Photography

[Felonous]

So lets see those pictures, and don't be afraid to post anything, we all started somewhere.

Some of my recent flickr uploads:

Topaz Adjust (photoshop filter).
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3051/2854637645_e7c05ae278.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2854637645/)

Waterdrop Eyeballs.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2854552465_3653cea305.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2854552465/)

Pink Rose HDR.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/2853542367_c9225fe02d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2853542367/)

May Appear Closer Than Expected.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3168/2837589599_310bc359e1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2837589599/)

Looking forward to seeing what the other photographers here have to show.

Feel free to check out the rest of my flickr photo stream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/).

[iHap]

All my photography that I have scanned since I do film photography is here

http://flickr.com/photos/haprish/sets/72157606952270504/

[Bad Buddha]

Here's one that I did for a class last year. Lots of color and other manipulations. I had to get right down into the rosemary bush and got the scent all over me. When the teacher was looking over my shoulder she said "Wow! It's so real I can almost smell it!"

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2256/rosemarytexturego7.jpg

[Bingley Joe]

Wow! Some great shots, you guys :)

Here's an old one of mine I've always liked for the WTF factor..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3179/2281104619_f38c11b07f_o.jpg
That's the closest I ever got to seeing someone wearing a helmet in Cambodia


Not that I'm complaining, but shouldn't this thread go in the Creative Arts (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/forumdisplay.php?f=14) forum?

[Slack3r78]

One of my favorites from years and years ago, with a super cheap 3MP P&S:

http://uploads.evilavatarcomics.com/Slack3r78/images/bwbow.jpg

Lee Renaldo of Sonic Youth
Earthlink Live, Atlanta, GA

[Pureboy]

Whoops, posted in the thread that probably shouldn't be bumped. I'll quote em here:
I'm not really a photog geek, but I'm constantly surprised at the kind of pix I can capture with a point and click Casio Exilim. If I had some real training I could probably do much better.

These are from my trip to Japan in `05:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/28727757_2cfc90e7bd_b.jpg
Outside the Sumo tourney in Osaka

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/28727756_1ce4b57008_b.jpg
Nagasaki Peace Park

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/28727755_f490cd4118_b.jpg
A "mini-Japan" park in Kumamoto

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/28727754_21be156ddb_b.jpg
A shrine by a rest stop on a mountain hike in Nara

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/28727753_f36ac0a937_b.jpg
In the Nara temple complex

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/28727752_991bc9b659_b.jpg
Also in the Nara temple complex

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3024/2343780973_8d575ef602_o.jpg
The Nara complex at dawn

Same camera, Thailand honeymoon, `07:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1096/1237149601_bd013c4912_o.jpg
Sunset at Ao Bang Po, Koh Samui

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1128/1237152953_b7cd105549_o.jpg
Longtail boat, Ang Thong Marine Park

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1269/1237152637_10062d5aa3_o.jpg
Island, Ang Thong Marine Park

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1191/1237161541_a550509048_o.jpg
Hill Tribe fire dance, Chiang Mai

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1368/1238025346_c142f58710_o.jpg
Same thing, one of the best pictures I've ever taken

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1430/1237177911_6ac036674d_o.jpg
Four Seasons, Chiang Mai

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/1238043086_cc2ca30810_o.jpg
Also Four Seasons

[Spectre-7]

I'm like a half-step below hobbyist photographer, but what the hell...

http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/berries-bw.jpg
http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/brickflower.jpg
http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/bridge-under-bw.jpg
http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/pink2-small.jpg
http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/twistypath-bw.jpg

...and shouldn't this perhaps be in the Creative Arts (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/forumdisplay.php?f=14) forum? Edit: Whoops. Didn't notice Bingley Joe had already said that. I obviously concur.

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

I want to do a course or something cos my stuff is pretty much glorified holiday snaps. I have a nice camera but definitely don't get anywhere near as much out of it as I could/should.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3209/2953582998_7ae33709e0_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3152/2953598054_7a0faa8651_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1171/829864526_7ee924515c_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1389/828946855_4eac635ac3_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1062/828919143_0046140ae4_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1414/828918941_470a58a83c_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1104/828860793_101909d80b_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1102/828628663_c9d81badc6_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1318/828628577_50cf79c63c_b.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1345/638014292_725838b77b_o.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1404/538559840_b2e7cbcc1f_b.jpg



http://www.spectre7.com/gallery/photo/twistypath-bw.jpg


Thread winner for me at the moment (I wanna do some cool urban stuff), but Felonous your series on fireworks is amazing.

[DeathtollWRX]

flickr.com/photos/deathtollwrx

Here is one of my cat.. yeah I suck at photos..
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/6643/samfaceak1.jpg
Shot with NIKON D40 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=NIKON+D40&make=NIKON+CORPORATION) at 2008-10-18

[Spectre-7]

You're too kind, Lon Lon. :)

For me, the tops are Felonous' waterdrop eyeballs (I'm a sucker for dew) and your shot of the water-sculpture. That's also, bar none, one of the most adorable little bunnies I've ever seen.

Where'd you snap your nature shots? Were you just out and about, or specifically out hunting for animal pictures?

I've tried to get some pics of the turkeys and deer that roam around these parts, but I can't ever get a decent frame of them. I think I'm either going to have to become sneakier, or get a telephoto lens.

[Bingley Joe]

Oh well, at least maybe if we keep bumping this thread and complaining that it should be in Creative Arts, someone might notice ;)



I love that shot of the bridge, Spectre -- the composition on that is really nice, and you've got some really nice tones going on in the B&W.

Here are a few more of mine. Who says you can't do interesting things with a cellphone-camera?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2265/2281918540_26e97e5a95.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22394850@N02/2281918540/sizes/o/in/set-72157603944161569/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2281917502_5fcd0af9f8.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22394850@N02/2281917502/sizes/o/in/set-72157603944161569/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3177/2281917862_72c1eabbc4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22394850@N02/2281917862/sizes/o/in/set-72157603944161569/)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2036/2281128619_dee205ecb4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22394850@N02/2281128619/sizes/o/in/set-72157603944161569/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3146/2281919150_6378a1b4d5.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/22394850@N02/2281919150/sizes/o/in/set-72157603944161569/)

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Where'd you snap your nature shots? Were you just out and about, or specifically out hunting for animal pictures?

Wildlife is definitely my favourite thing to photograph (although the flowers, rabbit and birds I showed aren't really wild). The rabbit is mine, the flowers are from a flower festival in Canberra, the penguins, sheep, goose and sea lions are from Otago (southern peninsular of New Zealand), the monkey from a small village near Nagano in Japan and the Cygnet from the park adjoining Sydney University. I WISH I had that much stuff outside my door, but sadly it's only pretty regular stuff (I have lots of photos of seagulls at sunrise on the beach and other cliched stuff).

Who says you can't do interesting things with a cellphone-camera?


Wow.

[bapenguin]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

[Slack3r78]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?
I'd love to. I'm not sure I have the time in the immediate future for it, but I'd be interested when things slow down a little.

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

Yes please.

Motivation to just get out there and try random crap is exactly what I need right now.

[Bingley Joe]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

Sign me up!

[Jackel]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

I would be up for it....just got a new camera, and while its a P&S, i have it loaded with chdk so I should be able to come up with something decent.

My only concern is finding stuff other than nature as I'm kind of stuck on the island lol.

[Spectre-7]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

I'd be up for it. I could definitely use a little more motivation to shoot. :D

[Bad Buddha]

My only concern is finding stuff other than nature as I'm kind of stuck on the island lol.
Nature is good!

Which island? When I was working on "Queen Match" for Boeing back in the Reagan Star-Wars days, we were sending engineers up to Sheyma Air Force Base for missile trajectory tracking. Luckily I dodged that bullet! Evidently the island has one tree and constant winds that drive people crazy. Oh... and it's damned cold.

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6084/shemyaislandtn7.jpg
:(

[Jackel]

I'm on Wrangell. Its a little more interesting than the one in your picture lol.

[bapenguin]

Alright, I want to look into using the "Social Groups" feature of this site and albums to somehow do it.

[Jackel]

Alright, I want to look into using the "Social Groups" feature of this site and albums to somehow do it.

Would there be any way to tie the albums on this site, to flickr and the CoG flickr group?

[bapenguin]

Would there be any way to tie the albums on this site, to flickr and the CoG flickr group?

Not sure. Lets see how this goes.

http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/group.php?groupid=7

[JayVe]

http://lh6.ggpht.com/kamalot/SEbk1WymvSI/AAAAAAAACvs/ONWZ2wDVoG4/s912/SNV14417.JPG
Castle Hunting (http://picasaweb.google.com/kamalot/France2008Highlights#5208101624402591010) is a hobby of mine.

http://lh5.ggpht.com/kamalot/SEblWzpTY-I/AAAAAAAAC0U/q17_iHTfDQo/s912/SNV14925.JPG

http://lh3.ggpht.com/kamalot/R36EUoPGRsI/AAAAAAAACKU/m0pOI4-TICs/s912/SNV12065.JPG (http://picasaweb.google.com/kamalot/NewYears20072008#5151700513691420354)

[Jackel]

Joined the group, here are a few pics I've taken recently

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3047/2959202882_8a43e16d9c.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3151/2959236836_d34d96bb73.jpg?v=0

[NoName]

I'm joining the group because I'm interested in what comes out of it. While I'm not much of a photographer, I might borrow my friend's professional camera to see what I can do :D.

[Zrikz]

Awesome pictures.. I'm highly considering purchasing a DSLR in the next couple months for myself. What cameras do all of you guys use / recommend? I've been messing around with a Nikon D40 and that is probably around my price range.

[digitalErich]

Joined the group, should be fun. Zrikz, I have a Rebel XTi and I like it, but I'm not expert. I think if you go with Nikon or Canon you'll get something good.

[Slack3r78]

Canon or Nikon. The main thing to realize when buying an SLR is that you're less buying the camera and more buying into a lens system -- your lenses will far outlast any one camera and will be a far greater investment over time than the bodies themselves.

[Haemorrhage]

Anybody interested in starting a "CoG Photography Club"

Basically each week we'll pick a subject or a phototype or something, and you go take the best pic you can of it?

Sign me up Bap. I just bought a new Canon G9 and I am looking for an excuse to fool around with some of the more advanced settings.

edit: NM, it is a public group.:o

[Schnoogs]

Some pretty good work in this thread...wish I knew how to use my DSLR better.

[Generation ABXY]

Waterdrop Eyeballs.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2854552465_3653cea305.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2854552465/)

At least you know where you stand with the grass, now. That's something Christopher Walken could never figure out...

[rifter]

So, I have been doing "Fall Colors" lately. Here are a few:

Front of the building I work at:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2957178236_df0abef279.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2957178236/)

Fall Reflections:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3187/2935451261_d058b3de78.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2935451261/)

Leaves turning blue:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2931858365_3f07101420.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2931858365/)

Fall waterlillies:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3046/2932716426_b9a5e3d4e7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2932716426/)

[Schnoogs]

Leaves turning blue:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3154/2931858365_3f07101420.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2931858365/)

That picture is sweet!

[Slack3r78]

Okay, since I pimped it in the other thread, but not here yet:

http://www.chaotic-design.com/gallery/Dreams/

[Schnoogs]

Okay, since I pimped it in the other thread, but not here yet:

http://www.chaotic-design.com/gallery/Dreams/

Dude...fucking STALAKER!!!!

Awesome pics...I was half expecting to see radiation anomalies and mutants!

[DeathtollWRX]

Waterdrop eyeballs is very impressive.

[DeathtollWRX]

Awesome pictures.. I'm highly considering purchasing a DSLR in the next couple months for myself. What cameras do all of you guys use / recommend? I've been messing around with a Nikon D40 and that is probably around my price range.

I'm as green as they come and I have recently purchased a Nikon D40 and a neutral filter.

My pics are at flickr.com/photos/deathtollwrx

keep in mind I haven't read the instructions and I don't really know how to use it.

[bapenguin]

Here's a few of my recent ones since I bought my D90.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3001/2954749943_f1bb809ab1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2946990404_3b6623ed1c.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/2940121626_1f64cdc44c.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3190/2940109826_43a8b933be.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3254/2927059011_7f8f4275c8.jpg

[Haemorrhage]

Some photos I took during a recent hiking trip.

http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/TheHaemorrhage/IMG_3833.jpg
http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/TheHaemorrhage/IMG_3876.jpg
http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/TheHaemorrhage/LakeOkanagan.jpg

[Bingley Joe]

Here's a few of my recent ones since I bought my D90.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3137/2940121626_1f64cdc44c.jpg


Great shot! I love the sense of dryness the nearly monochrome palette gives it


Some photos I took during a recent hiking trip.
http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/TheHaemorrhage/LakeOkanagan.jpg

Nice panorama :) I always try to shoot as many pans as I can when I'm traveling -- they just do such a great job of conveying a vista, and they're also a great way to get a shit-ton of detail into an image if you shoot them a bit tighter.

Unfortunately, looking at them on the computer doesn't even remotely do them justice; there's no better way to view them than in a massive print, and one only has so much wall space :p

Here are a couple of mine anyway:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3015/2281911426_0ab669daf8_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/2282171543_64b3384a66_o.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/2314902786_dc1fa0c7f7_o.jpg


This last one is an example of a not-so-wide pan that (at least in the original 450MB file) has an insane amount of detail in it. Three frames shot vertically and scanned for print at 24" high. You can see individual lichens on the rocks way back in the distance.. it looks just incredible in print:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2961027123_e581017dc8_o.jpg

[Slack3r78]

http://chaotic-design.com/images/CRW_0303_cs.jpg

Found this one in my webspace. From about 3 years ago.

EDIT:

Another:

http://chaotic-design.com/images/katana.jpg

[Schnoogs]

Hey slack...how did you shoot the B&W shots? Did you convert them to grayscale in post process?

[Slack3r78]

Hey slack...how did you shoot the B&W shots? Did you convert them to grayscale in post process?
Shot RAW, imported in Lightroom and manually converted them. Did a lot of tweaking with the individual color channels during the conversion.

[Schnoogs]

Shot RAW, imported in Lightroom and manually converted them. Did a lot of tweaking with the individual color channels during the conversion.

Lightroom? I only have Photoshop.

