That is a pretty nice picture. Normally I would be against having a person in the frame, but at least in this instance it gives a point of reference for the size.
Personally, I think that if you did some more manipulating in photoshop you could take these photos from great to "really friken awesome." Also, I was wondering why the last few photos you have up on flickr are shot with a Powershot S100. Did something happen to your rebel?
Edit: For reference on the manipulating I am talking about stuff like what this guy produces: http://500px.com/mibreit
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
New lens- 25mm 1.4 CCTV. I'm going to have a lot of fun with the swirly OOF areas.
straight out of camera.
I'm thinking about getting something ultra-wide (2mm-6mm range) in C-mount as well, since
A- C-mount lenses tend to be unbelievably fast, and who doesn't love fast glass
B- They're ludicrously cheap in comparison to native options, generally right around 100$
C- Due to the m43 mount doubling all focal lengths nothing native will get that wide anyway
Obviously there will be distortion, vignetting, softness and unusual OOF patterns, but I'm fine with all of that. My question is, can I expect circular/fisheye type images from these ultra-wide surveillance lenses, or will I largely be looking at barrel-distorted but still rectangular images? And either way, will the vignetting cut off the image before I can see those (in this case desirable) distortions?
Personally, I think that if you did some more manipulating in photoshop you could take these photos from great to "really friken awesome." Also, I was wondering why the last few photos you have up on flickr are shot with a Powershot S100. Did something happen to your rebel?
Edit: For reference on the manipulating I am talking about stuff like what this guy produces: http://500px.com/mibreit
I'll be the first to admit my photoshop manipulation skills are weak. I actually stopped using my rebel and bought an S100 because of the size difference. The S100 is much much easier to pack for backpacking, hiking and climbing. It was also a lot cheaper than a new SLR. I'm not sure the S100 entirely lives up to its promise. If I had the money I would buy a mirrorless SLR in addition to the S100.
Like I've been told by my landscape photographer friend, I need to incorporate a GND filter into my photography. Of course using the S100 makes that difficult too. I'll have to talk with my friend about doing some better photoshop manipulation.
Personally, I think that if you did some more manipulating in photoshop you could take these photos from great to "really friken awesome." Also, I was wondering why the last few photos you have up on flickr are shot with a Powershot S100. Did something happen to your rebel?
Edit: For reference on the manipulating I am talking about stuff like what this guy produces: http://500px.com/mibreit
I'll be the first to admit my photoshop manipulation skills are weak. I actually stopped using my rebel and bought an S100 because of the size difference. The S100 is much much easier to pack for backpacking, hiking and climbing. It was also a lot cheaper than a new SLR. I'm not sure the S100 entirely lives up to its promise. If I had the money I would buy a mirrorless SLR in addition to the S100.
Like I've been told by my landscape photographer friend, I need to incorporate a GND filter into my photography. Of course using the S100 makes that difficult too. I'll have to talk with my friend about doing some better photoshop manipulation.
I wouldn't mind giving you some basic PS ideas and pointing you in hopefully the right direction. I've actually wanted to play around with some of your photos.
The S100 seems to be producing some pretty good photos. The main downsides I can see are the things like the GND your friend recommended and not being able to put on some super wide lenses.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
NOTE: Photo by Gafoto. I kind of got carried away and started editing your photo for an example for this post. Let me know if this is alright. If not I will take them down.
Remember these are just my opinions on how to improve it. I’m sure needOptic or UncleLong who have more experience with nature stuff and PS would have some better insight.
Original
Again, I like this photo but I think it has a few areas that need some improvement. The first thing I notice is it is very monotone color of the image. It is very very blue. So the main thing I am going to try and improve is adding a little bit of warmth (yellows/oranges) into the image to add some color contrast. This will probably look rather natural because this is a photo at sunrise and you sometimes see those types of colors.
