F-Stop In The Name Of Love [PHOTO THREAD]

bsjezz

Alright I went on a walk and most of my photos were dodgy and the battery kicked the bucket before I was done but oh well. A couple seemed to turn out okay:

Sheri

I have no idea what's going on in most of those.

bread of wonder

Me neither, but I like the last two.

erisian pope

Sheri isn't zim? OH RED LETTER DAY! Oh the huge manatee! (Nice av, is it Mully-art?)

Bsjezz, I can't tell what the first pic is of, but I love the prismatic light reflection that's all purple and sparkly. It appeals to my inner teen-age-girl.

Saint, the cactus is pretty nice. It's somehow peaceful and serene. I think it's a combo of your DoF plus the colors (not overly saturated, allows the purple to be soothing).

Jamp, that's pretty nifty! And I had always thought that Jesus had no pier... But seriously, the vignetting really adds something. Very nice.

bsjezz

It's basically the stump of an old jetty or a submerged tree trunk covered in oyster shells, with the water around it slick with oil or some other kind of chemical residue. The other ones are a lorikeet in a tree, a mossy gum branch and a broken cement pipe half sunk in the mud.

erisian pope

Another flower from pope:





Also, rain:

Sheri

Yes, pope, it is mully-art, and is thread-appropriate!

Prospicience

ooooo pope I really like this new flower, almost looks alien the way you took the picture. Really cool!

saltiness

I like that one Jamp. But there's something about it that bothers me. There seems to be too much empty space on the right. I know it's just how the scene was but I wonder what it'd look like with the subject off center? I like how you put it in the center though so it might not work.

Sheri

I've got to (kind of) disagree with saltiness -- my favorite part of that picture, JAmp, is the way the sky and the sea merge and the horizon disappears off on the right-hand side. I think that if you moved the focus to the right (which salti refers to as 'empty space,' though I wouldn't call it that), you'd ruin that really awesome effect.

saltiness

I looked at it again, after reading your take on it, Sheri and I think I found my problem with it. I flipped the image horizontally and I think it reads better this way.



(Jamp, I took the liberty of messing with your image, if you'd rather I didn't I'll take it down.)

Tini

I completely disagree. I think it's better just the way JAmp did it because we read left to right.

saltiness

That's exactly why I like it this way. I initially look at the white space then my eye is naturally lead to the busy part of the pier. It's a better build-up for me.

Sheri

I like it JAmp's way better.

I can't tell you why.

But now his intials kind of look like they're saying 'HI' >.>

Tini

I suppose it's just a personal opinion because I think it is more appealing in the first shot because the subject of the picture is the first thing you see, which in a lot of the cases it should be.

JAmp5

These exact same things were going through my head too :P but yeah it just looked wrong anything but centre, I guess you never see a picture of a crucifix without it being dead in the middle of the frame. I don't really like using someone else’s work to my advantage by the way, it feels kind of wrong, whoever did think of this tag was a genius, making the barbed wire look like a crown of thorns so props to him (or her) I merely gave it some atmosphere and a context.

Also mirrored don't you think the expression on his face is more "uh..what?" and less “I’m the son of god” anyways debating for the win. This is the talk that makes people think how can I make my pictures better.

P.S I love to use vignetting to keep the focus in the centre of the frame and stop it wandering out.

erisian pope

JAmp5 wrote: »

I guess you never see a picture of a crucifix without it being dead

olol

JAmp5 wrote: »

I don't really like using someone else’s work to my advantage by the way, it feels kind of wrong, whoever did think of this tag was a genius, making the barbed wire look like a crown of thorns so props to him (or her) I merely gave it some atmosphere and a context.

I think that's what journalistic photography is all about. I don't mean specifically your piece here, which I see more as artistic than journalistic (not that the two are exclusive), but your message here sounds like describing journalism as if it were intended to be art but partially plagairised. But if one looks at it as journalism ... documenting something and enhancing it's core meaning ... that's not plaigarism in my opinion.

But like I started to say, your piece is more artistic than not, so maybe it's some of each, or maybe you saw something and captured it in a beautiful way and that credit goes to you.

benz0rs

I like the salti version better...

Gafoto

Hakone Statue

bread of wonder

...and now for something completely different.



So tonight, I went to the Empire State Building in hopes of getting some long exposures and cityscapes, but the security assholes are more uptight than airport security and I got my tripod confiscated (apparently, they've been doing that to everyone) because they deemed it "too big" which is complete bs because it's one of those really compact 10" folded ones. And it was impossible to get any decent shots. I got a few but they kinda sucked. So whatever. Maybe tomorrow night I'll find an observation deck or something. How frustrating. Paying 18 bucks to get to the top, and then they pull some crap like that...