[Slack3r78]

Lightroom? I only have Photoshop.
You can do the same thing with Photoshop. Those last couple of photos were done the same basic way with Photoshop years before Lightroom came out. :)

Lightroom just makes processing a large number of files a little bit easier. You should be able to do everything I did with Photoshop's RAW importer and a little bit of tweaking.

[rifter]

Photoshop can do anything that Lightroom can, it is just usually simpler/easier in LR. I do all my tweaking in LR, load up Photoshop elements to run the noise filter through them, and resize them.

[Slack3r78]

Photoshop can do anything that Lightroom can, it is just usually simpler/easier in LR. I do all my tweaking in LR, load up Photoshop elements to run the noise filter through them, and resize them.
I have a tendency to do multiple RAW conversions in LR, bring them into Photoshop, dump them into a single image as layers and then use the various imports to get a different look for different parts of the photo. That's how I got the look of that last photo of the bike.

[Schnoogs]

Is this something you figured out on your own or did you take a class?

[Slack3r78]

Is this something you figured out on your own or did you take a class?
A few books, mostly just a lot of time fucking around seeing 'what does this do?' :)

EDIT:

I've always rather liked Scott Kelby's books for picking up neat little tricks:

http://www.kelbytraining.com/books/

[rifter]

I've always rather liked Scott Kelby's books for picking up neat little tricks:

http://www.kelbytraining.com/books/

I will second Scott Kelby. I have his LightRoom 2.0, Photoshop Elements 6, and 2 photography books. Between him and Bryan Peterson, I have found the two authors in the photography world I really enjoy reading/learning from.

[DeathtollWRX]

A mundane addition but I kinda dig it..
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5618/pinkmz1.jpg
Shot with NIKON D40 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=NIKON+D40&make=NIKON+CORPORATION) at 2008-10-21

[Spectre-7]

A mundane addition but I kinda dig it..
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/5618/pinkmz1.jpg
Shot with NIKON D40 (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=NIKON+D40&make=NIKON+CORPORATION) at 2008-10-21

It's a nice image, but it's crying out for some post-processing. I think if you cleaned up the speckles and changed the levels a bit, it could be really lovely.

[DeathtollWRX]

How about cleaning it up for me and showing me the possibilities? I have no skills with software of that nature..
umm.. post processing is .. uh cheating.. right?
Nah, i'm just lazy.

[Spectre-7]

How about cleaning it up for me and showing me the possibilities? I have no skills with software of that nature..
umm.. post processing is .. uh cheating.. right?
Nah, i'm just lazy.

This was sort of quick and sloppy, so I lost a bit more detail than I would've liked, and there's a blue fringe that should probably be adjusted, but... something like this?

http://home.pacbell.net/ven_rand/pinkmz1_touched.jpg

It might be cheating, but whatever gets the job done is alright by me. :)

[DeathtollWRX]

Hmm, anyone else have some before and after shots of their work? Like the water eyeball one?

[Raen]

Some photos I took during a recent hiking trip.

http://i437.photobucket.com/albums/qq92/TheHaemorrhage/IMG_3833.jpg


What the hell is this? Some weird tree? It's freaking me out.

Joined the group just to see what comes out of it. I don't have a camera right now unfortunately.

[rifter]

I honestly don't have any before/afters... but I could probably get them.

Want to do it easy? Get Google Picasa 3. Open a picture, and use the tuning tab. There are 4 sliders. It is VERY easy. It will even manipulate raw files... which is what I do for a quick and dirty post process.

Honestly, I would HIGHLY recommend getting Lightroom 2, and try playing with it. You can get it for free, to use for 30 days, from Adobe.

Personally, I am a slider monkey. I move the sliders back and forth, and get something I like. That is all. :-)

[Haemorrhage]

What the hell is this? Some weird tree? It's freaking me out.

Joined the group just to see what comes out of it. I don't have a camera right now unfortunately.

It is one of the trees from the X-files, that when cut, release green, man-eating insects. ;)

No seriously, I was hiking up the Okanagan Mountain about 2 years after a forest fire. This is the chard bark of one of the remaining trees.

[DeathtollWRX]

I honestly don't have any before/afters... but I could probably get them.

Want to do it easy? Get Google Picasa 3. Open a picture, and use the tuning tab. There are 4 sliders. It is VERY easy. It will even manipulate raw files... which is what I do for a quick and dirty post process.

Honestly, I would HIGHLY recommend getting Lightroom 2, and try playing with it. You can get it for free, to use for 30 days, from Adobe.

Personally, I am a slider monkey. I move the sliders back and forth, and get something I like. That is all. :-)


Rifter I will do that when I head home. I'm assuming they have a Mac version.

[Johan]

Anyone have a good suggestion for a Pentax DSLR? I have some Pentax lenses on my older SLR that I'd like to use on a shiny DSLR. Any suggestions? :)

[rifter]

Rifter I will do that when I head home. I'm assuming they have a Mac version.

Uhh... if you use bootcamp, they sure do! :-) It runs on Windows and Linux.

There is supposedly a version being produced for the Mac, but it is not here, yet.

Finally, I think a lot of Mac users swear by iphoto. I am unfamiliar with it, beyond knowing that a lot of Mac users use it, for photos.

Adobe Lightroom, does have a mac version.

[Bingley Joe]

It might be cheating, but whatever gets the job done is alright by me. :)

I completely agree -- personally, I draw the line at adding or removing significant elements from a photo, but I don't see a problem with most other post-processing if it results in a more pleasing image.

After all, photographers have been manipulating their captures for well over 100 years now, and one could argue that the mere act of framing an image is already enough of a departure from reality that there's really no point in worrying about what else has been done to it..

I had some time to kill at work today, so I took a stab at your image as well, WRX -- hope you don't mind:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2961934055_76666a9fbd.jpg

[Raen]

It is one of the trees from the X-files, that when cut, release green, man-eating insects. ;)

No seriously, I was hiking up the Okanagan Mountain about 2 years after a forest fire. This is the chard bark of one of the remaining trees.

Woah that's so cool. I've decided I'm going to see what I can pull of with a disposable camera actually. Should be interesting trying to do a self-portrait that way.

[Haemorrhage]

I prefer Google Picasa. It's photo editing for dummies. I really like the auto-import function. Lightroom has way more features but isn't nearly as user friendly.

[Dorkandproudofit]

For some odd reason, I thought the title of this thread was "Pornography" for a second. I just came here to post this. Carry on. :D

[DeathtollWRX]

I completely agree -- personally, I draw the line at adding or removing significant elements from a photo, but I don't see a problem with most other post-processing if it results in a more pleasing image.

After all, photographers have been manipulating their captures for well over 100 years now, and one could argue that the mere act of framing an image is already enough of a departure from reality that there's really no point in worrying about what else has been done to it..

I had some time to kill at work today, so I took a stab at your image as well, WRX -- hope you don't mind:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3050/2961934055_76666a9fbd.jpg


I can't pinpoint what you did but the image seems clearer.

[Bingley Joe]

I can't pinpoint what you did but the image seems clearer.

That was the goal in a nutshell :)

As Spectre pointed out, it's a nice image, but the original was just a little bit flat in terms of contrast.

In broad terms, all I did was adjust the levels a bit. I tweaked the blacks until they began to clip in the deep shadow areas under the leaves -- there's nothing important to see under there, so you may as well just let those areas fall away.. Then I adjusted the highlights until they began to clip right around the shiny bit on the leaf that's in focus. I also pulled up the mid-tones to brighten things up a tad. Last was to throw a bit of sharpening on it.

That got things looking more or less the way you see them, and adjusting levels/sharpening is something that virtually any photograph can benefit from to a degree when looking at the initial capture.



Here's the complete laundry-list of edits I did in Photoshop just FYI:

- convert to 16-bits/channel**
- run Neat Image for a bit of noise-reduction**

**these two steps combined allow for slightly greater levels manipulation on an 8-bit source image, as Neat Image re-calculates all the pixel data into a 16-bit space -- handy trick

- heal-tool on some of the more distracting speckles on the flower petals
- adjust levels as described above
- apply very slight amount of sharpening
- copy the image to a new layer twice
- set the top layer's blending mode to 'screen' and merge it with the layer below
- copy the merged layer to a new layer
- apply Gaussian Blur filter to top layer at ~7 pixel radius (IIRC)
- set top layer's blending mode to 'multiply'
- adjust top (multiply) layer opacity to ~20% (IIRC)
- adjust middle (screen) layer opacity to ~20% (IIRC)
- flatten the image
- decrease saturation ~-5 points (IIRC)
- resize to whatever size the posted image is -- I think ~500px wide
- convert to SRGB color-space
- apply final sharpening
- convert back to 8-bits/channel

[Slack3r78]

I completely agree -- personally, I draw the line at adding or removing significant elements from a photo, but I don't see a problem with most other post-processing if it results in a more pleasing image.
I guess what little I've posted should make it clear I'm hardly a purist. I won't make any huge changes as a rule, but I will post process the ever living hell out of a photo. But most of my work is actually confined to layering different takes on post processing on top of each other.

About the furthest I'll generally go in terms of 'editing' would be something like the last photo of the bike -- I actually repainted a good portion of the Katana logo because the right half of it had been badly saturated by the flash and just didn't look right. A little bit of time with the brush tool, though, and I had it popping like I wanted to match the rest of the shot. :)

[rifter]

I guess what little I've posted should make it clear I'm hardly a purist. I won't make any huge changes as a rule, but I will post process the ever living hell out of a photo. But most of my work is actually confined to layering different takes on post processing on top of each other.


For me, it depends on what I want to do with the picture. I will do post processing to bring a little emphasis to what I want to stand out, if it is more of an editorial picture.

If I am taking a picture for fun, and not archival type purposes, I will edit it, to make it look better.

[rifter]

I went out this weekend, driving around, looking for something to photograph. I came across this spot, and took a lot of exposures. :-) \

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3296/2977518246_097f70b733.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2977518246)
I came around a corner, and couldn't see the lake, and thought I was at a dead end. I turned into the parking lot, to turn around, when the scene was shown to me. I really lucked out!

Here was another one, from a bit earlier, that evening:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3196/2977622645_60ba650997.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2977622645/)

[bapenguin]

Wow. Great shot rifter.

[Zrikz]

Great lake shot, very pretty.

[DeathtollWRX]

Great pic rifter, Your shots always amaze me.

[Spectre-7]

Some stuff from this past summer that I just finally downloaded off my camera. Several of these were taken during the string of fires we had here in California, so all of the mistiness is actually smoke.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/Suburbs_smoke_small.jpg

A direct shot of the sun taken around mid-day.
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/dimmed_sun.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/sky_through_trees_small.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/sunset.jpg

[Raen]

Love the third shot Spectre. Very cool.

EDIT: It looks even more awesome if I look at with my laptop at an odd angle.

[rifter]

I have to agree about shot #3. Smokey skies suck... unless you want to photograph them... then, there is no finer thing in the world. :-)

[bapenguin]

Just posted Week 3 Assignment in the Photo Club (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/group.php?groupid=7&gmid=34#gmessage34).

[Thanasimos]

A bit of necromancy for my shoddy work. When I was in New Jersey for Thanksgiving, I crossed into Harriman park and took a fuckton of photos, of which I will post the good ones. I work with a little point and shoot camera, and without a tripod, which left the longer exposures I needed (flashes and nature don't work, dammit!) to be made with tripods cribbed from boulders and heavy branches.

Anyhow, here are the four I'm most proud of, and I'll link the rest of the set at the bottom.

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/1982/306751913051713de53cbto5.jpg
http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/892/30675185464423b7b045bal2.jpg
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/310/306667290725153b3e2bbpc6.jpg
http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/7488/306750933411faf7b4b0bkj6.jpg
And the rest... (http://www.flickr.com/photos/19383905@N03/sets/72157610380587728/)

Now, it's not that running water was the only thing to photograph on the hike. It's just, I grew up in a desert, and I still live there when I'm not at school, so waterfalls are still strange and new and wonderful to me.

[bapenguin]

Just took this of Jupiter and Venus:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3034/3081114630_75f0456bcc.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3081114630/)

[Felonous]

Some new additions to my flickr stream:

Candles
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/3068865616_b2579605ff_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3068865616/)

Autumn Sunflower
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3202/3068859696_1aaf958c98_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3068859696/)

Age Of Conan Guild Logo
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3165/2955504636_7d12a23f9b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/2955504636/)


If you look closely you can see a little ant on the sunflower. Wish I had noticed him when taking the shot, I had the macro lens on at the time and could have gotten a good closeup of him.

The last one was something I threw together in photoshop for a friend that was still playing Age of Conan.

I have some more stuff that I took recently that I haven't uploaded yet. I'll update once I get it up on flickr.

[KidCactus]

Yesterday I finally got myself a "real" camera (a Nikon D60), after maybe a year going back and forth; "Do I need one? No I don't. Do I want one? Yes I do."

But since it gets dark outside very early now, before I get home from work, I haven't had the chance to try it out outdoors yet, so these are the only pictures I have so far:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/3094612415_8954e96fe6_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3213/3094612309_c2f0b6b1fc_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3053/3095631673_9bf3acd999_o.jpg

[biosc1]

I recall on a thread on another site...perhaps the "site that shall not be named"...that someone suggested some good books for some budding photographers. I picked up a "starter" SLR (Canon XSi) over the weekend and am curious if anyone has any recommendations for some informative books regarding photography?

Edit: Oops...found the recommendations on an old wish list of mine:

Photographing the World Around You (http://www.amazon.ca/Photographing-World-Around-You-Freeman/dp/1552636127/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3A1MBTI75TDBS&colid=390HOGL75EC8C)

Understanding Exposure: How to Shoot Great Photographs with a Film or Digital Camera (http://www.amazon.ca/Understanding-Exposure-Photographs-Digital-Camera/dp/0817463003/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I24TD0R5OR90B7&colid=390HOGL75EC8C)

Anything else you guys could think of?

[rifter]

I would suggest Understanding Exposure. That is probably one of the top books out there. Another set that are really good are Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Boxed Set (http://www.amazon.com/Scott-Kelbys-Digital-Photography-Volumes/dp/0321604032/ref=pd_bbs_sr_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228929185&sr=8-5). Scott is kind of a god of all things digital imaging.

I really liked this book by Bryan Peterson, as well: Learning to see Creatively (http://www.amazon.ca/Learning-See-Creatively-Composition-Photography/dp/0817441816/).

This one (http://www.amazon.ca/BetterPhoto-Guide-Digital-Photography-Miotke/dp/0817435522/ref=pd_sim_b_51), I think, is a good absolute beginner book, but it is quickly eclipsed by the others.