"low edit"
Steps:
1. Opened image in lightroom. go to HSL (Hue Saturation Luminance) and up the saturation on the yellows.
2. adjust vibrance up to get the sky looking a bit more bright and brillaint
3. This adjustment also brought up the blues in the foreground which I don’t want so I end up saving two versions of the image. One with the vibrance up for the sky and one with the vibrance set back to normal for the foreground. I will then merge the two images in PS with layer masking
4. Add a color balance adjustment layer and adjust the midtones to be more yellow/orangeish. So I move it more yellow and more red. Then use a layer mask to just apply that to the foreground. (Layer - Color Balance 1)
5. I also did something similar to step 4 and added a photo filter layer with a warming filter and did some masking on that as well. (Layer - Photo Filter 1)
6. The main subject of this are the rock formations on the other side of the road. The foreground is in really sharp focus but it distracts a bit from ‘the main subject’. So to deal with that I did a stamp visible layer (ctrl+shift+alt+e) and then made a layer mask with a gradient that goes from the bottom to about the road. Once that is created then go to filter>blur>lens blur and then select the layer mask in the “Depth map” section of the filter. I then mess around with the radius of the blur. I did a few attempts at this changing the gradient in the layer mask to get it just right. (Layer 2)
This is another edit I did with a bit more work on it. Following the same idea of “This photo needs more color” this version I pasted in a sky from another photo.
"high edit"
Unfortunately I was a supreme idiot and accidentally saved the flattened version of the image over the .psd file so I don’t have the layers pane to show but I can will try and describe it as best as I can.
Step 0: crop image so that rock formations take up more of the image and are on the top 1/3rd line.
Step 1: I did basically the same edits as the “low edit” version just without the lens blur.
Step 2: I found an image on flickr that was creative commons licensed that had a really nice sunrise/sunset sky so I pasted that into the document. (I then hide it for the next step)
Step 3: Use select>color range tool and use the eye dropper and select a part of the sky in the original image. Then I adjust the fuzziness slider so it has most of the sky selected. Click OK. Then unhide the pasted image and click on that layer. Then with the selection still active create a new layer mask. It should create the mask with the selection created by the color range. You will have to manually go through and remove the parts of the mask that weren’t perfect in the foreground, but it should have done a really good job of making a good mask between the rock formations and the sky.
Step 4: I ended up seeing a bit of color haloing around the rock formations in the upper right so I right click on the layer mask and select “Refine Mask”. Then I just adjusted the size of the mask to be a little bit bigger so it would go over the halo areas and remove those. I then had to go through with a brush and mask out a few things that appeared in other parts of the image as an unintended consequence of the refine mask.
Step 5: I did some small levels adjustments in an adjustment layer and made some of the shadowed areas of the foreground a little darker.
Step 6: The right side of the mountains looked a little too yellow compared to the sky so I copied the original sky layer and changed the layer blending mode to color then reduced the opacity and masked it in on the rock formations. This was a VERY subtle change just so the right rocks were a little more blue/purple to match the sky.
General tips: When masking things in and out for subtle changes like brightness or color I use large brushes from 5%-40% opacity. Most of the time I am in the 10-20% range. This way I feel like I have more control over the adjustments I am making. When masking around hard edges such as the mountains I will decrease the brush radius, zoom in, and increase the brush hardness to 100% so you don’t end up with haloing. A lot of change I make are experimental so I will try some things here and there and end up deleting and trying different things a few times before I get it the way I like it.
For web images you should assign the color profile to sRGB on the image and work in that. And always make sure you have your monitor calibrated.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Look at these nice lenses they have on the ISS. I'm guessing they are actually mounted there and are tacking pictures out a window in the "downward" direction.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Look at these nice lenses they have on the ISS. I'm guessing they are actually mounted there and are tacking pictures out a window in the "downward" direction.
300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 on the right wall, that's serious glass. Of course, when it costs $40,000+ just to hoist it to LEO, you might as well not skimp.
