Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

mr. burns · Dec 9, 2004, 05:25 PM

i haven't visited this place in a while so i decided to put up a little something. took this with my canon A80 before a thunderstorm came in. it's probably the last image i post from that camera as i've since received a canon 10D, but it sure did wonders to spark my interest in photography. any comments are welcome.

EnVoy · Dec 9, 2004, 07:55 PM

The subject is kinda ugly.

The light on the subject is very flat, I assume you used the on camera flash? It looks like it was lit, you want to make it look like it was lit naturally, not by you. Try lighting the subject with some direction.

robbien · Dec 10, 2004, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by EnVoy:
The subject is kinda ugly.

The light on the subject is very flat, I assume you used the on camera flash? It looks like it was lit, you want to make it look like it was lit naturally, not by you. Try lighting the subject with some direction.

I think the unnatural lighting is what makes this photograph interesting. I like how the sunflower stands apart from the gloom of the impending storm.

Any reason you chose to go with the 10D instead of the new 20D? I'm in the market for a digital camera right now. While a dSLR would be nice, I'm not too sure I would take it out with me enough to justify the cost. I might end up going with a prosomer like the Olympus C-8080.

koogz · Dec 11, 2004, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by mr. burns:
i haven't visited this place in a while so i decided to put up a little something. took this with my canon A80 before a thunderstorm came in. it's probably the last image i post from that camera as i've since received a canon 10D, but it sure did wonders to spark my interest in photography. any comments are welcome.

I did some playing with your image:

Whaddayatink?

mr. burns · 12:20 AM

Originally posted by robbien:
I think the unnatural lighting is what makes this photograph interesting. I like how the sunflower stands apart from the gloom of the impending storm.

Any reason you chose to go with the 10D instead of the new 20D? I'm in the market for a digital camera right now. While a dSLR would be nice, I'm not too sure I would take it out with me enough to justify the cost. I might end up going with a prosomer like the Olympus C-8080.

yeah i've noticed the lightning and use of flash is kind of a matter of personal preference. some like it some don't. i didn't have much control over the output of my flash on the A80 so there's not much i could do. but i do like the contrast for some reason.

being a starving student i wanted to save as much money as possible. i didn't think the improved startup time and low light AF [among other things] really justified the added cost. of course i'd love to have a 20D but it was just easier to go with the 10D and save up for some nice glass. won't be my last DSLR and anything is better than a canon A80

here's an image from the 10d. haven't done too much with it, and this was my first ever photographic trip to a skate park so it was a learning experience. i already love shooting in raw. it's grainy but i think it's an acceptable look for a nitty gritty sport like skateboarding.

koogz · Dec 12, 2004, 04:30 PM

here's an image from the 10d. haven't done too much with it, and this was my first ever photographic trip to a skate park so it was a learning experience. i already love shooting in raw. it's grainy but i think it's an acceptable look for a nitty gritty sport like skateboarding.

That image is nice, but out of camera raw?I don't think so. It looks as though you just shot at a high ISO, then changed the mode to grayscale. (Blech) I can get some sharper better shots out of my panasonic FZ10, then add the grain later after and then remove the color by messing with the channel mixer.

Out of camera on a 10d? Unnacceptable. If you are a starving student, I'm Mickey Mouse.
You would have been better off getting a panasonic LC1. It has the best glass, the lense alone is worth the camera's price tag. (Leica glass)

mr. burns · Dec 12, 2004, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by koogz:
I did some playing with your image:

Whaddayatink?

it's ... different.

mr. burns · 12:07 AM

Originally posted by koogz:
That image is nice, but out of camera raw?I don't think so. It looks as though you just shot at a high ISO, then changed the mode to grayscale. (Blech) I can get some sharper better shots out of my panasonic FZ10, then add the grain later after and then remove the color by messing with the channel mixer.

Out of camera on a 10d? Unnacceptable. If you are a starving student, I'm Mickey Mouse.
You would have been better off getting a panasonic LC1. It has the best glass, the lense alone is worth the camera's price tag. (Leica glass)

ok, mickey,
jesus, give me a break. it was one of the first times i used the thing and i felt like giving iso1600 a try. i was using a small aperture because i wanted to make sure the depth of field was broad enough. you don't have to worry about depth of field with the pip-squeak sensor in your panasonic. i could used a wider aperture and lower iso looking back now, so it was a learning experience.