I HEAR that this one (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Shutter-Speed-Low-Light-Photography/dp/0817463011/ref=pd_sim_b_10) is really good too, but is more of Understanding Exposure 2, than "understanding shutter speed".

[Lint of Death]

I want to post here but most of my old stuff is on a hard drive that I don't think my newer computer likes having plugged in anymore.

[biosc1]

Thanks for the book suggestions...I need some holiday reading :)

[KidCactus]

A nasty close-up of my eye:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3049/3097975335_983e9b6a63_o.jpg

[OldeWolf]

Clicky Click to enlarge the picture. :D

Picture from Badlands, South Dakota

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/bigasspicture.jpg

Damn...weird. That's not the real size. It's much bigger than this. :(

[OldeWolf]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_0930.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_0931.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_0932.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_0933.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_0884.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_3535-1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_3521.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/IMG_3513.jpghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/20080830_0250.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/WeirdPoe/20080830_0254.jpg

[tombofsoldier]

http://fc01.deviantart.com/fs32/i/2008/193/0/f/Explosions_in_the_Sky_by_Tombofsoldier.jpg
http://fc47.deviantart.com/fs27/i/2008/065/3/6/Pink_Moon_by_Tombofsoldier.jpg
http://fc97.deviantart.com/fs17/i/2007/191/d/f/Water__s_Falling_by_Tombofsoldier.jpg

I hate how noisy skies usually appear. Anyone know of a way to reduce that?

[Spectre-7]

I hate how noisy skies usually appear. Anyone know of a way to reduce that?

Either a tripod and a lower ISO setting, or GREYCstoration. (http://cimg.sourceforge.net/greycstoration/) It's not the easiest piece of software to use, but it can do one helluva job at reducing noise.

[rifter]

A few more books. I finally made it home, and can get at my book collection.
John Shaw's Closeups in Nature (http://www.amazon.com/Shaws-Closeups-Nature-Practical-Photography/dp/0817440526/). John Shaw is a VERY popular photogarphy book writer... the problem, is that I can't get into his writing. He has some great pictures, but it goes a little too much into the old school film side of things. I don't care about different TYPES of films... It is outdated. Some good information.
Digital Macro Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Macro-Photography-Ross-Hoddinott/dp/1861085303/). This is done by a younger guy. I guess he has won a bunch of awards. It is a little dry, and I am working my way through it. The pictures look good, and he is easy to understand. I like what I have read, but I have not read quite enough to give it a great review.
Complete Guide to High Dynamic Range Digital Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Dynamic-Digital-Photography/dp/1600591965/). I think the title is misleading. I have another HDR book, that is much more complete. I would say this would be better called HDR for everyone that wants to learn how to shoot HDR. :-) This is really a great book. Awesome examples, and several different ways of looking at things. HDR made easy. I REALLY like this book.
The HDRI Handbook (http://www.amazon.com/HDRI-Handbook-Dynamic-Imaging-Photographers/dp/1933952059/[/url). Now, here is one that could be called Complete. The problem, is that it is kind of dry. If you can get through it, there is a lot of great information. Good information on what HDR is, and where it came from. I find it dry, though, and difficult to read. :-(
Photo Idea Index (http://www.amazon.com/Photo-Idea-Index-Jim-Krause/dp/158180766X/). My GF says these are good. I look at it, and am not so sure why people love it. :-) Ideas? :-) I would hold off, on this one, if you are new.

So, between these two posts, I have posted my entire photography library. :-) I also have Scott Kelby's books on Lightroom 2.0 (http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Lightroom-Digital-Photographers-Voices/dp/0321555562/) and Photoshop Elements 6 (http://www.amazon.com/Photoshop-Elements-Digital-Photographers-Voices/dp/0321524640/).

One of these days, when my girlfriend finally gets another job, and I have money again, I want to pick up Understanding shutter speed (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Shutter-Speed-Low-Light-Photography/dp/0817463011/), The moment it clicks (http://www.amazon.com/Moment-Clicks-Photography-secrets-shooters/dp/0321544080/), Low Budget Shooting (http://www.amazon.com/Low-Budget-Shooting-Solutions-Professional/dp/1933952105/), Working with Light (http://www.amazon.com/Working-Light-Photography-Masterclass-Land/dp/1902538463/), Night and Low Light Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Night-Low-Light-Photography-Professional-Techniques/dp/0817432418/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=IF1ZUDUDMZCIH&colid=2XHSTK7GKUGZZ), Understanding Close-Up Photography (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Close-up-Photography-Creative-Encounters/dp/0817427198/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I1MQGB0PC5KOWG&colid=2XHSTK7GKUGZZ), Digital SLR Expert Landscapes (http://www.amazon.com/Digital-SLR-Expert-Landscapes/dp/0715329405/ref=wl_it_dp?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3DY95NS4R9L44&colid=2XHSTK7GKUGZZ) and Beyond Portraiture (http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Portraiture-Creative-People-Photography/dp/0817453911/). There are other books I look at, and drool over as well.

[rifter]

I hate how noisy skies usually appear. Anyone know of a way to reduce that?

I use Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/), though, it seems that Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/) gets more votes. I have seen another one that reduces noise more locally, which is pretty cool. (I forget what it is called). Neat is cheaper, than NN, which is nice. :-) I think it does a great job. Most of my photos get a final-pass with neat image before being resized and uploaded.

Oh, and I should have said what Spectre-7 said. Lower ISO reduces noise. But, it is almost always better to have a noise picture that is sharp, versus a clean picture that is all blurry. My advice is more for after the fact, when you need to reduce the noise that is there. Noise reducers also have the advantage that they soften portraits. :-)

[biosc1]

Night and Low Light Photography sounds interesting. I've never had a good night-time shot.

I do like all the suggestions...now I'm looking for a new bookshelf too ;)

[rifter]

Night and Low Light Photography sounds interesting. I've never had a good night-time shot.

That is one of the reasons I am getting that book. :-) I have taken quite a few nice ones... but I flub up a lot, too. I need a better foundation.

So, after writing about books here, I figured I would go out and finally put a new blog post up. You can reach it here: http://blog.rifter.net. I go a bit more indepth about a few items, and add a couple of more items. I hope you enjoy!

[OldeWolf]

No offense but those spurts of photo books/informations/wall of text just makes my eyes bleed.

We're here to admire photographs, not make a Ph.D out of it. :p

[rifter]

More PICTUTRES!
Ok, it's been a while since I posted something new. Here are a few from today.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/3109314882_34567e6924.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3109314882/)
Boise Depot - HDR Processed

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3108429165_b21d9e0237.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3108429165/)
Boise Skyline in the evening.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/3108428855_cbdc5fa769.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3108428855/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3259/3108214001_0850d65f49.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3108214001/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3193/3108435814_7bb830d7db.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3108435814/)

I also posted a new blog (http://blog.rifter.net/) about taking the pictures of the miniature.

[Generation ABXY]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3118/3108429165_b21d9e0237.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3108429165/)

Boise? Wait...wrong thread.

[Hotcod]

Some stuff from a rather rushed university project.... based kind of on the idea of jack and the bean stalk and was about trying to look at a everyday place in new says hence the slightly dodgy post processing

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3233/3105560333_0a08890506.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3183/3105561373_76fe929353.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/3106395480_94fd6bab22.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3237/3105569857_4bbdd36391.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3243/3106399498_b797b2017a.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3129/3105575431_934ce03480.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3255/3105577197_ec9fb88b8f.jpg?v=0
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3157/3105578687_2bfb58dd0f.jpg?v=0

[Generation ABXY]

Some stuff from a rather rushed university project.... based kind of on the idea of jack and the bean stalk and was about trying to look at a everyday place in new says hence the slightly dodgy post processing

I’m intrigued. Are there any others in that set?

[Hotcod]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/24003026@N07/sets/72157611228705576/

That's everything i've uploaded there's a few more random shots and tests and things but the story (first 14 i think) is all there... sadly it's not nearly as full or as fleshed out as i had planned but i left my self far to squeezed for time...

also i really dislike flicker... first time i've used it and it's just damn annoying

I think the most interesting thing to me in the whole thing was trying to play with the perspective of the beanstalk. It's not perfect but it's given me an idea for another project i've got to finish which is an artist book... doing a popup book that plays with perspective seems like a fun, if hard, thing to do. I've always liked this stuff, not so much the street art as the 'public' art stuff... can't remember the name of the guy who's stuff i'm thinking of but sure most of you will know what i mean

[KidCactus]

I finally got some time outdoors with my camera today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/3118436400_68b3ae2f13_o.jpg

[Bad Buddha]

I finally got some time outdoors with my camera today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3288/3118436400_68b3ae2f13_o.jpg
I think I've shot a bunch of zombies there!

[KidCactus]

I think I've shot a bunch of zombies there!
Did you get the ones hanging out here too?

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/3118397155_08ce690164_o.jpg

[Generation ABXY]

Oh, the black and white gives it a really nice effect, Kid Cactus. I'll hope you'll pop up some more soon.

[Aggort]

I have gotten lazy, real lazy, but it's one of New Years resolutions to get out and take more photos and I hold to my resolutions each year!

[Spectre-7]

Some various and sundries...

White eggs in sunlight
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/eggs2.jpg

Wine bottle caustics (and enchilada spatter from the night before)
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/wine_bottle_caustics.jpg

...and a couple shots taken while hiking.
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/moss.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/trees_silhouette.jpg

I should also be getting a slightly better camera in the next few weeks. Nothing too special, but nearly anything is an upgrade from what I've got.

[rifter]

Ok, a few night shots tonight. I wanted to go out and take some pictures of the snow... but by the time my friends came over, it was too late to get what I wanted. I went to the river, and my shots came out like crap. *sigh* Anyhow, on the way DOWN to the river, I passed the Boise Depot, and thought it would make a great picture. Here are a few from tonight.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/3127290798_cd48177b11.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3127290798/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3286/3127290622_6b82c834ea.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3127290622/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3262/3127290332_eb28a0964e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3127290332/)

[Spectre-7]

Time for some thread necromancy. I finally got my new camera... it's nothing special, but unlike my last, I now have some control over exposure settings, as well as a few more megapixels. I'd like to nab a DSLR sometime in the future (ooooooey is the Lumix G1 sexy), but that day is far, far off.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/unopened_rose1.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/two_roses_rot.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/two_roses.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/rock_and_path.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/mossy_rock2.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/berries_gutter.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/berry_sss_iso.jpg

Also, wondering if we're going to start the weekly photo assignments back up soon. I asked in the Photo social club, but there doesn't appear to be too much foot traffic over there.

[Raen]

I love the flower shots Spectre. Very nice :)

[rifter]

I have a few links I thought I would make people aware of. First up, is anyone doing Project 365 (1 picture a day, for a year)? I have a post up (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/showthread.php?t=4463) about it, in the "creative" forums. There doesn't seem to be a lot of traffic over there. Thought I would post here, too.

Also, I posted a Depth of View Primer (http://atomicego.com/kevin/2009/01/a-depth-of-field-primer/) on my blog. The blog is mainly about photography, and I am trying to help people learn, along with me. I thought there may be some interest in a depth of field post, from here.

Well, that is all. Back to your normal gaming. :-)

[rifter]

New photos from a trip up the mountain yesterday. :-) Have a look at my blog (this link) (http://atomicego.com/kevin/2009/01/above-the-clouds-and-in-the-fog/) for the rest of the pictures. These are my 2 favorites.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/3208966536_48696ce44b_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3208966536/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3436/3207846093_ef80610490.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3207846093/)

[Felonous]

That bottom picture is fantastic Rifter. Perfect rule of thirds shot.

Here are a couple I took recently, my old roommate wanted some shot of him on the motocross track make'n practice runs before his race that is coming up:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3235/3126211223_0e66f09359_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3126211223/)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3204/3126169945_28f0ed3a66_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3126169945/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/3127005274_43a0f13189_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3127005274/)


And a macro of some autumn leaves:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/3127157510_e58fcdd0d4_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3127157510/)

[rifter]

I REALLY like that first one. You can see his eyes great. That is a wonderful shot. I want to try my hand at some action shots coming up.

Here is one that I am sure the geeks would enjoy. :-)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3417/3219857580_5b57d45383.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3219857580/)

[Spectre-7]

Necro-thread time... We've had some awesome clouds in these parts recently, so I've been snapping pictures left and right. Apologies for the a rather large photo dump, and double-apologies for the majority of boring shots. :)

This may take a while to load.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/wet_rose_0581.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/oil_and_vinegar_0547.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/clouds_0712.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/city_0643-crop_sm_filt.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/distant_hills_0650.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/distant_hills_0677.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/fence_0688-sm.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/freeway_0635-sm.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/house_on_road_0659.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/kids_and_tree_bw_0656-sm.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/path_0673.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/rocks_0697.jpg

[Spectre-7]

....and they just keep coming! :O

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/sun_and_rocks_0694.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/sun_on_water_0689.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/tree_0664.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/intersection_0724.jpg

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/road_0741.jpg

[rifter]

One tip on composition. Don't put the horizon in the center. Put it in the top 1/3 or bottom 1/3.

Here is an example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3265950570_b0916f34ab.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3265950570/)
The ground in front is approximately 2/3 of the picture. I think I placed the band of fog at the TRUE 1/3 point, but balanced it from the bottom. It was also cropped to move the mountain to the left of the photo... and the 1/3 x 1/3 point. (It is called the Rule of Thirds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds).)

More pictures:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3476/3252616124_52967cf39a.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3252616124/)
A cool effect on a photo I took.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3373/3252615252_f893565d73.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3252615252/)
A detail from an ice sculpture.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3242795533_f3c40d2883.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3242795533/)
Another detail from that sculpture, processed in HDR.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/3252615008_7f9f209c8b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3252615008/)
The full ice sculpture.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3221419007_bde57981d4.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3221419007/)
HDR version of the Idaho Capitol.

Finally, a link to a Photosynth I made of one of the sculptures:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3520/3251931263_f6579df1f4.jpg (http://photosynth.net/view.aspx?cid=48BF057C-4CAA-4C29-BF92-F5D6BC2420FB)
You need to click the link, and install the photosynth software, if you do not have it yet.

[Spectre-7]

One tip on composition. Don't put the horizon in the center. Put it in the top 1/3 or bottom 1/3.

