You can use your all-in-one scanner to scan at a very, very high dpi Moly and it may provide a decent result for your negatives. Some are halfway decent, others- not so much- so test it out.
Are you already familiar with the Strobist website? If you haven't, it's an awesome resource for all forms of camera lighting, and they almost certainly have some advice for using gels.
Stop having exotic photographic adventures. You're making me jealous.
Don't worry, it was super expensive and I won't be doing anything like that for a LONG, LONG time.
Edit: Then again our next vacation sometime this year will probably be some sort of road trip to Yellowstone or Yosemite. I guess that is kind of exotic.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
If you've never been to either, I strongly encourage you to pick Yosemite over Yellowstone, especially since you like photography.
I liked Yellowstone well enough, but Yosemite counts as one of the wonders of the world for me.
0
Options
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
What an amazing spot to have a honeymoon CC. Whenever it is that I get there, I'm going to dress up as Charles Darwin and take a little sketch book with me, for sketching.
Tried some ISO bracketing tonight and made a few test sheets. Holy crap do things really get bad really fast past 800. I'm not even liking the noise around 800 ISO, but this is without any processing so I may have to be a bit more forgiving.
I have a Pentax K-r. I use their DA* glass (Basically Pentax's L-series), and I have to do some test prints to see exactly how bad things are.
I don't mind luminance noise. That looks like film grain. It's the chromatic noise that hurts. This being said, being a $700 body, I got more than what I wanted from it and I am just a few days away from my 1 year anniversary with the thing. I love it to bits.
What an amazing spot to have a honeymoon CC. Whenever it is that I get there, I'm going to dress up as Charles Darwin and take a little sketch book with me, for sketching.
Sadly most tours are very regimented because you are required to have a park guide with you at all times. So you wouldn't get much time to sit around and sketch. My wife tried to do some sketching sans Darwin costume and she didn't really have enough time to get good sketches.
Tried some ISO bracketing tonight and made a few test sheets. Holy crap do things really get bad really fast past 800. I'm not even liking the noise around 800 ISO, but this is without any processing so I may have to be a bit more forgiving.
Or learn to use my tripod/flash. :P
It really depends on what you are doing. I know my grain gets bad near 1000+ or so but that's only at large print sizes. If you are just doing web images you could get away with much higher grain.
@wonderpug I was definitely leaning towards Yosemite over Yellowstone, but it is also quite a bit further. We'll see when I get to planning my next vacation.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Hi photo thread! I've always been nervous to post in here but I'm really happy with some photos I took at my zoo's gorilla area last weekend and decided to finally post. They keep the gorilla indoor area really dark and even at F2.0 I had to jack the ISO way up to 6400, but I kind of like the grainy look. Considering I was shooting through dirty glass (the exhibit, not my lens) I think they turned out really nice. Does anyone have any tips for dodging in photoshop? Using these as an example their eyes were usually in a decent shadow but if I try to bring them out too much it looks really fake.
Except you. Your's are horrible. Go think about what you've done.
But really now, I come to this thread with a question in mind. I saw someone make one of the most fucking clever watermarks in the world. Essentially, it was invisible until you put the image into Photoshop and slide one of the levels sliders all the way to meet the other and it would lift out of the abyss. When I asked about it, the smug asshole just said "That's my little secret."
So anyone have any idea on how to mimic that effect?
What's the point of a watermark that nobody can see?
If you spot your photo somewhere else on the interbutts you can open it in Photoshop and check if it's yours. You see; it's relatively easy to remove a watermark when you can see it. Additionally it's great to have photos without visible watermarks, it's far more pleasing on the eyes.
The guy's an ass for not telling you, I have no idea how to do it, I just figure it should be possible.
Except you. Your's are horrible. Go think about what you've done.
But really now, I come to this thread with a question in mind. I saw someone make one of the most fucking clever watermarks in the world. Essentially, it was invisible until you put the image into Photoshop and slide one of the levels sliders all the way to meet the other and it would lift out of the abyss. When I asked about it, the smug asshole just said "That's my little secret."
