Photography [Archive] - Page 3

shadowfax

Nov 3, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Whazza aperture? have to ask eye or someone else, i don't know for sure. i just know it's a control on my old Canon 35 mm camera that altered the range of focus.

thus, if you took a shot of, say, a pole coming towards you at a 3/4 angle, your aperture would determine how much of the pole would be in focus. if you were, say, 2 feet from the nearest end of the pole, and the pole were 10 feet long, and you focused in on 7 feet, halfway down the pole, and you set your aperture really low, the close and far ends of the pole would be totally out of focus, as would most of the pole. it would only be in focus in the middle, where you had set the focal length. if, on the other hand, you used all the same conditions with a wide aperture, much more if not all of the pole would be in focus.

i could be totally wrong on this, but i believe that's how it works... i don't know if they have this adjustment on your SLR.

tazo

Nov 3, 2003, 11:32 PM

isnt aperture how long the shutter is open? perhaps I am wrong...

And IIRC genie has a nice lowend dlsr [the canon digital rebel] which invariably can control aperture :)

Rower_CPU

Nov 3, 2003, 11:36 PM

shadowfax pretty much has it right, but I'll add my 2 cents so someone can come along and correct me later. ;)

aperture - aka "depth of field", adjusts how much of the image is in focus, in terms of objects near to or far from the camera

shutter - controls how long shutter stays open

eyelikeart

Nov 3, 2003, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
have to ask eye or someone else, i don't know for sure. i just know it's a control on my old Canon 35 mm camera that altered the range of focus.

U are partially right. ;)

Aperture is the opening in the lens that controls how much light is let in. It gets confusing how it works, as the smaller number indicates a larger opening, while a larger number is for a smaller opening; it's typically listed in increments of f4, f5.6, f8, etc (f-stops).

Your depth of field is the distance between your focal point (where u are shooting from) and your subject (the object being focused & shot). A "wide depth of field" is achieved by a small aperture setting, something like f16 or f22. A "shallow depth of field" is achieved by a wider aperture setting, something like f4, f5.6 or f6. Wide depths of field gives more focus to everything in the frame, while a shallow depth of field will isolate the focus to the subject & make things behind it appear blurry.

eyelikeart

Nov 3, 2003, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by tazo
isnt aperture how long the shutter is open? perhaps I am wrong...

u are wrong. ;)

Your shutter speed is how long your shutter is opened. A longer exposure will take a longer shutter time, maybe 1 sec or even 15 secs (depending on your lighting situation). Shorter exposure times are like 1/60 sec, 1/250 sec, 1/2000 sec, etc.

shadowfax

Nov 3, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
U are partially right. ;)

Aperture is the opening in the lens that controls how much light is let in. It gets confusing how it works, as the smaller number indicates a larger opening, while a larger number is for a smaller opening; it's typically listed in increments of f4, f5.6, f8, etc (f-stops).

Your depth of field is the distance between your focal point (where u are shooting from) and your subject (the object being focused & shot). A "wide depth of field" is achieved by a small aperture setting, something like f16 or f22. A "shallow depth of field" is achieved by a wider aperture setting, something like f4, f5.6 or f6. Wide depths of field gives more focus to everything in the frame, while a shallow depth of field will isolate the focus to the subject & make things behind it appear blurry. so numberwise (F-stops) i had it right, but exactly backwards on the actual width of the aperture?

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
u are wrong. ;)

Your shutter speed is how long your shutter is opened. A longer exposure will take a longer shutter time, maybe 1 sec or even 15 secs (depending on your lighting situation). Shorter exposure times are like 1/60 sec, 1/250 sec, 1/2000 sec, etc.

like i said.....I dont think i could even pretend to know anything about photography :p

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2003, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by tazo
like i said.....I dont think i could even pretend to know anything about photography :p

hehe...it's good to know that I've paid enough attention to learn at least something in the last year & a half... ;)

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 12:25 AM

So how do you control aperture? By turning the lens? That's what I do to make a closeup.

shadowfax

Nov 4, 2003, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by Genie
So how do you control aperture? By turning the lens? That's what I do to make a closeup. that's your zoom. you'd have to check your manual about aperture. your camera may adjust it automatically. maybe eye knows, though.....

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Genie
So how do you control aperture? By turning the lens? That's what I do to make a closeup.

I doubt your Rebel has a manual aperture adjustment on the lens. Maybe it does. On a full SLR camera you have an F-stop ring that controls the iris opening. On your digital you probably have to go to digital and then you probably have an assortment of simple manual settings probably on a basic display on the top of the camera. Hopefully they labeled the function F-Stop or something similar so that it's easy for a photographer to identify.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 02:16 AM

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by Genie
Yeah- there's a ring on the very front of the lens. If you go to manual focus and turn that ring, it changes the focus without changing the zoom. Is that ring the aperture adjuster?

No that's just a manual focus. If it has an f-stop ring it will be right at the base of the lens against the camera body.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
No that's just a manual focus. If it has an f-stop ring it will be right at the base of the lens against the camera body.

oops... No mine only seems to have the manual focus and zoom rings...

On the brighter side, several emails in my inbox inform me that I CAN make my lips larger! Yay!:rolleyes: Isn't spam lovely?

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 02:24 AM

Okay on the digital Rebel here's the manual.

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/download/manual.pdf

What you need to know is on page 70.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Okay on the digital Rebel here's the manual.

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/download/manual.pdf

What you need to know is on page 70.

COOL!

I was just thinking: Now where did I put that manual!?

ibookin'

Nov 4, 2003, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
I doubt your Rebel has a manual aperture adjustment on the lens. Maybe it does. On a full SLR camera you have an F-stop ring that controls the iris opening. On your digital you probably have to go to digital and then you probably have an assortment of simple manual settings probably on a basic display on the top of the camera. Hopefully they labeled the function F-Stop or something similar so that it's easy for a photographer to identify.

Many of the newer automatic SLRs like the Rebel have these settings in a menu somewhere. I'm not sure where these would be on your particular camera, though.

A feature that I've come to love on my Nikon F3, which is found on most good cameras, is the depth-of-field preview button. What it does is show you what will be in focus when the shot is taken, rather than what is in focus looking through the viewfinder. When you're looking through the viewfinder, you're seeing through the lens at its lowest f-stop (largest aperture). In this case, you have a very shallow depth of field. Setting the lens to f16 or f22 will correct this, but you're still seeing the shot at the lowest f-stop. Holding down the depth of field preview will make the lens act as if the shutter were being released and make the aperture smaller, so you can see everything that will be in focus when the actual shot is taken.

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by ibookin'
Many of the newer automatic SLRs like the Rebel have these settings in a menu somewhere. I'm not sure where these would be on your particular camera, though.

A feature that I've come to love on my Nikon F3, which is found on most good cameras, is the depth-of-field preview button. What it does is show you what will be in focus when the shot is taken, rather than what is in focus looking through the viewfinder. When you're looking through the viewfinder, you're seeing through the lens at its lowest f-stop (largest aperture). In this case, you have a very shallow depth of field. Setting the lens to f16 or f22 will correct this, but you're still seeing the shot at the lowest f-stop. Holding down the depth of field preview will make the lens act as if the shutter were being released and make the aperture smaller, so you can see everything that will be in focus when the actual shot is taken.

The digital Rebel has the depth of field preview option as well as you can see at this page.

http://www.canoneos.com/digitalrebel/slr/feature4.html

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 02:42 AM

I've got kinda laid back on this thread and that ain't cool as there's some good stuff going around (pictures, not drugs if you were wondering :p )
So I've seen reflectives, sunsets, bugs/animals, flowers,... here are my contributions then to above stated categories:
Sunset (sorry for the crappy jpeg):

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 02:44 AM

reflective (Mirror Lake - Yosemite Nat'l Park):

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 02:45 AM

animal (lizard, duuh):

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 02:47 AM

Flower :

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 02:48 AM

and a bonus:

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 02:51 AM

Beautiful, Dominic!

And thanks for teh manual- I'm learnig a lot!

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by whocares
and a bonus:

This is a great example of the most recent topic about aperture and depth of field. This is a situation where have a wider aperture and focusing on the distant object gives causes the lantern in the distance. For me this give the image depth.

