I use a Nikon D90, and most of these shots were shot with a 80-200 lens by Sunactinon, which I bought for roughly 30 Americans (A steal really). Though, of course, I have used a macro extension tube for the macro shots.
Post Your Photos
Created 17 years ago2007-08-06 23:50:34 UTC by
Archie
Created 17 years ago2007-08-06 23:50:34 UTC by
Archie
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-20 10:41:38 UTC
Post #295696
Why, thank you.
I use a Nikon D90, and most of these shots were shot with a 80-200 lens by Sunactinon, which I bought for roughly 30 Americans (A steal really). Though, of course, I have used a macro extension tube for the macro shots.
I use a Nikon D90, and most of these shots were shot with a 80-200 lens by Sunactinon, which I bought for roughly 30 Americans (A steal really). Though, of course, I have used a macro extension tube for the macro shots.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-20 20:43:12 UTC
Post #295704
30 USD for a 80-200 lens?!
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-21 17:25:08 UTC
Post #295735
Ah, yes. I bought it second hand. Can't say I was expecting much given the price, but it quickly turned into my favourite lens.
Now, in my non-existent camera bag, I have the 80-200 from Sunactinon, a 35mm/1.8 Nikkor and a 24-80 Nikkor. These are joined by a bunch of filters and, of course, the macro tubes. I also recently got my hands on a flash; Yongnuo YN560-II. Haven't tested it out yet as my camera's away on cleaning, but I've heard good things.
Now, here's a distraction while I disappear for another 6 months.
Now, in my non-existent camera bag, I have the 80-200 from Sunactinon, a 35mm/1.8 Nikkor and a 24-80 Nikkor. These are joined by a bunch of filters and, of course, the macro tubes. I also recently got my hands on a flash; Yongnuo YN560-II. Haven't tested it out yet as my camera's away on cleaning, but I've heard good things.
Now, here's a distraction while I disappear for another 6 months.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-25 23:14:57 UTC
Post #295905
Some attempted shallow focus tests.
Regular focus
Attempted Shallow Focus
Regular focus
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-26 07:00:29 UTC
Post #295918
Rather than shallow focus, I see motion blur.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-26 07:48:23 UTC
Post #295920
I see neither of them have proper focus. Seriously Crollo start saving some money. Even if you save 1$ a day you'll still be able to get something really good in half a year.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 05:19:59 UTC
Post #295961
Well for now all I can get is a easyshare z1012 is, which looks to have pretty decent specs, but to be honest, I don't care. Why should I shell out 100$ for something I don't take seriously, and don't even do very often? Seems like a waste of money to me.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 05:22:48 UTC
Post #295962
Run away from Kodak cameras, they're shit. I had one 5 years ago and got rid of it within the week.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 05:47:49 UTC
Post #295963
A +5 year old camera doesn't compare to a three year old camera.
Their low priced cameras are shit, but the higher priced ones can be pretty decent.
I don't know about you, but it doesn't look all that shitty.
Their low priced cameras are shit, but the higher priced ones can be pretty decent.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 06:38:20 UTC
Post #295965
That top picture has had more post-production done to it than The Matrix.
You can't judge a camera based entirely on the photos it's capable of producing. When it comes to finding the right camera, it's largely about usability.
DSLRs like the Canon 5D are extremely popular at the moment for shooting video because they have a ridiculously massive sensor, and fit standard stills lenses. They can produce absolutely beautiful shots, but they are a fucking nightmare to work with.
You can't judge a camera based entirely on the photos it's capable of producing. When it comes to finding the right camera, it's largely about usability.
DSLRs like the Canon 5D are extremely popular at the moment for shooting video because they have a ridiculously massive sensor, and fit standard stills lenses. They can produce absolutely beautiful shots, but they are a fucking nightmare to work with.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 06:51:39 UTC
Post #295967
You can't judge a camera based on 3 photos you found on flickr. You have to find out how it behaves in adverse conditions to really know how good it is. Pretty much every camera will produce a good shot if the scene is well lit.
Nightmare? Oh boy, you're too busy doing video. If you just want to take photos, they're just like every other DSLR. With the added benefit of using a 16-35mm as the widest wide angle lens! Oh boy I want a 10-22mm now.
