Extremely amateur photography

[LouCipherr]

No, you read that wrong, it says PHOTOGRAPHY, not Pornography! :lol: :p

Now that we have that out of the way, let's get started!

So, about a year or so ago, our resident nutbag DjfunkmasterG happened to have an extra Pentax K-x dSLR left over from his filming of All in the Game. He asked me if I was interested in buying it from him, and me always wanting a dSLR myself instead of just point-and-shoot cameras, I jumped at the chance. He totally did me a solid favor on the price, too (thanks Dj!!!).

That being said, I'm slowly learning the ins and outs of photography. I don't have a really good eye for shot composition yet (at least I personally don't think so), but I've managed to snag a few neat shots here and there.

My current equipment:

Camera Body:
Pentax K-x (white, also known as the "Stormtrooper" :D)

Lenses:
Pentax DA* 50-200mm f/4.6
Pentax DA* 18-55mm f/3.5
Pentax DA 35mm f/2.4 prime

So I'll start with a few of the pictures I've taken over the past year or so. My apologies if this thread takes a bit to load - I've reduced the pictures from 12MP down to a more reasonable size, but they still might take a bit.

This is a HDR (High Dynamic Range) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging) photo I took of the sunset in Boone, North Carolina last July:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/sunsetboonenc.jpg

A photo of the Blue Ridge Parkway - another HDR shot:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/blueridgeparkway2.jpg

A photo of the Gooney Run Overlook on the Blue Ridge Parkway (again, an HDR pic):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/blueridgeparkway.jpg

And this one was of a few cattails I spotted in Seven Springs, Pennsylvania. I actually took this picture with the Pentax K-x before Dj sold it to me. He brought it along to let me mess around with it:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/cattailssevenspringspa.jpg


I have tons more I can post later. Any other amateur photographers out there that care to share some of their pics? I know there has to be at least a few of you out there. Post 'em up, let's see your stuff! :D

[Tricky]

Nice pics Lou!
Here's one I took over the Alps while flying back from Zante last year (taken with a HTC Desire phone)
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7540/imag1222n.jpg

This one I took a few weeks ago of the sun setting in Yorkshire (taken on my new HTC One X)
http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5190/imag04641.jpg

This one is an old Venetian fortress on the island of Corfu, I was there a few weeks ago. (HTC One X)
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7175/imag0226k.jpg

This ones from when I was on a bike ride one evening mid July (HTC One X)
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7342/imag00611.jpg

My dog after I'd played with the exposure (HTC One X)
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/3858/imag00221t.jpg

My girlfriend a few weeks ago, messing about with the exposure again (HTC One X)
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/1329/imag008511s.jpg

Looking out through a Medieval arrowslit on York city walls last weekend
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4492/imag05091.jpg

I'm certainly no expert at photography, but a few people have said I just seem to have a good eye for it

[LouCipherr]

SWEET pictures, Tricky! I especially like the Alps and Yorkshire. The others are great too, but those really stand out. :)

Here's a few more:

This one I took at my Uncle's house. I've always loved the grapevine on the right side of the pic - I used to play in it all the time as a kid (and usually got chased out of it by bees!) - this is another HDR:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/grapevineandfield.jpg

Last year during our trip to North Carolina, we visited the The Biltmore House (http://www.biltmore.com/) in Asheville. It was built by George Washington Vanderbilt II between 1889 and 1895 and is the largest privately owned home in the United States:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/BiltmoreHouse-AshevilleSC.jpg

I HDR'd that picture too - makes it sorta look like a haunted house, but is still neat.

For those unfamiliar with "HDR" or High Dynamic Range photography, it works like this: you take a series of pictures, but with different exposures (myself, I take 3 pictures - one at standard exposure, one an f-stop below standard exposure, and one an f-stop higher than normal) - then I blend the three pictures in a program called Photomatix. It tends to bring out some extreme definition, even in areas that tend to get blown out when you take just a single picture. For example, if you take a picture of tree in a field, usually the sky is washed out because the camera is exposing for the tree, not the tree AND the sky. HDR helps to bring some of those details back that go missing with a single shot.

For some INCREDIBLE HDR phtography, I suggest checking out Trey Ratcliff's photography on his website STUCK IN CUSTOMS (http://www.stuckincustoms.com). His photography is what I strive to achieve in mine and boy will his photography blow your mind!

I have a looooong way to go! :lol:

Here's one more from the Dickey Ridge Visitors Center on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/DickeyRidgeVisitorCenter-SkylineDriveVA.jpg

:D

[MoonSylver]

No bacon,
No naked women,
No naked women with bacon,

Fail.

:lol:

(Seriously though, very nice :) )

[babomb]

Lou, some nice photos you got there! Don't sell yourself short on your shot composition. It's an acquired skill.
You know about the "rule of 3rds" right?

Are you doing those HDR's in camera or using software? What software are you using for general editing? Mac? PC? If you're using Photoshop(and I hope you are), something that makes an enormous difference in your images is to use Curves instead of levels when color correcting. And do them on each individual color channel, not the composite RGB channel
How many exposures are you using to create those HDR's?
I used to have a Canon Digital Rebel. No in camera HDR so i always used the cameras exposure bracketing feature. It wasn't really a very good camera IMO. I was always disappointed with the quality of the images. It was older and only had 8MP, it got stolen about a year or 2 ago and I haven't replaced it yet. To be honest, I liked editing images in Photoshop more than shooting them anyway.
The cameras Histogram feature is the single most useful tool a photographer has at their disposal!! It's not as difficult to use as it seems either.
Another thing that seriously effects the end result of your images is color calibration. Big time! Most people overlook it but it plays a huge role.
Do you shoot RAW? Shooting RAW is the only way to go!

I looked up your camera, and it has the ability to shoot in DNG format. Using the cameras RAW mode whether you choose the proprietary pentax PEF or the Adobe DNG format will give you a large leap in quality over JPEG. Not sure how much you know about image formats, but JPEG is a compressed image format. So it strips out some of the data from the image when it formats the photo. Using RAW mode gives you the "RAW" sensor data. So the images will be much larger in data size, which means you have much more image data to work with when editing.
This is always the best way to go when shooting with a dSLR. And the image quality you get when shooting RAW is very noticeable. The downside is that you need to use software capable of editing RAW images. But it gives you much more flexibility and power over the image that just isn't even remotely possible with a JPEG. The standard for RAW images is Adobe camera RAW, which is a module of Photoshop and Lightroom.
When using RAW it's possible to manipulate most aspects of the image with no loss in quality, stuff like white balance and contrast in a totally non-destructive way. So it basically gives you an extra few EV's on both ends to work with, which can make a huge difference in the image if your exposure is less than ideal when you shot the photo.

Also, when reading about your camera I noticed the HDR mode uses 3 exposures. To get the HDR look you're probably after you'd need at least 5 exposures. Manual HDR always looks better than in camera HDR because you have much more control. You have the full spectrum of blend modes available when you layer your HDR's. Doing it manually will also allow you to use RAW images for your layers. In camera HDR is relatively new, and also limited in terms of true HDR. When you see really amazing HDR images they are rarely done by in-camera processing. True HDR is an art in itself, and the magic of it lies in the careful choosing of the exposure levels used, and your ability to blend the exposures. When you do it in-camera, all the personality of it is completely removed. There's a small application called HDRShop. It might not be around anymore but it was great. I still have it somewhere.

[MinionZombie]

Your composition is definitely decidedly better than you yourself consider it to be. Some really nice shots there, and the use of HDR really adds a pop to the colours and exposure - lovely stuff indeed.

I would like to have a DSLR, but I can't afford to buy one yet. I'd love it if you could 'do a Matrix' and just download all the technical know-how for a new camera so you didn't have to learn all the tricky technical operations. Composition is something that can be learned, to an extent, but some people have a stronger inate sense of it than others - as in, you walk into a location, be it indoors or outdoors, and you immediately identify numerous composition possibilities that are both convention and unconventional, including using the aforementioned rule of thirds, perspective, planes of distance, etc etc etc.

As I said above though, Lou, your composition skills are definitely strong, you're doing yourself a dis-service by saying otherwise. :cool:

I like to take a lot of photographs when I get the chance, but sometimes if you're in a touristy area you're just snapping away like mad as you don't have the time to really consider the photo, so you're just relying on point & shoot skills and that aforementioned 'inate composition' stuff, rather than having the time to really soak things in. I have a normal everyday camera, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX12, on which I've been able to take some nice shots - but obviously you can't easily do HDR stuff (or at all) with it, or get lots of control over it, but you can do some nifty things sometimes with some experimentation.

[LouCipherr]

No bacon,
No naked women,
No naked women with bacon,

Fail.

Moon, I've seriously tried, but I cannot find a model willing to work with me and raw bacon. I'm trying, though! :lol: :D



Lou, some nice photos you got there! Don't sell yourself short on your shot composition. It's an acquired skill.
You know about the "rule of 3rds" right?

Thank you. :o I still feel I have a ways to go with composition, but I'm getting there.

Yes, I'm very much into the rule of thirds. I've used it in some of my photography, but I tend to use the same philosophy in photography as I do in music: first thing: learn all the rules. Second: throw all that shit out the window and do whatever looks (or in the case of music, 'sounds') good! :lol: :D

There's also the fibonacci spiral technique, too, but Rule of Thirds is a bit easier to deal with.


Are you doing those HDR's in camera or using software? What software are you using for general editing? Mac? PC? If you're using Photoshop(and I hope you are), something that makes an enormous difference in your images is to use Curves instead of levels when color correcting. And do them on each individual color channel, not the composite RGB channel.
How many exposures are you using to create those HDR's?

I'm using a program to do my HDR, and I do it on my PC. I do it in the following manner:

Set camera to multiple exposures (mine can do 3 max). I realized I made a mistake in my first post regarding this: First photo is normal exposure, the other two are one at TWO f-stops below normal and one at TWO f-stops above normal exposure. I said one f-stop in my first post, that was incorrect.

I take all three images and load them into what I consider the best HDR program out there: Photomatix. I get the levels of each of the picture to where I want them in Photomatix, then I export it to Photoshop and do "cleanup" if necessary. "Cleanup" usually consists of loading the final HDR and the "normal" exposure shot as a "mask" - then I can pull some of the "normal" exposure picture into the HDR to clean up some of the areas I want to focus your eye on. It's very subjective, and different for every photo. Some don't even require this step. ;)

My camera does have in-camera HDR, but you pretty much have zero control over the final output. I've tried to use it, but don't like the results.



I used to have a Canon Digital Rebel. No in camera HDR so i always used the cameras exposure bracketing feature. It wasn't really a very good camera IMO. I was always disappointed with the quality of the images. It was older and only had 8MP, it got stolen about a year or 2 ago and I haven't replaced it yet. To be honest, I liked editing images in Photoshop more than shooting them anyway.
The cameras Histogram feature is the single most useful tool a photographer has at their disposal!! It's not as difficult to use as it seems either.

Really? I've always heard good things about the Rebel line, but then again, I've never used one first-hand, so... I tried to stay out of the Nikon/Canon thing for a few reasons:

A) Pentax is just as good of a camera if you get the right one (my K-x has some of the best low-light, high ISO/low noise capability you'll find in a dSLR right now - very helpful for low light shots!)

B) Pentax lenses are a metric shit-ton cheaper than Canon/Nikon

C) Dj sold me the camera so cheap, there was no way I could say no. :lol:

I use the exposure bracketing feature of my camera too for the multiple exposures - I'd like to be able to do 5 and 7 shot exposure bracketing, but my K-x will only allow for 3. That's enough in most cases.

And you are right - the histogram is the absolute most powerful tool in your camera. It allows you to see what is over or under exposed in the blink of an eye. You always want that "mountain" look to be smack-dab in the middle of the histogram, to assure no 'blown out' areas or areas that are way too dark to recover the detail.


Another thing that seriously effects the end result of your images is color calibration. Big time! Most people overlook it but it plays a huge role.
Do you shoot RAW? Shooting RAW is the only way to go!

Yes, sometimes I do. Depends on the situation. If I want full control over my photos, RAW is the only way to go. The file sizes are way bigger, but you have SO much more information to work with later when you're editing the pictures.


Also, when reading about your camera I noticed the HDR mode uses 3 exposures. To get the HDR look you're probably after you'd need at least 5 exposures.

Yes, 5 or 7 exposures would be "ideal" but I can usually get some really good results just from the 3 exposures available. Plus, I can dial those extra exposures, if I remember correctly, as far as -5 or +5 f-stops above "normal" exposure set by the camera. That's quite a bit of range - but I usually stick with -2 / 0 / +2 which seems to give the best results so far.

I consider this my "starter" camera - I have a LONG ways to go, and I will eventually start buying higher-end equipment, but I have to admit, as inexpensive as this K-x is (even new, not just the cheaper price Dj gave me) - this thing can do wonders, and the colors are just stunning in some of the pictures - even without HDR. :)


Your composition is definitely decidedly better than you yourself consider it to be. Some really nice shots there, and the use of HDR really adds a pop to the colours and exposure - lovely stuff indeed.

:o Thanks, MZ. You'd be amazed. Sometimes I have to take 50 pictures and only 2-3 of them come out with that "WOW!" factor. The rest are throw-aways. I wonder if that's normal for even pro photographers.....?


I would like to have a DSLR, but I can't afford to buy one yet. I'd love it if you could 'do a Matrix' and just download all the technical know-how for a new camera so you didn't have to learn all the tricky technical operations. Composition is something that can be learned, to an extent, but some people have a stronger inate sense of it than others - as in, you walk into a location, be it indoors or outdoors, and you immediately identify numerous composition possibilities that are both convention and unconventional, including using the aforementioned rule of thirds, perspective, planes of distance, etc etc etc.

To be honest, MZ? I probably wouldn't have this Pentax or even any other dSLR if it wasn't for Dj getting rid of his for a very cheap price. He just didn't need it anymore and was willing to take a hit on the price just to help me out and get a dSLR in my hands. I can't thank him enough for that, 'cause it has helped my photography skills increase exponentially (although not quite where I want it to be... yet! lol)


As I said above though, Lou, your composition skills are definitely strong, you're doing yourself a dis-service by saying otherwise. :cool:

Well, I appreciate the kind words. :o I personally feel I have a long way to go, but everyone else says they like my photos, so perhaps I'm a bit harder on myself than I need to be.



Ok, so some more photos to tickle your eyeballs.. :D

Here's a random beach scene from in my neighborhood - it looked neat, and I kinda over-did the HDR, but the halo effect around the grasses is kinda neat:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/beach.jpg

Here's one of an American Swallow-Tail butterfly. This is NOT an HDR, this was just a single shot captured outside the Biltmore House in Asheville, NC in their garden:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/butterfly.jpg

A non-HDR photo of Cascade Falls, mile post 272 on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/cascadefalls1.jpg

Here's a B&W picture of my late Border Collie, Cirrus. I was lucky enough to have him with me for 14 years. Was the best dog on the planet and was smarter than most humans I know! This picture was a single-shot, no adjustments or enhancements after-the-fact. I just loved it so much I left it alone:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/Cirrus-BlackandWhiteMedium.jpg

More to come... Again, thanks for the kind words and tips, everyone. I try to take photos as often as I can and try to continuously improve. Hopefully that's evident in the pics. :D

MZ - I know you take photos (and so do some of you others out there), I've seen some of them - post 'em! :D I love looking at other people's photographs. I tend to look at the ones I really like and study the shit out of them to understand why my eye likes them in particular, then I use that information in future photo shoots.

[Kaos]

If the board had a like button, I'd click it. Great pictures, guys!

[Neil]

This is a HDR
HDR is something I keep meaning to play around with.

From what I understand you tell the camera to do a HDR photo which is made up of three photos. So I guess it needs to be on a tripod. Next, I assume you need to tell the camera how much to under/over expose the two additional shots? Finally, how do you combine all three and how painful is that?

[LouCipherr]

If the board had a like button, I'd click it. Great pictures, guys!

:D


From what I understand you tell the camera to do a HDR photo which is made up of three photos. So I guess it needs to be on a tripod. Next, I assume you need to tell the camera how much to under/over expose the two additional shots? Finally, how do you combine all three and how painful is that?

A tripod is a good thing to have, but not really 100% necessary since a program like Photomatix can "line up" the multiple photos for you (and does a pretty decent job if your hand is fairly steady). I like to use one when I can, but most of the HDR's you see here are hand-held. ;)

As far as the additional exposures: many cameras have a mode called "exposure bracketing" - this is the setting you use to get the camera to take 3, 5, or 7 (or whatever your camera is capable of) pics in a row. I set mine for 3 exposures (the most mine will do, but the more exposures, the better and more depth your HDR will have). I set mine to expose one "normal" pic, one pic 2 f-stops lower than normal, and one 2 f-stops above normal.

As far as combining the pics - you can do it in Photoshop or something of the like, but get a hold of Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) - it will do all the difficult work for you (putting the pics together and lining them up) then you can adjust things like brightness, contrast, black levels, white levels, contrast details, etc.

It sounds difficult, but after a few times, it really does become pretty easy. There's a TON of adjustments you can make in photomatix, but really, there's only 5-6 adjustments that really matter - the rest are just kinda for 'eye candy' and used for really, really weird manipulation of the pictures. I like mine to retain "some" of a realistic look to it while enhancing it to make it "pop" more - if that makes sense.

Here's another from the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina (another HDR):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/PassMtOverlook-SkylineDr-2460ft.jpg

Anyone like Chris Isaak? I caught him at the Chesapeake Bay Blues Festival in Maryland last year - totally kick-ass concert. Here's Chris with his other guitarist, Hershel Yatovitz (non-HDR pic):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/ChrisIsaak0.jpg

Something to note: notice in the Chris Isaak picture how the sky is completely white and void of any clouds/details? This is what happens when you use a single exposure. When you use multiple exposures (see the pic above Chris Isaak) you can pull all the detail from the additional exposures so you can bring the cloud/sky details back. And it doesn't just work with the sky. If I had taken that Blue Ridge Pkwy with just one photo at normal exposure, not only would the sky be blank and you couldn't see the clouds or details, but the colors wouldn't be anywhere near as rich as they are in the final HDR'd photo.

Some people believe HDR is cheating, but I really, really like the effect if you don't go too overboard with it.

Neil: you can see a FANTASTIC HDR tutorial by Trey Ratcliff (who is the master at this HDR stuff) here:

Trey Ratcliff Free HDR Tutorial (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial/)

It seems like a massive overload of information at first, but take it one step at a time and feel free to ask me any questions. I'm by no means an expert, but I'll help any way I can.

Trey's photos make me sick they're so goddamn good! THAT was what I personally strive for in my own photography, but I'm a long way away from it... for now. I'm learning, though! And that's part of the fun! :D

[Tricky]

Here's another couple I took last year when I climbed Snowdon in Wales, its difficult NOT to take good photos when you're surrounded by scenery as dramatic as that.
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2627/lookingupatsnowdonspeak.jpg

And looking down from near the summit
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/6679/longwaydown.jpg

[MinionZombie]

Lou requested some pics, so I dug out a couple ... a couple of experimental ones relating to Christmas lights (I do love whacking on a long exposure and 'smearing' the lights), and a couple of pics from trips to Scotland.

Just a random small cluster, and I should note that these are all as-is, taken with a normal and everyday snappy camera (Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX12).

[LouCipherr]

Awesome pics, Tricky! Yeah, when you have scenery like that, it's almost hard not to come up with some good shots. Excellent eye-candy though. :)

Wait, what you typed just registered in my slower-than-normal brain - did you say you climbed that damn thing?!