Wardofsky

Nov 4, 2003, 03:36 AM

Yeah, I like the blue behind the lantern...

Fed Square;
http://homepage.mac.com/netgainz/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-11-03%2018.32.35%20-0800/Image-49D751960E6A11D8.jpg

While on holidays;
http://homepage.mac.com/netgainz/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-11-03%2018.32.35%20-0800/Image-49D93E9E0E6A11D8.jpg

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 01:32 PM

Nice work wardo, that sunset is amazing :)

Blackhawk

Nov 4, 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by tazo
me thinks ya forgot the links amigo :)

I am really interested to see some san juan shots (i have lived in seattle for 14 years and still havent really been up there)

actually I have been up around discovery bay which IIRC is around there :)

Sorry about that the photos where to large to be added as attachments, so here is my .mac address http://homepage.mac.com/kissinger/PhotoAlbum2.html the first two photos were shot here in Sacramento and the remaining shots are ones I shot while vacationing on the San juan Islands

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 02:00 PM

beautiful!

Backtothemac

Nov 4, 2003, 05:42 PM

Here is one I took today from the 7i. THANKS EYE!

wdlove

Nov 4, 2003, 05:47 PM

That is trully beautiful Backtothemac. Do you have a great interest in nature?

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is one I took today from the 7i. THANKS EYE!

woah...u got it already? :eek:

glad to see it's being used nicely... ;)

Mr. Anderson

Nov 4, 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is one I took today from the 7i. THANKS EYE!

uh oh a monster is born!

Nice shot chuck!

D

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 05:56 PM

awesome back to the mac! :)

It makes me want to go out and take pictures but the sun is going down :(

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2003, 05:57 PM

sunsets are great also... ;)

but even still...depending on where u are...the warm lighting effect can be quite nice for normal subjects...

Backtothemac

Nov 4, 2003, 06:03 PM

Yea, I really am. I am going to spend the entire day Monday going after some photos. I am so fired up about this camera. I cannot tell you how thankful I am for this eye.

Man, it is like having a Ferrari in the driveway.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
sunsets are great also... ;)

but even still...depending on where u are...the warm lighting effect can be quite nice for normal subjects...

I'll try that tomorrow!

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Genie
I'll try that tomorrow!

do you have a gallery setup, of shots taken with the 300d?

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by tazo
do you have a gallery setup, of shots taken with the 300d?

Hmm... Thanks for asking!

The G5 pics and the pics linked to my "Gear CLoset" were taken with the 300d,... and the entry shot on my website... other than that, I don't think I've posted anything besides here... yet...

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 06:26 PM

continued... I'm trying to figure out how to set my website up using php/mysql, and then I hope to use a gallery...

Any suggestions?...:)

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 06:39 PM

I dont see why ya really need to have a database setup via php or mysql, when you can setup a very simple html-based gallery via iview media or iview media pro (http://iview-multimedia.com)

They have a really great product for managing photos, basic editing, categorizing, and for creating html galleries, slideshows :)

Plus its only 30 dollars for the regular version (mac or pc ) ;)

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I am so fired up about this camera. I cannot tell you how thankful I am for this eye.

Man, it is like having a Ferrari in the driveway.

Just wait till u start doing timed exposures & cool light trickery. ;)

Backtothemac

Nov 4, 2003, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Just wait till u start doing timed exposures & cool light trickery. ;)

Hey, I am lucky that I can turn the thing on. You have to have a degree to work this thing ;)

eyelikeart

Nov 4, 2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Hey, I am lucky that I can turn the thing on. You have to have a degree to work this thing ;)

hehe...before long u will be able to work it without having to look at the dials... ;)

are u using the dimage software or just copying the images from the card?

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
sunsets are great also... ;)

but even still...depending on where u are...the warm lighting effect can be quite nice for normal subjects...

To have a sunset you need to have a sun. Right now and probably for several months the sun will be very rare in the PNW. We mostly have solid overcast this time of year. It's really difficult to get really great photos this time of year so I treasure the days I get.

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
To have a sunset you need to have a sun. Right now and probably for several months the sun will be very rare in the PNW. We mostly have solid overcast this time of year. It's really difficult to get really great photos this time of year so I treasure the days I get.

Did you all in Oregon get that incredible sunset action yesterday? Over in Washington the skies were pink and orange during the sunset hours :)

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by tazo
Did you all in Oregon get that incredible sunset action yesterday? Over in Washington the skies were pink and orange during the sunset hours :)

No, we had some really great sunsets a few weeks ago though. I really love sunsets but I rarely get to photograph them. I hate doing it in town because I don't like powerlines and other man made objects in my photos. When I go camping I'm usually in deep mountain valleys. About the only time I really get to do sunsets is when I'm out at my moms in Christmas Valley.

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
No, we had some really great sunsets a few weeks ago though. I really love sunsets but I rarely get to photograph them. I hate doing it in town because I don't like powerlines and other man made objects in my photos. When I go camping I'm usually in deep mountain valleys. About the only time I really get to do sunsets is when I'm out at my moms in Christmas Valley.

That's a shame....I live about 5 minutes via car and 10 minutes via bus away from the beautiful puget sound, and two different beaches :) It affords me a nice opportunity for sunsets over the water type shots :)

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by tazo
I dont see why ya really need to have a database setup via php or mysql, when you can setup a very simple html-based gallery via iview media or iview media pro (http://iview-multimedia.com)

They have a really great product for managing photos, basic editing, categorizing, and for creating html galleries, slideshows :)

Plus its only 30 dollars for the regular version (mac or pc ) ;)

I compared iview to qpict and I think I liked Qpict better. The guy who wrote qpict likes my music so he gave me a license.

I kinda go back and forth between photoshop and qpict. The only problem is that qpict doesn't seem to "see" photoshop rank. I'm anxious to get Photoshop CS and see if it's brower's as good as Qpict.

I'm holding back on doing alot of gallery stuff because I can't figure out how to update the gallery real easily. I was thinking the php/mysql route would be good for that. whacha think?

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 09:45 PM

Originally posted by Genie
I compared iview to qpict and I think I liked Qpict better. The guy who wrote qpict likes my music so he gave me a license.

I kinda go back and forth between photoshop and qpict. The only problem is that qpict doesn't seem to "see" photoshop rank. I'm anxious to get Photoshop CS and see if it's brower's as good as Qpict.

I'm holding back on doing alot of gallery stuff because I can't figure out how to update the gallery real easily. I was thinking the php/mysql route would be good for that. whacha think?

What about Graphic Converter (http://lemkesoft.com/en/graphcon.htm). It has all the abilities of the programs that you are talking about but is shareware and is almost positively the best photo conversion program on the planet.

Backtothemac

Nov 4, 2003, 09:53 PM

Here is one more of the butterfly.

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is one more of the butterfly.

Those are really nice. Great color. Also nice touch with the focus point on the butterfly.

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Genie
I'm holding back on doing alot of gallery stuff because I can't figure out how to update the gallery real easily. I was thinking the php/mysql route would be good for that. whacha think?

Can get kinda complicated if you start from scratch. There are quite a few PHP/MySQL solutions out there ready to be used. I'm doing one for myself from the bottom up and it can up a lot of time...

Mr. Anderson

Nov 4, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by whocares
Can get kinda complicated if you start from scratch. There are quite a few PHP/MySQL solutions out there ready to be used. I'm doing one for myself from the bottom up and it can up a lot of time...

well, you got any links there? I wouldn't mind using one of those myself....

Thanks,

D

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 10:08 PM

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
What about Graphic Converter (http://lemkesoft.com/en/graphcon.htm). It has all the abilities of the programs that you are talking about but is shareware and is almost positively the best photo conversion program on the planet.

Looks cool- does it do anything Photoshop doesn't? (I already have Poopooshop.)

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Here is one more of the butterfly.

Amazing buttergly shots. Wonder if I culd get something that nice with my digital rebel.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Amazing buttergly shots. Wonder if I culd get something that nice with my digital rebel.

I guess you noticed I type dyslexicly.

Sorry:rolleyes:

whocares

Nov 4, 2003, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
well, you got any links there? I wouldn't mind using one of those myself....