Nightmare? Oh boy, you're too busy doing video. If you just want to take photos, they're just like every other DSLR. With the added benefit of using a 16-35mm as the widest wide angle lens! Oh boy I want a 10-22mm now.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 07:10:41 UTC
Post #295968
So the only way to judge a camera is to see if it'll do good in shit conditions? Fuck, top movie studios should stop using lighting rigs and should just shoot in whatever 'adverse' lighting conditions are available then.
Also this is a photography thread. I don't think how good a camera does in video modes is relevant.
Also this is a photography thread. I don't think how good a camera does in video modes is relevant.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 07:26:50 UTC
Post #295969
I'm not a photographer. I'm a video camera op. The point I was making is relevant regardless of whether you're shooting video or stills - A camera can produce good looking work, but how comfortable it is to use and how capable it is in various situations is extremely important.
Seriously crollo, I sometimes wonder if you're even capable of dressing yourself.
Seriously crollo, I sometimes wonder if you're even capable of dressing yourself.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 07:50:02 UTC
Post #295970
And my point is you can't call a camera shit just because it won't work properly in lighting so 'adversely' bad that you can't even see anything in real life, but works fine when you god forbid, feed it proper lighting, which you should have been doing in the first place if you're doing anything photography, and simply waiving something off because it god forbid does good in proper lighting conditions just seems idiotic to me.
It's like saying "Wow that guy's a really fast sprinter" "pff noob is using his real legs [good lighting], i want to see him sprint using artificial legs\no legs [bad lighting], THEN i'll be convinced he's a good sprinter."
It's like saying "Wow that guy's a really fast sprinter" "pff noob is using his real legs [good lighting], i want to see him sprint using artificial legs\no legs [bad lighting], THEN i'll be convinced he's a good sprinter."
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 08:26:27 UTC
Post #295971
...
I can only assume you're trolling again. Nobody can seriously miss the point that extensively.
I can only assume you're trolling again. Nobody can seriously miss the point that extensively.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 08:51:48 UTC
Post #295972
That might apply for well-prepared studio photography, but any decent digital should be able to give good results in any lighting condition (you know, save for absolutely ridiculous weather nobody would shoot in anyway).
I have no comment on whatever camera you're looking at, it may well be a decent camera, and suit you fine. That's great, but you seem to be making a point that ideal lighting first-and-foremost controls a shot (and thus, any old camera will do). That is pretty short-sighted. You can find gold in uninviting places, if you have it in you and your tools are at least up to the task.
For example, some of the best macro photography I've seen was shot in dreary, overcast conditions because the camera was then able to get more detail and texture out of the shot in such unspectacular, blanketed lighting conditions people otherwise wouldn't even consider.
I have no comment on whatever camera you're looking at, it may well be a decent camera, and suit you fine. That's great, but you seem to be making a point that ideal lighting first-and-foremost controls a shot (and thus, any old camera will do). That is pretty short-sighted. You can find gold in uninviting places, if you have it in you and your tools are at least up to the task.
For example, some of the best macro photography I've seen was shot in dreary, overcast conditions because the camera was then able to get more detail and texture out of the shot in such unspectacular, blanketed lighting conditions people otherwise wouldn't even consider.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 10:13:47 UTC
Post #295973
Of course, and I understand that, but saying that a camera is unimpressive because it can take good shots when you give it good lighting just seems a bit much to me, personally I'm not going to be using a camera unless I can properly control the lighting and the setting for what I'm actually capturing, but I guess the argument is pointless anyways, because it depends entirely on who is using it.
Me? I don't care if it's shit with low lighting, if it can pull good shots out of the setting that i always shoot in, then I couldn't care less about anything else, because I'm not going to be using it for anything else.
Sure, it might not be the greatest all-round camera, but it captures pretty good macro shots and sharp images, to me a camera that does poor in low lighting conditions isn't shit. It just doesn't do well in low lighting conditions.
Also it's 4AM, I really don't know what the fuck I'm saying.
Me? I don't care if it's shit with low lighting, if it can pull good shots out of the setting that i always shoot in, then I couldn't care less about anything else, because I'm not going to be using it for anything else.
