[cszar2001]

This one`s title is "You lookin' at me?":

[historylme]

WOW, those are amazing photos... big time props!

[cszar2001]

This weekend is all about Sports Photography:

[Demonhood]

we got some talented people up in here.
i love the expression on the guy with the starter's pistol.

here's one i took today. i call it "Wrong Turn"



now if only the spider had been in the web too. well, can't have everything i guess.

[ThinkInsane]

[waxcrash]

Went backpack camping last weekend in Door County, WI…

[ThinkInsane]

Nice pics wax. Have you noticed that every stretch of shore on the great lakes looks the same? That first picture could have been taken in my back yard.

[turtle777]

Taken with a crappy digital camera, but the theme is classic...

-t

[- - e r i k - -]

[ThinkInsane]

[viperstrike]

[E's Lil Theorem]

You people own with the camera. Some of the photos being posted are simply amazing. Pure pimpyness I tell yah!

[OreoCookie]

Here's one I took in Paris this January. Talking about paparazzi

[cszar2001]

[ThinkInsane]

[villalobos]

A lucky shot during a recent thunderstorm.

[budster101]

just some shots I took while waiting for my wife at the doctor's office.
(First four shots with my Panasonic FZ10, Great Glass on that, Leica)

[waxcrash]

Went for a walk with my girlfriend yesterday along the lake front. We ended up at the Apple store and my girlfriend bought a new 14" iBook for medical school which starts next month. With all the discounts and deals, she ended up picking up a 30GB iPod photo for $100 which she gave to me. I took a few pics on the way there…

[Demonhood]

some fun from the coast.
cszar2001, those long exposures make me want to play around with that feature more. well done. here's one a friend and i did on the 4th.


(click for big)

[cszar2001]

Have a look at my Flickr Photoset: Light in Motion

[von Wrangell]

Ugliest gallery you've probably seen but here are a few photos from my road trip this summer.

Linky

[ThinkInsane]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Ugliest gallery you've probably seen but here are a few photos from my road trip this summer.

Linky

I know you live on a volcanic hunk of rock, and as such probably have all kinds of odd rock formations, but are the ones in this picture natural occurring? The look like grave makers.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

I know you live on a volcanic hunk of rock, and as such probably have all kinds of odd rock formations, but are the ones in this picture natural occurring? The look like grave makers.

They're not natural but I don't know what they are called. Icelanders(past and present) put up markers for common routes by putting these rocks together forming sort of a cone. As you could see in the first pic(IIRC).

But in this pic we were in an area were the history says you should put up your own "cone" and just put new rocks on that one and not the other.


ps. hate how the quality dropped when making that gallery:/

[Hugi]

Wow, Mr. von Wrangell, there are great! Remember to drop by in Neskaupstaður the next time you're travelling in the East, though .

Here are a couple of my own. I really need a better camera

[TheMosco]

John Hancock building


Boston Public Library

[ThinkInsane]

I liked this shot, I just wish I had a better camera when I took it. Going back and comparing pics I took with my old Kodak and comparing them with the pics i"ve taken with my other cameras, it's kind of sad. Amazing what a difference a couple of years makes.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hugi

Wow, Mr. von Wrangell, there are great! Remember to drop by in Neskaupstaður the next time you're travelling in the East, though .

Here are a couple of my own. I really need a better camera

I try to stay as far away from the small towns in this country as I can. The city or just the nature is what I prefer

[tgags]

Wow, some great stuff.
Very happy to learn about the photo contest, thanks, I needed the excuse to get out there and take some pics! Sorry I missed the nature shots. Architecture is just as fun though (and as Mr. Wright suggests, they are very much related)

The lightning shot above prompted me to post this one, caught it after one of those quick summer storms. (Stanton, NJ)
Hope this works...

[JustAnOl'Broad]

New 20D today. W00T!
Truly the dogs ballix.
I'm happy as Larry....or is that Bruce.

Lotta reading to do; actually decent manual included.
Got the zoom lense, but going back for the macro thurs.

So far; love it!
Little noisey for the hummingbirds - scares 'em.
My old camera they'll practically perch on.

Hope to give the contest a dose of country architecture.
P~

[Demonhood]

oooh, a 20D. nice.

here are a few more from a week or two ago:

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

oooh, a 20D. nice.
here are a few more from a week or two ago:

i generally like my flower (especially sunflower) pictures to be more punchy-colored and brighter. i dunno, it's a great picture but i feel like there's a layer of haze blocking me from the simple-colored beauty of the sunflower and leaves. hope you don't mind, but it's almost two in the morning and i was bored, so i did a quick photoshop job to show what i'm trying to say. didn't want to over-process it too much but i think i did though.



i always think a little de-saturation is good for less "happy" subjects, but with a sunflower, it's pretty "happy" so i like to bring out the colors or perhaps make it a little brighter.

well, it's just my opinion. great photo though.