Never used any myself, but know they're around. Here's one:

http://gallery.menalto.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=index

And another one to create a catalog of all the pictures in a folder (it's PHP):

http://www.onlinetools.org/tools/phpimageview.php

If they're rubish, don't flame me :p
If you try them and they're good, give us the feedback. Boy will I feel stupid for spending hours writing my own. At least I learned basic skills at PHP/MySQL;)

Backtothemac

Nov 4, 2003, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by Genie
I guess you noticed I type dyslexicly.

Sorry:rolleyes:

HA! Not a problem at all. I really am new to the digital stuff. I had an old Pentax K1000 that I used in college photo classes. I owe every wonderful picture that I ever take from here out to Eye. This was his Dimage 7i, and he has hooked me up. I am looking forward to learning a lot about it. Genie, you have some great pics that you have posted. I really like them a lot.

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Genie

I'm holding back on doing alot of gallery stuff because I can't figure out how to update the gallery real easily. I was thinking the php/mysql route would be good for that. whacha think?

Well it cant get much easier than adding or removing pictures from the gallery, and reuploading your new gallery ;)

MacBandit

Nov 4, 2003, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Looks cool- does it do anything Photoshop doesn't? (I already have Poopooshop.)

It supports a lot lot more formats.

Imports (http://lemkesoft.com/en/gcabout_formats.htm)

Exports (http://lemkesoft.com/en/gcabout_formats.htm)

I don't know if it's any better than photoshop when it comes to creating the html and layout for a photo page. I do know I like the browse function a lot better. Also it costs about 1/10 as much and the guy programming it is really nice and open to comments and suggestions.

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
It supports a lot lot more formats.

Imports (http://lemkesoft.com/en/gcabout_formats.htm)

Exports (http://lemkesoft.com/en/gcabout_formats.htm)

I don't know if it's any better than photoshop when it comes to creating the html and layout for a photo page. I do know I like the browse function a lot better. Also it costs about 1/10 as much and the guy programming it is really nice and open to comments and suggestions.

Do you know how Graphic COnvertor's browser compares to the new Photoshop CS Browser?

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by tazo
Well it cant get much easier than adding or removing pictures from the gallery, and reuploading your new gallery ;)

THat's a big question I'm dealing with right now- whether to make static pages with some automated, repeatable method, or just switch over to php/mysql...

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
HA! Not a problem at all. I really am new to the digital stuff. I had an old Pentax K1000 that I used in college photo classes. I owe every wonderful picture that I ever take from here out to Eye. This was his Dimage 7i, and he has hooked me up. I am looking forward to learning a lot about it. Genie, you have some great pics that you have posted. I really like them a lot.

Cool- you are gifted... and thank you for the encouragement!

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 11:37 PM

If you are looking for ease, ya gotta go with the html galleries :0

Genie

Nov 4, 2003, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by tazo
If you are looking for ease, ya gotta go with the html galleries :0

So you just have photoshop or whatever automaticallly create a new gallery to replace the old one whenever you want to show off new pictures?

And then if you want special code in the page, you do the extra step or having golive or something insert the code (like, say for your website's navigation?)

tazo

Nov 4, 2003, 11:49 PM

I am somewhat confused genie.

In iview, you have the option to export your gallery as html, to make a html gallery. You edit your gallery within iview's software, re-export as html, and upload that html to your website again to 'update' your gallery.

Personally, I have tried Photoshops, and I didnt care for the designs (in version 7) that I could choose from for the gallery design. It is also harder to add comments within photoshops' gallery making capabilities.

Ultimately it is whatever is quickest for you, as time=time in most cases.

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by tazo
I am somewhat confused genie.

In iview, you have the option to export your gallery as html, to make a html gallery. You edit your gallery within iview's software, re-export as html, and upload that html to your website again to 'update' your gallery.

Personally, I have tried Photoshops, and I didnt care for the designs (in version 7) that I could choose from for the gallery design. It is also harder to add comments within photoshops' gallery making capabilities.

Ultimately it is whatever is quickest for you, as time=time in most cases.

see below

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 01:13 AM

That's probably what I should try, Tazo...

Photoshop 7 has very limited capabilities to, say, insert custom html into the pages, for instance, the site navigation so the pages work well within your website.
An example of this is in my G5 pics (link below), the Genie Lamp logo in the upper left corner was inserted using a GoLive "bulk search and replace", AFTER Photoshop created the gallery.
This extra step makes it slightly more cumbersome to make and update a gallery fast.

Do you have a gallery you've created using iview?

whocares

Nov 5, 2003, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by Genie
THat's a big question I'm dealing with right now- whether to make static pages with some automated, repeatable method, or just switch over to php/mysql...

I'll re-iterate my post a couple of lines up. This solution should meet your needs:

http://www.onlinetools.org/tools/phpimageview.php

If I understand correctly, just add some photos to a folder, and voilà, you have a web-based catalog of your folders. Wonna add or remove some pics? just remove/add from the folder... I've never tried it myself though and I guess you need minimum knowledge of PHP. BTW thanx Rower_CPU for the link.

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by whocares
I'll re-iterate my post a couple of lines up. This solution should meet your needs:

http://www.onlinetools.org/tools/phpimageview.php

If I understand correctly, just add some photos to a folder, and voilà, you have a web-based catalog of your folders. Wonna add or remove some pics? just remove/add from the folder... I've never tried it myself though and I guess you need minimum knowledge of PHP. BTW thanx Rower_CPU for the link.

Yeah- I was checking that out- looks very cool! Also that "gallery" thing looks good.

It owuld be cool if I could just drop my photoshop files in there and it would generate whatever size/resolution the person wanted to see.

That would be cool for music too- just drop your aiff's into a folder and people could get realaudio, mp3, wma, whatever bit rate they wanted, et c...

whocares

Nov 5, 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Genie
It owuld be cool if I could just drop my photoshop files in there and it would generate whatever size/resolution the person wanted to see.

That would be cool for music too- just drop your aiff's into a folder and people could get realaudio, mp3, wma, whatever bit rate they wanted, et c...

The size of pictures should be quite feasable. Just add in a couple of lines to either adjust screen out-put size or even recreate a new picture file or desired resolution from the original (PHP has image creation functions, quite nifty).

I don't know however if it could create mp3, wma, etc. But I could sure work the same way as the pics for a 'tunes library: just drop them in a folder and bob's your uncle. Major tweaking of the pre-wrtitten could though.

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by whocares
The size of pictures should be quite feasable. Just add in a couple of lines to either adjust screen out-put size or even recreate a new picture file or desired resolution from the original (PHP has image creation functions, quite nifty).

Ueah- this looks like a majorly cool thing to get into... I was just reading teh Gallery FAQ- Gallery looks pretty well-developed.. I wonder if phpimageview is better?

Also imagemagick looked cool- I think this integrates with Gallery.

Originally posted by whocares

I don't know however if it could create mp3, wma, etc. But I could sure work the same way as the pics for a 'tunes library: just drop them in a folder and bob's your uncle. Major tweaking of the pre-wrtitten could though.

I know that there are some really expensive softwares that do this with audio - I read about them a few years ago- maybe they're coming down in price?

whocares

Nov 5, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Genie
I know that there are some really expensive softwares that do this with audio - I read about them a few years ago- maybe they're coming down in price?

Audio stuff is way beyond my scope of knowledge... I just checked the PHP user reference, no audio functions...

Yeah, PHP is a really cool scripting language, real easy if you have prior programming experience (no need to be an expert though) and realy lets you do *loads* of stuff.

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by whocares
Audio stuff is way beyond my scope of knowledge... I just checked the PHP user reference, no audio functions...

Yeah, PHP is a really cool scripting language, real easy if you have prior programming experience (no need to be an expert though) and realy lets you do *loads* of stuff.

Two questions- do you think that it's as "search-engine friendly" as plain old html?

And do you think it's pretty much as fast (as the user experiences load times)?

whocares

Nov 5, 2003, 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Genie
Two questions- do you think that it's as "search-engine friendly" as plain old html?

And do you think it's pretty much as fast (as the user experiences load times)?

Do you mean would your pages show up in a google search? Sure they would, search engines will see the parsed PHP pages, ie solely consisting of html (+ jscripts, css, etc). The only difference is the .php extension.