Doodmann

So I have a D50 and I love it but frankly 2.5 frames per second is not enough for the type of sports / action photography I want to get more into. This sounds kinda like a h/a question but since you guys are the photo thread for this whole place I thought I'd ask you first. Got any suggestions on what I should think about investing in to get more fps?

Here's what I want to do more of.



and I don't know how to image tag from photobucket on my mac...great.

bread of wonder

I know the Canon 30D does 5fps. But first of all, make sure your memory card(s) have a fast write speed. I have a D80 with 3.5-ish fps, but my memory cards have a standard write speed and thus I can't shoot continuously. However, if you have some huge bucks to drop and want to stay with a Nikon lens system, the D2Xs does 8fps at 6.8 megapixels, and something like 5fps at 12mp.

There really aren't a whole lot of pro sports photographers that shoot Nikon though, hence why you see tons of white (Canon) telephoto lenses at pretty much every sports event.

saltiness

The Canon 20D also does 5fps and is practically the same camera as the 30D. It just has a smaller screen and no spot metering. I have the 20D and with a Sandisk Ultra II card I can shoot 6 frames at 5fps in RAW but if I use the best JPG setting I can do over 50 frames continuously at 5fps.

mr0range

I'll stick my neck out on this.

Phonehand

UnknownSaint

Phone, that is some creepy stuff.

Awesome.

erisian pope

Orange - I like the last one a lot. The angle and the sharpness/contrast give it a lot of energy.

Bread - I love #s 2 and 4!!! The turtles in #4 are the last thing I end up noticing because the picture really moves my eye around a lot. It's great!


EDIT: Phonehand, that's wicked!

Phonehand

Thanks

Doodmann

bread of wonder wrote: »

I know the Canon 30D does 5fps. But first of all, make sure your memory card(s) have a fast write speed. I have a D80 with 3.5-ish fps, but my memory cards have a standard write speed and thus I can't shoot continuously. However, if you have some huge bucks to drop and want to stay with a Nikon lens system, the D2Xs does 8fps at 6.8 megapixels, and something like 5fps at 12mp.

There really aren't a whole lot of pro sports photographers that shoot Nikon though, hence why you see tons of white (Canon) telephoto lenses at pretty much every sports event.

So is there any benifit to trying to stick to nikon? I like their setup and feel better.

bread of wonder

Doodmann wrote: »

bread of wonder wrote: »

I know the Canon 30D does 5fps. But first of all, make sure your memory card(s) have a fast write speed. I have a D80 with 3.5-ish fps, but my memory cards have a standard write speed and thus I can't shoot continuously. However, if you have some huge bucks to drop and want to stay with a Nikon lens system, the D2Xs does 8fps at 6.8 megapixels, and something like 5fps at 12mp.

There really aren't a whole lot of pro sports photographers that shoot Nikon though, hence why you see tons of white (Canon) telephoto lenses at pretty much every sports event.

So is there any benifit to trying to stick to nikon? I like their setup and feel better.

I actually recently read an article that mentioned why sports photographers generally shoot Canon, and the main reason was that back in the 80's, Nikon didn't change their lens mount system or something to better suit the new autofocus lenses (so people who already owned a bunch of manual focus lenses wouldn't have to go out and buy a whole new lens system), while Canon did and thus Canon's AF is faster. When AF caught on in the 90's (pro photographers used to laugh at the idea of AF), many people moved to Canon because their autofocus was way faster. Eventually though Nikon caught on, and now they're on a level playing field with AF. Apparently the only reason why you see so many pro sports photographers shooting Canon is because they're old and since the 90's never switched back, since switching lens systems at a pro level is such a bitch.

So really, if you're comfortable with Nikon (as I am), go with the D200. I found those actually do 5fps, but cost about 300 more than the D80 (which does 3fps). You'd be spending a similar amount of cash on the 20D or 30D which do 5fps as well, so you might as well stay with your current system.

saltiness

bread of wonder wrote: »

Doodmann wrote: »

bread of wonder wrote: »

I know the Canon 30D does 5fps. But first of all, make sure your memory card(s) have a fast write speed. I have a D80 with 3.5-ish fps, but my memory cards have a standard write speed and thus I can't shoot continuously. However, if you have some huge bucks to drop and want to stay with a Nikon lens system, the D2Xs does 8fps at 6.8 megapixels, and something like 5fps at 12mp.

