Those photos look really beautiful.

KITTIES~!!!!!!! %D <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3 <3

~~~~~ meow. ~~~~~~~

On the other hand... I took my first photograph today that didn't involve me half-naked in some misleading pose.I don't think I have the hang of this yet..

Do you pose with Duck Face?

Me? That's a Drowzee... Pokeman number 96 (because 69 is an ugly plant looking thingo)

No, I mean if you pose like this in your photos.

oh, not usually.. I did recently though. @_@ Happy St. Patties~!

Spring is here! Spring photos!

Those are outstanding cstriker! I particularly like the first and last one!

Me on-set in a church directing a music video. Starting to earn money from my hobby, hurrah!

What's that rubber star attached to the bottom of the tripod? I've seen that several times and I'm not sure I understand what it is for.

Its stopping the tripod legs from moving away.

I totally thought those are the shadows of the tripod

Must be some radioactive shadows than O_o xD

What's that rubber star attached to the bottom of the tripod?

It's called the "spreader". It has twisting bolts on it which can be tightened to absolutely lock the legs in place, or loosened in order to spread the legs wider (good for stability at height).
The spreader is also easily removed in order to be used on uneven terrain by digging the spikes at the end of each leg into the ground. It's unlikely you'll ever see a spreader used in an exterior location.

Thanks. I always wanted to ask about that but never had the chance - or anyone to ask, for that matter.

spooky

It's a spider, you monster.Unfortunately I had to return the last camera that I was using, so forgive the quality of any following pictures.
So recently I've learned about a lovely thing called a Lighting Rig, and feel wholeheartedly stupid for not thinking about it before.

Before I was simply relying on my monitor for a small amount of lighting, but then I realized not only could I use two sources of light, I can also use the monitor rotationposition itself to affect the lighting better.

Decided to redo the pictures of the Pentax picture with proper lighting.And the small DV camera that has saved my life by allowing me to prototype everything before I bother to get the normal camera to do shooting.Lovely knife, couldn't get this to look well enough without proper lighting beforehand, so I always just skipped it.Soup, you should give me a proper knife so I can take a picture of that instead... [Although I do honestly quite like the grungy rusted look that the knife has, not so much if I want to actually use the knife for anything though.]And finally, my Light rig [AKA Cheap bugger who can't bother to use real lights]And of course, who else but the man holding the camera.What about you guys? Got any interesting 'behind the camera' type stuff you'd be willing to share?

haha not really LOL
but went up to Elk Falls in BC;LOL

British Columbia. Most beautiful place on earth.

Also, I believe I've run out of things to take pictures of. ARGH!

Try leaving your house.

Not everybody has multi-millionaire equipment, and in my case all I can take that looks decent is macro shots. Just because it's a camera doesn't mean it'll look good with outdoor shots.

You want to see an outdoor shot? Here:I think I'll just stick with macro.

Not everybody has multi-millionaire equipment, and in my case all I can take that looks decent is macro shots. Just because it's a camera doesn't mean it'll look good with outdoor shots.

Maybe you can't afford or don't want to invest money in a good camera, but that doesn't mean you need "multi-millionaire equipment" to take good outdoor shots. Some TWHLers have posted amazing outdoor photos in this thread. Do you think they're all multi-millionaires? I doubt it. You often twist things to their extremes and don't see shades of grey. It's annoying and it's the reason (or one of the reasons) you're often not taken seriously.

That outdoor shot SUCKS, but that's because you did it on purpose. It's a boring view out of a very dirty window on a dark or overcast day with a mediocre framing. It'll get better if you actually step outside, try that next time.

There's so much to see everywhere.

Wow, this thread has updated without my knowledge. Where have I been?

Not everybody has multi-millionaire equipment, and in my case all I can take that looks decent is macro shots. Just because it's a camera doesn't mean it'll look good with outdoor shots.

You know my bridge camera, Nikon P100? I saved money more than a whole year to buy it.
That's like 30 eurosmonth if it would've been a year.

I reccommend you saving some money for a pretty similar bridge, but cheaper:
Nikon L120. It's about $280.

Some TWHLers have posted amazing outdoor photos in this thread.