And I don't think the speed should be a concern. Most of the load times will be taken up by the images. Parsing the scripts is really quick. I can't tell it's there on the site I'm developing and my code is probably really bad;)
Check it out:
http://209.189.251.76/~dom/dynamic/view.php?recent_rating=Best+Rated&cat=

There should be some broken links to pictures and if I turn my comp off, well it's all gone then till tomorrow;)

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 02:26 AM

Very cool!

May I ask why you decided to write your own code rather than use Gallery or the othere pre-made solution?

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 02:28 AM

Interesting- it looks like you're using Golive to create the php gallery?

That's what I'm using!

whocares

Nov 5, 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Genie
Very cool!

May I ask why you decided to write your own code rather than use Gallery or the othere pre-made solution?

[feels stupid]
Didn't go out to look for pre-existing solutions, did I?. A bit lazy, I guess. Bit me in the butt 'cause I ended up spending more time :p
[/feels stupid]

I also wanted to learn PHP/MySQL and it gives me the liberty to do exactly what I want. Even if you use Gallery, learn basic PHP so you can tweak it as you wish.

Yeah, I am using GoLive, but I've given up trying to use it to create dynamic content. Just coudn't set it up right. So I just use it to create most of the page and add the php stuff as source code.

tazo

Nov 5, 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Genie
That's probably what I should try, Tazo...

Photoshop 7 has very limited capabilities to, say, insert custom html into the pages, for instance, the site navigation so the pages work well within your website.
An example of this is in my G5 pics (link below), the Genie Lamp logo in the upper left corner was inserted using a GoLive "bulk search and replace", AFTER Photoshop created the gallery.
This extra step makes it slightly more cumbersome to make and update a gallery fast.

Do you have a gallery you've created using iview?

Yeah, but I havent had time to add my links to the bottom of the indexes, or edit any of the comments, so its a bit barebones as of now:

http://photopacifica.com

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by tazo
Yeah, but I havent had time to add my links to the bottom of the indexes, or edit any of the comments, so its a bit barebones as of now:

http://photopacifica.com

Very nice!

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I owe every wonderful picture that I ever take from here out to Eye. This was his Dimage 7i, and he has hooked me up. I am looking forward to learning a lot about it.

Just hit me up whenever. I spent a year with that camera, and learned a lot from it.

I never really used the time elapse feature though, so let me know if u do. ;)

Backtothemac

Nov 5, 2003, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Just hit me up whenever. I spent a year with that camera, and learned a lot from it.

I never really used the time elapse feature though, so let me know if u do. ;)

Well last night I was trying to take some pictures, and the little shakky hand thing was showing, and when I would snap a pic, it would take a couple of seconds for the shutter to sound. So, every pic was blurry. I think it is set for a delay on the shutter, but alas, I cannot figure it out. I will be mailing you something next week.

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2003, 04:01 PM

well first off...

get a tripod if u don't have one already... ;)

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 04:14 PM

tazo

Nov 5, 2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by Genie
Very nice!

you mean my pictures are very nice or the gallery software is? :P

Backtothemac

Nov 5, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
well first off...

get a tripod if u don't have one already... ;)

LOL. Yea, I need to do that, but I have to pay off a thing or two first ;)

Thanks Genie, I will try that. Actually, one of the pics was cool, because I did not realize that the exposure was doing what it was doing, and the pic was of the moon, and everything stayed still for the most part, but the moon. It was really wierd.

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2003, 06:10 PM

here's a few from last night... ;)

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2003, 06:11 PM

another...

eyelikeart

Nov 5, 2003, 06:12 PM

and one more...

MacBandit

Nov 5, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well last night I was trying to take some pictures, and the little shakky hand thing was showing, and when I would snap a pic, it would take a couple of seconds for the shutter to sound. So, every pic was blurry. I think it is set for a delay on the shutter, but alas, I cannot figure it out. I will be mailing you something next week.

Here's a couple of tricks I use for shooting in the dark. First off turn on the timer. Set it for around 2 secs. This will prevent you from fudging the photo when you press the button. Second try holding your breath while wedging your elbows into your chest and holding the camera against your eye. Finally if those don't work find any object you can set it on and carry some change to wedge under it to level it or prop it up.

Between bracing and the timer trick you can get some great photos. The cave photo I posted on the last photo was a 3 sec exposure I just set the camera on a rock and leveled it with some pebbles. I then set the timer and pressed the button and pulled my hands away so I wouldn't bump it while it took the photo. It's amazing what you can do with a little ingenuity and a little point and shoot Canon S230.

Genie

Nov 5, 2003, 09:53 PM

Good tips, MacBandit!

tazo

Nov 6, 2003, 09:07 PM

Yeah! I now have $300 going towards saving up for a digital rebel and needed accessories :) Only 900 more to go ;)

But I am still applying for jobs so who knows what will happen :)

Wardofsky

Nov 7, 2003, 12:02 AM

I like to try out time lapses, this one doesn't count though.
I think the best shutter speed for getting the blurs of car lights is 2-4 seconds.

In terms of using a tripod, didn't have one at the time so I just got a wheelie bin and rested it on that. :)

MacBandit

Nov 7, 2003, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Wardofsky
In terms of using a tripod, didn't have one at the time so I just got a wheelie bin and rested it on that. :)

Use what you have. After a while you'll get really good at it and the tripod will seem almost useless unless you are doing family photos.

Wardofsky

Nov 7, 2003, 12:28 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Use what you have. After a while you'll get really good at it and the tripod will seem almost useless unless you are doing family photos.

Heh heh, speaking of using what I have on hand.
I once used my friends shoulder :)

http://homepage.mac.com/netgainz/.cv/netgainz/Sites/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-06-12%2005.53.38%20-0700/Image-3BA073B29CD311D7.jpg-thumb_269_202.jpg
http://homepage.mac.com/netgainz/public/PhotoAlbum46.html

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 12:59 AM

Nice shots Wardofsky! :D

I really dig the composition of that time exposure on the wheel bin. The slight tilting of it gives it a whole new perspective & makes the scene even more interesting. ;)

Genie

Nov 7, 2003, 01:09 AM

You all are being so artistic!

All I have are 200 shots of me dismantling and reassembling a toilet.

WOuld you like to see that?

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 01:12 AM

Originally posted by Genie
You all are being so artistic!

All I have are 200 shots of me dismantling and reassembling a toilet.

WOuld you like to see that?

let's see some toilet action... ;)

MacBandit

Nov 7, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by Wardofsky
I like to try out time lapses, this one doesn't count though.
I think the best shutter speed for getting the blurs of car lights is 2-4 seconds.

In terms of using a tripod, didn't have one at the time so I just got a wheelie bin and rested it on that. :)

What ISO speed were you using it seems kind of grainy. With my little S230 I try not to shoot anything less than 100. I just set it for a longer exposure if I have to. The ISO to graininess ration will be different though for every camera so you have to experiment.

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 01:31 AM

here's something I grabbed yesterday near my house...

Wardofsky

Nov 7, 2003, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
What ISO speed were you using it seems kind of grainy. With my little S230 I try not to shoot anything less than 100. I just set it for a longer exposure if I have to. The ISO to graininess ration will be different though for every camera so you have to experiment.

The grain is from the image compression, it's a much larger file and when it gets compressed (I aim for under 100k) it looses quality.

200, and it's on film.

The hi res image;
http://home.iprimus.com.au/netgainz/hi.jpg

Wardofsky

Nov 7, 2003, 01:35 AM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
here's something I grabbed yesterday near my house...

Funky pic, nice place to have a house. ;)
Is that a river or something?

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Wardofsky
Funky pic, nice place to have a house. ;)
Is that a river or something?

thanker... ;)

there's a lake near here...that's just the corner of it...kinda swampy actually...

Doctor Q

Nov 7, 2003, 02:00 AM

Here's a car closeup where I was trying to get the tree four times - in the shady close part of the hood, thru the hood ornament in the sun, in the windshield, and directly. A few depth of field and focus variations might have been worth a try, but I wasn't that clever. Still, I like how it turned out.

Genie

Nov 7, 2003, 02:25 AM

nice stuff!

