the photography thread.

[floop]

thanks guys.  evil kraken, yeah it's the Gehry disney concert hall in downtown la (like nice weather said).

matze - yeah, it does feel like cheating in some way, but hey, it takes some good photos.  i need to start bringing my real camera out with me more often.  the iphone thing is just so easy

[hasselbladical]

[////////////]

i made a photoblog to post my kodak moments.
kodak one timer wal-mart exclusive.
show me some love or hate.

http://naughtybynurture.tumblr.com/

[Grubby Mits]

[Matze]

hope you don't mind, but I thought this picture is too dark, the rest is pretty nice.

[Grubby Mits]

Yeah i agree, but it becomes pretty noisy when you make it any lighter. I might lighten it a touch tomorrow in photography. Found some crazy steep banks in the garage on the left, such a fun day.

[buzz]

this guys stuff is faaaackin niiiice

http://patrickrdriscoll.com/

[TheFreshSC]

i like you, Matze

[Hercules Rockefeller]

this guys stuff is faaaackin niiiice

http://patrickrdriscoll.com/

really nice, but i?d like to know how he gets that effect:



is that made using a tilt-shift-lens, postprocessing, some DOF-technique or what?

[Fongstarr.]

Expand Quote

this guys stuff is faaaackin niiiice

http://patrickrdriscoll.com/

[close]

really nice, but i?d like to know how he gets that effect:



is that made using a tilt-shift-lens, postprocessing, some DOF-technique or what?

I would almost assume it was photoshopped. No one buys tilt shift lenses cause it is so much cheaper to fake it in photoshop. The average one goes for 2 grand.

Even this Wes Kremer photo must have been post processed:



I could be wrong.

[buzz]

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[chuck d]

It would have to be capable of some extreme tilting in order to achieve a dof completely perpendicular to the sensor.
Maybe it is, I am not a fan of the effect so I have not experimented with a tilt shift lens, but I know how the standards work on a view camera, which those lenses attempt to emulate and that dof would not be possible by manipulating the lens standard on a view camera.  My guess is digital manipulation.

Patrick Driscoll is rad though.

[chuck d]

hope you don't mind, but I thought this picture is too dark, the rest is pretty nice.

I think if you're going to lighten the image, then you're going to want to increase the contrast so that it doesn't become too flat.

[Matze]

i like you, Matze

I like you too, sean.


my photoshop skills aren't very good, so there is only a bunch of things I can do with it.

[Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!]

The whole photoshop thing depresses me. I can't work with it for shit, so I'm always a bit bummed when I see photos from people who can make things look really neat with photoshop because I know I'll never be able to do it myself. So I'd like to be some sort of photography-nazi who is fully against "cheating" with evil photoshop, but my basic photography is not nearly good enough to make that work. I wouldn't be credible. And I have nothing against a little photoshop to begin with.
I've always been thinking that when/if I finish my journalism studies in a year or two, I'd try to go study photography for a few years in college as an extra degree. If that happens, I'll be able to work with photoshop and my complaining days will be over.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

I?m totally with you on that one, its frustrating sometimes to see the level of skateboarding photography nowadays. i can only spend waaay too little time on that awesome hobby, and as we all know, only practice actually helps you. i personally have decided that i only use Aperture for tweaking, its not that hard to learn the basics about that one, and i dont really want to manipulate my pictures too much anyway. most of the time.

[Fongstarr.]

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8, which is the cheaper tilt shift lens but still is like $1300. 


And photoshop is not that hard, especially with photography. You aren't suppose to use it that much anyways and if you do, it is just to adjust contrast, brightness, hue, etc. There are even plug-in you can download to achieve a holga look just by clicking on a button.

And if people are trying to just experiment with photoshop, there is a free online version that is pretty decent in adjusting your photos:

http://www.pixlr.com/editor/

When you open a photo, go into the adjustment tab at the top brightness, levels, hue, curve, etc. Those alone can help out with your photos and also just cropping photos as well.

[blankbutbranded]

Just playing with the contrast/brightness and some color balance is fine with me...I like raw pics and that's it.

