|
Another question. How do I go about keeping my tripod/camera steady in wind? I'm looking at a bunch of my photos from iceland and the wind has made a lot of the photos slightly blurry like they are slightly out of focus. Now this is 80km/h winds so I dont know if theres a solution to that but i'm pretty sure they were vibrating the camera.
|
#
?
Mar 8, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
 Sample 100% crop:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 00:39
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Another question. Those are some serious winds. Hang rocks/weights from your tripod. Construct massive, ridiculous windblock around tripod. Or just try standing upwind.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Yeh it was pretty intense. Like blowing people over on the ice. Ive got a video of myself walking into the wind at a glacier when it was blowing like 30metres/second. I had to lean forward pretty far.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 02:03
|
|
|
That is superb. The lighting in this image is such that the composition appears to look 3D-rendered. I really dig that. I try to photograph my landscapes in the same way; that the light in my images resemble lighting in paintings rather than photographs. I also like the simple elegance in the design of that building. With the top level somewhat resembling the ground floor. The whole thing looks like a cylinder, side-on. What building is it? Where is it? Also, may I ask what body/lens you used for this? There was no EXIF info. H asteroceras posted:
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 09:57
|
|
|
octane2 posted:What building is it? Where is it? Thanks for your comments. I don't know what the building's called, it's just a small tower on the Isle of Dogs in London. The only lens I ever use now is the Canon TS-E 17mm on my 550D. I can't bear to take out my Sigma 10-20 because I fear the distortion, chromatic abberation and low sharpness, and I don't often have need of my 70-200 f4.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
I could use some advice for post-processing on these types of shots. This is my original file:  This is my latest edit of it:  Westin Hotel, Warsaw by InternetJunky.ca, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 17:03
|
|
|
Firstly, you should take the original photo better by planning to make corrections in advance. For example, with your original shot, you cannot correct the converging verticals without cropping out one of the street lamps on the left (which have a nice starburst effect on them). Also, it looks like you did not fix the white balance in the RAW file, so shoot in RAW and either do a custom WB on site or when you convert the RAW file at home. You can imagine how moving your aim point will give you more margin to correct the verticals, will show more of the street instead of blank sky, and some points of interest will move toward the rule-of-thirds lines and points. This is a 1-minute (literally) set of adjustments that improve the image significantly: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2011 17:56
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I could use some advice for post-processing on these types of shots. How are you people getting such "clean" night time shots?      My first HDR   [edit] ^ 3 shots at 50 seconds each. Ak Gara fucked around with this message at 23:16 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:13
|
|
|
asteroceras posted:This is a 1-minute (literally) set of adjustments that improve the image significantly: What did you use to negate the bow effect?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
SaNChEzZ posted:What did you use to negate the bow effect? Lightroom and Photoshop both can correct for lens distortion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:38
|
|
|
I think SaNChEzZ means the converging verticals(?) I just used Transform->Perspective in Photoshop
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
Its not a night time long exposure, but can it pretend so it'll fit in? I really dont know how to make it very interesting. Its IR, and the scene was mostly shades of blue, so I tried a black and white conversion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
asteroceras posted:I think SaNChEzZ means the converging verticals(?) I just used Transform->Perspective in Photoshop Yes I did mean converging verticals.. that's amazing, never really thought about it. Shows how much I know about PP 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 01:05
|
|
|
An exercise in making my own life difficult, also I hate galaxy season, they are all so annoyingly tiny. NGC4244 The Silver Needle Galaxy An edge-on loose Spiral galaxyin the constellation Canes Venatici. 27 x 5 minutes Modified Canon 1000D with Astronomik CLS CCD clip filter 250mm F4.7 Reflector Celestron CGEM Mount Piggy back guided with modified webcam Calibrated, stacked and processed with Pixinsight
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
 Rhyolite Mercantile by xxyzz road, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
 Rhyolite General Store by xxyzz road, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2011 21:50
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk, Did you setup any an artificial lights for your Rhyolite shots, or did you just use what was there? Being a ghost town I wouldn't think there's many lights around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
jm3000 posted:TheAngryDrunk, A mix of both. There's still active mining going on, so there actually are some lights nearby. The red hue on the mercantile building is from my car brake lights. The lights in the general store shot (in the background) are from two huge street lights a couple hundred feet away. The long exposure makes sure any available light really gets picked up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 02:59
|
|
|
Zero post processing, shot in RAW with no WB setup, I will have to correct that later. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 20:39
|
|
|
