The Photography Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter CDailey
  • 3,605 comments
  • 194,569 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, those were done in Photoshop. I even used the tutorial that Z linked to. There are real lenses and attachments to achieve this effect, but the nice ones are very expensive. The cheapest I know of are lensbabies, somewhere around $100-200 USD.
 
Thanks for that, looks pretty simple. Might give it a try, if I can get a good photo to work on. :)

I was looking on Wikipedia, but that was more to do with using lenses.
 
CDailey
Thanks guys. :) I really am glad the effect works. I'll have to try it more often.
Click to expand...

:lol: It's so awesome, it's hilarious, seriously Dailey, fantastic job! :cheers:
 
yeh CD they are good, ive used that tutorial too lol.

Fantastic shots. 👍
 
I'd be more impressed if you made a model look like real life... should I assume that it's just as difficult (if not actually moreso?)
 
Ultrawide good-ness

museum.jpg
 
Same. What is that GG, 10-22?


Bram Turismo
:lol: It's so awesome, it's hilarious, seriously Dailey, fantastic job! :cheers:
Click to expand...

Thank you :)

Sprite
yeh CD they are good, ive used that tutorial too lol.

Fantastic shots. 👍
Click to expand...

Thanks, I need to find some more interesting photo editing tuts.

Venari
I'd be more impressed if you made a model look like real life... should I assume that it's just as difficult (if not actually moreso?)
Click to expand...

That would be very interesting. I'm sure its possible with a super macro if you can get close enough.
 
removed.
 
CDailey
Same. What is that GG, 10-22?
Click to expand...

16-35 F/2.8 L II

It's a lovely lens. There's only the slightest hint of levels adjustment, a white balance correction (the 5d is horrible at AWB), noise reduction and a hint of sharpening (to overcome the softening of the NR). Otherwise, that's it for PP.

The lens seems to just ram in colour.
 
GilesGuthrie
16-35 F/2.8 L II

It's a lovely lens. There's only the slightest hint of levels adjustment, a white balance correction (the 5d is horrible at AWB), noise reduction and a hint of sharpening (to overcome the softening of the NR). Otherwise, that's it for PP.

The lens seems to just ram in colour.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of my next purchase, the 16-35 would be a good choice but im affraid its too wide for my needs, i really wish they would have something like my 17-85 but in 2.8L something with a good mid range
 
skylineGTR_guy
I was thinking of my next purchase, the 16-35 would be a good choice but im affraid its too wide for my needs, i really wish they would have something like my 17-85 but in 2.8L something with a good mid range
Click to expand...

Which body are you using? 16mm really is ultra-wide on 5d, but on a crop, it wouldn't be as extreme. If you're looking to go to a non-EFS camera soon, 16-35 is a lovely lens (the 82mm filters are a bitch to pay for!), but if you're on EFS and staying there, there's a huge weight of support for the EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS. It's only 60% of the price as well.

I don't think that 35mm on the long end is long enough for a walkaround on a crop. You could go for the 24-70 F/2.8 L, but then 24mm isn't wide enough on the wide end.
 
Hey I've got a question. A while back someone here posted some seriously breathtaking pictures of China. They were so great I bookmarked the page but then it dropped away and I deleted the link. I was wondering if anyone knew where they came from or where I could find them somewhere else?

Thanks holmes.
 
I have the 40D, I probably wont go FF any time soon. The 24-70 sounds pretty good, basically i have my 10-22 which is great for wide, my 70-200 2.8 IS for my big zoom, I just wanted something to fill in my mid range zoom without having to swap a million times.
 
Well, 24-70 is a great lens, and it has a really good hood design (the hood is attached to the fixed section of the lens, which extends as the zoom length shortens, rather than the other way around), so with the hood on, it's a constant-length. It's heavy, but when I dropped mine the AF mechanism broke, so it was £105 to fix. I'm glad to have it back though.
 
Had a day of shooting with my photography buddies then had dinner with my fellow chefs, here are the shots!

2333876427_0c384e3af2.jpg


2333836713_d8f6b9dfa3.jpg


2334664442_7af25e5058.jpg


2333876469_8e5509a784.jpg


2334704144_f3a6529f21.jpg


2334664482_c5930ee444.jpg

2333891231_a4921168fa.jpg

2334719140_daa6bba8d5.jpg

With My New 50 1.8
2333845587_61fa5ac7a2.jpg

2334704108_2a9e15c4c6.jpg

2333876483_2cb57b7b75.jpg

2334704244_e8af8c24db.jpg

2334681110_58b2ca56bf.jpg


2334687456_1f53ed1c4e.jpg
 




I've got a ton of photos to process (about 550), the best ones will be posted here so stay tuned. :)
 
Okay folks, I'm in a little bit of a pickle. I don't know if it is my lens (stock Tamron 18-70), body (Sony a100 pushing 10,000 frames), perscription correction (my eyes are crap and who knows how well my body is correcting it) or my laptop screen (calibrated to power a lighthouse), but I'm not loving the quality of my pictures. I don't know if it's the fact that I actually took the pictures (I might have a personal issue with having seeing the subject in three dimensions), or I've never really used any other dSLR but I'm always finding myself correcting things in post, be it contrast, color balances, sharpness or some other levels. Any of this look respectable?

