Noticed recently, as said in another thread, that there seems to be a lot of Photog's about. That's a good thing, surely. So, how about, in our sig's we display something to let fellow photog's know. :)

I was thinking something like this, with a clicky link to our galleries, and/or a TA Photog rambling thread?

I'm a TA Photographer, are you? (http://s73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/)

Or something a little less ghey, perhaps?

:)

Go for it :)

Lol @ Paparazzi :lol:

done.

added mine :)

added mine, maybe if guru or the fist are feeling nice they can fit a new forum for us when the big change happens :D :D

added mine, maybe if guru or the fist are feeling nice they can fit a new forum for us when the big change happens :D :D

I asked once before and was told there were enough forums already.

there can never be too many forums

Just have our own, an offical TA photography rambling thread. :)

preferably without you, you annoy me.

yeah go on then, im in... but im still learning :P

yeah go on then, im in... but im still learning :P

Aren't we all mate :)

preferably without you, you annoy me.Dont mince your words. :lol:







































c_nt.

sando what tomg said was with perfect diction , you misread it .

either that or your AUSTRALIAN :)

hehe

sando what tomg said was with perfect diction , you misread it .

either that or your AUSTRALIAN :)

hehe You annoy me.



:) <- See? What a difference a simply colon and a close-bracket makes!? :lol:

Having a mess about and got ths, looks like glass.

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/water.jpg

cool pic james - nice one :)

ive just got myself a tripod, want to do some HDR pics of Steves skyline :smokin:

Cheers Andy

Another one but with a different approach.

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/water1.jpg

hmm... temted to go and get my camera out and have a play.. last time i tried those sort of shots they were crap.

Go on Chris you know you want to, tbh I find shots that need to be setup far more interesting than point and shoot stuff.

did you use an external flash with that?

nah built in which does the job but not the best way as you can't open the shutter then fire the flash so it makes it harder.

grr being limited to 1/200th with the flash is a right PITA
http://www.chrisc.co.uk/wateratt.jpg

http://www.chrisc.co.uk/watercrop.jpg

http://www.chrisc.co.uk/wc1.jpg

http://www.chrisc.co.uk/wc2.jpg

whoops... smacked over a pint glass of water in the bathroom... smacked the tripod over knocking the camera & lens into the glass.. fortunately the camera hit it so the side of the lens hit the glass and the rest of it all stayed dry.. i'm calling it a night now!

angry me!

http://www.chrisc.co.uk/wcfcukedoff.jpg

Glad to hear the camera's ok mate

As for the pic's I don't think its the x-sync thats causing the problem I think its a focus issue as I'm only shooting at 1/250, looking at some of the images there doesn't seem to be any point of the shot in focus, are you using manual or AF?

i want a flashy camera :(

I've been using a bit of both. Meh, cant be ar5ed to play around now.. almost broke one toy so wont keep on playing. next time i'll use the camera from a distance.

Tried using milk today, not so easy to get a good result.

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/milk.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/milk1.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/milk2.jpg

I did have some that if i could get the timing right would look excellent.
I had a strobe light lighting up the glass from below lighting the water up. If i can sort something out i might whack the glass on a 300w halogen lamp - that should make sure they're not too dark.

If my mate plays silly bugg3rs tonight and doesnt want to go to the pub i know what i'll be doing :)

I'm sure that last one's not safe for work... :lol:

They look good though. :)

i also might try using my 75-300mm to take them, if i whack it on 70 or 80mm then i can get far enough away to make sure the flash isnt overpowering.

i also might try using my 75-300mm to take them, if i whack it on 70 or 80mm then i can get far enough away to make sure the flash isnt overpowering.

Yeah that seems to be a problem with milk, the flash really blows it out.

well, my watery attempts i was getting blinded by the flash and it was hard to focus as the image was so bright.

Blue ink mixed with milk

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/milk3.jpg

Funky!

change to a large diameter shallow bowl so you can't see the edges

Funky!

change to a large diameter shallow bowl so you can't see the edges

Good idea, would have looked much better :)

how would you go about setting this up? I'd like to have a go :)

Darkish room (helps)

Mug of water / milk and something around it to clear up the mess

pippette OR mc donalds straw (or a solder sucker as i use).

Set up the camera a distance away - to keep it dry and to stop the flash over powering the image.

Focus on where the water will be, and then put it on manual focus (if poss) so the camera doesnt try to re focus.

Use the flash...

Camera on tripod.

Drop water & take photo...

realise that its crap and try again

Best way to do it is put the camera on a tripod then manually focus on the center of the glass, sit the glass on a trigger that’s hooked up to a standalone flash then turn the lights off so its pitch black, open the shutter and drop something into the glass and when it hits the surface the trigger fires the flash and you close the shutter.

That’s the best way but if like me you don't have a trigger set the camera to its max x-sync and something around f10 then drop something in the glass and try and press the release when it hits.

cheers, I'll give it a go later :D

cheers, I'll give it a go later :D

Nice one get some pics posted :)

Don't want to pliss on your chips guys but have a look at some of Irene's work here -

http://www.pbase.com/daria90/milk_meets_coffee_splashes

and then go and be inspired by the rest of her stuff here -
http://www.pbase.com/daria90 :wow: :cool:

:wow: :wow:

and the water drops on the feathers :eek:

1/500th shutter! thats waay more than i can do. :(

Would an external flash allow for a faster shutter speed, the most i can do (with flash) is 1/200.

I may try and bodge my old mans flash onto my camera and see what happens

Wow thats amazing, must try harder! lol

Chris - I'm not sure but I think the x-sync on the camera is the limiting factor not the flash, you could however try leaving the shutter open in a dark room and fire the external flash and then close it and see what happens, as long as its dark enough the flash should freeze the shot.

here's my shot, took about 5-6 tries

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/boringtdi/droplets.jpg

please excuse the bits of floating pot purie :lol:

Nice shot :)

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/boringtdi/paignton.jpg

here is a 1 shot hdr. I know its not a genuine hdr but meh

here is my first attempt at HDR - the weather is a bit crap for outdoor stuff, so took some pics of our fireplace

camera on "auto" - ie a normal picture

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/reactsystems1/fireplacenoneHDRsmall.jpg

HDR version

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/reactsystems1/HDRfireplacesmall.jpg

looks a little odd, but its my first attempt! :)

and tweeked in PS

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/reactsystems1/HDRfireplacesmallshopped.jpg

come on, explain HDR in stupid person terms. The camera i've got can do 3 shots in one, one under exposed, one "auto" and one over. Is this just a combination of the 3 or what?

or is there a lot more behind it?
If its easy enough to pick up i may try it on holiday

Chris - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

come on, explain HDR in stupid person terms. The camera i've got can do 3 shots in one, one under exposed, one "auto" and one over. Is this just a combination of the 3 or what?

or is there a lot more behind it?
If its easy enough to pick up i may try it on holiday

yeah spot on. high dynamic range. 3 shots combined. click here (http://petemc.net/hdr-guide/)

Not bad Andy, how many shots did you take and how did you blend them?

