[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
some impressive submissions thus far.

there is a limit to the amount of options you can have for a thread poll, so you wouldn't be able to put them all up in one thread (unless you just posted them and had people reply with their votes).

now, which one to submit....

I thought there was a limit to the number of options. What is the maximum?

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
How do you like the Sigma lens? I've never used any Sigma lens and I'm curious to there quality because I'm thinking of buying one of there telephoto. I'm debating whether to save the money and go with Sigma or just invest in a Nikkor ED lens which I know is very good, but expensive.

sigmas are a mixed bag. buy the EX series lenses (the fisheye is such a beast) and you generally will be pleasantly surprised. buy the lesser lines and you might get a real dog.

as for the fisheye in particular, i thought it was great. i ebayed it in a moment of weakness for the same amount as its purchase price and bought the sigma 12-24 hsm zoom instead (another EX series lens). my main complaints with it were that it was a fisheye -- great for sports shots where that look is in, not so great if you often end up going through the trouble of defishing images using panotools -- and that it didn't have a hsm/usm focusing motor, even though the point is near-moot for wideangles. case study for why defishing is lame: this shot fit just fine in the viewfinder, but after the fact i decided that the hancock tower (boston) deserved to have straight lines and defished the image. after defishing the hancock tower juts out of the frame...

the 12-24 has also been a treat: i wanted a wide rectilinear lens since the canon dSLRs have the 1.6x crop factor, wasn't concerned about speed since i stop down when shooting landscapes anyway and wanted HSM/USM focusing just so that i could claim that my entire lens lineup has ultra/hypersonic focusing motors . this shot shows how exaggerated perspective becomes with a 12mm (or 12x1.6, whatever floats your boat) lens.

[historylme]

Originally posted by MaxPower2k3:
awesome tree. where is that?

It's Lake Merrit in Oakland, CA. Glad you saw the awesomeness of it too.

[Cadaver]

OK... I'm in.
I put up a .mac gallery of a few photos at this link.
Mind you I'm no professional photographer (though I am in my dreams), so please be kind with your comments
(edit: one has been formally submitted...)

[spiky_dog]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
OK... I'm in.
I put up a .mac gallery of a few photos at this link.
Mind you I'm no professional photographer (though I am in my dreams), so please be kind with your comments

of those i'd enter "Bluesky". remember, you have to pick just one

edit: nvmd

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
...

How do you like the Sigma lens? I've never used any Sigma lens and I'm curious to there quality because I'm thinking of buying one of there telephoto. I'm debating whether to save the money and go with Sigma or just invest in a Nikkor ED lens which I know is very good, but expensive.

...

I've had Tokina 28-80/2.8 lenses for my deceased F80 and they were excellent. The built-quality was amazing, full metal body, etc. Optically, to be honest, I couldn't compare it to a genuine Nikon, but for the money you get a lot in return.

[historylme]

Great Picture Cadaver
This is my favorite. Nature at its best. Reminds me of how small I always feel when looking at the ocean.

[MilkmanDan]

Done and Done.

[Cadaver]

Originally posted by history1me:

Great Picture Cadaver
This is my favorite. Nature at its best. Reminds me of how small I always feel when looking at the ocean.

Thanks... that's my 4 year old son (was 3 1/2 in the picture) staring at the Atlantic.

[MountainMac]

Submitted a pic from Denali National Park in Alaska; it's completely untouched and the way it came out of the camera.

MM

[milkmanchris]

Interesting thread boys.

Is the competition open to pros as well

I use the word 'pro' very lightly, I have earned my living from photography for 17 years and still consider myself a snapshot taker. I love taking pictures for taking pictures sake, they are a record of things we have seen, places we have been, people we love.

As for the photoshop/digital darkroom thing, whos to say what has been manipulated and to what degree and what has not, saying that what is your interpretation of the word manipulated.

I have not had a full frame shot published since the days of film, so I guess all my pictures have been manipulated, by the mere fact they have all been cropped.

Anyways great idea, with the competition, and some of those snaps are really good, and the price of the equipment means nothing, i have some great shots taken on disposable �3 cameras.

See it, snap it, enjoy it.

