|
deaders posted:Just a boring sunset really... Sunsets aren't boring, they're a daily miracle. 
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
alkanphel posted:Yessss so drat good! Should post some of that in the food photography thread when I have the time later. Man you were less than one hour from me, by car. I'd have gladly bought you a beer or three if I knew. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
RazalasSol posted:
I really like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
maxmars posted:Man you were less than one hour from me, by car. I'd have gladly bought you a beer or three if I knew. Haha would have loved to meet up but I was on a ridiculously tight schedule!
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Beige posted:It's a shame but I don't really know how to avoid that when shooting into the sun. I suppose I could paint over it in post. What you can try is to do 2 exposures, in one of them put your finger or thumb over the sun (or enough to stop the flare) and then combine exposures.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
 Foster St., 2014 by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
Ok so this is my first post in here and I feel very out of my depth but I need some suggestions, critique and advice from the people spewing out these fantastic shots. I have a D5100 and the kit lens, a 35mm f1.8 and an 18-200mm that has just gone on eBay because I didn't get on with it (of the hundreds of photos I took with it, all of them past 85mm were crap when looking at the lightroom metadata) The only properly sharp shots I seem to be able to get out of the camera are using the 35/1.8 with an object in focus fairly close to the camera (think cats/flowers and alike). Anything past about 5 feet and i'm looking at a lack of sharpness and I start abusing the lightroom sliders to get them somewhat close to the things being posted here. I *know* sharpness isn't the be all and end all, even k-rock says so but god drat if the sharp shots in this thread don't stand out a lot more than the flat soft ones and I like the look personally. I've been looking through this thread from the start, I still have about 5000 unread posts to chew through but one did catch my eye of someone with a beach/rocks/sea shot on a D5xxx with the 18-55 kit lens and it was laser pinpoint sharp and generally amazing, I think the guy said it was pretty limited post. I went out last night after work and just tried to get a sharp shot like the ones i've been seeing people pull off with the same gear, came back with something completely different but still:  DSC_0172-Edit.jpg on FlickrD5100, 18-55 kit lens, circular polarizer, F22 sky exposure (for the star pointed sun), F11ish foreground (because that's what everyone in here seems to be using for the landscape shots that have a really nice sharp foreground) then manually masked in photoshop, its my first attempt at a sky/foreground exposure and merging and I went a bit OTT on the sky I think. On a tripod, I set the focus point to the middle AF point, auto focussed on the grass between the middle gate bars (a few feet behind the gate), set the lens to manual focus and recomposed and shot with a wireless remote. I took maybe 20 exposures at different focal lengths from F4-F22, shutter speeds adjusted, usually at 100 ISO and when loaded up in LR I can't really find a bit of them that's sharp and while the 22's and 4-6's are softer than F7-9, none of them look tack sharp in any area. The only thing I can think I have left is to focus closer to the foreground - perhaps I should've focussed on the gate in this example and gone for F11? Other than that perhaps using live view for the better auto focus or just for less mirror movement when triggering the shot? I also had a look at DxO today which is probably a bad idea but looking at (for example) the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 on a D5000 (relatively low megapixel sensor) compared to the same lens on a D7100 (still DX but 24mp or so sensor) the sharpness maps are very different (all red/orange for the 5000, a sea of green for the 7100 and obviously even better on the FF sensor cameras) Are a lot of these coming out sharper just because they are taken with 24MP cameras and resized down compared to the smaller leeway I have at 16MP and resizing down? Sorry for the huge post! TL:DR I'm having trouble getting tack sharp photos that i'm seeing in this thread by the likes of Dread Head and many others. LoopyJuice fucked around with this message at 13:14 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:11
|
|
|
What kind of post processing sharpening are you doing? This could/will have a big impact on the perceived sharpness of your images on their final display medium (presumably on your computer monitor).
