie;26395258]straight off the camera (:jerkbag:) [img_thumb]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_oaHtF5FxSEA/TPRcC1vcezI/AAAAAAAAASs/Ra2oSKjhZL0/s720/IMG_5793.JPG[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] stright off the camera, onto your Mac and on here? With no EXIF data? Aye, good luck. [quote]<?xpacket begin="*" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?> <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:05:41 "> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/"> <xmp:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh</xmp:CreatorTool> <xmp:CreateDate>2010-11-30T18:57:22Z</xmp:CreateDate> <xmp:ModifyDate>2010-11-30T18:57:22Z</xmp:ModifyDate> <xmp:MetadataDate>2010-11-30T18:57:22Z</xmp:MetadataDate> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"> <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/"> <photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta> [/quote]

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;26409017]fine 30D it is [editline]30th November 2010[/editline] stright off the camera, onto your Mac and on here? With no EXIF data? Aye, good luck.[/QUOTE] i knew it.

[QUOTE=bopie;26400284]Take a step back, man. You're completely over-analyzing what's going on. He got an interesting result, and people are letting him know. If I use your same logic, then someone using strobes has no control of the photons and how they react with different energy levels in the atomic structures of the flash element and the materials they reflect off of, therefore their photographic skills should be completely thrown out the window because they don't exist - because they didn't invent the universe. You're the arrogant one. You're being overly technical and displaying a self-appointed authority. The point that was being made is that he didn't change anything the camera gave him, he didn't have to fuck with faux-HDR, brightness, contrast, curves etc. [b]It's what the camera gave him.[/b] He didn't have to rely on crazy photoshop effects to get an interesting image, he did it with nothing but the camera. That's something to be proud of. And for future reference, post processing is called post processing because it occurs after you process the image, it doesn't refer to initially processing an image.[/QUOTE] Please, save your hyperbolic straw man. As photographers we work on a physical level, not an atomic one. Obviously being able to control lights to your advantage or being able to get something right in-camera are certainly worthwhile skills, but they're no more praiseworthy than being able to produce the same effect in post. The whole "SOOC or bust" movement is incredibly insulting to everyone who has ever incorporated post-processing into their workflow, which would be about every good photographer ever. [quote]he didn't have to fuck with faux-HDR, brightness, contrast, curves etc. [b]It's what the camera gave him.[/b][/quote] I find this insulting to him, because you're cheapening his vision in the interest of bickering over what gave him "the look". Again you're neglecting the fact that the camera does curve and contrast adjustment [i]when it takes the photo[/i]. If he changed his in-camera contrast settings, does that still count as SOOC? Is it still extra-praiseworthy? And to say the camera "gave him" a photo is honestly rather patronizing. Did it? Then why should I even care that he was the one behind it? [b]Photography is not about your fucking means.[/b] When you critique a painting, the painter doesn't go "look at me, I painted this with cheap brushes!", and you don't go "wow, this stylistically identical painting is so much better because you used method A instead of method B!" If me treating photography as an [i]art[/i] makes me arrogant, then wow, I guess I'll be arrogant. What a sad state photography is in when [quote]photography is about vision, not about the means.[/quote] nets you 11 dumbs and not a single agree. P.S. If you want to have a circle-jerk about the semantics of processing vs. post-processing and how they apply to a photographer's skill, be my guest. P.P.S. You might be shocked (!) to notice that I said it was a good image. P.P.P.S. Everyone rate me dumb because you disagree and are unable to hold a debate.

the camera didn't give him shit, it was a screenshot.

Using commander mode on my flash (sb-800) any way to adjust the brightness? Here is some pictures I took awhile ago. I am kinda new to this. [media]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9055409/Pics/CSC_0007.JPG[/media] [media]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9055409/Pics/DSC_0001.JPG[/media]

What netted you my dumb was this: [QUOTE=mrcsb;26399750]you mean the lighting was just right? I don't imagine he has control over the moon and clouds.[/QUOTE] Other than that, you made a good argument. Overall, the way i look at it is that he took a SOOC photo which manages to match up to post-processed photos, which isn't that common, thus i was more interested. Also the fact that you entered this thread with a terrible attitude and you don't seem open-minded in the slightest, added to the one-sided 'circle-jerk', as you call it.

[QUOTE=gaboer;26414774]Using commander mode on my flash (sb-800) any way to adjust the brightness? Here is some pictures I took awhile ago. I am kinda new to this. [media]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9055409/Pics/CSC_0007.JPG[/media] [media]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9055409/Pics/DSC_0001.JPG[/media][/QUOTE] Please resize before you post them next time. It's hard to judge the picture when I have to scroll to the side and up or down. Colour needs work by the way. Your pictures are also pretty blurry from what I can tell.

