Through the Looking Glass [PHOTO THREAD]

erisian pope

Tini, I use the Sigma 105/2.8 and I absolutely love it. I use it for macro and for regular stuff. All I own so far are a Tamron 17-35, Canon 50/1.8 and the Sigma 105. I find I am often at the widest apertures, so I can see I love fast lenses. If you're considering a macro, I love mine and would recommend it happily. I don't have a long lens, and someday I guess I will, but I dont shoot sports or wildlife, so I can usually get close enough to use my current lenses happily. On the other hand, Sheri's new lens is killer!


EDIT 4squareman - I like it, but I think the top could be cropped. There is so much detail in the rest of the pic that the empty space at the top doesn't match. It just sticks out.

Mr_Anonymous

So, I spotted this cool field full of dead dandelions yesterday, and decided it'd be a cool place to go with my camera and my girlfriend. These might be a bit "snappish" but I've no objectivity with them, so please forgive me if so, and let me know how to rectify that in the future!




Also this one, which I think is kinda nice but wish I'd got the aperture perfect to catch all the spores(?) as they floated away.



I don't know why I like this, but I do. Possibly because it's my first bird-centric photo.



There are a couple more on my flickr if you're into, y'know, dead dandelions

supertall

Pope, I really like the black butterfly shot. Maybe because it has blue flowers, which I don't see everyday.

Anable I think the composition of the marching gopher works. He looks like he's got a pretty determined expression on his face; the background behind him just makes it seem like he's come a long way to get here and he's not stopping now. I don't know. Maybe I'm giving a gopher too much credit, or reading too much into photos. I still like it either way.

benz0rs

4square, I just feel like the picture looks cheapened by too much post-production. Probably the colors and vignetting.

Sheri

Anable, I don't like that he's out of focus. I'm not going to go with some 'Oh his out of focusness implies this-and-that.' It just looks like your focus wasn't as fast as he was, and that's okay. Missed focus happens. If it'd been me, I'd've deleted it in-camera.

The other one, however, is great. And adorable.

An-D

My latest panorama shot. I couldn't get it to mesh right (at one spot) in the tree line and I'm really not sure how to fix it to make it work. It should be aligned perfectly (I used the powerlines going along the trees as my reference). Everything else banged together except for that one fuzzy tree.

Also theres a cow in it. :winky:



Here is full-size. Its 12mb, so probably not safe for dial-up (if that even exists anymore)

anable

An-D wrote: »

The colors seem a bit off in that. I can't quite put my finger on why though.

foursquareman

benz0rs wrote: »

4square, I just feel like the picture looks cheapened by too much post-production. Probably the colors and vignetting.

I guess I did go heavy on the pp :oops:

Pilcrow

I have to mention, quickly, how much I hate being broke right now. I want a D5 and a macro lens and some more flashes and some umbrellas and...and...

bombardier

Threepio wrote: »

An-D wrote: »

And this may seem weird, to ask for requests, but I'm getting a Sony A-350 soon (apparently) and I'm trying to see what its capable of outside what I see on sony.com and whatnot. Anyone have one/be willing to share some pictures?

Everything I've posted here so far has been from the Alpha 350. Here are some more that were shot yesterday!







On the 350: The 14 Megapixel sensor sort of just is. It helps in that it gives you more resolution to work with, but the pixel wells are smaller than some sensors so it's a bit of a trade off. Noise is good up to and including ISO 800, but ISO 1600 tends to make shots unusuable for anything larger than small prints.

The body is stabilized, which is great - it hands you a few extra stops for hand holding; things that are simply a blur on my XTi without a tripod I can successfully shoot with the 350 simply by bracing myself with a bit of forethought.

LiveView is a neat feature. Sony is the only brand who has this done right as of right now; the Canon and the Olympus are slow to AF on this and it's a clunky method. Sony injected a second sensor into the camera which means the AF is fast an it's more WYSIWYG than other LiveView cams. I use the LiveView rarely, but it's another tool in your bag, which isn't a bad thing.

Much like everyone else, Sony has a low-pass filter charge/vibration method for removing dust. Dust hasn't been a problem for me yet.