Sure, it might not be the greatest all-round camera, but it captures pretty good macro shots and sharp images, to me a camera that does poor in low lighting conditions isn't shit. It just doesn't do well in low lighting conditions.
Also it's 4AM, I really don't know what the fuck I'm saying.
Posted 13 years ago2011-06-27 12:27:23 UTC
Post #295974
A camera can be judged after reading reviews and comparing it to other ones. It's really easy these days with the internet at our hands. Also there are a lot of magazines who make in depth revies with details like noise graphs at different ISOs( one of the most important aspect after the lens quality).
I think one such magazine is suggestively named 'Photo Magazine'. Also, for really fasy comparisons you can try Snapsort.
my battery is almost dead.
I think one such magazine is suggestively named 'Photo Magazine'. Also, for really fasy comparisons you can try Snapsort.
my battery is almost dead.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-04 06:57:49 UTC
Post #296218
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-04 11:21:05 UTC
Post #296223
The creek pic is my new desktop background. Nice shots, man.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-04 17:47:16 UTC
Post #296228
Mine too. It is my personal opinion that Caboose is fuckin' awesome.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-04 18:06:02 UTC
Post #296229
Caboose, will you STOP posting photos already. You're making us all look like bad photographers. 
Crollo, you're probably the only one here that only does product photography. Of course it's unimpressive if a camera gets a good shot in perfect light, pretty much every camera can handle perfect conditions. What makes a good camera is that it can also get a good shot in less than optimum conditions - which sometimes you plain don't have.
Suppose you're taking a photo with your camera, indoors. You look out of the window and see an awesome scene that makes you need to shoot it. BUT look, it's an awful overcast day. Is your camera as good as you thought? No, because something as harmless as a dull and overcast day make for less than ideal lighting conditions and your camera doesn't do less than ideal lighting conditions. Will you tell everyone outside to stay still until the sun comes back out?
Look at the first photo Caboose has just posted. Those are definitely less than ideal lighting conditions and most cameras would plain crap out if you try to shoot that. But, his camera is good enough to be able to process the scene into a decent looking photo without falling apart in pieces. Should he have stopped and waited until the sun came back out to make great lighting conditions? Sure, but what made the shot special in the first place would be lost.
I'm feeding the troll ain't I.
Crollo, you're probably the only one here that only does product photography. Of course it's unimpressive if a camera gets a good shot in perfect light, pretty much every camera can handle perfect conditions. What makes a good camera is that it can also get a good shot in less than optimum conditions - which sometimes you plain don't have.
Suppose you're taking a photo with your camera, indoors. You look out of the window and see an awesome scene that makes you need to shoot it. BUT look, it's an awful overcast day. Is your camera as good as you thought? No, because something as harmless as a dull and overcast day make for less than ideal lighting conditions and your camera doesn't do less than ideal lighting conditions. Will you tell everyone outside to stay still until the sun comes back out?
Look at the first photo Caboose has just posted. Those are definitely less than ideal lighting conditions and most cameras would plain crap out if you try to shoot that. But, his camera is good enough to be able to process the scene into a decent looking photo without falling apart in pieces. Should he have stopped and waited until the sun came back out to make great lighting conditions? Sure, but what made the shot special in the first place would be lost.
I'm feeding the troll ain't I.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-05 16:59:10 UTC
Post #296277
:heart:!
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-26 22:35:00 UTC
Post #297031
Also, the image is a bit cropped.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-26 23:02:53 UTC
Post #297032
I'm guessing you were too close and the camera can't make a perfect focus that close. Look in the manual, it'll state what the minimum focus distance is.
On SLRs, common macro lenses are 100mm or more, and minimum focus distance is about 50-70cm or so. That makes you stand far enough so as not to scare them off.
On SLRs, common macro lenses are 100mm or more, and minimum focus distance is about 50-70cm or so. That makes you stand far enough so as not to scare them off.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-27 10:15:01 UTC
Post #297036
I'm guessing you were too close and the camera can't make a perfect focus that close.That is an insult!
Nah, kidding. I think you're talking about that line of focus, it happens when you shoot photos very close. My camera can make even closer images than this.
In the manual it is specified that the minimum distance is 1cm, but heh... that's the minimum "practical" distance. In reality, I have successfully focused on the glass of the lens.