<in my best Keanu Reeves> WHOA! :eek:


And now for something completely different - I experimented a few years ago with panoramic pictures. One of the first and better ones I did was of the Hagerstown 10 Cineplex, which you guys who have seen "Deadlands 2: Trapped" by our own resident nut DjfunkmasterG, might find extremely familiar:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/Theatre-Front-Night-PanoramaLarge.jpg

The original panoramic for this was so massive I couldn't post it full-size or ya'll would've been cussing me out. Put it this way - it's about 10x as wide as this shows when blown up to 100%. :lol:

I created this picture by setting up my tripod and took 7 separate pictures while "panning" across the theater for each shot, overlapping by about 1/3rd for each picture taken. Afterwards, I loaded all 7 pictures into Photoshop and used the "photomerge" option, subsequently merging all 7 pics into one extremely large panoramic, then cropped it to neaten the border. I was so impressed by this picture, considering this wasn't even taken with my Pentax. It was shot on a Sony DSC-H1 camera (a non-dSLR camera).

Sometimes, it's not the camera that matters - it's the person pushing the button on it (in other words: sometimes you just get lucky as shit, like I did with this one! :lol:).

***edited to add:

MZ - hell, you posted at the same time I was and I missed your pics until I hit "post." I remember that xmas light picture (the first one on the left), and that's one of the ones I was hoping you posted - that picture has always tickled my eye for some reason. As for the rest of the pics? A+ dude!!! Awesome shots! After seeing your videos and movies, I know damn well you have a great eye for composition. Nice stuff!


Speaking of longer exposures, I love doing the same with flowing water:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/cascadefalls2.jpg

:D

[MinionZombie]

Oh I do love long exposures over running water. I love how it creates a kind of plastic/ice look to the water.

Speaking of panoramas, I've dabbled occasionally in that ... here's the view from Edinburgh Castle on a gorgeous late-August day in 2010...

[babomb]

I've been doing computer graphics since 1998, and although not exactly the same thing as photography many of the principles apply. There's some things I noticed about that tutorial that weren't mentioned that could make alot of difference in the end result. My experience is mainly in 3D design, and designing textures for architectural visualization. This is mainly what I use Photoshop for, but the concepts of it also pertain to photo editing because they're basically the same thing. I often have to take a photo of a texture and remove the lighting from it so that it can be mapped to a 3D model. Final renders are also done in an HDR format and converted accordingly. Although I don't do all the work for the render, I'm in charge of editing the final render to be used for various applications. We use 32bit images because they offer the most flexibility.
So I just want to point a few things out about that tutorial that fly in the face of what i've learned over the years.

If you were to do the entire HDR process in photoshop you would have much more control over every aspect of the process. The big thing I don't like is that the end result gets saved in a JPEG, then he brings the JPEG into Photoshop for his advanced steps.
There's much more suitable formats that preserve every bit of data for the end conversion. Actual HDR formats are much more suitable. Like a radiance file. The best HDR format is actually OpenEXR. Check it out-OpenEXR (http://www.openexr.com/)
It does lossless compression, unlike a JPEG which is terribly lossy. So if you were to save the final HDR image from photomatix to a 16 or 32bit openexr file, then bring that into photoshop for the advanced steps you would preserve alot of the data that gets lost when you save to jpeg. JPEG's are only for presentation on the web. They aren't a working file format, they're an end result.
Another thing is that the tutorial never mentions ICC profiles. Which are a major part of digital imaging. Most dSLR's have the ability to capture in AdobeRGB and/or ProPhotoRGB which both have a much wider gamut than other profiles. Especially sRGB. When you save your end result to display on the web you want to embed the sRGB profile into the image. But that's only because web browsers only use sRGB and can't display wide gamut profiles. But editing in sRGB is a big no-no because it doesn't display the same variety of colors that a wide gamut profile does.
I'm not sure how Photomatix handles ICC profiles. But I do know how Photoshop does. It uses different profiles for different uses. So when you setup your color settings in Photoshop it will either preserve or convert the colors to match your profile settings. So if your camera shoots in AdobeRGB or ProphotoRGB you want to keep that as your working profile and don't allow it to convert to another until you tell it to.
These things make a huge difference because every bit of data in an image counts.

Another major thing I noticed is that the tutorial never mentions the proper method of doing sharpening in photoshop. When you use the unsharp mask feature you aren't supposed to do it in RGB mode. That produces more chromatic abberation(colored noise) in the image. Instead you convert the image to LAB mode and apply the sharpening to ONLY the "L"(lightness or luminance) channel. This is a big deal for HDR images because noise is already an obstacle. By converting to LAB mode you totally negate the possibility of producing abberations because the sharpening is not applied to the color data in the image, it's only applied to the luminance channel which is gray-scale.

[Cykotic]

Thought I would contribute. Taken at this year's Bournemouth Air Festival with a Canon EOS 1100d

107710781079

Just Click to Enlarge

[LouCipherr]

Oh I do love long exposures over running water. I love how it creates a kind of plastic/ice look to the water.

Speaking of panoramas, I've dabbled occasionally in that ... here's the view from Edinburgh Castle on a gorgeous late-August day in 2010...

MZ - that panoramic is awesome! Here's another I did at Ocean City, Maryland:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/OceanCityBeachPanoramic.jpg



I've been doing computer graphics since 1998, and although not exactly the same thing as photography many of the principles apply. There's some things I noticed about that tutorial that weren't mentioned that could make alot of difference in the end result.

<snip>

Oh, I agree babomb - it's weird he's exporting into JPEG format, however, here's the thing with me and the way Trey Ratcliff works: when I see the final result of his photos, I see nothing that really detracts from the final product based on the techniques he's using. I'm sure, on a technical level, that he could do things on a much higher level (keeping in RAW format, etc), however, that being said, I don't think "normal" eyes would ever notice. Based on what I just read in your reply, I bet your eyes can tell - you've been entrenched in this kind of work for well over a decade and can probably notice the difference. My stupid eyes aren't the greatest (dude, I'm 41, this old gray mare ain't what he used to be, especially my hearing - but my eyes are holding up better than my ears! :lol:) so I don't even notice. Thanks for the info though - I use his technique as a "basis" for how I work, but even I do things slightly differently than he does. Then again, his results are 100 times better than mine, so perhaps I should reconsider.. :D

I'm sure there's tons of other ways to do it, but man, take a look at those examples on his page that he posts. Ya gotta admit, they are some mind-blowing photos. That being said, there's always ways to improve - and I'm sure Trey will as he goes along.

Did I mention yet he's blind in one eye? How incredible is that? A photographer that can take pictures and make them look like that probably has almost zero depth of field in his vision. :eek:




Thought I would contribute. Taken at this year's Bournemouth Air Festival with a Canon EOS 1100d

107710781079

Just Click to Enlarge

Nice pics, Cykotic! Any info on those pictures - what kinds of planes/helis those are? I'm always interested in aircraft, but don't know that much about it. They still fascinate me, though. :D

[Cykotic]

The Helicopter is a Lynx and part of the Black Cats display team, The First Pic is of the Battle of Britiain Memorial Flight (Hurricane, Spitfire and Lancaster bomber) and the third pic is of the Lancaster Bomber... I have a few of the legendary Vulcan Atomic Bomber

[babomb]

Lou, I really think you're not giving yourself the credit you deserve on your photos. Yeah, trey ratcliff's photos look great but when I compare his photos to yours I think there's a couple reasons why it looks to you that his are so much better.
The biggest reason comes down to the camera. He's using a Nikon D3X, which is a 24.5MP "full frame" sensor. So the camera itself has 2x the resolution as the one you're using, and the sensor in it is much larger because it's a full frame(35mm) sensor. If you had that same camera you wouldn't think his are so much better. That leap in MP between cameras makes a big difference, so does the frame size difference. Full frame images look more professional, but it's an illusion.
He also seems like he's settled into a "groove" so to speak. So he's probably more comfortable editing. That makes a huge difference too. One of the reasons that's the case is that masking is a skill that takes time to develop. I'm sure he uses a wacom tablet, so if you haven't given any thought to getting a tablet, you REALLY should! You just can't get the same precision in editing while using a mouse. It's impossible.
I don't know where you stand on sharpening, but I can tell that Trey uses extensive sharpening. There's alot of different sharpening methods. IMO, the unsharp mask method in LAB mode is the best. But there's also the high pass method which is great. You apply a high pass filter to a copied layer and use it as a mask. High pass brings out the small details, and if you couple it with good blending modes it doubles the effectiveness.
There's alot of things that Trey probably leaves out of his tutorials and equipment he uses that isn't mentioned. I can tell that he uses a polarizing filter on his camera, which isn't mentioned. That makes a big difference also.
Look at this image-http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/CircularPolarizer.jpg/640px-CircularPolarizer.jpg
Notice how much of a difference a polarizing filter makes!?? It completely removes that muddy color cast in the left image.

I was watching that video on the site you provided where Trey Ratcliff is talking to Leo laporte. He's seems to have pride issues relating to his photography. he mentions that he's never gone to a photography convention because he's afraid that it will make him think too much like other people. He also gives the same reason for not paying any mind to color calibration. Color calibration is a majorly important aspect to photography, especially if you plan to do it on a pro level. There's a reason why color calibration is a big topic. Because you want to be able to accurately judge colors on your monitor, and you want the colors to stay true between devices.
The camera is the source device and the monitor is the output device. The only way to make sure that the colors remain consistent between the 2 is to calibrate them. That's not a trivial thing that should be ignored. The way Trey talks about it, he thinks that it's of no consequence and that paying attention to it will hurt his "mojo" so to speak.
That's a huge MISTAKE!!

[DjfunkmasterG]

Lou doesn't give himself enough credit. Back when I had my Camaro, he took some pics of it, I felt were GM Brouchure ready.

Most recently over the Holiday weekend he tooks some nice shots of a squirrel we named SKRAT who hung outside the window to his cabin.

-- -------- Post added at 07:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:01 PM ----------

Here are some of my own contributions (Taken in August)

My New Mustang

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7259/7866492176_23b56db5a0_z.jpg

My new Mustang Pic # 2

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8435/7866490556_6725a9fd3e_z.jpg

The engine of the new Mustang after a paint job

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8445/7876257076_161f807732_z.jpg

Engine Paint job #2

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8288/7876257420_959d568f49_z.jpg

Engine Paint Job #3

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8427/7876256680_22e14cc0e9_z.jpg

[babomb]

The only ones I can get to right now are the ones I have on facebook. 1 of the CPU's on my Mac died and it won't even power on, and all my photos are in there. I have backups but don't want to edit them right now. Even though facebook destroys the quality of photos, I'll post a few.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6381_1133682826769_5230965_n.jpg
^This is St. Louis Canyon at Starved Rock state park in utica, IL.^

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6381_1133672266505_6098560_n.jpg
^This is right down the block from my house about 5 years ago.^ Unsure what camera I used. Probly the Canon but I can't remember.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/8729_1164200669696_4263486_n.jpg
^Done with a point and shoot.^
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/8229_1162470906453_2286864_n.jpg
^This is the only one here that I know I shot with my Canon that got stolen.^ I didn't like the quality of the camera. Or maybe it was just my skills with it that sucked.

these last 2 have an interesting story attached to them. At the boat launch near my house, right off the IL river, on a small dock sat a big ass camera bag 1 day about 8 years ago. I went with my friend on his boat and we noticed the bag before we put in. When we came back later that day the bag was still there so i looked in it. There was an old SLR camera(not a dSLR, a pre-digital SLR). There was also a film enlargement tray, the kind that lock into itself to hold chemicals to enlarge an actual film print. The tray was packed with strips of negatives. So I took the camera out and snapped the shot below-
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/11236_1175827560361_3891674_n.jpg
I removed the film and had it developed and put on a disc. Nothing real interesting, but the shot below was already on the film roll-
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/11236_1176485976821_5905956_n.jpg
There were cards in the bag for a local photography company so i took the bag and called the place and told them I found it and asked if anyone was missing it and gave them my info to let me know. I never got a call back. The bag was there for a good 8 hours. I took it with the intention of finding out who it belonged to and returning it. I still have it, along with all the negatives in the film enlarging tray. I've looked at them and they're mostly xmas photos and some graduation photos.

And just for fun here's my workstation. Pre-meltdown.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/6381_1134284401808_4580360_n.jpg

[rongravy]

Moon, I've seriously tried, but I cannot find a model willing to work with me and raw bacon. I'm trying, though! .
I know I'm a dood and all, but I'd be willing to do a tuck under and wear a wig. As long as you paid me in the bacon we used.
Fried, of course...
Myself, and the bacon.

[Cykotic]

I know I'm a dood and all, but I'd be willing to do a tuck under and wear a wig. As long as you paid me in the bacon we used.
Fried, of course...
Myself, and the bacon.

so many disturbing images

[rongravy]

so many disturbing images
Heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy.
I have lost from 206 back down to 188.
Give it a chance...
I'll even wax, if need be.:elol:

[Neil]

A 15 second exposure of polaris (the North Star) from last night... Polaris is the brightest start towards the middle. Of course what's interesting is how many other stars are there, which your normal sight doesn't register, and their colours!

(Right click and view to see in full)
http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/7072/polarisdsc7293filterc.jpg

[LouCipherr]

Cykotic - thanks for the info on those planes/helis. I'm a fan of anything that flies. :D


I know I'm a dood and all, but I'd be willing to do a tuck under and wear a wig. As long as you paid me in the bacon we used.
Fried, of course...
Myself, and the bacon.

There will be NO "Silence of the Lambs" shit going on in my photography, thank you very much! :lol: I can hear it now.. naked, tucked in, saying "Would you eat my bacon? I'd eat my bacon. I'd eat it so hard!" :eek:


Lou, I really think you're not giving yourself the credit you deserve on your photos. Yeah, trey ratcliff's photos look great but when I compare his photos to yours I think there's a couple reasons why it looks to you that his are so much better.
The biggest reason comes down to the camera. He's using a Nikon D3X, which is a 24.5MP "full frame" sensor. So the camera itself has 2x the resolution as the one you're using, and the sensor in it is much larger because it's a full frame(35mm) sensor.


Oh yeah, absolutely. I believe my K-x has something like a 1.5x crop factor, APS-C sensor, so that does indeed make a difference.

I'm not an extensive sharpener like Trey. I know he uses a lot of sharpening, as well as masking the HDR with the "properly exposed" photo in his HDR "set" of pictures, also to bring out sharpness in some areas where the HDR can blur due to the multiple images, but I've seen his pay-for tutorials and as you said, in that free tutorial, he does leave a lot out which I'm sure is because he wants to sell his pay HDR tutorials - and you're right, he does. :)

I'm not sure if he uses polarizing filters or not - I seem to remember him saying he doesn't like to use filters at all. Usually with HDR and the multiple shots, you can remove that muddiness just like the polarizing filter did just by how you 'blend' this pictures. Of course, that being said, polarizing filters can be essential for many single-shot photos depending on the situation.


I was watching that video on the site you provided where Trey Ratcliff is talking to Leo laporte. He's seems to have pride issues relating to his photography. he mentions that he's never gone to a photography convention because he's afraid that it will make him think too much like other people.

I can understand that. I know musicians who won't listen to anything current on the radio or in music for fear it will influence their original work.


He also gives the same reason for not paying any mind to color calibration. Color calibration is a majorly important aspect to photography, especially if you plan to do it on a pro level. There's a reason why color calibration is a big topic. Because you want to be able to accurately judge colors on your monitor, and you want the colors to stay true between devices. The camera is the source device and the monitor is the output device. The only way to make sure that the colors remain consistent between the 2 is to calibrate them.

I agree somewhat with what you're saying, but I think there is a case for both sides depending on what you're trying to accomplish. For the kind of work you are/were doing (are you still in the field?), I would agree 100% it's essential. I think what Trey is trying to get across is that he manipulates a photo SO much once the multiple-shots are taken, the 'calibration' of the camera and monitor won't matter - because nothing in the original photograph (in the camera) is ever going to be anywhere near the same as the final product on his computer monitor. In his "pay-for" tutorials, he talks a lot about recreating the photo to what you remember in your mind - and how the photo you take and look at most of the time isn't how your "brain" remembers it, and he uses the HDR techniques to try and make things look like how 'his' brain remembers the scene when he was there (he says a lot that the brain remember a much more detailed, colorful photo than what you see taken with your camera, hence why he likes to HDR).


Neil - I've tried taking pictures of the night sky, and even the moon, but my longest lens is a 50-200mm, and it's just not long enough for me to shoot good moon shots. I need something in the 300-500mm range minimum to get what I really want out of my shots of the moon. Cool shot though! :D


Dj - I give myself enough credit when I get one of those "wow, look at THAT!" shots, but, when I have to take 100 of them to get 3-4 "wow!" shots, I don't know. It feels like I should've been able to get those 3-4 wow shots in 25-50 shots rather than 100. I don't have the Camaro/magazine-like photo on my computer here at work, but I'll dig it up later and post it. Composition-wise, you were right, that was brochure quality. Another pure luck shot! :lol:

Oh, and speaking of "SKRAT" the squirrel, here's a picture of him while Dj and I were watching him out the back window of my place in West Virginia last weekend:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/greysquirrel1.jpg

And speaking of way over-doing colors in HDR, here's a photo I took in the "The Quarter" which is a mall right off the Tropicana casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The composition sucks, it's nothing really to look at per-se, and I waaaaay over-did the colors with the HDR, but for some reason, my eyeballs like the way these colors blend together. No idea why:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/TheQuarter-Tropicana-ACNJ.jpg

And here's a pic I took of my retarded (not really, but he acts like it sometimes) dog named "Chance" -
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/IMGP2544.jpg

[babomb]

I agree somewhat with what you're saying, but I think there is a case for both sides depending on what you're trying to accomplish. For the kind of work you are/were doing (are you still in the field?), I would agree 100% it's essential. I still do some work for a local firm. But due to the economy they downsized in 2008 so I don't have a full time position with them anymore. I've slumped alot and don't do too much with CG anymore. That's changin now though, as seeing all these photos and talking about this has majorly lit another fire under my ass.
Last year I got fired up and started working on a personal project. It was a 3D rendering of the hospital doors from The Walking Dead. The ones that say "Don't Open Dead Inside". During the 1st test render of the scene, after rendering for about 10 hours, I came back to the room and the computer sounded like a jet about to take off. And there were all these errors on screen, warning of a "kernel panic". One of the CPU's blew, and my Apple service contract was expired so it will cost at least $1100 to fix. And it's an older Mac so there's no point in fixing it.
I was able to get my hands on an older Dell workstation with dual P4 HT CPU's, and the RAM from my Mac works in it but not the GPU. So it's a little less capable due to the graphics hardware, but it's capable of doing smaller scale projects until I can get a new Mac.
I'm working on something now.


I think what Trey is trying to get across is that he manipulates a photo SO much once the multiple-shots are taken, the 'calibration' of the camera and monitor won't matter - because nothing in the original photograph (in the camera) is ever going to be anywhere near the same as the final product on his computer monitor. In his "pay-for" tutorials, he talks a lot about recreating the photo to what you remember in your mind - and how the photo you take and look at most of the time isn't how your "brain" remembers it, and he uses the HDR techniques to try and make things look like how 'his' brain remembers the scene when he was there (he says a lot that the brain remember a much more detailed, colorful photo than what you see taken with your camera, hence why he likes to HDR). The whole purpose of HDR is to get the photograph closer to the range of exposure that the human eye sees as opposed to what a camera is capable of reproducing with a single exposure.
The thing about calibration is that it doesn't merely match the source and ouput according to user perception. It's basically control of the gamma curve applied to images across the board. So it keeps color and tone connected between the source and output. So nothing strays outside of what the output device is capable of displaying. It's especially important for images on the web. Because everyone will be viewing them on a monitor. Then by embedding the sRGB profile into the image it will display correctly through a web browser.
So it's actually even more important when you plan to make extreme changes to the image. This is one of the problems with it. Most people don't understand it or why they would need it. Then when you try to understand it you get confused at first.
The premise of it is that digital images are color information represented by numbers. And what calibration does is to organize the numbers better so it's easier to make sense of them. You don't specifically interact with the numbers directly, they're internal.

