|
A double exposure of sunset and twilight of the iconic canyon junction bridge view of Zion. First time trying focus stacking and double exposure with about 8.5 hours difference in the shots.  and some more star shots from that week  
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 6, 2018 |
#
?
May 6, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Holy poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:A double exposure of sunset and twilight of the iconic canyon junction bridge view of Zion. First time trying focus stacking and double exposure with about 8.5 hours difference in the shots. But, why? It is not good, at all.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:But, why? Looked good on my phone. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
bobmarleysghost posted:But, why? Sorry bro. But to rub it in since you’re being a troll, that photo paid for my whole trip.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
I can only see the last two pictures.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Sorry bro. One consistent thing about your years-long career of terrible posting in the Dorkroom is that you still can't seem to distinguish between anyone disliking your boring brand of dentist office photography and trolling.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Learn to distinguish between hard knock critique and trolling. You're getting a hojillion upvotes for it on reddit's hugbox but in the rough and tumble something awful comedy forum you gonna get it straight.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Sorry bro. I was not being a troll. I'm 100% serious when i tell you that that is a garbage tier photo. The fact that someone paid money for it is a testament that people will buy literally anything and have no taste. I'm happy that you found your niche though. Also it's cute that you think that I care how you pay for your trips.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
It’s cuter that you think I care for your garbage tier critique. If you had put any thought into your comment I would have replied in kind like I did in the landscape thread. xzzy posted:Learn to distinguish between hard knock critique and trolling. Funny, because that’s exactly how I got this title.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Sorry bro. lmao this is always a good line to use
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:35
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It’s cuter that you think I care for your garbage tier critique. If you had put any thought into your comment I would have replied in kind like I did in the landscape thread. What did you think the response would be here to the 2018 equivalent of tonemapped images? It's the same view we've all seen hundreds of times, with some ridiculous post-processing. It's a lovely photo, the photographic equivalent of a collectible eagle figurine, easily digestible schlock. You've sold another print, Mr. Kinkade, congratulations.,
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:41
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I would have replied in kind like I did in the landscape thread.  You didn't answer any of my questions. You literally just said "It's shot at 100ISO". I can't give better critique because the photo is so bad that it doesn't deserve any thorough thought. You posted a composite of two poo poo high noise over filtered over sharpened boring photos and didn't get the praise you thought you might get. Why would I waste my time by thinking critically about what you posted when what you posted is troll level garbage?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
 Just post
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:
Astoundingly awful.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:
tag urself im the dark matter void consuming the sky at the bottom of the frame
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 19:58
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:
I would prefer you didn't
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2018 21:39
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Sorry bro. How much do we have to pay you to go into the desert and not come back this time? 8th-snype fucked around with this message at 09:04 on May 8, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Depends what kind of dessert.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2018 08:08
|
|
|
drat I wish I got to see that photo before it got took down. Edit: oh no it is there I just suck at using my phone. So if I post a photo and get no comments I am actually receiving goon acceptance? Feels good. Zank Frappa fucked around with this message at 14:31 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 14:20
|
|
|
Generally yes. You know you really hit it big when someone actually compliments an image.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 14:45
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:It’s cuter that you think I care for your garbage tier critique. If you had put any thought into your comment I would have replied in kind like I did in the landscape thread. People that say "its cute you think i care" are always ashamed of how much they actually care
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 19:15
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Generally yes. You know you really hit it big when someone actually compliments an image. But .. but .. one can dream!