So anyone have any idea on how to mimic that effect?
Except you. Your's are horrible. Go think about what you've done.
But really now, I come to this thread with a question in mind. I saw someone make one of the most fucking clever watermarks in the world. Essentially, it was invisible until you put the image into Photoshop and slide one of the levels sliders all the way to meet the other and it would lift out of the abyss. When I asked about it, the smug asshole just said "That's my little secret."
So anyone have any idea on how to mimic that effect?
It's probably a brush that's 1 value dark which you wouldn't normally be able to see but when you push the levels/curves it shows up, a lot like dust spots.
What's the point of a watermark that nobody can see?
If you spot your photo somewhere else on the interbutts you can open it in Photoshop and check if it's yours.
Am I the only person who can instantly recognize a photo I've taken versus one that I haven't taken? I don't need a watermark to tell me I created it. In my opinion the best insurance against image rights theft (aside from copyrighting every image you make) is having the original high-resolution raw file. That can't be faked.
What's the point of a watermark that nobody can see?
If you spot your photo somewhere else on the interbutts you can open it in Photoshop and check if it's yours.
Am I the only person who can instantly recognize a photo I've taken versus one that I haven't taken? I don't need a watermark to tell me I created it. In my opinion the best insurance against image rights theft (aside from copyrighting every image you make) is having the original high-resolution raw file. That can't be faked.
This. The only reason I put my watermark on my fashion photos was for promoting myself not for protecting my photos.
Edit: I think bombs has the right idea on how to make that watermark. Not that it would really be that useful.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Right there are two reasons to watermark your image. To protect it from potential asshats, and to have it be traceable back to you should someone want more of what you've got.
I'd like to do a tiny pixel font signature/url, but I'd also like to do a subtle watermark. Sadly, some of the shots I've just thrown up onto flickr have already been reposted elsewhere, but no actual ripping off- yet.
Oh hey I actually uploaded some photos. Some are pretty recent, some are a bit older. There's more on my flickr so I've just picked some of my favourites.
0
Options
MustangArbiter of Unpopular OpinionsRegistered Userregular
These are awesome Bombs, where was that third one taken?
Fantastic stuff, bombardier. I particularly like the two bird shots, the night street scene, and the sunset island.
If you're open to suggestions, I like that second bird shot even better with the leftmost quarter (left of the head feathers) cropped out, so that the bird's looking into the frame instead of out, and so the out of focus back parts of the head plumage don't grab center stage as much.
Hot damn Bombs, that fifth one with the moon is stunning.
CC - really digging the branch one, love the contrast between branch and the background.
Vesty - all those gorilla shots are fantastic, but gorilla02 is by far my fave.
Bombs I like the first bird shot, but I'm not a giant fan of the second one. I think for most animal pictures it helps if the animal roughly facing your direction.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Awesome photography that blows mine out of the water aside, anyone have any experience with Rokinon lenses?
Yeah third party lenses are kind of a messy topic and often go unnoticed but for a grand, you can get yourself something like 3, very fast prime lenses. From what I see, they are also compatible with FF sensors. That being said, they are manual focus only, but some of these, like the fish eye, go for $280.
Awesome photography that blows mine out of the water aside, anyone have any experience with Rokinon lenses?
Yeah third party lenses are kind of a messy topic and often go unnoticed but for a grand, you can get yourself something like 3, very fast prime lenses. From what I see, they are also compatible with FF sensors. That being said, they are manual focus only, but some of these, like the fish eye, go for $280.
Third party lenses aren't really that messy, really. It's more that (in my opinion) there are a large number of very cheaply made 3rd party lenses that are bought up by people because they're cheap and who are then unhappy that they're cheap. If you drop $2000 on a Sigma lens, you're going to get a really nice lens. If you drop $300 on what seems, in writing, to be an amazing 3rd party lens, you are probably going to be disappointed. Most lenses are priced pretty appropriately, especially if you shop used, and I have a handful of 3rd party lenses that I'm really happy with. One is a Sigma 17-70, which is my go-to lens for just walking about, and another is the Sigma 8-16mm, which is an ultra-wide rectilinear lens that is unique and very high quality.
