Jives, I like the first one, but I would like it a lot better if it didn't have the twig in front of the other twigs on the right side (the one that is out of focus, basically). I also think you could crop it a little better so the leaf on the right side and twig in the lower left corner wouldn't be in it. Just my two cents, I really like the picture anyway.
Should I go for it? Does anyone have any experience owning a fisheye thing like that? Will the image quality suck because it's an adapter? I'd be connecting it to a Canon 50mm f/1.8, if that helps.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
It's not going to be as sharp as a real fisheye, but I personally don't use fisheye very much at all to warrant upgrading and find that with a little resizing, few will be able to tell the difference.
Here's another way to think of it: If you REALLY end up loving fisheye and find all kinds of good uses for it, then cut your teeth with the screw on adapter and then buy the true fisheye.
The nifty fifty is HELLA sharp - I think it's going to look fine
Just a quick shot today while doing some "man on the street" work for my newspaper. This guy wanted a "pimp ass" picture, so I just did this one up and sent it to him.
and although not quite as bad as shooting cats, its still pretty cheese. it's a squirrel. edited for lower contrast.
oh man that squirrel shot is brilliant. I'd prefer to get a larger dof though. What's the background, though? Was this just shot randomly or actually set up or something?
oh man that squirrel shot is brilliant. I'd prefer to get a larger dof though. What's the background, though? Was this just shot randomly or actually set up or something?
The squirrel was just chillin in the tree so I just took a few minutes to sneak under it and let it regain its "trust factor" with me. Eventually it went back to eating the berries so I grabbed the shot. I wish I had gotten a larger dof though, it was a split second shot and it ran away once I hit the shutter. I didn't realise I was shooting wide open, as I had been shooting the birds with f/4. Oh well. The background is just the sky.
Bravo Anable. The DoF on that first shot is spot on perfect. Composition is good too. Something about that baby isn't really striking me though. I'm not sure whether it's because the colour/contrast/something seems a bit flat, or that the composition isn't anything special.
How'd you manage such good (what I assume are) zoo shots? Usually there's awful plexiglass, tons of grating and fencing, or some silly tourist in the way.
Bravo Anable. The DoF on that first shot is spot on perfect. Composition is good too. Something about that baby isn't really striking me though. I'm not sure whether it's because the colour/contrast/something seems a bit flat, or that the composition isn't anything special.
How'd you manage such good (what I assume are) zoo shots? Usually there's awful plexiglass, tons of grating and fencing, or some silly tourist in the way.
The second picture is through plexiglass, I stood on a bench to overcome a fence, and it's the middle of December so no one's at the zoo. :P
How'd you manage such good (what I assume are) zoo shots? Usually there's awful plexiglass, tons of grating and fencing, or some silly tourist in the way.
It is an awesome shot, but there is still some zoo nonsense keeping it out of National Geographic. That manmade, rope bridge in the background sort of distracts me and makes me feel cynical. The lion itself is badass, though. That lion has eaten a zookeeper in the past 24 hours, you can see it on his face. :P
Just a quick shot today while doing some "man on the street" work for my newspaper. This guy wanted a "pimp ass" picture, so I just did this one up and sent it to him.
[IMG][/img]
Man screw the squirrel that portrait is awesome. I would tone down the saturation on the hat just a tad. The edge of it on the left side of his head looks very odd and out of place with it that punchy.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Just a quick shot today while doing some "man on the street" work for my newspaper. This guy wanted a "pimp ass" picture, so I just did this one up and sent it to him.
[IMG][/img]
Man screw the squirrel that portrait is awesome. I would tone down the saturation on the hat just a tad. The edge of it on the left side of his head looks very odd and out of place with it that punchy.
I thought about that when I first did it, but I decided that this would be my crack at a "modern selective color", so I wanted the blue to stand out.
The version I gave to the guy to print is much less saturated.
Yeah, that side wasn't as well lit. I should have scooted over a few of the christmas lights to fill in that spot. I hadn't been bugged by it before, but now that you mention it, that whole 1/3 to the right just looks awful.
Jake!: 2&4 are lovely, I'm with nO: love the lines. I do really love the range of contrast. How it goes from really high contrast in the bottom of the pics and moves to less and less because of the clouds/fog.
*Edit: oooo just noticed the kids in #3, I like it more now haha.
Squab: Both those shots are excellent, I'm going to disagree with the others on the contrast and blue though; I really like the tone/mood of the portrait. I would go as far to say you got the "pimp ass" shot fo sho.
Pope: you and your pretty bokeh.
Box: Cool shot, but it looks like you boosted the contrast and saturation a little much (shadows that aldo pointed out)?
If your orig is big enough, that would be pretty cool to print large and display in a large common room - guests might get a kick out of discovering the mountain-climbers.