Also, I like to imagine that, using that speedlight on the left, they can recreate the ultimate version of the using in body flash at a sporting event when shooting the dark side of earth.
So this is the result of multiple incompetencies, and I could probably get the same effect using something as simple as an instagram filter, but I like it:
I'm not a giant fan of that style, but I don't think that is something that could be reproduced with instagram. I wish either you or the cat had a better clarity to them.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Flickr? It has a bunch of copyright settings you can apply to stuff you upload.
This, but the site itself can only do so much to protect your photos from being stolen by other people and hosted elsewhere. I believe there is a flickr setting somewhere that you can use that will prevent people from right clicking on your images to save them. This of course does not prevent people from taking a screen shot or from getting to the image from the page source, but it will at least stop the lazy and stupid.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I picked up a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 zoom for Christmas.
Next on my list is a 35mm or 50mm prime and a flash.
There are still some SB-600 flashes floating around for ~$250, and the SB-700 that replaced it goes for ~$325. Is the SB-700 going to be worth a $75 difference or will I be fine with the SB-600?
I picked up a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 zoom for Christmas.
Next on my list is a 35mm or 50mm prime and a flash.
There are still some SB-600 flashes floating around for ~$250, and the SB-700 that replaced it goes for ~$325. Is the SB-700 going to be worth a $75 difference or will I be fine with the SB-600?
I use mostly SB-600s but I bought myself a 700 when I needed another flash to see how the new features work. It's menu is about infinity percent better and you can switch between modes faster, but as a flash, they're pretty similar. I don't find the lighting distribution thing to be particularly critical, and the extra zoom head range is nice, but not exactly groundbreaking. The SB-700 can be used as a CLS master, which is nice if you have other CLS flashes since the built in is kinda crummy for triggering, but not a big deal for your first flash. The SB-700 is a better flash imo, but that 75 dollars over the 600 would probably be better spent toward a 35mm f/1.8.
What's the best site for photo sharing that protects the photog's copyright?
Obviously Facebook and Instagram are out.
Any sharing is going to encounter potential copyright infringement. You can ruin the photo by splashing a giant watermark on it, or do the X treatment like iStockPhoto does, but then you're not so much sharing the photo as selling it.
Flickr makes it easy to share a photo and be clear about the copyright. It then adjusts its own sharing options and provides the appropriate links, which is usually how people will grab a photo anyway. I have my photos on Flickr using Creative Commons, and I have a fair number of other sites that have linked to my picture directly using Flickr's tools, so it does work.
Look at these nice lenses they have on the ISS. I'm guessing they are actually mounted there and are taking pictures out a window in the "downward" direction.
I'm thinking that's just strapped-down storage of the cameras & lenses, not something where they are taking interval shots out a window. Their size to store in a compartment and the fact that someone might want to grab one in a hurry to take pictures out the observatory windows means strapping them down to a "wall" is the best place for them.
I picked up a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 zoom for Christmas.
Next on my list is a 35mm or 50mm prime and a flash.
There are still some SB-600 flashes floating around for ~$250, and the SB-700 that replaced it goes for ~$325. Is the SB-700 going to be worth a $75 difference or will I be fine with the SB-600?
I use mostly SB-600s but I bought myself a 700 when I needed another flash to see how the new features work. It's menu is about infinity percent better and you can switch between modes faster, but as a flash, they're pretty similar. I don't find the lighting distribution thing to be particularly critical, and the extra zoom head range is nice, but not exactly groundbreaking. The SB-700 can be used as a CLS master, which is nice if you have other CLS flashes since the built in is kinda crummy for triggering, but not a big deal for your first flash. The SB-700 is a better flash imo, but that 75 dollars over the 600 would probably be better spent toward a 35mm f/1.8.
Weeeeelllll I was going to suggest the Lumopro as a cheaper option if you want to do off camera lighting but it appears that both the 120 and 160 have been discontinued. That's kind of sad.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I picked up a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 zoom for Christmas.