The body is a little on the heavy side in comparison to some of the newer consumer/entry level cams out there (I picked up the Olympus 420 yesterday... it feels like a point and shoot. Those four thirds bodies and lenses are *light*) but I like a bit of heft so that works for me.

The dynamic range optimizer is something that you're either going to love or you're going to turn it off. HP pioneered this technologies years ago and it seems like everyone's picking up on it now. It's performed at the RAW level pre-jpeg conversion so it works even if you're shooting RAW. I find it does help in some of those contrasty scenes where you might lose detail. If you shoot RAW all the time and you prefer to have more control over your images you might shut it off.

There's a ton of cheap, quality glass out there for it - and it's easy to come by given that you're not competing with Canon owners for it (it's like trying to pry meat out of a wolf's jaws from time to time). I've picked up a Minolta and a Sigma lens so far (a 50mm f/1.7 and a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 macro) that have collectively cost me less than $175, which fits my budget. The kit lens is... a kit lens. *shrug* Not much to say about it other than it's an 18-70, which is a sight more than you get with most entry level DSLRs (usually being an 18-55).


For those who are interested, the archive group for this thread is up on Flickr. Seven people have joined up so far and two have posted. The idea is that it would be a living record of things posted here that you'd like to be able to share for long periods of time. If that's something that strikes you as something you'd like to do, please join up.

Thanks for that post. My old DSLR is a Minolta 7D so it's interesting to see what direction Sony is taking the stuff.

saltiness

I like that first one a lot, Mr Anon. It just needs a little help with composition; she's too close to the bottom of the frame and it'd be nice to see more of her legs instead of having them cut off like that.

Uncle Long

My Nikon D2X just arrived in the mail and I just sold that sandpiper from earlier (previous thread?) to the US Forest Service for a sign at our airport. Things are working smoothly today.

Now I'm going to take this camera out and bludgeon something with it.

Threepio

bombardier wrote: »

Threepio wrote: »

On the 350: The 14 Megapixel sensor sort of just is. It helps in that it gives you more resolution to work with, but the pixel wells are smaller than some sensors so it's a bit of a trade off. Noise is good up to and including ISO 800, but ISO 1600 tends to make shots unusuable for anything larger than small prints.

The body is stabilized, which is great - it hands you a few extra stops for hand holding; things that are simply a blur on my XTi without a tripod I can successfully shoot with the 350 simply by bracing myself with a bit of forethought.

LiveView is a neat feature. Sony is the only brand who has this done right as of right now; the Canon and the Olympus are slow to AF on this and it's a clunky method. Sony injected a second sensor into the camera which means the AF is fast an it's more WYSIWYG than other LiveView cams. I use the LiveView rarely, but it's another tool in your bag, which isn't a bad thing.

Much like everyone else, Sony has a low-pass filter charge/vibration method for removing dust. Dust hasn't been a problem for me yet.

The body is a little on the heavy side in comparison to some of the newer consumer/entry level cams out there (I picked up the Olympus 420 yesterday... it feels like a point and shoot. Those four thirds bodies and lenses are *light*) but I like a bit of heft so that works for me.

The dynamic range optimizer is something that you're either going to love or you're going to turn it off. HP pioneered this technologies years ago and it seems like everyone's picking up on it now. It's performed at the RAW level pre-jpeg conversion so it works even if you're shooting RAW. I find it does help in some of those contrasty scenes where you might lose detail. If you shoot RAW all the time and you prefer to have more control over your images you might shut it off.

There's a ton of cheap, quality glass out there for it - and it's easy to come by given that you're not competing with Canon owners for it (it's like trying to pry meat out of a wolf's jaws from time to time). I've picked up a Minolta and a Sigma lens so far (a 50mm f/1.7 and a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 macro) that have collectively cost me less than $175, which fits my budget. The kit lens is... a kit lens. *shrug* Not much to say about it other than it's an 18-70, which is a sight more than you get with most entry level DSLRs (usually being an 18-55).


For those who are interested, the archive group for this thread is up on Flickr. Seven people have joined up so far and two have posted. The idea is that it would be a living record of things posted here that you'd like to be able to share for long periods of time. If that's something that strikes you as something you'd like to do, please join up.

