Extremely amateur photography

[Cykotic]

Thought I would contribute. Taken at this year's Bournemouth Air Festival with a Canon EOS 1100d IMG_1214.jpgIMG_1190.jpgIMG_1266.jpg 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: 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! ) 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.. 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. Thought I would contribute. Taken at this year's Bournemouth Air Festival with a Canon EOS 1100d IMG_1214.jpgIMG_1190.jpgIMG_1266.jpg 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.

[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- 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 My new Mustang Pic # 2 The engine of the new Mustang after a paint job Engine Paint job #2 Engine Paint Job #3

[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. ^This is St. Louis Canyon at Starved Rock state park in utica, IL.^ ^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. ^Done with a point and shoot.^ ^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- 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- 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.

[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.

[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)

[LouCipherr]

Cykotic - thanks for the info on those planes/helis. I'm a fan of anything that flies. 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! 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!" 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! 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! 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: 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: And here's a pic I took of my retarded (not really, but he acts like it sometimes) dog named "Chance" -

[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: 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" - 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. 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. 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! ) 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" 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. 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. 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! He can jump so high in the air I've taken to saying he's part Jack Russell and part Kangaroo! Here's another pic of Chance I call "Let Sleeping Dogs Lie": 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" Both of the pics above are single-shot pics, and no HDR was applied.