Author Topic: the photography thread. (Read 717502 times)

finknoos · « **Reply #1500 on:** January 31, 2011, 08:59:08 AM »

Quote from: hasselbladical on January 31, 2011, 08:14:04 AM

Bird focusing aside...

Bs 180 nosegrind revert.

i think photos of this trick always look good, its just such a mindfuck (for me anyway)

PAWL · « **Reply #1501 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:26:47 AM »

Quote from: Diego on January 27, 2011, 03:30:32 PM

My attitude was false, simply playing games.

Here are some photos of aircraft in flight:

Also, I dont think focusing the entire bird would be a good idea, then again, it might be

you have no sense of composition.

hasselbladical · « **Reply #1502 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:46:04 AM »

Thanks dudes!

Quote from: Grubby Mits on January 31, 2011, 08:23:45 AM

are these colours post processing or mainly from the actual shot if that makes sense? I always like the colours in your photos

It's a bit of both. I always have an idea in my head when I shoot something so I try to achieve that look either through whatever film I'm shooting, the lighting (natural or flash) or a bit of post processing. I don't really like to do too much post work because I start to feel like a douche haha. It's really easy to overdo it so you've gotta keep it fairly simple, in my opinion at least. Or you may end up with something looking like this and that's puke worthy.

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/18/hdr-6.jpg

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1503 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:53:57 AM »

hmmm, HDR?s are a tricky thing. i?ve seen some that i liked, but most of them are too ... "rendered". on the other hand, i kinda think that some technique like that basically had to come some time, with all those special effects and PP and whatnot.

finknoos · « **Reply #1504 on:** January 31, 2011, 09:58:46 AM »

Quote from: stlind on January 31, 2011, 09:53:57 AM

hmmm, HDR?s are a tricky thing. i?ve seen some that i liked, but most of them are too ... "rendered". on the other hand, i kinda think that some technique like that basically had to come some time, with all those special effects and PP and whatnot.

i played around with HDR once (as a test) and it was quite fun doing the "multiple exposure" method but i would never try to recreate that theme in PP, infact i wouldnt do anything in PP atall

hasselbladical · « **Reply #1505 on:** January 31, 2011, 10:21:51 AM »

I remember Atiba being really into that look for a long time (maybe he still is a bit) but as far as I can tell, he's toned it down.

Grubby Mits · « **Reply #1506 on:** January 31, 2011, 10:48:12 AM »

Quote from: hasselbladical on January 31, 2011, 09:46:04 AM

Thanks dudes!

Quote from: Grubby Mits on January 31, 2011, 08:23:45 AM
Expand Quote
are these colours post processing or mainly from the actual shot if that makes sense? I always like the colours in your photos
[close]

It's a bit of both. I always have an idea in my head when I shoot something so I try to achieve that look either through whatever film I'm shooting, the lighting (natural or flash) or a bit of post processing. I don't really like to do too much post work because I start to feel like a douche haha. It's really easy to overdo it so you've gotta keep it fairly simple, in my opinion at least. Or you may end up with something looking like this and that's puke worthy.

http://www.geekologie.com/2008/01/18/hdr-6.jpg

I definately agree with you, in my photography class (which is me and 7 girls), they all do like 80% atleast of their work in photoshop, be that drastically manipulating colours or every aspect of the image, to the point where i feel its no longer a photograph as such, but digital art that just stemmed from a photo, if that makes any sense at all. My teacher is always suggesting i could do things in photoshop rather than analog, light graffiti for example, because it would be easier and i could show development, but i feel like im cheating myself. The only thing i really do in photoshop on my photos is just minor changes to contrast, saturation etc to bring out the colours i've got analog, or just put shit black and white if its digital.

Rant aside, props on your work as a whole. Have you ever had it in a gallery or anything?

hasselbladical · « **Reply #1507 on:** January 31, 2011, 11:00:07 AM »

7 girls all with Canon Rebels taking mirror photos from high angles of themselves? I'm stoked you're taking the legit way of doing things. It's far too easy to just emulate something in photoshop instead of indulging in the analog process and having a ton of fun with that.

Thanks homie. I contribute a lot to a few of the Canadian mags like SBC, Color and Concrete. No gallery showings yet, although it would be amazing to print a bunch of stuff and have it all together in one room. I've been doing a lot of darkroom work lately and it's super fun. Gets messy when you're in there for 5 or 6 hours and you start to realize you're on the verge of being baked off of darkroom chemicals. Super lightheaded and dizzy. Either way, having a lot of fun with that and I'm stacking prints. Definitely have to do something with them all soon.

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1508 on:** January 31, 2011, 11:07:39 AM »

send them out to slap-pals. just wait until i?m in that exclusive club.

note on postprocessing: for the first 1/2 year or so i didnt do any pp at all, basically because i was busy learning what my camera can do and why. then, i started to use it a little, mostly the "auto"-features. nowadays, i?m trying to learn how to tweak pictures to look the way i want them if i?m unhappy with them. (and sometimes to kill time). i find myself overdoing that stuff sometimes, mostly because you get caught in that stuff because you keep trying things, and when you finally compare it to your initial picture, you are stunned/pissed off. i then often undo everything and go on with my life.
i hope that with ongoing practice, my use of PP will become less and less because i learn more about photography.

one can dream.

chuck d · « **Reply #1509 on:** January 31, 2011, 11:54:45 AM »

HDR is terrible.
Stephen Shore once said, "I find it interesting as a goal to be able to take pictures that are consciously casual."
So I used a copy stand and photographed some of Shore's photos from Uncommon Places. I made eleven exposures of each and then I HDR'd them.
Here's the cover photo.