So if that mosquito was dead, I could make a picture of its eye.
[EDIT] Also, some of my latest photos:
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-27 10:43:57 UTC
Post #297044
I want, like, all of those as my desktop wallpaper.
Larger res on #1 & #3 please?
edit:
also, in case you didn't get it from that comment; those are freaking great
Larger res on #1 & #3 please?
edit:
also, in case you didn't get it from that comment; those are freaking great
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-27 11:08:59 UTC
Post #297045
I'll provide you some links once I get home... Unfortunately the quality isn't that great even full res if yo have a monstruos monitor. They look fine on my 19 inch monitor though.
The limitationsxof a 1/2.3' CMOS sensor... I want a DSLR so badly :((
The limitationsxof a 1/2.3' CMOS sensor... I want a DSLR so badly :((
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-27 12:39:05 UTC
Post #297049
Beautiful stuff, Striker. Really stepping it up a notch in macro.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 16:35:05 UTC
Post #297055
Thank you.
Archie, here's the link. It contains all the photos.
[EDIT]
Gross picture, I know:
Watch the video if you want.
Some more photos I added:
Archie, here's the link. It contains all the photos.
[EDIT]
Gross picture, I know:
Some more photos I added:
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 20:09:43 UTC
Post #297100
Love the water shots.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 21:40:10 UTC
Post #297102
I might be getting this on my birthday, might not. Whatever.
Ifwhen I do, expect some MF rape.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 21:47:53 UTC
Post #297103
Fujifilm? But it looks like a digital camera!
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 22:10:56 UTC
Post #297104
Well let's hope camera will survive.
Also I feel there's some competition going on.
[EDIT]
Oh btw,
Also I feel there's some competition going on.
[EDIT]
Oh btw,
If\when I do, expect some MF rape.
Well for now all I can get is a easyshare z1012 is, which looks to have pretty decent specs, but to be honest, I don't care. Why should I shell out 100$ for something I don't take seriously, and don't even do very often? Seems like a waste of money to me.So now it suddenly become an important thing eh?
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 22:16:30 UTC
Post #297105
You do a lot of post processing on your shots, Striker, but unlike most who do you have an incredible eye for colour and contrast. It's never overstated and always tasteful.
Those water shots are gorgeous. The ripples in the surface tension of the splash itself are stunning.
Those water shots are gorgeous. The ripples in the surface tension of the splash itself are stunning.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 22:32:53 UTC
Post #297106
So now it suddenly become an important thing eh?I never said it was 'important', because if it was then I'd be saving up my own money for it, but I'm getting a certain amount of money and choosing what I want to buy with said money. It's not even remotely the same thing.
One is working your ass off to get an opportunity to get a camera, and the other is just picking\choosing to get a camera, when the opportunity just 'pops up'.
If somebody offered you a million dollar car and you accepted it, it doesn't mean you would have otherwise worked your ass to the bone to get enough money to pay for it. Or if somebody gave you a videogame for free does that mean you would have taken 60$ out of your paycheck to invest into buying it? No.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 22:37:03 UTC
Post #297107
Heh, thanks Archie. Always kind. That added a lot of horsepower to my motivation locomotive.
My problem with post-processing is that I know few standard editing procedures(like, say, applying a lomo effect or old photo effect, but even those I do not apply them like regular). It's mostly about colour themes though. I'm interested in these because they're useful for film editing too.
Do you know resources, suggestions, links where I could get directions on how to apply different colour\mood themes to videos\images?
Well Crollo, after you get that camera(hopefully soon), we better start some themed photography and try to come each of us with our best.
My problem with post-processing is that I know few standard editing procedures(like, say, applying a lomo effect or old photo effect, but even those I do not apply them like regular). It's mostly about colour themes though. I'm interested in these because they're useful for film editing too.
Do you know resources, suggestions, links where I could get directions on how to apply different colour\mood themes to videos\images?
Well Crollo, after you get that camera(hopefully soon), we better start some themed photography and try to come each of us with our best.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-28 22:50:21 UTC
Post #297108
Yeah, and I've got the perfect plan for when I do get it [hopefully the 31st]; Take pictures of cameras.