[Powaqqatsi]

Simey and DeathToWindows did you scan those pics (you guys are on film IIRC ?) ? I'm trying to scan some pics on my flatbed but I'm getting colours that are way off and really hard to correct even when using ColorSync and 48bit colour. It's about time I bought that damn Coolscan or DimageScan . Any tips for a good scan ?

[milkmanchris]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
Any tips for a good scan ?

If you have a negative or transparency hood for your flat bed try that, they give much better results than trying to scan from prints.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by milkmanchris:
If you have a negative or transparency hood for your flat bed try that, they give much better results than trying to scan from prints.

I did that but it's not good enough, I'm depressed because of the quality that Simey gets from his flatbed Epson. I'm using a Canon 3200F.

example:
/

This is waaay below the quality that Simey achieved. Maybe it's because it's quite grainy ? Ilford FP4 Plus, developed in Rodinal IIRC.

edited out pics

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by milkmanchris:
Interesting thread boys.

Is the competition open to pros as well

It's open to anyone who is a MacNN forum member. You should participate.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
I did that but it's not good enough, I'm depressed because of the quality that Simey gets from his flatbed Epson. I'm using a Canon 3200F.

Thanks, but bear in mind that's a medium format negative I scanned from. The original TIF is something like 55mb. I don't get quite such good quality from 35mm. 35mm files are only about 12mb with that scanner.

Here are a couple of things, though. With your negative, Rodinol is a notoriously grainy developer. You might like to try one of the newer acutance developers. Kodak X-Tol is my favorite, but it is a bit of a pain to mix the powdered chemicals. Ilford Ilfosol-S is good too. I also think the Ilford Delta films produce much better results than FP-4.

As far as scanning from a flatbed, the trick is to get as much information into your scan as possible. I use Vuescan because it lets me do that easier than the software that Epson uses.

Your scan doesn't look too bad to me except you have a bit of the jaggies. What's your resolution set to? Are you maybe adjusting scan size with your scanner software? That's not a good idea. It's better to scan at 100% and then resize the image size in Photoshop after you have done all the other corrections (including any sharpening).

I also scan with a completely linear curve without allowing the scanner software to do any corrections. That gives the original file the maximum amount of information. Then do your curves for density and contrast in Photoshop (or in my case, Elements). Plus I scan black and white negatives in RGB mode.

Maybe this will help?

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Thanks, but bear in mind that's a medium format negative I scanned from. The original TIF is something like 55mb. I don't get quite such good quality from 35mm. 35mm files are only about 12mb with that scanner.

Here are a couple of things, though. With your negative, Rodinol is a notoriously grainy developer. You might like to try one of the newer acutance developers. Kodak X-Tol is my favorite, but it is a bit of a pain to mix the powdered chemicals. Ilford Ilfosol-S is good too. I also think the Ilford Delta films produce much better results than FP-4.

As far as scanning from a flatbed, the trick is to get as much information into your scan as possible. I use Vuescan because it lets me do that easier than the software that Epson uses.

Your scan doesn't look too bad to me except you have a bit of the jaggies. What's your resolution set to? Are you maybe adjusting scan size with your scanner software? That's not a good idea. It's better to scan at 100% and then resize the image size in Photoshop after you have done all the other corrections (including any sharpening).

I also scan with a completely linear curve without allowing the scanner software to do any corrections. That gives the original file the maximum amount of information. Then do your curves for density and contrast in Photoshop (or in my case, Elements). Plus I scan black and white negatives in RGB mode.

Maybe this will help?

Yeah, forgot it was shot with the Bronica . I use Rodinal because I like the grain but it seems that I'm going to have to switch to something like X-tol to get a smoother image for scanning when I get my film scanner.

The scan was made at 1200dpi 16-bit grayscale and afterwards sized down in photoshop, no enlarging done. Adjustments are always done in Photoshop by myself, I don't trust the scanner software . Anyway I was just scanning my negs at a relatively low res because I'm in the proces of making a catalogue of all my pictures so I can find them quickly.

I just don't like the idea of sending in a crap quality picture that looks beautiful on paper. Meh, computers and digital photography suck Printing something in the dark room is sooo easy compared to this stuff. I'm getting old..and I'm only 18

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
The scan was made at 1200dpi 16-bit grayscale

Try scanning in 48 bit RGB. You can always convert to grayscale later once you have the information in your scan. 16 bit grayscale is throwing away information before you have a chance to get it into your file.