Fongstarr. · « **Reply #1510 on:** January 31, 2011, 12:44:39 PM »

hasselbladical....so that last photo is a film pic? What was that shot with? Love the blue hue to it all. The lighting just pops out the skater even more so with the blueish, dark background. Porps dude.

idealhandmades · « **Reply #1511 on:** January 31, 2011, 12:48:21 PM »

Quote from: hasselbladical on January 31, 2011, 11:00:07 AM

7 girls all with Canon Rebels taking mirror photos from high angles of themselves? ...

this quote is as offensive and sexist as it is accurate.

actually, its barely a step down from the 2nd semester college freshman photography student that decides to be "edgy" for a project and takes self shot, poorly lit, dorm-room closet, with runny mascara nude portraits.

talking to an old professor of mine, she says it happens without fail (or ironicly, full of fail) every year shes worked at her school.
like in high school photography classes when everyone takes pictures of the family pet in the backyard. or pictures of their garages. or pictures from the local skatepark.

finknoos · « **Reply #1512 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:07:59 PM »

ive been wanting to do a course for ages but most of them were based too heavily on PP and only about %5 actual photography, and thats not what i wanna do. but i just found a course starting next month called "DSLR techniques" so that should help my photography a bit while staying away from PP

Grubby Mits · « **Reply #1513 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:12:36 PM »

Question time photo pals:

I've had a dslr for like a year but only in the last few months have i really got into photography. I have 3 lenses for my slr but only one for my Nikon D70, which i believe is an F mount. I have a plasticy 28-100mm i got when i first got it, but due to my previous lack of care/ theiving sister (who stole it for 3 months, no shit), there is definately dust under the lens or something. I was shooting portraits with a flash earlier and i had to remove like 30 prominent dust nuggets from each photo, but the outer glass is tip top, so thats what i'm guessing. Anyways, i'm looking to purcahse another lens for the D70, i shoot pretty much everything, but i'm not looking for a telephoto or anything, something compact. I also want it fairly cheap, i tend to look on ebay as jessops etc only sell lenses starting at good few hundreds of pounds and i cant dish that out right now. You dont have to link me to anything you can just suggest. Thanks

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1514 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:14:46 PM »

Quote from: finknoos on January 31, 2011, 02:07:59 PM

ive been wanting to do a course for ages but most of them were based too heavily on PP� and only about %5 actual photography, and thats not what i wanna do. but i just found a course starting next month called "DSLR techniques" so that should help my photography a bit while staying away from PP

"Welcome to our first course. At first, set your DSLR to "Auto". Then take a picture of yourself from above. Next Step: Open Photoshop."

Grubby Mits · « **Reply #1515 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:23:00 PM »

No kidding the girls in my class use auto mode. This one girl was writing about how her picture of a berry in her garden shows depth of field and the teacher was like, 'Well what did you use to get this effect... come on... starts with a...', to which she replied, 'auto? thats all i use lol'

finknoos · « **Reply #1516 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:28:18 PM »

Quote from: Grubby Mits on January 31, 2011, 02:23:00 PM

No kidding the girls in my class use auto mode. This one girl was writing about how her picture of a berry in her garden shows depth of field and the teacher was like, 'Well what did you use to get this effect... come on... starts with a...', to which she replied, 'auto? thats all i use lol'

so dont they even get taught what all the different settings do? how can they call that a photography class?

hasselbladical · « **Reply #1517 on:** January 31, 2011, 02:38:23 PM »

Quote from: sweatercuff on January 31, 2011, 12:48:21 PM

Quote from: hasselbladical on January 31, 2011, 11:00:07 AM
Expand Quote
7 girls all with Canon Rebels taking mirror photos from high angles of themselves? ...
[close]
this quote is as offensive and sexist as it is accurate.

actually, its barely a step down from the 2nd semester college freshman photography student that decides to be "edgy" for a project and takes self shot, poorly lit, dorm-room closet, with runny mascara nude portraits.

talking to an old professor of mine, she says it happens without fail (or ironicly, full of fail) every year shes worked at her school.
like in high school photography classes when everyone takes pictures of the family pet in the backyard. or pictures of their garages. or pictures from the local skatepark.

Hahaha. I hate to say it sometimes but it's true far too often. I get really hyped when I see girls shooting film and learning that way and putting actual effort into their photos.

Grubby Mits, check out the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D. You can get them for a really fair price and you'll be stoked on the results. The only reason I sold mine a while back was to buy a 50mm f/1.4 AIS.