Here is an example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3265950570_b0916f34ab.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3265950570/)
The ground in front is approximately 2/3 of the picture. I think I placed the band of fog at the TRUE 1/3 point, but balanced it from the bottom. It was also cropped to move the mountain to the left of the photo... and the 1/3 x 1/3 point. (It is called the Rule of Thirds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds).)

No offense, but... no shit.

[rifter]

Ass-hole response not needed. Removing.

[fitbabits]

I just found my old camera! Is there a group I can join?

[rifter]

I just found my old camera! Is there a group I can join?

Is this what you mean (http://www.colonyofgamers.com/cogforums/group.php?groupid=7)? Or, our Colony of Gamers (http://www.flickr.com/groups/colonyofgamers/) flickr group. Join in, have fun! :-)

[Spectre-7]

None taken...

No offense, but... work on your composition.

None taken...

I apologize. I was more curt than your response warranted, but the rule of thirds is something I've been aware of for many years now, and most of my pictures give it at least a passing acknowledgment (as far as I'm aware). I'm sorry if my composition doesn't meet with your approval, but them's the breaks.

Now, to be fair to your statement, I do have the horizon roughly centered on at least two pictures. If you take a look, though, I make a point of aligning key elements with power-points (occasionally missing my mark, of course). Thirds are useful for more than just horizons, after all.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/rule_of_thirds.jpg

But it doesn't appear you're a slave to the rule either, unless I'm gravely mistaken about something in this shot.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/counter_example.jpg

Cheers, and have a nice night.

[rifter]

Not all photos follow the "rules". Sorry, I was kind of taken aback by your response. I know you brought this thread back, and I know there has been discussion with people on it, about photography. I don't remember who are new photographers, and who are not. That is all. Sorry.

[Spectre-7]

No apology necessary. Mine was a dick response, and I usually like to hold myself to higher standards than that.

And in all technicality, I'm new-ish to photography. I just happen to be coming to it from a background in graphic design, so my struggle is more in learning how to apply old concepts to a new medium. I definitely don't want you to think I'm not interested in feedback, and I'm very sorry I reacted the way I did.

Can we hug and be friends now? :)

[bapenguin]

Set up a small studio in our soon to be nursery this weekend. First up I took some belly pics of my pregnant wife. Warning some are kind of NSFW.

View them here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/sets/72157614925165798/

I also took some self portraits. I'm really happy with how they came out.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3335148147_eed8f36a8f_m.jpg

Self portraits here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/sets/72157614852478243/

[Jboy001]

Went to DC yesterday, took a few photos haven't finished messing with them.
I'm just learning how to operate the nikon d40 but these pictures seemed to come out well.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3339572398_65a0bbc9ef_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3339572398/)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3573/3339572390_db606c86e9_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3339572390/)


A friend let me use his tripod, was just playing with the aperture and exposure settings

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3633/3339572386_1b697b5f26_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3339572386/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3339572360_9d5e583feb_b.jpg
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3339572360/)

go easy on me :)

[DeathtollWRX]

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7112/dsc0298q.jpg (http://img3.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dsc0298q.jpg)
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/dsc0298q.jpg/1/w1334.png (http://g.imageshack.us/img3/dsc0298q.jpg/1/)

[Hotcod]

But it doesn't appear you're a slave to the rule either, unless I'm gravely mistaken about something in this shot.

http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/counter_example.jpg

Cheers, and have a nice night.

as far as i'm aware of these things (as a so called part graphic designer part illustrator part artist and photographer and so on) that last photo still sticks to the "rules" as much as many. Just because the land scape framing only takes up 1/3 doesn't really matter, even more so since with in that frame the landscape is slit up in to 3rds... mostly. In fact out of all the photographs in your post that is the one that uses the rule of 3 most effectively in my eyes. So i really hope i'm not insulting you if i try and explain more about what the rule of 3 really is and why it's works. To me you seem to be mistaken about what i've come to understand the rules to really mean.

The rule of 3rds is not something to stick fast to all the time but simply something to keep in mind when taking pictures. In fact it's something to keep in mind when doing most creative things. Humans like things in 3s. I'm not sure why this is as such but it's true. I think i've been told that it's down to the fact that pattens are so deeply embeded in the way that we think and 3 is the smallest number of elements that you can make a patten out of. It's used in writing comedy all forms of visual design... but oddly enough not really music out side of the story telling structure but the 4x4 beat has it's only place in our heads in the west so that's no surprise.

The point i'm trying to make is that rule of 3 isn't about getting 3 different distinct parts framed up... but to make a patten from the 3 sections. Which is why that last picture works, clouds clouds land is still a patten of 3 that is then mirrored in the bottom half. A lot of the photographs you use as examples are trying to be distinctly set out in 3 parts all the time... which makes me think that your not really getting what the rule of 3 means.

Your best photograph in your post in terms of this is the one with the street lights (well i think so at lest) and you'll notice that along the top its empty empty empty, along the middle its poll poll empty and along the bottom it's poll empty poll. Then the foreground poll is 2/3 of the length and the background poll is 1/3... there's just lots of interesting use of the rule of 3 concept that dose not need there to be 3 things, rather just a fun use of 3 as a patten. In this case it sets it up to draw the eye in and around in a nice way.

Anyway i hope that doesn't come off as insulating if you already know that the rule of 3 dose not always mean sky, horizon, foreground... just that you should explore it in terms of pattens of 3's in the way you frame things. I felt like it would be useful to clear it up anyway given that some people may not know what the rule of 3 really is.

So to sum up the rule of 3 is not just a photography thing but when it is talked about in this context it is more about using the thirds of the photographs frame to create a patten of 3 out of any number of distinct elements rather than using 3 elements each in a third of the frame... even if 3 elements is the simplest one that is often easily effective.

But ya, it's late and i'm babling and probably not making much sense sorry

[Spectre-7]

Oh, trust me... No harm done. I don't feel insulated at all.

Now, while your conception of the rule is interesting and you're free to interpret it however you please, I disagree with you. No offense. To begin with, we're not talking about the rule of threes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(writing)), but rather the rule of thirds, which in my experience has always had a very specific meaning in graphic composition. I've had it explained to me on a number of occasions, all by different folks, but the gist of it always boils down to pretty much what the wiki article says on the matter.

Take a glance at it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds) Good stuff.

Anyway, this whole matter seemed better off dead, so I shall endeavor to let it return to that state.

[Hotcod]

I don't think it's better of dead, it's a vastly interesting topic. I'm not that invested one way or the other but i like talking about these things. If you don't agree with me that's fine but we get to talk and people get to read and maybe we help some one understand design better no matter which side, if any, they pick.

But it dose seem i wasn't making my self clear. Given how tired i was it amazing i was as clear as i was, unclear as that is heh just seems i used rule of 3 in a few places i meant rule of 3rds, mainly because i'd forgotten the exact rules. Anyway the point i was trying to make (and which still stands i think) and what i was trying to get and and say is that the rule of 3rds is just the rule of 3 applied to photography. Even the photo in the wiki article works because of the pattens of 3 that the rule sets up. The problem i find with it is that people get a little to stuck in with the rules rather than the idea.

Once you understand that the rule of 3rds is just a quick way of imposing a pattens of 3s on a photograph you will instantly get a better understanding of what your doing. Like a lot of things it's easy to know the rules to doing something but the true worth is knowing and understand how and why those rules work.

I mean take a look at the wiki article, no where dose it explain why this rule "works" just that people think it dose. Now look at what i'm saying, people like 3s, it's almost a fact. You show people a group of 2, 3, and 4 object and ask them which looks more visually pleasing the group of 3 will 'win' by a long shot. What the rule of thrids dose is to set up the photograph in to 6 group of 3 pattens quickly and easily using lengths of a 3rd... but ask your self why do you do that? what about doing that makes the photograph more interesting?

The answer that i get and have been told is that people like pattens and the rule of 3 is that 3 is the lest number of elements you need for a patten. The rule of 3rds is a quick way of judging and setting up a number of pattens of 3 with in a frame. Which is all well and good but it becomes most useful when your able to brake it down and use the underlying ideas to make good framing. Again the last photograph you posted works very well and while it may not look like it's using the rule of 3rds it really really is, it just understands how that rule works and then uses that understandings to play with the rule it's self.

In the end all i'm trying to say is that you don't have to stick to the rule of 3rds. Once you understand how it works your able to do lots more interesting things and you free your self up in a lot of ways. Now don't get me wrong, like i've said all along the rule of 3rds is an awesome and quick way to make sure that a photograph or any visual art will look good it's just that you can use it in much more interesting ways when you understand how it works and can apply it in a less strict way.

[Jboy001]

Was in Atlantic City over St. Paddy's Day and had a chance to take a few shots, I think this one turned out well

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3366984562_8bbc66d0a8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3366984562/)

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Well I just uploaded 900 more photos to my Flickr account (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/) (2 years worth of crap) and now I'm gonna dump a bunch on you unlucky people.

I'm new to HDR btw which is why you can see I COMPLETELY abuse the effect, and don't go for subtelty at all.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3437/3383335322_febdc7bae9.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3382568275_83a54b5bbf.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3631/3382557381_018ac72744.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3447/3382486099_6b2d976c4e.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3658/3383121034_b5d4c4dd34.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3647/3381920499_9ce92046ab.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3636/3382442515_0619d85293.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3383257730_67785252f1.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3445/3382231541_6ff1443034.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3542/3383083964_1e08364511.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3563/3382446467_71f9e9c692.jpg?v=0

[bapenguin]

That one that looks like Lego bricks is really awesome.

So is the Kangaroo.

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Thanks.

The Lego one is actually this cool 8 bit looking statue in the Beijing Olympic Park.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3603/3383260248_8430af2bb4.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3383260248/in/set-72157615890112888/)

[rifter]

That one that looks like Lego bricks is really awesome.

So is the Kangaroo.

QFT. I love the lego bricks one, too.

The wide picture is neat, but the abstract nature of the first one, makes it a winner in my book.

As for HDR, I read either on a site, or a book... (assuming you are using photomatix) never go to the left of the 2nd dot in light smooth... actually, speaking of that, here is THE TUTORIAL (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial-part-2/) I was talking about. :-)

Your pictures look very cool. Thanks for sharing!

[DangerousDaze]

This isn't a particularly special picture, but it's of one of my babies. :p

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/hattie.jpg

[tombofsoldier]

http://th00.deviantart.com/fs43/300W/i/2009/081/2/b/A_Good_Day_by_Tombofsoldier.jpg

[KidCactus]

Three photos I've taken today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3433/3386766563_6213674440_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3421/3387577604_05d0845045_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3386953307_7f83c84ed4_b.jpg

[bapenguin]

Was in Atlantic City over St. Paddy's Day and had a chance to take a few shots, I think this one turned out well

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3366984562_8bbc66d0a8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/jboy001/3366984562/)

Ha! I was there a few weeks ago too. Have almost the same pic:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3319268003_470762aab0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/sets/72157614543347629/)

[Jboy001]

Ha! I was there a few weeks ago too. Have almost the same pic:


nice!
With the lens you used (24-85mm f/2.8-4 according to flickr) were you able to get that hand held? because I busted out the tripod for that

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/hattie.jpg

That is hilarious. Tombofsoldier, like your pic a lot too. For some reason it's reminding me of Milo and Otis, hah.

KidCactus, what the hell is that cave church thing? Those photos are cool, they make me want to go do some UrbEx shooting which I've always wanted to do but never known how to find a cool location.


As for HDR, I read either on a site, or a book... (assuming you are using photomatix) never go to the left of the 2nd dot in light smooth... actually, speaking of that, here is THE TUTORIAL (http://www.stuckincustoms.com/hdr-tutorial-part-2/) I was talking about. :-)


Thanks. I actually read through that exact tutorial before I started trying HDRs then lost it and never referred back to it, so thanks for linking it.

I've done a couple more slightly subtle shots over the last few days (at least compared to the ones I put up earlier):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3387351167_04710efb1f.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3388124006_07dce73cbf.jpg?v=0

I think they're probably still a bit too overdone though, but I still kind of like that look just for how surreal it is. Didn't use the 1st light smooth dot, though! I'm sure I'll calm down with it some more eventually.

Speaking of tutorials, does anyone have any (or perhaps just some tips/advice) for reducing lens flare? I was frustrated to find a bunch of my photos from the last few days had a lot of it sneaking in; I never notice it as I frame the shot or when I check out the pic on my camera's screen. Either practical tips for avoiding getting it in the first place or any tips for photoshop (although keep in mind I'm a complete photoshop beginner) would be much appreciated.

Oh and while I'm asking for help, any easy to use software/methods for reducing noise? I generally do everything I can to avoid having a noisy picture in the first place, but sometimes if I'm shooting in low light/without a tripod/zoomed right in with my telephoto lens it's hard to avoid it completely. Thanks in advance!

[bapenguin]

nice!
With the lens you used (24-85mm f/2.8-4 according to flickr) were you able to get that hand held? because I busted out the tripod for that

Yup - no tripod required. I absolutely love that lens.

[rifter]

I think they're probably still a bit too overdone though, but I still kind of like that look just for how surreal it is. Didn't use the 1st light smooth dot, though! I'm sure I'll calm down with it some more eventually.

The #1 thing people will knock you for with those pictures, is the Halo affect. I have one picture I really like, but with the halo, it really reduces its effectiveness. I have done a bunch of HDRs over the past 6 or so months, and I still fight it for certain shots. It is not... simple.


Speaking of tutorials, does anyone have any (or perhaps just some tips/advice) for reducing lens flare? I was frustrated to find a bunch of my photos from the last few days had a lot of it sneaking in; I never notice it as I frame the shot or when I check out the pic on my camera's screen. Either practical tips for avoiding getting it in the first place or any tips for photoshop (although keep in mind I'm a complete photoshop beginner) would be much appreciated.


You can get one of those lens covers, that go on the end... though, I read some lately, that some higher end photographers think they are junk. They suggest putting your hat between the sun, and the end of the lens, so it is covered in shadow. Reduce the number of filters on the end. (My understanding is UV filters can cause this... and I know a lot of people use them to protect their lens).


Oh and while I'm asking for help, any easy to use software/methods for reducing noise? I generally do everything I can to avoid having a noisy picture in the first place, but sometimes if I'm shooting in low light/without a tripod/zoomed right in with my telephoto lens it's hard to avoid it completely. Thanks in advance!

