trying some new photography. (pics)

[Sliders562]

A+++++++++++++

[lucky7]

rofl, thanks guys.

no portfolio. i am contemplating signing up at a local C-college for their photo program. looks pretty cool. i absolutely hate school, but i think this could be fun...weird. fun + school = pipedream.

[kingyogi]

sweeeeet
got me a new background

[Helghast]

I can only dream of taking photos like these.

Good stuff, mate.

[exitspeed]

Originally Posted by Helghast

I can only dream of taking photos like these.

Good stuff, mate.

Just need a good camera and a good eye and some patience.

[lucky7]

a little know-how is also helpful. but that only gets better with time.


lol.

[S13SilviaGirl]

Originally Posted by lucky7

rofl, thanks guys.

no portfolio. i am contemplating signing up at a local C-college for their photo program. looks pretty cool. i absolutely hate school, but i think this could be fun...weird. fun + school = pipedream.

If you are planning on going into this as a profession, get one together. and use a good printing company. Seriously, you have a real talent and eye for this. If you go to school for something and it is an interest for you, then you tend to enjoy it more! True story. haha. Also if it is C-College, it shouldnt be too expensive. The books are what kill you in cc.

[KA-T_240]

Teach me the ways! ahahah
I just got a XTi someday I hope I can take pics like that.

[GSXRJJordan]

Your lens is hurting you just as much as the tripod, I would guess. It's true that Photoshop doesn't move pixels when it merges to HDR, so if your tripod shifts at all, you're going to get fuzzy HDR shots... but most of what I'm noticing is more aberrations toward the edges, which is a definite sign of cheap glass. That, and whenever you have a camera that doesn't do HDR bracketing (multiple shots at different exposure levels with one button press), you get tree movement/cloud movement/etc that really kills the "sharp" look of the HDR'd pic.

It sounds dumb, but for starting-out photographers that want to play with HDR, I suggest the Sony Alpha series. The $700 kit (A350) comes with a nice lens (18-70, aspherical ED glass), image stabilization in the body, a flip-out screen, and a 3-shot autobracket at up to +- 2ev. Still not as good as the 7-shot +-2ev backeting that the 1DS Mk3 does, but better than any other intro-level cam.

Keep em coming!

[Pank]

CS3 can "move pixels" as you put it. So does photomatix. They do it to prevent ghosting and shadowing. What abberations are you talking about? Also, pretty much every camera will do Exposure Bracketing (which you're calling HDR bracketing, for some reason)

Also, suggesting anything but a nikon or canon for beginners is ridiculous. The sony alphas have like 24 lenses that are compatible. Compare that to the TONS of compatible lenses that span the range of compatible canon/nikon lines. Plus nikon and canon sensors are generally higher quality.

The Sony Alpha series of DSLR's are good, but compared to their equally priced competitors, theres really no reason to choose them, unless you like sony products, or the (kind of strange) ergonomics of the Alpha series

[Bobafreak]

Wow you took christmas trees to the next level. It was balllllliiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnn

[theronin]

Originally Posted by HalveBlue

That first picture is totally bad ass.

It just screams, "Hey, I'm a fucking Christmas Tree. What are you gonna do about it?"

rofl sigged.

[lucky7]

Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan

Your lens is hurting you just as much as the tripod, I would guess. It's true that Photoshop doesn't move pixels when it merges to HDR, so if your tripod shifts at all, you're going to get fuzzy HDR shots... but most of what I'm noticing is more aberrations toward the edges, which is a definite sign of cheap glass. That, and whenever you have a camera that doesn't do HDR bracketing (multiple shots at different exposure levels with one button press), you get tree movement/cloud movement/etc that really kills the "sharp" look of the HDR'd pic.

these are pretty old. i dunno how it got bumped way up here. but the softness is from the distortion. shooting at 10mm will do that, reguardless of the glass. i now have a much beefier tripod, and a remote. i dont really have the same issue i had back then. thanks though.

oh, and you can shoot sony all you like. haha. im not touching 'em. autobracketing is for noobs that have no idea what they're doing. ive never used the function.