Next on my list is a 35mm or 50mm prime and a flash.
There are still some SB-600 flashes floating around for ~$250, and the SB-700 that replaced it goes for ~$325. Is the SB-700 going to be worth a $75 difference or will I be fine with the SB-600?
I use mostly SB-600s but I bought myself a 700 when I needed another flash to see how the new features work. It's menu is about infinity percent better and you can switch between modes faster, but as a flash, they're pretty similar. I don't find the lighting distribution thing to be particularly critical, and the extra zoom head range is nice, but not exactly groundbreaking. The SB-700 can be used as a CLS master, which is nice if you have other CLS flashes since the built in is kinda crummy for triggering, but not a big deal for your first flash. The SB-700 is a better flash imo, but that 75 dollars over the 600 would probably be better spent toward a 35mm f/1.8.
Weeeeelllll I was going to suggest the Lumopro as a cheaper option if you want to do off camera lighting but it appears that both the 120 and 160 have been discontinued. That's kind of sad.
Yap, I was actually going to buy a 160 recently since I was already ordering some stands from MPEX (snapped the legs off one of my 5001b stands in my trunk! I am best) and they've vanished. They've made noises about a new LP flash, but nothing has happened as of yet. The 600 can be CLS triggered from a D5100 iirc as well, so that's a decent intro to OCF.
What's the best site for photo sharing that protects the photog's copyright?
Obviously Facebook and Instagram are out.
I do have to say, I don't really use instagram, but they aren't as iffy anymore. National Geographic is back on Instagram after having their lawyers talk with them to make sure there were no copyright issues anymore. I think that says heaps about them if NG is okay with their stuff being on there.
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I am using the 3200. Same frame on it. I find it easy enough to use, but the whole thing starts to drag a bit once you have taken 500 shots with no tripod. No real problems with it, except that I really need an extra something I don't have a name for yet for taking low light shots.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
With so much symetry to the picture I really wish all the lines were parallel to the frame. The black line at the bottom is a little higher on the right side and the top of the building is a little higher on the left side. If you can't get it to line up perfectly because of lens distortion I would actually make a little extra effort and un-distort the building a little.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
First:
I bought a refurb Nikon AF-S 55-200mm VR lens, and while I was giving it a good look I noticed that one of the aperture blades looks like it isn't lined up just exactly right. Instead of the aperture being a nice symmetrical shape, it's sort of oblong. This is while the lens is off the camera, I have no idea if that changes once it has power running to it and it opens and closes for shots. Should I be worried and/or getting the ball rolling on sending it back in while it's still under refurb warranty?
Second:
How do you find interesting things to shoot? I live out in a rural area, everything is flat, and the nearest city is also pretty ho-hum. I feel like trying to do landscapes and street photography around here would just be an exercise in futility.
First:
I bought a refurb Nikon AF-S 55-200mm VR lens, and while I was giving it a good look I noticed that one of the aperture blades looks like it isn't lined up just exactly right. Instead of the aperture being a nice symmetrical shape, it's sort of oblong. This is while the lens is off the camera, I have no idea if that changes once it has power running to it and it opens and closes for shots. Should I be worried and/or getting the ball rolling on sending it back in while it's still under refurb warranty?
Second:
How do you find interesting things to shoot? I live out in a rural area, everything is flat, and the nearest city is also pretty ho-hum. I feel like trying to do landscapes and street photography around here would just be an exercise in futility.
You could try actuating the blades a few times with the aperture lever on the mount. Might just be a bit stuck. If it stays pretty significantly out of position through the range, probably worth returning, specially if it doesn't open properly all the way.
As for the second one, people are usually interesting, stuff can be interesting (everyone has taken a picture of a rusty tractor at some point in their lives), just gotta get out there and see what there is to see.
I live in a major city so it's hard to compare, but I'm sure there has to be something worth shooting out there! Also accidental rhymes.