Blackhawk

Nov 7, 2003, 10:55 AM

I agree, I've seen some very nice photos out there. Here is one I took recently just down the street at a near by preserve.:) :)

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 11:00 AM

Nice shot, any reason why its so small?

D

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 11:13 AM

very nice shot... ;)

those colors are great...I love it when the sunset plays games like that with the atmosphere...

Blackhawk

Nov 7, 2003, 11:16 AM

No actually I'm using a new application to reduce the size of some of my images and I didn't know it was going to turn out so small. I've attached a larger version.

MacBandit

Nov 7, 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Wardofsky
The grain is from the image compression, it's a much larger file and when it gets compressed (I aim for under 100k) it looses quality.

200, and it's on film.

The hi res image;
http://home.iprimus.com.au/netgainz/hi.jpg

It's not the compression artifacts I'm noticing. Even the high rez version has the same amount of grain. What speed film and what kind of film are you using?

MacBandit

Nov 7, 2003, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Blackhawk
No actually I'm using a new application to reduce the size of some of my images and I didn't know it was going to turn out so small. I've attached a larger version.

Are you using GraphicConverter?

Blackhawk

Nov 7, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Are you using GraphicConverter?

No, I'm currently using an application called Kropper which I downloaded from Macupdate the other day. Seems to be a quick and easy app. to use.

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 01:20 PM

Recent shot I took last night. :)

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Recent shot I took last night. :)

nice shot!

what were your settings, if u don't mind? ;)

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
nice shot!

what were your settings, if u don't mind? ;)

Well, I used the Nikon 24-85 f3.5/4.5 G lens. Which is awesome.

I was at 1.6" shutter speed at f8. That lens is SUPER sharp from f8/9-f16.

I think my WB was set at Tungsten and +2 (cooler) i think. Whatever the cooler setting is.

Um. ISO 200. manual mode. 58mm focal length. Abotu 8 oclock at night.

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 01:29 PM

Anuffa one.

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 01:30 PM

Nice shot Moxie - although it might be a little too tough to do, but a single car driving the whole length through the curve might have been a little more interesting. Having no control over that, you'd probably be sitting there for a while before you got the shot ;)

D

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Nice shot Moxie - although it might be a little too tough to do, but a single car driving the whole length through the curve might have been a little more interesting. Having no control over that, you'd probably be sitting there for a while before you got the shot ;)

D

Yea. I was hoping for that. I was there for like, 20 minutes. And I gave up on that idea when I saw this one, with the left lane car switching lanes.

That said, I repented and got the bus entering the bridge above on the second try. :)

Yea. Timing is everything. And we think this stuff if tough, but imagine what it was like for Ansel, waiting a whole year to get a certain angle of light in Yosemite. It borders on ridiculous!

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 01:41 PM

aahhh, I like the bridge a lot better, got the lights going most of the way, nice one! :D

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
aahhh, I like the bridge a lot better, got the lights going most of the way, nice one! :D

Yea. The lights were easier--short distance to travel through the frame (extreme close wide angle) and the exposure time was about the same.

I do like curves of the first one. But this one is a much better shot overall.

Eye-- I shot the second one with that 18-35 I think you need to get at some point. :) Crispy!

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
Eye-- I shot the second one with that 18-35 I think you need to get at some point. :) Crispy!

That bridge is hot! :D

And I've been going over wide angle options a lot lately...u should know. ;)

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 02:14 PM

I've been looking at this 15-30 Sigma lens for my Canon - not a bad piece of glass and it gives me the range that I'm missing and will work well with what ever digital SLR I end up getting (I should say digital Canon SLR ;) )

D

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 02:22 PM

Still thinking of the 10D Mr. A?

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I've been looking at this 15-30 Sigma lens for my Canon - not a bad piece of glass and it gives me the range that I'm missing and will work well with what ever digital SLR I end up getting (I should say digital Canon SLR ;) )

D

There's one guy on the dpreview forum who SWEARS by the sigma 15-35 or whatever. Loves it. But... you should consider sigma's new 12-24. Will work on a film SLR at like, 18-24 and will be an 18-36 on yoru canon when you get it

Similar in price too. Though the 12-24 is a bit slow.

I'd avoid the canon wide angle lenses and go Sigma for sure. Canon's wide angles have been pokey at best. Now their 70-200 IS on the other hand....

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Still thinking of the 10D Mr. A?

Absolutely - but I think I will be waiting on February - that and the Rev B. G5.....;)

Money? Who needs money, money is for spending.....

D

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Absolutely - but I think I will be waiting on February - that and the Rev B. G5.....;)

Money? Who needs money, money is for spending.....

D

I think feb will probably bring a 20d or something. So keep hitting refresh on dpreview.com before buying a 10d. :)

I'm guessing the next gen on that will be an 8 or 10 mp cmos. Should be interesting

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 02:40 PM

it would be very interesting...I'm curious to see what next year brings us...

badges? we don't need no stinkin' badges!

whocares

Nov 7, 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
And we think this stuff if tough, but imagine what it was like for Ansel, waiting a whole year to get a certain angle of light in Yosemite. It borders on ridiculous!

Sigh... I wish I could be that rediculous :rolleyes:

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by whocares
Sigh... I wish I could be that rediculous :rolleyes:

I think you misinterpreted. It's ridiculous the heights one can go to get a shot.

It's so detailed oriented. ansel once said that if you get one amazing shot in a year, you're doing very good

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I think feb will probably bring a 20d or something. So keep hitting refresh on dpreview.com before buying a 10d. :)

I'm guessing the next gen on that will be an 8 or 10 mp cmos. Should be interesting

8 or so is what I'm guessing - also the 1.6 multiplier might go down to 1.4 or so, which would be nice, especially for those wide angle shots ;)

But I definitely will be waiting till the big show in February - it just seems like its got to happen, especially with the 300D out there that competes too closely for the 10D.

D

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
8 or so is what I'm guessing - also the 1.6 multiplier might go down to 1.4 or so, which would be nice, especially for those wide angle shots ;)

But I definitely will be waiting till the big show in February - it just seems like its got to happen, especially with the 300D out there that competes too closely for the 10D.

D

i don't think canon is gonna go down in multiplier on that end, as they're releasing "dx" digital lenses to take advantage of the 1.6x crop.... the 18-55 with the 300d and a 55-200 thats basically a 70-300

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 03:35 PM

Damn, I have a lot to learn. Eye, do they have a DiMage 7i for dummies book?

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Damn, I have a lot to learn. Eye, do they have a DiMage 7i for dummies book?

www.alldimage.com will link you to some interesting sites.

whocares

Nov 7, 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
I think you misinterpreted. It's ridiculous the heights one can go to get a shot.

It's so detailed oriented. ansel once said that if you get one amazing shot in a year, you're doing very good

I think *you* mesinterpreted me :p

I wish I could spend a whole year at Yosemite waiting for that perfect shot ;)

And if I were to get at least one amazing shot per year, I'd be ecstatic. Sure I get some good shots, but nothing spectacular...

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Moxiemike
www.alldimage.com will link you to some interesting sites.

Good site. I was turned onto it last year around this time. ;)

So u doing anything more with it yet B2TM?

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by whocares
I wish I could spend a whole year at Yosemite waiting for that perfect shot ;)

I spent a weekend in Yosemite - unbelievable scenery. I have some good pics, but nothing Anslesque.

I'd love to go back, and I'd wait there a year myself for the shot, it'd be worth it.

Got to love dpreview.com ;)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/Images/canonsensors.jpg

If they keep a new cmos chip at the same res on the chip, but increase the pixels - 6 to 8, for example, then you'd get a larger area to capture the image and reduce the multiplication factor. Its an easier thing (cheaper too) to make the chip bigger than make the pixels smaller.

Just my speculation......

D

whocares

Nov 7, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I spent a weekend in Yosemite - unbelievable scenery. I have some good pics, but nothing Anslesque.

I'd love to go back, and I'd wait there a year myself for the shot, it'd be worth it.

I spent about 10 days there 5 years ago and have been wanting to go back ever since. A few good shots but nothing spectacular. Maybe this spring, just maybe :)
Oh, and I would rank A. Adams as my #1 favourite photographer, hands down.

Whilst in California, also went to Death Valley. Now that's a great place to get some real dramatic sceneries! The colours of the rock formations are just unbeliveable...

