Photography

[g30rg3]

Originally posted by Interjecta
http://members.iinet.net.au/~reverb/...brook_cove.jpg

Taken on Monday night.

5 sec shutter @ f/3.5 @ ISO 100

Do you have a link to bigger version?

thanks

[voi]

just muckin around. nothing special

[Interjecta]

Another two new photos taken on monday:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5879022/

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/5879099/

[keristar]

nice work craig, your pics have come a long way the last few months



I still hate you though
I want my 300D now

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by keristar
nice work craig, your pics have come a long way the last few months

I still hate you though
I want my 300D now

Thankyou

Yeh, it gets like that... NOW NOW NOW!.
I waited patiently for over 6 months whilst scrimping the dosh together to get it. If you're buying soon, I'd even have a gander at the Nikon D70 which is due for release and supposedly in the same price bracket.

[flaunt]

awesome shots craig ... i particularly like the green symmetry, and the east perth panoramic type shot .. both of these would look cool framed IMO

ur new camera does a neato job .. what did u end up getting?

[keristar]

Originally posted by Interjecta
Thankyou

Yeh, it gets like that... NOW NOW NOW!.
I waited patiently for over 6 months whilst scrimping the dosh together to get it. If you're buying soon, I'd even have a gander at the Nikon D70 which is due for release and supposedly in the same price bracket.

I've been brought up with Canons my whole life

I would never bat for the other team lol

plus I have a bit of canon stuff already

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by flaunt
awesome shots craig ... i particularly like the green symmetry, and the east perth panoramic type shot .. both of these would look cool framed IMO

ur new camera does a neato job .. what did u end up getting?

Yeh, I have a heap of shots that I want to frame but I can't afford to do so. I can't even afford to print out some 5x7's for an album

I ended up buying the Canon EOS 300D. The "Digital Rebel" as marketed in some other Countries. Although sometimes I yearn for a few more features, the value for money of this camera just cannot be beaten

[flaunt]

Originally posted by Interjecta
I ended up buying the Canon EOS 300D.

sweet, i checked and our head office has just got a dozen of these babies in... looks like ill have to get one across for uhh.. a 'client' =D

[forreal]

craig i like the photo of magan at blood sugar

noice

[g30rg3]

Craig have you tried doing macro photos on that camera? Do they come out very well?

300D sweeeet camera


Canon

[badr]

Heres a pic i took at a gig... dunno how i did it but i was pretty pissed.... i think its pretty good good mind you

www.homestarrunner.com <------------ Visit!

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by g30rg3
Craig have you tried doing macro photos on that camera? Do they come out very well?

Best 'macro' shot I've done so far is the fern photo on my gallery. As you can see it's fucking sharp... but that's about the closet you'll get to macro with the kit lens.

If by macro you mean taking a photo of a bee's dick, then you'll have to purchase a decent, fast macro lens... upwards of a grand. But yeh, the 300D will do dope macro with the right lense

[g30rg3]

Originally posted by Interjecta
If by macro you mean taking a photo of a bee's dick

heh, yeah thats pretty much what i meant..............

But yeah man, that fern shot came out sweet! Man that camera is sharp, loving the zebras

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by g30rg3
But yeah man, that fern shot came out sweet! Man that camera is sharp, loving the zebras

Funnily enough, the kit lens' focus is considered quite soft. Man if those shots are soft, then I can't wait until I get a 'sharp' lens!

[PHOBiA]

Just something I snapped..

[bonnie0908]

craig, how many crap pictures do you take before you get a good one?

and how do you stop the club pics from getting that smoky look. just not use flash? or is it all camera angles etc?

[g30rg3]

also Wow!

Your photos have improved a lot over time well done

[stevene]

Originally posted by bonnie0908
craig, how many crap pictures do you take before you get a good one?

and how do you stop the club pics from getting that smoky look. just not use flash? or is it all camera angles etc?

smoke is bad (tm)

wait for the smoke to go away!

no flash is good, but its very hard to catch the lights (cameras which can do multiple shots fast are good)

other option is letting more light onto the film/exposing it more which i think is equal to a slower shutter speed on a digital camera or lowering the exposure to - EV?