 Orion over Griffith Observatory by johnm3000, on Flickr jm3000 fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Mar 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2011 23:04
|
|
|
What's the easiest way to get a nice starry night sky photo in a more urban environment with a lot of light pollution? I'd love to get a sky full of dotted stars, but somehow I think star trails will be all I would be able to get.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2011 06:34
|
|
|
Stacking lots of exposures I guess. But your best bet is probably heading out of town for the evening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2011 07:50
|
|
|
   [edit] Whoa that last one is on the piss, correcting... (also cleaned up iso noise) 
Ak Gara fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Mar 16, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2011 20:07
|
|
|
I've had some opportunity over the past few weeks to get out to remote areas and attempt shots of the night sky, but I only really end up with a few stars. I'm hoping there is something I'm doing wrong beyond just having an entry level DSLR. Here's what I'm shooting: Rebel XS w/Tamrom 17-50/2.8 I usually stop down to F8 or so, set a 30 second exposure and put the ISO at 1600. Can I use a larger aperture and still get a good infinity focus? That's the last thing I can think of trying. At the moment, I end up with the star I used to focus and then maybe a few fainter stars around it, but none of the deep, rich starfields I've seen others shoot. Do I need to just get a gimbal, a camera with a higher ISO and a remote trigger for longer exposures? I plan to try larger apertures tonight and see what comes of it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:26
|
|
|
Elite Taco posted:
There's the problem. Shoot wide open. A remote trigger won't really matter on such a long exposure. Can you post an example of what you got?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:There's the problem. Shoot wide open. Thanks for the tips! Last night's pictures were much better. I will post my results when I get home tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 18:32
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:pictures  crap photo, but I had to. Photosoc? Better photo: 8 second exposure, lit with a LED torch (I was going for lo-fi) 
m4mbo fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Mar 19, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
 Any tips to get rid of this blue streak?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 03:46
|
|
|
My first picture of the moon! Full Moon by J-YG, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:21
|
|
|
Holy crap, I checked my deviantart (yeah, I know...) profile today, and I had 1200+ feedback messages. Normally I'll get 10 a week or so. It turns out that one of my photos was made a Daily Deviation, which I guess is the reason for the massive amount of favourites. I feel all warm and fuzzy. =0)
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
 Night at Old Rag by johnm3000, on Flickr  Night on Skyline Drive by johnm3000, on Flickr jm3000 fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Mar 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
 A look at the young ones by vlad TO, on Flickr 13sec, 18mm f/10 Also, my moon pic this saturday:  Night... Now with 15% more moon by vlad TO, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 16:15
|
|
|
m4mbo posted:Better photo: This is pretty cool, would like to see a series of these, did you "paint" the person with a flashlight waving it around or was the beam just pointed at his face? Is this a self portrait?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:A remote trigger won't really matter on such a long exposure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:This is pretty cool, would like to see a series of these, did you "paint" the person with a flashlight waving it around or was the beam just pointed at his face? Is this a self portrait? Thanks! I've begun exploring long exposure portraits since this shoot, they are very hit and miss! Sometimes the blur doesn't look good at all, I'm trying to work out what makes it work and what doesn't. I was light painting, mainly keeping the beam on the model but changing where it was coming from (all camera left) It's not a self portrait, though I may be in the picture, that black blob/blur on the left side I think is me twatting about with the light. Shooting this sort of thing with film makes it a lot easier because it is quite hard to meter for, had I shot this digitally it wouldn't have come out at all! m4mbo fucked around with this message at 00:13 on Mar 25, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2011 21:21
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I could use some advice for post-processing on these types of shots. I know this is really old, but I want to ask the same question Ak Gara asked. What tweaks are you doing to this shot to get such a clean look? You went from a kind of muddy looking shot to a crisp sharp photo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2011 14:31
|
|
|
Falco posted:I know this is really old, but I want to ask the same question Ak Gara asked. What tweaks are you doing to this shot to get such a clean look? You went from a kind of muddy looking shot to a crisp sharp photo. Looks like sharpening and a combination of pulling up blacks/pulling down whites to me
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2011 04:09
|
|
|
 The Mother Road and the Milky Way Part Deux by xxyzz road, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 12:31 |
|
|
TheAngryDrunk posted:
How did you avoid star trails with a 30 second exposure? What annoys me is, if my camera takes a 10 second exposure, it then goes into "processing mode" for 10 seconds. A 20 second exposure makes me wait 20 seconds, 30 for 30, 60 for 60, etc. It's really annoying because I like to take multiple exposures for error correction but the pause time makes a gap in recording. Do all cameras do this or is it just mine?
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2011 05:47
|
|