My first bandshoot. Took this about a month ago. I'm really satisfied with the results and they asked me if it was O.K to use them for their album cover! I'm really proud of myself. [img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5221852765_f734b01eed.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5222452716_285b20cefc.jpg[/img] [img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5221871371_442fd60299.jpg[/img] And my first panorama shot. A piece from a 360 shot, but I thought it looked stupid. [img]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5221852227_cd4a836753_b.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=codenamecueball;26414388]the camera didn't give him shit, it was a screenshot.[/QUOTE] i used picasa cause i'm lazy, it seems to fuck with the exif 4752×3168 pixels – 927KB Filename: IMG_5793.JPG Camera: Canon Model: Canon EOS 500D ISO: 400 Exposure: 20.0 sec Aperture: 8.0 Focal Length: 10mm Flash Used: No

[QUOTE=iWumbo;26416261]Please resize before you post them next time. It's hard to judge the picture when I have to scroll to the side and up or down. Colour needs work by the way. Your pictures are also pretty blurry from what I can tell.[/QUOTE] Ok, will do. Yeah it shook a bit due to somewhat long exposure times.

[QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]The whole "SOOC or bust" movement is incredibly insulting to everyone who has ever incorporated post-processing into their workflow, which would be about every good photographer ever.[/quote] You've taken this out of context, there's a difference between giving someone praise for taking a good shot, and believing that post processing is 'bad' - which is what you're saying we're saying. You're implying that we have an elitist stance on SOOC, but no one, especially myself, is saying that. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]As photographers we work on a physical level, not an atomic one.[/quote] You missed what I was saying. Just because he can't control the moon and the clouds doesn't mean he can't control when he feels the lighting is right, and takes the picture. Atoms are very physical by the way. I was making the point that if you take it far enough, you'll never reach the point at which someone has full control over something. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]If he changed his in-camera contrast settings, does that still count as SOOC?[/quote] Yes because it's out of camera, anything 'straight out of camera' is from the camera. It's a term used to describe something that hasn't gone through extra-camera processing, like a computer. You seem to be holding the term to 'straight out of sensor'. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072] to say the camera "gave him" a photo is honestly rather patronizing.[/quote] I apologize for my wording, but when I say the camera gave it to him I meant the results that [i]him using the camera[/i], netted him. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]When you critique a painting, the painter doesn't go "look at me, I painted this with cheap brushes!", and you don't go "wow, this stylistically identical painting is so much better because you used method A instead of method B!"[/quote] Brushes are not methods. A similar analogy would be that a painter is mixing his own paints vs using pre-mixed paints. You can at least give him respect for something that is challenging. I can drive my car (post-processing) a thousand miles in a day, but it would take me at least a week to do it on bike (SOOC results). I still travel the same distance (artistic vision), but one method requires more skill, which is something to at least recognize. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]P.S. If you want to have a circle-jerk about the semantics of processing vs. post-processing and how they apply to a photographer's skill, be my guest. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26399750]his camera has already done post-processing for him in its RAW->JPG conversion. if he shoots in RAW then his RAW converter [b]PPed it[/b] for him.[/quote][/quote] [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072][b]Photography is not about your fucking means.[/b][/quote] I agree with this to an extent. Yes it's about the end result and artistic vision, but at the same time there is a level of skill required to get there. You can have all the artistic vision in the world but have no grasp on how a camera works, leaving you with underwhelming images that don't convey your vision. Yes, SOOC doesn't make the picture better, but it requires a better photographer to get the same results as if he used post processing. Photography is about using 'means' to express your vision. If you're better at your means then you're better at expression, if you're better at your vision then you're better at art. It takes an understanding of means to produce good expression of vision. [QUOTE=mrcsb;26414072]If me treating photography as an [i]art[/i] makes me arrogant, then wow, I guess I'll be arrogant.[/quote] It's your attitude. The big picture is that [b]he made an image that looks post processed, without post processing it.[/b]

[QUOTE=b l u r;26416345] And my first panorama shot. A piece from a 360 shot, but I thought it looked stupid. [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5221852227_cd4a836753_b.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Lovin' this one.

[img_thumb]http://imgur.com/1uwnz.jpg[/img_thumb] Messing around with my 550D & Lightroom/Photoshop

The frame feels a little crowded, but I love the tones.

[QUOTE=b l u r;26416345]My first bandshoot. Took this about a month ago. I'm really satisfied with the results and they asked me if it was O.K to use them for their album cover! I'm really proud of myself. [img_thumb]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5221852765_f734b01eed.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5222452716_285b20cefc.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5165/5221871371_442fd60299.jpg[/img_thumb] And my first panorama shot. A piece from a 360 shot, but I thought it looked stupid. [img_thumb]http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5285/5221852227_cd4a836753_b.jpg[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Awesome panorama, you have there(: - By the way, what is the name of that band?

decided to go out for a walk with my clones [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5222579151/][img]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/5222579151_2b387e06af_z.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhaslehurst/5222579151/]Septlicity[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/jhaslehurst/]jhaslehurst[/url], on Flickr

I like it it's a good proof of concept but your pose is nearly the same each time. try different stuff like making it look like you're actually walking with friends, but they're all you, i.e. not single file, depth really adds to these. Making the clones interact is an awesome way to explore your creativity too.

yeah, I will give that a go, having a conversation with myself over 2 shots. its annoying how the pose looks the same, I just set continuous drive on the camera and started walking back and forth a few times, it seems that the timing of the shutter was exact with the spacing of my steps.

[QUOTE=/B/rother;26422371]Awesome panorama, you have there(: - By the way, what is the name of that band?[/QUOTE] Thanks! Their name is "Amorém". They're from Denmark and writes heavy metal.