[JustAnOl'Broad]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

i always think a little de-saturation is good for less "happy" subjects, but with a sunflower, it's pretty "happy" so i like to bring out the colors or perhaps make it a little brighter.

well, it's just my opinion. great photo though.

I drove 12 miles out of my way coming home yesterday;
to get a shot of a field of sunflowers - about a 2000 acre field
to be exact. There was a lot of truck and tractor activity there,
and the flower heads were drooping anyway; so I opted not to
drag the new camera out in the dust storm.
Just too funny to get up today and see a reply with a sunflower.

Like your idea about the saturation George.
In seeing them together, I do like the "happier" yellow.
Will keep that in mind when I start playing more with Photoshop.

Do you guys feel it's better to adjust the camera settings in a
case like this - or, do it later in PS? (the saturation or color
adjustment I mean.)
I think I'll leave the settings alone for now, and do the adjusting
on the Mac. Kinda like the idea of having the photos be true to the
subject for later reference.

Sure wish I didn't have to go to work today.

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

i generally like my flower (especially sunflower) pictures to be more punchy-colored and brighter. i dunno, it's a great picture but i feel like there's a layer of haze blocking me from the simple-colored beauty of the sunflower and leaves.

no problem. it does look better. i keep forgetting that my camera and new copy of PS CS2 color manage and, therefore, screw up everything i save for the web. i think i'll just turn off color management until it behaves itself.

on the plus side, i can go back into the raw file (DNG, in this case) and punch up the contrast and saturation to get a spiffy result.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by JustAnOl'Broad

Do you guys feel it's better to adjust the camera settings in a
case like this - or, do it later in PS? (the saturation or color
adjustment I mean.)
I think I'll leave the settings alone for now, and do the adjusting
on the Mac. Kinda like the idea of having the photos be true to the
subject for later reference.

Sure wish I didn't have to go to work today.

i feel like it is better to do it in PS rather than in-camera, because the camera algorithms are not as good or as advanced as the ones in photoshop, so you might get over-processed images out of the camera, and that's never good. or you can shoot RAW and adjust things like WB or exposure comp. after you take the picture and upload it onto the computer.

but if you're lazy like me, i use slight in-camera stuff (i use an olympus e-300, and i turn up the contrast and saturation, but i turn down the sharpness to reduce the artifacts that may occur). i don't really want to post-process too much and if it's a really important picture, i'll use RAW so i don't need to worry.

a lot of people like to use parameter 2 (0, 0, 0) on the 20D but personally i find it kind of bland. but you can always post-process later so i guess that's why.

[cszar2001]

My most favorited shot on Flickr:

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

no problem. it does look better. i keep forgetting that my camera and new copy of PS CS2 color manage and, therefore, screw up everything i save for the web. i think i'll just turn off color management until it behaves itself.

on the plus side, i can go back into the raw file (DNG, in this case) and punch up the contrast and saturation to get a spiffy result.

yeah, i never like any of that automated stuff.

DNG looks interesting. the new leica digital module R is the first camera (or module, i guess) to use it i believe. it'd be cool if all companies could start doing this because i can't find any good third-party RAW convertors (for the Mac) for my poor olympus

[Demonhood]

Adobe DNG Converter should work with your camera (it is listed). the newest plug (Camera Raw 3.1) for PS is very nice. tons more options than the previous version.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

yeah, i never like any of that automated stuff.

DNG looks interesting. the new leica digital module R is the first camera (or module, i guess) to use it i believe. it'd be cool if all companies could start doing this because i can't find any good third-party RAW convertors (for the Mac) for my poor olympus

Olympus has its own Photoshop plug-in, isn't that any good? (I don't use it, because shooting RAW with my E-20 is, ahem, not an option. I don't wanna wait 10+ seconds to save an image.)

[travisimo]

too bad there is massive lens flair on that stair way to heaven one, that one was my favorite.

[MrForgetable]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

Olympus has its own Photoshop plug-in, isn't that any good? (I don't use it, because shooting RAW with my E-20 is, ahem, not an option. I don't wanna wait 10+ seconds to save an image.)

i shoot a lot of indoor stuff, and shooting RAW saves me a couple of stops. the only thing is i have to post process it and that gets a little bit time consuming.

when i'm indoors i will usually underexpose probably around 1.7 EV at ISO 400/800 and bring the details back up by punching up the EV in PP.

the only bad part about is the E-300 raw files are 13.5mb each. i can only hold around 70 total on my 1GB card so i might have to invest in another card soon.

i haven't been able to figure out the photoshop plug-in for camera RAW, but i know they have one. too busy taking pictures to care about PP i suppose

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by MrForgetable

i shoot a lot of indoor stuff, and shooting RAW saves me a couple of stops. the only thing is i have to post process it and that gets a little bit time consuming.

