|
Casull posted:The car looks horrendously out-of-focus My dad used to shoot a decent amount with an SLR and I kind of watched but didn't understand. Then we went overseas and he had just bought a 300D which was pretty cool at the time as it was the first DSLR I had seen. Then our house got robbed a few years later and new for old insurance policy gave us a few new DSLR's including a 400D which I took so I had my own.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 12:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
I never understand when people post that they forgot and left a setting wrong that ruined their shots. You have ISO, Shutter speed, and aperture, and if you're shooting in aperture or shutter priority mode, only 2 settings. Do you really go in and alter other settings so much you have more than that to keep track of? The most I ever forget it leaving the timer and mirror lockup settings, but it is evident the first shot later, and I'm getting better at remembering to change it as I'm taking the camera off the tripod. If you are able to shoot for a good while with ISO wrong, you aren't thinking enough about your photos. ISO is going to heavily determine what aperture you will use in a given lighting situation, which is in turn going to affect how much is in focus and what the "feel" of the image will be like. The painters equivalent seems like forgetting you have green loaded in your brush until you're halfway done and realize you needed blue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 15:55
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:I never understand when people post that they forgot and left a setting wrong that ruined their shots. Never went on for too long but it's definitely happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 16:06
|
|
|
Ringo R posted:Ugh, the goon photos in the Gran Turismo 5 thread... out of focus, excessive motion blur, selective coloring etc etc... Well in fairness a lot of people know nothing about photography so it's not so surprising, but hey maybe some people will enjoy it so much they'll get into the real thing. Unless of course you were talking about me. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 16:25
|
|
|
woot fatigue posted:Good News - I'm not as insane anymore. I use ScreenFlow at work. It's really good. There might be superior alternatives available by now, but it's always served me well. It's always played well with Photoshop for me but, then again, I've never tried recording whilst working with multiple massive RAW files on different layers. YMMV. But yeah....it'd be great if you could manage to post part II up someday (be it text or video). I really enjoy your interior work and find the workflow fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 16:39
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? I tinkered with disposable cameras for a year or so before I finally got a Canon PowerShot S200 for Christmas. Kept shooting and trying things and eventually got a bonus check from work large enough to get my dream setup: Rebel XT w/ kit lens, 50 F/1.4, 55-200 F/4.-5.6. All new in Nov 2005! The only piece of gear left from 5 years ago is the 50 F/1.4 and the camera bag I bought when it all arrived.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? Worked retail, was put into the camera department and ended up getting interested in SLRs I couldn't afford. Saw a crazy deal (at the time) on slickdeals, bought it because of a trip I was taking, and just started reading about photography through forums and books.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:23
|
|
|
The lack of quality photography in my facebook newsfeed got me to pick up a camera properly the first time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:29
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? I helped my girlfriend at the time buy a refurbished Canon bridge camera (can't remember details) about 4 years ago, so she gave me her old Nikon Coolpix 5200 - she'll deny it, but she's a very good photographer and used that little P&S to take some awesome bug pictures. I eventually reached my limits for what I could get out of that camera so I started shopping for a DSLR early this year. I bought a car about a year ago, and I've developed the habit of going for long-ish drives every week (e.g. today I'll go somewhere). Initially these were more about the driving than the destination or the photography, but lately they've been more an excuse to get my camera to some interesting spots. It's nice to have complementary hobbies. tl;dr - liked cameras as a kid, played with a film SLR, moved into digital. No clear underlying reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
Finally had enough money to get a DSLR after waiting for years and years, when I was a kid I loved taking photos but I had an awful point and shoot that didn't teach me anything important. I always liked photography but I never really had the means to explore it until the Christmas before last.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:34
|
|
|