To keep up with the digital SLR discussion, I'm wanting a Nikon - the D100 would be the closest to my budget. I already have quite a few Nikkor lenses and thus need a Nikon digital. But that's ok because I think they make really cameras... And yes Mr. Anderson, money is there for spending, but I need some in the first place so I can do some serious spending ;)

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Good site. I was turned onto it last year around this time. ;)

So u doing anything more with it yet B2TM?

Well, we had bad weather here for a couple of days, and I have been working. Monday, I am going nuts, and I am going to try to get some pictures of the lunar eclipse tomorrow night. What I have learned is that in low light, the shutter speed is slow, and shakky.

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 05:51 PM

U need a tripod. Go to WalMart & spend $30 on something decent, it'll help u out.

I did pretty well with low light settings though. Are u using the flash any? How are u shooting? Program or Manual?

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
U need a tripod. Go to WalMart & spend $30 on something decent, it'll help u out.

I did pretty well with low light settings though. Are u using the flash any? How are u shooting? Program or Manual?

I am trying to avoid using the flash in a lot of situations. I think it is on program ;)

I got a tripod last night, and a case for it too ;)

tazo

Nov 7, 2003, 06:51 PM

I was wondering if there is any difference between these 300 dollar tripods at ritz and the 30 dollar type at say your local megastore? I was playing with a 30 dollar model, it was only like 2 lbs, had a nice handle, telescoping legs, folded up easily, had a raisable neck with a handle to turn it up with. Why is that 30 dollars and then a bigger heavier and less useful one 300 dollars?

Moxiemike

Nov 7, 2003, 06:56 PM

Huge difference. You have adjustability. So you can do a lot more with a $300 tripod. Ball heads allow you to have easier control over the way you position your cam. Carbon Fiber (expensive) allow for lightness that's crucial when carrying on a hike. BUt the carbon fiber lightness doesn't translate into loss of sturdiness–rather the opposite. They can hold loads better and allow for photography in windier conditions. You won't have to worry about watching your cam blow away like dorothy in the Wiz of Oz. :)

That said, if you have a P&S or a cam like the 7i (with a small light lens and body) you can do well with a less expensive tripod.

But as the D100 and heavier machines go, you DEFINITELY want to invest i a better tripod. You don't really NEED a $300 jobbie. A nice $100 bogen manfortto will do you nicely.

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 10:32 PM

Some will hate this, but I thought it was cool.

Mr. Anderson

Nov 7, 2003, 11:16 PM

Chuck, that's fantastic - you've taken a great night shot and managed to get excellent detail in the shadows!

What was the shutter speed on that one?

D

whocares

Nov 7, 2003, 11:17 PM

what is there to hate in that pic? I think to composition is good and the lighting (or lack of) sets the right atmosphere.

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 11:41 PM

I had it at ISO 100. That is shutter speed right? I am truely just getting lucky I think. I have to learn about ISO, P or M or S, or something else. Shutter speed, Appeture, all these fancy lens settings. Man, I have a massive amount of stuff to learn.

Definately not my HP 318i or Kodak 4320.

:)

Oh, and guys, thanks for the props on me being lucky!

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 11:43 PM

Here are a few more that I have played with. I am having to take 10 to get 2 good ones. I am just playing with the settings to learn.

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 11:44 PM

opps.

Backtothemac

Nov 7, 2003, 11:45 PM

Last

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I had it at ISO 100. That is shutter speed right? I am truely just getting lucky I think. I have to learn about ISO, P or M or S, or something else. Shutter speed, Appeture, all these fancy lens settings. Man, I have a massive amount of stuff to learn.

hehe...

ISO is your film speed. ISO 100 & 200 work best on that camera, although 400 & 800 are "ideal" for those type of shots. Look a few pages back for an explanation on what aperture & shutter speed is. ;)

A = Aperture Priority
S = Shutter Priority
M = Manual Mode
P = Auto Multi Program

I'd explain them all, but u should read back a few pages to get the idea of how aperture & shutter speed work together. ;)

eyelikeart

Nov 7, 2003, 11:54 PM

btw...

that first night shot was great Chuck! :D

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 12:03 AM

Wow, just got these two. So for night, you would go 400 or 800. With a shutter speed priority?

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 12:05 AM

My new favorite picture

eyelikeart

Nov 8, 2003, 12:06 AM

There's no one way to do it. Basically what will happen is your shots will get grainier & noisier with the higher ISO settings (400 & 800). I used to stick to 100 & 200 all the time to help decrease the chance of grainy photos.

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 12:08 AM

Cool. Will do. Man, this is so addictive. I can't imagine a better drug than photography.

eyelikeart

Nov 8, 2003, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Cool. Will do. Man, this is so addictive. I can't imagine a better drug than photography.

sex

ok...I wouldn't say totally better... ;)

tazo

Nov 8, 2003, 12:24 AM

It really sucks....Yesterday was of course a full moon, and in my part of Washington the sky was just an incredible mixture of pinks and oranges, leading up to a gradient of light blue that was the upper sky. The moon was a light-white hue, in clear contrast to the natural rainbow occuring behind it. Unfortunately I didnt have a camera :( It would have been a cool shot to see a moon@sunset shot :)

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
sex

ok...I wouldn't say totally better... ;)

Well, photography is like sex in that it doesn't matter if you are good, as long as you have fun ;)

Tazo, that sucks man, I saw the same moonrise at sunset here in Alabama yesterday.

Genie

Nov 8, 2003, 01:06 AM

Back to the mac, those night shots are awesome. Are they unaltered? Did you use any extra lights or just a long exposure? THey have a magical quality - my director wants to know how much you charge to do cinematography :)

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Genie
Back to the mac, those night shots are awesome. Are they unaltered? Did you use any extra lights or just a long exposure? THey have a magical quality - my director wants to know how much you charge to do cinematography :)

They are totally unaltered. I used the light off of closeby streetlights to frame them. I am going to go nuts tomorrow night during the eclipse.

Hey, and I am free when it comes to cinematography ;)

MacBandit

Nov 8, 2003, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by tazo
It really sucks....Yesterday was of course a full moon, and in my part of Washington the sky was just an incredible mixture of pinks and oranges, leading up to a gradient of light blue that was the upper sky. The moon was a light-white hue, in clear contrast to the natural rainbow occuring behind it. Unfortunately I didnt have a camera :( It would have been a cool shot to see a moon@sunset shot :)

This is the reason I have the Canon S230. It's always with me.

I may have to think about a new camera. These night photos that Moxie and Backtothemac are taking are so nice they look almost computer generated.

These are my favorite night shots. Though granted they are taken in near complete darkness with no street lights or anything so I really don't know how well the camera will do on a lighted city street.

http://homepage.mac.com/louiskst/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-08-05%2010.31.51%20-0700/Image-3F29D674C76A11D7.jpg

http://homepage.mac.com/louiskst/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-08-05%2010.31.51%20-0700/Image-3F2A62B0C76A11D7.jpg

I also have a couple photos of Saturn but they could have turned out better as it was the first weekend I had the camera and I didn't know quite how it worked yet.

MacBandit

Nov 8, 2003, 02:07 AM

This is one of my favorite past times to do with long exposure photographs.

http://homepage.mac.com/louiskst/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-08-05%2010.31.51%20-0700/Image-3F2A50DEC76A11D7.jpg

Genie

Nov 8, 2003, 02:11 AM

Cool stuff... no way I can post my toilet fixing pictures now...

Wardofsky

Nov 8, 2003, 02:17 AM

I never really understood how there could be speeds in digital, what chemicals are there?? ;)

Then again, I'm a young old school filmie...

Bandit, I'm guessing that you're digital...
The slight grain is possible film grain (It's scanned in from the negative). It's 200 Superia (Fuji).
--------

Here's an interesting article...
(Scroll down past the comments entry boxes)
http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=P1140_0_1_0

MacBandit

Nov 8, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by Wardofsky
I never really understood how there could be speeds in digital, what chemicals are there?? ;)

Then again, I'm a young old school filmie...

