[QUOTE=krten_2x 4b;44591717]How much should I spend on a Nikon F3?[/QUOTE]
Around 125GBP would get you a nice one with the plain finder, add another 15-25 GBP for the HP finder version.
If you're a glasses wearer you should get the F3 HP, otherwise you can't see the meter in the finder without moving your eyes around.
I'm never drinking again
ergh
just wait till im in london
[QUOTE=Dvorak231;44595484]I'm never drinking again
ergh[/QUOTE]
not with pouring like that you're not
[QUOTE=Him1411;44595487]just wait till im in london[/QUOTE]
rowdy bwa
[QUOTE=usaokay;44593646]nothing suggestive about those vodka pouring pics[/QUOTE]
they don't call them vodka facials for nothing
[editline]20th April 2014[/editline]
[url]http://champagnefacials.tumblr.com/[/url]
[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/6956a24eb36f12445c3bf58125a365ae/tumblr_mmsnjfkJNH1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/5313deb65929173a049155b841a2e0fa/tumblr_mmsnjo3fRD1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/af814973ce848d920f45af20e04839d5/tumblr_mmsnifDxqH1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
work that inspires you and all that
[editline]20th April 2014[/editline]
nsfw
[url]http://vimeo.com/86385989[/url]
disc gusting.
[QUOTE=Dvorak231;44596207]they don't call them vodka facials for nothing
[editline]20th April 2014[/editline]
[url]http://champagnefacials.tumblr.com/[/url]
[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/6956a24eb36f12445c3bf58125a365ae/tumblr_mmsnjfkJNH1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
[img]http://37.media.tumblr.com/5313deb65929173a049155b841a2e0fa/tumblr_mmsnjo3fRD1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
[img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/af814973ce848d920f45af20e04839d5/tumblr_mmsnifDxqH1rxv3b5o1_1280.jpg[/img]
work that inspires you and all that
[editline]20th April 2014[/editline]
nsfw
[url]http://vimeo.com/86385989[/url][/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Brazzers-logo.png[/IMG]
[B]Pentax 67ii body[/B]
1 previous owner since 1997, was left in a studio having only been used a handful of times till i bought it, naturally i've taken very good care of it. - £750 body only
[B]55mm f/4 lens[/B] - £110
[B]105mm 2.4 [/B]- £150
pm me for deetz
[B][/B]
fuckin ghell i wish i had £970 about
i wish i did too thats why im selling
[QUOTE=codenamecueball;44601137]fuckin ghell i wish i had £970 about[/QUOTE]
Sell your 6D
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;44601263]Sell your 6D[/QUOTE]
great idea
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
i'll be able to take 10 photos before i can't afford to take anymore
[QUOTE=BlazeFresh;44596116]rowdy bwa[/QUOTE]
gonna neck a scrumpy and go terrorize london on the longboard
Booked my train tickets for London but realised I'll only see troggy for like 2 days so I'm booking a megabus for 2 days prior - can't wait for a dank 5 hour coach trip.
what day will you be in lon don ??
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
days
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
i feel like everyone will be in london at some point in may/june and there's overlap here and there
31st of may-9th of june for me
someone make a timetable
im going to probably be somewhere in mainland europe for like a month in july and maybe early august
possibly spain and amsterdam but not sure yet
go nl for sure, but not just amsterdam
I've heard ken rockwell was an idiot but jesus christ
[url]http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3300/users-guide/index.htm[/url]
[quote]MENU > CAMERA icon > Image quality > JPEG basic > OK.
The default of JPEG Normal wastes twice as much space in your computer, lets fewer photos fit on a memory card, and makes the data take twice as long to transfer or email.
Since the pictures look the same at BASIC, I use it so more pictures fit on my card, and more importantly, I don't clog up my computer and everything transfers, copies and sends twice as fast. FINE is twice as big again as NORMAL.
The D3300 can't make a bad image even at it's lowest setting. [b]The NORMAL, FINE and NEF RAW modes are for people who don't mind fitting only 12 images on a card. The pictures really do look the same; try it and see if you're curious. I did, which is why I shoot JPG BASIC.[/b][/quote]
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
[quote]Large is the default, but unless you want to print everything twenty feet (6m) wide, the Small setting also lets you make prints of any size (20 x 30" or 50 x 75cm is easy) and saves even more room on your computer and memory cards.
I'm serious: even at the Small setting you've got 6 very sharp megapixels, which is more than enough to print at any size if your photo is in focus in the first place. I've sold photos to McDonald's with cameras set down to 4 MP — and McDonalds used those for billboards.[/quote]
his website should just say
[quote=Ken Rockwell]Remember guys, digital photography is all about how much space your pictures take up, everything else is irrelevant.[/quote]
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
I am sure there are plenty of people who would actually read that and believe RAWs are like hundreds of times as large as jpegs.
[editline]21st April 2014[/editline]
Also bothers me how he types like 3-5 articles a month and he probably makes $300-$500 daily from his website.
I don't know about you guys but I can fit 1100 raws on a 32gb card and about 550 on a 16gb
I wonder what size cards he's using, 64mb?
In my case its ~32 pics/1gb, so I get ~1000 shots on a 32gb card
but I shoot in the compressed 12bit raw mode, if I shoot uncompressed 14 bit that number gets basically cut in half (550/32gb)
his product photos are so good though
does product photography actually count though i mean i doubt he thought up the ideas used in the picture that's the job of the creative director and stuff rather than the actual person pressing the shutter
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44608498]does product photography actually count though i mean i doubt he thought up the ideas used in the picture that's the job of the creative director and stuff rather than the actual person pressing the shutter[/QUOTE]
he does them all himself, like the photos of the cameras on his pages. they are just so consistent and well lit, he does a really good job on them. like the d3300 photo in the article linked. not that fancy of a photo, but the background is perfectly white and the lighting is super even and so is the focus
wish i was that good honestly haha
i thought you just cut out the background/chroma keyed it into white in product photography
or if the background is all evenly lit and you had one clean section couldnt you just use that to clone over any weird areas on the background or am I overthinking it?
his site is so ugly wow
[QUOTE=Eltro102;44608571]i thought you just cut out the background/chroma keyed it into white in product photography[/QUOTE]
You can, but you need the camera far away from the background so the green doesn't bleed (like pretty darn far away). It's really hard to do actually. Getting rid of color cast is harder than getting rid of an unsolid background.
I mean it might be easier with a pro lighting setup (4ish softboxes, long macro, glass table, big white backdrop), but from what I've done I could never get something like what he does.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