I have the Rokinon 85mm prime on my wishlist since from what I've read, the glass is very high quality and it takes excellent pictures. There are two versions of most Rokinon lenses -- a chipped version and a non-chipped. The chipped version will relay metering information to your camera, which I'm pretty sure you'd want on your Pentax. The non-chipped versions are for people with cameras that do their own metering. I personally think that these lenses being manual focus is great, since primes are otherwise easy to work with. If you're using an 85mm, you're probably doing portraits, and you may even be on a tripod, so you want to be focusing manually anyway. I'm happy that the company is keeping prices low by omitting AF (but still adding chips so people like me can use their lenses).
Awesome photography that blows mine out of the water aside, anyone have any experience with Rokinon lenses?
Yeah third party lenses are kind of a messy topic and often go unnoticed but for a grand, you can get yourself something like 3, very fast prime lenses. From what I see, they are also compatible with FF sensors. That being said, they are manual focus only, but some of these, like the fish eye, go for $280.
You tend to get what you pay for in the world of photography equipment. Many 3rd party lenses are very sharp, but there are tradeoffs to be made. Could be anywhere from lower build quality (specially compared to the higher level 1st party lenses, you could pound nails with a 70-200 f/2.8), no VR/IS, or AF systems that make you want to stab yourself (hello Tamron 17-50). If you decide you don't need those features, certain 3rd party lenses are usually great value.
The issue is that I rarely focus on anything dead center, and DOF is often too shallow to get focus-and-recompose to work.
Any advice?
I love the split circle focusing screen on my 30+ year old pentax. IMO it is the only way to manual focus. I would guess that focus and recompose would only be a problem when doing really tiny macro work. For everything else you probably shouldn't be shooting with a DOF /that/ narrow.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Posts
DSC00768-1 by chidona, on Flickr
DSC00818 by chidona, on Flickr
DSC00769 by chidona, on Flickr
And here's a still life shot that didn't really end up the way I had hoped =[
DSC00871 by chidona, on Flickr
Anyways, I went on my honeymoon to the Galapagos Islands and took some photos while I was there.
marine iguana by jeff25rs, on Flickr
cactus 2 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
crab by jeff25rs, on Flickr
sea lions by jeff25rs, on Flickr
land iguana by jeff25rs, on Flickr
branch by jeff25rs, on Flickr
More here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeff25rs/sets/72157628673027367/
Don't worry, it was super expensive and I won't be doing anything like that for a LONG, LONG time.
Edit: Then again our next vacation sometime this year will probably be some sort of road trip to Yellowstone or Yosemite. I guess that is kind of exotic.
I liked Yellowstone well enough, but Yosemite counts as one of the wonders of the world for me.
Or learn to use my tripod/flash. :P
I don't mind luminance noise. That looks like film grain. It's the chromatic noise that hurts. This being said, being a $700 body, I got more than what I wanted from it and I am just a few days away from my 1 year anniversary with the thing. I love it to bits.
Sadly most tours are very regimented because you are required to have a park guide with you at all times. So you wouldn't get much time to sit around and sketch. My wife tried to do some sketching sans Darwin costume and she didn't really have enough time to get good sketches.
It really depends on what you are doing. I know my grain gets bad near 1000+ or so but that's only at large print sizes. If you are just doing web images you could get away with much higher grain.
@wonderpug I was definitely leaning towards Yosemite over Yellowstone, but it is also quite a bit further. We'll see when I get to planning my next vacation.
Gorilla 03 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Gorilla 01 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Gorilla 02 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Gorilla 04 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Gorilla 05 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Gorilla 06 by Vesty2, on Flickr
Except you. Your's are horrible. Go think about what you've done.
But really now, I come to this thread with a question in mind. I saw someone make one of the most fucking clever watermarks in the world. Essentially, it was invisible until you put the image into Photoshop and slide one of the levels sliders all the way to meet the other and it would lift out of the abyss. When I asked about it, the smug asshole just said "That's my little secret."