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
I suspect the sharp look in others' photos is a combination of Lightroom export + Flickr sharpening. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but softness at f22 may be due to this phenomenon: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm. Also, sharpness is for squares.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:What kind of post processing sharpening are you doing? This could/will have a big impact on the perceived sharpness of your images on their final display medium (presumably on your computer monitor). Mostly holding ALT while dragging the lightroom sharpening sliders up and down until I like the look of it, fairly high on detail and masking, medium radius on that one IIRC. Computer monitor is a 30" Dell 3007WFP that is a good 7 years old and pretty well on its last legs with backlight bleed and burn in... also uncalibrated... still its the same monitor I look at the images in this thread on so? I'm *fairly* ok with how they look once i've sharpened them a bit but some people are posting their "straight out of camera" shots here and they look better than mine that have had some serious slider abuse in lightroom! LargeHadron posted:I suspect the sharp look in others' photos is a combination of Lightroom export + Flickr sharpening. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but softness at f22 may be due to this phenomenon: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...hotography.htm. I've read and understand what happens at the high aperture numbers, I was under the impression F11 (which is what the foreground is) was a fairly safe bet though (if a little on the high side)? Less worried about the sky sharpness more about the foreground/gate detail/edges. LoopyJuice fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Sep 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
LoopyJuice posted:Mostly holding ALT while dragging the lightroom sharpening sliders up and down until I like the look of it, fairly high on detail and masking, medium radius on that one IIRC. Computer monitor is a 30" Dell 3007WFP that is a good 7 years old and pretty well on its last legs with backlight bleed and burn in... also uncalibrated... still its the same monitor I look at the images in this thread on so? A lot of the people are also posting pictures from cameras that have no aliasing filter. Depending on how much your zooming in, you could just be dealing with the aliasing filter un-sharpening your photos. Your picture looks pretty good in all honesty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
LoopyJuice posted:The only thing I can think I have left is to focus closer to the foreground - perhaps I should've focussed on the gate in this example and gone for F11? This would likely make the greatest apparent difference. Additionally, lot of what is identified as sharpness in photos is not exactly sharpness, but contrast and clarity (not the filters, the general concepts); I doubt there would be significant difference between your setup and most others in this thread on a lens target.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
 Coal Town: Greenwald by voodoorootbeer, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:
love the color contrast between the brown river and green leaves
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:
Lovely Fujifilm greens .. And great color contrast!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I, too, like the contrast between the brown river and green leaves, but also the red berries in the lower right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
Love the contrast between the cock/balls
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
y'all keep it up and i'mma post a manscape
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Best for you to post that in the macro thread though...
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:01
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:y'all keep it up and i'mma post a manscape Food photography thread is that way --->
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
 Cityscape-crane by sensitometry - Steven Harris, on FlickrWas I correct in leveling the image against the crane?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:
As a master of the crooked horizon line I must say: no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 05:58
|
|
|
Putrid Grin posted:As a master of the crooked horizon line I must say: no. Yeah I feel them same as though its more important for the truck and food cart to be level. Unfortunate that is the full image, shot in camera, so there is not much room to crop. Tigertron fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Sep 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 06:25
|
|
|
I've just finished a project shot this summer; I understand this can be a cynical crowd but I'm somewhat proud of it, I'm slowly learning pixel editing software. Making use of both the darkroom and the lightroom is fun  Gallipoli
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 10:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 12:06
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:
No and pay more attention to your edges, there's like a tiny bit of something sticking in on the right and it makes me want to kick a puppy over a waterfall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 14:30
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:
You're pointing the camera upwards, so vertical structures should all have their top ends leaning towards the middle of the frame. If you want vertical structures to be perfectly vertical in your image, either keep the camera level (and optionally use a lens/camera with shift or rise, to capture more of the top of the structures), or do perspective correction in post. The latter can end up looking rather odd.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
I didn't know that Mario Cipollini had retired and started a bike company, so I was pretty confused by the green frame on the right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
Tigertron posted:
check your horizons vs your subject matter and correct that while you are on site. LR wont be able to fix this with perspective corrections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
 NW Marshall, Portland by Ashade76, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
drat.  The Orchards at Monmouth Battlefield by benruset, on Flickr ZippySLC fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Finally got around to processing this one from ages ago, shortly after I got my camera. Never delete photos.
Jimlad fucked around with this message at 13:20 on Sep 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Phone camera's tonal range sucks and has crazy glare...   
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
It's for kids img002 by LargeHadron, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
^ drat, that is some trippy lighting. Are you standing in front of a shiny building?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Bubbacub posted:^ drat, that is some trippy lighting. Are you standing in front of a shiny building? IIRC it was noon sunlight, so maybe that's why.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2014 08:12
|
|