Yeah, with their +400$ DSLRs. I am on a useless piece of shit point and shoot Kodak Easyshare, it has absolutely no manual ANYTHING so to speak of, and point and shoots are usually aimed at people who want everything in focus god knows why.

Yes, I used that image on purpose, if you don't get the point I'm expressing then let me put it simply: I dislike outdoor shots because I can't control ANYTHING. I am on a generic point and shoot with no manual focus and I dislike the idea of taking a picture going "Ok well I'm focusing on this object right here, but I hope that the person viewing this is actually going to look at it [assumingly first] and not look at random things in the background",
You ever notice how dark and grungy my macro's are?
They are for a reason. I'm not just pointing a light at my object because then you'd see the table perfectly lit. And then you would be looking at the table, not the subject. With the macro shots I have perfect control over my lighting and I can separate the subject from the background perfectly fine. In broad daylight and sunlight, I have absolutely nothing to separate the subject from the background. No manual focus, absolutely nothing. It's a generic point and shoot camera, it's not meant for photography, I'm just lucky enough to get it to work alright with macro shots.

Also Striker, if I don't earn money in the bloody first place, how the hell am I going to 'save' money?
That's a pretty good price though, I would have sworn I'd price the camera over 400, considering the prices.

Fuck it, perhaps I should just sell my 360 for around 200, might at least get something better then the point-and-shoot I got right now at least.

And no, I do not take photography seriously, it's something I do, not something I get payed to do. I'm not an elitist, just a guy with a camera, otherwise I'd have proper equipment.

You can also save money for bridges that cost <250 euros. More expensive bridges only have bigger zoom(they're also called superzooms).
But that "x##" is a bit deceiving.
For example, my P100 is 26x, and the new P500 is 36x. But there's almost no difference. It's about the focal distance: the highest is divided by the lowest and you obtain the zoom. That means that some lens that are capable to photograph to, let's say, 1 km distance and be able to distinguish a human face can only have a 3x optical zoom. But that's because the focal distance range is in the upper values.

Here's how you can get the most bang for buck: if you're not interested in the zoom, congratulations, you can already cut a lot of the price. Almost all the cameras ranging from ultracompact to superzoom share the same sensor size(cmos or ccd): ~ 1/2,3 inch. So you'll only have to look for some camera that offers good manual control over its functions(the only thing I can't do with my P100 like a DSLR is manually focusing during filming, but perhaps you're not interested in a filming feature).

Be sure to rely on snapsort.com for comparisons though, because lens and picture quality are important factors.

Crollo, I don't believe you don't get at least a damn dollar a day. Even if you save 3$ in a week, you'd still be able to get a decent camera with manual controls in a year.
Ok, maybe 4$week :D.

CatTrain© ready for departure:All Aboard!

Meow Meoooooouhhhw!

Cherry Buds:

This is dedicated to Crollo. I took this photo years ago with my low-end BenQ E600. To be fair, I did tinker with the colours afterwards. But it's still proof you can get decent photos with the shittiest camera if you're willing to.I wish I had saved the original.

It's a good photo, but all I see is a 'point-and-shoot' moment, no clear subject, and I find myself looking to see what I'm supposed to be looking at in that photograph. There is no defined focal point.

Let me repost Psilious's picture:This is a point-and-shoot. What are you supposed to be looking at? You find yourself looking at everything but the picatchu thing, looking at the pen, the monitor, and the monster logo. There's nothing defining the subject.

Even then, notice the slight blur on the pen, this draws your attention away from the text on the pen and on the tip of the pen, even though this isn't the intended purpose of the shot, it still gives a good idea of what I'm referring to.

Mind you, scenery shots are more about the framing then the actual effects that go behind it, but I stay behind what I stated before: This camera I have is the worst type of point-and-shoot camera. It doesn't even function great as a point-and-shoot, and anything beyond that it is simply not capable of doing.

The point is you can get decent photos out of bad cameras if you want to. There's nothing specific in my photo you're expected to look at, other than the cityscape. You don't like it? Fine. You're allowed to. But I do.

Go back to page 10, there's some photos taken with my new camera. Such as the following. You don't need a Nikon D3s to take these photos, they don't even have a short DOF. You can frame like this with a $100 Kodak.

You can't just rely on DOF to magically make your photos great.