when i'm indoors i will usually underexpose probably around 1.7 EV at ISO 400/800 and bring the details back up by punching up the EV in PP.

the only bad part about is the E-300 raw files are 13.5mb each. i can only hold around 70 total on my 1GB card so i might have to invest in another card soon.

i haven't been able to figure out the photoshop plug-in for camera RAW, but i know they have one. too busy taking pictures to care about PP i suppose

Just a general question on the E-300: is it worth upgrading from an E-20? I think I could get close to 450-500 € for it and a new E-300 is roughly 250 € more. How is the autofocus? How do the lenses `feel' (the E-20's lenses have metal tubing, basically, the whole camera has a metal chassis, feels like a murder weapon ).

One of my gripes with the E-20 is the speed of image processing -- it's really slow. I cannot access the menu or anything while it's saving the pics on the memory card. And the time it takes is exactly proportional to the size -- shooting in anything other than HQ (high quality, about 1.3 MB a piece) is a test in patience (I wouldn't mind shooting in SHQ, but that seriously limits my abilities).

Another one is the autofocus, how is it?

BTW, you can find the Photoshop plugin here.

[MrForgetable]

i'm really not sure if it's worth "upgrading" from an E-20. the E-20 came out in it's time as a professional dSLR. the E-300 is relatively consumer oriented even today.

the only thing is that digital SLR technology has come a long way since then. the image processing is quite a bit faster. i can pull off 10 frames (i haven't had the need to shoot more than 10 frames, so it'd probably go as long as you have card space) in around 5 seconds in SINGLE shot mode at SHQ (6.5mb each). It took about 8 seconds to clear the buffer, but I could still take pictures if I wanted to. RAW is a little bit slower.

the autofocus speed is pretty amazing coming from a point and shoot camera. some people may think it's slower than it's competitors, but it's very accurate and i'd give up a couple of tenths of a second for the accuracy i can get with the E-300. i only use the center point for focusing though.

honestly, the E-300 build quality is quite good. it feels very sturdy and there are no squeaks or rattles.

the only gripe i have with the camera is actually not about the camera, but about the kit lens. the 14-45mm lens feels a bit cheaper than even the 40-150mm lens i got also. however, it is better than probably all other kit lenses except maybe the 18-70mm of the D70.

optically, however, the 14-45mm kit is awesome and is on par with more expensive 14-54mm. the only thing you would be giving up is the speed (F2.8 vs F3.5 at wideangle, F3.5 vs F5.6 at telephoto), build quality (weather proof vs. nothing), and better close-up abilities. however for the price, the 14-45mm is a very good lens.

the real gem is the 40-150mm that came in the dual lens kit. very sharp and is a great lens. feels great and has great build quality. this might be my walk-around lens.

but the kit lenses are much slower than your current F2.0-F2.4. so you might consider getting an E-300 body only with a 14-54mm F2.8-3.5 lens to compensate for that.

however, i recommend the dual lens kit if you are tight on money. it is probably the best deal out there for cameras right now. 28-300mm 35mm equivalent in 2 relatively compact lenses. that's what i got and i don't regret it (i want that 14-54mm though for a walk-around though). the prices just came down around the world so i believe so you can find it for cheap.

i think the one thing the E-20 lacks that the E-300 has is the interchangeable lens mount. it just opens so many more possibilities. you can get several good lenses (all digital Zuiko lenses are very good) and use them later on a better body when you decide to upgrade.

hope that wasn't too long.

[OreoCookie]

Thanks for the review. Looks like I'm gonna keep my E-20 a bit longer, but I'll keep an eye on Olympus. Their new digital lenses really kick (Nikon's and Canon's) rear end.

Maybe I'll be in the market in a year then (well after I've begun my PhD).

[Demonhood]

Originally Posted by Demonhood

took another stab at the raw file. and turned off the pesky color management. even made a nice desktop for myself



haven't taken many shots lately, so here's one that i just really liked the texture and composition on. even though it's of nothing in particular.

[Albert Pujols]

[SimeyTheLimey]

I just added this one for the contest:



Fort Jefferson, Dry Tortugas National Park, Florida

And I'll go ahead and post this one here as well for fun.



Key West, Florida.

[xi_hyperon]

Took this in a cemetery in Buenos Aires earlier this year. The cemetery is basically a small city of mausoleums, most in good condition, but some in severe disrepair.

[Hugi]

More fun:



I call it "Life and death".

[Demonhood]

never seen a cemetery quite like that. nice pic.

this isn't an artsy picture, but i took it today because it made me chuckle:


this is displayed at my work. i've seen it in at least two places. it's new. it's hilarious.

[Albert Pujols]

I call it "Lunch Time". Taken on Juhu beach, Bombay after the floods.