woot fatigue posted:Does anyone know of a screen recording program for OS X (10.5), that will give me decent quality video, yet will run in the background without affecting Photoshop performance too much? I hate writing, but I'd be willing to record my process, edit it down, and post it. I just have to figure out how to do it without hindering my ability to get the photo done on time. Couldn't find anything free but this seems like it could fit the bill if you plan on using it for other projects and feel it's worth buying. You could always try doing it with the free trial. http://www.ambrosiasw.com/utilities/snapzprox/
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 18:47
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:Do you really go in and alter other settings so much you have more than that to keep track of? Like I said, my camera doesn't meter correctly with the 30 1.4 and I have to manually compensate -3/4EV. If I forget that, hello blown highlights!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 19:14
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Like I said, my camera doesn't meter correctly with the 30 1.4 and I have to manually compensate -3/4EV. If I forget that, hello blown highlights! Interesting, I've noticed overexposure wide open but less so stopped down (450D).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:04
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:Couldn't find anything free but this seems like it could fit the bill if you plan on using it for other projects and feel it's worth buying. You could always try doing it with the free trial. moron posted:I use ScreenFlow at work. It's really good. There might be superior alternatives available by now, but it's always served me well. It's always played well with Photoshop for me but, then again, I've never tried recording whilst working with multiple massive RAW files on different layers. YMMV. Thanks! I'll check these out. I just realized I have a VGA-Component Video converter, which I could hook up to my Component Video to DV converter and see if that works. The best quality I could get through that though is 480p... not sure if that would be useable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:22
|
|
|
l33tc4k30fd00m posted:Interesting, I've noticed overexposure wide open but less so stopped down (450D). It was really bad at 1.4, but I didn't shoot anything over 4 yesterday so maybe it gets a lot better as you hit 8 or something. Setting it to -3/4EV seems to work across the range so I'm pretty happy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:28
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:It was really bad at 1.4, but I didn't shoot anything over 4 yesterday so maybe it gets a lot better as you hit 8 or something. I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that it's known to do that but I have no idea where I read it, as it's more or less the only lens I use on digital (I mostly use film) I generally underexpose as a rule.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:32
|
|
|
Yeah, it's been reported as being faulty on the D200 by a few nikoncafe posters, and since it's the only lens I use right now I just have it set to --0.7 all the time and that works great 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2010 20:52
|
|
|
Is anyone doing the NatGeo photo contest? I have a lot of photos from Kashmir that would probably fare well, but the $15/photo to enter is pretty $$. Has anyone had any experiences or have advice on whether or not I should do anything?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 01:34
|
|
|
Maybe you could post some of your favourites here and get a vote on the best for entering? Whats the link to the competition?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? I'd always been into art and I took photography in high school because it sounded like fun. My dad had a Pentax K2 and a couple of lenses for it that he barely touched, so for two semesters it was mine. We shot almost exclusively in black and white, although we did develop a role of colour and a role of slide film at one point. I loved shooting and I loved processing and working with enlargers just as much. I think I was the only one there who really enjoyed the classes and took them seriously as opposed to a free credit. When it came time for college, I was at a crossroads as I had gotten accepted for animation and photography courses at a couple of colleges, but ended up going animation, thinking I'd rather keep photography as a hobby than have it as a career. Unfortunately, college left me zero time to shoot and I slowly forgot about it. I've been out of college and working as an animator for a few years now. In June, an e-buddy that I had turned on to photography when I was in high school showed me some of his photography and it really renewed my interest. I was planning on driving down to Toronto for a weekend and figured I'd go to the zoo, so I borrowed my dad's Digital Rebel. As soon as I figured out how to use it and started shooting, it just felt like magic. At the start of July (after a few weeks of research) I ended up buying a D90 and I've been shooting pretty consistently with it since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:21
|
|
|