[MinionZombie]

And speaking of way over-doing colors in HDR, here's a photo I took in the "The Quarter" which is a mall right off the Tropicana casino in Atlantic City, New Jersey. The composition sucks, it's nothing really to look at per-se, and I waaaaay over-did the colors with the HDR, but for some reason, my eyeballs like the way these colors blend together. No idea why:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/TheQuarter-Tropicana-ACNJ.jpg

Anyone else getting Dead Rising flashbacks from this shot? It looks really familiar in a way ... I can so easily picture myself sledge-hammering my way through a shedload of zombies right there.

Aggressive colours, yes, but it really works though. Being that it's in Atlantic City (which is a bit like a mini-Vegas for the East Coast, right?), the over-done colours make sense for it. I dig it.


And here's a pic I took of my retarded (not really, but he acts like it sometimes) dog named "Chance" -
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/IMGP2544.jpg

Awww, I wanna give him a pat. :)

I've no idea what the different types of dog are, but what kind of dog is Chance?

[shootemindehead]

Looks like a Jack Russel cross.

Reminds me of an old dog I once had, Toby. Chance looks very like him.

:(

-- -------- Post added at 06:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------


The Helicopter is a Lynx and part of the Black Cats display team, The First Pic is of the Battle of Britiain Memorial Flight (Hurricane, Spitfire and Lancaster bomber) and the third pic is of the Lancaster Bomber... I have a few of the legendary Vulcan Atomic Bomber

Always thought the Lanc was out of place in a BoB memorial flight, seeing as they didn't even exist in 1940. However, only the Mk II Spitfire is 1940 vintage, but that rarely flies these days. The one in your picture is a Mk Vb from 1941. The Hurricanes are Mk IIc's from 1944.

Either way, it still nice to see them being taken care of and still flyable. Especially the Hurricane, which I've always fancied over the Spitfire.

[LouCipherr]

The thing about calibration is that it doesn't merely match the source and ouput according to user perception. It's basically control of the gamma curve applied to images across the board. So it keeps color and tone connected between the source and output. So nothing strays outside of what the output device is capable of displaying. It's especially important for images on the web. Because everyone will be viewing them on a monitor. Then by embedding the sRGB profile into the image it will display correctly through a web browser.
So it's actually even more important when you plan to make extreme changes to the image. This is one of the problems with it. Most people don't understand it or why they would need it. Then when you try to understand it you get confused at first.
The premise of it is that digital images are color information represented by numbers. And what calibration does is to organize the numbers better so it's easier to make sense of them. You don't specifically interact with the numbers directly, they're internal.

*head explodes*

See? This is why I will always be a rank amateur at this stuff, because beyond understanding how my camera works (and believe me, I've done some stupid, intense reading up on it), understanding how to manipulate the images on my computer to how my eye likes to see them, I'm lost. :lol: I should be reading up on this stuff, but shit man, I'm still struggling with shot composition and "finding" my way around HDR to find my own "style" so-to-speak (kinda like Trey has, as I haven't seen anyone else doing stuff quite like him, and boy do his images make my brain and eyes sing!). I'm workin' on it, but it's going to take years I probably don't have to "get" it all. :D If you have any suggestions where I can start at a novice level, please let me know, I'd be interested in reading up and more importantly, understanding more about color calibration.


Anyone else getting Dead Rising flashbacks from this shot? It looks really familiar in a way ... I can so easily picture myself sledge-hammering my way through a shedload of zombies right there.

MZ! Dude! (yes, I used the "D" word! :lol:) I would've NEVER thought that, but now that you mentioned it, yes!! It does remind me of Dead Rising! Weird, but great call on that one!


Aggressive colours, yes, but it really works though. Being that it's in Atlantic City (which is a bit like a mini-Vegas for the East Coast, right?), the over-done colours make sense for it. I dig it.

Very true, MZ. And yes, Atlantic City is no where near what Vegas is, but I consider it "Vegas-Lite on the East Coast" :lol: And perhaps that's why my brain doesn't flip out at the extreme colors. When you're there, it's like a goddamn rainbow everywhere - and I guess now that I think about it, even though I've amped the colors up way beyond what they should be - on purpose - it does kinda match the "feel" of being there. :D

BTW: Notice the ceilings? those aren't real clouds - they're painted on an almost "dome" like ceiling to make it feel like you're outside but you're really not.



Awww, I wanna give him a pat. :)

I've no idea what the different types of dog are, but what kind of dog is Chance?


Looks like a Jack Russel cross.

Reminds me of an old dog I once had, Toby. Chance looks very like him.



Ok, so here's the deal with Chance - my wife SWEARS that dog is a beagle/dachshund mix. Thing is, Chance is slender, sorta tall for the kind of dog he is, and fast as a goddamn Geryhound when he runs! I've never seen a beagle or a dachshund run or even be motivated anywhere near or like Chance is. I told my wife Chance is either a beagle/Jack Russell mix or just flat-out a jack russell that looks similar to a beagle. He does have Beagle ears/face, but that dog has 100% the attitude and disposition of a Jack Russell. He's a JR in my mind, I don't care what my wife says. :lol: Put it this way: if he is the beagle/dachshund mix, then apparently there were some Jack Russell dormant genes that came to the forefront with that dog. He's awesome, but a hyper pain in the ass! :lol: He can jump so high in the air I've taken to saying he's part Jack Russell and part Kangaroo! :D

Here's another pic of Chance I call "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie":
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/SleepingChanceMedium.jpg

And while I'm on the dogs again, here is another picture of my late Border Collie named Cirrus.. I so miss that goddamn dog. Was smarter than most humans I know! This is him just lounging in our back yard, watching over his "turf" :D
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/CirrusingrassMedium.jpg

Both of the pics above are single-shot pics, and no HDR was applied. ;)

[Neil]

Here's one I like of my daughter... Not a particularly great photo, except for the depth and angles...
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg6/scaled.php?server=6&filename=img5290small33.jpg&res=landing


..and kittens are always cute. My pair of brothers last year:-
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg840/scaled.php?server=840&filename=dsc2869s.jpg&res=landing

[LouCipherr]

Here's one I like of my daughter... Not a particularly great photo, except for the depth and angles...
http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg6/scaled.php?server=6&filename=img5290small33.jpg&res=landing

Now THAT is an example of EXCELLENT shot composition in my eyes! A+, Neil! Love it! :D The kittens are cute too, but the composition of your daughter in that shot is just spot-the-hell-on. :thumbsup: Did you crop that picture at all, or just snap it and post it as-is? Regardless, my eyes love it.


Also - just wanted to say to everyone who has contributed: Thank you! I didn't really want this thread to be all about "my" stuff, I just wanted to get people motivated to post. I really, really enjoy studying other peoples photos, especially ones that really grab my attention so I can figure out WHY it grabs my attention, then use those techniques in my own work.

Please, by all means, keep posting pictures - there's no "wrong" or "right" way to do it, just share if you care to do so, 'cause I love looking at them. :)

[krakenslayer]

Nice pics all round guys. Good too see some fellow snappers on here. Here's some shots from my recent trip to Amsterdam, culled from my Facebook page:

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/327831_10152093404965235_459990618_o.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/400423_10152093312990235_1486882905_n.jpg

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/193504_10152093344565235_208167122_o.jpg

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/s720x720/195976_10152093320535235_310432713_n.jpg

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/386949_10152093349135235_1186367881_n.jpg

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/621099_10152093409095235_494820963_o.jpg

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/378370_10152093364355235_1994565031_n.jpg

(taken on a Canon 550D with 18-55mm kit and 50mm f1.8 prime lenses)

[babomb]

*head explodes*

See? This is why I will always be a rank amateur at this stuff, because beyond understanding how my camera works (and believe me, I've done some stupid, intense reading up on it), understanding how to manipulate the images on my computer to how my eye likes to see them, I'm lost. :lol: I should be reading up on this stuff, but shit man, I'm still struggling with shot composition and "finding" my way around HDR to find my own "style" so-to-speak (kinda like Trey has, as I haven't seen anyone else doing stuff quite like him, and boy do his images make my brain and eyes sing!). I'm workin' on it, but it's going to take years I probably don't have to "get" it all. :D If you have any suggestions where I can start at a novice level, please let me know, I'd be interested in reading up and more importantly, understanding more about color calibration.
To do a basic calibration all you need to do is use the "adobe gamma" utility that installs with photoshop. It'll step you through a process where you look at grayscale gradients and choose the best ones. Then it generates an ICC profile that loads when you use an app that's color managed, like photoshop.
That's on a PC. PC's aren't as good for color management. They use a lower gamma threshold, and only certain apps are color managed. On a Mac, the gamma is much richer and the entire system is color managed, so images look the same in every application, even the finder and image preview. This is why most people who work with images extensively use a Mac. Mac's are built for it from the ground up. PC's deal with it as more of an afterthought.
After you use the adobe gamma app to calibrate your monitor you have to tell photoshop how to handle color profiles. You launch photoshop and go to edit>color settings. Then tell it to "ask you" what to do when an image has an embedded profile. Otherwise it will automatically convert the images colors to photoshops working profile. Which might not be the same as the profile your camera used to take the photo. If your camera supports it(and it most likely does) you should make your camera use the "AdobeRGB" or "ProphotoRGB" profile and edit using that profile.
Then when you are done editing and want to save the file to display on the web, convert the image to the sRGB profile by going to edit>convert to profile>sRGB. Then save a copy of the image in JPEG. To save a copy go to save>save as copy. Don't just hit the save button because that will overwrite the image with the profile conversion. You want to store your images with the working profile, AdobeRGB, and only convert to sRGB when you want to post the image to the web.
If you want to get real down and dirty with color calibration you have to buy a calibrator. Spyder's are the best. It's just a small device that hangs on the front of your monitor and measures pixels and compares them to the ambient light in the room. You probably don't need to do all that though. Not yet anyway. You'll be good with a simple software calibration for now.

[LouCipherr]

Nice pics all round guys. Good too see some fellow snappers on here. Here's some shots from my recent trip to Amsterdam, culled from my Facebook page:

<snip>

(taken on a Canon 550D with 18-55mm kit and 50mm f1.8 prime lenses)

Ooooh, a f1.8... *drools* I know that 50mm wasn't a cheap lens. :D I've been eyeing a f1.8 lens for my Pentax, but damn are they expensive. At least the one I want: Pentax FA 31mm f1.8 for way too much money (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/394223-REG/Pentax_20290_smc_Pentax_FA_31mm.html)

That's what I want. A nice, wide angle lens with some fast glass. I'm sure it could be had for a bit cheaper elsewhere, but the really good lenses are always going to be a bit pricey.

Excellent pics, btw. I know this is going to sound weird, but I really dig the lone B&W bike pic. As usual, I can't explain exactly why, but it tickles my eyes and brain. I also really like the pic of the blonde walking by the bikes. ;)


...You'll be good with a simple software calibration for now.

Thanks, babomb - appreciate the info and advice, and I will certainly use it. I actually considered picking up a Spyder2 a while back at a recommendation of a friend, only to run out of on hand cash because instead, I bought a vacation house. :lol: Oh, and I usually post on HPotD at work (yeah, yeah, everyone, go ahead with the "don't you do anything at work?!" jokes, I can handle it.. :lol: :D) and they block facebook. While that doesn't really bother me since I don't use it, it blocked your first set of pics you posted and all I saw were little 'broken pic' squares. Checking from home now, though - some great pics! :D

Here's one I took in Ocean City, Maryland earlier this year. It was extremely foggy that day, even though it's not very evident in the picture. This isn't the best composition, but I do like it:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/OC1.jpg

[Neil]

Now THAT is an example of EXCELLENT shot composition in my eyes! A+, Neil! Love it! :D The kittens are cute too, but the composition of your daughter in that shot is just spot-the-hell-on. :thumbsup: Did you crop that picture at all, or just snap it and post it as-is? Regardless, my eyes love it.
Glad you like it. That shot is not cropped. I have cropped it removing top (her hat) and bottom (finger tips) so it's just her hands, head/face and the landscape angles, which seems to be the crux of the 'pleasing bit' if you get my meaning.

I was dangling flowers near the camera trying to get hand in the right place, and the right angles of the bank in the back ground.

[krakenslayer]

Ooooh, a f1.8... *drools* I know that 50mm wasn't a cheap lens. :D I've been eyeing a f1.8 lens for my Pentax, but damn are they expensive. At least the one I want: Pentax FA 31mm f1.8 for way too much money (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/394223-REG/Pentax_20290_smc_Pentax_FA_31mm.html)

That's what I want. A nice, wide angle lens with some fast glass. I'm sure it could be had for a bit cheaper elsewhere, but the really good lenses are always going to be a bit pricey.

Excellent pics, btw. I know this is going to sound weird, but I really dig the lone B&W bike pic. As usual, I can't explain exactly why, but it tickles my eyes and brain. I also really like the pic of the blonde walking by the bikes. ;)


Thanks Lou! Believe it or not, that 50mm 1.8 is the cheapest lens Canon currently makes, and can be picked up for about £70 or well under $100! The trade-off is that its field of view is fixed at 50mm (near the furthest zoom of the standard kit lens) with no zoom capability (so you sometimes have to do a bit of leg-zooming backwards to get your subject in shot), and the build quality of the housing is very plasticky, but the quality of the glass itself crushes pretty much any Canon-fit zoom lens under £500. It has great depth of field at lower-numbered f-stops, with creamy-blurred "bokeh" backgrounds and vibrant pin-sharp foregrounds. It handles deep focus really well too, with great low-light capability and amazing sharpness and colour reproduction across the board. I know I sound like a salesman, but I just love this lens - it's not often you get pro-quality optics at amateur prices, so it's probably the best bargain I have ever had (and we all know Scots love a bargain :lol: )

Here's a few pics I've snapped on it recently, some fairly commonplace images, but just to show the quality of the lens:


http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/292154_10151872826695235_1660772264_n.jpg

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s720x720/555582_10152093417365235_1551199018_n.jpg

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s720x720/155487_10151206870645235_1263704563_n.jpg

http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/406828_10151206868990235_1248383407_n.jpg

I know Nikon does a similar lens that's only slightly more expensive. I wonder if Pentax does something like it too. I know it's not wide-angle like you were looking for, but I highly recommend a 50mm prime if you can get one, especially since the prices make them almost disposable.

[MinionZombie]

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/400423_10152093312990235_1486882905_n.jpg



Love this shot. I could totally see it being in one of those coffee table art books or something like that. Lovely stuff. :thumbsup:

[krakenslayer]

Love this shot. I could totally see it being in one of those coffee table art books or something like that. Lovely stuff. :thumbsup:

Thanks, I thought it looked very Stella Artois :lol:

[MinionZombie]

Thanks, I thought it looked very Stella Artois :lol:

:lol::lol::lol:

Now that you mention it, the front wheel does look a little bit bent, as if some boozed-up Amsterdammer took a tumble on his way home to the Mrs. :D

[Neil]

I know Nikon does a similar lens that's only slightly more expensive. I wonder if Pentax does something like it too. I know it's not wide-angle like you were looking for, but I highly recommend a 50mm prime if you can get one, especially since the prices make them almost disposable.
Yeh, I've got one for my Nikon.

[LouCipherr]

Glad you like it. That shot is not cropped. I have cropped it removing top (her hat) and bottom (finger tips) so it's just her hands, head/face and the landscape angles, which seems to be the crux of the 'pleasing bit' if you get my meaning.

I was dangling flowers need the camera trying to get hand in the right place, and the right angles of the bank in the back ground.


Well, if that picture is not cropped that's great composition, at least to my eyes. I love the angle, how she's reaching for the camera, the placement of everything - even the slope of the background. Just looks great. :D



Thanks Lou! Believe it or not, that 50mm 1.8 is the cheapest lens Canon currently makes, and can be picked up for about £70 or well under $100! The trade-off is that its field of view is fixed at 50mm (near the furthest zoom of the standard kit lens) with no zoom capability (so you sometimes have to do a bit of leg-zooming backwards to get your subject in shot), and the build quality of the housing is very plasticky, but the quality of the glass itself crushes pretty much any Canon-fit zoom lens under £500. It has great depth of field at lower-numbered f-stops, with creamy-blurred "bokeh" backgrounds and vibrant pin-sharp foregrounds. It handles deep focus really well too, with great low-light capability and amazing sharpness and colour reproduction across the board. I know I sound like a salesman, but I just love this lens - it's not often you get pro-quality optics at amateur prices, so it's probably the best bargain I have ever had (and we all know Scots love a bargain :lol: )

<snipped pics>

I know Nikon does a similar lens that's only slightly more expensive. I wonder if Pentax does something like it too. I know it's not wide-angle like you were looking for, but I highly recommend a 50mm prime if you can get one, especially since the prices make them almost disposable.


Hmm, interesting. It almost sounds like what Pentax does with some of their lenses. They will put out a, let's say, 50mm DA* f/2.4 lens. That one, since it has the "DA*" designation, means it's built like a brick shithouse (ie: it's ALL metal, including the bayonet mount and threading). However, they will also make the same lens and call it a "DA" lens (without the "*") - this designation means it's the exact same glass and design as the DA*, however, it's plastic as well as the threads and the bayonet mount. Works the same as the other, much more expensive 'metal' version, but it's just made out of plastic instead of metal. I also think there might be some "water resistant" tech in the DA* lenses that the DA's don't either.

I currently have that Pentax 35mm f/2.4 prime lens, which is a DA lens (ie: plastic, but the glass is the same as the high-end one) and it was fairly cheap. I got it new from a camera store just trying to ditch it and it ran about $80 USD. Not bad at all - but had that been the DA* version? Add a few hundred bucks to that price. :lol:

I'm sure there's cheaper alternatives to that f/1.8 I linked to - in fact, I know Pentax makes a f/1.8 cheaper, but I really, really want the widest angle lens with the fastest glass I can find. Mostly because I want a lens for doing fantastic landscapes - sometimes in very low light. As you can see from what I post picture-wise, I'm a lot more into landscapes than taking pictures of people. lol.

A 50mm lens would be nice, but here's the one issue I have with the Pentax: since it's sensor has a crop factor of 1.5x, that means that a 50mm lens would be the equivalent of a 75mm lens. I'm not a big fan of these "cropped sensors" that cause this, but until I can afford a full-frame camera... That's why I want that 35mm lens. It will still equate out to a 52.5mm with the sensor crop taken into account, but that's wider than a 50mm with the crop issue, and, I don't really want to go so wide as to get a fish-eye lens. I am, however, a fan of good prime lenses. Zooms are nice, but sometimes you really have to play with the aperture and the zoom to find their "sweet spot."

Ok, so here's an HDR shot I created from the Shepherdstown Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shepherdstown_Bridge.JPG) in West Virginia I took a few weeks ago. This is a shot of the view from the bridge, not the bridge itself. There is a train track bridge out there in the distance, but, notice the piers out there in the middle of the water? They used to be for a covered bridge - well, two of 'em actually:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/ShepherdstownBridge.jpg

Here's a quick bit of history:

Covered Bridge #1 at Shepherdstown

The Virginia and Maryland Bridge Company, owners of the Blackford Ferry that crossed the Potomac River at Shepherdstown, discontinued the ferry service in 1850 and built a 600 foot covered bridge in its place.¹ The bridge connected Shepherdstown, West Virginia (Virginia until the Civil War years) to the road leading to Sharpsburg, Maryland.