Thanks for that post. My old DSLR is a Minolta 7D so it's interesting to see what direction Sony is taking the stuff.

Glad I could help It's nice to see Sony playing seriously in the space. Any competition spurs innovation - keeping Nikon and Canon on their toes along with providing a product that produces quality results in a direct comparison is a good place to be.

Here are some of my pictures from my walkabout in Downtown Vancouver yesterday:









Please let me know if the formatting on this post is a pain in the ass or if those last two are too large. I wasn't sure if I should crop the dumpster out in that first one; it grounds the image, but does it distract too much?

Sheri

So um

I made a photo book.

I'm unbelievably excited about it, guys.

BotP:

Threepio wrote: »

bombardier wrote: »

Threepio wrote: »

On the 350: The 14 Megapixel sensor sort of just is. It helps in that it gives you more resolution to work with, but the pixel wells are smaller than some sensors so it's a bit of a trade off. Noise is good up to and including ISO 800, but ISO 1600 tends to make shots unusuable for anything larger than small prints.

The body is stabilized, which is great - it hands you a few extra stops for hand holding; things that are simply a blur on my XTi without a tripod I can successfully shoot with the 350 simply by bracing myself with a bit of forethought.

LiveView is a neat feature. Sony is the only brand who has this done right as of right now; the Canon and the Olympus are slow to AF on this and it's a clunky method. Sony injected a second sensor into the camera which means the AF is fast an it's more WYSIWYG than other LiveView cams. I use the LiveView rarely, but it's another tool in your bag, which isn't a bad thing.

Much like everyone else, Sony has a low-pass filter charge/vibration method for removing dust. Dust hasn't been a problem for me yet.

The body is a little on the heavy side in comparison to some of the newer consumer/entry level cams out there (I picked up the Olympus 420 yesterday... it feels like a point and shoot. Those four thirds bodies and lenses are *light*) but I like a bit of heft so that works for me.

The dynamic range optimizer is something that you're either going to love or you're going to turn it off. HP pioneered this technologies years ago and it seems like everyone's picking up on it now. It's performed at the RAW level pre-jpeg conversion so it works even if you're shooting RAW. I find it does help in some of those contrasty scenes where you might lose detail. If you shoot RAW all the time and you prefer to have more control over your images you might shut it off.

There's a ton of cheap, quality glass out there for it - and it's easy to come by given that you're not competing with Canon owners for it (it's like trying to pry meat out of a wolf's jaws from time to time). I've picked up a Minolta and a Sigma lens so far (a 50mm f/1.7 and a 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 macro) that have collectively cost me less than $175, which fits my budget. The kit lens is... a kit lens. *shrug* Not much to say about it other than it's an 18-70, which is a sight more than you get with most entry level DSLRs (usually being an 18-55).


For those who are interested, the archive group for this thread is up on Flickr. Seven people have joined up so far and two have posted. The idea is that it would be a living record of things posted here that you'd like to be able to share for long periods of time. If that's something that strikes you as something you'd like to do, please join up.

Thanks for that post. My old DSLR is a Minolta 7D so it's interesting to see what direction Sony is taking the stuff.

Glad I could help It's nice to see Sony playing seriously in the space. Any competition spurs innovation - keeping Nikon and Canon on their toes along with providing a product that produces quality results in a direct comparison is a good place to be.

Here are some of my pictures from my walkabout in Downtown Vancouver yesterday:









Please let me know if the formatting on this post is a pain in the ass or if those last two are too large. I wasn't sure if I should crop the dumpster out in that first one; it grounds the image, but does it distract too much?

Pilcrow

Sheri I like that pic of your mom a lot.

Another one of my nieces, at her music recital today.

anable

Pilcrow, I like the framing and colors (even with the slightly overblown highlights), but the image seems soft. Is that just me?

Flyingman

I'm getting this ready for print as a present to my father. This is my late Grandfather, who passed away last year due to cancer. One of the many problems with living in a mining town.

Scalfin

I probably didn't save it, but a while back I took a picture of a cat hospital next door to a doggy-daycare.