the printer drivers and inks i use at the school lab require the image be in grayscale mode, when printing B&W. you can edit the red, green and blue in channel mixer, but why would you when it's being printed as a grayscale image? using a curve adjustment layer on a grayscale gives me more control, and in all reality it's just a different way of doing things, and can't be considered wrong if you can achieve an acceptable end result. you can email my professor at bwolfe@csuchico.edu if you have more objections to his method of teaching people to edit black and white photos.

are there any other panasonic products you would like to advertise here while you're at it?

koogz · 01:23 AM

Originally posted by mr. burns:
ok, mickey,
jesus, give me a break. it was one of the first times i used the thing and i felt like giving iso1600 a try. i was using a small aperture because i wanted to make sure the depth of field was broad enough. you don't have to worry about depth of field with the pip-squeak sensor in your panasonic.

the printer drivers and inks i use at the school lab require the image be in grayscale mode, when printing B&W. you can edit the red, green and blue in channel mixer, but why would you when it's being printed as a grayscale image? using a curve adjustment layer on a grayscale gives me more control, and in all reality it's just a different way of doing things, and can't be considered wrong if you can achieve an acceptable end result. you can email my professor at bwolfe@csuchico.edu if you have more objections to his method of teaching people to edit black and white photos.

are there any other panasonic products you would like to advertise here while you're at it?

If you are changing modes from RGB to Grayscale, you are losing image quality. The blue channel is completely discarded.
Using channel mixer is quicker and better, and when you get into the real world, lose the friggin ego. You ain't sh!t. Tell your professor his student needs a reality check. My professor is the editor of Photoshop User magazine....etc...scottkelby.com maybe your professor has heard of him.

I'm not a panasonic fanboy. I like the leica glass. Enjoy lugging that brick around. I think the Nikon D70 is better, but I'm saving up for an R9 with a digital back.

BTW: Depth of field is there for a purpose, your composition leaves much to be desired... imho.

bells0 · Dec 13, 2004, 09:09 AM

i agree with koogz that a shallow depth of field would be better for the skatepark pic [though not as harsh as the photoshop effort]

love the colours in the top pic

iMOTOR · Dec 13, 2004, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by koogz:
lose the friggin ego. You ain't sh!t. Tell your professor his student needs a reality check.

Tell your professor his student needs to grow up.

koogz · 10:04 PM

Originally posted by iMOTOR:
Tell your professor his student needs to grow up.

You directing that at me? lol. Pffft.

iMOTOR · Dec 13, 2004, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by koogz:
You directing that at me? lol. Pffft.

Uh....yeah.....

Your first response before you edited it pretty much sums up my post.

Someone who is mature would not go on a forum and respond with personal attacks to a picture they didn't like.

If you think these photos suck so bad, then post some of your own pictures.

Otherwise your criticism is nothing more than comments from the peanut gallery.

Demonhood · Dec 13, 2004, 10:55 PM

how bout you both lose the attitude and keep this thread from becoming personal.

iMOTOR · Dec 13, 2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Demonhood:
how bout you both lose the attitude and keep this thread from becoming personal.

Ok

koogz · 12:08 AM

mr. burns · Dec 14, 2004, 03:55 PM

here's a little experiment from last night. time wasn't on my side so i'll be reshooting tonight. my main problem was getting everything in focus with absolutely no light. i only had a bike light to light the shot and get around in the wilderness because i was planning on taking shots of the meteor shower. all i could really see in the viewfinder was a hint of the two larger trees. i kind of find it interesting seeing my shadow in the shot but i don't plan on it being in there when i retake this.

mr. burns · Dec 15, 2004, 12:24 AM

and from tonight

EnVoy · Dec 15, 2004, 06:02 PM

Next time shield your flashlight from the camera lens and you wont get those light trails. This shot would look much better that way...

MaxPower2k3 · Dec 15, 2004, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by EnVoy:
Next time shield your flashlight from the camera lens and you wont get those light trails. This shot would look much better that way...

I think that was the point of it...

koogz · Dec 15, 2004, 07:09 PM

The latest issue of the "Smithsonian" magazine has a photo of Pablo Picasso with a pen light drawing a devil. Cool photo.

EnVoy · Dec 16, 2004, 10:00 AM

I think that was the point of it...

Well, then it didn't work. If you are going to try an effect like this you have to go all the way with it, or else it just looks like a mistake.

iREZ · Dec 16, 2004, 12:36 PM

There's no mistakes in creative works if it's what you intend to make.

EnVoy · Dec 16, 2004, 05:41 PM

iREZ,

That's just plain not true. There are rules to good photography, and you have to know them first before they can be broken. The "rule of thirds" is a good example. Splitting the frame in half with the horizon is a common amateur mistake. Pro's wont do it much, when they do it's done properly.