Even more here...
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 ago2011-11-23 19:07:48 UTC
Post #300911
Posted 13 years ago2011-11-27 20:42:04 UTC
Post #301123
I am finding myself really surprised to see the results of the 35-80mm 4-5.6, every review I'd read about it has been along the lines of 'poor contrast, poor sharpness, really shit lens', and I myself wasn't very impressed with it... Until I saw the images. To me at least, they have great contrast, great colors, the images look better then the actual location in real life.
Right now I only have the contact sheets, but I should have prints soon.
Here's some example images :
I want another 50 prime, maybe faster then 1.8 this time.
Right now I only have the contact sheets, but I should have prints soon.
Here's some example images :
I want another 50 prime, maybe faster then 1.8 this time.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-02 08:29:44 UTC
Post #301224
ok, there are SOME benefits of having a job that regularly sees me out the house at 5am. Just treated to the most amazing sunrise. Photos going up when i get home
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-02 08:42:54 UTC
Post #301225
Also happens when your job keeps you up 'til 5-6am. Seen gorgeous sunrises over the river from the terraces in reception halls.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-02 20:54:53 UTC
Post #301236
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-02 21:38:30 UTC
Post #301241
DiscoStu likes this.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-03 02:44:37 UTC
Post #301255
So, it's dark and cold where I live. I really, really don't want to go outside. So no new photos for quite some time... But, of course, there are still some things to shoot indoors.
But that's really it. So sad.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-03 02:46:53 UTC
Post #301256
Nice macro. What lens are you using?
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-03 02:59:38 UTC
Post #301258
Probably my 80-200/4.5 with a macro-tube.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-06 20:00:04 UTC
Post #301320
The fastest lens ever made:
Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7
I think I just died a little inside. Fucking kit lens.
Also, some more telephoto action.
Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7
I think I just died a little inside. Fucking kit lens.
Also, some more telephoto action.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 04:12:51 UTC
Post #301891
f/0.7 eh? Depth of field must be negative.
And where's the telephoto action?
For everybody else who can appreciate it, have some photos.
Also I've been honing my product photography skills.
And where's the telephoto action?
For everybody else who can appreciate it, have some photos.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 04:33:58 UTC
Post #301892
Forget DOF, the thing probably sucks in more light then a obese american sucked to a burger king recreational centre. Imagine the astronomical possibilities.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 05:15:52 UTC
Post #301894
Stu how do you get those shots? they're awesome!
the product ones
the product ones
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 05:21:03 UTC
Post #301896
White paper and overexposing the shot so that the background is pure white. You also have to have proper lighting so it's usually advisable to have a light diffuser or use a softbox.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 05:22:59 UTC
Post #301897
Very large sheet of white paper, curved not folded so that it is under and behind the product. Diffused, bounced light to avoid harsh shadows but maintain a sense of depth and pinpoint accurate focus.
Bloody well done, Stu.
Edit:
ninja'd.
I disagree with you saying "overexposed," crollo. For the purpose it was exposed perfectly.
Bloody well done, Stu.
Edit:
ninja'd.
I disagree with you saying "overexposed," crollo. For the purpose it was exposed perfectly.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 20:02:00 UTC
Post #301898
Perhaps overexposed is the wrong way to put it. The camera will underexpose the background to being greyish or so, so you will have to bring the exposure up until the background is pure white, so you're only overexposing the background.
That being said they're great but you may want to push the exposure just a bit higher stu, the background still isn't quite pure white so it will have borders if you put it against a white background, the marker image is a good reference of how it should look.
Picking this up tomorrow:
It's not a D50 but it's a SLR, and it's a good one for the price.
EDIT: Went to the thrift stores, got a couple tripods, and a new EOS camera.
It's actually pretty dumbed down and simplified [Only program, no TV or AV] but build quality wise it's a lot better then my Rebel G. The viewfinder is large, bright and extremely sharp, it's made of what feels like an alloy body [with plastic shell] so it packs some good weight to it... Loving it.
That being said they're great but you may want to push the exposure just a bit higher stu, the background still isn't quite pure white so it will have borders if you put it against a white background, the marker image is a good reference of how it should look.
Picking this up tomorrow:
It's not a D50 but it's a SLR, and it's a good one for the price.
EDIT: Went to the thrift stores, got a couple tripods, and a new EOS camera.