I always liked taking pictures for some reason. I started reading Creative Convention pretty heavily and started lusting after a dSLR, but in the meantime I started experimenting more with my older brother's point and shoot -- trying to do long exposures, diffusing the flash, etc. Then, my girlfriend was given a Minolta SRT-201 and a Canon AE-1 Program; she gave me the SRT-201 and we went out and shot photos together. This was all in my junior year of high school. Finally, in January of 2008 (senior year), I had enough money to buy a refurbished Rebel XT with a kit lens and a 1gb card. I took it everywhere, and took pictures of everything. A semi-distant relative brought me along to shoot a wedding with him. In the summer before going to college, I bought a 70-200 f/4, and got a position as a staff photographer at the student newspaper. Then I picked up a 430EX and my brother bought me a 50 f/1.8. I also bought some lighting gear. I did a bunch of photojournalism, did some weddings, a few senior portraits, and then did landed a gig with the local little league, doing all of their team/individual portraits and game photos. It paid well since there are over 50 teams, and they also hosted a state tournament. With that money, I bought an AB800 (before the gig so that we could use it for the pictures) and a 1D Mark III. I didn't budget correctly, though, and couldn't afford a wide lens for it. Right now, I'm still working for the student newspaper while I'm going to school. Before I buy any more photo stuff, though, I really need to buy a car. So hopefully I'll be able to afford a car after another little league gig this summer, and then start looking at getting a 16-35 f/2.8, upgrading my 70-200 f/4 to a f/2.8, and investing in some more lighting gear. I really like portraits, sports, and weddings, so hopefully I'll be able to continue doing those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 02:36
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? Got my first camera in 1980, my uncle gave it as a birthday gift. It was one of those older cameras with a small rotating kinda flash. I think it was a Kodak? Too mostly pictures of my team playing soccer, and at birthdays and such. Got my second camera in 1991, it was a weatherproof Nikon if i remember correctly. Being young and not having a lot of money meant i shot slides, on school trips, vacations and just about everything. Had it with me everywhere. This is what got me hooked. I still watch these slides whenever i feel the need for a bit of nostalgia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:02
|
|
|
Fists Up posted:Maybe you could post some of your favourites here and get a vote on the best for entering? There's a lot I can post, but here's a few - not even my favorites:       quote:Whats the link to the competition? http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/photo-contest/faq/
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 03:17
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:There's a lot I can post, but here's a few - not even my favorites: Why don't you post your favorites? And these are nice but none of them really makes me go "wow" which seems like what you'd be looking for with a contest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:08
|
|
|
It'd just take forever to find & go through them - let alone just not wanting to see some of the photos. I just picked out a few photos that I thought would stand out. Either way, probably not worth the $15 x N. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:44
|
|
|
Pick one, if not your most favourite, at least one in the top 10, and send it in with the $15. Then find ways to tell people you have entered a National Geographic photo contest. That's got to be good for something, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:46
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:Is anyone doing the NatGeo photo contest? I have a lot of photos from Kashmir that would probably fare well, but the $15/photo to enter is pretty $$. I wouldn't enter a photo contest that charges you to enter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:48
|
|
|
The thing with this competition is due to the fact theres a large entry fee per photo and a decent prize for first there will be some seriously good entries I think. Which means you will need something that will make everyone who see's it go "wow". I like the photos you've posted but I don't think their gonna win a comp like this. I think a couple stand out more but could use with a little bit of work in post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:49
|
|
|
I think those fees do 2 things, limit the people who has just got a rebel from entering 20 shots of flowers and to re-coup some of the costs with having to have someone look at every photo that is entered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 04:55
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:I think those fees do 2 things, limit the people who has just got a rebel from entering 20 shots of flowers and to re-coup some of the costs with having to have someone look at every photo that is entered. I respectfully disagree. That fee is solely so that they can make money. In fact, the whole competition is just a method of earning money. They want as many people as possible to enter at all levels of skill. It takes less than 5 seconds per photo to weed out the bad/average ones, and at $15 per photo, it is a very profitable venture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:17
|
|
|
