The Photography Thread

[Valkrish]

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6799/dsc00003n.jpg

just would like an opinion, I have a few more, but its a low-tech camera

[Milton]

this is my idea of a great lens.

[Mayareira]

Nice one Valkrish, would be even better with a wide lens :D

[Kohan]

Spoiler: show

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6799/dsc00003n.jpg

just would like an opinion, I have a few more, but its a low-tech camera

It isn't a bad shot. My camera isn't top of the line either, so I invest additional time later into touching up the photos. Here's an example, using your own picture, Photoshop, and about twenty minutes of my time:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4357/...ntouchedup.jpg

Of course, more time invested and finer attention to detail produces better results.

[Falisa]

Updated thread title for you guys. Some really nice pictures in here.

[Eckoku]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3.../IMG_0123w.jpg

Tried an infrared camera

[Nystul]

I always wondered how people took such nice pictures. Pics that I take look like amateur pics. There is something different with the picture quality with professional pics. Is it the camera or can you take professional looking pictures with a normal run of the mill digital camera if you know how to fuck with the settings?

Anyway, I've managed to get lucky with a few pictures that came out kind of cool...nothing special but if you take enough pictures eventually you get a few that turn out interesting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...herrytrees.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/P1000457.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...n/P1000473.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...p/DSC00066.jpg

[-Zer0-]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...p/DSC00066.jpg

I like this one! It's an amazing perspective shot

Edit: Also, if you guys happen to run by any statues or casts, I'd really love to get some art practice on them if you guys don't mind. I'd appreciate it to every extent.

[Falisa]

Eckoku, that shot is really beautiful. Considering using that as a desktop background..

And Nystul, those shots are nice as well. I really like the last two.

[Nystul]

Thanks for the comments. The hallway is from Eastern State Penitentiary- easily one of the creepiest places you can go.

The tree I'm kind of proud of because it was shot while on horseback- lots of bouncing around lol. Shot in Maui about half way up the biggest crater.

[Zansho]

I always wondered how people took such nice pictures. Pics that I take look like amateur pics. There is something different with the picture quality with professional pics. Is it the camera or can you take professional looking pictures with a normal run of the mill digital camera if you know how to fuck with the settings?

Anyway, I've managed to get lucky with a few pictures that came out kind of cool...nothing special but if you take enough pictures eventually you get a few that turn out interesting

It's the photographer's skill that determines how well the photo will look. True, the better the equipment, the more likely you'll come out with "winners," but in reality, I could take someone's point and shoot and take a pretty good shot.

Think of it this way. You don't go to a cook and go, "DAMN, that food was wtf amazing! Your pans must have been totally awesome!"

It's the same for photographers. We do have nice equipment, but we understand what is good stuff and what isn't - and most of the time, we're being nice when people ask, "Wow, that camera must take really good pics!"

[Zansho]

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e3.../IMG_0123w.jpg

Tried an infrared camera

Infrared cameras are generally better at the early times of the day, around 1-2 in the afternoon when the sun is the strongest and you have a LOT of light. Tree leaves will turn white, grass will turn white, the sky will become more darker, and if you do it right, you can get it ALMOST completely black. It's really amazing. Shoot at F11-F16 for best results, however.

[Brien]

It isn't a bad shot. My camera isn't top of the line either, so I invest additional time later into touching up the photos. Here's an example, using your own picture, Photoshop, and about twenty minutes of my time:

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4357/...ntouchedup.jpg

Of course, more time invested and finer attention to detail produces better results.

most definitely background material now! (Where is this?)

[Nystul]

It's the photographer's skill that determines how well the photo will look. True, the better the equipment, the more likely you'll come out with "winners," but in reality, I could take someone's point and shoot and take a pretty good shot.

Think of it this way. You don't go to a cook and go, "DAMN, that food was wtf amazing! Your pans must have been totally awesome!"

It's the same for photographers. We do have nice equipment, but we understand what is good stuff and what isn't - and most of the time, we're being nice when people ask, "Wow, that camera must take really good pics!"

I guess I should say it differently- I understand that it takes a certain "eye" to get interesting shots. But taking that out of the equation, I'm talking about the actual look of the pictures- color etc. Pictures from my camera look like average joe pictures. Pictures taken by our wedding photographer- even the normal pictures taken with people posing- look different. Let me see if I can find some examples of what I'm getting at:

This is the page for the photographer that we used for our wedding. Guy takes pretty looking pictures, and while I'm sure some photoshop work has been done on them, they *look* nicer even untouched.