There really aren't a whole lot of pro sports photographers that shoot Nikon though, hence why you see tons of white (Canon) telephoto lenses at pretty much every sports event.

So is there any benifit to trying to stick to nikon? I like their setup and feel better.

I actually recently read an article that mentioned why sports photographers generally shoot Canon, and the main reason was that back in the 80's, Nikon didn't change their lens mount system or something to better suit the new autofocus lenses (so people who already owned a bunch of manual focus lenses wouldn't have to go out and buy a whole new lens system), while Canon did and thus Canon's AF is faster. When AF caught on in the 90's (pro photographers used to laugh at the idea of AF), many people moved to Canon because their autofocus was way faster. Eventually though Nikon caught on, and now they're on a level playing field with AF. Apparently the only reason why you see so many pro sports photographers shooting Canon is because they're old and since the 90's never switched back, since switching lens systems at a pro level is such a bitch.

So really, if you're comfortable with Nikon (as I am), go with the D200. I found those actually do 5fps, but cost about 300 more than the D80 (which does 3fps). You'd be spending a similar amount of cash on the 20D or 30D which do 5fps as well, so you might as well stay with your current system.

In addition to what you've mentioned, I think one of the main reasons for Canon's popularity has to do with their 1D series camera bodies. Nikon doesn't really come close to Canon's 1Ds Mark II with its 16.7mp and full-frame sensor nor do they match Canon's 1D Mark II (and soon to be released Mark III) with 8.5fps at 8.2mp (10fps at 10.1mp in the MkIII). Nikon's best shot at Canon is with their D2Xs which pales in comparison to the Canon 1D's.

bread of wonder

Yeah but those are the top of the line pro bodies that cost like 5k. And Canon probably has the lead in that mainly because Nikon knows Canon has a secure hold over the pro sports demographic and thus doesn't want to invest in trying to win it back, and instead put their resources into other areas. Unless you have a career in pro sports photography, there's no need for a camera with 8+fps. Unless of course, you want to fill up your memory card real fast ;-)

Doodmann

bread of wonder wrote: »

Doodmann wrote: »

bread of wonder wrote: »

I know the Canon 30D does 5fps. But first of all, make sure your memory card(s) have a fast write speed. I have a D80 with 3.5-ish fps, but my memory cards have a standard write speed and thus I can't shoot continuously. However, if you have some huge bucks to drop and want to stay with a Nikon lens system, the D2Xs does 8fps at 6.8 megapixels, and something like 5fps at 12mp.

There really aren't a whole lot of pro sports photographers that shoot Nikon though, hence why you see tons of white (Canon) telephoto lenses at pretty much every sports event.

So is there any benifit to trying to stick to nikon? I like their setup and feel better.

I actually recently read an article that mentioned why sports photographers generally shoot Canon, and the main reason was that back in the 80's, Nikon didn't change their lens mount system or something to better suit the new autofocus lenses (so people who already owned a bunch of manual focus lenses wouldn't have to go out and buy a whole new lens system), while Canon did and thus Canon's AF is faster. When AF caught on in the 90's (pro photographers used to laugh at the idea of AF), many people moved to Canon because their autofocus was way faster. Eventually though Nikon caught on, and now they're on a level playing field with AF. Apparently the only reason why you see so many pro sports photographers shooting Canon is because they're old and since the 90's never switched back, since switching lens systems at a pro level is such a bitch.

So really, if you're comfortable with Nikon (as I am), go with the D200. I found those actually do 5fps, but cost about 300 more than the D80 (which does 3fps). You'd be spending a similar amount of cash on the 20D or 30D which do 5fps as well, so you might as well stay with your current system.

Yeah my plan was to sell my current camera and buy a d200

foursquareman

I really like how the last photo seems almost black and white if it wasn't for the small patch of green in the corner. And the first photo, with the cactus is very interesting.

Spilltoy

Summer love

UnknownSaint

BOTP'd, because I never pay attention to where on the page I am posting a bunch of shots.

benz0rs

I know this may be off--topic but on my way back from LA, I saw those palm trees with the satellite signal thing all set up on it. It was cool.. I think. I was just reminded by the plam tree picture you had.

UnknownSaint

Yeah, they have plenty of those around here. They think if they disguise the towers as metal palm trees it will be less conspicuous.

Scotty

Ah, a photo thread!

I see that there is some great eyes in here....nice work.:^:

Here's my offerings...
I use a Canon 350D with a Sigma 1:2.8 50mm lens. (sorry for lack of frames)

1. Mushroom Collective


2. Droplets


3. Ant Picnic


4. Fronds

erisian pope

You shot that ant pic with a 50mm lens?