It's actually pretty dumbed down and simplified [Only program, no TV or AV] but build quality wise it's a lot better then my Rebel G. The viewfinder is large, bright and extremely sharp, it's made of what feels like an alloy body [with plastic shell] so it packs some good weight to it... Loving it.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 21:37:44 UTC
Post #301915
Crollo Trollo Crollapse, stop buying cameras and start using what you already have. What you need is not more cameras, it is more skills.
@Tetsu0 & Archie: Thanks guys. It was indeed done with a large white sheet like Archie said. I don't have off-camera flashes, just one shoe-mount flash (a Speedlite 430EX2). I have a low, white ceiling I could bounce it off. Unfortunately focus isn't as sharp as I'd like, but I couldn't close the aperture further; I was already at f/10 and the flash was already at full power so lengthening the exposure wouldn't have had a noticeable effect. I'm planning further experiments to get these issues sorted out.
There IS a tiny bit of editing but I keep it to a minimum.
@Tetsu0 & Archie: Thanks guys. It was indeed done with a large white sheet like Archie said. I don't have off-camera flashes, just one shoe-mount flash (a Speedlite 430EX2). I have a low, white ceiling I could bounce it off. Unfortunately focus isn't as sharp as I'd like, but I couldn't close the aperture further; I was already at f/10 and the flash was already at full power so lengthening the exposure wouldn't have had a noticeable effect. I'm planning further experiments to get these issues sorted out.
There IS a tiny bit of editing but I keep it to a minimum.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:06:10 UTC
Post #301920
Limiting yourself to a low quality beginners camera is not going to improve your skill, the 850 isn't exactly outside of the beginners reign but it is massively improved over the rebel G. Even if I was an idiot and used it on auto a upgrade was necessary.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:06:32 UTC
Post #301921
For fucks sake just get one camera that allows a slightly finer control over the exposure settings than a full automatic camera and roll with that until you LEARN something. You have like five cameras already. You can even learn from a full automatic camera if you know what you want.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:39:24 UTC
Post #301922
And what makes you assume I haven't learned anything? I am very well familiar with working with a fully manual camera, I worked with one that had absolutely no automatic settings, it had a needle lightmeter that could give you backlit subjects if you weren't careful. I worked with it for a month, with nothing more then a aperture dial on the lens, a shutter wheel and a light meter. And a stop down lever. I found it quite useful.
I'm not buying random cameras because it's cool, I'm buying the E-10 because all I have is a shitty PAS, and it has absolutely no changable controls beyond resolution, and exposure compensation. Look at that 850 image, that is at 80 ISO. 80.
So don't tell me that my skills are limiting me and not my camera, because the camera is absolute garbage.
I'm not buying random cameras because it's cool, I'm buying the E-10 because all I have is a shitty PAS, and it has absolutely no changable controls beyond resolution, and exposure compensation. Look at that 850 image, that is at 80 ISO. 80.
So don't tell me that my skills are limiting me and not my camera, because the camera is absolute garbage.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:39:48 UTC
Post #301924
Carry on then, if you know what you're doing. I'm just under the impression that more cameras at your apparent level is generally a waste. But, it's your problem.
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:44:04 UTC
Post #301925
At your apparent level I don't see why you're using a digicam, I think a mobile phone camera would be more suited for you. Bit of a waste to be taking those pictures on a good digicam, don't you think?
Posted 13 years ago2011-12-22 22:47:17 UTC
Post #301926
Didn't you have a Canon FX too? I'm just under the impression that you always go and buy more and more cameras while still not making the most of those that you already have. But that's only an impression, based solely on your posts and photos in this thread.
Why do I always end up arguing with you?
Why do I always end up arguing with you?
Posted 12 years ago2011-12-29 06:50:44 UTC
Post #301927
I had a FT QL yes, and I shot about 8-9 rolls but I then traded it for a Rebel G, I only traded it for the one and only reason being it had a EF mount.
I understand what you mean, all I've posted here is just shit from my Kodak, but honestly, without actually seeing pictures, think about it. If I didn't have the technological skills required to justify purchasing a DSLR, would I really have survived 8 rolls of film through a fully manual camera?