[GrandMaster]

yeah some cameras have a night mode. just has a slower shutter speed so it exposes for longer..
also means you get wicked light trails n shit in the photo
example: the roller logo in the backgorund of this photo looks cool

[stevene]

Originally posted by GrandMaster
yeah some cameras have a night mode. just has a slower shutter speed so it exposes for longer..
also means you get wicked light trails n shit in the photo
example: the roller logo in the backgorund of this photo looks cool

and hold the camera REALLY still (a tripod or bench works well)

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by bonnie0908
craig, how many crap pictures do you take before you get a good one?

The ratio varies heaps depending on the conditions. For example when I shot the photo of Perth with it's reflections on the water, the first shot I took was the best, but each one after that was also a winner. I kept 3 or 4 shots from the East Perth development out of about 15-18 shots I think? Then on the flipside, I went to the Zoo on Monday and it was really tough going. We had real bad haze/fog for the whole day, and the low light was a real problem. I only took 2-3 'keepers' out of 25-30 shots.

I'm getting a ratio of between 1:3 and 1:6 for shit shots/decent shots which is pretty good. Then out of the decent shots you pull your 'keepers' (ones that are good enough to print out enlarged, framesd, etc.

Originally posted by bonnie0908
and how do you stop the club pics from getting that smoky look. just not use flash? or is it all camera angles etc?

To be honest this hasn't proved much of a problem at all. I think I instinctively wait until the smoke disperses a little. The filter I use on my lens seems to cut down some of the negative effect of smoke anyway. I always use flash inside... (see response below)

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by stevene
no flash is good, but its very hard to catch the lights (cameras which can do multiple shots fast are good)

other option is letting more light onto the film/exposing it more which i think is equal to a slower shutter speed on a digital camera

no no! Flash is good! You need flash to expose the foreground of your club photos... ie. the person/people! 'Night mode' on point&shoot cameras, or also known as 'slow-sync flash' will fire the flash at the beginning of a photo in order to expose the foreground, then utilise a long shutter speed (between 1/30 & 1/4 of a second) to expose the background and capture the lighting.

Since I have complete control over my shutter speed, ISO and aperature... I can get my club shots down to a slow 1/2 second shutter speed, yet still retain sharpness and not too much blurring (without ruining the effect) of the people captured, due to using the flash.

[stix]

I want to get into photography as a little hobby, I am thinking of buying a tripod. I have the IXUS 2 3.2 megapixel and I would just be happy knowing how to use all its features and being able to take steady shots with the tripod.

[forreal]

Originally posted by stix
I want to get into photography as a little hobby, I am thinking of buying a tripod. I have the IXUS 2 3.2 megapixel and I would just be happy knowing how to use all its features and being able to take steady shots with the tripod.

tre i said no to us making porno's ok

[stix]

[Polski Beach Bum]

Originally posted by GrandMaster
yeah some cameras have a night mode. just has a slower shutter speed so it exposes for longer..
also means you get wicked light trails n shit in the photo
example: the roller logo in the backgorund of this photo looks cool

how come they're not making out ??

[GrandMaster]

thats in a different photo

[stix]

I bought a cheap but good tripod today from plaza cameras now all i have to do is figure out how to take photos with my camera without relying on auto functions.

[GrandMaster]

once you work out how to change the aperture/shutter speed/iso of your camera, just trial and error
or google to tell you what all the shit does

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by stix
I bought a cheap but good tripod today from plaza cameras now all i have to do is figure out how to take photos with my camera without relying on auto functions.

Good work. You only need a 'cheap' tripod unless you're carrying big, fuck-off super-telephoto lenses around. How much and what brand did you get Tre?

ps. PM'ing you with some sites you might find useful

[syntax]

SLR film cameras are the go, you cant beat the quality and effects, and the somewhat skill to use them.

[stix]

Originally posted by Interjecta
Good work. You only need a 'cheap' tripod unless you're carrying big, fuck-off super-telephoto lenses around. How much and what brand did you get Tre?

ps. PM'ing you with some sites you might find useful

I paid 75$ for a OPTEX trepied t265

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by Syntax
SLR film cameras are the go

Sure, if you can consistently afford the costs of film, processing and don't mind waiting to see your results...

Originally posted by Syntax
you cant beat the quality and effects,

You can beat the quality actually, it's the infinite resolution of film that can't be beaten. But your average person isn't going to be interested in getting 35mm negatives drum scanned and printed at billboard sizes are they? You'll find most major publishers and large magazines with regular outputs of issues (ie. monthly) prefer digital images these days. The main reason is the lack of noise/grain in top-line DSLR's.

Not quite sure what you mean about effects though. Digital cameras are now full of wanky feature/effects, as is software.