The first covered bridge at Shepherdstown was one of many victims of the Civil War. Confederate soldiers burned over a hundred wooden bridges and destoyed other bridges and railroad property from Point of Rocks to Cumberland, Maryland. After blowing up the railroad bridge across the Potomac at Harpers Ferry in June of 1861, General Stonewall Jackson's mission was to continue the destruction of all bridges north of Harpers Ferry. He sent a detachment to Shepherdstown and burned down the multi-spanned highway bridge.

Covered Bridge #2 at Shepherdstown
It wasn't until 1871 that a second bridge across the Potomac was built at Shepherdstown. John Wood built the bridge at the same location as the first. That one was destroyed in the great flood of 1889, the Johnstown flood, and was replaced by an iron bridge.


And here's another American Swallow Tail butterfly, but this one was captured in West Virginia this time:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMGP7776Medium.jpg

[Neil]

Ok, so here's an HDR shot I created from the Shepherdstown Bridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shepherdstown_Bridge.JPG) in West Virginia I took a few weeks ago. This is a shot of the view from the bridge, not the bridge itself. There is a train track bridge out there in the distance, but, notice the piers out there in the middle of the water? They used to be for a covered bridge - well, two of 'em actually:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/ShepherdstownBridge.jpg

Nice! - Wonder if a polarising filter might have made more of that sky (not that I'd know!)?

Hand held or tripod?

[MinionZombie]

The first pic is just a reminder of the old days before digital cameras, when you'd go on a school trip with a 24-exposure disposable film camera - a time before screens to properly line-up your shot, the option to delete dud pics, and being able to take hundreds of pics all on one tiny memory card. That first pic is from my Year 8 (age 12) trip to Paris during high school - naturally you had no real idea what you'd actually end up with in the end, and it was so hard to frame your shots with those disposable cameras ... so there's a shot of Paris from the Sacre Coeur, with a couple of my fingers invading the city. :lol:

The second two pics further the notion of taking good pics with basic cameras due to the natural beauty of your surroundings, here's a couple that I took with my Kodak Zi8 (which is primarily a HD hand-held video camera) of the Scottish seaside town of North Berwick. Naturally, my photo-taking skills improved quite a bit during the intervening 14 years between pic #1 and pics 2&3. :D

1097

1096

1095

[LouCipherr]

Nice! - Wonder if a polarising filter might have made more of that sky (not that I'd know!)?

Hand held or tripod?

"Cheated" hand-held photo, actually. :D There was no tripod involved - instead, I sort of rested my camera on the metal railing of the bridge I was standing on (strap firmly connected to the camera and around my neck, just in case!) and snapped away.

Not sure if a polarizing filter may have helped. It seems with HDR you can sort of, kind of, "almost" do what a polarizing filter can do (removing some glare, pulling back in some details, removing some "muddiness" etc), however, I think babomb could probably answer that question waaay better than I could. :lol: There weren't really many clouds in the sky to begin with, so what you see in that pic is what I saw on the bridge. I did, however, kinda over-do some of the green & yellow colors while doing the HDR, so that might account for some of the weirdness of colors and the slight ghosting effect. :o


The first pic is just a reminder of the old days before digital cameras, when you'd go on a school trip with a 24-exposure disposable film camera - a time before screens to properly line-up your shot, the option to delete dud pics, and being able to take hundreds of pics all on one tiny memory card. That first pic is from my Year 8 (age 12) trip to Paris during high school - naturally you had no real idea what you'd actually end up with in the end, and it was so hard to frame your shots with those disposable cameras ... so there's a shot of Paris from the Sacre Coeur, with a couple of my fingers invading the city. :lol:

Nice pics, MZ. Ah yes, I remember the days of disposable cameras - hell, I even had one of those shitty Kodak "Disc" cameras, remember those awful things?! Did you guys have them in the UK at all? That was my main camera for a while when I was a kid (probably because it was the only camera I had at the time!). Still, I worked with what i had, and sometimes even then I surprised myself. In fact, your pictures you posted prove it - sometimes, it's not about the quality of the camera or even the camera itself you're using. You can take stellar pics with a disposable 35mm, it just depends on what you're going for in the final product. :D

Here's another pic I took at the Dickey Ridge Visitors Center on the Blue Ridge Parkway (wow, I took a lot of pics on this trip!) - I cannot STAND bees, but I had my camera ready and decided to give it a shot:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/flower.jpg

The bee was tiny, and I shot that with, IIRC, my 18-55mm kit lens. I had to get close, and that creeped me out! :lol:

Here's a church I shot in Potomac, Maryland:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/church.jpg

The angle I took this from makes it look a lot more spooky than it really is.


***edited to add: Here's a pic of a bat we found in our cabin when we arrived in Boone, NC for our vacation last year. It wasn't fun getting him out of the house, but I managed without hurting him. One thing I did not know about bats: you put them in a box and they will SCREECH like a pissed-off banshee! I had no idea!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/bat.jpg

Anyone have any idea what kind of bat that is?? I don't, but I'd like to know.

[LouCipherr]

*raises an eyebrow*

I know ya'll have more pictures. Post 'em! :D

Here's one I took on top of "Grandfather Mountain" in North Carolina. This is the swinging "Mile High" bridge. Yes, I said "swinging" - it is a 'sectional' bridge that actually moves around in sections as you walk on it (not sure if this is to facilitate the winds up there or just to freak everyone out, but, whatever it is, it's creepy!). It's called the "mile high bridge" because it sits 5,282 feet above sea level. :eek:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/GrandfatherMountain0.jpg

and to answer the question you're about to ask? HELL NO I didn't cross that bridge! :lol: My body wanted to, but my brain would not allow it. My wife and son did though. Amazing.

Here's the twisty little road that lead up to the top of the mountain where the bridge sits. Pretty spooky drive up there!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/RoadtoGrandfatherMountain0.jpg

[bassman]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/OC1.jpg

This shot reminds me of one of the early shots in Jaws when the doomed girl and her drunk boyfriend are running to the beach.



http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/GrandfatherMountain0.jpg


I would do it, but damn that looks creepy. The much smaller one at Rock City/Lookout Mountain in Tennessee gave me the willies, so i'm sure this one would have the stomach turning.



Cool pictures all around, guys! I don't really have an eye for these kinds of things, so I've got nothing to contribute. I love looking at them, though.

[Neil]

Here's the twisty little road that lead up to the top of the mountain where the bridge sits. Pretty spooky drive up there!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/RoadtoGrandfatherMountain0.jpg
Make me think of Alan Wake for some reason :)

[LouCipherr]

Make me think of Alan Wake for some reason :)

Yes! I can see that too, Neil. Interesting

How weird is it - one pic I take looks like something out of Alan Wake, one looks like something captured out of Dead Rising. I feel like I'm missing an opportunity here - perhaps I could be the weird photographer that takes pictures of real-life stuff that looks like certain video game's counterparts....? Hmmmm..... *ponders the thought*


Bass - here's another one I took at the same time as the jaws-like one (Ocean City, Maryland):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/OC2.jpg

That one didn't seem too great as far as composition, but I like the dull colors, the sand, and the fences and all. Pretty neat looking in a dull kind of way if that makes sense. :lol:

[shootemindehead]

There's a lot of seemingly innocuous photos on here, lads, that sort of creep me out.

[MinionZombie]

*raises an eyebrow*

I know ya'll have more pictures. Post 'em! :D

Here's one I took on top of "Grandfather Mountain" in North Carolina. This is the swinging "Mile High" bridge. Yes, I said "swinging" - it is a 'sectional' bridge that actually moves around in sections as you walk on it (not sure if this is to facilitate the winds up there or just to freak everyone out, but, whatever it is, it's creepy!). It's called the "mile high bridge" because it sits 5,282 feet above sea level. :eek:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/GrandfatherMountain0.jpg

and to answer the question you're about to ask? HELL NO I didn't cross that bridge! :lol: My body wanted to, but my brain would not allow it. My wife and son did though. Amazing.

Here's the twisty little road that lead up to the top of the mountain where the bridge sits. Pretty spooky drive up there!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/RoadtoGrandfatherMountain0.jpg

Fun me that's high up! I've got a big problem with heights, even standing on a chair gets my balance all upset, and even just being on a castle wall a single story up - if there's a clear view of a big drop, then I'm clutching to the nearest solid thing to keep me from leaning forward ... like a magnet is drawing me to fling myself into the abyss that lies before me ... it's a weird and unsettling sensation, and I feel it strongest in my knees, like they're going stiff and weak at the same time.

That said ... if I was on holiday there, and I came across that with friends and saw other people doing it, I might actually force myself to do it ... it wouldn't be overcoming my unending fear of heights, rather more of a "fuck you" to the fear that otherwise controls certain aspects of my life. I'd be shitting bricks and holding on for dear life the entire way there and back, mind. :lol::lol::lol:

A (comparatively) very minor example of that would be certain bit out on the rocks in the aforementioned (and pictured) seaside town of North Berwick - two spots in fact - one out on the rocks with a (to me) flimsy-looking metal bridge and staircase leading to it that overhangs about a ten foot drop into rocks and water, and another which is out on the harbour wall with a metal fence which you could so easily slip under and into the choppy sea below (when the tide is out, the fall would be much further) ... ... anyway, cutting through the ramble, when I went there in 2010, I forced myself to go out to those points as all through my childhood there was no damned way I'd ever go out to those points. I was clinging on for dear life to the harbour railing though. :lol:

Like I said, very minor (particularly by comparison), but it was a little Bill Murray baby step into the "eff you vertigo" void for me. :p


This shot reminds me of one of the early shots in Jaws when the doomed girl and her drunk boyfriend are running to the beach.

I was just thinking the same thing. :cool:


Make me think of Alan Wake for some reason :)

Aye, I see what you mean - although personally I first though of The Shining, and that oh-so-memorable score.


There's a lot of seemingly innocuous photos on here, lads, that sort of creep me out.

Kind of like "here's a nice picture of a bridge ... what you don't know is I threw a man over the side and chuckled as he fell to his death ... and, here's a picture of some fences on a beach, next to the bodies that I buried there..." etc? :elol:

Below are pictures of my aforementioned mini-eff-you-to-vertigo. :D

1) The view looking back at the town from the point where I'd never been before.

2) Doesn't look like much at all from this pic, but it's scarier in-person for someone with a proper fear (and inability with) heights.

3) Clinging on for dear life, while appearing non-challant, at the edge of the harbour wall. Not picture, 15-25ft drop (depending on tide).

[LouCipherr]

There's a lot of seemingly innocuous photos on here, lads, that sort of creep me out.


Kind of like "here's a nice picture of a bridge ... what you don't know is I threw a man over the side and chuckled as he fell to his death ... and, here's a picture of some fences on a beach, next to the bodies that I buried there..." etc? :elol:

Yeah, I mean, if you want THAT kind of thing, let me help you out: Remember that picture of that nice little squirrel I posted a few pages ago? After taking the photo, I blew his head off with a 20 gauge shotgun slug and used a rusty butter knife to field dress him right on the deck for breakfast the next morning.

Is that better? :lol: :lol: :D





Fun me that's high up! I've got a big problem with heights, even standing on a chair gets my balance all upset, and even just being on a castle wall a single story up - if there's a clear view of a big drop, then I'm clutching to the nearest solid thing to keep me from leaning forward ... like a magnet is drawing me to fling myself into the abyss that lies before me ... it's a weird and unsettling sensation, and I feel it strongest in my knees, like they're going stiff and weak at the same time.

That said ... if I was on holiday there, and I came across that with friends and saw other people doing it, I might actually force myself to do it ... it wouldn't be overcoming my unending fear of heights, rather more of a "fuck you" to the fear that otherwise controls certain aspects of my life. I'd be shitting bricks and holding on for dear life the entire way there and back, mind. :lol::lol::lol:

I am exactly the same way, only... if you took me 100 floors up in a high rise building and I was surrounded by walls or glass, I'm perfectly fine with the heights. It's the minute I step outside and am surrounded by nothing that high up - that's when my pants turn from blue to brown in the back and the front of them gets all wet from me pissing myself. I just cannot be out in the open where there is extreme heights. I almost get vertigo and feel like I'm going to just stumble right off the edge - which I don't, but it feels like I am going to in my head.

MZ, I wanted to cross the bridge, and I got 1 step from putting my foot on it and my brain froze. It would NOT let me go any further. I wanted to go further, but my brain said "F this, you aren't crossing that shit, NO WAY!" and I just couldn't do it.



Aye, I see what you mean - although personally I first though of The Shining, and that oh-so-memorable score.

OMG, even better. You're right. Just like the opening of The Shining when the fly-bys are going on by the road on the mountain and that CREEPY damn score.. yes, that nails it. That's what that picture will forever remind me of now. Thanks, MZ, that used to be a "oh, look at my wonderful vacation photo!" Now all I will be able to think of is "Go check out the snowcat and the radio, Wendy. You're not going anywhere!" *insert evil Jack laugh here*



]Below are pictures of my aforementioned mini-eff-you-to-vertigo. :D

Yeah, they squarely fit in the category of "Yeah, that'd freak me the F out right there!" :lol: Even if it's 15-25 feet - if I'm out in the open, I'm creeped out terribly.

It's a shame someone like me with a massive fear of heights always wanted to be a pilot - and even flew a Cessna once - but again, I think that was a bit easier because I was "enclosed" - it's the open spaces high up and give me the willies to no end. *shudders at the thought*

[MinionZombie]

Being "enclosed" definitely helps an awful lot. I've only been on an aeroplane once (last year, internal flight, small passenger size prop plane), but because I was enclosed safely inside it, the height didn't scare me one iota - I spent the entire flight gazing down on Britain as it slid by beneath me with utter fascination ... I got a horrible crick in my neck that lasted days as a result, but the view was worth it. :D

BTW - when I click on my attachements (for example in my post before this one), I can't get the pictures to load for me - is it the same for anyone else, or just me? The last couple of times this has happened, but not when I originally joined the thread. :confused:

[Tricky]

Here's one I took the other day while out walking my dogs, the cows came over to the fence as I was walking past so snapped one close up.

MZ - Get a skydive done dude, I wasn't keen on heights till I did mine, but they haven't bothered me since! Beat the weakness :p

[AcesandEights]

Been meaning to comment on this thread before now, but it's a bit daunting since I want to give equal attention to so many different good pics from so many people.

Before I even get into all that I do want to say that the below information is very useful, as I was completely stunned by some of the images I came across last year when I first became aware of HDR photography:







I'm using a program to do my HDR, and I do it on my PC. I do it in the following manner:

Set camera to multiple exposures (mine can do 3 max). I realized I made a mistake in my first post regarding this: First photo is normal exposure, the other two are one at TWO f-stops below normal and one at TWO f-stops above normal exposure. I said one f-stop in my first post, that was incorrect.

I take all three images and load them into what I consider the best HDR program out there: Photomatix. I get the levels of each of the picture to where I want them in Photomatix, then I export it to Photoshop and do "cleanup" if necessary. "Cleanup" usually consists of loading the final HDR and the "normal" exposure shot as a "mask" - then I can pull some of the "normal" exposure picture into the HDR to clean up some of the areas I want to focus your eye on. It's very subjective, and different for every photo. Some don't even require this step. ;)

My camera does have in-camera HDR, but you pretty much have zero control over the final output. I've tried to use it, but don't like the results.

I don't have an SLR or anyway to take HDR shots currently, but it's in the plans. Honestly, I went to Italy this Summer and saw some incredible sights, took a ton of photos, but I had a horrible time dealing with most of the scenic shots because of the haziness (record breaking heat and humidity), so I would have loved the chance to see if HDR could have helped with this. Any idea, even an educated guess, if it would, Lou?

Will post some pics over this weekend and respond to some of the cool images already posted. Great topic, by the way!

[LouCipherr]

Being "enclosed" definitely helps an awful lot. I've only been on an aeroplane once (last year, internal flight, small passenger size prop plane), but because I was enclosed safely inside it, the height didn't scare me one iota - I spent the entire flight gazing down on Britain as it slid by beneath me with utter fascination ... I got a horrible crick in my neck that lasted days as a result, but the view was worth it. :D

Yes, being enclosed helps a LOT. I've been on plane flights cruising at 20,000ft and looking out the window doesn't bother me at all. Take away the fuselage, and I'd not only be falling from 20,000ft but I'd also be screaming the entire way down!

No, wait, that's not what I meant. :lol: I meant, take away the walls, and I'm more scared than a field mouse being stalked by a mountain lion. Shit-my-pants scared. :D


BTW - when I click on my attachements (for example in my post before this one), I can't get the pictures to load for me - is it the same for anyone else, or just me? The last couple of times this has happened, but not when I originally joined the thread. :confused:

I tried to click on them and they wouldn't enlage either (which is weird, as they used to do so in the past), however, my work internet connection is almost monitored in a militant fashion, so sometimes I have to look up this thread at home and check out the pics. Hell, some people posted from facebook show up as broken squares on the screen because my goofy work IT people block facebook (not that I care, but in this instance it does make a difference!). I figured I'd check 'em out at home, but it seems like I'm not going to be able to now.

I'm having the same problem with Tricky's cow pics - Neil? Andy? Any ideas?

MZ - I post some of my stuff on photobucket (it's just an online file locker for your pics), make them private folders, then just post the IMG links here for everyone and they show up full size right in the post. ;)



Here's one I took the other day while out walking my dogs, the cows came over to the fence as I was walking past so snapped one close up.

COWS!!! I LOVE COWS (and I have no idea why)! :lol: Not just eating them, but they're weird creatures to watch. Not the brightest, but there's something charming (is that the right word?) about them. I love the B&W. I've always loved B&W and would probably be shooting it if it wasn't for my eyes being tickled by this HDR shit. lol


MZ - Get a skydive done dude, I wasn't keen on heights till I did mine, but they haven't bothered me since! Beat the weakness :p

MZ - DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS CRAZY BASTARD! I saw the video of him skydiving - I wasn't even THERE and I shit my damn pants! Tricky is out of his freakin' mind, so be very careful following his advice! :lol: :lol: :lol:

j/k Tricky. :D


Been meaning to comment on this thread before now, but it's a bit daunting since I want to give equal attention to so many different good pics from so many people.

Just sit back, take a few tokes of whatever flips your fancy, and take in the scenery. That's why they're here. Just stare and enjoy, Aces. :D


Before I even get into all that I do want to say that the below information is very useful, as I was completely stunned by some of the images I came across last year when I first became aware of HDR photography

I'm glad I could shed some "beginners" light on HDR for you, Aces, but there is so much more to it than I could ever even begin to comprehend. I have only been doing HDR for, I dunno, about a year on-and-off (not enough to get proficient at it), so I'm slowly learning my way through it.

In cased you missed it on an earlier page, I implore you to check out Trey Ratcliff's HDR Photography (http://www.stuckincustoms.com) for some simply mind-blowing HDR images. As discussed extensively between babomb and myself, Trey does things his own way and it isn't exactly the perfect approach to HDR, but let's put it this way: do the images blow your mind? I think that's the only qualifier needed. :D



I don't have an SLR or anyway to take HDR shots currently, but it's in the plans. Honestly, I went to Italy this Summer and saw some incredible sights, took a ton of photos, but I had a horrible time dealing with most of the scenic shots because of the haziness (record breaking heat and humidity), so I would have loved the chance to see if HDR could have helped with this. Any idea, even an educated guess, if it would, Lou?