I know that lightroom has something that will do it. If you like shooting photography, you HAVE to get Lightroom (well, unless you are on a mac, and prefer Aperture... I hear it is kind of six of one, half dozen of the other in that instance). A cheap way to get it, is to have a student buy it. The education price is only $99.

But, for doing it RIGHT... you need a noise reduction program.
I own two: Topaz Denoise (http://www.topazlabs.com/topazlabs/03products/topaz_denoise/) I think this is the best of the two I own... but it is SLOW. :-( I mean a minute or more, on my high-end gaming rig... but, it is good, too. It is the price you pay. If you buy this, I would VERY HIGHLY recommend getting the bundle deal. Topaz Adjust is probably one of the COOLEST plugins ever, for PS and PSE. (Here are a bunch of my pics (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=topaz%20adjust&w=10175585%40N06), that I processed with TA, it can bring a very HDR look to a photo) I bought denoise and adjust in a bundle, never thinking I would use denoise... but it has supplanted... Neat Image (http://www.neatimage.com/). While I say Topaz Denoise is better... it is not by much. If I had a bunch of images to do, I would probably turn to Neat Image. Out of the box, it is simpler, and faster. I have never gotten into the deeper, more powerful tweaking... so those options MAY give you better results than I have had. I would say a good 50-70% of my photos have gone through neat image.

Others I have not tried. No conversation about noise reduction is complete with out Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/). Besides having the coolest sounding name, it seems to be the most widely used. When I first heard about noise reduction, I only heard about Neat Image... Honestly, I think they are about the same, in quality. (Neat Image/Noise Ninja). I will toss this one out: Dfine (http://www.niksoftware.com/dfine/usa/entry.php). It has some cool stuff with being able to define WHERE you want to reduce noise... though, in my PERSONAL experience, you want the WHOLE THING fixed, not just a part... :) Finally, I found this - Noiseware (http://www.imagenomic.com/nwpg.aspx). Reading this discussion (http://www.flickr.com/groups/techtalk/discuss/72157604945094003/) NoiseWare sounds pretty promising.

Hope this all helps! If you look at that flickr discussion, as the people say, there isn't a HUGE difference between them all. They take the picture from crappy to probably 88-93%. :-)

[rifter]

Yup - no tripod required. I absolutely love that lens.

Flickr said you were shooting at 42mm, at 1/80 of a second. That is about the lowest you generally want to go, handholding that. (Assuming the lens does not have image stabilization). The rule of thumb I have read, is double your focal length in speed... so 42 mm, should be 1/84th of a second, you were at 1/80.

A shot I am particularly proud of is this one:
http://lh5.ggpht.com/_icc-AYhHIHw/Sb3LnZzCTII/AAAAAAAAA_w/BGXUY7RyuIw/s128/US%20Bank%20-%20March%2015%2C%202009%2006.jpg (http://picasaweb.google.com/idahoptv/USBANKFESTIVAL2009MARCH152009#5313627013167336578) .

It was shot at 1/5 of a second, at 21mm. I should have been shooting 1/40th. I fired off about 6 shots trying to hold as still as possible... this was the ONLY one not blurry. I am not very good at hold very still when taking a picture. :-( I use tripods a lot, and when I can't, I swap to monopods.

[bapenguin]

Flickr said you were shooting at 42mm, at 1/80 of a second. That is about the lowest you generally want to go, handholding that. (Assuming the lens does not have image stabilization). The rule of thumb I have read, is double your focal length in speed... so 42 mm, should be 1/84th of a second, you were at 1/80.



I basically never go below 1/50 or 1/60. That's good to know though, I'll keep it in mind.

[KidCactus]

KidCactus, what the hell is that cave church thing? Those photos are cool, they make me want to go do some UrbEx shooting which I've always wanted to do but never known how to find a cool location.
It's a columbarium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbarium) (at least that what it says on the sign next to the door) located under a church here in Stockholm. Here's another picture showing a bit more of the surroundings:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3444/3390354930_8d0f3ecdb6_b.jpg

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Heaps of useful stuff.

Awesome, thanks for all that.

I don't have any filters on any of my lenses, I think the huge increase in lens flare I've been seeing is probably due to the increased frequency I've been shooting directly into the sun since starting to take some HDRs, heh.

It's really ruined some of my shots though, I can't believe how much there is on a few of them.

I do already use lightroom, but mainly just for cataloging; I had no idea it had tools for noise reduction so I'll give those a go before investing in some new software.

Taken a bunch more HDRs recently, I'm slowly getting rid of that halo but you're right, I always think I've got it where I want it and there's no halo but then looking at it afterwards there's always still some there...

I'll get there eventually.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3395742603_9a7380703d.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3591/3398446788_4727b405b3.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3395735969_a34509f140.jpg?v=0

I had a few problems with this next one:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3395748433_cef0b1da3d.jpg?v=0

First, the tank looks like it's just been completely photoshopped in... No matter how I played with it I couldn't really get rid of that effect (short of making the whole damn picture really ugly and flat). Is it just the halo do you think which seems more present on it cos it's in the foreground or is there some other setting I should play with? Also, looking at its treads, it looks really noisey, but it wasn't the typical noise. It's these tiny red/blue/green dots, I've never had this problem before but it seemed more like artifacts or something; do you know how I could get rid of that? Here's a close up of what I'm talking about.

http://i40.tinypic.com/27xfiit.jpg

It wasn't a problem at all in the original shots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3395748985/in/set-72157616004048599), and only appeared after generating the HDR in photomatix, and no setting that I could find could reduce it (the most I could do is up the shadow clipping so it was a little more hidden).

Thanks again for all the pro advice.

[rifter]

I don't have any filters on any of my lenses, I think the huge increase in lens flare I've been seeing is probably due to the increased frequency I've been shooting directly into the sun since starting to take some HDRs, heh.

It's really ruined some of my shots though, I can't believe how much there is on a few of them.

You CAN try a polarizer, when shooting INTO the sun.

Here is an example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3085/3208966536_48696ce44b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3208966536/)

You CAN see where the edges of the images were, though, for this panorama. It helps reduce lens flare, but does NOT get rid of it.

I do already use lightroom, but mainly just for cataloging; I had no idea it had tools for noise reduction so I'll give those a go before investing in some new software.

It's in the development module. Near the bottom (Just above Vingetting). Beyond knowing that it is there, I don't know ANYTHING else about it.


Taken a bunch more HDRs recently, I'm slowly getting rid of that halo but you're right, I always think I've got it where I want it and there's no halo but then looking at it afterwards there's always still some there...
Yea, that is the biggest frustration with Photomatix. You will tweak the settings, tell it to apply, and then what comes out, is different from what the example is. Though, there have been times that what came out, was FAR better than I had hoped for. :-)


First, the tank looks like it's just been completely photoshopped in... No matter how I played with it I couldn't really get rid of that effect (short of making the whole damn picture really ugly and flat). Is it just the halo do you think which seems more present on it cos it's in the foreground or is there some other setting I should play with? Also, looking at its treads, it looks really noisey, but it wasn't the typical noise. It's these tiny red/blue/green dots, I've never had this problem before but it seemed more like artifacts or something; do you know how I could get rid of that? Here's a close up of what I'm talking about.


I have run into that "noisy" area, before. It is a pain in the butt. Here is my fix. Open it up in Photoshop (PS Elements for me). Grab your 0EV shot, and place it as the background. Add transparency to the HDR shot, so more of the 0EV shot, shows through, hopefully, minimizing those spots.

I did that, with this shot:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3283/2974647291_3379cafbaa.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2974647291/)
This is NOT one of my better shot. :-) But, it lets you see what I did, so hopefully that helps.




It wasn't a problem at all in the original shots (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3395748985/in/set-72157616004048599), and only appeared after generating the HDR in photomatix, and no setting that I could find could reduce it (the most I could do is up the shadow clipping so it was a little more hidden).

I have had 2 HDRs that had that problem. I still am not sure how to get rid of it, and it is my understanding, that HDR should be VERY resistant to those kinds of issues... but it seems to only really come out, with a DARK, under-exposure. (I really wish I could do 7+ automatic exposures...) :-)

[KidCactus]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3395735969_a34509f140.jpg?v=0
This picture is really awesome, I love the almost cartoonish feel it has. :)

[Raen]

This picture is really awesome, I love the almost cartoonish feel it has. :)

Agreed, that shot looks so awesome. My favourite from the bunch posted by far. Keep the stuff coming guys :)

[KidCactus]

I started playing around with HDR last night, trying to get a feel for it:

Original:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3552/3399997560_e7ac04029a_o.jpg

HDR:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3422/3399992986_a4e63dc153_o.jpg

I'm very pleased with the result, but it's too bad the jpeg doesn't really show how the HDR'ed tiff looked like before uploading.

[Bingley Joe]

I started playing around with HDR last night, trying to get a feel for it:

I'm very pleased with the result, but it's too bad the jpeg doesn't really show how the HDR'ed tiff looked like before uploading.

Nice job -- really makes a difference, doesn't it?

I particularly like how your HDR version isn't completely over the top like so many you see. It just looks.. normal (and that's definitely a good thing) :)

[rifter]

I generally go for two affects in HDR. Realistic, contrasty. Basically, what Kid Cactus did. I also go for hyper saturated. It is an artistic interpretation, that, IMO, looks very cool.
Realistic:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3470/3242795533_f3c40d2883_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3242795533/)

Hyper Saturation:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3100/2811931759_1e3a0a905b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2811931759/)

I love how you can take a very FLAT image, and add depth to it, using HDR:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2221/2691161627_1b6b348169_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/2691161627/)

[KidCactus]

Nice job -- really makes a difference, doesn't it?

I particularly like how your HDR version isn't completely over the top like so many you see. It just looks.. normal (and that's definitely a good thing) :)
Thanks. :)

Yes, big difference, and with Photomatix is was a breeze doing it, really great application.

[Panthera]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3388124006_07dce73cbf.jpg?v=0


This is Source engine, right?

[KidCactus]

Another HDR picture, with a really dramatic sky over Stockholm:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3618/3401746893_f6b6ba1dfa_b.jpg

[rifter]

Another HDR picture, with a really dramatic sky over Stockholm:


Are you doing single-image/RAW HDR, or are you using bracketed shots? This one looks like a single image.

[KidCactus]

Are you doing single-image/RAW HDR, or are you using bracketed shots? This one looks like a single image.
Single RAW image, with three different exposures, just playing around with some photos I took a few weeks ago.

[rifter]

Single RAW image, with three different exposures, just playing around with some photos I took a few weeks ago.

You are very limited with 1 exposure. Bracketing really brings out the power of HDR.

[KidCactus]

You are very limited with 1 exposure. Bracketing really brings out the power of HDR.
And bracketing is...? :D I'm a HDR noob here, remember?

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

This is Source engine, right?

Haha, here's the +/- 0 EV image for proof it's not.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3387317767_cef9d7849b.jpg?v=0

I know I currently fall on the wrong side of the fence in terms of realistic/overprocessed use of HDR, but like rifter says I think it's occasionally worth it to step over the line (even though I'm still doing it way too often).

And bracketing is...? I'm a HDR noob here, remember?

I'm probably not the best person to explain, and rifter would do a better job, so I'm poaching this explanation from the official photomatix tutorial (http://www.hdrsoft.com/resources/tutorial_basic/index.html).


In this tutorial, you will learn how to create a High Dynamic Range (HDR) image using three photographs of the same scene taken under different exposures, and how to process the HDR image in order to reveal its details in highlights and shadows.

...

If your camera offers Auto-Exposure Bracketing (AEB), select the Continuous Shooting mode, make sure the camera is set to Aperture Priority, and select an exposure increment of +/-2. The camera will automatically vary the shutter speed each time the shutter button is pressed, taking several exposures spaced by two-stop increments.

You may have to change the exposures manually if your camera does not bracket in steps greater than 1, or if it can only take 3 auto-bracketed frames when the dynamic range of the scene requires 5 or more.

So you need to take multiple actual shots rather than just messing with the exposure of a single shot and using that, to get the most out of it. Auto bracketing makes taking those shots simple, although I personally don't use it as my camera only brackets a max of three shots at a max increment of 1 stop, so I just step it up manually one stop at a time to get however many exposures I want (usually 7, -3 EV to +3 EV). I wish my camera bracketed a bit better, as I'm always worried my changing the EV will move the camera too much but the tripod I've been using (borrowing, cos mine is crap) has been pretty nice and sturdy so far thankfully).

[rifter]

So you need to take multiple actual shots rather than just messing with the exposure of a single shot and using that, to get the most out of it. Auto bracketing makes taking those shots simple, although I personally don't use it as my camera only brackets a max of three shots at a max increment of 1 stop, so I just step it up manually one stop at a time to get however many exposures I want (usually 7, -3 EV to +3 EV). I wish my camera bracketed a bit better, as I'm always worried my changing the EV will move the camera too much but the tripod I've been using (borrowing, cos mine is crap) has been pretty nice and sturdy so far thankfully).

You explained it perfectly. I have a Canon XSi, and I can do 3 shots, at up to 2 EV spread, so I usually run -2/0/+2 spread. If you look at the shot I did earlier, of the ice trees, you can see the 3 exposures that I used to build the picture.

[KidCactus]

Thanks for the explanation, I'll look into that and see if my camera can do it. :)

Nope, my Nikon D60 does not have AEB. :(

[Bingley Joe]

Thanks for the explanation, I'll look into that and see if my camera can do it. :)

Nope, my Nikon D60 does not have AEB. :(

I'm kinda surprised by that, but it's no biggie. Just do it by setting the shutter speed manually to accomplish the same thing (you could also change the aperture, but depending on your shot, that might dramatically alter the depth-of-field, so shutter is usually a better idea).

A 1EV change in shutter speed is equivalent to either a doubling (for +1EV) or halving (for -1EV), so from that, you can work out +/-2EV or +/-3EV depending on what you want..

For example, if your base exposure calls for 1/60th and you want to expose shots at +/-2EV, you'd dial in shots at 1/15th (+2EV) and 1/250th (-2EV).

[KidCactus]

I'm kinda surprised by that, but it's no biggie. Just do it by setting the shutter speed manually to accomplish the same thing (you could also change the aperture, but depending on your shot, that might dramatically alter the depth-of-field, so shutter is usually a better idea).

A 1EV change in shutter speed is equivalent to either a doubling (for +1EV) or halving (for -1EV), so from that, you can work out +/-2EV or +/-3EV depending on what you want..