I think you guys have all nice photos here it's insane...good lookin' out it make me want to do way more with my little Canon G10 and take more skateboarding pics but i'm limited i cant put lenses,fish and wide,well maybe a wide if i tape one bootlegg or whatnot.

here some of my pics :
http://grandpictault.blogspot.com/

[Matze]

The whole photoshop thing depresses me. I can't work with it for shit, so I'm always a bit bummed when I see photos from people who can make things look really neat with photoshop because I know I'll never be able to do it myself. So I'd like to be some sort of photography-nazi who is fully against "cheating" with evil photoshop, but my basic photography is not nearly good enough to make that work. I wouldn't be credible. And I have nothing against a little photoshop to begin with.
I've always been thinking that when/if I finish my journalism studies in a year or two, I'd try to go study photography for a few years in college as an extra degree. If that happens, I'll be able to work with photoshop and my complaining days will be over.

even me, who is only using film cameras, needs to work a little bit with photoshop. I can't afford making prints for every picture I take, so I scan my slides. the problem is that my scan program (I use silverfast, which is pretty good) has problems with getting the right colors for every film and I need to adjust this with photoshop afterwards. that's it.  

I?m totally with you on that one, its frustrating sometimes to see the level of skateboarding photography nowadays. i can only spend waaay too little time on that awesome hobby, and as we all know, only practice actually helps you. i personally have decided that i only use Aperture for tweaking, its not that hard to learn the basics about that one, and i dont really want to manipulate my pictures too much anyway. most of the time.

a shitty picture stays a shitty picture, no matter how hard you try with ps. if you cannot use your camera and lightning, you don't know shit about composition and your ideas suck then photoshop will not help you at all.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

what i was actually trying to say is, that its hard (for beginners) to get the picture the way you wanted it to out-of-cam, which is something that i am trying to do. and then you see guys, that are (possibly) not much better than you, getting those pictures because they know how to tweak them. i?m no fan of letting trees/people/penises appear and reappear in pictures in pp. well, maybe penises.

[chuck d]

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

Now I hate those lenses even more.

[tonysean]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

[close]

[close]

I would almost assume it was photoshopped. No one buys tilt shift lenses cause it is so much cheaper to fake it in photoshop. The average one goes for 2 grand.

Even this Wes Kremer photo must have been post processed:



I could be wrong.

Doesn't look like it he just used a really low f-stop. A f/1.8 50mm is only around $100.

[Fongstarr.]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

[close]

[close]

I would almost assume it was photoshopped. No one buys tilt shift lenses cause it is so much cheaper to fake it in photoshop. The average one goes for 2 grand.

Even this Wes Kremer photo must have been post processed:



I could be wrong.

[close]

Doesn't look like it he just used a really low f-stop. A f/1.8 50mm is only around $100.

Here is the data on that photo:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D3
Lens: 80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8
Image Date: 2010-04-26 01:37:26 -0700
Focal Length: 200.0mm (35mm equivalent: 200mm)
Aperture: f/3.5
Exposure Time: 0.0003 s (1/3200)
ISO equiv: 200
Exposure Bias: -0.67 EV
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Unknown
Flash Fired: No
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: Adobe RGB (1998)
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined



It was shot with this big fucker.

[Diego]

was curious how the 80-200 compared with the 70-200

I'm using a sigma 50-500

[buzz]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

[close]

Now I hate those lenses even more.

cause that guy uses em or what?

[chuck d]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

[close]

Now I hate those lenses even more.

[close]

cause that guy uses em or what?

No, not at all.  I know that guy, he's cool.  I just don't like that those lenses are capable of that amount of focus fucking.

[chuck d]

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

btw, which metadata plugin are you using?

[Hercules Rockefeller]

hey, quick question to the flash-nerds out there: i have got a pretty good opportunity on a SIGMA EF-530 DG SUPER flash, has anyone got any experiences with this one or any opinion on it concerning skateboard-photography?

quick replies would be really really appreciated.

[Derk the Jerk]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

[close]

btw, which metadata plugin are you using?

I would love to know that too!


I got back a ton of film from the Tajikistan trip. With this being one of the first scanned photos. Just a quick shot of my travel buddy pouring in some tea.

Are people still contributing to the Slap Pal Flickr Group?

http://www.flickr.com/groups/1490676@N22/

[Fongstarr.]

Expand Quote

Expand Quote

tilt shift lens. 99% sure.

[close]

Oh fuck...you are right. I have that Firefox plug-in that can get the properties of photos and it says it was shot with a Canon TS-E45mm f/2.8,

[close]

btw, which metadata plugin are you using?

Here you go:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3905/

Doesn't always work though. It has a lot of issues with Flicker and people who put copyright protection on their photos. Majority works though.