Was the "haziness" because of the conditions outside, or did the humidity make your lens fog up and create haziness in the pics?

If it was just hazy outside, it depends on the situation, but chances are HDR probably wouldn't make that much of a difference 'cleaning up' the haze - it would, however, put some nice details in the haze - but that's probably not what you want. :lol:

If it was the lens fogging up...

Humidity can be HELL on a camera lens. ESPECIALLY if you take your camera from indoors (where it's probably cool and not that humid due to the air conditioner) to outdoors where it's humid as HELL - it will fog your lenses up in hearbeat and that is bad, bad, bad. You do not want condensation inside your camera lens. It can lead to all kinds of funky shit from rusting/corroding parts inside to (and I never knew about this until recently) fungus growth on your glass! :eek:

When I take my camera from inside to outside, especially when it's hot and humid as a MOFO outside, I will usually do one of two things: bring my camera case with the camera in it and put it outside and let it sit for a good 30-40 minutes before I open it to let it accommodate to the temperature outside so it doesn't fog up my lenses. Or, you could always put your camera inside of a zip-lock bag, zip it up good, then take it outside. You'll still have to wait a bit before you can take it out, but sometimes you can still snap some pics while inside the bag and it isn't screwing up your camera. I've done this when shooting around the ocean (salt water is one of the top enemies of a camera) when it was windy as hell just to protect the camera from the salt water and sand. If you pull the bag kinda tight and 'flat' across the lens, most of the time you can still get a pretty damn good picture. It's worked for me.


Will post some pics over this weekend and respond to some of the cool images already posted. Great topic, by the way!

Please do! I don't really want this to be the "Lou Photo Show" but I'm probably just more of a shutterbug than most. I can't help it. I've been into taking pictures way back to when I was a pre-teen youngster. My mother would always make me take pictures because she always cut off people's heads in pics and stuff, and while I had no idea what I was really doing, I could at least frame everyone in the picture properly. :D

[Tricky]

MZ - DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS CRAZY BASTARD! I saw the video of him skydiving - I wasn't even THERE and I shit my damn pants! Tricky is out of his freakin' mind, so be very careful following his advice! :lol: :lol: :lol:

j/k Tricky. :D




Bwahaha whats life without a little adrenaline & controlled fear!! :p

MZ - same for me, its been a bit funny with attachements, hence why my last post is showing two of the same picture! All I wanted was to post it as per my previous ones!

[AcesandEights]

Napoli:

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7128/7592225730_d22fc8d0bb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592225730/)
Dome of the Galleria Umberto I (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592225730/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7259/7592303388_de744c7777.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592303388/)
024 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592303388/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7592259552_75b0482d5e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592259552/)
The Farnese Bul (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592259552/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7592258332_f42e212486.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592258332/)
The Farnese Bull (upper right detail) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592258332/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7592284570_69a6781b76.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592284570/)
Roman Gorgon? (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592284570/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8028/7592262036_9a1bcc92d1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592262036/)
Athena (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592262036/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8019/7592279360_5b2fd45d79.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592279360/)
Priapine Chime (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592279360/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8019/7592260780_cf98f8f663.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592260780/)
The Farnese Hercules (Upper Detail) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592260780/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7256/7593499508_ed65b0c33a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593499508/)
Castel dell 'Ovo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593499508/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8006/7592271798_341dfbdaa0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592271798/)
Memento Mori (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592271798/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7126/7592224386_ac9ef460e1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592224386/)
Vesuvius In the Morning (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7592224386/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

[MinionZombie]

Just wanted to add that Andy has fixed the problem we were experiencing in these last few days with attachments - it's working again now, so you can go back over older posts and see the images in full-size now.

Quick links to older posts of mine that were affected by the attachment issue that's now solved:

Pics relating to heights:
http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?20673-Extremely-Amateur-Photography&p=289013#post289013

Pics relating to good shots on cheap cameras due to your surroundings, and old school disposable film cameras:
http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?20673-Extremely-Amateur-Photography&p=288825#post288825

:)

[krakenslayer]

The second two pics further the notion of taking good pics with basic cameras due to the natural beauty of your surroundings, here's a couple that I took with my Kodak Zi8 (which is primarily a HD hand-held video camera) of the Scottish seaside town of North Berwick. Naturally, my photo-taking skills improved quite a bit during the intervening 14 years between pic #1 and pics 2&3. :D

1096



That's funny, I was in North Berwick a few weeks ago. Love your pics. I actually took a fancy-ass long exposure pic of that same island. The details came out kinda soft (probably due to me setting the exposure a bit too high; more time to pick up tiny vibrations of the wind on the tripod, fractionally blurring the image), but I love the smoky water effect.

http://imageshack.us/a/img833/9786/img9899es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/img9899es.jpg/)

This one was inland a little bit, just on the other side of North Berwick Law, as we began climbing it:

http://imageshack.us/a/img560/1882/img9821es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/img9821es.jpg/)

A couple of nice shots from Cramond, on the other side of Edinburgh from North Berwick. They have a causeway that connects it to Cramond Island at low tide, me and my mate David went at one of the lowest tides of the year, revealing miles of beautiful, deadly mud-flats:

http://imageshack.us/a/img221/928/img9696es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/img9696es.jpg/)

http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8016/img9693es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/img9693es.jpg/)

[MinionZombie]

That's funny, I was in North Berwick a few weeks ago. Love your pics. I actually took a fancy-ass long exposure pic of that same island. The details came out kinda soft (probably due to me setting the exposure a bit too high; more time to pick up tiny vibrations of the wind on the tripod, fractionally blurring the image), but I love the smoky water effect.

http://imageshack.us/a/img833/9786/img9899es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/img9899es.jpg/)

This one was inland a little bit, just on the other side of North Berwick Law, as we began climbing it:

http://imageshack.us/a/img560/1882/img9821es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/560/img9821es.jpg/)

A couple of nice shots from Cramond, on the other side of Edinburgh from North Berwick. They have a causeway that connects it to Cramond Island at low tide, me and my mate David went at one of the lowest tides of the year, revealing miles of beautiful, deadly mud-flats:

http://imageshack.us/a/img221/928/img9696es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/221/img9696es.jpg/)

http://imageshack.us/a/img189/8016/img9693es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/189/img9693es.jpg/)

Love the pics kraken. :thumbsup:

North Berwick's a great place, isn't it? :)

The island in question is Craigleith (the other island in another shot that I posted earlier in the thread was The Bass Rock - we went on a boat tour around that, in the rough waters, when I was a kid ... somewhere we've got a picture of me on that little wooden boat, hunkered down within the hull shielding myself from the wind - and in North Berwick, when the wind gets up it's BLOODY COLD. I've never felt wind colder in my entire life. :D) ... anyway - excellent picture, I love how the water looks like fog/mist - if you just focus on the rocks at the bottom of the picture it looks like mountains appearing out of the mist or something.

Ah yes, the North Berwick Law - I've been up that a couple of times in my younger years, again I think we've got pics somewhere of that trip, I remember that well. Good times. :)

...

I found another picture by someone else, of that rocky outcrop I spoke of before - the rickety metal bridge that I finally dared to cross a couple of years ago after never daring throughout my entire life beforehand:

http://www.henniker.org.uk/images/places/scotland/e_l/craigleith.jpg

Now that's an old picture of it (today it's as-seen in my pic - lots of new metal barriers etc - but I do remember a time when it was as the above picture states ... no wonder I never dared to cross it back then!)

[LouCipherr]

Napoli:

Aces - fantastic pictures! I especially like the Fornese Bull (upper right detail) and that pic of Vesuvius! Sweeeeet.

Just goes to show you, you don't need a dSLR to take good photos. ;)




Love the pics kraken. :thumbsup:

I have to agree. Breathtaking. :D


I found another picture by someone else, of that rocky outcrop I spoke of before - the rickety metal bridge that I finally dared to cross a couple of years ago after never daring throughout my entire life beforehand:

<snip picture>

Now that's an old picture of it (today it's as-seen in my pic - lots of new metal barriers etc - but I do remember a time when it was as the above picture states ... no wonder I never dared to cross it back then!)

I can see why! I'm not sure I'd cross it either. :shifty:

Ok, well, this weekend in West Virginia ended up being a "working weekend" for me (lots of yard work to deal with), so not much time for pictures... however - I did manage to snap a picture of this little guy who was on my deck near the end of the day. I didn't have my Pentax with me, so this was shot using the camera phone of my Droid Incredible 2 - and didn't turn out too bad considering:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/WhiteCaterpillar1.jpg

Creepy looking face on that sucker, isn't it? *shudders*

BTW: I've always heard the old wives tale that these kinds (or a similar kind, I have no idea of the specifics) of caterpillars are supposed to be able to predict the winter based on their color(s). If that's the case, does this one essentially mean WV is screwed this winter (since it's all white)?? I sure hope not! Then again, it's another old wives tale that you can predict the winter by the size of the acorns falling. If that's the case, we are screwed this year because some of the millions of acorns falling on our property are almost the size of golf balls! :eek:


***edited to add: I think I identified this one, too. I believe it is the larva stage of the Laugher Moth, a/k/a, "Charadra deridens" :D


Clicky the linky for more info: http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Charadra+deridens&guide=1 (http://www.discoverlife.org/mp/20q?search=Charadra+deridens&guide=1)

[Neil]

That's funny, I was in North Berwick a few weeks ago. Love your pics. I actually took a fancy-ass long exposure pic of that same island. The details came out kinda soft (probably due to me setting the exposure a bit too high; more time to pick up tiny vibrations of the wind on the tripod, fractionally blurring the image), but I love the smoky water effect.

http://imageshack.us/a/img833/9786/img9899es.th.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/833/img9899es.jpg/)
What sort of exposure time was that? Seconds?

[LouCipherr]

Here's a strange picture I took just yesterday. I was standing out in my driveway when my son pointed this little guy hanging out on a branch right behind me:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/weird%20caterpillar_zps36389eb5.jpg

No idea what it is (other than some sort of caterpillar), but it's creepy as hell looking! *shudders*

[krakenslayer]

What sort of exposure time was that? Seconds?

Can't remember offhand, I could check the details in the RAW file when I get home, but I think it was something in the region of 20-30 seconds, hence, as I say, the slight softness of the "solid" features (the island, rocks, etc.) due to the time-accumulated effect of wind and waves hitting the tripod. If the sea was rougher, I could have gone for a much lower exposure, but the sea was calm that day and anything less than that, I wouldn't have caught enough waves to overlap and create the "misty" effect.

I was also using a cheap (well, £40) adjustable ND filter to darken the scene so the image didn't overexpose.

[MinionZombie]

Here's a strange picture I took just yesterday. I was standing out in my driveway when my son pointed this little guy hanging out on a branch right behind me:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/weird%20caterpillar_zps36389eb5.jpg

No idea what it is (other than some sort of caterpillar), but it's creepy as hell looking! *shudders*

THE INVASION! IT BEGINS! :eek:

[AcesandEights]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/weird%20caterpillar_zps36389eb5.jpg


Grubs usually freak me out, but that is soooo cool! Nice catch and great color and detail.

[LouCipherr]

THE INVASION! IT BEGINS! :eek:

:lol:

+1 MZ!


Grubs usually freak me out, but that is soooo cool! Nice catch and great color and detail.

Thanks, Aces. I'll let you guys in on a little secret: that picture was neither HDR, nor was it taken with my Pentax or any other dSLR :shifty:


Truth be told, that was taken on a camera phone, a HTC Droid Incredible 2 to be exact. Another example showing that you don't need a high-end dSLR to take really nice photos. I couldn't believe the color and detail of that picture when I pulled it off my phone. I was totally shocked - and pleased! :D

[Neil]

Can't remember offhand, I could check the details in the RAW file when I get home, but I think it was something in the region of 20-30 seconds, hence, as I say, the slight softness of the "solid" features (the island, rocks, etc.) due to the time-accumulated effect of wind and waves hitting the tripod. If the sea was rougher, I could have gone for a much lower exposure, but the sea was calm that day and anything less than that, I wouldn't have caught enough waves to overlap and create the "misty" effect.

I was also using a cheap (well, £40) adjustable ND filter to darken the scene so the image didn't overexpose.Couldn't you just have used a very low ISO?

[LouCipherr]

Couldn't you just have used a very low ISO?

He could have, yes, but as the saying goes, "Any port in a storm." ;)


Good news (I think?) - I think I identified that green caterpillar as a "Eumorpha pandorus larva" - Whatever the hell that is! :lol:

Click here for info and more pictures. (http://www.silkmoths.bizland.com/epandoru.htm) :eek:

[krakenslayer]

Couldn't you just have used a very low ISO?

The photo was actually taken at the camera's lowest ISO setting (ISO100), without the filter it would have been a complete white-out at that exposure length.

Apparently you can, sometimes, if you're lucky, get nice results shooting filterless long exposure shots with reduced ISO/aperture at late dusk or early dawn, but whenever I've tried it I've ended up with at least some overexposure and blown highlights. Shooting in the mid-afternoon (as in the above shot), you'd have no chance.

[Tricky]

Nothing fancy with this one, just a very flooded York the weekend before last!
http://imageshack.us/a/img705/2738/imag0609x.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/705/imag0609x.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

[LouCipherr]

a very flooded York the weekend before last!

Nice, Tricky! Just curious - did you do any post-processing on that picture, or is that how it came off the camera?

[Tricky]

Cheers Lou! Nope, I haven't done anything with that one, its just "as is", I took it with my HTC one X with no effects on :-)

[LouCipherr]

Cheers Lou! Nope, I haven't done anything with that one, its just "as is", I took it with my HTC one X with no effects on :-)

Wow, it's amazing how good the cameras on our cell phones are getting. I've seen some stellar photographs coming off cell phone cameras recently. Awesome. :D

I dug through some of my older photographs and will post them soon. Dj - I found the "magazine worthy mustang picture" in my collection - I'll post that one soon too. ;)

[AcesandEights]

Wow, it's amazing how good the cameras on our cell phones are getting.

You're tellin' me! Some of these cell phone cams are very good,but some are excellent! On our trip this Summer my wife took a bunch of pics on her iphone...half of them are indistinguishable from shots taken on our new digital camera unless you really blow the image up and some of her pics are flat out better than mine :mad:

[LouCipherr]

Technology is wonderful (and frustrating) thing, isn't it? :D

[krakenslayer]

Phone cameras are getting ridiculously good, but where they will always lag behind a good digital camera is low light performance (narrow lenses, tiny apertures and minuscule sensors do not collect much light), and creative control. If you want to take a pin-sharp photo in broad delight with everything in focus and no "bokeh", there are phone cameras that will do the job and give a high-end SLR a run for its money, but if you want to shoot in twilight and/or with narrow depth of field and/or take a long exposure shot, there is no contest.

[Tricky]

Here's one I took on my way home from work tonight, the sun was setting in just the right place so had to grab it. Its a memorial to those who died flying bombing missions with 158 squadron RAF in WW2, the wind turbines in the background are built on the old runway and each one is named after one of the Halifax bombers that flew from there. The memorial itself has all the names written on it.
1132

[AcesandEights]

Here's one I took on my way home from work tonight

Tricky, so cool! Great capture, my friend, and thank you for the story behind it the image!

I have a new drive home from work and have been thinking all week that I need to start allowing time to stop and grab some shots of the picturesque journey.

[LouCipherr]

A photo of a weed called a "Joe-Pye Weed" - taken on top of Grandfather Mountain in North Carolina:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/Joe-PyeWeed-GrandfatherMountainLarge.jpg


Turkey vulture!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/TurkeyVultureLarge.jpg



And here is a photo of one of Dj's past Mustangs - he really liked this photo a lot and said it belonged in a brochure for the car. Not sure if I think it's that good, but whatevah. :D
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/DjsMustangLarge.jpg

[AcesandEights]

A photo of a weed called a "Joe-Pye Weed"
Joe-buy-weed, you say?


Turkey vulture!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/TurkeyVultureLarge.jpg


That, is badass! Lighting is really good, considering that it's such a tight angled shot from below. Damned ugly heads on those things.

It's lookin' right at me...

[LouCipherr]

Joe-buy-weed, you say?

*looks around for Joe, needs to ask him a question*

:lol:




That, is badass! Lighting is really good, considering that it's such a tight angled shot from below. Damned ugly heads on those things.

It's lookin' right at me...

Yeah, turkey vultures are CREEPY! We have TONS of these things in our neighborhood as we live very close to the water and they seem to love the coast. I have a few pictures of one snacking on a squished squirrel in the street right in front of my house, but I refrained from posting them as they are really gross (most of the pics are of the vulture tearing pieces off the flat squirrel) and I figured most probably wouldn't wanna see that. :lol:

The vultures around here (we have some black vultures, too) are HUGE! That one in the picture had at least a 4 foot wing span. *shudders*

That was a hard photo to take - the thing was way up at the top of a tree across the street from my house. It turned out well considering the circumstances. :D

[DjfunkmasterG]

And here is a photo of one of Dj's past Mustangs - he really liked this photo a lot and said it belonged in a brochure for the car. Not sure if I think it's that good, but whatevah. :D
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/DjsMustangLarge.jpg

LOU.... That was my CAMARO

LMAO

you don't have pictures of the new Mustangs...

LMAO

[LouCipherr]

LOU.... That was my CAMARO


you don't have pictures of the new Mustangs...

I was wondering why in the back of my mind I was thinking "goddamn, that's an ugly car!" :elol:

Well, first off, if you notice, I put "past mustangs" because I had A) mustangs on the brain (since that's all you buy, sans the Camaro & the Challenger), and B) I knew it was one of your older cars. Where "new" mustangs came from I have no idea.

Second, I'm not well versed on my American Shitboxes so you'll have to forgive me. I had a senior moment. Sue me. :lol:

Still a nice pic, so :fin:

:lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

I was wondering why in the back of my mind I was thinking "goddamn, that's an ugly car!" :elol:

Well, first off, if you notice, I put "past mustangs" because I had A) mustangs on the brain (since that's all you buy, sans the Camaro & the Challenger), and B) I knew it was one of your older cars. Where "new" mustangs came from I have no idea.

Second, I'm not well versed on my American Shitboxes so you'll have to forgive me. I had a senior moment. Sue me. :lol:

Still a nice pic, so :fin:

:lol:

American shitbox? Didn't your cavalier outlast your BMW?

150,000 miles veres 110,000 (BMW), might wanna re-think that American shitbox line of thinking. :elol: :fin:

[krakenslayer]

http://www.mflenses.com/asahi-pentax-smc-takumar-55mm-f2-lens-review.html

Just bought a second hand one of these (and an adaptor for the Canon EOS fitting) off eBay for £30. The lens arrived a couple of days ago, I'm still waiting on the adaptor. Not autofocus, but apparently the image quality blows even the modern day "nifty fifties" (one of which I already own) out of the water and the build quality is like a fucking tank. Vintage lenses - particularly those based on now-obsolete mount formats - seem to be a great source of quality glass for the photo enthusiast on a budget, provided you do your research on whether the lens/body combination is viable, exactly what features will/won't work and what adaptors you need for a specific combo to retain the most functionality. This one has a manual f-stop switch on the side and, along with the adaptor I've ordered, it supports focus confirm (i.e. it lights up the autofocus points in the viewfinder at the points the image is in sharpest focus) so I should be good to go. I'm actually hoping that shooting "manual" like this will force me to learn a little more discipline.

When the adaptor comes I'll take some shots (or maybe some video) and post them here. I might do a comparison video between this and the Canon 50mm 1.8.