[Pank]

If i'm ever in a setting where the ground and the sky are only 2 stops away from each other during the day, i'll celebrate

[Str8 Rippin]

Originally Posted by lucky7

these are pretty old. i dunno how it got bumped way up here. but the softness is from the distortion. shooting at 10mm will do that, reguardless of the glass. i now have a much beefier tripod, and a remote. i dont really have the same issue i had back then. thanks though.

oh, and you can shoot sony all you like. haha. im not touching 'em. autobracketing is for noobs that have no idea what they're doing. ive never used the function.

x2 10mm distortion around the fringes is always blurry when a object is focused on far away.

[BBSilvia]

damn those are some amazing pics you better be posting more!
+1 for you!

[GSXRJJordan]

Thanks Pank I was blanking out on the autobracketing, that's what happens when you're posting while on the phone. Again, moving sky/trees/etc, autobracketing is a godsend. When I'm out with the 1DSmk3 you can get 7 shots, covering 14 stops, with one button, in just over a second. That's how some pros justify the $8k tab.

I know it sounds silly to recommend a camera other than Sony or Nikon for a beginner, but hear me out - if you want to keep your "beginner" body, Zeiss makes lenses that rival Canon's best (L-series) for similar price tags (over $1k/each). But no experienced photographer is going to stick with the same body they started with. That's why everyone you ever see shooting professionally has a Canon 1-series or equivalent. No one's shooting their fucking XTi with a smile on their face saying "gee I'm glad I got Canon 'cause I didn't have to switch bodies when I started doing this for a job!".

Same story with lenses - no "consumer" is going to shell out >$1k for L-series glass when they can get a ED IS lens @ the same focal length for half. You outgrow your beginner shit, and start buying big-boy stuff, that's how it goes.

Anyway, Sony's not bad. Yes I work for Sony, as a Regional Field Manager, and do trainings on this all the time. For the record, I own a 5D, but really enjoy the Alphas.

Oh, and ~10mm will not always give you distortion.

Canon 1DSmk3 with an L-series 17-40 f4 @ 17mm.


Nice, clean edges. Of course, that setup costs more $$$ than my car's worth.

[Pank]

I wasnt talking about sticking with the body they started with, but they can put their 7k telephoto L on their 1d/5d, then right back onto their XTI or 40d. You outgrow bodies, but not lenses

[lucky7]

post something that isnt all blown out, so i can see.

ill never own a 1d of any sort. its just way too much money. maybe a 40D or a 5D someday. but at this point in time, i'd much rather spend $1k on a lense than a new body. it only makes sense.

but i still say canon/nikon is the way to go. the market is flooded with lenses and bodies. there are 3 slightly used L lenses on craigslist in my area that are going for a great price. 2nd hand isnt a bad way to go if you're on a budget.

[stiizy]

Nice pix as always man

[GSXRJJordan]

Originally Posted by lucky7

but i still say canon/nikon is the way to go. the market is flooded with lenses and bodies. there are 3 slightly used L lenses on craigslist in my area that are going for a great price. 2nd hand isnt a bad way to go if you're on a budget.

Quoted for truth. Buying camera equipment second hand, and selling your current setup, is a very painless way to upgrade.

If you're willing to splurge for the best lenses/accessories, then sticking with the brand you'd like to "end up with" is definitely the way to go. Most people, however, don't - they buy some retail kit at Circuit City, and then a couple lenses at Best Buy, etc, and realize years later they have a bunch of mid-range crap.

Coolest thing about the 1DS-series - they have individual fine-tuning adjustments, stored in the camera, for up to 4 lenses. This means you can "dial in" your specific body to your specific lenses (I use a yardstick at a 30* angle attached to a pole and dial it in until the exact spot I focused on is the sharpest point in the photo) - this is the only camera that lets you do it without sending the body and lenses to the Canon factory. That, and the fact that it's fucking 21MP. That's nice too.

So I've got a bunch of test photos on my "photo editing" computer, but it's got a bad P/S, soon as I get it up I'll see if I have any other good macro shots for ya, maybe something with tile or something.