[Demonhood]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
I thought there was a limit to the number of options. What is the maximum?

12

it might be better to span the pix over multiple posts, assigning each a letter. then just have everyone say which one they vote for.
designate an end date, count up the votes, and there you go.

also, it's really cool to see pix from places i've been. altho so far i've only checked off Nate_02's pic and MilkmanDan's.

[Turias]

Great! Thanks for organizing this, waxcrash!

Now I just have to go home and look through my iPhoto library.

[Eug Wanker]

What the heck is this? Seems interesting.

[rozwado1]

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

[email protected]
SMTP error from remote mailer after MAIL FROM:<[email protected]> SIZE=1771:
host gateway2.att.net [12.102.240.23]: 550-67.15.36.2 blocked by blacklist.mail.ops.worldnet.att.net.
550 Blocked for abuse. Please contact the administrator of your ISP or sending mail service.

wtf? PurpleGiant's my host - I wonder if he's spamming people....

Here's my submit:
http://www.nickroz.com/images/rozwado1_bum.jpg

Taken with a disposable camera, and then scanned the print. Not classy, but cost effective.

[Turias]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
Here's my submit:
http://www.nickroz.com/images/rozwado1_bum.jpg

That might be a stretch for the outdoor/nature category.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by rozwado1:
wtf? PurpleGiant's my host - I wonder if he's spamming people....

Here's my submit:
http://www.nickroz.com/images/rozwado1_bum.jpg

Taken with a disposable camera, and then scanned the print. Not classy, but cost effective.

What kind of disposable camera ? Pretty nice colours and exposure. Those things aren't as bas as people think.

[rozwado1]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
What kind of disposable camera?

A Kodak HD with Flash

[agentz]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
What the heck is this? Seems interesting.

That is the Falkirk Wheel, "the worlds first and only rotating boat lift"

Never been there myself but it looks really intriguing. I really should go, it's only about 20 miles from where I live.

[MacMan4000]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
What kind of disposable camera ? Pretty nice colours and exposure. Those things aren't as bas as people think.

yes they are!
<rant>
Thats about all i do when i'm at work is spend time color correcting peoples crappy disposable camera pictures then listen to them complain about how crappy their pictures look. Then they go to walgreens to get there next roll done and come crawling back when they realize walgreens does no color correction at all and the pictures look even worse. Think about it, there has to be some reason there processing is so cheap... the reason is they don't do anything to it but stick it in a machine and wait for it to finish! Where i work we actually look at each picture and adjust for color, exposure, and fix red eye.
</rant>

[as2]

I'm in....

[turtle777]

Originally posted by agentz:
That is the Falkirk Wheel, "the worlds first and only rotating boat lift"

Never been there myself but it looks really intriguing. I really should go, it's only about 20 miles from where I live.

Preety cool from an engineering standpoint.





-t

[addiecool]

Sent mine too.

[Briareus]

Sent mine. Nikon Coolpix 4500.

Some really excellent submissions there!

[alligator]

Hey, I need a new lens for my camera. I'm a new photographer, with my first digital SLR. I have a Cannon Digital Rebel EOS. I'd love to take some cool macros, but I don't know much about lenses. Can someone give me some advice?

[Cadaver]

Some great pictures in there... many people with a lot of talent!

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by waxcrash:

Last Friday, I was reading/posting on MacNN. I came across the thread where ShortcutToMoncton suggested that we should have a photo contest. I started brainstorming about how to get a photo contest going as fast as possible. I get around 50 MB of web space with my ISP and decided I can use that and not spend any money. The web space I get form my ISP doesn't support any CGI so that ruled out using any type of gallery software. I knew I could pump out a web-page with thumbnails in no time so that is why I decided to get the contest going. I agree that for future contests that we should use one of the many free source photo-gallery software available. For that to happen, we need to find someone who is willing to donate web space and of course set it up.

I can do it. I'm familiar with gallery as well. Send me an email and we can get it all setup.

[Gregor]

http://macnn.home.att.net/html/as2.html

That's impressive, where is this?