[LouCipherr]

Someone has no room to talk. (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBFD6A3AA89DDC4DC)


http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/FORUM%20PICS%202/douchebag-forumpic.gif

And BTW: you were wrong on several accounts with your "facts" but we're not going to go there.

...back to our regularly scheduled program.....



http://www.mflenses.com/asahi-pentax...ns-review.html

Just bought a second hand one of these (and an adaptor for the Canon EOS fitting) off eBay for £30.


Oooh, that's a nice lens there, kraken. Some of the best lenses are manual focus from many years ago. I've thought about picking up some older manual focus primes for my K-x, but so far the only prime I have is a 35mm f/2.4. It's a sweet little lens that has wonderful bokeh and is sharp as a tack as far as focus is concerned.

Post some pics once you get it and start playing with it. :D

[AcesandEights]

Hiking up Vesuvius (Summer 2012)
This was a fun, but oh so brutally hot, wet day (over 100 degress Farenheit!). We hit both Vesuvius in the morning and the oven that is Pompeii in the afternoon. It was a shame, as the haziness really detracted from my ability to get clear scenic shots and panoramics.

So this is not that photographically impressive an entry in the annals of my 2012 Italian trip, but I wanted to include them for the sake of continuity.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7122/7593780706_5e0da34f92.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593780706/)
The Group Chugs up Vesuvius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593780706/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7131/7593782146_15651ec204.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593782146/)
Overlook from the side of Vesuvius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593782146/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8146/7593779122_27ede93b66.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593779122/)
Pretty (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593779122/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7140/7593771172_abb5559f41.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593771172/)
Napoli from Vesuvius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593771172/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8163/7593768462_ec1c72692e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593768462/)
La Santa Madre ci protegga. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593768462/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7120/7593763428_c0ddf6a592.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593763428/)
Ciao! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593763428/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

[LouCipherr]

Nice pics, Aces! :thumbsup:


So this is not that photographically impressive

No idea what you're talking about - several of those are photographically impressive. "Napoli from Vesuvius" and "Pretty" for example. ;)

[Core]

Lol , at first i read the title as Extremely Amateur Pornography zuzuzzuzuuzuzu

[Neil]

Not a very good (old) photo, but interesting from what can be seen in the reflection in my daughter's eye... me and our picnic. The detail is quite amazing really! You can even see carrot in a Tupperware box!

Click to enbiggen!
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/21/dsc0355r.jpg (http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5997/dsc0355r.jpg)

[LouCipherr]

Lol , at first i read the title as Extremely Amateur Pornography zuzuzzuzuuzuzu

:lol: Strike one!

I was waiting for someone to mis-read the title of this thread. It was bound to happen. :D


Not a very good (old) photo, but interesting from what can be seen in the reflection in my daughter's eye... me and our picnic. The detail is quite amazing really! You can even see carrot in a Tupperware box!

That's a cool photo, Neil! Love the reflection aspect. I take it that was accidental and not intentional?

Either way, :thumbsup:

[AcesandEights]

That's a beaut of a pic, Neil! I seem to recall it from a post a few years ago (IIRC), a very unforgettable style of imagery.

[Neil]

That's a cool photo, Neil! Love the reflection aspect. I take it that was accidental and not intentional?

Either way, :thumbsup:

Certainly wasn't intending the reflection. The lighting wasn't very good so I was nearly going to bin it, until I realised how much was captured in that eye!

[LouCipherr]

Well, it just goes to show, sometimes photos we think are going to be "meh" turn out to be gems in disguise. In fact, just about every photo I take feels "meh" and it isn't until much later when I pull the pictures off my camera I think, "well, that one isn't too bad.." :D

[AcesandEights]

Trip to the Ruins of Pompeii


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7593946360_0f505a19ca.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593946360/)
Ave! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593946360/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7115/7593939102_b7407f0f21.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593939102/)
Pink Oleander Above Exterior Walls of Pompei (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593939102/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7134/7594014410_85df15de11.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594014410/)
Arch detail viewable from outside Pompei (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594014410/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8429/7593940522_3d0aa694eb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593940522/)
225 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593940522/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8151/7593956610_cafbf2bd0b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593956610/)
Wall Detail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593956610/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8286/7593954694_8526f2e25f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593954694/)
Ceiling Detail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593954694/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8284/7593958930_72e09ab321.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593958930/)
Rich Wall Detail (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593958930/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7119/7593966946_004581fd8c.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593966946/)
Lonely Alleyway (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593966946/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7593965706_a10a2e1218.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593965706/)
Pompeiian Avenue (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593965706/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8433/7593975316_589a53d07e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593975316/)
Phallus Street Sign on Cobbles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593975316/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8433/7593977192_85f9ffa263.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593977192/)
Brothel Fresco (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593977192/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8001/7593969664_be26e66375.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593969664/)
Face detail over a well (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593969664/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8165/7593976310_3270cba993.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593976310/)
Streeview of Vesuvius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593976310/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7269/7593981458_474e8c5b95.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593981458/)
Pompeiian Vista (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593981458/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8291/7593985488_10f1b3647a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593985488/)
Remnants of Colannade & Entablature (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593985488/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8284/7593985994_2755a68e1e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593985994/)
B&W Pompeii & Vesuvius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593985994/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8143/7593990918_b242a621cb.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593990918/)
(H)Ave! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593990918/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr
1st Century AD welcome mat at the House of the Faun in Pompeii.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7257/7593995940_9ceaba7fe8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593995940/)
[candid]Ann pauses to smell the...Oleander (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593995940/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8431/7594001082_f5b6e09787.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594001082/)
Gardens and Columns at House of the Faun (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594001082/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/7593999028_f2980dfa92.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593999028/)
The Man (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7593999028/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8287/7594000198_4bbb406395.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594000198/)
Darius (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594000198/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8008/7594003886_1835e44e21.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594003886/)
Statuary stored on site under lock and key (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594003886/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8421/7594002886_880761a73b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594002886/)
332 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/15385219@N08/7594002886/) by DNA Cowboy (http://www.flickr.com/people/15385219@N08/), on Flickr

[LouCipherr]

Right on, Aces. :thumbsup:

Not sure why, but the loneley alleyway really jumps out at my eyes.

[Core]

Well i dont have a habbit to take random photos.But i have some photos of me while i was serving in the Turkish military.

These two were taken while i was serving in the 56. Support HQ in Konya.My last serving place.
1140
1141
This one was taken in arabian country.Dont ask where and what is going on haha.But they arent terrorists ;)
1142
Oh i found one random photo that i took while i was a trip on south of Turkey.
This is an ottoman coast fortress.Bodrum Castle.
1143

[krakenslayer]

Great shots Aces!! And Core too, I always find it interesting getting a glimpse into the lives of people who do dangerous or interesting things for a living: that third pic is awesome! :)

Here's a few I snapped while out for a stroll around Glasgow this beautiful autumn afternoon/evening:

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/561799_10152238561655235_2055561768_n.jpg

http://sphotos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/615589_10152238559915235_1679291577_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/615715_10152238560660235_1320136371_n.jpg

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/197620_10152238562225235_998597097_n.jpg

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/131326_10152238562635235_977618081_n.jpg

http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/334420_10152238563845235_1271401473_n.jpg

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/282302_10152238564630235_48771149_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/391696_10152238577645235_286652208_n.jpg

http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/486940_10152238566620235_424854502_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418082_10152238565130235_1796266683_n.jpg

EDIT: Looks like some of those were too wide for the forum, but I'm not sure what the BB Code is to set image size. Anyone know?

[Neil]

RE size, you can scroll across from the bottom of your post!

That sneaky squirrel is kick ass :)

[shootemindehead]

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/418082_10152238565130235_1796266683_n.jpg

That's Arkham City, not Glasgow.

;)

[LouCipherr]

Nice pics, everyone! Keep 'em coming.. :thumbsup:

I wanted to share this today as I'm pretty excited.

I have always wanted a few of my photos (y'know, the 1% that actually turn out really good! :lol:) on canvas. Problem is, I never knew where to get it done - and the few places I did find locally that I could get it done were expensive as all get out. Not worth the $ if you ask me.

Then, I found EasyCanvasPrints.com (http://www.easycanvasprints.com/) - and let me tell ya, they do great work. No, I'm not affiliated with them, I just think they do awesome work, so I don't mind promoting them for others who might have the same interest in getting some canvas prints.

The photo below, if you've been following this thread, is one of my North Carolina/Blue Ridge Mountains photos that I have already posted. It's always been one of my favorites, and I thought about how cool it would be to put it on canvas and put it on the wall of our vacation place in West Virginia. Well, I found easycanvasprints.com and ordered one, just to see the quality of their work and if it would be worthwhile to order more since their prices are reasonable.

Here's what I got in the mail yesterday - and while it's hard to tell the quality of the print from a camera phone shot of it, trust me, it really is good quality:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMAG0099Large.jpg

This is a 16x20 canvas print (3/4 inch thick, but it can also be ordered in 1.5" thickness if you really want that "Gallery" look - I didn't for reasons I'll explain later) I got and it cost me $44 USD. Not bad if you ask me. I actually got it 1/2 price because I found a coupon code online, just google 'easycanvasprints.com coupon code' and you'll find them everywhere (DO NOT PAY FULL PRICE for any of these, they can be had for a lot less w/the coupon codes!), and for me, it was totally worth it.

The reason I didn't get the 1.5" thickness is for convenience later down the road. One of my friends at work is an artist, and he was telling me that finding frames - if I ever decided to frame it - are much easier and a lot less expensive to find for the 3/4 inch thickness rather than the 1.5 inch. I guess because not many people frame a 1.5" thick canvas print.

They even sent me TWO $10 gift cards with my print! Bonus! If you subscribe to their email newsletter, you get terrific deals - in fact, my next print I'm going to order will be a 18x23 inch, and with the sale they have going on now, it'll cost $34.99 USD with FREE shipping. WOOT!

Their prices are reasonable (with coupon codes - go scour the internet, they're everywhere), their quality of work is fantastic, and there's nothing quite like having one of your favorite photos on canvas to hang on your wall. ;)

I will be ordering more from them soon and will post pics as I get them.

[AcesandEights]

Here's what I got in the mail yesterday - and while it's hard to tell the quality of the print from a camera phone shot of it, trust me, it really is good quality:

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMAG0099Large.jpg

Pretty goddamn cool, Lou! Reasonable prices to boot! I may look into something like that down the line.

[LouCipherr]

Pretty goddamn cool, Lou! Reasonable prices to boot! I may look into something like that down the line.

I just had the black & white pic of my late border collie Cirrus (I think I've posted it already in this thread) put on a 18"x23" canvas by the same people. It turned out even more stellar than the first one of the North Carolina mountains!

If you decide to get one Aces, make sure you google for online coupon codes. There's lots of them out there, and you can reduce the price of each canvas up to 40%.

As I said before, the company sent me a few $10/off gift cards too, so if anyone is interested in saving $10 on their next canvas print, hit me up. I can help a brother out. ;)

[krakenslayer]

Great shots, guys! :)

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4543/61609510152292500650235.jpg

^ Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland, North-East Englandshire. The "dice" in the foreground are coastal defenses to stop the tides from eroding the dunes, upon which some local character has painted dots. (I might have gone a little bit overboard in lightening the shaded areas in Lightroom).

http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1640/62130310152292500255235.jpg

^ Looking out to sea from the same beach. I like the symmetry in this shot.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/163/70457310152366143355235.jpg

^ Sometimes you see pretty shots in the least likely places. Like the gutter. I wish I'd used a higher (narrower) f-stop to get the details of the road at the same sharpness as the steeple, but otherwise I like this shot. (CTRL and roll down on your mousewheel to zoom out a bit and see the whole thing at once if you have to scroll to see it all)

[aaron2]

some really amazing pictures! Really like the on of cattails ! And tracy you have some great talent of photography as all your shots are well appreciable

[MinionZombie]

Some beautiful shots there kraken. I love the black & white shot - a gorgeous looking shot with just lovely composition. :thumbsup:

[LouCipherr]

kraken - awesome shots! Love all of them, but that reflection in the water pic is some really interesting composition. :thumbsup:

[Tricky]

I went for a wander round York city walls again today and snapped this one of the minster. I took it with my phone and used one of the effects filters to make it look a bit moody.

1188

[Neil]

http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/4543/61609510152292500650235.jpg
^ Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland, North-East Englandshire. The "dice" in the foreground are coastal defenses to stop the tides from eroding the dunes, upon which some local character has painted dots. (I might have gone a little bit overboard in lightening the shaded areas in Lightroom).Love the contrast in textures and colours etc!


http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/1640/62130310152292500255235.jpg
^ Looking out to sea from the same beach. I like the symmetry in this shot.
You know I'm tempted to put my hand over the left third of the image to block the headland, leaving just the people, the sea and the beach?

[krakenslayer]

You know I'm tempted to put my hand over the left third of the image to block the headland, leaving just the people, the sea and the beach?

I see what you mean. It would make the difference between a "classical" landscape and a more striking minimalist image. It's cool to think about the difference such changes make - focuses the mind on the importance of framing, and the concept that, with modern computer editing techniques, one photograph can have a hundred possible images come out of it. Bear in mind that pic is already a crop from a bigger picture too.


I went for a wander round York city walls again today and snapped this one of the minster. I took it with my phone and used one of the effects filters to make it look a bit moody.


York is a stunning town. I was there a few years back, before I was interested in photography, but man I'd love to go back with my camera and a wide angle lens. I like that pic. Really reminds me of being there, looking over the city on a moody, overcast day. The contrast makes it vaguely threatening. Shows you don't need a £1000 camera setup to take evocative pics.

[babomb]

You know I'm tempted to put my hand over the left third of the image to block the headland, leaving just the people, the sea and the beach? If the image was mirrored it wouldn't be like that. Composition should have the darker parts to the left. But the eye gravitates to the right in that image because of the people, and your mind wants to ignore the left part of the image. It's definitely a great image though! Is it a panoramic? I don't see any of the tell tale signs of a panoramic. So if it is, great job stitching it.

[krakenslayer]

If the image was mirrored it wouldn't be like that. Composition should have the darker parts to the left. But the eye gravitates to the right in that image because of the people, and your mind wants to ignore the left part of the image. It's definitely a great image though! Is it a panoramic? I don't see any of the tell tale signs of a panoramic. So if it is, great job stitching it.

Thanks, man. :) Nah, it's not panoramic; it was taken from far, far away and I just cropped out the top and bottom thirds of the image.

[LouCipherr]

*sits back with a smile and stares in awe at the posted photos*

We have some damn good photographers here. I haven't pulled out my camera for quite a while (it's been nasty and cold around here, not to mention I've been very busy at home), but hopefully soon I can start flooding us with more eye candy.

'till then, please keep posting your photos. I, as well as everyone else, are thoroughly enjoying 'em.


Kraken - I keep staring at that B&W beach photo - that is awesome. :thumbsup: :D

[LouCipherr]

Here's one I took in West Virginia this weekend. Not really 'special' in any way, but this one's post-processing turned out some interesting results...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/houseamppond_zpse858e0ef.jpg

[MinionZombie]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pondbarnMedium_zps4ee67d90.jpg

Coming in 2013 - "The House By The Pond That Dripped Blood In The Snow!" :D

[LouCipherr]

Coming in 2013 - "The House By The Pond That Dripped Blood In The Snow!" :D

It does look like something out of a weird horror movie, doesn't it? :lol:

[DjfunkmasterG]

*sits back with a smile and stares in awe at the posted photos*

We have some damn good photographers here. I haven't pulled out my camera for quite a while (it's been nasty and cold around here, not to mention I've been very busy at home), but hopefully soon I can start flooding us with more eye candy.

'till then, please keep posting your photos. I, as well as everyone else, are thoroughly enjoying 'em.

I am setting up a Mustang Photo shoot in Philly if you want to put your Camara to good use


Kraken - I keep staring at that B&W beach photo - that is awesome. :thumbsup: :D

I am setting up a Mustang Photo shoot in Philly if you want to put your Camara to good use

[LouCipherr]

I am setting up a Mustang Photo shoot in Philly if you want to put your Camara to good use

I will, if you bring it to Maryland. :lol: :p

[LouCipherr]

Took this one a few days ago in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Interestingly enough, the sun hadn't set yet and there was the moon, perched high up in the sky...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/palmtreemoonLarge_zps128f8875.jpg

[AcesandEights]

Took this one a few days ago in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Interestingly enough, the sun hadn't set yet and there was the moon, perched high up in the sky...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/My%20Photography/palmtreemoonLarge_zps128f8875.jpg

Beach...Palm tree...you have no clue how pissed I am at you right now! ;)

By the way, nice homage to the state flag (my fav state flag of all 50)!

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b205/DougOBrien/nunst066_zpsfb969668.gif

[LouCipherr]

Beach...Palm tree...you have no clue how pissed I am at you right now! ;)

*snicker*

We went there this past Saturday and stayed 'till Tuesday afternoon. A 7.5 hour drive from where we're at, but it was so worth it.

Here, I'll make you feel better Aces - it was cold and windy most of the time we were there.. :D


By the way, nice homage to the state flag (my fav state flag of all 50)!

Y'know what's really funny about that? I had NO IDEA at the time of taking the picture that the SC flag had essentially the same things in it. I had never been to SC before, and when I saw this particular setting on the beach (the is moon up? while the sun was still out? wtf?!) I just had to capture it. It was my wife (who has been to SC several times, Myrtle Beach in particular) who said "Hey, if only that was a crescent moon, you would've captured the state flag in that pic!" She then pointed out to me all these stickers and shirts with basically the same thing on it. How weird is that?

[AcesandEights]

Here, I'll make you feel better Aces - it was cold and windy most of the time we were there.. :D

Oh, I know...my wife was visiting her parents there a few weeks back and had the same issue and is down there now again (because the in-law's dog died and they are in mourning :rolleyes:). Oh well, it'll be nice weather soon enough, I suppose.




Y'know what's really funny about that? I had NO IDEA at the time of taking the picture that the SC flag had essentially the same things in it. I had never been to SC before, and when I saw this particular setting on the beach (the is moon up? while the sun was still out? wtf?!) I just had to capture it. It was my wife (who has been to SC several times, Myrtle Beach in particular) who said "Hey, if only that was a crescent moon, you would've captured the state flag in that pic!" She then pointed out to me all these stickers and shirts with basically the same thing on it. How weird is that?

You're right, that is weird. Maybe you were subconsciously picking up on the recurrent palmetto and moon imagery...or maybe you were just wishing the weather had been warm enough on the beach to see some coconuts and full moons of a different sort. *shrug*

[Neil]

Took this one a few days ago in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Interestingly enough, the sun hadn't set yet and there was the moon, perched high up in the sky...

Always interesting how small the moon really is... Just our brains make us think it's bigger - Like some other things :)

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, why is it that sometimes you see the moon during the day? Sometimes I've woken up on a really blue sky sunny day and sat right there in the sky is still the moon ... and that's at like 10 or 11 in the morning. :confused:

[Neil]

Yeah, why is it that sometimes you see the moon during the day? Sometimes I've woken up on a really blue sky sunny day and sat right there in the sky is still the moon ... and that's at like 10 or 11 in the morning. :confused:

You get because you're on a Truman Show and they forget to turn the moon off sometimes!

[Mike70]

(the is moon up? while the sun was still out? wtf?!) I just had to capture it.

the moon is out during the day quite a bit, lou. it is just hard to see it other than morning/eve. ol' Luna is rotating around the earth, so there is only one day a month where it is directly on the opposite side of the earth as the sun.

the moon also rises and sets. that doesn't always happen according to rise and setting of the sun.