Not bad Andy, how many shots did you take and how did you blend them?

I used photomatrix, ps cs2 can do it but its not as good

does it work best with JPG's or RAW data?

I used photomatrix, ps cs2 can do it but its not as good

It was phtomatrix that I was looking at, seems to be the app of choice for this.

does it work best with JPG's or RAW data?

photoshop can use both but photomatrix only uses jpg.

yhpm in a min :)

3 shots - set the ISO to -2, click, ISO to 0, click, ISO to +2, click

open up photomatix and click HDRI > Generate HDR, then when its done that click tone mapping and have a play with stuff

usually needs some photoshop work to make it look ok though, i need some good/bright/sunny/cloudy days to go out and take some good pics

having it take 3 shots in a row would be alot easier!

you can also "cheat" and just use photoshop to make the other 2 images, this kinda defeats the object of getting more info in the pic than what the camera normally stores - but it does work a bit

original pic

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/reactsystems1/L1010668small.jpg

HDR'd

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/reactsystems1/MalemHDReditedsmall.jpg

having it take 3 shots in a row would be alot easier!

I've just got to remember how to do it :)
I think in a desert it could look rather "interesting"

The camera i've got can do 3 shots in one

no it can't!

I think Chris means bracketing however you still need to take three shots

D'oh i thought the bracketting did all that for you. Does that not do the same job. It takes one under exposed, one over exposed and one correctly exposed.. gives 3 files. I'd have thought that was it.

just re read a bit of the manual, the bracketting is for the white balance :( poo bags

D'oh i thought the bracketting did all that for you. Does that not do the same job. It takes one under exposed, one over exposed and one correctly exposed.. gives 3 files. I'd have thought that was it.

just re read a bit of the manual, the bracketting is for the white balance :( poo bags

There is white balance and exposure bracketing as well as auto exposure compensation (at least there is on the 30d).

Exposure bracketing requires you to take three shots but the camera automatically adjusts for each shot.

well, i've got no idea if the 350d has exposure bracketting, i was reading that bit in the manual last night after a fair bit of drinking... i'll have another look as soon as i've got out of work

A quick check of the manual show's it does, page 90.

Cheers James, i'll look later.

I'm at work now. Wishing i wasnt.. ooh i suppose i've got the pdf version of the manual :D

4 hours sleep and all is well. I found by the back door a half full bottle of vodka.. brilliant! :)

That HDR stuff looks amazing :love: I'd only heard of being used in Half Life 2 until now!

I've been playing with HDR for a short while this afternoon. Its pretty clever stuff. Some looks a bit unreal though :(

One thing i didnt get was that in a how to they showed it working with moving subjects, this would be a problem as the person could have moved a fair bit

Hmms, my attempts at HDR didnt come out that wonderful, but.... here we go.
yes, i do know they're wobbly... meh

UNDER
http://www.chrisc.co.uk/1unders.jpg

AUTO
http://www.chrisc.co.uk/2normals.jpg

OVER
http://www.chrisc.co.uk/3overs.jpg

HDR
http://www.chrisc.co.uk/4hdrs.jpg

Chris - have a look at this tutorial :)

http://stuckincustoms.com/?p=548

trees fúck things up cos they move!

this is what HDR is about :

http://static.flickr.com/49/137177995_a66eeb3a47.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/67/204476471_bb2066ffaa.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/63/166259768_157391a006.jpg

:wow:

i tried doing one of my chrome PBX subs ass, it just looked poo :neutral:

Ok...I need a camera that can do HDR!

Ok...I need a camera that can do HDR!

any camera that you can set the ISO on can do it

booger can't read the tutorial as I'm sitting at the airport on my mobile. ill have to make sure I take shed loads of photos and see what I can do

This Sigma got a great review in this months mag, it got a 4 star which is what they gave the Canon and it's £700 cheaper, granted it doesn't have IS but I don't think that would worry me given the price.

http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/telezoom/70-200mm.htm

HDR rules :smokin:

http://www.reactshirts.com/andy/fiesta%20HDR%20small.jpg

granted its a standard and dirty fiesta, i only took it for practise, but i think that is a cool ass pic!

turned the contrast up a bit in PS and thats all :)

Thats a cracker Andy

Anyone who can set their shutter speed can 'do' HDRi. Just take 7-9 shots, changing ONLY the shutter speed to get near to the 'High" dynamic range that is the point of HDRi.

ISO is nothing to do with doing an HDRi.

3 Shots can be enough but it usually isnt.

Watch out for halo-ing when you process them too, you'll get bright hlo's around a dark subjecy against a bright background. if you get Halo-ing, you've processed it too much.

It works best on a subject that is inanimate and has a large change of contrast throughout it. Indoor looks good.

Personally, I hate the over-processed tone-mapped look that people who use photomatix strive for. HDRi is about getting closer to the eye's dynamic range, and therefore producing a relaistic image, not about making fake looking images. But that's just my opinion! :) I dont think the arty HDRi's should be called HDRi at all really, it's obvious that they're not going for a reliastic image.

Ah ha... found one! One from 7 images. Al taken with the same Aperture and ISO, just differing shutter speeds. This was the first HDR I did, and I dont really like it at all. There's haloing around the buildings. I deleted the masters from thi (no idea why!) so I cant re-do it now but this is it anyway:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/Perth-HDR-01.jpg

Ah ha... found one! One from 7 images. Al taken with the same Aperture and ISO, just differing shutter speeds. This was the first HDR I did, and I dont really like it at all. There's haloing around the buildings. I deleted the masters from thi (no idea why!) so I cant re-do it now but this is it anyway:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/Perth-HDR-01.jpg


It's been 16 years since we were there but that looks suspiciously like Perth WA?

I also have to agree with you about the overtly 'processed' look of some HDR images. I haven't tried doing any but an obvious choice would be interior shots with correctly exposed window (exterior views)

i thought the original reason for hdr was to ensure the whole picture was properly exposed when you had a large mix of bright and dark subject areas in the photo, this 'style' was just borne out of that.

while it looks good i think it can be overused much like selective colouring and other such stuff. personally i think i prefer to capture as much of the final image as i can in the camera and only use post-processing to fix small things. but art is interpretive of the artist so each to their own i say :)

whats the difference from changing the ISO and changing the shutter though?

whats the difference from changing the ISO and changing the shutter though?