[qualey2]

Mine is in. Kodak easy share cx 4200.
Long hard choice for me. I have over 2700 photos stored on my "other" machine.

[keekeeree]

on the photography contest! It's great to see so many talented photographers sharing their work.

I'm frustrated by my inability to access 99% of my work. A few months ago I backed-up all my stuff onto an external drive then sold my iMac before making a major move. Consequently, I'm stuck accessing the internet on my fiance's old PC...and I mean old (166 MHz Pentium Compaq...a.k.a. computer hell).

Of course, I'm not letting this stop me from entering a photo into the contest Thankfully some of my pics are still being stored on one of my old ISP's servers.

[as2]

Originally posted by Gregor:
http://macnn.home.att.net/html/as2.html

That's impressive, where is this?

It was the view from my Hotel when I went skiing earlier this year. It was fairly late in the season, but they had more snow than usual.. lots more.

The hotel was a 45 minute trek away from the main resort and the slopes, across landscape like that. It's a place called Hotel Tannalp in Switzerland. Had been a fantastic sunny day, and then suddenly all these black clouds descended on us.

Adam

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Scotttheking:
I can do it. I'm familiar with gallery as well. Send me an email and we can get it all setup.

Thanks! After this contest is over, I'll send you an e-mail.

And thanks to all who have submitted so far.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Thanks! After this contest is over, I'll send you an e-mail.

ok

[Mithras]

Originally posted by MountainMac:
Submitted a pic from Denali National Park in Alaska; it's completely untouched and the way it came out of the camera.

MM

[CaptainHaddock]

In the off-chance "Trygve" is reading this, is there any chance someone (namely me) could get a big copy of that photo of La Digue island for a desktop? Like 1680x1050 big? Just wonderin'...

[mollusk]

Here are my pics. http://homepage.mac.com/ldhurt/
I submit the submerged boat.

[MountainMac]

Originally posted by Mithras:

Thanks. I paid for the pic by getting drenched by the pictured raincloud about 30 minutes later. I was wet for two days after that one.

[Freeflyer]

Ok, I'm in.

I think the no alteration rule is wrong in the age of digital. I have a lovely photo that I'd like to enter, but it was taken as a colour shot with a Canon G3, and then turned into black and white, and the contrast tweaked a bit in photoshop. Nothing that I wouldn't have done in the darkroom, but against the rules here.

J.

[keekeeree]

I was looking through the photos and realized I'd been to two of the locations that have been photographed for the contest. I visited the Arches National Park, photographed by spiky_dog, back in 1995. And I used to work in the city that gets its namesake from the Sioux Falls photographed by MilkmanDan.

Maybe a suggestion for the next contest: allow photographers to write a short cutline to go along with the photo. I always enjoy reading the story behind the image, like the where or the how or the when or an interesting story tied to the image.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Freeflyer:
Ok, I'm in.

I think the no alteration rule is wrong in the age of digital. I have a lovely photo that I'd like to enter, but it was taken as a colour shot with a Canon G3, and then turned into black and white, and the contrast tweaked a bit in photoshop. Nothing that I wouldn't have done in the darkroom, but against the rules here.

J.

I don't think that would or should be against the rules. I think no alterations means no application of extensive filter effects, no merging of multiple images, etc. In other words, don't alter the image in the computer to make it something radically different from what it was in the camera.

Adjusting contrast and converting to black and white doesn't strike me as altering the image any more than adjusting the exposure or cropping the image in the viewfinder. This is a photography contest, not a snapshot contest. I think you should be able to enter your picture.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't think that would or should be against the rules. I think no alterations means no application of extensive filter effects, no merging of multiple images, etc. In other words, don't alter the image in the computer to make it something radically different from what it was in the camera.

Adjusting contrast and converting to black and white doesn't strike me as altering the image any more than adjusting the exposure or cropping the image in the viewfinder. This is a photography contest, not a snapshot contest. I think you should be able to enter your picture.

Ditto. I think many of the submissions have been `altered' this way, I don't even have a bw mode on my E-20

[agentz]

*bump*

Let's get some more submissions in here!

[t6hawk]

Already sent mine in last night. Hasn't appeared yet mind you on the page but I'm patient.