I never said DOF was even remotely related to taking scenery shots, I was using dof as a example as to how it can separate subject from backgroundforeground, and again, great photos but I am lost as to what you are showcasing or showing me, what am I looking at, just whatever happens to be in the photograph?

As I've said several times in the past; I do not take photography seriously, I am not getting payed to do it. I live in a urban city, I don't exactly have vast stretches of beautiful land just outside my front door to take pictures of, and wasting gas money to go to a beach or such, just to take some 4 MP pictures and leave? No thank you.

Beyond that, why does it matter? I'm just a person on the internet posting pictures, does it really bother you so much that I won't expand my horizons to take pictures of fields and trees?

Here's another example of control: Overblowing, in this picture you can clearly see the sky is blown out so you can't see it, this draws your attention away from the unnecessary details and onto the truck, although the camper itself is overblown partially, it's still a somewhat fair example. I just so happened to get lucky to have this picture turn out this way, but as I pointed out, the camper is overblown as well. There are many ways to create focal points, and I'm not saying DOF or overblowing are magical elements that you have to have, but they HELP.You're right, you don't need control to make good images. But it helps to make one with an actual focal point.

Then stop moaning so much if you care so little.

Actually, after looking at all the previous 'landscape' or 'scenic' photographs I get the exact same feeling: Point-and-shoot feeling, I'll look at this:And it's a good photo, but I don't know what I'm supposed to look at, no clear subject, but something like this:Is far more appealing because right off the bat you know exactly what you're looking at and what the image is sending to you.

I'm just bad at scenery shots and won't bother because I don't find them appealing.
And you're absolutely right, that was a terrible comparision i posted before, and in return, here's a better picture I took while at the beach:I don't know about you, but I'd say it's relatively decent, but again even for my own picture I will still see it without a clear subject and even though it's framed relatively well [Nothing outside of the area of focus to distract you], I still dislike it.

On second thought, care to clarify 'outdoor shots'?
Anything beyond actual scenic shots would be easy to do and in that case, oops?

Crollo, this thread is not for professionals, nor do we have to take excellent shots to post them here.
The name of the thread is "Post your photos", not "post your photos after you studied photography for a year".
Sure, Psilous's image is... meaningless...but that doesn't mean he can't post and we can't comment on that.

If we prohibit(we can't, but members will be shy to post if they see point-and-shoots are not appreciated) point-and-shoots, we're taking the fun away from this thread. Seriously.

Who cares about camera quality! I would totally post pictures taken from my HTC phone if I ever actually went anywhere. Mostly I stay inside and fear the sunlight. It burns!

Nice pics unbreakable and stu!

Stu: where were those taken? Looks like carbon copies our family trip pics from the adirondacks, albeit your peaks look a bit higher.

)

Where the hell did you get that impression from striker? I never said you can't post point-and-shoots, I said I refuse to MAKE point-and-shoots because they aren't my style of photography, who says photography needs a focal point?
I just don't make photography without one.

I have my own sense of quality assurance and If I'm making a model, I don't post pictures of it about 30 minutes in, I wait until I've completed at least the overall model, does this mean I think some novice who doesn't even understand the concept of booleans shouldn't be able to post his work? Fuck no, I just refuse to release something when I know I can do better.

You can still take great pictures inside PB, just get a light setup with some lamps and put stuff on a table like me.

Unedited. Honest.

Try harder next time But idea is good.

Lol

Just trying to catch the beauty of this flower's colour(Dandelion).

Huntey: I can't see the camera behind you.

I guess my torso is obscuring it, Stu.

Interesting to see the jpeg compression get gradually worse in the reposts

Test shots from the MP4Not great, but not all that terrible either. I'd like to see somebody find a better camera for less then 30$.

And my rig setup:Don't have any more LCD monitors [Or monitors in general] so unfortunately I have a very cut-down setup, looking to maybe get a proper setup sometime soon.

Probably wouldn't hurt to take the laptop off of your little table there in favor of your keyboard and other monitor.

Yeah, but unfortunately I don't really have any other place to put it, other then just using it on my lap and putting it at the end of the bed when not in use, but the desktop get's very little actual use [Most the time it's rendering or idling on something] so I just leave it secondary.