Very little other than you have more increments.

ISO = the sensitivity of the film or sensor

Shutter Speed = time the shutter is opened for (obviously, not in digital but the same term is used.)

When you do an HDR, if your variable was the ISO then the different images would have different degrees of visible digital noise.

If the variable was the aperture, then there would be differing degrees of DoF, and sharpness.

Because the 30D has 1/3 increments I have a few stops just getting to ISO 400 they are 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400 and you really can't tell the difference in noise at the lower levels.

Not sure what you mean by this either "Shutter Speed = time the shutter is opened for (obviously, not in digital but the same term is used.)" unless you are referring to a compact camera.

i see - thats why mine have noise, i cant change my shutter speed (AFAIK) i can only bump up the ISO

bought a new lens today - tokina 70-210mm for my nikon as im poor and it was going cheap.

should help my focal range! :)

Had a go at HDR last night, not very impressed tbh, and I've got a lot of red on the leaves on the top left for some reason??

http://www.z22se.co.uk/forum/userpix/2_Copy_of_Untitled_HDR_00_1.jpg

bought a new lens today - tokina 70-210mm for my nikon as im poor and it was going cheap.

should help my focal range! :)

I'm looking to buy a lens in the same range mate.

Nearly all HDR images i have seen, eg on this thread look fake, they look digitally edited and not a true representation of what is there. Nothing wrong if that is what you want and it creates some interesting effects but they look a bit wierd. I may have a go at some stage with varying subjects to see what happens to the results.

James, what do mean about the ISO? I know an SLR will be great at noise reduction and visible noise, but what Im trying to say is that to change the exposure on an HDR then it's best to just change the shutter speed, and not the ISO or the Aperture. For te same reasons as stated above.

Using manual mode, I'd start by metering the sky or the brightest part of the scene (use spot or centre-weighted photometry), then take that reading and use it as the basis for the fastest s/s. Then, without changing anything but the s/s, go one stop slower, then take a picture, and keep repeating until you feel you have covered the basis for the entire scene. Usually 7-9 but it may be less.

Rememeber to use the lowest ISO you can, some people have reported that HDR increases the visible noise dramatically.

Aways use a rigid tripod, and dont move the camera!!

When pocessing them, if you use CS2, always check the 'align' images box, just in case a tiny change will ruin the image.

MarkH: The reason for this was pointed out on another forum. The fact is, a photograph can never cover the DR of the eye, and as such a photograph isnt actually ever going to be an accurate representation of a sene seen with an eye. It's just that people have 'gotten used to' photographs looking like they do.

Also thought I'd share some of my shots from the last week or so. The rest are in my gallery but here are a couple:

Governor Stirling, the founder of Perth
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF3154b.jpg

Female Darter
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF2831b.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF2874b.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF2628a.jpg

What do you think?

Lovelly stuff Matt,

My portfolios are in my sig

Trev

a few more pics (and HDR goodness) i took today:

http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?t=174218

Birmingham's answer to the London eye :D

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/birmingham.jpg

Got these on the way to work this morning

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/mist1.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/mist2.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/mist3.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/mist4.jpg

I really like the 3rd one with the 2 birds in it. All look really good though.

All good images but I think the last one is my fav.

I like all 4 but esp. #2. I was trying t get something like this t'other day, but didnt have an unobscured view. Thanks for sharing.

Thought I may as well post this from last night:

A vertical pano, only 2 images though, and I ended up cropping 40% off the bottom anyway as the horizon was far to centralised.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF3364b.jpg

I like it, you can see the two exposures are different, almost dosen't look real.

Heres one I took earlier this year

http://www.ephotozine.com/gallery/showlargepic.cfm?photoid=459484
Porth Nanven - Cornwall

Seriously good shot Trev.

love that pano sando :)

cant see yours trev :(

thats rather nice! Is it just one photo?

love that pano sando :)

cant see yours trev :(

Doesn't seem to like hotlinking so I've uploaded it to my space

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/lrg_56604_1145334744.jpg

Doesn't seem to like hotlinking so I've uploaded it to my space

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/lrg_56604_1145334744.jpg

Cheers James.

Not sure why the link didn't work after the first time. Will try another later.

**just ammended the link to the p/folio page**

thats rather nice! Is it just one photo?


Yeah just one. Used grads to hold the sky detail back. Exposed for the foreground. So gave an exposure of 2.5sec @f/22.

Trev

funky, L glass I suppose? :(

funky, L glass I suppose? :(

Not with a Minolta camera.

Another cracking shot Trev :cool:

oh thought he used canons, I stand corrected

Not with a Minolta camera.

Another cracking shot Trev :cool:

Cheers Mike,

Now that Sony have bought the camera part of Konica Minolta, I'll have to wait and see what pro spec camera they come out with before deciding to stay with the brand. The Apha 100 has been well reviewed though, apart from the kit lenses.

Trev

This months theme on digi darkroom is tools of the trade, I came up with this but does anybody else have any ideas, the b&w conversion was done by another member which I think is better than the colour.

I used olive oil whick looks more like water so I'm going use engine oil with the spanner on metal next time.

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/spanner2.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/spanner1.jpg

http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/spanner3.jpg

Is there a tutorial anywhere for stitching shots together?

I like #1 and #2 James :) How about adding a little gaussian noise to the last one, are you going for an industrialistic (new word!?) look with that one?

N3lly, should be one about on Google but do you have PhotoShop?

I like the third pic. Seems more gritty and technical.

id really like to do stuff like this, im gettin my first camera at the end of the month, Fuji s9500, will i be able to acheive shots like the previous ones in this thread with the camera in quiestion.

how hard is HDR, is it layering of the three images, im OK with using PS CS2.

I would think you could acheive similar shots with that camera although the high speed stuff might be a little harder.

I like #1 and #2 James :) How about adding a little gaussian noise to the last one, are you going for an industrialistic (new word!?) look with that one?

N3lly, should be one about on Google but do you have PhotoShop?

I've got paint shop pro :)

Not photoshop though..

Some nice work here guys.

HDR can look a bit "freaky" but it makes for good pics to hang on the wall, I think. :)

how much do the cam's you guy's using cost and are the digy cam's are the one's with film ?.

how much do the cam's you guy's using cost and are the digy cam's are the one's with film ?.

we use digital slr's, the body's cost from about £400-£5000 and the lenses start at £70 up to silly money. so far I've spent about £3.8K :wow: thats a body, 4 lenses, battery grip, flash and a few other bits and bobs

mine was £550 for body and 18-55 kit lens
then spent ~1k on "toys" for it

Dont you just love "toys" :D

I think I've spent somewhere in the region of 3k over the last year on equipment.