Preferably old cameras.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 04:03:41 UTC
Post #297109
Negative EV when there are any burnt out highlights really screws things up.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 20:41:22 UTC
Post #297143
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 20:57:41 UTC
Post #297144
I hope my photography class teaches me to make photos at least as half as good as yours Striker.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 21:29:25 UTC
Post #297145
Don't get that excited. My photos are not very good. It's the post-processing that give them some value...
I rarely make photos worth keeping in the original form.
[EDIT] Omg. Looking back in this thread, I found one of Boomer's photo I never commented on:
May I have a high-res version of this? I want it as my wallpaper.
This picture is orgasmic.
I rarely make photos worth keeping in the original form.
[EDIT] Omg. Looking back in this thread, I found one of Boomer's photo I never commented on:
This picture is orgasmic.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 21:41:42 UTC
Post #297148
While Striker's photography is great, I agree, with a real photography course, you will learn probably a lot more then Striker depending on how far in you go.
However, keep in mind it has nothing to do with the knowledge, it is purely the artistic talent and vision you have that will allow you to take great photographs, knowing how to operate the equipment almost comes second after.
Also Striker, the camera I want to get also has a 12.3' CMOS sensor, so our photography equipment would be pretty much on par. Bring it on.
EDIT: What camera do you have exactly? The one I'm looking at seems very similar to yours, shooting 720p video of about the same quality as your earthworm video, same CMOS sensor size, and same resolution?
However, keep in mind it has nothing to do with the knowledge, it is purely the artistic talent and vision you have that will allow you to take great photographs, knowing how to operate the equipment almost comes second after.
Also Striker, the camera I want to get also has a 12.3' CMOS sensor, so our photography equipment would be pretty much on par. Bring it on.
EDIT: What camera do you have exactly? The one I'm looking at seems very similar to yours, shooting 720p video of about the same quality as your earthworm video, same CMOS sensor size, and same resolution?
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 22:09:16 UTC
Post #297149
Nikon Coolpix P100
It shoots FullHD(1080p) actually, but never filmed at that resolution. Main reason is because my monitor isn't capable of such a thing.
[EDIT] Have to add one more "water drop" picture I shot today. I love these ones :).
It shoots FullHD(1080p) actually, but never filmed at that resolution. Main reason is because my monitor isn't capable of such a thing.
[EDIT] Have to add one more "water drop" picture I shot today. I love these ones :).
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-29 23:12:47 UTC
Post #297150
I've shot on RED cameras capable of 4k resolution and I still only shoot in 720p. For youtube purposes, shooting in 1080p or higher is fairly pointless, especially when flash media for high-end cameras is retardedly expensive.
I shoot most of my stuff on a Panasonic HPX301 which records to P2 media. It's about £300 for a 32gb card.
I shoot most of my stuff on a Panasonic HPX301 which records to P2 media. It's about £300 for a 32gb card.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-30 01:11:19 UTC
Post #297154
Isn't that a beautiful camera. Can I borrow it?
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-30 01:57:59 UTC
Post #297157
Band did a photoshoot in an abandoned building in a neighboring town. It was an Environmental company shut down in 1997. They took waste and processed it to be cleaner, but there was still a CRAP LOAD of chemicals and equipment just left hanging around. A lot of the stuff reminded me of half-life 2. I'm such a geek.
This next one is currently my desktop wallpaper
These were all taken on an iPhone4 Camera in HDR mode.
There's no post-processing done on them, and most were supr-of-the moment shots because it was mainly a tour of the building looking for places to shoot. That water was NASTY. It didn't smell, but i would've killed for an HEV suit lol.
There's no post-processing done on them, and most were supr-of-the moment shots because it was mainly a tour of the building looking for places to shoot. That water was NASTY. It didn't smell, but i would've killed for an HEV suit lol.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-30 07:27:54 UTC
Post #297162
Wow really nice Tet! (i was waiting to see a hammer tag on one of those structures..) =)
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-30 18:21:45 UTC
Post #297182
I want make a Lambda Symbol cut out from cardboard and Just go to abandoned Structures and spray it up. That would be Cool if others who explore such places see and recognize it.
Posted 13 years ago2011-07-30 18:26:13 UTC
Post #297183
Wow, i wish there was more stuff like that where i live, id explore all day.
You must be logged in to post a response.