For example, if your base exposure calls for 1/60th and you want to expose shots at +/-2EV, you'd dial in shots at 1/15th (+2EV) and 1/250th (-2EV).
This is very useful information for me, thanks a lot. :) I guess I have to get a tripod now.

[rifter]

This is very useful information for me, thanks a lot. :) I guess I have to get a tripod now.

You know, I was so shocked that you said your camera didn't have AEB, I went out to confirm it. Wow, I was starting to toss some envious looks Nokia's way... but that would be a total deal-breaker for me.

When I shoot HDR, I set my camera for Aperture Priority. That way, my aperture never changes. Then, I change the exposure length to get the proper exposure. My camera also has exposure compensation. If your camera does, it may be EASIER to use that. I just hold the button, and can adjust it on the fly from -2 to +2 EV. IF I want to take a picture with a wider range than -2/0/+2, I will crank that down to -2, and that will add -4 and then crank it up to +2, which gives me +4 EV. The problem I run into, is jiggling the camera on the tripod, when doing this, so the exposures don't line up perfectly.

Oh, I also did 2 new pictures yesterday:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3402516893_56d1b9c350_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3402516893/) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3403325994_ef2f8e57fc_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3403325994/)
I was driving home, and saw this. I turned around, and went to this spot.

[KidCactus]

My camera also has exposure compensation. If your camera does, it may be EASIER to use that.
Yes, it does have exposure compensation, and I have two ways of changing it; either in a menu or with a button on top + the function wheel. The latter makes the camera move quite a lot though.

I'll give it a try at home, where I can put the camera on the table, just to try this out.

Awesome pictures by the way!

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Yes, it does have exposure compensation, and I have two ways of changing it; either in a menu or with a button on top + the function wheel. The latter makes the camera move quite a lot though.


That's exactly how I do it, which is why I mentioned being unhappy with no suitable AEB on my camera, but I think if you're careful enough and the tripod is sturdy enough (and well placed) it's sufficient. Obviously in an ideal world it's not the best but if you're careful, combined with photomatix's options to detect for any tiny shifts, I think it's sufficient.

[DangerousDaze]

One of my other baby!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/DexterBall.png

/edit - PS if your camera supports the RAW format then you can "fake" HDR with a single shot. It's worth a look if you're in a rush:

Examples: http://www.flickr.com/groups/raw2hdr/

[Jackel]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3406066188_bf8cdd8dbc_b.jpg

Any thoughts? I'm working to improve my technique as I'm just getting into this. I'll be getting a new DSLR fairly soon.

[rifter]

The picture looks good. I would play with some post production on it. I hope you don't mind, I did a few tweaks, to show you how I would present it:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb165/ryfter/3406066188_bf8cdd8dbc_b_redo.jpg

[Jackel]

The picture looks good. I would play with some post production on it. I hope you don't mind, I did a few tweaks, to show you how I would present it:



Yeah, I have to invest in something like Lightroom. That will probably be my next purchase...or I'll do some research on how to do the same stuff in Gimp (if possible).

[rifter]

So, I used Photoshop Elements to do that. Honestly, I also used the Topaz Adjust filter, too. :-) It isn't JUST photoshop tweaking, but I did reduce the red a touch, and added some pop to your shadows.

Even Picasa 3 allows you to do some simple post processing.

[Bingley Joe]

[IMG]Any thoughts? I'm working to improve my technique as I'm just getting into this. I'll be getting a new DSLR fairly soon.

There were two things that immediately jumped out at me. Please don't take this as criticism -- these are just the things that occurred to me when I looked at it, FWIW :) :

- The large rock on the left side of the frame gives the photo a very claustrophobic effect to my eye.. there's this lovely sweeping landscape in the background that I want to be seeing, but it's all penned-in by that rock on the left.

The fact that it intrudes up above the horizon line is partly the reason -- allowing a strip of water to be seen above it would have kept things feeling more open. But I think an even better solution would have been to shift your position just a bit to exclude that rock, and have only the sweep of smaller rocks in the foreground anchoring the bottom of the frame.


- The horizon is crooked, and that always drives me a bit nutty ;)

Here's a handy Photoshop tip (I realize you don't have PS yet, but this will save you a ton of fiddling when you do):

In photoshop, drag the Ruler Tool (it lives under the Eye Dropper) across any two points that you want to straighten -- across the horizon in this case.

Go to "Image" --> "Rotate Canvas" --> "Arbitrary..."

Photoshop will figure out how much rotation is required to straighten the line you designated with the ruler, and will automatically enter it into the dialogue that appears. All you have to do is click OK, and you're golden!

[bapenguin]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3426/3406066188_bf8cdd8dbc_b.jpg

Any thoughts? I'm working to improve my technique as I'm just getting into this. I'll be getting a new DSLR fairly soon.

The boulder on the left is kinda distracting, otherwise it's a pretty good composition. I tend to like to have some flow and depth in my pics, but the boulder breaks up the shore line going from right to left.

[DangerousDaze]

There you go, fixed. ;)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/fixed-2.png

And for my next trick, a North Korean missile launch!

/edit - I rushed it a bit, especially around the horizon. This literally took about 2 minutes though. :p

/edit 2 - cleaned it up a bit more and straightened it, too! :)

[Jackel]

Gotcha. Thanks for the tips everyone.

[rifter]

There you go, fixed. ;)


/edit - I rushed it a bit, especially around the horizon. This literally took about 2 minutes though. :p

Holy crap. I can DO cloning, but mine never turn out that good!

[DangerousDaze]

The material flatters my (limited) skills - water's pretty easy provided you stop and pick lots of different source points to avoid visual repetition.

/edit - I've updated it to clean up and straighten the horizon. Looks a bit better now.

[KidCactus]

Today I got to spend the day with this cutie:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3397/3411938616_bfbcd32897_b.jpg

I really wish I could have one of my own. :(

[DangerousDaze]

Hope you don't mind me removing the lead!

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e304/Dangerousdaze/fixed-3.png

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Oh, I also did 2 new pictures yesterday:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3588/3402516893_56d1b9c350_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3402516893/) http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3568/3403325994_ef2f8e57fc_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3403325994/)
I was driving home, and saw this. I turned around, and went to this spot.

That's real cool. Is that some negative highlight saturation in the second one to make the trees like that? There's a bunch of pics where I've wanted to drain the saturation there cos it can make a real cool effect but it always ends up looking just too unnatural (and my HDRs are already pretty overblown as you know) but it really suits this scene here. Very moody stormy.

I have never given panoramas a go, so I tried one out today but I stupidly tried to do too much at once by making it both an HDR image AND a panorama. It didn't turn out so well at all. I just used some crappy free software (autostitch) which didn't help, as it doesn't let you save the image in anything other than a very crappy size and quality, but I think I needed to take a bunch more shots with more overlap than I did anyway.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3350/3417741429_b29a4bdd47.jpg

Can the pros here recommend some better panorama software, though? Pretty sure I got some with my camera a couple years ago but that's packed away somewhere back in Australia and I'm not getting to that...

Just for fun I also tried out that "make the scene look like a toy model" thing in photoshop, I think it turned out ok.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3417786249_90e22ac5c3_b.jpg

I also had a little go at making one of those polar coordinate planet things that was all the rage 6 months ago but none of my photos were all that suited to it and looked messy around the edges so I scrapped them.

[rifter]

That's real cool. Is that some negative highlight saturation in the second one to make the trees like that? There's a bunch of pics where I've wanted to drain the saturation there cos it can make a real cool effect but it always ends up looking just too unnatural (and my HDRs are already pretty overblown as you know) but it really suits this scene here. Very moody stormy.

To tell you the truth, I just kind of play with sliders, until I like how it looks. I have played with it enough to have a relatively general idea of what the sliders will do the picture. I THINK it may have been micro-contrast that removed some of the color from the 2nd picture.


I have never given panoramas a go, so I tried one out today but I stupidly tried to do too much at once by making it both an HDR image AND a panorama. It didn't turn out so well at all. I just used some crappy free software (autostitch) which didn't help, as it doesn't let you save the image in anything other than a very crappy size and quality, but I think I needed to take a bunch more shots with more overlap than I did anyway.

I use photoshop elements, and I think it does an amazing job. But, Panoramic HDRs are something I have not yet attempted. I love HDR, and I love Panoramas... but since Photomatix doesn't have photostitching (that I know of) I have stayed away from it.


Just for fun I also tried out that "make the scene look like a toy model" thing in photoshop, I think it turned out ok.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3599/3417786249_90e22ac5c3_b.jpg

I think it turned out AWESOME.

A guy I know has some images like that (http://www.idahoairships.com/2008/12/21/example-of-focal-depth-of-field-special-effects-on-aerial-images/).

This is another one he did (http://twitpic.com/1vg82), that looks awesome. Here is the mask (http://twitpic.com/1vg82) used for that previous picture.

Have a look around his twit-pics for some more awesome shots.

[KidCactus]

Hey, miniaturizing was fun! :D

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3418137375_52b38c8afe_o.jpg

[bapenguin]

So with my daughter here I've been taking a ton of people shots.

So far this is one of my favorites. It's my daughter with my grandmother (her great-grandmother).

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3635/3415524159_2a8cdb34ab.jpg

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

A guy I know has some images like that (http://www.idahoairships.com/2008/12/21/example-of-focal-depth-of-field-special-effects-on-aerial-images/).

This is another one he did (http://twitpic.com/1vg82), that looks awesome. Here is the mask (http://twitpic.com/1vg82) used for that previous picture.

Have a look around his twit-pics for some more awesome shots.

Wow those are very cool. What is his job that he gets to ride around in helicopters (or something) taking cool photos?

Hey, miniaturizing was fun! :D



Nice. What city is that?

So with my daughter here I've been taking a ton of people shots.

So far this is one of my favorites. It's my daughter with my grandmother (her great-grandmother).

Awesome photo bap, can really see just how proud she is. Congrats on the little one, too.





I had some weird troubles with photomatix today. The "adjust for vertical shifts" thing was for some reason UNaligning my RAWs and causing the building to have a big ghost of itself off to the side. I thought I had bumped the tripod and fiddled for ages for it to work. Finally sorted it out then was pissed to see I had a coupleof damn water drops on my lens when I took the RAWs... Any tips for cleaning that off now, after the fact? Pic in question:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3434934318_84150be068.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3434934318/in/set-72157616668577996)

Another problem I frequently run into with HDRs is inconsistency with the sky particularly through foliage, e.g. this picture:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3324/3434106515_9335678759.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3434106515/)

I haven't been able to do anything in photomatix to get rid of it short of increasing the highlight smoothing but that gives the rest of the sky a more washed out picture to match rather than the other way around.

Sorry to always come in here and just ask for endless advice without ever really contributing anything, but I'm really appreciating all the help I've gotten. I'm completely new to photoshop but starting with the basics at the moment, and if there was maybe any techniques you think might help with the problems I've mentioned let me know so I can google them and try and teach myself so you don't have to write more text walls just for my benefit!

[rifter]

Wow those are very cool. What is his job that he gets to ride around in helicopters (or something) taking cool photos?


He has a few hats he wears, but one of the major ones, is that his job IS aerial photography. :-)


Another problem I frequently run into with HDRs is inconsistency with the sky particularly through foliage, e.g. this picture:

I haven't been able to do anything in photomatix to get rid of it short of increasing the highlight smoothing but that gives the rest of the sky a more washed out picture to match rather than the other way around.

Honestly, I have troubles with that, too. You MAY be able to fix some of it, in Photoshop, though, that is outside my realm of experience.

[Spectre-7]

I had some weird troubles with photomatix today. The "adjust for vertical shifts" thing was for some reason UNaligning my RAWs and causing the building to have a big ghost of itself off to the side. I thought I had bumped the tripod and fiddled for ages for it to work. Finally sorted it out then was pissed to see I had a coupleof damn water drops on my lens when I took the RAWs... Any tips for cleaning that off now, after the fact? Pic in question:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3434934318_84150be068.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3434934318/in/set-72157616668577996)

I can't help ya with the Photomatix stuff, since I have absolutely zero experience with it, but I might be able to help with the water drops.

I don't know any way to fix this sort of thing automatically, but you can do a decent job with a little work. In Photoshop, lasso select the affected area, feather the edges a bit and copy it to a new layer (CTRL-J). Once you've got it isolated, fix the colors either through Levels (CTRL-L) or Curves (CTRL-M), and then erase away the edges. That should give you a pretty good start, and then the rest is the tedious task of clone-stamping and pixel-painting until you can't tell anything was changed.

Since I'm having a rather boring Sunday so far, I took a whack at it. Feel free to keep it if you like the result (click for full-size).
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/lon_lon_repair2_thmb.jpg (http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/lon_lon_repair2.jpg)

Edit: Lovely pictures, by the way. :D

[rifter]

I don't know any way to fix this sort of thing automatically, but you can do a decent job with a little work. In Photoshop, lasso select the affected area, feather the edges a bit and copy it to a new layer (CTRL-J). Once you've got it isolated, fix the colors either through Levels (CTRL-L) or Curves (CTRL-M), and then erase away the edges. That should give you a pretty good start, and then the rest is the tedious task of clone-stamping and pixel-painting until you can't tell anything was changed.

Since I'm having a rather boring Sunday so far, I took a whack at it. Feel free to keep it if you like the result (click for full-size).
http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/lon_lon_repair2_thmb.jpg (http://sites.google.com/site/spectre7/Home/lon_lon_repair2.jpg)


Wow, great work! Thanks for the suggestions.

[KidCactus]

One I took today, a little bit HDR:ed in Photomatix:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3435175346_af7b5a7e13_b.jpg

Another problem I frequently run into with HDRs is inconsistency with the sky particularly through foliage, e.g. this picture:
That can be quite easily fixed in Photoshop though (I just did it on the right side):

http://gemigreptilen.nu/pictures/foliage.jpg

The easiest way is to use the brush. Use the eyedropper tool on the sky to set the foreground color. Then choose the brush and set it to Darken instead of Normal and set the flow to 1 %. You should then be able to darken the foliage "shine through" towards the color of the sky by just using the brush on top of the foliage.

You could also use the clone tool in the same way.

[rifter]

So, I just came across this: qtpfsgui (http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/). It is a free HDR renderer. I know NOTHING else about it. I thought some on here may find it of interest.