Manually fiddling with the aperture lever was the trick. It just looks funny when it's closed down because it's a 7 blade aperture. Near wide open it's more circular.
I think I'm just in a funk because I've got a new camera and the weather has been bad so I haven't been able to get out, which means I'm watching more photo stuff on youtube and thinking "we don't have anything cool like that around here to shoot".
Bombs those are all incredible. I especially love the first one as well as the fog in the field though. The first one would be a great photo to start, and then you notice the bird
Manually fiddling with the aperture lever was the trick. It just looks funny when it's closed down because it's a 7 blade aperture. Near wide open it's more circular.
I think I'm just in a funk because I've got a new camera and the weather has been bad so I haven't been able to get out, which means I'm watching more photo stuff on youtube and thinking "we don't have anything cool like that around here to shoot".
I think finding interesting things is the main struggle in creating good photography. So since you are out in the middle of no where that eliminates most "normal" nature photography. So if you want to do nature-ish stuff you could try learning some about long exposure night photography and painting with light. I'm sure there are some interesting old buildings or maybe farm equipment you can use for foreground elements. I remember seeing a really nice tutorial on youtube or vimeo but I'm failing to find it right now.
ex: Colors of Kingdom Redux by Notley, on Flickr
If you have a flash or strobe you can definitely change the focus of a photo and make it more interesting.
ex: Rainbows in Heaven by angus clyne, on Flickr
Or as Knight said you could do some people photography. You don't necessarily need awesome backgrounds to do great portraiture. Finding people who are comfortable and expressive in front of cameras can be a challenge in itself. If you have time to kill you could always find someone who is willing to work with you and spend time collaborating with them until both of you are comfortable doing portraiture.
If you like macro stuff you can certainly come up with interesting and abstract things.
One thing you can do is go to flickr and search for things in your surroundings and sort by "interestingness." Try starting off with searching for things like "field", "rural", "farm", etc and browse through and see what other people have done with those things to make them interesting.
Edit: I should also note that I pretty much always have a photo slump in the winter. So you aren't the only one. Just think of it as a bit of a challenge to test your creativity.
Edit2: Also if you are up for product photography or want to get better at photo manipulation there is a lot of stuff you can do indoors
Bombs: Those photos are decent individually, but as a set I think they are excellent. You probably didn't mean them specifically as a set but if you removed the first one I think the rest go nicely together. It gives me a nice quiet feeling of living in a mountain cabin.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
That moonlight one is bizzonkers. The tech advances are crazy. It's going to be so easy to get exactly the right exposure of everything in post-production soon.
That moonlight one is bizzonkers. The tech advances are crazy. It's going to be so easy to get exactly the right exposure of everything in post-production soon.
I'm wondering if the daylight photos will suffer on that sensor or if it will just be an awesome all around sensor.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Here is a pretty good video for new people on how to approach a scene and be able to vary how you shoot and look at it to get a better shot. It is pretty long so if you don't have the time I do really like his bit at 56:20 on shooting interesting subjects.
Posts
I was looking through some of your photos on flickr and you've got some really great stuff up there. I particularly like these two:
flickr.com/photos/gafoto/8189581016/in/photostream
and
flickr.com/photos/gafoto/8290934991/in/photostream
Personally, I think that if you did some more manipulating in photoshop you could take these photos from great to "really friken awesome." Also, I was wondering why the last few photos you have up on flickr are shot with a Powershot S100. Did something happen to your rebel?
Edit: For reference on the manipulating I am talking about stuff like what this guy produces: http://500px.com/mibreit
straight out of camera.