So anyone have any idea on how to mimic that effect?
If you spot your photo somewhere else on the interbutts you can open it in Photoshop and check if it's yours. You see; it's relatively easy to remove a watermark when you can see it. Additionally it's great to have photos without visible watermarks, it's far more pleasing on the eyes.
The guy's an ass for not telling you, I have no idea how to do it, I just figure it should be possible.
Maybe you can show us this watermark in action?
It's probably a brush that's 1 value dark which you wouldn't normally be able to see but when you push the levels/curves it shows up, a lot like dust spots.
Am I the only person who can instantly recognize a photo I've taken versus one that I haven't taken? I don't need a watermark to tell me I created it. In my opinion the best insurance against image rights theft (aside from copyrighting every image you make) is having the original high-resolution raw file. That can't be faked.
This. The only reason I put my watermark on my fashion photos was for promoting myself not for protecting my photos.
Edit: I think bombs has the right idea on how to make that watermark. Not that it would really be that useful.
I'd like to do a tiny pixel font signature/url, but I'd also like to do a subtle watermark. Sadly, some of the shots I've just thrown up onto flickr have already been reposted elsewhere, but no actual ripping off- yet.
If you're open to suggestions, I like that second bird shot even better with the leftmost quarter (left of the head feathers) cropped out, so that the bird's looking into the frame instead of out, and so the out of focus back parts of the head plumage don't grab center stage as much.
CC - really digging the branch one, love the contrast between branch and the background.
Vesty - all those gorilla shots are fantastic, but gorilla02 is by far my fave.
My Portfolio Site
Yeah third party lenses are kind of a messy topic and often go unnoticed but for a grand, you can get yourself something like 3, very fast prime lenses. From what I see, they are also compatible with FF sensors. That being said, they are manual focus only, but some of these, like the fish eye, go for $280.
Sure have piqued my interest.
http://rokinon.com/product.php?id=9
Third party lenses aren't really that messy, really. It's more that (in my opinion) there are a large number of very cheaply made 3rd party lenses that are bought up by people because they're cheap and who are then unhappy that they're cheap. If you drop $2000 on a Sigma lens, you're going to get a really nice lens. If you drop $300 on what seems, in writing, to be an amazing 3rd party lens, you are probably going to be disappointed. Most lenses are priced pretty appropriately, especially if you shop used, and I have a handful of 3rd party lenses that I'm really happy with. One is a Sigma 17-70, which is my go-to lens for just walking about, and another is the Sigma 8-16mm, which is an ultra-wide rectilinear lens that is unique and very high quality.
I have the Rokinon 85mm prime on my wishlist since from what I've read, the glass is very high quality and it takes excellent pictures. There are two versions of most Rokinon lenses -- a chipped version and a non-chipped. The chipped version will relay metering information to your camera, which I'm pretty sure you'd want on your Pentax. The non-chipped versions are for people with cameras that do their own metering. I personally think that these lenses being manual focus is great, since primes are otherwise easy to work with. If you're using an 85mm, you're probably doing portraits, and you may even be on a tripod, so you want to be focusing manually anyway. I'm happy that the company is keeping prices low by omitting AF (but still adding chips so people like me can use their lenses).
You tend to get what you pay for in the world of photography equipment. Many 3rd party lenses are very sharp, but there are tradeoffs to be made. Could be anywhere from lower build quality (specially compared to the higher level 1st party lenses, you could pound nails with a 70-200 f/2.8), no VR/IS, or AF systems that make you want to stab yourself (hello Tamron 17-50). If you decide you don't need those features, certain 3rd party lenses are usually great value.
The issue is that I rarely focus on anything dead center, and DOF is often too shallow to get focus-and-recompose to work.
Any advice?
I love the split circle focusing screen on my 30+ year old pentax. IMO it is the only way to manual focus. I would guess that focus and recompose would only be a problem when doing really tiny macro work. For everything else you probably shouldn't be shooting with a DOF /that/ narrow.