[Pank]

99.9999999999% of people will never use 21mp. 99.9999999999% of people really rarely ever utilize 6mp, if that

[wangan_cruiser]

dude those are great pics. i have interested taking random pics like that but i dnt have a good cam...LOL keep it up

[kdashy]

Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan

Coolest thing about the 1DS-series - they have individual fine-tuning adjustments, stored in the camera, for up to 4 lenses. This means you can "dial in" your specific body to your specific lenses (I use a yardstick at a 30* angle attached to a pole and dial it in until the exact spot I focused on is the sharpest point in the photo) - this is the only camera that lets you do it without sending the body and lenses to the Canon factory. That, and the fact that it's fucking 21MP. That's nice too.

The Pentax K20d can do focus adjustment too, for up to 20 lenses.

Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan

The $700 kit (A350) comes with a nice lens (18-70, aspherical ED glass),

Im not sure how you can call the sigma 10-20 "cheap glass" and then praise a lens known for bad chromatic aberrations, a plastic mount, tiny focusing ring with no distance markings and a rotating front element.

[Str8 Rippin]

Originally Posted by GSXRJJordan

Thanks Pank I was blanking out on the autobracketing, that's what happens when you're posting while on the phone. Again, moving sky/trees/etc, autobracketing is a godsend. When I'm out with the 1DSmk3 you can get 7 shots, covering 14 stops, with one button, in just over a second. That's how some pros justify the $8k tab.

I know it sounds silly to recommend a camera other than Sony or Nikon for a beginner, but hear me out - if you want to keep your "beginner" body, Zeiss makes lenses that rival Canon's best (L-series) for similar price tags (over $1k/each). But no experienced photographer is going to stick with the same body they started with. That's why everyone you ever see shooting professionally has a Canon 1-series or equivalent. No one's shooting their fucking XTi with a smile on their face saying "gee I'm glad I got Canon 'cause I didn't have to switch bodies when I started doing this for a job!".

Same story with lenses - no "consumer" is going to shell out >$1k for L-series glass when they can get a ED IS lens @ the same focal length for half. You outgrow your beginner shit, and start buying big-boy stuff, that's how it goes.

Anyway, Sony's not bad. Yes I work for Sony, as a Regional Field Manager, and do trainings on this all the time. For the record, I own a 5D, but really enjoy the Alphas.

Oh, and ~10mm will not always give you distortion.

Canon 1DSmk3 with an L-series 17-40 f4 @ 17mm.


Nice, clean edges. Of course, that setup costs more $$$ than my car's worth.

To be truthful from that image your edges did distort I'd like to see that one full res though

[Str8 Rippin]

Distortion has a lot to do with focal planes. Shooting on a full frame camera with a 17mm lens isn't the same as a crop sensor with a equivalent wide angle such as a 10mm lens. What dane(Lucky7) and I are talking about is an actual loss in sharpness. It takes a lot of precision in lens design to hold clarity through a 2:3 crop factor out to 10mm. That precision is lacking in the sigma 10-20mm that dane and I own. Don't get me wrong its a great lens but its not perfect.

[kdashy]

Originally Posted by Str8 Rippin

What dane(Lucky7) and I are talking about is an actual loss in sharpness. It takes a lot of precision in lens design to hold clarity through a 2:3 crop factor out to 10mm. That precision is lacking in the sigma 10-20mm that dane and I own. Don't get me wrong its a great lens but its not perfect.

There isn't much choice as far as ultra wide angle goes, unless you upgrade to full frame.

There's the Canon 10-22, but that costs 40% more than the Sigma for similar image quality and just one stop faster.

[Str8 Rippin]

Originally Posted by kdashy

There isn't much choice as far as ultra wide angle goes, unless you upgrade to full frame.

There's the Canon 10-22, but that costs 40% more than the Sigma for similar image quality and just one stop faster.

I agree 100% the price difference in the canon made it not worth it to me

[suaknee]

siiick photos bro

[lolatclint]

i like how the blue lights on that tree give off that blue mist fading out. A++ sexy pics.