I totted mine up a while ago, incl bags and accessories, and was in the region of £4K. I also have studio lighting kit so that bumbs it up quite a bit too.

Toys eh!!!

Blimey I must bee slacking as I've only spent about £600 on camera kit this year.

id really like to do stuff like this, im gettin my first camera at the end of the month, Fuji s9500, will i be able to acheive shots like the previous ones in this thread with the camera in quiestion.

how hard is HDR, is it layering of the three images, im OK with using PS CS2.

The s9500 is a great camera, enough resolution for decent sized prints, good feel and enough flexibility for the beginner to a more serious user.

As Boring TDI says we're all using DSLR's, but that doesn't mean you can dip your toes in SLR waters buy buying a s/hand film SLR to get to grips with SLR photography as well as using you s95000. Its a good learning curve too.

Trev

Here's something I made earlier. Using a bowens 250w head with softbox.

The s9500 is a great camera, enough resolution for decent sized prints, good feel and enough flexibility for the beginner to a more serious user.

As Boring TDI says we're all using DSLR's, but that doesn't mean you can dip your toes in SLR waters buy buying a s/hand film SLR to get to grips with SLR photography as well as using you s95000. Its a good learning curve too.

Trev

ill being going ahead with geting the s9500.

my dad has an old Nikon SLR, one of the FM series, something similar to THIS (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Nikon-FM2-35mm-SLR-Camera-with-f2-8-28mm-lens_W0QQitemZ120027543995QQihZ002QQcategoryZ30035 QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem), will that be alright for playing about with.

i dont really intend buying another camera after spending nearly 400 on the s9500

That is some serious cash...I had no idea you guys were investing that much into it :wow:

That's what I'm scared of when I enter into SLR-dom... I havent spent anywhere near that amount yet. I can see another slippery slope into credit cards... :cry:

No need to be scared, just take things a step at a time. You'll find that you will use mainly 3 lenses, a standard zoom 18-55 ish, 75-300, and maybe a macro lens or extension tubes for close up/macro work and a decent tripod for landscapes.

The best wasy is to start of small and work your way up if that suits you requirements.

The main ingredients, camera, lenses, tripod are the initial high costs, but with digital, processing cost is reduced, so you only print what you want and the hit rate should be higher because you can see and adjust immediately.

Just like car audio really, start with your first install, upgrade as and when it suites.

The main thing is to make sure your learning all the time, as there are many tecniques out there each to be interpreted in your own style.

Trev

Agreed with Trev. When you buy car audio it doesnt really all kick in at how much you've actually spent.

I've just bought a 2nd hand lens, if new it'd cost £500, all these prices add up.

Also, as with car audio you need to start off and learn whats good and what you need.

My first investment was a cheap (£175) telephoto 75-300, its not great and if i new what i was doing i probably would have spend another £300 and got something miles better... but i didnt and its going to suffice.

Just uploaded my hill climb pics LINK (http://freespace.virgin.net/james.marshall1/shelsley/shelsley.html)

Good shots there James. I especially like the one in the bottom left corner with the car jacked up/on a ramp, and the one with the old boy driving the vintage car no. 188.

Looks like you had a productive time.

Thanks Trev it was a good day and the new lens was fantastic, L glass is worth every penny as I know the 28-135 IS would have been considerably less sharp.

I saw THIS (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bocavermelha/66759796/) on flickr earlier, thats some lens to hand hold, shes got some great shots in her portfolio

heres a thread about the live shoot i did this tuesday just gone.

http://www.talkaudio.co.uk/vbb/showthread.php?t=177446

Just a bit of fun. Had my lights set up in the loft the other day.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/snappert/Portraiture/Exposure-final.jpg

Cool, would be ace to have a studio setup, how accurate is the cameras meter compared to the handheld?

I had my exposure at f/8 to keep the skin tones rich. For high key work I tend to find working around 2/3 of a stop lower better for skin tones. Some people with digital just set up the lights and take a test shot and work from the histogram, but I love using the light meter, especially with more than one light.

Ive just ordered my 350d for £430 from Jessops, cant wait to get it through. Decided not to get the 400d because i didnt feel the extra expense was worth it, especially after seeing the other thread on it.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it Matt. Look forward to seeing some pics.

Ive just ordered my 350d for £430 from Jessops, cant wait to get it through. Decided not to get the 400d because i didnt feel the extra expense was worth it, especially after seeing the other thread on it.

Excellent another tog!

Probably a good move as the extra expense doesn't seem worth it.

Been meaning to get it for a while but not had the money! I want a fisheye lens now, already the spending has started and i havent even got it through the door yet :lol:

Good luck Matt, the wallet will never be the same again :)

Good luck Matt, the wallet will never be the same again :)

I second that!

have a look here (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html) for price comparisons on all dslr gear :)

have a look here (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html) for price comparisons on all dslr gear :)
Looks like i got a good deal on the camera then! I didnt think it could be beaten tbh.

Been meaning to get it for a while but not had the money! I want a fisheye lens now, already the spending has started and i havent even got it through the door yet :lol:Nice one. :)

There's an 8mm that's doing the rounds as 'the' fish-eye to own... Peleng, I think. 8mm godness! :love:

Anybody looking to buy a CF card check THIS (http://www.mymemory.co.uk/memory/SanDisk/2GB/Extreme/III/Compact/Flash/Card) out, the price has dropped due to the IV being released but £99.99 is a great price for a fast 4gb card.

Nice one. :)

There's an 8mm that's doing the rounds as 'the' fish-eye to own... Peleng, I think. 8mm godness! :love:


The Peleng is totally manual - aperture, focus etc etc. Supposed to be quite good for the money. Sigma have recently done a DG update to their 8mm.

I was toying with getting one prior to going to Egypt but have changed my mind. £500 for a uber specialist lens isn't good value. - I should have got the £300 2nd hand Sigma 14mm I looked at a month or two ago :shake:

Stuthemong has the Nikon 10mm iirc :cool: . Shame Canon don't do something similar :neutral:

Its a lot of money for a lens that probably won't used that much.

hmm.. i really want a digital SLR, i've been borrowing this one for a good few months:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/lints/10D.jpg

thinks it's a little old school :) where does/did the 10D sit out of interest? were they budget or better than that?

fwiw i still use the olympus OM10 ive had for 10 years :smokin: love it to death :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/lints/om10.jpg

The 10D is three generations old in Canon's semi pro DLSR category, its still a good camera and still used by quite a few people.