I understand what you mean, all I've posted here is just shit from my Kodak, but honestly, without actually seeing pictures, think about it. If I didn't have the technological skills required to justify purchasing a DSLR, would I really have survived 8 rolls of film through a fully manual camera?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-02 23:08:26 UTC
Post #302367
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-02 23:40:20 UTC
Post #302369
Nice.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-03 00:13:06 UTC
Post #302370
You can pretty much feel the sun in that one. Brilliant.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-03 00:47:00 UTC
Post #302372
Thank you, both.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-27 02:53:02 UTC
Post #302993
Got some CF cards so now I can actually use the camera I've had for several weeks. Unfortunately it's too late to sensibly shoot anything outside [no tripod] so I just messed with the camera.
Fucked up right away.
Then tried to push the camera's low light capabilities...
Considering how dark it was outside and that it's a 12 year old camera, I'm pretty happy with the results. I'll get out tomorrow and try to find something interesting.
Fucked up right away.
Then tried to push the camera's low light capabilities...
Considering how dark it was outside and that it's a 12 year old camera, I'm pretty happy with the results. I'll get out tomorrow and try to find something interesting.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-27 02:54:13 UTC
Post #302994
The circles don't look that bad. But why is each one in a different aspect ratio?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-27 05:41:08 UTC
Post #302995
The circles image had lots of dead space at the bottom I cropped off, I couldn't touch the second one's framing, nowhere to crop.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-27 13:02:09 UTC
Post #303000
But if you want to see variations of it like this:
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-27 15:00:47 UTC
Post #303004
hmm, quite nice. What might have been really awesome would be to do a similar shot at night with a torch illuminating the ice and barely no light on the leaves.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 04:24:37 UTC
Post #303012
Love the PP on the second image, Striker.
Which is better, the T2i
or the Olympus?
Of course the T2i raped the Olympus [Other then noise, but that's only because it was at 3200 ISO], but I'm quite impressed by the results of the Olympus. Both cameras were placed in the exact same spot, identical lighting conditions.
Yeah I know I said I'd try to find interesting shit. I didn't. 
[Mostly got traffic shots]
Which is better, the T2i
[Mostly got traffic shots]
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 04:47:44 UTC
Post #303013
Do we have to trust you? Because I'm only seeing one shot of each. It would probably be a more transparent statement if you posted the results off both cameras to illustrate your point.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 04:56:15 UTC
Post #303014
It's not exactly easy to take a picture of the camera you're using unless you use a mirror or a second camera. Unfortunately a mirror is extremely unfeasible and I don't have enough money or resources to get a T2i and another E-10.
The results are from both cameras, read the EXIF data.
The results are from both cameras, read the EXIF data.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 04:57:19 UTC
Post #303015
What I meant is that you posted three images when you should have posted six. If you actually took the exact same photos with both cameras so as to compare and decide which one looks better, why not posting both shots for each scene so everyone can see it with their own eyes?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 11:14:37 UTC
Post #303017
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I was only comparing the first two images [The Olympus picture was taken by the T2i, T2i shot taken by the Olympus.], the rest are only the Olympus. Although, with that said, which did you think was which? 
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-28 19:07:21 UTC
Post #303026
Still those images are so low-res that your point can't be observed.
Also I wouldn't leave any camera with the lens off for too long, if dust gets on the mirror (or even worse, the sensor) it's very hard to clean properly. My mirror or something in the optical viewfinder got dirt stuck one very windy day even with the lens on, and I had to learn to live with it. There's a speckle somewhere in there and, short of completely taking apart the camera, I haven't found a way to remove it.
Also I wouldn't leave any camera with the lens off for too long, if dust gets on the mirror (or even worse, the sensor) it's very hard to clean properly. My mirror or something in the optical viewfinder got dirt stuck one very windy day even with the lens on, and I had to learn to live with it. There's a speckle somewhere in there and, short of completely taking apart the camera, I haven't found a way to remove it.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 01:47:52 UTC
Post #303030
Every single image on this entire forum get's resized to 500 pixels wide and yet you seem to have been able to evaluate images, perfectly fine.
So why do you need to see individual pixels to see my 'point'? Regardless of however many pixels you started with, they all get downsized to the forum.
So why do you need to see individual pixels to see my 'point'? Regardless of however many pixels you started with, they all get downsized to the forum.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 01:48:44 UTC
Post #303031
Clearly by the very nature of the experiment you were wanting to judge the quality of the images produced by either camera, not the aesthetics of each, so of course a high-res image is required.
