*OFFICIAL* general photography conversation thread

[mikeokimster]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

the photos on 500px.com amaze me daily... and it makes me feel like I shouldn't even be holding a camera.

stunning...........

[Weebl]

Lens rebate pdf
60D rebate $300
Oh yeah baby

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by mikeokimster

stunning...........

I know... it's insane how good those photos are. That being said, I think it would be cool if the owners of 500px would make a 500rawpx site. I'd like to see how great the raw photos actually are.

How much of it is post-processing, and how much of it is actual photography expertise? Because my raw photos rarely come out as spectacular, colorful, vibrant, etc.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by Weebl

Lens rebate pdf
60D rebate $300
Oh yeah baby

man... I really want these lenses:
EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM $2199 ($160)
EF 85mm f/1.2L II $2049 ($150)
EF 135mm f/2L USM $1014 ($75)

Too bad I didn't win the lottery.

[oneintheory]

http://500px.com/ProjektPhoto

buddy of mine. although, truth be told...i don't like most of those shots.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

http://500px.com/ProjektPhoto

buddy of mine. although, truth be told...i don't like most of those shots.

Josh, I think I figured out his problem...






All joking aside... they aren't necessarily bad photos, but I agree that I've seen much better. Remember, it's a learning experience for everyone. Some of them are technically pretty good, but I think the ratings speak for themselves. Then again, who am I to judge portraits? I rarely shoot them.

[Chewy734]

any of you guys use Pixelmator on the Mac? I'm wondering what you think of it... it's on sale at Amazon for ~$16.

[MetsFan]

Is there a website that critiques your photos? It would be great to see what I'm doing right and wrong in terms of DoF, shutter speed, composition, etc. Or maybe I can start a thread where people can post pictures to be critiqued?

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by MetsFan

Is there a website that critiques your photos? It would be great to see what I'm doing right and wrong in terms of DoF, shutter speed, composition, etc. Or maybe I can start a thread where people can post pictures to be critiqued?

http://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=555325

Note the rules on the first post.

[MetsFan]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

http://www.bimmerpost.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=555325

Note the rules on the first post.

Nice, thanks!

[oneintheory]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

Josh, I think I figured out his problem...






All joking aside... they aren't necessarily bad photos, but I agree that I've seen much better. Remember, it's a learning experience for everyone. Some of them are technically pretty good, but I think the ratings speak for themselves. Then again, who am I to judge portraits? I rarely shoot them.

he has many better shots than that, so I'm not sure why he chose the ones he did. it's interesting that the ones with more overt nudity have higher ratings.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by oneintheory

it's interesting that the ones with more overt nudity have higher ratings.

but, it's not really that surprising... guys can get easily distracted.

[khaye1]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

any of you guys use Pixelmator on the Mac? I'm wondering what you think of it... it's on sale at Amazon for ~$16.

I have it...barely use it...it's not CS5 but not bad for $16

[Chewy734]

is it useful though? I know it's not as powerful as CS5, but can it do most things, and is it easier/more-intuitive to use?

[khaye1]

it's useful for your basic editing needs...got a lot of built in filters and the interface is similar to photoshop. it doesn't bog down like ps does in some instances. I haven't updated it in a while but when I did the support was great.

[Chewy734]

thanks for the input.

[turo]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

any of you guys use Pixelmator on the Mac? I'm wondering what you think of it... it's on sale at Amazon for ~$16.

I used it quite a bit before I bought Photoshop CS4. As previously mentioned, not as powerful as Photoshop, but it is still a great little program (and at a great price). Most of the basic image processing tools are there, its very easy to use, and the interface is (IMO) one of the best I've worked with. It uses GPU acceleration so if you have a decent video card, it runs really fast. The filters work pretty well, but they are pretty much straight out of the Core Image toolkit if I remember correctly, so they can be somewhat limited in functionality compared to other programs.

[oneintheory]

just bought the Sigma 85 1.4 for Canon and a 32GB Sandisk Extreme CF card.

[dcstep]

Originally Posted by Chewy734

I know... it's insane how good those photos are. That being said, I think it would be cool if the owners of 500px would make a 500rawpx site. I'd like to see how great the raw photos actually are.

How much of it is post-processing, and how much of it is actual photography expertise? Because my raw photos rarely come out as spectacular, colorful, vibrant, etc.

My RAW images almost always look washed out before conversion. That's because I "expose right" to the right of the histogram. Digital sensors have more dynamic range the hotter the images is, so long as you don't blow out the highlights. My objective is to preserve as much data and dynamic range as possible and then pull the brightness level down, at contrast and make a very slight adjustment to the RGB curve. (I pull down slightly in the middle, which saturates the colors slightly). Depending on the subject, I might or might not add a positive film preset, like Fuji Velvia 50, using DxO's Film Pack 3.0, film emulation software.

Back in the film days, film manufacturers, particularly for positive films, made our color and saturation choices for us. It's actually much easier to make a "realistic" image in digital than on film. However, the RAW file is no different than Ansel Adam's negative. He exposed in a pariticular way, knowing that he'd make certain choices in printing to make it more "dramatic".

Here's one where I applied my Velvia 50 preset:

White-tail buck about to dissappear into the wood by dcstep, on Flickr

And here's one where I only adjusted levels and pulled the RGB curve down in the middle:


Nice white-tail buck by dcstep, on Flickr

No one would like the RAW files.

[Chewy734]

Originally Posted by turo

I used it quite a bit before I bought Photoshop CS4. As previously mentioned, not as powerful as Photoshop, but it is still a great little program (and at a great price). Most of the basic image processing tools are there, its very easy to use, and the interface is (IMO) one of the best I've worked with. It uses GPU acceleration so if you have a decent video card, it runs really fast. The filters work pretty well, but they are pretty much straight out of the Core Image toolkit if I remember correctly, so they can be somewhat limited in functionality compared to other programs.

Thanks! I'm still debating on buying it, since I'm not sure if it'll include the free upgrade to v2.

Dave, that second photo has some awesome bokeh... awesome!

[M_Six]

Nice shots as always, Dave. I've been concentrating more and more on getting the shot right and not doing so much post. And even in post, I try to keep it to just tweaking a bit in ACR.

I learned today that the probability of a gorgeous sunset is the inverse of the probability that you have your camera with you. I grabbed the wrong camera bag this morning and this evening on the way home the sky was stunning. I opened the bag to find several lenses, but no body.

[Weebl]

Well then, that solves it.
Get another one.