Bandit, I'm guessing that you're digital...
The slight grain is possible film grain (It's scanned in from the negative). It's 200 Superia (Fuji).
--------

Here's an interesting article...
(Scroll down past the comments entry boxes)
http://www.photographyblog.com/comments.php?id=P1140_0_1_0

I grew up on film but I didn't shoot for several years because a) the camera was a pain to pack around and b) because it kept eating my film. I had been looking at cameras film and digital for a couple years when my father bought me the S230 last year for my birthday. Since then I don't think I could ever do the film thing again unless it was large format.

tazo

Nov 8, 2003, 03:33 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Tazo, that sucks man, I saw the same moonrise at sunset here in Alabama yesterday.

Than ya know what a shame it is that I didnt have a camera to atleast attempt a shot at it :o :(

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 08:45 PM

Here are a few of the eclipse at full status

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 08:45 PM

another

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 08:46 PM

another one

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 08:47 PM

last for now

Sayhey

Nov 8, 2003, 09:05 PM

Beautiful! thanks, B2TM!

Genie

Nov 8, 2003, 09:26 PM

awesome shots- is the eclipse over?

Mr. Anderson

Nov 8, 2003, 09:42 PM

Great shots b2tm! I didn't get any good ones myself, my little digital doesn't have that great a zoom:(

Its too bad it didn't rise during the eclipse, that would have been much better.

D

wdlove

Nov 8, 2003, 09:49 PM

I enjoy your awesome pictures Backtothemac. Thank you for posting. I missed seeing the total eclipse myself. Seeing it with the naked eye just isn't the same. The eclipse is almost over here in Boston at 9:50pm EST.

tazo

Nov 8, 2003, 10:32 PM

back, the moon parts of the photos are awesome, but I would crop them agressively, lets say like the one with the red moon. You can crop that to put it in the top right of a smaller crop....

erm i would have to post an example, but there is just too much black imo....

tazo

Nov 8, 2003, 10:35 PM

Here is an example of what i was thinking of...

tazo

Nov 8, 2003, 10:47 PM

Another...

Backtothemac

Nov 8, 2003, 11:51 PM

oooo, Yea, I like that. That is really nice. I will do the bunch. I am getting .Mac again, so I will have a ton of pictures up there on a regular basis.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 12:06 AM

Yeah, I just thought with all that black, it was taking away from the main focal point: that incredible moon.

They are all awesome shots, but with some agressive, somewhat unorthodox cropping they can be better :)

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:37 AM

Well, i've got a problem here. you see, i have not tripod!

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:41 AM

however, i was able to get some decent shots in the library on friday. i've been in our library before, but it's generally a pretty dull place. big, open, wide spaces between the stacks... and then i found the coolest place ever in the southeast end. these levels are 1/2 height, with crude metal staircases going from floor to floor... i have to bend down slightly not to hit the light fixtures... and the floors are translucent! ha!Q how cool is that?

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:43 AM

as a sort of corollary of that, the ceilings are too....

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:45 AM

fortunately for me though, my dad came up here from Austin this weekend, and we went in to Oklahoma City this weekend. i got a tripod!

it's been raining all night, though, so i haven't had a chance to really play with it outside. but here are a couple using it:

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:45 AM

family photo... you really get the depth of field sense in this one, eh?

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:48 AM

this was through my windshield tonight...

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:48 AM

and finally, probably the worst one, here's a shot of our football stadium.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 12:52 AM

heh I liked the first ones, ghost books anyone?

The other pictures arent exactly my style ;)

Thanks for posting shadow...and continuing the 'photography' legacy ;) :):)

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by tazo
heh I liked the first ones, ghost books anyone?

The other pictures arent exactly my style ;)

Thanks for posting shadow...and continuing the 'photography' legacy ;) :):) i love the library photos. i'm going back there with my tripod this week. there's also a "great reading room" in our library that is the most beautiful room on campus--it's where the theses of all the graduates are kept. wonderful place, i'll get some shots of it.

as for the others... i agree with you for the most part. i really liked the one of the picture frame. i set it up poorly, but i like the color and definition of the frame. the rest aren't really worth mentioning though.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 01:24 AM

I think to use a tripod would sort of destory the interesting ghost look ya created by having a somewhat shaky hand.

There is nothing focallly interesting in the 1st shots, except that the books seem to be possessed. Almost like ghosts came in and were moving the books :) But other than that it is just a book shelf...

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by tazo
I think to use a tripod would sort of destory the interesting ghost look ya created by having a somewhat shaky hand.

There is nothing focallly interesting in the 1st shots, except that the books seem to be possessed. Almost like ghosts came in and were moving the books :) But other than that it is just a book shelf... nah, i think that the books are ghostly, as you say, more because that is the atmosphere of the stacks... it's very boxed in, dry, almost surreal in a way.

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 01:58 AM

Here's one of my photos of the last eclipse as seen through my telescope.

http://homepage.mac.com/louiskst/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2003-05-16%2023.56.39%20-0700/Image-5A3D26F6883411D7.jpg

I couldn't seen this eclipse at all do to heavy overcast and come to think of it missed most of the last one due to clouds.

This one would have been awesome though as it would have reached totality just a few minutes after rising over the mountains here where I live.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 02:01 AM

nice shot macbandit...wish i could have seen the eclipse...

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 03:05 AM

Originally posted by tazo
nice shot macbandit...wish i could have seen the eclipse...

What really sucks is that I had my telescope torn apart for the first half of the year and ever since then every time I have a chance to take it out it's been cloudy, rainy, or too cold. On top of that I picked up a camera mount to hold my camera to the eyepiece so I can get more photos and haven't had the chance to use it.

Genie

Nov 9, 2003, 03:27 AM

I like the foot ball stadioum- it look s as if something sppooky is going on there!

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 03:48 AM

Originally posted by Genie
I like the foot ball stadioum- it look s as if something sppooky is going on there! speaking of that stadium, can one of you experts-in-residence tell me what that half-circle is on the left side? is that just a slight lens flare?

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 12:30 PM

i think it has something to do with the lighting...

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 12:43 PM

nice shots Chuck! :)

I managed to get a few outside the restaurant before going in for dinner last night.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 12:48 PM

nice shots eye, but again, the cropping issue...

I thing to just have disproportionate amounts of black on the sides is visually unappealing...

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 12:52 PM

While u have a point, I'm not that concerned with the cropping so much. I'm more happy with the fact that the shot came out at all. ;)

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 01:01 PM

There is always improvement no? Then again I shouldnt really be giving out advice ;)

Rower_CPU

Nov 9, 2003, 02:32 PM

My eclipse shots:
http://organicallydigital.com/photos/eclipse_11_08_03/index.html

I was having a bit too much fun with the longer exposures and the freeway traffic to get many clear shots of the moon, plus it was in some light clouds which made it bloom on longer exposures. There was lots of plane traffic, too, which made some cool effects.

The last shot is zoomed in at 10x and then cropped from the 5mp shot. It was at about 1/100 shutter speed, IIRC.

edit- Wait 'til you guys see the sunset shots I got last night, too. ;)

Sunset pics:
http://organicallydigital.com/photos/sunset_11_08_03/

http://organicallydigital.com/images/sunset.jpg

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 04:32 PM

Wow! Those are great Rower! :D

Those sunset shots' colors are insane! How often do u find the atmosphere like that out there?

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 04:34 PM

shadow...

I really like that candle shot. U should try some with it lit. ;)

Rower_CPU

Nov 9, 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
Wow! Those are great Rower! :D

Those sunset shots' colors are insane! How often do u find the atmosphere like that out there?

Not that often. You have to have just the right mix of high clouds and a clear shot at the sun setting. Lots of the time we have a marine layer that obscures most of the sun at sunset, or not enough clouds for the light to reflect off of.

I was watching it set up as we drove east hoping it would hold long enough for me to get to our stop and catch it. I'm glad it did. :)

manitoubalck

Nov 9, 2003, 05:17 PM

Her's one of a friend of mine

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I was watching it set up as we drove east hoping it would hold long enough for me to get to our stop and catch it. I'm glad it did. :)

I know what u mean. The sunset shot I posted a few days ago was just like that. I happened to walk outside & noticed the sun so I grabbed my camera & jumped in the car. I ended up driving to a point near my house with a great view. ;)

eyelikeart

Nov 9, 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Her's one of a friend of mine

Was that a frame from a video? That looks like an intense jump. :eek:

Doctor Q

Nov 9, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Her's one of a friend of mine Great action shot! But if he's a friend, why did you take a photograph of his suicide instead of talking him out of it? ;)

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Great action shot! But if he's a friend, why did you take a photograph of his suicide instead of talking him out of it? ;)

Nah, if the guy wanted to commit suicide he would have done it on a cruiser bike with no clothes on.