You know fine well both that pixel dimensions don't amount to physical print sizes and you know fine well that the open in a new window link below each image allows it to be viewed full size.
I am so sick of your bullshit.
edit:
You edited out your sentence about comparing the on-screen images to prints. Wise.
You know fine well both that pixel dimensions don't amount to physical print sizes and you know fine well that the open in a new window link below each image allows it to be viewed full size.
I am so sick of your bullshit.
edit:
You edited out your sentence about comparing the on-screen images to prints. Wise.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 03:02:08 UTC
Post #303032
The point I was making was that you're comparing actually viewing an image to pixel peeping, 4x6 is to the standard forum size of 500 pixels, and a 20x30 is like viewing the images at 100%.
I'm not comparing technical specs, the T2i obviously has higher ISO ratings, better MP counts, it's OBVIOUSLY going to win. My point is to say that you don't need expensive technology to output good PICTURES. If you want to pixel peep you're missing my point of comparison. So yes, I am comparing aesthetics and not literal image quality like ISO and resolution.
At first watching you flip shit over nothing because you intentionally twist my words and mis-comprehend everything I say was slightly humorous at first, but damn you have problems. Have I directly aimed an insult at you with that post? Why do you feel the need to do so to me when I haven't said shit to you?
I'm not comparing technical specs, the T2i obviously has higher ISO ratings, better MP counts, it's OBVIOUSLY going to win. My point is to say that you don't need expensive technology to output good PICTURES. If you want to pixel peep you're missing my point of comparison. So yes, I am comparing aesthetics and not literal image quality like ISO and resolution.
At first watching you flip shit over nothing because you intentionally twist my words and mis-comprehend everything I say was slightly humorous at first, but damn you have problems. Have I directly aimed an insult at you with that post? Why do you feel the need to do so to me when I haven't said shit to you?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 04:55:09 UTC
Post #303035
Patient history.
Perhaps if you're talking about comparing high-ISO noise it'd be better if you showed the original unedited out-of-the-camera shots. For obvious reasons, resizing alters this state. Otherwise you need to express your ideas in a different way.
Perhaps if you're talking about comparing high-ISO noise it'd be better if you showed the original unedited out-of-the-camera shots. For obvious reasons, resizing alters this state. Otherwise you need to express your ideas in a different way.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 09:17:33 UTC
Post #303038
If I ever have to come up with a story that involves controversies, the forums will inspire me.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 11:00:11 UTC
Post #303039
Well, if I had access to the T2i personally I would definitely try to get some betterdiferent comparisons, but unfortunately I can only mess with it extremely briefly, can't take it outside or anything.
I just felt the compulsion to do a on-the-spot comparison after the T2i took the shittiest conditions possible and gave me a great image [With the exception of noise], the E10 took a lot more fucking around with but I still got there in the end. That's what matters, right?
I just felt the compulsion to do a on-the-spot comparison after the T2i took the shittiest conditions possible and gave me a great image [With the exception of noise], the E10 took a lot more fucking around with but I still got there in the end. That's what matters, right?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-29 16:12:02 UTC
Post #303040
You should have said that from the beginning.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-30 05:13:21 UTC
Post #303056
First attempts at HDR imagery:
I know they aren't particularly great, but my camera only supports bracketing of one EV, and I'm far too lazy to manually take more shots.
Attempt at night shots:
Was drenching rain, even with a sweater and a leather jacket on I still got soaked to the bone, my equipment got completely drenched yet still functions perfectly. Also keep in mind despite the sky appearing light blue it was completely pitch black outside.
Attempt at night shots:
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-30 07:03:10 UTC
Post #303058
It is unwise to allow photographic equiment to get wet.
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-30 12:17:58 UTC
Post #303059
I had it out in pissing rain for an entire hour and the only problem I ran into was that I ran out of battery power, everything functions perfectly. I'm unconcerned about how it handles getting wet, it's a professional grade DSLR.
Besides, it's Canada. What am I supposed to do?
Besides, it's Canada. What am I supposed to do?
Posted 12 years ago2012-01-30 15:48:52 UTC
Post #303062
Oh look, Archie was on another completely bizarre shoot, photos of which will be entirely inexplicable without context.
You must be logged in to post a response.