Originally posted by Syntax
and the somewhat skill to use them.

There's no difference in skill required to operate a film SLR or a digital SLR. They both require the manual selection of shutter, aperature and ISO speed... ie. you have to know how it all works and the relationships between them in order to use them 'successfully'. The only thing I find more challenging about shooting with a 35mm SLR is manual focusing. Get it *slightly* out and your image is fuckered. But then again, most people use fast, auto-focus lenses *shrug*

Horses for courses...

[bonnie0908]

thanks yeh i use a digi camera, so either no flash, flash, or the night mode.

smoke sucks. they dont have it in as many clubs here tho.

[syntax]

i couldn’t be bothered quoting particulars of your post but

i don’t mind waiting for my results, a the current i usually develop and process my own results so the cost and wait isn’t that great, but for an average user the outlay for a basic slr(which given the correct usage can produce similar if not better quality than a digital camera all really depends on means of scanning) and processing could be less than buying a decent digital SLR with a high end mega pixel reproduction, as it is common to know if you fail to fork out a reasonable amount of money on a digital camera, the results are just plain shite.

i think it would be common sense for magazine to employ a Digital SLR, it does what They want it to do, a photo of high resolution and the subject matter which will relate to the text. In a fashion shoot a medium format camera will be better suited than a digital SLR. But also I found with digital it bring archival problems

But the fact with the SLR is that you can use different film (cross processing and infared to name a few) which used can produce eye catching effects with can never be compared to the dodgy effects used on Photoshop or any other similar software. I personally think you get much more artistic and creative results through a SLR because there really is much more creative foreplay which I don’t think a dSLR will never make ground on.

i think manually focusing boils down to skill without fucking up the image. With auto focus most of the time the camera will never know which point to focus on, i personally hate it and have had much success using my eye and maual focusing on the point i wish to focus on.

i happen to take my photos, develop my photos and then enlarge my photos, and requires a little know how of the process, as getting the pics right is quite a task and needs a bit of skill. as if i fuck it up, the whole roll is gone, but I cant blame john citzen at the 1 hour photo shop with his crappy colour schemes. I have found it gives me complete creative control of what i produce.

But as you say its Horses for courses, I’m glad the longest response ill ever post on here is about photography.

if we are both happy with the results coming out of cameras i guess thats all that matters. or something...

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by Syntax
... correct usage can produce similar if not better quality than a digital camera all really depends on means of scanning

No, your quality comes before the scanning... ie. the quality of lens you use.

Originally posted by Syntax
as it is common to know if you fail to fork out a reasonable amount of money on a digital camera, the results are just plain shite.

Failure to spend a 'reasonable amount'? That's a little harsh, as the lower end of the digital market is aimed at happy-snappers ... not award winning photographers, or aspiring photographic artists. You can get cheap 35mm SLR bodies and kits too...

Originally posted by Syntax
i think it would be common sense for magazine to employ a Digital SLR, it does what They want it to do, a photo of high resolution and the subject matter which will relate to the text. In a fashion shoot a medium format camera will be better suited than a digital SLR. But also I found with digital it bring archival problems

"Does what they want it to do." You hit the nail on the head Monty... that's why people go digital, it does what they want it do to - take photos and give instant results.

In regards to medium format camera for fashion and the like... you obviously haven't seen the digital-back medium format cameras going about these days...

Another reason why magazines and the like prefer digital is all because of archival issues! There's more problems with deteriorating negatives and storage of them than 'digital negatives'. You can store/save/back-up an infinite amount of these as compared to one set of negs.

Originally posted by Syntax
But the fact with the SLR is that you can use different film (cross processing and infared to name a few) which used can produce eye catching effects with can never be compared to the dodgy effects used on Photoshop or any other similar software. I personally think you get much more artistic and creative results through a SLR because there really is much more creative foreplay which I don’t think a dSLR will never make ground on.

You've got to be shitting me! You haven't read up much on DSLR's by the looks of it. Instead of changing films (I'll use infared as an example), you purchase yourself an IR filter for $75 and screw it onto the end of an appropriate lens. I could provide you with bulk gallery URL's with examples... fuck Photoshop effects - as I said before, a DSLR works exactly the same as a 35mm SLR, the only difference is that DSLR's utilise a digital sensor as opposed to a film/negative. All controls and functions are the same!