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Did these supposedly lovely pics get taken down? Tried clicking on them on the phone and copy/pasting the links. Nada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
 July 16th Moon shot
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Man, I can never get the night sky in focus that well. Even got a bahtinov mask and everything. :| Moon & Venus from last night: 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Share your settings?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 00:39
|
|
|
Javid posted:Man, I can never get the night sky in focus that well. Even got a bahtinov mask and everything. :| Using Live View zoomed on a bright star and manually adjusting the focus until the star is as small as possible is a fairly solid method. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
Went out to AZ and only had a mini tripod with me for the trip so I didn't get the greatest long exposures but they were fun to do still. Long Exposures of Bell Rock by Peter Crain, on Flickr Sedona by Peter Crain, on Flickr Long Exposures of Bell Rock by Peter Crain, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
 Local church that I've always found to be a bit ominous.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2018 15:35
|
|
|
It's Perseid time again, and after a couple years completely loving it up I want to try and get it right this time. Anyone in here with experience shooting meteors that can confirm/deny the validity of this guy's claims? http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/meteor.photography/ tl;dr is basically "f1.4 or go home" and his premise seems to be that you need to maximize the physical size of the aperture to capture the dim meteors. The example he gives is that a 35mm 1.4 lens' max aperture is 25mm across, compared to the human eye of 7mm.. so the lens is physically capable of passing more light to the sensor. He claims that as the focal length decreases, the diameter of the max aperture goes down meaning that ultra wide lenses have trouble capturing meteors. This is a characteristic of lenses I was unaware of, and haven't been able to confirm because the diameter of the aperture in millimeters doesn't seem to get published. With my gear on hand the best I'll be able to do is my 17-55 f2.8, which if I read his table correctly means all my pictures are gonna be poo poo. Does this agree with anyone else's experiences?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 03:45
|
|
|
xzzy posted:He claims that as the focal length decreases, the diameter of the max aperture goes down meaning that ultra wide lenses have trouble capturing meteors. This is a characteristic of lenses I was unaware of, and haven't been able to confirm because the diameter of the aperture in millimeters doesn't seem to get published. f-number = focal length / aperture diameter. So, yes, all his nonsense about aperture diameter is correct if unimportant. You use the ratio in the first place because f/1.4 lets in the same amount of light at 50mm as it does at 200mm. I've never shot a meteor shower before, but I imagine getting to a place with low light pollution will have more of an impact than the difference between f/1.4 and f/2.8. Bump up the ISO, a bit of noise isn't he end of the world. tk fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 04:42
|
|
|
Yeah, some corner of my brain knew that but in reading his very dense page it never really surfaced. I read up a bit more on it and his whole premise seems to focus on delivering the maximum number of photons to the sensor, and his experience has shown that 35mm f/1.4 does the best job of that. It's some relationship that I don't fully understand between the brightness of celestial objects, the lens transferring light (and invariably losing some of it due to limits of efficiency), and the pixel density on the sensor. But intuitively I think he's right. My past two years of attempts capturing the Perseids were done at something like 10mm @ f3.5 (iso 400-1600, I change it a lot trying to capture something) and I got literally nothing, even in cases where I knew I had the shutter open and witnessed a meteor streaking past. The light apparently wasn't "big" enough to register on the sensor. I think I might rent a 24mm 1.4 for next weekend, just to put it to the test. Since I shoot crop, 35mm seems like it would be too narrow and I want a little more vista in the shots. edit - on thinking about it, an easier way for me to understand what's going on is that as FOV increases, each meteor gets smaller as projected on the sensor so it would need to be brighter to be recorded. Or run at really high ISO, but there's diminishing returns on that choice. xzzy fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Aug 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
e: oops wrong thread
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2018 18:46
|
|
|
Trip report: can confirm that f/1.4 @1600 improves results a hell of a lot. I did side by side tests with an f/2.8 lens and it just wasn't pulling enough light to capture meteors. I got really lucky with this one, I was just starting to pack up all my poo poo when a flash lit up everything around me for a fraction of a second. Look up and see a fading smudge in Casseopeia. Fortunately the camera was still going.. was my second to last exposure for the night.  Large Perseid Meteor in Casseopeia by xzzy77, on Flickr I've only been watching meteors for a few years and I've never seen one this bright, not sure how common they are. It was bright enough to clip my whites, where all other meteor shots I have are dim grey spears. Having my camera's shutter open and it happening to be pointed in the right spot is even more rare. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2018 01:42
|
|
|
I tried this "night time long exposure" of Oslo. Oslo by Eivind Hauger, on FlickrISO 100, f/6.3, 15 seconds exposure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 15, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
xzzy posted:
That's fantastic! It was a nice night to be out and watch some meteors. I just caught some faint ones:   The meteor is the long horizontal line in the upper left. The shorter, brighter line is a plane. The light at the bottom is lightning.  No meteors in the last one. azathosk posted:I tried this "night time long exposure" of Oslo. I like it!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2018 20:15
|
|
|
My first attempt at a night sky photo (actually thee stitched together). Think it works well, obviously a lot of light pollution in front of/behind the mountains at the base adding a lot of glow. Stars above Rothornhutte by Andrew Burns, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2018 20:50
|
|
|
And here's my first attempt at taking a photo of the galaxy. Apart from the obvious framing issues with the tree, and nothing interesting in the horizon, do you guys reckon I overdid it with the editing? I'm just starting to learn how to use lightroom so I'm just pulling sliders this way and that until it looks good to my untrained eye. Any feedback is welcome. LRM_EXPORT_1695683875781_20180914_221225045 by Pooper Trooper, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 18:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
It's a bit heavy on the blues, if accuracy is what you're after the night sky is supposed to be black (absent airglow) and the milky way is a dusty tan. Read what this guy has to say on it: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/night.photography.image.processing/ I think the same way he does, you don't have to get quite as spergy with processing but he explains in exhaustive detail what "correct" is. Just avoid going too far, a lot of photographers treat it like a saturation contest and bring out sunset levels of colors. Unless you like the blue. Lots of people do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2018 21:28
|
|