[KidCactus]

So, I just came across this: qtpfsgui (http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/). It is a free HDR renderer. I know NOTHING else about it. I thought some on here may find it of interest.
I've tried it out now, but I can't even get it to work properly. It's quite buggy, doesn't recognize the EV values at all, and when I had loaded my images to create the HDR, and then choose to tone map it, I didn't even get a picture to work with, just a blank screen.

Maybe it works better in Windows or Linux though.

[Jackel]

A quick picture of my daughter. It is a little dark, but looking at it on a different monitor seemed fine.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3436416573_8c2eaa5199.jpg?v=0

[DangerousDaze]

A quick picture of my daughter. It is a little dark, but looking at it on a different monitor seemed fine.
She's cute! :) The shot might have benefited from a fill-in flash - i.e. using your flash to dispel those shadows caused by the backlighting (example (http://www.all-things-photography.com/fill-in-flash.html)).

[Jackel]

She's cute! :) The shot might have benefited from a fill-in flash - i.e. using your flash to dispel those shadows caused by the backlighting (example (http://www.all-things-photography.com/fill-in-flash.html)).

Cool. I think I have a setting like that on the camera too. I'll have to give it a try.

[tombofsoldier]

http://fc09.deviantart.com/fs45/i/2009/104/b/7/Lead_the_Charge_by_Tombofsoldier.jpg

[rifter]

Cool. I think I have a setting like that on the camera too. I'll have to give it a try.

A really cool effect, is called dragging the shutter (so I am told). Basically, you take a picture, and the flash and exposure don't sync up. You expose for the background, and then the flash fires, illuminating the person. It is a cool effect.

I would suggest trying to put a diffuser on the on-board flash else you can get some pretty damn harsh light.

[Bingley Joe]

A really cool effect, is called dragging the shutter (so I am told). Basically, you take a picture, and the flash and exposure don't sync up. You expose for the background, and then the flash fires, illuminating the person. It is a cool effect.

I would suggest trying to put a diffuser on the on-board flash else you can get some pretty damn harsh light.

This is also sometimes called "rear-curtain sync" due to the fact that the flash is synchronized to fire just as the shutter curtain (once upon a time, it was an actual piece of cloth) begins to close.

It's definitely a great effect when used in the right situations.

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

I can't help ya with the Photomatix stuff, since I have absolutely zero experience with it, but I might be able to help with the water drops.

That is freaking awesome, thanks a tonne!

Definitely keeping that picture but I'm also going to try and reproduce what you described. Thanks!




That can be quite easily fixed in Photoshop though (I just did it on the right side):

Wow cool, ditto, I'm gonna give this a try too. Thanks!

tombofsoldier: very nice moody action shot.

EDIT: Just tried my hand at selective desaturation of one of the shots I posted earlier:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3452714003_59ba9e719d.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3452714003/)

I'm quite happy and surprised with how it turned out, especially considering how messily I was doing it. In fact, I think the way I did it was probably not even selective desaturation at all... I just made a second layer of the picture, set it to black and white, then erased the areas I wanted to be in colour... It was pretty time consuming and I'm sure had I looked up how to do it PROPERLY there's a much faster/neater way.

Some questions:
1 - I saw people arguing on flickr about the best way to convert a picture to black and white. In this case I just went to Image > Adjustments > Black and White (in photoshop). I was happy with the results, but is there a "better" way?
2 - With my crappy method of selective desaturation mentioned above, if I'm cleaning up and find that I've erased a part of the B&W that I don't want in colour, what's the best way to get it back?

Also, if people are worried that this thread is shifting too far away from photography and are sick of all my text walls asking for advice, please let me know and I'll happily make another thread for begging for photoshop tips.

[Bingley Joe]

Some questions:
1 - I saw people arguing on flickr about the best way to convert a picture to black and white. In this case I just went to Image > Adjustments > Black and White (in photoshop). I was happy with the results, but is there a "better" way?
2 - With my crappy method of selective desaturation mentioned above, if I'm cleaning up and find that I've erased a part of the B&W that I don't want in colour, what's the best way to get it back?

Also, if people are worried that this thread is shifting too far away from photography and are sick of all my text walls asking for advice, please let me know and I'll happily make another thread for begging for photoshop tips.


1 - I think (and this is partly just down to my own personal philosophy about photography in general) that the "best" way to arrive at a final image is the one that gives the photographer the results they're looking for. With digital, the possibilities are so wide open, that in most cases, I really don't think it matters what techniques you use as long as they work for you. I suppose the exception would be if you're doing irreparable harm to the pixels in the image or something (crushing the blacks and causing ugly posterization, or over-sharpening, for example).

I like the Adjustments > Black and White method because it gives you a TON of control over the tonal range in your image, and is essentially what photographers have been doing with B&W photography for well over a century (using coloured filters over the lens, and in the enlarger to produce different tonalities and contrast curves in the negative or print). The difference is that now you get way more choice as to what colour your filter is.. and an undo :)

You're also still in RGB colour space, which can be advantageous for sharpening, noise reduction, and all sorts of other reasons. Then again, you can get pretty decent results by just going to Adjustments --> Desaturate as well depending on the image.. and you're still in RGB. Overall, I tend to think that unless you're really tight on storage space, it's best to keep your colour channels intact, even if what you're looking at only seems to be shades of gray.


2. If you always keep your background layer unchanged from the original state of your image, you could just erase whatever parts of the B&W layer you didn't want, which would restore colour to the areas where you wanted it back.

So in your case, you'd have three layers: Background, A full-colour copy of the Background (Layer 1), and a B&W copy of the image (Layer 2).

I always think keeping an unchanged version of the image as a background layer is a fairly good practice no matter what you're doing, TBH


Also: this thread is awesome as it is :)

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Thanks for the tips!

It did indeed seem like I had a lot more control doing the B&W that way compared to some of the other suggested ways I saw thrown about.



So in your case, you'd have three layers: Background, A full-colour copy of the Background (Layer 1), and a B&W copy of the image (Layer 2).

I always think keeping an unchanged version of the image as a background layer is a fairly good practice no matter what you're doing, TBH



This is actualy what I was doing, what I mean is if I make TOO MUCH colour appear on top of the B&W (i.e. I erase too much of the B&W copy), then what is the best way to restore some of the B&W? For example in the picture I just did, I occasionally went a little too far and uncovered some of the beige wall next to the red. At this small size it doesn't really matter, but for future reference I'd like a way to restore that/clean it up a bit so the beige part becomes properly B&W again.

[Spectre-7]

Erasing does the trick, but there's a much easier method that's completely non-destructive and thus allows you a lot more control. After you add your desaturated layer, go to Layer->Layer Mask and choose either Hide All or Reveal All. This will add a greyscale opacity mask, which you'll see as a new box to the right of the layer it's attached to. Just click on the box, and use your brush of choice; white makes an area visible, and black allows lower layers to shine through... pretty much just like Quick Mask mode.

As for converting to B&W, I also prefer the Adjustments->Image->Black&White. I find that the Green Filter often produces the smoothest results, partly (I think) because most image-sensors on digital cameras have twice as many green receptors as red or blue (RBGB Mosaic pattern). There are of course plenty of great reasons to use other channel mixes, though.

[bapenguin]

Took some Macro shots of flowers today.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3453785578_850dd3bfbf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3453785578/)

[Bingley Joe]

This is actualy what I was doing, what I mean is if I make TOO MUCH colour appear on top of the B&W (i.e. I erase too much of the B&W copy), then what is the best way to restore some of the B&W? For example in the picture I just did, I occasionally went a little too far and uncovered some of the beige wall next to the red. At this small size it doesn't really matter, but for future reference I'd like a way to restore that/clean it up a bit so the beige part becomes properly B&W again.

Ah, ok, I think I see what you're after..

What you could always do in that case is just use the Lasso (l) to select an area slightly larger than the section you want to correct, select a layer in the Layers palette that actually contains pixel-data you want to restore (such as an un-altered Background layer, for example), and then do a Layer --> New --> Layer Via Copy (Command+J) to make a copy of the area you selected on a new, otherwise empty layer.

Change the order of the layers so that the new one is between your main B&W layer and the colour one. Then desaturate that layer, and proceed to erase where you see fit, being a bit more careful this time..

If you set the blending mode on that layer to Difference or Exclusion, it'll make erasing the bits you're not interested in a lot easier. Set back to Normal and merge it with your main B&W layer when you're done.

.. pretty sure that'd fix you up at least ;)

Spectre's suggestion of using Layer Masks in the first place is definitely something worth playing with -- there is a HUGE amount of power and flexibility available in Photoshop's Adjustment Layers and Layer Mask features once you wrap your head around them, and they do have the advantage of being non-permanent.

[rifter]

OK, went on a Photowalk (http://tr.im/0409photowalk) today. Had some fun, took a bunch of pictures. Each picture listed, I believe, has map locations geotagged to it, even. Several HDR shots. Here are a few choice photos:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3454125022_90f9aeb010.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3454125022/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/3454124868_33dc476067.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3454124868/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3453502213_12a2a90ace.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3453502213/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3453606841_79a30fb34d.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3453606841/)

These a few, several more in the first link. :-)

[Raen]

Took some Macro shots of flowers today.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3453785578_850dd3bfbf.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3453785578/)

Man that looks cool. The black is incredible.

[bapenguin]

OK, went on a Photowalk (http://tr.im/0409photowalk) today. Had some fun, took a bunch of pictures. Each picture listed, I believe, has map locations geotagged to it, even. Several HDR shots. Here are a few choice photos:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3577/3453502213_12a2a90ace.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3453502213/)


These a few, several more in the first link. :-)

That picture is seriously incredible. I'd love to see the original.

[rifter]

That picture is seriously incredible. I'd love to see the original.
Ask, and you shall receive:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3456457752_0d846c1c9e.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3456457752/).

Here is the HDR version of my phone booth, picture: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3453502213/. The three pictures were combined to make the HDR image, and then Topaz Adjust and I used the Exposure_Color_Strectch preset to get the final image.

[KidCactus]

Yes, that photo of the phone booth is really amazing. I took this one (I finally got a Nikon D90 with bracketing now) on my way home from a friend tonight:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/3456864620_e7ae3706b7_b.jpg

I think it came out quite good, but I don't like the bright sky in the background.

[Jackel]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3559/3454125022_90f9aeb010.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3454125022/)




Is that the sugarbeet factory in Meridian?

[rifter]

Is that the sugarbeet factory in Meridian?

No, it is the new Meridian City Hall.

Did a few more pictures today. More High Dynamic Range shots.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3590/3457486646_285fe94ed9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3457486646/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3494/3456669147_fb54e7e425.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3456669147/)

Good weekend for photography!

[diablopath]

That is hilarious. Tombofsoldier, like your pic a lot too. For some reason it's reminding me of Milo and Otis, hah.

KidCactus, what the hell is that cave church thing? Those photos are cool, they make me want to go do some UrbEx shooting which I've always wanted to do but never known how to find a cool location.



Thanks. I actually read through that exact tutorial before I started trying HDRs then lost it and never referred back to it, so thanks for linking it.

I've done a couple more slightly subtle shots over the last few days (at least compared to the ones I put up earlier):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3650/3387351167_04710efb1f.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3598/3388124006_07dce73cbf.jpg?v=0

I think they're probably still a bit too overdone though, but I still kind of like that look just for how surreal it is. Didn't use the 1st light smooth dot, though! I'm sure I'll calm down with it some more eventually.

Speaking of tutorials, does anyone have any (or perhaps just some tips/advice) for reducing lens flare? I was frustrated to find a bunch of my photos from the last few days had a lot of it sneaking in; I never notice it as I frame the shot or when I check out the pic on my camera's screen. Either practical tips for avoiding getting it in the first place or any tips for photoshop (although keep in mind I'm a complete photoshop beginner) would be much appreciated.

Oh and while I'm asking for help, any easy to use software/methods for reducing noise? I generally do everything I can to avoid having a noisy picture in the first place, but sometimes if I'm shooting in low light/without a tripod/zoomed right in with my telephoto lens it's hard to avoid it completely. Thanks in advance!

Do you by chance have a bigger version of either one of these?

[Felonous]

My roommate has two kids that work for him that are in a band named "Like Wise" that had me shoot some pics of their show last week, here are a couple from the set:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3523/3458019902_11daf12868_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3458019902/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3663/3457199097_d1278b80ba_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3457199097/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3605/3457196121_87dc478c99_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/srivera/3457196121/)


Great learning experience for me, identified a problem where I wasn't paying enough attention and letting the camera auto focus the microphone and not the face of the subject. Ended up having to delete of bunch of pictures where that happened. Also, next time I'll probably bring a collapsible monopod so that the shots come out more crisp.

Was pretty happy with the performance of the 50mm f1.4 lens, but now I want to get something a little longer with a similar aperture, maybe the 85mm f/1.2L or 85mm f/1.8.

[Jackel]

No, it is the new Meridian City Hall.



I think I quoted the wrong picture. I meant the second one you posted, not the first. I swear I've driven past it everytime I went from Caldwell to Boise.

[bapenguin]

I guess I need to mess around with HDR stuff now. What's the best software to create the pics on a Mac?

[Bingley Joe]

I guess I need to mess around with HDR stuff now. What's the best software to create the pics on a Mac?

A lot of people use Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) for HDR, but while it seems to be an excellent piece of software, it's not cheap, unfortunately.

If you already have Photoshop (CS or higher, I believe), you could just use that. There are all sorts of tutorials out there, but here's a good one to get you started. (http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html)

[rifter]

I think I quoted the wrong picture. I meant the second one you posted, not the first. I swear I've driven past it everytime I went from Caldwell to Boise.

Nope, that grain silo is across from the City hall... THAT being said, I know exactly what you are talking about, on the sugar beet factory, though. :-) They have a very similar look. The shot I have of the old silos, are for Zamzows.

[rifter]

I guess I need to mess around with HDR stuff now. What's the best software to create the pics on a Mac?

I'd go with Photomatix. Do what I did, look around for a promo code, and get 10-20% off. One hundred dollars isn't terribly expensive... but unless you know you want to play with it, that is a lot of money.

As Bingley Joe said, you can do it in CS3/CS4, but it doesn't give that "look" that HDR software like Photomatix does. While Photomatix can do about 5 or 6 different looks, I never use more than 2. One is the super-saturated look of what I usually do, and the other one is a very realistic version.