Jake- Awesome shots, I pretty much like them all. It really astounds me how a simple white border (as opposed to a black one like I normally have) can have such a difference in mood for an image. I especially like how the change from snow to border is ambiguous in a few of the images. Great stuff all around.
If your orig is big enough, that would be pretty cool to print large and display in a large common room - guests might get a kick out of discovering the mountain-climbers.
Yeah, that's an awesome detail that I didn't catch at first.
Not as good as the stuff others have been posting, but I'll toss up a few I took yesterday.
Squirrel!
Bush!
Different bush!
For better or worse, I was playing with having a very narrow DOF in the last two. I think it helped the second but hurt the first, though I like them both.
Posts
Chanced upon an aquarium today and decided to jump on the bandwagon:
EDIT: Goddamn colour profiles.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
i like this one
those cat photos are nice, i like the light
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-0-20X-Professional-Super-Fisheye/dp/B001K5UQIA/ref=sr_1_62?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1228685619&sr=1-62
Should I go for it? Does anyone have any experience owning a fisheye thing like that? Will the image quality suck because it's an adapter? I'd be connecting it to a Canon 50mm f/1.8, if that helps.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
It's not going to be as sharp as a real fisheye, but I personally don't use fisheye very much at all to warrant upgrading and find that with a little resizing, few will be able to tell the difference.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Here's another way to think of it: If you REALLY end up loving fisheye and find all kinds of good uses for it, then cut your teeth with the screw on adapter and then buy the true fisheye.
The nifty fifty is HELLA sharp - I think it's going to look fine
that is my dog's name! :x
Well, dogs aren't very original ...
;-)
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
and although not quite as bad as shooting cats, its still pretty cheese. it's a squirrel. edited for lower contrast.
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
The squirrel was just chillin in the tree so I just took a few minutes to sneak under it and let it regain its "trust factor" with me. Eventually it went back to eating the berries so I grabbed the shot. I wish I had gotten a larger dof though, it was a split second shot and it ran away once I hit the shutter. I didn't realise I was shooting wide open, as I had been shooting the birds with f/4. Oh well. The background is just the sky.
And here's the baby:
How'd you manage such good (what I assume are) zoo shots? Usually there's awful plexiglass, tons of grating and fencing, or some silly tourist in the way.
The second picture is through plexiglass, I stood on a bench to overcome a fence, and it's the middle of December so no one's at the zoo. :P
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Apparently he had been eating a bird he caught earlier that day.
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
Man screw the squirrel that portrait is awesome. I would tone down the saturation on the hat just a tad. The edge of it on the left side of his head looks very odd and out of place with it that punchy.
I thought about that when I first did it, but I decided that this would be my crack at a "modern selective color", so I wanted the blue to stand out.
The version I gave to the guy to print is much less saturated.
squabman: love both those shots but I think you need less contrast on both (less on the blue on the portrait and less on everything on the squirrel).
crow: surely everything in our control (light, composition, etc.) are artificial ways of making a photo more exciting?
I went to Scotland for the weekend. The weather was awful, and the light rarely good, but I still managed to get some stuff I'm happy with;
t anable: i saved the picture of that lion in my "oy vey, a fancy picture!"-folder. :^:
Steam BoardGameGeek Twitter
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Though, what's going in the shadows on the right side? You lost a lot of detail there, huh?
Box: maybe crop the whole right half off?
Jake!: 2&4 are lovely, I'm with nO: love the lines. I do really love the range of contrast. How it goes from really high contrast in the bottom of the pics and moves to less and less because of the clouds/fog.
*Edit: oooo just noticed the kids in #3, I like it more now haha.
Squab: Both those shots are excellent, I'm going to disagree with the others on the contrast and blue though; I really like the tone/mood of the portrait. I would go as far to say you got the "pimp ass" shot fo sho.
Pope: you and your pretty bokeh.
Box: Cool shot, but it looks like you boosted the contrast and saturation a little much (shadows that aldo pointed out)?
Click for largey.
My Portfolio Site
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
It is a single exposure. I just checked; if you click to the larger image you can get the exif there I think. And thanks pope!
My Portfolio Site
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Aw dang. Sorry bout that, forgot I changed my settings a while back.
My Portfolio Site
Awesome! Thanks.
If your orig is big enough, that would be pretty cool to print large and display in a large common room - guests might get a kick out of discovering the mountain-climbers.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Yeah, that's an awesome detail that I didn't catch at first.
Squirrel!
Bush!
Different bush!
For better or worse, I was playing with having a very narrow DOF in the last two. I think it helped the second but hurt the first, though I like them both.
Brilliant little cafe in Chicago:
I mean... the place is called.... well, PIE!