That camera has one of Canon's L series lenses which stands for luxury and is part of there pro range, its a nice walkabout lens.

thanks for the info :) i knew the lens cost a few pennies back when it was bought, don't think i've got the money atm to get a decent SLR, will have to see how business goes as it would be very handy and i've always enjoyed photography - kind of why I like my OM10 so much, you have to be alot more considered when you've only got 36 shots to play with :)

plus I love forgetting what i've shot (tends to take me about 6 months before I get them developed) so it's always a nice surprise :D

hmm.. i really want a digital SLR, i've been borrowing this one for a good few months:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v448/lints/10D.jpg

thinks it's a little old school :) where does/did the 10D sit out of interest? were they budget or better than that?



A 10D old school?! :wow: :D :shake: It was only released in 2003!! - http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/digital/f_index.html

That 24-70 is a beaut lens and I'll probably get one to replace my 28-80L at some point.

I had an OM10 to go with my OM40. Owning an OM10 was almost compulsory if you were a photographer in the 80's. I replaced mine with a Canon T90 in 1989 :love:

OM10's rock thats for sure :D they are such a cheap way of learning the basics they go for peanuts on ebay, I bought mine ten years ago for £99 and it looked new, including the all important manual adaptor.. I really want to take it to the next stage but I think i'll wait and see for now.. supose i'll get the VAT back though... hmmm... no. i must not. yet ;)

I've always been quite pleased with this shot:

http://www.msportster.co.uk/tower.jpg

thats the nuts :)

thats the nuts :)

:cheese: :lol: one nyloc and one normal :D

Couple from today, thought I'd have a mess in Photoshop.

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/shelsley/forDD/flower.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/shelsley/forDD/tomato.jpg

people talking about the OM10, a lady at work is bringing one in tomorow for us to look at, she needs the film out and a new one whacked in, any tips?

see the black thing on the left as you look at it next to the name (on the pic of mine above), turn that 90 degrees, then pull the winding arm back (has arrow for direction) and just keep winding till it goes slack, then go for a little longer just in case! job done, lifting the winder upwards at the end will pop the back and it's a case of slapping the new film in, make sure you feed a decent amount into the spindle, shut the back and fire off a few winding it on till the counter is at o or 1, cant remember which :)

Who make good filters, ive seen Hama, Hoya, Cokin, B&W.

Would like a good UV and Polarizing filter, but dont want to pay big money.... only just getting started

Online the below goes for over £25

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/B-W-58mm-MRC-UV-010-Haze-Filter-NEW-F-PRO-Multi-Coated_W0QQitemZ150032562017QQihZ005QQcategoryZ300 66QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Apparently B&W are the dogs TBH - :whatever:

I wouldn't worry too much about a UV filter as if you're buying for lens protection it could do more harm than good.

A polariser is a good idea, what lens are you sticking it on?

James, care to explain how a UV filter could do more harm than good?

Are you on about picture quality or what?

I've got skylight / uv filters on all 4 of my lenses, and a circ polariser for my 50mm. The polariser is interesting.

I'm also interested to see how that Haze filter works, sounds useful.

Shame 67mm polarisers are so expensive :(

I have a haze filter and a polariser for my 17-85. The haze stays on all the time to protect the front element (I know there are pros and cons but meh, its my lens) and it seems to reduce haze quite well actually! The polariser goes on occasionally when I'm feeling arty farty

Well if you have £1400 worth of optics sticking a £30 piece of glass on the front is never going to improve image quality, under certain conditions it may cut down some glare but that advantage is negligible.

Glass is a very hard material, if you were to bang your lens into something and smash the filter which would break easily it would grind broken glass into the front element and do far more damage than if the lens hit without it.

If you want to protect your lens a lens hood would offer far more protection than a filter.

the filter is hardened glass though aswell, surely if its hit with enough force the lens glass would smash anyway fcuking up the entire lens.

the filter is hardened glass though aswell, surely if its hit with enough force the lens glass would smash anyway fcuking up the entire lens.

The front element is quite thick on some lenses and a filter is thin in comparison and would break quite easily if it hit a corner of something hard like a table.

fair enough. wont argue with that.
I had my 17-85 lens 3 days and i dropped it off of a table onto a concrete floor.

thankfully its not damaged. Was worried the IS wouldnt work or something.

fair enough. wont argue with that.
I had my 17-85 lens 3 days and i dropped it off of a table onto a concrete floor.

thankfully its not damaged. Was worried the IS wouldnt work or something.


Glad it's working ok, bit of a heart in mouth moment that.

most definitely. I think yella fella who i bought it from kept it wrapped in bubble wrap its whole life, it was spotless, then i get my grubby mits on it and scuff the final ring on it. purely cosmetic but :(

There's a lot of stuff out there about not using a UV as a protection filter, google it. It's just something that's been passed on from the 'old skool' when lens makers made lenses that werent as tough as they are these days. I do use a UV myself, but only when Im on the beach so I can wipe the spray and grit off with my t-shirt.

Only two of my 5 lenses have uv filters on, initally for protection of the lens, if it does get damaged, then its a cheap replacement, and I won't be without lens.

As said further up, a polariser is one of the bes accessories to have in your cam bag. Good to saturate colours, remove reflections in water.

I use a coking P mount for polariser and grads, so an ND2 grad is always handy to have. Otherwise you could just bracket when its appropriate.

Trev

Interesting, I've always bought skylights for my lens as an additional protection mainly. I feel paranoid without one on there!

thanks for the replys, but no-one actually answered my question on who makes good filters? i see someone uses Cokin, how reputable are they, Cokin as a brand? and what filters should i go for, eg.1a, 1b UV, whats the difference?

EDIT - sorry its for a Fuji S9500

Cokin, Hoya, lee and B&W are all good, you can pay over £200 for a B&W polariser.

just purchased a Hoya HMC Super Pro 1 UV filter

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280027926040&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=018

was the price worth it?

will go for a Polarizer next, once i saved a bit more cash!

just purchased a Hoya HMC Super Pro 1 UV filter

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=280027926040&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=018

was the price worth it?

will go for a Polarizer next, once i saved a bit more cash!

Your link was for the polarizer at a v/good price even thougn there is a £9.95 postal fee.