[LouCipherr]

You're right, that is weird. Maybe you were subconsciously picking up on the recurrent palmetto and moon imagery...or maybe you were just wishing the weather had been warm enough on the beach to see some coconuts and full moons of a different sort. *shrug*

Quite possible, although knowing me like I do, the second part of your thought there is probably more accurate. :lol:



You get because you're on a Truman Show and they forget to turn the moon off sometimes!

Shhhhhh!!! Don't tell MZ he's part of the show! We've kept that hidden from him for decades! :shifty:



the moon is out during the day quite a bit, lou. it is just hard to see it other than morning/eve. ol' Luna is rotating around the earth, so there is only one day a month where it is directly on the opposite side of the earth as the sun.

the moon also rises and sets. that doesn't always happen according to rise and setting of the sun.

That's pretty wild. I've seen the moon in the sky before sunset before, I just rarely notice it. I've never seen that happen while I was at the beach though, so I had to capture it while I could. Aces might be right - might've been some subliminal suggestion going on, because once the wifey pointed out the SC flag w/the moon and palm in it (this was after I took the pic) I started noticing it everywhere. I had probably seen it prior to the picture and my brain put two and two together. I guess I should be happy my brain still functions in that kind of capacity.. :lol:

Oh, and for the photography techies out there, that was taken with a Droid Incredible 2 phone. I took the pic, dropped it into Photomatix and created a single-shot HDR pic. Normally, I do HDR's with multiple shots and multiple exposures, but my phone doesn't do that kinda thing. ;)

[Mike70]

Aces might be right - might've been some subliminal suggestion going on, because once the wifey pointed out the SC flag w/the moon and palm in it (this was after I took the pic) I started noticing it everywhere. I had probably seen it prior to the picture and my brain put two and two together. I guess I should be happy my brain still functions in that kind of capacity.. :lol:


psychology rears its head again. this kind of thing happens to you more often than you realize.

i'm no longer welcome in SC after (this is rich considering how much i love forests/trees/growing things) 2 friends and I accidentally set a state park on fire with the stub and i mean STUB of a joint in 1990. not a good day in my life. easily the closest i've ever come to going to jail. i was told to get the hell out of SC and never to come back.

i don't have good luck south of the Ohio anymore, so i rarely venture into the south. I'm a northern guy anyway through and through, although i sound like a southerner. i'm more likely to go to Minn, NY (the Adirondacks almost make me believe in a deity. easily the most beautiful place in the world), ME rather than SC or FLA.

[AcesandEights]

i'm no longer welcome in SC after (this is rich considering how much i love forests/trees/growing things) 2 friends and I accidentally set a state park on fire with the stub and i mean STUB of a joint in 1990. not a good day in my life. easily the closest i've ever come to going to jail. i was told to get the hell out of SC and never to come back.

Ah, I remember you mentioning something along these lines before.

Damned reefer addicts! :lol:

[krakenslayer]

Love the Myrtle Beach palm shot!

Here's a few new ones I've snapped over the past couple of weeks. I've also be pissing around with editing tools quite a lot lately:


Grabbed this one at Loch Lomond using a telephoto lens I borrowed from work. I like this shot, even though it's not sharp on the figures. I like the sense of a layered landscape and how the figures break the frame into thirds.
http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/martinryates/Facebook/Loch%20Lomond%2010032013/884432_10152683748950235_338379842_o.jpg?t=1364516 002

I'm not usually one for applying chintzy vintage presets to my shots, but I was playing around with Lightroom and I thought this looked really nice. I wasn't a fan of the shot originally (too dark, clipped detail in the shadows), but this effect (Antique Light) seemed to give it an interesting organic atmosphere and draw attention to the shallow depth of field (with the branches in the background becoming blurred as they move away from the camera).
http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/martinryates/Facebook/Loch%20Lomond%2010032013/892425_10152683750170235_1599568550_o.jpg?t=136451 6010

A similar effect on this one (Creamtone). It had started snowing like Siberia at this point and visibility dropped to almost zero, as you can see. Makes the edge of the lake look like the backdrop in a theatre or something.
http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/martinryates/Facebook/Loch%20Lomond%2010032013/886389_10152683750405235_785132695_o.jpg?t=1364516 026

This was taken at Brighton during a period of similarly shitty weather. I painted out the saturation on everything but the coloured beach huts to make them pop. Not exactly original, but I'm happy with it.
http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/martinryates/Facebook/Glorious%20Sunny%20Brighton/883736_10152710462965235_1128186729_o.jpg?t=136451 5983

The remains of Brighton West Pier:
http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii610/martinryates/Facebook/Glorious%20Sunny%20Brighton/891736_10152708557375235_474493727_o.jpg?t=1364515 980

[MinionZombie]

Wonderful pics there Kraken! I love 1, 3, and 5. :cool:

[LouCipherr]

i'm no longer welcome in SC after (this is rich considering how much i love forests/trees/growing things) 2 friends and I accidentally set a state park on fire with the stub and i mean STUB of a joint in 1990. not a good day in my life. easily the closest i've ever come to going to jail. i was told to get the hell out of SC and never to come back.

:lol:

Sorry Mike, that's not really funny, but considering how it happened, I can't help but giggle a little bit. I've never set a park on fire with the remnants of a joint, but I will admit I almost burned down the mountain my house is on in West Virginia by doing something really stupid. We had been burning leaves in a metal trashcan a week prior, and I figured there'd be nothing burning in the can a week later, right? So I emptied the stupid thing over our back fence - only to see a pillar of smoke rising from that area about 10 minutes later. Apparently, leaves in a trash can will burn up to 2 weeks given the right conditions! I knew better and knew I should've checked, but I didn't. Had I not noticed the smoke, I probably would've burned down the entire mountain along with my neighbors houses... :eek:

Talk about a stupid move! And I wasn't even smoking a joint at the time! :lol: :lol:

krakenslayer - FANTASTIC pictures, man! My favorites are 1, 2, & 5, but I love 'em all. #2 (the bird pic) makes my eyes very happy. You've got a great eye for shot composition my friend. :)

[Neil]

OK! While on holiday I took a few HDR shots so now need an application to join the three exposures togethor? Anyone able to recommend a simple (free) one?

[LouCipherr]

OK! While on holiday I took a few HDR shots so now need an application to join the three exposures togethor? Anyone able to recommend a simple (free) one?

Hmmm, a 'free' HDR merge program? I haven't tried any free versions, but I found this that might be of some help, Neil:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-high-dynamic-range-hdr-software.htm (http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-high-dynamic-range-hdr-software.htm)

It lists quite a few different free HDR programs and a small review/overview of each.

Myself, I use Photomatix - which runs $99 USD. It's a tad pricey, but it's also the best of the best out there. ;)

[Neil]

^^ Ta! "Picturenaut" looks interesting!


BTW there used to be Photomatix Light for just £28? But think it's gone now :( - http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/software/276526/hdrsoft-photomatix-light

[LouCipherr]

^^ Ta! "Picturenaut" looks interesting!


BTW there used to be Photomatix Light for just £28? But think it's gone now :( - http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/software/276526/hdrsoft-photomatix-light


Here's a list of all their software available:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html (http://www.hdrsoft.com/download.html)


I noticed they do have a "Photomatix Essentials" for $39USD (not sure how that breaks down into £'s). It doesn't have "all" the features the full suite has, but you might not use all of those features, either. Also note that every version of their software has a "free trial" for you to test the waters, so-to-speak.

Here's how the different versions compare to each other: http://www.hdrsoft.com/order/features_compare.html (http://www.hdrsoft.com/order/features_compare.html)

It looks like the Photomatix Essentials will do HDR tonemapping (which is all I do to my photos with Photomatix - the rest of the work, if any is needed, is done in photoshop), it just doesn't have all the other bells & whistles, like Lightroom importing and all that. It's a much cheaper option than the Pro version. ;)

[Neil]

Is there any rule of thumb as to the range of the bracketing used?

[LouCipherr]

Is there any rule of thumb as to the range of the bracketing used?


Sort of, yes. I will normally do a test shot with 3 bracketed photos of whatever my subject happens to be. I take the photos at -2, 0, +2 exposure values to start. The only time I will change this is if the lower exposure has zero detail in it (ie: it's a totally black photo) or the higher exposure is so high everything is blown out (ie: everything is white/yellow and you can't see anything in the photo). You need some details from each exposure, otherwise it won't help or do you any good while combining to do an HDR. If -2, 0, and 2 leave you with under/overexposed pics, try backing off to -1, 0, +1

Since my camera can only take 3 'bracketed' photos at a time, I almost always use -2, 0, +2 (two steps below normal exposure, normal, and two steps above normal).

That being said, the more bracketed photos you take, the more detail you'll have to work with.

If your camera is capable of doing, says, 5-7 photos at different exposure rates (ie: let's say you have 7 photos at -3, -2, -1, 0, +1, +2, +3) you'd have a LOT more detail to work with, and your HDR will be more versatile when you're tonemapping. The more information (pictures) you give Photomatix or any other HDR program, the more it has to work with and the more detail you can bring into or take out of when tonemapping, but I would still throw out any totally blown out photos (all white/yellow with zero detail) and any severely under-exposed pics (all black, zero details at all).

Does that help? :)

[Neil]

Sort of, yes. I will normally do a test shot with 3 bracketed photos of whatever my subject happens to be. I take the photos at -2, 0, +2 exposure values to start. The only time I will change this is if the lower exposure has zero detail in it (ie: it's a totally black photo) or the higher exposure is so high everything is blown out (ie: everything is white/yellow and you can't see anything in the photo). You need some details from each exposure, otherwise it won't help or do you any good while combining to do an HDR. If -2, 0, and 2 leave you with under/overexposed pics, try backing off to -1, 0, +1

Since my camera can only take 3 'bracketed' photos at a time, I almost always use -2, 0, +2 (two steps below normal exposure, normal, and two steps above normal).
That's good! Sounds about what I sort of muddled towards then by playing around :)

My D90 will only do 3 shots as standard too!

[LouCipherr]

My D90 will only do 3 shots as standard too!

Yeah, my Pentax is the same. I kinda wish it would do 5 or even 7 bracketed exposures, just so I could get a bit more 'information' into the final HDR, but three is certainly sufficient, as you've seen with some of my photos. Hell, with some HDR programs, Photomatix included, you can create an HDR from a single photo. It doesn't work as good as multiple exposures, but it does allow you to play around a bit and enhance that single photo.

Show off some of your HDR's when you start messing with it, Neil. I'm interested to see the results. :) Most people (me included) tend to go a bit crazy when we first start messing with HDR. It's easy to get carried away and make things a bit 'cartoonish' - you can even see some way-oversaturated colors is some of my pics in this thread, but keep messing with it. It's a difficult balance to strike sometimes, but worth it in the end. ;)

[krakenslayer]

That's good! Sounds about what I sort of muddled towards then by playing around :)

My D90 will only do 3 shots as standard too!

Yeah, Lou is right. Best thing to do is take a few test shots and get a feel for it. What you are looking for ideally is for the fastest exposure to have the brightest parts of the image perfectly exposed (e.g. blue, clear sky), and the slowest exposure to have the darkest areas of the scene properly exposed with plenty of clear detail in the shadows. You don't want to overdo either one too much, if the whole scene is white or the highlights are underexposed and dark (or vice versa), move the exposures closer together in terms of speed.

[LouCipherr]

Ok Neil, where's those HDR's? :lol:


Here's a few pics I dug up. Nothing special, but I figured I'd share as I haven't had time recently to take any new ones..

This is a photograph of the underside of the Natural Bridge in Virginia. I think I might've posted some pics of it earlier in this thread, but here is a shot standing directly underneath of it, looking straight up...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/NaturalBridgeUnderside-VirginiaLarge-1_zpse63bfe56.jpg



This is a panoramic of a lake in Greenbriar State Park in Maryland. I created this by taking 5 separate photos and stitching them together with Photoshop. The original file size is MASSIVE, so I've shrunk it waaaaay down for easier consumption here...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/LakeatGreebriarStatePark-panoramicCustom_zps97032c3f.jpg

No HDR tweaking on the panoramic, even though it could probably use a bit. :)

[Neil]

Ok Neil, where's those HDR's?
Oh, I literally just took some photos of any old thing just to get three exposures. Nothing worth showing. I also made the mistake of leaving the camera in JPG storage mode!

[LouCipherr]

Oh, I literally just took some photos of any old thing just to get three exposures. Nothing worth showing. I also made the mistake of leaving the camera in JPG storage mode!

:D

I wouldn't worry too much about shooting in JPG. Yes, RAW gives you more information to work with, but JPG's can and will come out just fine for HDR work. Several of the HDR pics I've posted were shot in JPG mode. ;)


A tip when doing HDR's - sometimes (but not always, it's always situation dependant), shooting a pic or a scene with lots of color will really make your HDR's "pop". If you look back in this thread to some of the pics I took in Atlantic City, the colors are just off the chart! There was so many, the enhancement by HDR really makes them stick out more so than usual. I always try and get a lot of color in my HDR pics - you just have to be careful that when you do the HDR, you don't way over-saturate the colors or it will look more like a comic book than a photo.

That being said, you can even HDR B&W photos too (HDR will enhance the details of shadows & light), but I've found the more color, the more pleasing to my eye, personally. ;)

B

[babomb]

If you use a tripod, you can take multiple groups of bracketed photos and use them all to create an HDR. Same goes with shooting while tethered to a computer. If your camera allows you to create presets, you can use bracket presets to easily switch between exposure bracket settings and get as many groups of 3 exposures as you want.
I'm not familiar with the different applications like Photomatix. I don't know if it somehow depends on bracket groups in serial or anything. But years back when lower end cameras didn't support bracketing, people took all the exposures used to merge into HDR in single exposures and combined them. Photoshop has no limits as to the grouping of bracketed shots or amount of exposures you can combine to make an HDR. Creating an HDR in photoshop isn't as automated as other apps, but you have alot more control over the entire process.

[LouCipherr]

...years back when lower end cameras didn't support bracketing, people took all the exposures used to merge into HDR in single exposures and combined them.

Yes, this is another way to do it if your camera doesn't support bracketing w/multiple exposures. I think most dSLR's nowadays do support this, but if it doesn't, this is the way to get it done. It takes a lot more patience, mind you. ;)



Photoshop has no limits as to the grouping of bracketed shots or amount of exposures you can combine to make an HDR. Creating an HDR in photoshop isn't as automated as other apps, but you have alot more control over the entire process.


Very true. I think most HDR programs are the same way (I know Photomatix can) - you could load 200 photos into it if you wanted to, although I'm sure that'd take a hell of a lot of time to process! :D But yes, Photoshop gives a ton more control over other programs.. it would just be nice if learning photoshop wasn't as difficult as learning how to build a nuclear bomb with a rubber band, paper clip and a pencil (where's MacGuyver when we need him?! :lol:).

If Photoshop had a bit more automation when it comes to HDR, I would probably use it. Actually, I will use Photoshop to "touch up" some of my HDR's when I finished with them. Many times, when I'm done with doing the HDR work in Photomatix, I will take that finished HDR and drop it into Photoshop. Then I will add a layer underneath the HDR with one of the multiple exposures I used earlier in Photomatix and will use the HDR photo as a 'mask' as to allow pulling in some of the non-HDR image into the HDR photo, if that makes sense. I do this because sometimes HDR'ing an image will 'blur' some of the image and I want to 'clean' it up a bit, or, there's something I really want to pull in from one of the bracketed photos into the final photo.

So many options! *brain on verge of exploding*

The problem I have with Photoshop is that it has SO many options it's hard for me to remember how to do the stuff I want to do in it everytime I load up the program. Sometimes I have to dig up a tutorial because I just can't remember how I did something 2 weeks ago in the stupid thing! :lol: I guess if I used it a lot more I would remember! lol

[LouCipherr]

Ok, a few additions to the collection.

This pic is extremely plain and really nothing to look at, but it was an exercise in depth of field (very narrow DOF) with a new 35mm prime lense, set "staging" and more HDR practice:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/YANKEECANDLELarge_zpse82567b2.jpg


This is pretty self-explanatory (taken in South Carolina):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMGP8077Large_zpsef20c289.jpg


Here's another photo taken in South Carolina a month or so ago. Just got around to messing with it in Photomatix. Did I over-do the HDR? You decide... :lol:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/SCBridgeLarge_zpsdd35c6f4.jpg

[Neil]

So with that first one, hand held? Or was the camera sitting on something?

With the last one, what's the 'ink blot' in the water to the far left?


Regarding HDR, I noticed on an IPhone yesterday an option to do HDR photos (automatically)!

[Morto Vivente]

With the last one, what's the 'ink blot' in the water to the far left?


Is it a duck of some sort leaving a trail in the water?

[Neil]

^^ Suspect it's the HDR processing gone awry.

[Morto Vivente]

^^ Suspect it's the HDR processing gone awry.

I think I'll be making a trip to the optometrist then. :lol:

[LouCipherr]

So with that first one, hand held? Or was the camera sitting on something?

That was the camera being rested on my knees while sitting on the couch across from it. Sort of "knee-held" instead of "hand-held". ;)


With the last one, what's the 'ink blot' in the water to the far left?

That is exactly what you called it - an anomaly that I didn't fix in the final photo....yet. :lol: I don't think it was introduced by the HDR, however, because there is a "dark spot" in one of my three exposures that isn't there on the other two. Not sure if it was a random shadow that was enhanced too much by the HDR or what, but I can't explain it either. :shifty: I will be using photoshop's "magic brush" tool and will remove it.

I threw these three up quickly (with no other work done than putting it in Photomatix, doing my thing, then saving and posting) so no other edits were made other than cropping the candle pic a tad. I will, however, go back and fix that.. "issue" - I just didn't think anyone would notice it! Oops. :lol:



***edited to add: Neil, my Pentax has a built-in HDR function, and while it does work, you pretty much get zero control over how the photos are combined. I have a few HDR apps on my Android phone, but I gave up using them. Just not enough control. ;)


***edited again to add: There. The healing brush in Photoshop applied and bam, new pic without weird anomaly. :)

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/SCBridge-fixedLarge_zpsf475574b.jpg

[Neil]

Unfortunately only had an iPhone... But I kind of liked the result:-

http://imageshack.us/a/img13/6623/coastera.jpg

Surprising amount of detail... Shame about the 'noise'. If only I'd had the DSLR :)

[LouCipherr]

Unfortunately only had an iPhone... But I kind of liked the result:-


Hey, i like that shot! It looks pretty cool! I have to ask, since I know when you HDR, you can pull every bit of the color out if you want, but, was that shot done in B&W originally? Or did you play with it to get it that way, Neil? It looks like there might be some color around the sun, but I'm not sure...?

Either way, :thumbsup: I likey.

[Neil]

^^ No, it's was a slightly overcast day, but the sun was just visable through through a layer of cloud... So all you got was pretty much B&W. I realised with the Sun in the background I'd end up with silhouettes, which is all I was after :)

All I did was crop it and up the contrast a tad...

But if you zoom it up, it's amazing what the little lens on the iPhone has captured... eg: Hair etc in the wind...

[LouCipherr]

Just playing around with the camera this weekend....

Fire pit!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/FirePitLarge_zps33642a05.jpg



...aaaand, mushrooms in the garden:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/MushroomsampPurpleFlowerLarge_zps3e639e34.jpg

[AcesandEights]

Fire pit!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/FirePitLarge_zps33642a05.jpg



Simple, but awesome!

[LouCipherr]

Simple, but awesome!

The HDR really makes the orange glow stand out, doesn't it? And it brings out some nice wood grain, too.