108-2.jpg


114-1.jpg


113-2.jpg


105-1.jpg


101-4.jpg


112-2.jpg


111-3.jpg


Got any advice on anything?
 
All of the images look soft to me. It could be just your sensor is starting to crap out. My Canon dRebel is pushing probably 15k photos and I can for sure notice a lack in sharpness from when I purchased it used with around 10k shots on it.
 
Sorry for the late response on those photos CD but those shallow DOF shots really really... really make those shots look like models. :lol:
 
exigeracer
Okay folks, I'm in a little bit of a pickle. I don't know if it is my lens (stock Tamron 18-70), body (Sony a100 pushing 10,000 frames), perscription correction (my eyes are crap and who knows how well my body is correcting it) or my laptop screen (calibrated to power a lighthouse), but I'm not loving the quality of my pictures. I don't know if it's the fact that I actually took the pictures (I might have a personal issue with having seeing the subject in three dimensions), or I've never really used any other dSLR but I'm always finding myself correcting things in post, be it contrast, color balances, sharpness or some other levels. Any of this look respectable?
Click to expand...
RAW files usually look flat and need some post-processing to really make them pop.
If you're using the jpegs straight off the camera maybe you should check the in-camera image settings, like sharpness, saturation, etc and see how they are set.
To be honest, I cannot draw any conclusions from the photos you posted. Maybe with some 100% crops, but I'm no pixel-peeper myself.


Anyway, here's some more 35mm stuff:

2330710371_1064e2dcf2.jpg


2331174165_6d7b356776.jpg


2331637436_3a74452832.jpg


2332029772_d4f935483f.jpg
 
35mm are great cameras :D had a go of a OM-1 at the weekend with a 135mm lens
CNV00018.jpg

CNV00070.jpg

CNV00019.jpg


still love my digital too much though :D
35702798ef3.jpg

dscf9537ww4.jpg

dscf9541gn4.jpg
 
Do people mind if I post in this thread asking really simple questions?

I have a Panasonic point-and-shoot, and want to know how to get better photos out of it.

Is it OK if we start from bottom/basics? Just tell me if this isn't the thread for tutorials/advice. 👍
 
ferrari_chris
Do people mind if I post in this thread asking really simple questions?

I have a Panasonic point-and-shoot, and want to know how to get better photos out of it.

Is it OK if we start from bottom/basics? Just tell me if this isn't the thread for tutorials/advice. 👍
Click to expand...

Yep, this is a general photography thread, and it includes chat & advice.

In what way "better"? What does your camera offer in the way of controls? Or does it do everything for you? Good photos are probably 70% photographer, 30% equipment, so you can get good shots with basic cameras in most circumstances.
 
DiabolicalMask
2331637436_3a74452832.jpg
Click to expand...

beautiful.

ferrari_chris
Do people mind if I post in this thread asking really simple questions?

I have a Panasonic point-and-shoot, and want to know how to get better photos out of it.

Is it OK if we start from bottom/basics? Just tell me if this isn't the thread for tutorials/advice. 👍
Click to expand...

go ahead, but you should check out some pages like;
http://photo.net/equipment/digital/basics/
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/digital-photography.htm
 
Just a few I took at a party recently, I seriously need to get me a 50mm f1.8 lens soon. For now some of these have been edited a fair bit, but I'm not really happy with the composition in any of them. They were mainly experiments. Plus I was fairly drunk. :lol:

That's me on the left!




 
holga poop
20080318194039_churchhirez.jpg


20080318194028_snowholgalarge.jpg


20080318194017_roof.jpg


20080318194004_trees.jpg


20080318193954_sunset.jpg


20080318193942_clouds.jpg


c330 poop
20080318193326_tree.jpg


20080318193337_ty.jpg


digital poop
20080318193205_dsc_0376.jpg


20080318193136_dsc_0324.jpg
 
GilesGuthrie
Yep, this is a general photography thread, and it includes chat & advice.

In what way "better"? What does your camera offer in the way of controls? Or does it do everything for you? Good photos are probably 70% photographer, 30% equipment, so you can get good shots with basic cameras in most circumstances.
Click to expand...
Sweet. :D I'll take a photo tomorrow, post it up and we can rip it to shreds. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back