Ken Lopardo Photography

Now compare that with the normal snapshot picture you see...Do you get what I'm getting at? I have friends that are not professionals and just take pictures and they end up looking great. Do they have nicer cameras? Do you lose something with a normal digital run of the mill camera?

Like, what kind of difference is there between a normal snapshot camera and a DSLR in terms of picture quality?

[Glade98]

I picked up a Canon 40D just after the new year. I haven't had a chance to do much with it though, since I work too much. I'll try to post some up to keep things moving.

[miokomioko]

Equipment makes more of a difference than people want to admit. However, having an eye for composition/exposure while having shitty equipment is far better than having amazing gear and no artistic merit. I have seen quite a lot of this as my school drew a lot of spoiled dipshits from the Los Angeles/Orange County areas.

One of the biggest irks for me when it comes to anything lower than pro-sumer digital capture is the increase in digital noise and color fringe. I have been drilled and drilled for the past 3.5 years with brutally honest photographic critique and it's taking a lot of effort not to do so here, as I understand this is mostly hobby/amateur stuff being shared. The less "photoshopping" an image needs to be good, the better it will ultimately be. Digital post-production should be used to perfect an already outstanding image and not to salvage an otherwise mediocre/bad image as it becomes obvious when people give Photoshop more merit than it deserves. You can only pull so much color/detail out of an image where it didn't exist before it starts falling apart.

The color in the above image is heavily artifacted, filled with magenta digital noise, hinting that it was very underexposed and lightened up later on. An eye for photography doesn't really dictate great exposures, let me tell you... But having a proper light meter and CCD that can capture more information than a standard piece of shit 'point & shoot' will have prevented this.

Other than technical shortcomings in cheaper technology, there's the vast array of lens/aperture options that could make/break an image in the appropriate situations. Not being able to shoot at a large enough aperture to blow your foreground/background out of focus is a financial shortcoming. Not having a fast enough shutter speed to compensate for opening up your aperture as wide as you did is a financial shortcoming. Not having either one of these options to make an appropriate exposure in your given situation is a financial shortcoming.

[Blabj]

I love having friends with cameras, there're usually 2-3 cameras when we're at house parties or out locally, so I often get a chance to take some photos when absolutely wasted (when I do most of my best work - if I say so myself.)

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...05815_8887.jpg
http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...05833_5195.jpg
http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-...05836_6231.jpg

The best thing about it is not remembering taking any of the photos untill I see them the next day/a couple days later on someone's facebook albums.

[Zansho]

I'll agree with Mioko about the fact that equipment DOES make a difference. However, an experienced pro with decent equipment will ALWAYS outperform the clueless idiot with thousands and thousands of dollars in gear. Kinda like FFXI - a dude who knows how to get the most out of his job will generally outdo and outperform the account buyer who paid 10k for a WTFBBQ Account with all the leet shit in the game.

That being said, professionals still use the best equipment they can possibly afford and use - the appropriate tool for that job. Some jobs call for specialized equipment like tilt-shift lenses or fish eye lenses or perhaps macro bellows extensions and what have you. I'm a portrait and commercial photographer, and I personally have this equipment for use for my jobs -

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Canon EOS 1D Mark II
Canon 85mm 1.2
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS Lens

And a set of Profoto studio lights along with a couple of Norman 200b's for portability.

While the camera equipment above is important - light is even more important. The quality of light that you have will ALWAYS dictate what kind of image you will achieve. The more you can control the light, the better your images will be. In some situations, you might have to add a bit of flash or use a strobe or reflector and scrims, it's really dependent on the current situation you're faced with. What makes us professionals different than the amateur, is that we understand the light challenges that are presented before us, and adjust accordingly.

Here's a link to help getting started in using flashes - Strobist. It's very popular amongst the hobbyists and even some professionals I know can do a great job with the strobist approach.

[Chicomagiko]

Can anyone recommend a "beginner" 35mm SLR camera? I was looking at the Canon AE-1 series but I'm open to suggestions :D

[Zansho]

If you're shooting film, the Canon AE-1 is a great starter to learn how to shoot and the thing is a built like a tank. Other recommendations would be a Canon EOS 1 (film) - they can be had for under 100 bucks on ebay, much to my amazement.

If you're going with a DSLR, you best go out to the store and ask to play with a couple that feel comfortable and you don't feel too intimidated by. I've seen rookies buy Canon EOS 1 Mark III's (4-6k camera) and get frustrated because they don't know what the heck they're doing - sort of like giving a NASCAR type car to a 15 year old beginner driver.

Personally, the entry level cameras are pretty decent - I wouldn't use them for my work stuff, but I've used them for just messing around at the house. Canon XTI, XSI, Nikon D90, things like that.