Originally posted by Syntax
With auto focus most of the time the camera will never know which point to focus on, i personally hate it and have had much success using my eye and maual focusing on the point i wish to focus on.

You definitely don't know how DSLR's work then... depending on the level of DSLR you buy, some will have 5, 7 or more AF points. You can manually select whatever AF point you wish the camera and lens to focus on. You press the shutter halfway to lock focus on your chosen subject or area, and then move the camera to compose your image. Press the shutter all the way and voilà ! You know what - today's film SLR's with auto-focus lenses work in exactly the same manner

Originally posted by Syntax
i happen to take my photos, develop my photos and then enlarge my photos, and requires a little know how of the process, as getting the pics right is quite a task and needs a bit of skill. as if i fuck it up, the whole roll is gone, but I cant blame john citzen at the 1 hour photo shop with his crappy colour schemes. I have found it gives me complete creative control of what i produce.

Totally agree... but digital photography (when shooting in RAW format) is again very similar. You have to know the processes in order to develop your digital negative. I use software called 'C1' by Phase One software. Pretty much becoming industry standard for RAW conversion, etc. It gives you complete control of how you want your image to turn out and you have to know a bit about colours, white balance, levels and contrast, blah blah blah. And you can't lay the blame on anyone if it turns out shit, only yourself. But the good thing is, you still have the digital negative to revert back to and start all over again. What a bonus!

Originally posted by Syntax
But as you say its Horses for courses, I’m glad the longest response ill ever post on here is about photography. If we are both happy with the results coming out of cameras i guess thats all that matters. or something...

Hate making it sound like an argument eh... but a seriously good discussion+topic

[stevene]

craig, can you pm me those sites?

thanks

[Gilbert Grape]

I just got a canon powershot G5

So I thought I'd post a few pics, though i'm no Interjecta when it comes to photgraphy! (someday maybe). These are all around 900kb each, and are jpgs (so a little artifacted).

http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/128_2835.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/128_2848.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/129_2902.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/129_2942.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/129_2979.JPG
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/Images/concorde.jpg
http://members.iinet.net.au/~pproud/.../smallshed.jpg (cool stitched panoramic... the original is 19000x1600 pixels)

[purlin]

that eye one is cool

[badr]

YEa like the needle pic... tis very very good!

[Gilbert Grape]

Yeah, I like taking macro shots. The only thing that pisses me off is there seems to be a dead pixel, which sucks a bit. Only seems to come out at max res though. Need to get onto canon about it.

[Section9]

gherkins

my shots

*shameless plug*

yes im still alive.

That eyeball shot is cool, nice work.

[purlin]

Originally posted by Section9
my shots

i still have you booked for the wedding ok?

[badr]

and yet another photo

[bonnie0908]

some lazer pics

[bonnie0908]

lazers in england are cool. i have lots of pics of picture ppl lazers but they're pretty boring so i wont bother posting.

here is a funny photo of shane and paul instead from same night (renegade vs metalheadz night)

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by Gilbert Grape
I just got a canon powershot G5
So I thought I'd post a few pics, though i'm no Interjecta when it comes to photgraphy!

get off the drugs

Neat little camera those G5trings. How much did you get it for/where from?

If you're worried about the quality of your jpegs, shoot in RAW. Canon's software blows, so use Photoshop RAW II. I'd say use "Capture One" by Phase One software to convert your RAW files but I think they only support Digital SLR cameras at the moment.

The Eye shot is neat. I really like how you managed to get your two hands looking normal when capturing your eye-shadow and the reflections

Look forward to seeing more!

[Interjecta]

Originally posted by Gilbert Grape
... there seems to be a dead pixel, which sucks a bit. Only seems to come out at max res though. Need to get onto canon about it.

If it's only one they probably won't do much about it, however I have heard of Canon allowing a straight swap-over within the first 30 days of purchase... you might get lucky. Just depends who you end up dealing with I suppose.

If they don't do anything about it, suss out Photoshops 'clone' and 'heal' tools. You'll be able to get rid of the pixel with ease

Just a question though, is this dead pixel showing up in every photo you take and in the same spot? or is it only showing up in dark/low-light photos?

[Gilbert Grape]

Same spot, only in the highest res, and seems to come through in all modes (however depending on the subject it may/may not be noticable). And yeah, I'm fine with photoshopping it, and the 30 days was up yesterday It's not really a big deal, it doesn't show up in the 1600 or 1024 modes, which is what I'll use most of the time (excepting macro's and very still shots).