I'm thinking about getting something ultra-wide (2mm-6mm range) in C-mount as well, since
A- C-mount lenses tend to be unbelievably fast, and who doesn't love fast glass
B- They're ludicrously cheap in comparison to native options, generally right around 100$
C- Due to the m43 mount doubling all focal lengths nothing native will get that wide anyway
Obviously there will be distortion, vignetting, softness and unusual OOF patterns, but I'm fine with all of that. My question is, can I expect circular/fisheye type images from these ultra-wide surveillance lenses, or will I largely be looking at barrel-distorted but still rectangular images? And either way, will the vignetting cut off the image before I can see those (in this case desirable) distortions?
3DS: 0447-9966-6178
I'll be the first to admit my photoshop manipulation skills are weak. I actually stopped using my rebel and bought an S100 because of the size difference. The S100 is much much easier to pack for backpacking, hiking and climbing. It was also a lot cheaper than a new SLR. I'm not sure the S100 entirely lives up to its promise. If I had the money I would buy a mirrorless SLR in addition to the S100.
Like I've been told by my landscape photographer friend, I need to incorporate a GND filter into my photography. Of course using the S100 makes that difficult too. I'll have to talk with my friend about doing some better photoshop manipulation.
@Gafoto
I wouldn't mind giving you some basic PS ideas and pointing you in hopefully the right direction. I've actually wanted to play around with some of your photos.
The S100 seems to be producing some pretty good photos. The main downsides I can see are the things like the GND your friend recommended and not being able to put on some super wide lenses.
Remember these are just my opinions on how to improve it. I’m sure needOptic or UncleLong who have more experience with nature stuff and PS would have some better insight.
Original
Again, I like this photo but I think it has a few areas that need some improvement. The first thing I notice is it is very monotone color of the image. It is very very blue. So the main thing I am going to try and improve is adding a little bit of warmth (yellows/oranges) into the image to add some color contrast. This will probably look rather natural because this is a photo at sunrise and you sometimes see those types of colors.
"low edit"
Steps:
1. Opened image in lightroom. go to HSL (Hue Saturation Luminance) and up the saturation on the yellows.
2. adjust vibrance up to get the sky looking a bit more bright and brillaint
3. This adjustment also brought up the blues in the foreground which I don’t want so I end up saving two versions of the image. One with the vibrance up for the sky and one with the vibrance set back to normal for the foreground. I will then merge the two images in PS with layer masking
4. Add a color balance adjustment layer and adjust the midtones to be more yellow/orangeish. So I move it more yellow and more red. Then use a layer mask to just apply that to the foreground. (Layer - Color Balance 1)
5. I also did something similar to step 4 and added a photo filter layer with a warming filter and did some masking on that as well. (Layer - Photo Filter 1)
6. The main subject of this are the rock formations on the other side of the road. The foreground is in really sharp focus but it distracts a bit from ‘the main subject’. So to deal with that I did a stamp visible layer (ctrl+shift+alt+e) and then made a layer mask with a gradient that goes from the bottom to about the road. Once that is created then go to filter>blur>lens blur and then select the layer mask in the “Depth map” section of the filter. I then mess around with the radius of the blur. I did a few attempts at this changing the gradient in the layer mask to get it just right. (Layer 2)
____________________________________________________________
This is another edit I did with a bit more work on it. Following the same idea of “This photo needs more color” this version I pasted in a sky from another photo.
"high edit"
Unfortunately I was a supreme idiot and accidentally saved the flattened version of the image over the .psd file so I don’t have the layers pane to show but I can will try and describe it as best as I can.
Step 0: crop image so that rock formations take up more of the image and are on the top 1/3rd line.
Step 1: I did basically the same edits as the “low edit” version just without the lens blur.
Step 2: I found an image on flickr that was creative commons licensed that had a really nice sunrise/sunset sky so I pasted that into the document. (I then hide it for the next step)
Step 3: Use select>color range tool and use the eye dropper and select a part of the sky in the original image. Then I adjust the fuzziness slider so it has most of the sky selected. Click OK. Then unhide the pasted image and click on that layer. Then with the selection still active create a new layer mask. It should create the mask with the selection created by the color range. You will have to manually go through and remove the parts of the mask that weren’t perfect in the foreground, but it should have done a really good job of making a good mask between the rock formations and the sky.