I have This book on HDR (http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Dynamic-Digital-Photography/dp/1600591965/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240248023&sr=8-1) and what I like about it, is he has examples from several different HDR programs. That way, you can see what they look like, after being processed. I would recommend getting the book, or checking it out at a book store, and see what the software packages offer.

Oh, and another reason I went with Photomatix, is that it is kind of the "default" software... so you see more articles written for it. I want Essential HDR, myself, as well... since it processes HDR differently, and gives yet another... style. :-) Yes, I am addicted to HDR.

[Brady]

A lot of people use Photomatix (http://www.hdrsoft.com/) for HDR, but while it seems to be an excellent piece of software, it's not cheap, unfortunately.

If you already have Photoshop (CS or higher, I believe), you could just use that. There are all sorts of tutorials out there, but here's a good one to get you started. (http://backingwinds.blogspot.com/2006/10/how-to-create-professional-hdr-images.html)

Yeah, I just recently went looking for HDR options and came across Photomatrix. There is a free trial to play around with (Haven't had time to do so yet). $99 is kind of on the steep side at the moment..... I guess I'll see how much trouble the trial saves me over just doing it in CS4. Need to check out some tutorials.

Here are some of my recent shots...

Walking to my car at a mall there were like 8 Do Not Enter signs in a row on this road, was interesting... this obviously doesn't catch them all...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3448928122_4e7a399913.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebrady/3448928122/)

Recent concert I went to, one of my favorite bands, Koufax.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3574/3433470775_302ccbaa11.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebrady/3433470775/)

My friend and his girl. This one actually had kind of messed up exposure that I was able to save in Lightroom.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3614/3394510296_82716b1ee5.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebrady/3394510296/)

This is my friend, the only light in the room was his computer monitor.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3585/3312690337_b31a4b605f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebrady/3312690337/)

[Bingley Joe]

Yeah, I just recently went looking for HDR options and came across Photomatrix. There is a free trial to play around with (Haven't had time to do so yet). $99 is kind of on the steep side at the moment..... I guess I'll see how much trouble the trial saves me over just doing it in CS4. Need to check out some tutorials.

TBH, I think the very reason Photomatix has become such a standard in HDR circles is that it's simpler than using Photoshop, which many people find daunting, so you'll probably find it saves you quite a bit of trouble..

That said, I think that Photoshop actually yields better results for the most part, even if it does take quite a bit more work to get something out the other end... the 'halo' issue that was discussed a few posts back is one major example where Photoshop consistently gives much better results (as in - you won't get those halos). In general it just provides a level of control over every step that really nothing else can touch, which counts for a lot.

Then again, you don't always need that kind of power for every single shot, so the ease of tossing a few exposures into Photomatix and having some really nice results pop out the other side also counts for a lot..

Horses for courses, I suppose ;)


EDIT: nice shots, by the way -- I especially like the last two. Very natural looking portraiture, and the tonality in the shot of your friend looking at his monitor is just great

[KidCactus]

Another HDR shot I took yesterday:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3460587342_1ae04d51b0_b.jpg

One from tonight:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3462671761_c46bffc265_b.jpg

[rifter]

Just found this HDR tutorial : http://www.tkrphoto.com/2009/04/hdr-photography-faq/.

I will be reading through it, soon.

[KidCactus]

Just found this HDR tutorial : http://www.tkrphoto.com/2009/04/hdr-photography-faq/.

I will be reading through it, soon.
Good read. :)

But I find it very hard to take nine good shots, so I think I'll stick to three...

Some new HDRs I took tonight:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/3466642916_f4e7bfc2e1_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3558/3465815655_c38e9231f9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3628/3466629380_07a617675d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3653/3466628558_cb8706ca65_b.jpg

[Bingley Joe]

They don't come up for sale often (they're discontinued for one thing), so I thought I'd let you guys know about this deal over at B&H Photo:

Canon Super Telephoto 1200mm f/5.6L EF USM Autofocus (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html)

The Canon 1200/5.6L USM, the longest fixed telephoto lens ever built by Canon, contains 13 elements (2 Fluorite) in 10 groups and focus' down to 49.5'. With an angle-of- view of about 2° on a full-frame 35 mm camera, calling this lens a 'tele' is like calling King Kong a monkey.

Built-to-order by Canon from 1993 to 2005, each lens was hand-crafted at the rate of about 2-per-year and a delivery time of about 18 months. Only a dozen-or-so were ever made. Who bought them? National Geographic magazine and Sports Illustrated are known to own a couple, the Feds probably have a few squirreled away somewhere, and a few well-heeled photo enthusiasts.

Apart from a few minor cosmetic blemishes, this particular lens is extremely clean inside and out. Included with this lens is a leather slip-on 'lens cap', a fitted aluminum trunk case, and a prodigious measure of ego satisfaction. Weighing in at over 36lbs and an overall length of 33 inches, a sturdy tripod and pan/tilt head is highly recommended. Pack mule not included.

Lease for as low as $4068/mo, or just buy it used for $120,000.00 :eek:


A stellar little companion to that new XSi ;)

Here's a review for anyone curious (it pays to do your research, after all):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3469574291_46da6de945.jpg

[Raen]

They don't come up for sale often (they're discontinued for one thing), so I thought I'd let you guys know about this deal over at B&H Photo:

Canon Super Telephoto 1200mm f/5.6L EF USM Autofocus (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/116642-USA/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html)



Lease for as low as $4068/mo, or just buy it used for $120,000.00 :eek:


A stellar little companion to that new XSi ;)

Here's a review for anyone curious (it pays to do your research, after all):

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-1200mm-f-5.6-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx



http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3495/3469574291_46da6de945.jpg

Jesus Christ. What the fuck? I don't know a huge amount about crazy high end photography so what kind of distance would you be able to go with a lens like that?

[Lon Lon Rabbit]

Erasing does the trick, but there's a much easier method that's completely non-destructive and thus allows you a lot more control. After you add your desaturated layer, go to Layer->Layer Mask and choose either Hide All or Reveal All.

Ah, ok, I think I see what you're after..


Thanks a lot both of you for the tips. I've done a few more in the past few days (see end of post) using masking instead and it's a LOT safer and easier; for some reason I was convinced masking was some terribly complicated and advanced feature I wasn't "ready" to use yet, but it's so simple and useful. Thanks!

OK, went on a Photowalk (http://tr.im/0409photowalk) today.

I love how clear you get reflections turning out in your HDRs (in water/windows/cars etc). They always seem muddied when I try them, maybe I need to do some from closer up. Love the low angle shot on that train, very cool.

Do you by chance have a bigger version of either one of these?

Sure, here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3387351167/sizes/o/in/set-72157615854775533/) and here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3388124006/sizes/o/in/set-72157615854775533/). Those are the super massive sizes, you can get smaller ones from the links up top.

My roommate has two kids that work for him that are in a band named "Like Wise" that had me shoot some pics of their show last week, here are a couple from the set:

Awesome. I haven't been to any concerts since I first got my DSLR and had no idea what I was doing with it. Would love to go and try out some more concert photography now I have a bit more control over my camera.

I guess I need to mess around with HDR stuff now.

Your regular pics are always very clean and professional, can't wait to see what you do with some HDRs, make sure you post them here!

Pics

Love this one (http://www.flickr.com/photos/thebrady/3433510027/in/set-72157617147229774/) of yours, and a bunch of your B&W portraits.

They don't come up for sale often (they're discontinued for one thing), so I thought I'd let you guys know about this deal over at B&H Photo:


Holy crap, what a beast...

Jesus Christ. What the fuck? I don't know a huge amount about crazy high end photography so what kind of distance would you be able to go with a lens like that?

If you check out the review Bingley posted they show some comparison shots. With extension tubes they were closing in on objects I couldn't even make out at all in the wide angle comparison pics. Crazy.




Here's some more selective desaturation from me:


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3589/3468523656_e43b91947b.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3468523656/in/set-72157616902402461/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3468033238_0eef0a3b85.jpg?v=0 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8801073@N04/3468033238/in/set-72157616902402461/)

I don't know that the cello one works so well, I think maybe it's too large an object, but I quite like the roller coaster one. I've been stuck indoors for about a week as I got really sick, but I'm looking forward to being out and about with some more photo opportunities in the next few days.

[Raen]

If you check out the review Bingley posted they show some comparison shots. With extension tubes they were closing in on objects I couldn't even make out at all in the wide angle comparison pics. Crazy.

Wow, that's pretty incredible. The one crane shot I wouldn't even pick out the crane originally.



I don't know that the cello one works so well, I think maybe it's too large an object, but I quite like the roller coaster one. I've been stuck indoors for about a week as I got really sick, but I'm looking forward to being out and about with some more photo opportunities in the next few days.

I really like the cello. Really interesting colours on it.

[Bingley Joe]

Wow, that's pretty incredible. The one crane shot I wouldn't even pick out the crane originally.

Yeah, it's ridiculous. He says that with a 1DS MkIII, faces were recognizable at a distance of a mile or more.. assuming you have a tripod that's stable enough for that thing, of course.

[KidCactus]

One of the shots I've taken today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3477448604_53eee63fca_b.jpg

The Windows XP background has grown trees...

[bapenguin]

More Macro fun:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3471255245_329a6f0124.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3471255245/)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3471253287_c7faa03fd1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3471253287/)

[Bingley Joe]

More Macro fun:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/3471255245_329a6f0124.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bapenguin/3471255245/)

Among other things, the bokeh in this shot is just great, Bap -- nice job :)

[tombofsoldier]

Some nice photos Kid. That first one doesn't have that ugly over-hdrd look.

I know a lot of people spout about strategies here. The simplest thing to do is this: wherever you are try and make sure your camera's on the right settings, and then snap away at whatever you think looks cool. Sure you need to keep in mind what your trying to get, but there's a reason professional's have 8 gig sd cards and ect. No matter how long you spend trying to set up the perfect shot there's still a good chance one you take on the spur of the moment will turn out even better.

[KidCactus]

Some nice photos Kid. That first one doesn't have that ugly over-hdrd look.

Thanks. :) Maybe you won't like this one then, single RAW HDR a bit over the top, shot today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3483563646_c40db3174d_b.jpg

I've exaggerated it on purpose, to get that "painting" feeling.

[rifter]

Here is a shot I took from earlier today. It is a pretty cool HDR shot of Boise:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3484278079_6a296d0138_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3484278079/)

I am REALLY happy how this turned out.

Same spot, but a Panorama, non-HDR:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/3484698391_4fc7a3b2e9.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryfter/3484698391/)

[KidCactus]

Here is a shot I took from earlier today.
To be honest, I think the non-HDR one looks better. But I guess it's post-saturated quite a bit?

[Raen]

Thanks. :) Maybe you won't like this one then, single RAW HDR a bit over the top, shot today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3362/3483563646_c40db3174d_b.jpg

I've exaggerated it on purpose, to get that "painting" feeling.

Pretty cool :) The ship feels like its got a bit of pop.

[Squidbot]

Another HDR shot I took yesterday:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3578/3460587342_1ae04d51b0_b.jpg


I like this picture a lot!

[KidCactus]

I like this picture a lot!
I'll probably shoot some more photos like that, at other stations, now that I finally got my Gorillapod (http://www.joby.com/products/gorillapod/slrzoom/).

[rifter]

To be honest, I think the non-HDR one looks better. But I guess it's post-saturated quite a bit?

I think it is a very personal thing. I kind of like the Panorama more, too... but I get more response from the HDR.

I DID discover that getting the rich colors in the pictures is not simple. They were very rich and vivid in real life, and pretty flat in the picture. I was kind of thinking about cranking the vivid setting up on one picture, and then crank it normal on another, and overlaying them, to get the rainbows to pop, in a more natural setting.

[KidCactus]

I think it is a very personal thing. I kind of like the Panorama more, too... but I get more response from the HDR.

I DID discover that getting the rich colors in the pictures is not simple. They were very rich and vivid in real life, and pretty flat in the picture. I was kind of thinking about cranking the vivid setting up on one picture, and then crank it normal on another, and overlaying them, to get the rainbows to pop, in a more natural setting.
Yes, of course that is a personal thing. :)

And you're so right about getting rich colors to look natural; it's not that easy, to not make it just look over saturated. I spent quite some time with the colors on my "Windows XP" background too, since that one looked very flat in the original photo, with an almost grey sky even though it was blue in real life.

[KidCactus]

Another HDR shot today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3488178081_e71aeb987a_b.jpg

And together with the three exposures:

http://gemigreptilen.nu/pictures/hdr.jpg

[rifter]

This is my favorite style of HDR. I lvoe the depth that the 3 expsoures give to a subject.

[biosc1]

I hate this thread. It makes me spend money. :(

Off to buy my first lens for my SLR...the "nifty fifty". A Canon EF 50mm f1.8II :)

[rifter]

At least the nifty fifty is cheap! :-) I really like mine!

[biosc1]

....and bang!

http://img129.imageshack.us/img129/9725/mailgooglecoma.jpg

Now, I just need to figure out how to best test this thing out. Well, I'm going away for a daytrip to the island this weekend, so I'll bring it there and see what I come back with. :)

[KidCactus]

I hate this thread. It makes me spend money. :(

Off to buy my first lens for my SLR...the "nifty fifty". A Canon EF 50mm f1.8II :)
I got myself a Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8 lens a few days ago, and I like it a lot.

[biosc1]

I got myself a Nikkor AF-S 35mm f/1.8 lens a few days ago, and I like it a lot.

Well, I'm going to a dinner party, so I'm hoping to test it out in low-light conditions and see what happens. Lots of portrait shots as well. Pretty excited.

No, time to save up for the Canon 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 lens that I've been looking at...currently a bit too expensive for me right now :(

[KidCactus]

I'll keep spamming this thread. Two new from today:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3308/3490770813_7a2a855484_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3490771239_c50906e06e_b.jpg

[Jackel]

Not much, but I just wanted to post this one. It is my first shot with my new Nikon D90.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3299/3490960209_15f65a1a32_b.jpg

I am going to have to get in the habit of editing my pictures, I'll probably start that once my SD card arrives (I'm stuck using a 32mb one until it does lol) and the tripod arrives.

[Bingley Joe]

Gorgeous spot, Jackel! Where in Alaska is that?

I'm waiting for a bunch of files to copy here at work and felt like fiddling, so I took a stab at your photo -- I hope you don't mind

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3311/3491902194_0d24b115d7_o.jpg

I'd say you set the bar pretty high for yourself with that as your first shot ;)