Thanks Fongstarr! That one is digi. I shot one on my Hasselblad and was really hoping for that to come out but the film ended up getting botched. I shot that at a different color temperature than I usually would with flashes and it gave me a bit of a start to what I wanted with the photo. I'm trying to experiment more with graduated filters too, so I'm hoping that'll give some rad results while shooting skating.

finknoos · « **Reply #1518 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:12:34 AM »

Derk the Jerk · « **Reply #1519 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:25:47 AM »

As always a lot of fun and good stuff in this thread!

We got to go out and skate last weekend and shot this fs wallride.

finknoos · « **Reply #1520 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:30:00 AM »

quite an old one i just found on my computer

stefan · « **Reply #1521 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:41:51 AM »

Derk the Jerk got me a 64 asa film from Russia.
stoked on it

finknoos · « **Reply #1522 on:** February 01, 2011, 05:53:13 AM »

i have a question that maybe stlind will be able to help me with, im looking for an old pentax lens to take "retro looking" photos
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-M-50mm-f1.7-K-Lens-For-KM-KX-K1000-LX-MG-etc_W0QQitemZ180617632938QQcmdZViewItem?rvr_id=206169710363&rvr_id=206169710363&cguid=53c0f7f412b0a0e202740db4fec1f50b this on seems quite nice but i thought id get your advice first seeing as i remember you said you have some cheap older lenses in your arsenal

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1523 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:04:07 AM »

Quote from: finknoos on February 01, 2011, 05:53:13 AM

i have a question that maybe stlind will be able to help me with, im looking for an old pentax lens to take "retro looking" photos
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-M-50mm-f1.7-K-Lens-For-KM-KX-K1000-LX-MG-etc_W0QQitemZ180617632938QQcmdZViewItem?rvr_id=206169710363&rvr_id=206169710363&cguid=53c0f7f412b0a0e202740db4fec1f50b this on seems quite nice but i thought id get your advice first seeing as i remember you said you have some cheap older lenses in your arsenal

i have that lens as well, and i love it. its basically the reason why i?m gonna try to stick to fixed focal lenses. some examples in that set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stlind/sets/72157625106549375/

one thing though: its fully manual, which means that you will have to set aperture and focus by yourself, then let the camera measure (the +-button), then adjust shutter speed if you like.

its pretty sharp (sharper than my kit lens at least), and really compact/well built.

if i were you though, i would search for an A50/1.7, costs a little more but not much, and you can set the aperture on your camera, not the lens (if wanted).
both are great lenses and a great introduction into manual usage of your camera.

some more info can be found here:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

finknoos · « **Reply #1524 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:13:03 AM »

Quote from: stlind on February 01, 2011, 06:04:07 AM

Quote from: finknoos on February 01, 2011, 05:53:13 AM
Expand Quote
i have a question that maybe stlind will be able to help me with, im looking for an old pentax lens to take "retro looking" photos
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SMC-PENTAX-M-50mm-f1.7-K-Lens-For-KM-KX-K1000-LX-MG-etc_W0QQitemZ180617632938QQcmdZViewItem?rvr_id=206169710363&rvr_id=206169710363&cguid=53c0f7f412b0a0e202740db4fec1f50b this on seems quite nice but i thought id get your advice first seeing as i remember you said you have some cheap older lenses in your arsenal
[close]

i have that lens as well, and i love it. its basically the reason why i?m gonna try to stick to fixed focal lenses. some examples in that set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stlind/sets/72157625106549375/

one thing though: its fully manual, which means that you will have to set aperture and focus by yourself, then let the camera measure (the +-button), then adjust shutter speed if you like.

its pretty sharp (sharper than my kit lens at least), and really compact/well built.

if i were you though, i would search for an A50/1.7, costs a little more but not much, and you can set the aperture on your camera, not the lens (if wanted).
both are great lenses and a great introduction into manual usage of your camera.

some more info can be found here:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

is there any downside to this? i usually shoot im fully manual anyway so will it be any more difficult or just different?

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1525 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:16:52 AM »

no, its just harder to focus manually at f1.7. a lot harder haha.

also, slap a lens hood on that lens, it will improve contrast quite a bit.

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1526 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:19:57 AM »

one more thing: that price seems a bit too high for my taste, at that price you should get an A50/1.7. i got my M50/1.7 for 30?.

finknoos · « **Reply #1527 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:25:10 AM »

While were on the topic, do you know of any "vintage fisheyes" ?

Hercules Rockefeller · « **Reply #1528 on:** February 01, 2011, 06:31:46 AM »

THE vintage fisheye seems to be the Zenitar 16mm, but 16mm on APS-C isnt very fishy. 2 friends of mine have the Samyang 8mm fisheye on their aps-c cameras, and it seems really nice. Both are manual focus. The zenitar goes for around 160?, the samyang for about 250?. i still havent decided on one and since money is tight and i needed a walkaround lens, a fisheye will still have to wait.

so, it depends on what you want, moderate fisheye or more "extreme".

(another link to pentaxforums.com, but hey, that forum is awesome: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/33549-fisheye-fever-club-flaunt-your-fisheye-photos-48.html)

finknoos · « **Reply #1529 on:** February 01, 2011, 07:12:50 AM »

cheers man, youve been a massive help.

heres a couple of quick pics i just took on my lunch break