Step 4: I ended up seeing a bit of color haloing around the rock formations in the upper right so I right click on the layer mask and select “Refine Mask”. Then I just adjusted the size of the mask to be a little bit bigger so it would go over the halo areas and remove those. I then had to go through with a brush and mask out a few things that appeared in other parts of the image as an unintended consequence of the refine mask.
Step 5: I did some small levels adjustments in an adjustment layer and made some of the shadowed areas of the foreground a little darker.
Step 6: The right side of the mountains looked a little too yellow compared to the sky so I copied the original sky layer and changed the layer blending mode to color then reduced the opacity and masked it in on the rock formations. This was a VERY subtle change just so the right rocks were a little more blue/purple to match the sky.
General tips: When masking things in and out for subtle changes like brightness or color I use large brushes from 5%-40% opacity. Most of the time I am in the 10-20% range. This way I feel like I have more control over the adjustments I am making. When masking around hard edges such as the mountains I will decrease the brush radius, zoom in, and increase the brush hardness to 100% so you don’t end up with haloing. A lot of change I make are experimental so I will try some things here and there and end up deleting and trying different things a few times before I get it the way I like it.
For web images you should assign the color profile to sRGB on the image and work in that. And always make sure you have your monitor calibrated.
I wonder how much more terrible the one I have now is. Hmm.
Switch: 6200-8149-0919 / Wii U: maximumzero / 3DS: 0860-3352-3335 / eBay Shop
300 f/2.8 and 400 f/2.8 on the right wall, that's serious glass. Of course, when it costs $40,000+ just to hoist it to LEO, you might as well not skimp.
Also, I like to imagine that, using that speedlight on the left, they can recreate the ultimate version of the using in body flash at a sporting event when shooting the dark side of earth.
Obviously Facebook and Instagram are out.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
This, but the site itself can only do so much to protect your photos from being stolen by other people and hosted elsewhere. I believe there is a flickr setting somewhere that you can use that will prevent people from right clicking on your images to save them. This of course does not prevent people from taking a screen shot or from getting to the image from the page source, but it will at least stop the lazy and stupid.
I picked up a D5100 with 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 zoom for Christmas.
Next on my list is a 35mm or 50mm prime and a flash.
There are still some SB-600 flashes floating around for ~$250, and the SB-700 that replaced it goes for ~$325. Is the SB-700 going to be worth a $75 difference or will I be fine with the SB-600?
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I use mostly SB-600s but I bought myself a 700 when I needed another flash to see how the new features work. It's menu is about infinity percent better and you can switch between modes faster, but as a flash, they're pretty similar. I don't find the lighting distribution thing to be particularly critical, and the extra zoom head range is nice, but not exactly groundbreaking. The SB-700 can be used as a CLS master, which is nice if you have other CLS flashes since the built in is kinda crummy for triggering, but not a big deal for your first flash. The SB-700 is a better flash imo, but that 75 dollars over the 600 would probably be better spent toward a 35mm f/1.8.
Any sharing is going to encounter potential copyright infringement. You can ruin the photo by splashing a giant watermark on it, or do the X treatment like iStockPhoto does, but then you're not so much sharing the photo as selling it.
Flickr makes it easy to share a photo and be clear about the copyright. It then adjusts its own sharing options and provides the appropriate links, which is usually how people will grab a photo anyway. I have my photos on Flickr using Creative Commons, and I have a fair number of other sites that have linked to my picture directly using Flickr's tools, so it does work.
I'm thinking that's just strapped-down storage of the cameras & lenses, not something where they are taking interval shots out a window. Their size to store in a compartment and the fact that someone might want to grab one in a hurry to take pictures out the observatory windows means strapping them down to a "wall" is the best place for them.