spog posted:I respectfully disagree. That fee is solely so that they can make money. That is silly. I'm sure they do make money off of it, but to say that that's the sole reason is absurd. They do need some barrier to entry if they don't want to be going through millions of photos, and a monetary fee is probably the easiest way to weed out those who aren't serious about it without a stipulation like "must have previously published work" that would defeat the purpose of having such a widely available contest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:33
|
|
|
Dread Head posted:20 shots of flowers http://www.google.ca/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=1366&bih=593&q=national+geographic+flowers&gbv=2&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= National Geographic is a good place to send your pictures of flowers, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:36
|
|
|
quote:That is silly. I'm sure they do make money off of it, but to say that that's the sole reason is absurd. No dude most photo magazines (and increasingly a lot of other photo organizations) use contests to generate revenue and that is the main reason they do it. I would go as far as saying certain photo magazines are almost entirely funded by entry fees to their contests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:41
|
|
|
brad industry posted:No dude most photo magazines (and increasingly a lot of other photo organizations) use contests to generate revenue and that is the main reason they do it. I would go as far as saying certain photo magazines are almost entirely funded by entry fees to their contests. Even one as well-known and established as National Geographic? E: This only throws me because I'm more familiar with writing, and a lot of smaller journals charge submission fees for entry which is an obvious ploy to make money, but to me NG asking for money to generate revenue is akin to Harper's asking for a submission fee as a sole means of revenue, which seems crazy with their distribution. mr. mephistopheles fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:That is silly. I'm sure they do make money off of it, but to say that that's the sole reason is absurd. They do need some barrier to entry if they don't want to be going through millions of photos, and a monetary fee is probably the easiest way to weed out those who aren't serious about it without a stipulation like "must have previously published work" that would defeat the purpose of having such a widely available contest. Let me rephrase: I respectfully disagree. That So, yes, I agree with you that if this were a competition for the sake of Art, then the fee would help reduce the number of frivolous entries. But in this (and many) cases, the fee is the reason for the competition. They want lots of paying entries so they can make lots of money. I am not saying that it is a bad thing, or that you shouldn't enter one, it's just perhaps not something I would want to enter into (and $15 is still $15).
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 05:48
|
|
|
Yes the fee makes them money but they also serve to discourage useless entries etc, you also have to watch out for contests that are rights grabs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:33
|
|
|
Magazine circulation numbers are not what they used to be (have you noticed the number of contests you can submit to has gone up lately?). If they didn't need the money, they would be commissioning assignments and printing that (you know, what they normally do) not sifting through thousands of amateur flower photos. I'm not saying it's a bad thing just that very few of these things are actually worth entering. If you think $15 is bad I think the PDN annual this year was $45 per image... brad industry fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Nov 29, 2010 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 06:34
|
|
|
aviation week was like $100 i think. i actually spat out my coffee IRL upon reading it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 07:01
|
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? I bought my XT a year ago on a whim from a goon (UGAmazing, to be exact) and didn't do anything with it for four months until I picked it up randomly one day and went shooting. Then I started reading up on shutter speed/aperture/ISO, and from there it quickly became into this obsession I have today. I bought a tarantula. I then tried to take a photo of said tarantula with my cellphone. I then tried to take a photo with my **AWEsum** 10 megapickle Sony Cybershot and for some reason it just wasn't awesome at taking pics of my tarantula.. Then I borrowed my dads Canon 20d with kit lens and managed to shoot some (to my mind) amazing photos with it. That was the last time I had any money of my own. drat you Canon and your reserves of my moneys!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 09:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:13 |
|
|
Casull posted:So how did you guys get into photography anyway? Took pictures of whatever interested me with a P&S for ten years, then with a crappy HP digital P&S for three years. I was getting disappointed with the HP's image quality and also with the quality of my photos, and I wanted to learn to do better on a 'real' camera--cue my grandfather's gift of his old film cameras in a bazillion different formats, which I have been happily using ever since.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2010 13:42
|
|