Here are some links for comparison.
UV filter (http://www.fotosense.co.uk/Hoya_58mm_Super_HMC_PRO-1_UV_Filter.asp?productID=3272&tabID=)

Super HMC PRO-1 Circular Polarising Filter (http://www.fotosense.co.uk/Hoya_58mm_Super_HMC_PRO-1_Circular_Polarising_Filter.asp?productID=3317&tabID=)

Trev

yeah, the link was to the polariser at an incredibly good price. if only they were that cheap for a 67mm fixing i'd buy one right now

Tell me about it I need a 77mm £149.99 :wow: LINK (http://www.fotosense.co.uk/Hoya_77mm_Super_HMC_PRO-1_Circular_Polarising_Filter.asp?productID=3321&tabID=)

oops,

correct link:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=200026515290&ssPageName=STRK:MEWN:IT&ih=010

at that price for the polarizer should i go for it?

Check this out!!!!

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

ouch!

I use the kood p series from 7 day shop, Its a set size filter and ring adapters to fit all lenses from 48-82mm, get cokin p filters (same system ;) )if you think they are to cheap. It works out so much cheaper only buying 1 set of filters

:)

fwiw, my haze filter is a Tiffen (meant to be ok) and the polariser is a quantaray (cheap I'd imagine)

Check this out!!!!

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

http://www.roundshot.ch/pictures/Seitz-6x17-handheld.jpg

:wow:

bloomin eck, i spent £21 on a UV filter from jessops at the weekend when 7dayshop have them for £10. :(

Okay people... why is one more expensive than the other?
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99695
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=5973

one's hoya, the other's hama :lol:

price b1tch price... Why is one more expensive?
can we have the debate over "all amps sound the same" :)

Ones by Hama, ones by Hoya i expect the hoya is much better quality, not heard of Hama before.

bloomin eck, i spent £21 on a UV filter from jessops at the weekend when 7dayshop have them for £10. :(

Okay people... why is one more expensive than the other?
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=99695
http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=5973


I would say that Hoya are a better brand.

worth the extra 15 quid for a better brand or would you guess it would be better. Whatever happens, i'm buying a polariser for it, just need to find a good one, cheap.

I'd say get the cheapest UV you can. The issues with IQ are usually when you're using a single light source as the light can 'bonce' around between lens and filter causing flare. Same can be said for indoors, a UV isnt supposed to be used then either.

I wouldnt be too fussy about it, if putting the filter on makes you feel safer and less paranoid about using the camera then that's a good thing. The flare can always be sorted in PS.

I bought a Hoya PL, but it was only a cheap one off eBay, tbh, I havent noticed anything bad about using the cheap PL filter, maybe a pixel-peeper could but I certainly cant. :) One good thing about it is that it rotates round to being 2 stops darker, which comes in handy. :)

All polariser's rotate thats how they work, you rotate it to get the desired effect.

All polariser's rotate thats how they work, you rotate it to get the desired effect.I know, but another I had hardly darkened at all, I was surprised that it knocked 2 stops off, that's all. :)


Just got an e-mail back form a stock photog place - they were really cool telling me which of my sample pictures I sent them were carp and which were good, even going so far as saying 3 were especially excellent. I havent taken one picture yet thinking "This is for my stock collection" so I was surprised. They want me to point them to my on-line gallery so they can see more... except I dont have one. The one in my sig is just my general one, with no sorting or anything, and certainly doesnt have a 'stock collection' - I just whack all my pics on there. They also asked what camera system I used as they would require at least a 12mp untouched RAW file. That sort of clinched it for me... I only have 5.1mp :cry: Ah well, instead of a 30D I can start to svae for a 5D instead. :) Going to e-mail them back declinign as I dont have a good enough camera just yet!! :( Ah well, it was encouraging though. :)

they require a 12mp raw? is that not a tad excessive?

Ones by Hama, ones by Hoya i expect the hoya is much better quality, not heard of Hama before.

Hama is a very well known accessory company in Austria/Germany. Dunno how well they are rated but I've got an ickle camera stand from them thats good.

they require a 12mp raw? is that not a tad excessive?After a bit of research, it seems Jupiter is a pretty professional outfit - I should have done my research before-hand I guess but I was ust testing the water! :lol:

A Canon 1ds MkII and a 5D will do over 12mp, but they're full-frame. Guess Jupiter was saying they only accept pics taken with a full-frame camera.

It got me thinking though, if places like this only want pics taken with a FF camera, then it may be worth saving up more and, instead of a 30D, going straight for a 5D.

A lot of stock photog places request that images are submitted as at least 50mb TIFF files. How big is a TIFF converted from RAW from a 20/30/400D?

I've had image approved by Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/). They requre 8bit TIFF files of at least 48mb. My camera is 6.1mp. Using Capture One raw conversion software, I create an 8bit TIFF file of 48.5 - 49mb, buy making it a 17 x 11 image. A 16bit image is 99mb.

Any camera with more mp's will find it even easier.

This can also be done in Photoshop, but I prefer to do it at the conversion stage. You could also try Genuine Fractuals (http://www.ephotozineshop.com/) interpolation solftware, but I find PS suitable for now.

Trev

Yeah, TIFF's wouldnt be too bad, at least you can upsize them. But when they ask for RAW - Eeek! It's not as if you can edit the RAW either, they specifically want 'un-edited, un-touched' RAW too.

What are Alamy like? have you sold anything yet? Is it royalty-free or micro-stock? :)

The reason they want the RAW file is because it proves you know what you're doing with a camera rather than your PS skills.

The reason they want the RAW file is because it proves you know what you're doing with a camera rather than your PS skills.Well I'm screwed then... :D

I cant imagine why that would make a difference though, do you? If they require an image an choose to yuse yourse because they like it, whether it's had a fettle in PS or not is irrelevant, surely? :)

These are the ones that were supposed to be excellent, the first was 'especially' excellent :D I'm actually not too much a fan of these either.

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF2831b.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF1714a.jpg

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DSCF3767b.jpg

I've had image approved by Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/). They requre 8bit TIFF files of at least 48mb. My camera is 6.1mp. Using Capture One raw conversion software, I create an 8bit TIFF file of 48.5 - 49mb, buy making it a 17 x 11 image. A 16bit image is 99mb.

Any camera with more mp's will find it even easier.

This can also be done in Photoshop, but I prefer to do it at the conversion stage. You could also try Genuine Fractuals (http://www.ephotozineshop.com/) interpolation solftware, but I find PS suitable for now.

Trev

Thats cool, do you get much commsission from it?

Well I'm screwed then... :D

I cant imagine why that would make a difference though, do you? If they require an image an choose to yuse yourse because they like it, whether it's had a fettle in PS or not is irrelevant, surely? :)




In this instance yeah but I can't see why else they would want an unedited pic, if you were being employed as a photographer then I could see the point.