Weeeeelllll I was going to suggest the Lumopro as a cheaper option if you want to do off camera lighting but it appears that both the 120 and 160 have been discontinued. That's kind of sad.
Yap, I was actually going to buy a 160 recently since I was already ordering some stands from MPEX (snapped the legs off one of my 5001b stands in my trunk! I am best) and they've vanished. They've made noises about a new LP flash, but nothing has happened as of yet. The 600 can be CLS triggered from a D5100 iirc as well, so that's a decent intro to OCF.
I do have to say, I don't really use instagram, but they aren't as iffy anymore. National Geographic is back on Instagram after having their lawyers talk with them to make sure there were no copyright issues anymore. I think that says heaps about them if NG is okay with their stuff being on there.
My Portfolio Site
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Thoughts?
Here's some kind of old stuff and really old stuff that I never uploaded but still like, from oldest to newest.
First:
I bought a refurb Nikon AF-S 55-200mm VR lens, and while I was giving it a good look I noticed that one of the aperture blades looks like it isn't lined up just exactly right. Instead of the aperture being a nice symmetrical shape, it's sort of oblong. This is while the lens is off the camera, I have no idea if that changes once it has power running to it and it opens and closes for shots. Should I be worried and/or getting the ball rolling on sending it back in while it's still under refurb warranty?
Second:
How do you find interesting things to shoot? I live out in a rural area, everything is flat, and the nearest city is also pretty ho-hum. I feel like trying to do landscapes and street photography around here would just be an exercise in futility.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
You could try actuating the blades a few times with the aperture lever on the mount. Might just be a bit stuck. If it stays pretty significantly out of position through the range, probably worth returning, specially if it doesn't open properly all the way.
As for the second one, people are usually interesting, stuff can be interesting (everyone has taken a picture of a rusty tractor at some point in their lives), just gotta get out there and see what there is to see.
I live in a major city so it's hard to compare, but I'm sure there has to be something worth shooting out there! Also accidental rhymes.
I think I'm just in a funk because I've got a new camera and the weather has been bad so I haven't been able to get out, which means I'm watching more photo stuff on youtube and thinking "we don't have anything cool like that around here to shoot".
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
My Portfolio Site
I think finding interesting things is the main struggle in creating good photography. So since you are out in the middle of no where that eliminates most "normal" nature photography. So if you want to do nature-ish stuff you could try learning some about long exposure night photography and painting with light. I'm sure there are some interesting old buildings or maybe farm equipment you can use for foreground elements. I remember seeing a really nice tutorial on youtube or vimeo but I'm failing to find it right now.
ex:
Colors of Kingdom Redux by Notley, on Flickr
Wander by Mohammed Alnaser, on Flickr
If you have a flash or strobe you can definitely change the focus of a photo and make it more interesting.
ex:
Rainbows in Heaven by angus clyne, on Flickr
Or as Knight said you could do some people photography. You don't necessarily need awesome backgrounds to do great portraiture. Finding people who are comfortable and expressive in front of cameras can be a challenge in itself. If you have time to kill you could always find someone who is willing to work with you and spend time collaborating with them until both of you are comfortable doing portraiture.
If you like macro stuff you can certainly come up with interesting and abstract things.
One thing you can do is go to flickr and search for things in your surroundings and sort by "interestingness." Try starting off with searching for things like "field", "rural", "farm", etc and browse through and see what other people have done with those things to make them interesting.
Edit: I should also note that I pretty much always have a photo slump in the winter. So you aren't the only one. Just think of it as a bit of a challenge to test your creativity.
Edit2: Also if you are up for product photography or want to get better at photo manipulation there is a lot of stuff you can do indoors
ex:
|16/52 - bean spill| by |md|photography|, on Flickr
Stella Artois by rdowsley, on Flickr
Fight for Your Rights by Ben Heine, on Flickr
I'm wondering if the daylight photos will suffer on that sensor or if it will just be an awesome all around sensor.