It was a cozy weekend in WV. :)

[DjfunkmasterG]

Just playing around with the camera this weekend....

Fire pit!
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/FirePitLarge_zps33642a05.jpg





...aaaand, mushrooms in the garden:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/MushroomsampPurpleFlowerLarge_zps3e639e34.jpg



You should marry that KX

[LouCipherr]

You should marry that KX

Well look who showed up late to the party.. :lol:

Dj, if I could marry my K-x, I would... Are you jealous of her or something? :p :D

[babomb]

Yes, this is another way to do it if your camera doesn't support bracketing w/multiple exposures. I think most dSLR's nowadays do support this, but if it doesn't, this is the way to get it done. It takes a lot more patience, mind you. ;)





Very true. I think most HDR programs are the same way (I know Photomatix can) - you could load 200 photos into it if you wanted to, although I'm sure that'd take a hell of a lot of time to process! :D But yes, Photoshop gives a ton more control over other programs.. it would just be nice if learning photoshop wasn't as difficult as learning how to build a nuclear bomb with a rubber band, paper clip and a pencil (where's MacGuyver when we need him?! :lol:).

If Photoshop had a bit more automation when it comes to HDR, I would probably use it. Actually, I will use Photoshop to "touch up" some of my HDR's when I finished with them. Many times, when I'm done with doing the HDR work in Photomatix, I will take that finished HDR and drop it into Photoshop. Then I will add a layer underneath the HDR with one of the multiple exposures I used earlier in Photomatix and will use the HDR photo as a 'mask' as to allow pulling in some of the non-HDR image into the HDR photo, if that makes sense. I do this because sometimes HDR'ing an image will 'blur' some of the image and I want to 'clean' it up a bit, or, there's something I really want to pull in from one of the bracketed photos into the final photo.

So many options! *brain on verge of exploding*

The problem I have with Photoshop is that it has SO many options it's hard for me to remember how to do the stuff I want to do in it everytime I load up the program. Sometimes I have to dig up a tutorial because I just can't remember how I did something 2 weeks ago in the stupid thing! :lol: I guess if I used it a lot more I would remember! lol Yeah, that seems to be the biggest obstacle with it. When you're faced with the interface and just looking at all the options it can seem daunting. Once you learn the basics though everything falls into place better. Newer versions, from CS3 and up I think, there's a drop down menu on the top right that has options -"photography"-"painting"-"typography" that when you choose one of them it changes the interface on the right side with tools that apply only to that workflow.
When you're looking at the interface it's important to note that like all design applications, the interface gives you multiple ways to do everything. So you can select a tool by clicking an icon from the toolbox, or with a keyboard shortcut, or from the menu at the top. Same goes for most all commands. The reason is because there's different screen modes. Once you know exactly how to use it you can go fullscreen and use only keyboard shortcuts, or full screen with menus. It speeds everything up. But for the basic screen mode(which is the most often used) for photography, you really just need to learn what the tools do, and how to use layers and masks.
Photoshop itself uses terminology taken from photography and traditional painting and airbrushing. So once you familiarize yourself with the terminology, alot of the options make much more sense and you know what those tools and commands do. Then you don't have to memorize specific steps to do what you want to do. Which then gives you more creative freedom to try new things or do things differently each time.
The way I learned it was by buying 2 books called "Adobe Photoshop 2.0 Classroom in a book" and "Photoshop 2 Wow Book". I have a buddy who's wife took a Photoshop class at the local community college and all they did in the class was go through the lessons contained in "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Classroom In A Book".
The best thing to know is that even though it seems daunting, once you figure it out you realize it isn't all that hard. It's a mental obstacle that's really a self created illusion.

[LouCipherr]

The way I learned it was by buying 2 books called "Adobe Photoshop 2.0 Classroom in a book" and "Photoshop 2 Wow Book". I have a buddy who's wife took a Photoshop class at the local community college and all they did in the class was go through the lessons contained in "Adobe Photoshop CS2 Classroom In A Book".

The best thing to know is that even though it seems daunting, once you figure it out you realize it isn't all that hard. It's a mental obstacle that's really a self created illusion.

Thanks for the recommendations, babaomb. I will have to check out those books and see what I can learn from 'em. I guess I'm just being lazy when it comes to learning this program. I end up using it for one or two things, then don't go back to it for so long I forget how I did those one or two things from a week or so ago. Then it's back to finding another tutorial online to re-learn it. :lol:

Maybe after a few years of cramming this stuff in my head I will retain.. ummm... some of it. :D

[krakenslayer]

Some snaps I've taken out and about over the past couple of weeks. The weather has been pretty abysmal lately, however...

YOU NEED TO SCROLL TO SEE THE PHOTOS FULLY.

Mullwharchar, near Glen Trool (was wet to the skin and frozen half to death, but the views were worth it)
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/922563_10152851304190235_1259847910_o.jpg

Boating on Loch Lomond last week. I was handholding a non-IS lens on a moving boat in choppy water for 1/4 second to get the motion blur; I am frankly astounded that even part of this shot is semi-sharp.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/479440_10152832029950235_1933711254_o.jpg

A crannog on Loch Lomond. These are tiny man-made islands way out in the middle of the loch. Built in prehistory, they once had little piers leading out to them and the idea was to make it almost impossible to for enemy tribes attack. Pretty incredible engineering for so-called "cave men".
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/466991_10152832030320235_1505511428_o.jpg

Parking up on Inchonnachan. Believe it or not, there's wallabies on this island. The woman who owned the place in the early 20th Century had a few as pets and when she died they went feral and their descendants continue to survive there in spite of the Scottish weather.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/905466_10152832032580235_1167161328_o.jpg

We found an abandoned ranger station on the island. I actually have a vague memory of feeding animals (including wallabies) here as a child, that only came back to me when I was standing in front of the place. I'm guessing it was on a school trip as a child, at a time when the building was still used by park rangers.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/921003_10152832031510235_2067454860_o.jpg

Inside the abandoned station. Pretty damn creepy. I think hobos have been sleeping here.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/914111_10152832031680235_876581098_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/464840_10152832031915235_1779030708_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/905371_10152832031815235_1657627642_o.jpg

There is also a disused sawmill nearby. No one lives on the island now.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/473445_10152832032120235_620613340_o.jpg

[LouCipherr]

Awesome pics, kraken! LOVE the pic of the front of the boat with the slight motion blur. :D

That's a pretty creepy ranger station there... *shudders*

[LouCipherr]

Cannons in a field, taken in Harper's Ferry National Park, West Virginia

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/HarpersFerryNationalParkCanons-newLarge_zpsd5d3d91a.jpg

[LouCipherr]

Was out in West Virginia this weekend and found this critter. No lie, this moth is called Eacles imperialis or, the "Imperial Moth" and it's wingspan was 7 inches! I kid you not! The stick he's sitting on is at least 3-4" wide, and you can see how far his wings hang over it.. creepy! I've never seen a moth this big in my entire life. WTF?!

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/moth2Large_zps9486dc64.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/moth1Large_zpsb07f3bc2.jpg

My apologies for the not-so-great photo quality, but I didn't have my dslr with me at the time and only had my crappy cell phone camera.


When I came into work today, this little bastard was sitting on the wall right next to the entrance to our building. This must be a stellar month/year for moths, 'cause in the 4 decades I've been on the planet, I've NEVER seen them this big. This red one is about 2/3 the size of the Imperial Moth above...

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMAG0266Large_zps9ed257eb.jpg

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/IMAG0264Large_zpsf8c5482c.jpg

It's invasion of the Moth people! aarrgghh!! :lol:

[MinionZombie]

Blimey! Those are some chunky-arse moths!

We've got pretty bog-standard moths over here, and wee tiny ones by comparison too!

[LouCipherr]

Blimey! Those are some chunky-arse moths!

We've got pretty bog-standard moths over here, and wee tiny ones by comparison too!


MZ, man, you have no idea - the bodies to these things are like 1 inch diameter tubes - their bodies are HUGE! It's really kinda freaky, 'cause I've never seen moths this big before, and now I see two similar sized huge ones within 3 days of each other! *shudders*

The second, brown & red one I think I've identified too: I believe it's 'Citheronia regalis' a/k/a the "Regal Moth" :D

[LouCipherr]

Went to Emerald Isle, North Carolina last week... here's a few pics I've processed. More to come...

A shot of the beach from Saturday night:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/beachoceansunsetLarge_zps8182c85f.jpg

The sunset from the Bogue Sound in NC:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/SunsetontheBogueSoundLarge_zpsd794c30d.jpg

A few shots from the North Carolina Aquarium:

Corn Snake:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/CornSnake-2Large_zps10a6c972.jpg

And one that really gave me the creeps, a North Carolina copperhead (very venomous):
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/copperhead-1Large_zps862bb2d8.jpg

[MinionZombie]

Nice pics - strong colour palette, and yet subtly employed. Good show! :cool:

[LouCipherr]

Nice pics - strong colour palette, and yet subtly employed. Good show! :cool:

Thanks man! That's one of THE toughest thing about HDR - not overdoing it! And I must admit, it's extremely easy to do, and I've fallen prey to it myself in the past many times.

Now, I try and keep the color palette as "realistic" as I can within reason (unless the pic screams for some unreasonable touches! :D), however, by "realistic" I mean, what I saw with my eye when the pic was taken. That's one of the things I just love about HDR. It allows you to capture more of what your eyes saw at the time of the photo, rather than just what the camera will grab for you in a single shot. A single shot never, ever has the detail you see at the moment of pressing that shutter button, due to how a camera works. Add in those multiple exposures though, and <bam> you've got detail you'd never see in a single shot.

Here's an example of what I mean. This is a shot of one of the sand dunes at sunset on the beach. This is one exposure of the three taken, and this one is the "normal" exposure - in other words, you put your camera on "auto" and take one photo, this is what it turns out like:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/IMGP8614Large_zps7e93a999.jpg



However, blend that single, normal-exposure photo together with two other photos that are over-exposed and under-exposed, this is the result:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/beachsunsetLarge_zps6dc78bac.jpg


It's a bit on the 'blue' side, but I did that intentionally because I liked the somber color tone. That being said, see the MASSIVE difference in detail between the two? The 2nd one is more what your eye would see, where the first one, while it's the 'scene' you saw, you certainly saw a lot more detail with your eye than what the camera could produce with a single shot. Notice the lack of details in the sky and on the dune?

This is why I love me some HDR. :D

[Tricky]

As I live in York now I've been taking plenty of photos, here's one I took on the banks of the Ouse while out for a run a few weeks ago

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/1168/3wrz.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/15/3wrz.jpg/)

[LouCipherr]

Nice, Tricky! Post more if you've got 'em! I'm sure being in NY you have lots of opportunities for photos. :D



Here's another I just processed while I should've been working (shhh! don't tell my boss).

Hammocks on Atlantic Beach:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/hammockLarge_zpsbee9a941.jpg


I took a similar photo (but at a different angle) of my son, swinging on one of the hammocks at night:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/hammocksatnightLarge_zpsca9cae18.jpg

[Tricky]

Nice, Tricky! Post more if you've got 'em! I'm sure being in NY you have lots of opportunities for photos. :D



Haha man this ain't NY, this is genuine Medieval York in the UK :D

Here's one I took of Cliffords Tower in the middle of the city last weekend, it is the remains of a Keep originally built during the Norman conquest, it has it's fair share of gruesome history

http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/243/y8a4.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/62/y8a4.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

And looking at the medieval city walls which still circle most of the city at it's original boundary

http://img842.imageshack.us/img842/450/z86j.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/842/z86j.jpg/)

http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/3977/elps.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/elps.jpg/)

[LouCipherr]

Haha man this ain't NY, this is genuine Medieval York in the UK :D

*scrolls up a bit and reads*

How the hell did I get "new york" out of "york"? WTF is wrong with me? :lol:

Apparently I stood in the sun WAY too long on the beach! Either that or watching "Sharnado" really warped my head.

Sorry about that, man... :o

- - - Updated - - -

Another one from the beach:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier1Large_zps09ffee83.jpg

[MinionZombie]

Hanging out under the boardwalk, eh Lou? I dig the colours of the wood against the blue and white of the sea ... again, nicely subtle. :thumbsup:

That shot reminds me of the time when I was at uni and we were doing a practical unit on Documentary filmmaking, and we had to do a piece on the theme of 'sense of place' ... so we went to the seaside nearby and at one point were yomping around under the pier (which, naturally, look similar to the photo up there) ... there was also an old building which at one point had a pier, but it was just portions of the steel struts sticking out of the sand left.

When we edited it together we took inspiration from Requiem For A Dream, as well as Lost Boys - and used music from the films. I put the short up on YouTube, but had to eventually change the music track because of YouTube's policies on music (is it just me, or do they seem more lenient with American uploaders on that subject?), which kinda spoils the effect of it, but well...

[LouCipherr]

Hanging out under the boardwalk, eh Lou? I dig the colours of the wood against the blue and white of the sea ... again, nicely subtle. :thumbsup:

Thanks, MZ. Interesting story, too. :D

Yeah, I like piers and boardwalks and all - it adds a bit more 'flavor' to the landscape around the ocean. I get a tad tired of staring at sand, sun, and water all day. That pier was about 2 blocks down from where we were staying, so I figured I'd head over there while taking pictures and see what came out of it.


Now, as an experiment... Which does your eye prefer, the first photo of the pier I posted or this one:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier2Large_zpsbb6d66f0.jpg

I personally like this 2nd one a tad bit more, but I'll be damned if I can explain why in words. :lol: It's really nothing more than a different angle on the thing, but it seems to make a lot of difference to my eyes.

[MinionZombie]

Now, as an experiment... Which does your eye prefer, the first photo of the pier I posted or this one:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier2Large_zpsbb6d66f0.jpg

Yeah, I like the 2nd one more than the 1st - I think it's because you get a better sense of scale and distance, as well as the overall framing of the picture (e.g. the railing on the pier terminates right in the top right corner at just the right point. There's a greater sense of size, depth, distance, scale, length - the whole lot - plus you can properly see through the pier legs, so you don't feel crowded in by the structure itself either. The colours are a little nicer too - a bit more vibrancy in the sky, and the sea looks a bit better too - there's a nicer split between the sea a little further out, and the white of the tide.

I think the 2nd makes the most sense to the eye in a 'formal composition' sense - everything looks how it should look, everything is placed and positioned as it should be, and it generally feels right.

I suppose the only way to make it any more 'formal', would be to have the end of the pier in the very centre of the frame.

:)

[LouCipherr]

Y'know what's weird? I agree with everything you said after reading it (even though I would've never thought of those aspects myself), but I planned literally none of that when I took the pic! :o :lol:

Seriously, I should be thinking more about composition (and I do a little bit), but when you mention, for example, the railing on the pier terminates right in the top right corner - I wasn't even thinking about that when I took it. Most of the time, I think about the rule of thirds first (although, rules are made to be broken, so that's just a 'starting point') - then I compose with that 'sort of' in the back of my mind and start snapping away. I have a general idea of what I want to capture, and I have a (very) general idea of how to get it - but it's usually not until I go home, dump the pics on my computer and start sorting through them that I find some shots are really good, but most suck. :lol: I'm usually not aware the 'good ones' are happening in the moment, it's always later when I review them and say "oh wow! That turned out way better than I expected!" In fact, I think most of the pics I've posted on here were like that!

Thanks for that analysis though - it's interesting how outside opinions can make you see clearly when sometimes, on your own, you just 'know' something is ok but you can't quite put your finger on why it's ok.


Just to give you an idea of good shots vs. bad shots: I probably snapped off a good 200 pictures on this vacation (remember, they're in groups of 3 shots per photo since I'm doing HDR) and to be honest, I think I probably had about 10 or so "keepers" and the rest were... not "throwaways" per se, but certainly not stuff I would show anyone else. :D

BTW: that 'gold' looking photo of the sunset on the water a few posts back? That photo was 100%, completely accidental. I had no idea it was going to turn out in that monochrome yellow/gold color like that. If fact, when I took it and looked at the preview on my camera, I thought "well, that didn't work" - it wasn't until later I looked at it on my computer and thought "hey, it DID work!" And one other tidbit: that's the only photo in these recent vacation pics that was not HDR. That was a single shot on "auto" setting on my K-x.

[MinionZombie]

Lou - while I've only got a straight forward point-and-click camera (well, it does have a few settings, but it fits in your pocket, so...) - I too just take a bunch of photos and see afterwards what good ones appear. Sometimes I'm just snap happy - like at a party, and I just go mad, but that's usually when you'll get a few really good 'just so' moments ... although, being party shots, most of them are a bit skew-wiff after a few Strongbows. ;)

With holiday snaps, again, just grabbing a bunch of shots and seeing what works after the fact as you say. Usually you don't have the time to, well, take your time, as you've got things to be moving on to, something to see, somewhere to be, or there's a bunch of bloody people all over the place, heh.

[LouCipherr]

Yeah MZ, I've realized it's best just to take multiple shots of everything you can and sort it all out later. You will find some nice shots within the 100-200 you took, and a few "wow!" shots, too.

Last few...


Another sunset/sand dune pic:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/grassatsunsetLarge_zpsd8b0d4ae.jpg


And finally, this is a shot of the courtyard directly behind the hotel we were staying at. It didn't turn out that good (a bit of light 'poisoning' in the sky, due to a really bright light on the hotel next door), but I figured screw it, you can't always bat 1000. In fact, I'm lucky if I bat a 50, much less 1000. :lol:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/waterfeatureLarge_zps6a31c1d3.jpg

That'll wrap up the Atlantic Beach photos. The ones that were worth showing, anyway. ;)

[Neil]

Thanks, MZ. Interesting story, too. :D

Yeah, I like piers and boardwalks and all - it adds a bit more 'flavor' to the landscape around the ocean. I get a tad tired of staring at sand, sun, and water all day. That pier was about 2 blocks down from where we were staying, so I figured I'd head over there while taking pictures and see what came out of it.


Now, as an experiment... Which does your eye prefer, the first photo of the pier I posted or this one:
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier2Large_zpsbb6d66f0.jpg

I personally like this 2nd one a tad bit more, but I'll be damned if I can explain why in words. :lol: It's really nothing more than a different angle on the thing, but it seems to make a lot of difference to my eyes.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier1Large_zps09ffee83.jpg
Shame there's not a combination of the two, the length of the second (ie: lots of the peer in shot), with it ending in the middle of the image like the first. If you understand what I mean?

[LouCipherr]

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/nook%20pics/pier1Large_zps09ffee83.jpg
Shame there's not a combination of the two, the length of the second (ie: lots of the peer in shot), with it ending in the middle of the image like the first. If you understand what I mean?


Yes, I know exactly what you mean - and I kinda wish I would've thought about that at the time.. d'oh!

[Cykotic]

A few of mine from one of my favorite places in London... the Southbank Skatepark

You may have to click on them. For some reason, my pictures uploaded on here as thumbnails...

1298
1299
1300

All taken with a Canon 7D and 18-55mm lenses.

[MinionZombie]

Nice pics Cykotic! :cool:

You should do photography for skating magazines/websites. :)

[Cykotic]

I have been offered a few paid gigs because of them lol

[AcesandEights]

All taken with a Canon 7D and 18-55mm lenses.

Nice action shots!

[Jeff Hillman]

I see this is an old thread, but it's interesting to track the changes in photography.
Photo editing software became more sophisticated and more expensive as a result. What I mean is Lightroom, and its alternatives like Luminar (https://macphun.com/luminar). Some tools, on the contrary, became free like Nik collection (https://www.google.com/nikcollection/).
What editors do you use now?