I guess if all the images submitted had been fettled in photoshop you could have shot a right load of rubbish, fluked a few decent compositions, and providing the levels weren't terrible made it look amazing :) you could litterally shoot like austin powers and still find something to submit.

It maybe more likely to be a quality thing though, the minute you save as a tiff or whatever you are loosing some colour info (not that ive ever noticed and i nearly always deal with TIFF's, eps's would be the most robust after RAW because they embed the colours and lock them down so they won't change. But you probably have noticed that in PS as soon as you change the levels of an image gaps start to appear in the histogram and it gets spikey - again it's pretty damn hard to notice any big differences on screen, but your still loosing info :)

what type of lens is required for a fisheye effect?

ive got a Fuji s9500

i was looking at the following wide angle lens:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=180029656025&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=008

parts of the description say that it will give the fish eye and then parts say it wont

Great for landscapes or recording in situations where a little creative curvature of field or fish-eye effects, is wanted for a certain style.

Put this lens on your camera and it instantly doubles your field of view without that FishEye effect

Some pics from earlier this year.
Stalis, Crete
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/snappert/PICT4405-bw-contrast2.jpg

Also Stalis, Crete
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/snappert/lrg_56604_1150875388.jpg

Caroline - Model
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/snappert/Portraiture/lrg_56604_1139444640.jpg

Lorena Linx - Model. www.lorenalinx.net
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m313/snappert/Portraiture/lrg_56604_1139633258.jpg

Have to say they are fantastic shots Trev, think I like number 1 the best.

Thats cool, do you get much commsission from it?

Hi James.

Commision from Alamy? Well you get either 65 or 75% percent of a sale, which is quite decent as some libraries charge a higher fee I believe.

Trev

that caroline is a looker ain't she http://www.acidtrax.net/smileys/graucho.gif http://www.acidtrax.net/smileys/leghump.gif http://www.acidtrax.net/smileys/sly.gif :lol:

I actually took my tripod with me to Egypt last week. Bumped the luggage up by about 8Kg but that wasn't a prob compared to the hassle I had trying to use it.

Cue a 15 minute discussion with the alledged 'security' erberts at Luxor temple where I tried to explain that no I wasn't a professional photographer and that I was taking pics as a hobby. :shake: :whatever:

So I then got one of the hotel staff to write a note in arabic saying that I was a computer manager. This sort of helped as the 'discussion' to get into Karnak temple was only 5 mins long.... :shake:

Did a balloon trip which was quite photographically productive -

http://www.pbase.com/m1ke_a/image/67680844.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/m1ke_a/image/67681833.jpg

I've lobbed some pics into here - http://www.pbase.com/m1ke_a/egypt_september_06

I also did some 360s which are OK but when you're working in 38'+ shade temps, you want to do things quickly. Even then, the camera had 2 or 3 strops because of the heat.

Looks like you had a good time Mike, this is my fav.
Luxor Temple, north entrance (http://www.pbase.com/m1ke_a/image/67680475)

Some pics of the pets

http://static.flickr.com/118/266252235_0bb634acea_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/82/266252219_ca7622acfb_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/100/266252212_012991761d_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/105/266252225_664cd7540a_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/101/266252227_7d13a92298_o.jpg


http://static.flickr.com/116/266252230_5b76728419_o.jpg

Those are some savage pet pics! :)

I especially like the second one where he's looking out of the cage..

Nice frames as well..

nelly

Those are some savage pet pics! :)

I especially like the second one where he's looking out of the cage..

Nice frames as well..

nelly


Thanks mate, sadly hes gone now :(

Lovely shots James, I like #3 especially. :) All good shots though!

This one is cool :) -
http://static.flickr.com/100/266252212_012991761d_o.jpg

though it could have done with a bit more dof and/or refocusing on the eyes.

I dunno, I think the focus on it's cute little button-nose is cool. :D

James, what do you use to frame them?

James, what do you use to frame them?


CS2

Duplicate the layer -> increase the canvas size by an inch -> put a 135* drop shadow on :)

or you can use the frames action toolkit thingy (CS2 comes with loads of them but they're not enabled by default)

This one is cool :) -
http://static.flickr.com/100/266252212_012991761d_o.jpg

though it could have done with a bit more dof and/or refocusing on the eyes.

Yeah I think you're right.

HDR stuff...

I posted this on another forum I go to, and thought it'd be helpful on here too.

I thought I'd do this for everyone on here who may be a little scared of HDR - to show it really is quite simple. :)

Okay, first of all I went out into the garden and took a bracketed set of images, one normally exposed, one over-esposed and one under-exposed, all hand-held. I did start with a slightly underexposed image anyway, to try and get the most depth out of the clouds.

Normal: 1/200 | iso64 | f/3.2
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/Orignormal.jpg

Over: 1/100 | iso64 |f/3.2
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/Origover.jpg

Under: 1/400 | iso64 | f/3.2
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/Origunder.jpg

Then, I loaded them into photomatix (download the trial at www.hdrsoft.com) and pressed 'generate HDR'. 10 seceonds later, Photomatix threw this out:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/ExampleHDRnoPP.jpg

I then tinkered a little with the settings. Photomatix is dead simple, just a few sliders. I still dont know what each slider really does, but spend 15 minutes doing all sorts of jiggery-pokery to see what effects what... and then when I'm happy with it, I save it.

I then view it at 50% and think that a quick run through of Neat image is called for:

Before:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/100_crop_noNR.jpg

After:
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/100_crop_withNR.jpg

Not much difference, I know, but I'm about to play with it in PhotoShop, so I dont want the noise to become more apparant after a little PP. Creating an HDR will increase the noise a bit too, not so much if you use CS2 but Photomatix is fairly bad for it (v2.3 isnt as bad as v2.2 :))

Then i load it into CS2. So... after a bit more jiggery-pokery in CS2, I get this below:

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i228/sando3/DoF%20Test/ExampleHDR.jpg

I know it's not a pretty pic, it was solely for this example. See how easy HDR is?

I keep saying I'll give HDR a proper go but never get round to it.

Had a play with a leaf today

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/leaf1.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/leaf.jpg

Sando, is it not better to change the f-stop rather than the shutter speed? Just something i read on a HDR tutorial.

I really want to try HDR, they look amazing.

Sando, is it not better to change the f-stop rather than the shutter speed? Just something i read on a HDR tutorial.

I really want to try HDR, they look amazing.


No because changing the f stop will be change the DOF between the three images.

Matt

As an experiment, could you try the following on your under exposed shot?

In PS create a new layer and change it's mode to overlay. Tick the 'Fill with Overlay-neutral colour' box and OK. Your tool bar should have black and white as the fore and back ground colours.