Pilcrow

Those are beautiful shots, Flyingman. Wonderful textures and expression. Your grandpa looks like part of that town.

You're absolutely right about the softness, anable. Re-exported with a little sharpening and I think it looks a lot better. I LOVE IMAGE STABILIZATION -- I just noticed I shot this at 1/15!

anable

That's quite a bit better Pilcrow. Good stuff.

Flyingman: Like Pilcrow said, lots of character which is obviously awesome.

I spent FOREVER trying to align this properly and I still don't like it:


This one I'm a bit happier with:

Threepio

Pilcrow: I agree, I like sharper version. She looks like Alice - quite appropriate given the thread title.

Flyingman: it's fascinating how, in two photos, you've managed to convey that your grandfather is someone I would like to have known. The expression in the second image really connects.

anable: the first image, like you've said, is ever so slightly off. It looks great but I can see why you're frustrated. I like the second one - even the time works, with both hands in the same place.

Sherri - thanks for the BotP love Congrats on the book; I preview the first 15 pages and it looks sharp!

The Earl

Threepio - I really like that 2nd shot with the light signal...the colors look like you did it with HDR.

Pilcrow - Great expression

Anable - I like those shots. Something about the first one bothers me, not the alignment but more from being shot straight on, having all the symmetry in the shot and then that bothersome bit of tree on the left.

Here's one I managed at the park.

Bifko

MKR

Sheri, does Blurb charge anything for publishing, or is it taken out of each sale like with most e-publishers? I want to write a book and publish it in a non-traditional manner.

erisian pope

Bifko wrote: »

pretty

I dont usually dig on club and concert photos, but that's pretty fuckin cool.

Bifko

One kickass party in Amsterdam...
And my little sister is not to be messed with

anable

Bifko, I'm really digging those club shots. I'm curious what your settings were and what equipment you were using to capture that. The sister shot is pretty blurry though, and I would have like to see the end of the barrel in the shot.

MKR, I'm not sure what Blurb's comparative prices are, but it might be worth checking out Lulu.com as well.

Pilcrow

On my monitor at home the highlights on those pictures weren't blown, but here at work they are. So I should probably adjust them more conservatively. Dang mis-matched color profiles.

anable

I wouldn't. I like it.

Sevorak

Well I've been lurking in these threads forever, so I figured I should contribute something. These are from my visit to the Getty Center in Los Angeles in December. I did really quick post processing in Lightroom for most of these, so I'm sure I could improve upon them. Critique and criticism is welcome of course!

I just noticed the little bit of tree in the lower left of the left one here. Shouldn't be hard to clone out, but I'll put it up for now.

Nalouto

Here's some stuff I'm proud of from the past few:






This last one was taken on my now deceased shit digicam (a70) a few years back, I still use it in my portfolio.

I use a Rebel XT now and love it.

Projeck

anable, i love that building so much

also, what is a good camera to start with if i am wanting to get into photography (digital)

MKR

Depends on how much you can spend.

Projeck

i mean like how much would a dslr cost

anable

Projeck wrote: »

anable, i love that building so much

also, what is a good camera to start with if i am wanting to get into photography (digital)

Thanks. I'll have to go back and try again some time.

As far as the camera thing goes: what MKR said. How much can you spend? If it's around $200, I strongly suggest picking up a used Rebel off of ebay with a kit and telezoom lens. It will be a bit older and not very fancy, but it's a fantastic way to learn and any decent P&S is going to run you at least $150 anyway.

MKR

Projeck wrote: »

i mean like how much would a dslr cost

Between $500 and OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!

(seriously)

Uncle Long

You could spend upwards of $30k if you really wanted to on a digital medium format.

foursquareman

Nalouto - I love that first one a lot.

Nalouto

foursquareman wrote: »

Nalouto - I love that first one a lot.

hey thanks! It's the overhead lights in the Subway in Toronto. (Christie Station)

I love urban photography..

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/ has been a HUGE influence on me, he takes a lot of shots in the city, and views it in very much the same way I do.

foursquareman

Nalouto wrote: »

I love urban photography..

Same!