So what do you guys think of post-processing meant to mimic a film like appearance?
This girl I have on my Lj friends list does this thing where she desaturates and shifts the colour balance a bit on her photos (street photography is her thing) and it gets them looking rather old, like film shot in the 70s or 80s.
The thing is, a lot of her photos aren't that good. A lot of them are just very plain, but the post-processing adds this charm to them, almost a sort of irony to them. I dunno, I like the look but at the same time something bothers me about it
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
Hmm, my parents are looking into buying a Canon Eos 350d or 400d. We used to have a Canon Eos with 2 lenses, but it wasn't digital and we don't have the tools to develop the photos ourself, so we were dependent on the local shop. The old lenses are supposed to fit on the new Eos as well, so that should be neat.
Anyway, now that the digital cameras are getting cheap we want to have a decent camera again. Is the Canon Eos a good camera? Is the the 400 worth the extra money?
The 350 has a better UI and is virtually identical feature-wise.
Hmm, a intuitive UI is good, we're still discovering new things about our point&click camera simply because some shit is hidden under a few submenus or only work when you hold down a button for 5 seconds. That's so not intuitive.
it ain't gonna get any EASIER when you go to the 350, but take the time to learn the UI. It's not hard, but there are quite a few options.
Took me 6 months to find that you could shoot black and white under "color profiles".
It took me a year to understand how change focus when making a picture, you had to push the button in, but only a little and then adjust the red square on the screen with arrow buttons.
Whoever made the Minolta Dimage f100 should be fired.
it ain't gonna get any EASIER when you go to the 350, but take the time to learn the UI. It's not hard, but there are quite a few options.
Took me 6 months to find that you could shoot black and white under "color profiles".
Yeah, thing is you're much better off shooting in colour and putting it into black and white during post production.
The nice thing about the 350 over the 400 is that there's a separate LCD for your shot settings. Lower battery consumption and it's a nicer layout on the back of the camera.
The 2 MP difference is negligible anyhow and if I recall correctly there's no real difference in the sensor or processor.
If you get it though, make sure you get a deal on an additional lens or something, as it is outdated and you'll outgrow the kit lens quickly.
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
None of them have something that stands out. They're just pictures of interiors/exteriors, not much more. The picture giving the best idea of what the building is like is picture D.
Yeah, thing is you're much better off shooting in colour and putting it into black and white during post production.
The nice thing about the 350 over the 400 is that there's a separate LCD for your shot settings. Lower battery consumption and it's a nicer layout on the back of the camera.
The 2 MP difference is negligible anyhow and if I recall correctly there's no real difference in the sensor or processor.
If you get it though, make sure you get a deal on an additional lens or something, as it is outdated and you'll outgrow the kit lens quickly.
We've got lenses from our old Canon (about 5/6 years old). It's not like we're shooting all that much, you know? o_O
Speaking of black & white, I just took these about 2 hours ago, at Colvin's mill in Northern Virginia. It's a working flour mill made in the late 1700s I believe.
Speaking of black & white, I just took these about 2 hours ago, at Colvin's mill in Northern Virginia. It's a working flour mill made in the late 1700s I believe.
Hi my name is Queen. I like taking pictures and i have been taking pictures for a year now. This is one of the pictures I took and hoping to post more with my new camera that I got, a Nikon D40. [/U]
Yeah, thing is you're much better off shooting in colour and putting it into black and white during post production.
The nice thing about the 350 over the 400 is that there's a separate LCD for your shot settings. Lower battery consumption and it's a nicer layout on the back of the camera.
The 2 MP difference is negligible anyhow and if I recall correctly there's no real difference in the sensor or processor.
If you get it though, make sure you get a deal on an additional lens or something, as it is outdated and you'll outgrow the kit lens quickly.
We've got lenses from our old Canon (about 5/6 years old). It's not like we're shooting all that much, you know? o_O
If you can, try to swing a deal on a body-only 350, used if you have to. The kit lens has real problems with chromatic aberrations, and I've come to reverse my original position to think that no, it's actually not worth the price difference. Especially if you already have all of the lenses you need anyhow, it will do nothing for you.
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
Yeah, thing is you're much better off shooting in colour and putting it into black and white during post production.
The nice thing about the 350 over the 400 is that there's a separate LCD for your shot settings. Lower battery consumption and it's a nicer layout on the back of the camera.
The 2 MP difference is negligible anyhow and if I recall correctly there's no real difference in the sensor or processor.
If you get it though, make sure you get a deal on an additional lens or something, as it is outdated and you'll outgrow the kit lens quickly.
We've got lenses from our old Canon (about 5/6 years old). It's not like we're shooting all that much, you know? o_O
If you can, try to swing a deal on a body-only 350, used if you have to. The kit lens has real problems with chromatic aberrations, and I've come to reverse my original position to think that no, it's actually not worth the price difference. Especially if you already have all of the lenses you need anyhow, it will do nothing for you.
Thanks, I think we're going for the body-only 350, one shop nearby is selling it for pretty cheap according to my dad.
Hi my name is Queen. I like taking pictures and i have been taking pictures for a year now. This is one of the pictures I took and hoping to post more with my new camera that I got, a Nikon D40. [/U]
Welcome! I like it, the contrast is really wonderful.
Here's another. I think the stitch got a bit confused with the clouds moving, but it's more for novelty than anything so I'm not stressing over the misalignments. Click for large again:
Posts
This girl I have on my Lj friends list does this thing where she desaturates and shifts the colour balance a bit on her photos (street photography is her thing) and it gets them looking rather old, like film shot in the 70s or 80s.
The thing is, a lot of her photos aren't that good. A lot of them are just very plain, but the post-processing adds this charm to them, almost a sort of irony to them. I dunno, I like the look but at the same time something bothers me about it
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Anyway, now that the digital cameras are getting cheap we want to have a decent camera again. Is the Canon Eos a good camera? Is the the 400 worth the extra money?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
it ain't gonna get any EASIER when you go to the 350, but take the time to learn the UI. It's not hard, but there are quite a few options.
Took me 6 months to find that you could shoot black and white under "color profiles".
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Whoever made the Minolta Dimage f100 should be fired.
A.)
B.)
C.)
D.)
E.)
Love this.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
Yeah, thing is you're much better off shooting in colour and putting it into black and white during post production.
The nice thing about the 350 over the 400 is that there's a separate LCD for your shot settings. Lower battery consumption and it's a nicer layout on the back of the camera.
The 2 MP difference is negligible anyhow and if I recall correctly there's no real difference in the sensor or processor.
If you get it though, make sure you get a deal on an additional lens or something, as it is outdated and you'll outgrow the kit lens quickly.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
My Portfolio Site
If you can, try to swing a deal on a body-only 350, used if you have to. The kit lens has real problems with chromatic aberrations, and I've come to reverse my original position to think that no, it's actually not worth the price difference. Especially if you already have all of the lenses you need anyhow, it will do nothing for you.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Thanks, I think we're going for the body-only 350, one shop nearby is selling it for pretty cheap according to my dad.
Welcome! I like it, the contrast is really wonderful.
My Portfolio Site
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I was on 880 highway, and whadyaknow.
5 points for spotting blurry DOG.
The Starbucks I used to work at does an open mic night every other week, and there's been some great local talent.
"Oh what a day, what a LOVELY DAY!"
Black Violin
Rudy Currence
Mobile
Tumblr Behance Carbonmade PAAC on FB
BFBC2
Click for large size (roughly 1200x5000):
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Edit: more!
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
They must be... the only thing I did was resize them and add a boarder.
Huh, that's weird.
Nevermind, then. ^^;