In this layer you'll paint with black or white to lighten or darken the picture. This is like the dodge and burn tools, but it's not destructive.

Choose brush and adjust it's size acordingly, and then paint away. Large areas need in excess of 500 px.

You'll probably be able to lighten all the lower half of the shot enough and get a similar effect to the HDR stuff.

I did this on this shot - http://www.pbase.com/m1ke_a/image/62523992/large.jpg

to darken the sky.

I'd like to try HDR panos but bracketing 7+ shots for a pano, creating three different masters, and then HDR'ing them would take ages and make for hooge files (500Mb+) :(

Cheers

Mike.

Or you could take one RAW shot and then create three exposures from it.

Or you could take one RAW shot and then create three exposures from it.

you can just load a RAW into photmatix and it will do the rest (you have to fool it to do it though, its explained in the HDR tutorial i posted)

I'd like to try HDR panos but bracketing 7+ shots for a pano, creating three different masters, and then HDR'ing them would take ages and make for hooge files (500Mb+) :(

Cheers

Mike.

Its time consuming the 2 that I've done have taken 5+ hours including touching up with ps but the file's are only about 100Mb PSD's each, so it's not that big

here is one of mine clicky (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/boringtdi/rhondda-fach-pano-small.jpg)

James, using a raw file and adjusting the exposure is not technicaly a HDR ;)

there is something about HDR that i just dont like, they all look too un natural.

Good efforts though

Its time consuming the 2 that I've done have taken 5+ hours including touching up with ps but the file's are only about 100Mb PSD's each, so it's not that big

here is one of mine clicky (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/boringtdi/rhondda-fach-pano-small.jpg)

James, using a raw file and adjusting the exposure is not technicaly a HDR ;)

You can take a RAW file and adjust the exposure to create three files then load it into photomatix, I know its not the same as taking 3 three shots but it produces a similar effect.

I like your pano, is that the one you posted before?

You can take a RAW file and adjust the exposure to create three files then load it into photomatix, I know its not the same as taking 3 three shots but it produces a similar effect.

I like your pano, is that the one you posted before?

yes that's the one I posted a few weeks ago

here is another that i did the same day
click me (http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/boringtdi/quary-1.jpg)

I dont think its quite as good as the other one, there is 1 huge mistake, see if you guys can point it out.

Theres haloing on the horizon and on the far right you can see the stitch.

Theres haloing on the horizon and on the far right you can see the stitch.

Yep, the sun was right above the quary, you cant realy avoid it in high contrast areas like that. that isn't the stich, the quary was curved and thats how the shaddow landed on the ground. there is another fault on the far left, i wasn't paying attention and auto focused on the land on the side and not the quary itself :shake: But photobucket is playing silly búggers and messing around with the photo when I upload it :whatever: so you cant see it

Or you could take one RAW shot and then create three exposures from it.

Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well with this - I'd like to try HDR panos but bracketing 7+ shots for a pano, creating three different masters, and then HDR'ing them would take ages and make for hooge files (500Mb+)

7 shots for a typical pano. Get the kit lined up, work out an average exposure and take shot = 15 mins?

Clean up and convert shots from raw = 15 mins

Stitch and correct shots = 15 - 30 mins.

Post PS tom-foolery = 20 mins+

So repeat that 3 times for bracketed exposure and then start in HDR? Hmm probably not....... ;)

Sorry mike it wasn't aimed at you I was talking about doing a basic HDR not a pano.

We really need to start another thread... this one is getting long!

Like some of the hdr shots a lot.. they're different and i like that :)

Cheers to whoever uploaded that ebook by the way, it's been keeping me very entertained over the last few days.. good reading.

nelly

It was very overcast today and I was finding it hard to stop the birds from blowing, bit disappointed with the results tbh but here are a few of the better ones, going back on a clear day for better results.

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull1.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull2.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull3.jpg

Nice birdy pics! I've always found it difficult to get the focus just right with objects that are a good distance away from me.. dunno why but it's hard to 'nail' it. The whole prefocus thing hasn't worked for me as of yet, put it that way. :(

Did you crop most of those pictures? Or are they just resized pics?

3rd one is superb.. First one is also good if a little underexposed. But that's the difficulty with birds and their wings. It's really difficult to get light on the underside. Your best bet is to get them as they pan around. *cough - So i've read ;) - Cough*

They will be cropped unless he has an absolutely gigantic zoom, most steady hands ever and phenomenal panning skills! :D

If the objects are far enough away then, you shouldnt need to focus at all but set it to infinate focus.

Cheers n3lly :)

You can't prefocus for these shots as the birds are flying around at different distances and you have to try and pick them off as they zip past, AI Servo seemed to have a problem locking on but the weather was crap today.

White birds against white sky ain't gonna happen so I'm going back when theres a blue sky which is much more conducive for these shots.

I see.. cheers lads :) Another note to add to my book (metaphorically, i don't actually have a book of notes ;)) lol

That reminds i should continue reading that e-book, been busy this weekend so didn't get a chance :)

nelly

A few more

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull6.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull5.jpg

http://www.jamesmarshall.net/dd/gull4.jpg

They will be cropped unless he has an absolutely gigantic zoom, most steady hands ever and phenomenal panning skills! :DA modest zoom would do it, seagulls dont avoid humans, they do come quite close. These dont look too 'panned', more like a little panning and a fast shutter... there doesnt seem to be too much blur on the wings. And what would having the steadiest hands ever have to do with it? I dont get what you're getting at. :)

If the objects are far enough away then, you shouldnt need to focus at all but set it to infinate focus.Simply: No.

:)

A modest zoom would do it, seagulls dont avoid humans, they do come quite close. These dont look too 'panned', more like a little panning and a fast shutter... there doesnt seem to be too much blur on the wings. And what would having the steadiest hands ever have to do with it? I dont get what you're getting at. :)

Simply: No.

:)

what would steady hands have to do with it?

well, if you've got a monster zoom on the front of your camera (which he does) then you've got a fair bit of weight to hold and to keep steady. When you've got more zoom you've got to have long shutter speeds or you'll get less light in. Longer shutter speeds + wobble = blurry shots. Remember, in the UK there isnt much light to get good shots.

Also, my guess is on him not cropping his shots, they come really close so he could quite easilly get one to fill the frame.

There all cropped some more so than others, I can still maintain a good shutter speed because it has a max aperture of 2.8 across the range, the wide max aperture, IS and UD elements also make this lens heavy, at 1470g its almost 100g heavier than the 100-400mm L.

200mm is not really suitable for wildife, if you want to fill the frame shooting small birds then you need 400mm minimum, same with animals that are easily spooked.