I have a video on my computer of a guy taking a 30 foot drop off a roof of a building right on to a hard flat asphalt parking lot. It's amazing what these new down hill bikes can do.

acj

Nov 9, 2003, 06:38 PM

I made the sale to Apple

h'biki

Nov 9, 2003, 07:24 PM

yeah, i'm into photography -- both digital and film.

i wouldn't call myself a professional, but i'm lucky enough to have a job which requires me to take photos as part of my responsibilities :)

anyways. i have yet to tweak and upload most of my photos - and most of my current film originated photos will probably never get scanned. i'm moving away from shooting colour prints (no points when you have a digital camera) and towards b&w and transparencies when shooting film. the latter will hopefully be scanned at some point :)

but if you wanna see a short selection of my work pop over to:

http://www.biki.net/photos/

manitoubalck

Nov 9, 2003, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Great action shot! But if he's a friend, why did you take a photograph of his suicide instead of talking him out of it? ;)

Nar he didn't die, but he is a nut case. Yeah it's a frame from a video. The location is a place know as 'the moon' because of all the limestone.

here's another one of the same guy, doing a double road gap @ Kangarilla, South Australia.

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by manitoubalck
Nar he didn't die, but he is a nut case. Yeah it's a frame from a video. The location is a place know as 'the moon' because of all the limestone.

here's another one of the same guy, doing a double road gap @ Kangarilla, South Australia.

Do you have any of the videos online?

MacMumm

Nov 9, 2003, 08:20 PM

It is amazing how many photos can be found, just around your own house. It still amazes me, I will notice small things to take photos of. I took this one today, while working in the yard... :)

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by MacMumm
It is amazing how many photos can be found, just around your own house. It still amazes me, I will notice small things to take photos of. I took this one today, while working in the yard... :)

That's a fantastic photo, would make a good desktop.

manitoubalck

Nov 9, 2003, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Do you have any of the videos online?

A friend and I are about 3/5th's of the way through the video.
I'll let you know when it's done (most likley mid december)

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 10:13 PM

I have been going to a ton of camera stores recently, talking to salesman [despite my almost phobia of having to talk with em :)]...

Today I went to a tall's cameras, and the guy was uber-nice to me. Let me play around with a digital rebel for around 10 minutes. I thanked him and left...

Then I went to a 2nd tall's cameras in a different mall, and asked to see the digital rebel, but this time asked to see it with a 75-300 lense on it; the guy said yeah no problem and let me play with it. Luckily there were like 2 little girls, playing with a balloon, so I got to kind of take some test pictures of people moving. The lense is awesome! Much nicer than the pitiful zoom lense they bundle with the Digital rebel...I might end up just foregoing the digital rebel with lense kit, save a hundred dollars and just buy the 75-300...

Not exactly sure...

I feel bad about going into all these camera stores, and basically getting their hopes up for a 1500 dollar sale :p

MacBandit

Nov 9, 2003, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by tazo
I feel bad about going into all these camera stores, and basically getting their hopes up for a 1500 dollar sale :p

Trust me anyone who works at a camera store is use to it. Cameras are expensive and there are very few people that make their livings off of them and even fewer people who consider spending that sort of money on a hobby/toy.

shadowfax

Nov 9, 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by eyelikeart
shadow...

I really like that candle shot. U should try some with it lit. ;) yeah, i bet my great aunt would sh** a brick if i lit that particular candle. it's beyond me why they set them out and don't light them.

did i mention that i got my tripod for $3?

it's ultraportable, and seems pretty sturdy, though it's a little difficult to get a full reange of motion from it. a minor challenge, i guess--not much worse than any portable tripod would be.

tazo

Nov 9, 2003, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Trust me anyone who works at a camera store is use to it. Cameras are expensive and there are very few people that make their livings off of them and even fewer people who consider spending that sort of money on a hobby/toy.

heh...I still feel bad ;)

BTW Rower,

Those sunset shots were amazing! Truly stunning work...

BTW MacMumm,

That shot of the leaves with the water was amazing! Truly stunning work...

h'biki

Nov 9, 2003, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by tazo
Much nicer than the pitiful zoom lense they bundle with the Digital rebel...I might end up just foregoing the digital rebel with lense kit, save a hundred dollars and just buy the 75-300

Do you have a wide(ish) EOS lens already? Cause if you don't, then I'd recommend getting the standard lens with the Digital Rebel and saving up to get a decent long zoom (75-210; 75-300).

Yes, long lens work can look *great* -- especially for portraits (75-85mm is good for trad portraits) -- but cheap long zoom lenses have flexibility issues.

Firstly, you're limited with regards to the 'field of view' you get. Taking landscapes with a 75-300 can be difficult.

Secondly, you're limited to your minimum focus distance. The minimum focus distance of some 70-210/300s I've seen has ranged from around 3 to 6 feet! Can be very frustrating.

Thirdly, the cheaper lenses are not fast. They are usually 4-5.6. Which means that on the wide end your minimum aperture is F4 and on the telescopic end its 5.6. Sure, it forces you to get really sharp images but y'know, I think most modern lenses work really nicely at 2.8 :)
(The professional zooms are often 2.8 the whole way through, while the fixed/prime long lenses are often 1.4 on the wide end!)

Fourthly, the 'rule' for your shutter speed vs. your focal length is that your shutter speed should be no slower than 1/(your focal length) if you want to avoid hand-held shake issues. In other words, with a 75 lens you need a shutter speed of 1/75... but you also need to consider that the digital rebel 'shifts' your focal length by 1.6 times... in otherwords, a 75 on a EOS300 is effectively around a 120! Which means you need a shutter speed of at least 1/120 to get a good, sharp image handheld. Combine this with a slower lens (especially on the 300 end!) and you really can only shoot in daylight and sometimes with an increased ISO rating.

Fifth, you also get issues of the 'T stop' vs the 'F stop'. Long lenses have a bigger difference between their T-stop (their transmitted light stop... in other words the exposure hitting the back of the camera) and their F-Stop (the measurement of light hitting the front of the lens). But, to be honest, considering pretty much everyone but pros meters using a spot meter built into their camera, its really not an issue. Just thought I'd bring it up cause I"m a wanker :)

On the other hand, the lens which comes with the digital rebel isn't that much faster ('3.5' (a half stop slower than 4)) but it requires a far shorter shutter speed for you take good pictures (1/28). And if you aren't close enough to yoru subject, then you can simply walk closer -- a little easier to do than walking all the way back to get a 28 equiv on a 125mm equiv lens!

So yeah, I recommend getting the lens kit for the digital rebel and then saving the dosh and getting a good Canon zoom lens. Admittedly, I don't like the absence of the aperture ring on most cheap lenses this days... but thats a personal preference. I hate having to dig through menus to set my stop (which is something I hate with my Powershot s45... but at least it doesn't fool me into thinking its a pro camera)

OR you could always get one of their mid-range zooms, say a 28-135mm zoom (which comes to about a 45mm-200mm equiv) Not as wide as the standard lens, but long enough for pretty much everything you need to do -- and they often come with GOOD macro functionality.

Picking a lens which meets your needs is a really tricky thing and I wouldn't always listen to the advice of sales guys. Sure, they can be really helpful, but often they'll push the cheaper brands (Sigma, Toyinka :)) because they make a greater margin on them -- and they're not encouraging a second hand market which takes away their profits :) (Nikkors and Pro-Canon lenses keep their values pretty well on the second hand market.). You really need to figure out how you're going to be using your camera... in what conditions and with what subjects... If you can't come up with a definitive answer, or you come up with something broad, then you'll probably want a range of lenses... or a good 'compromise' lens (like the 28-135).

Good luck! I hope that was helpful :)

tazo

Nov 10, 2003, 12:05 AM

h'biki,

extremely helpful :)

MacMumm

Nov 10, 2003, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
That's a fantastic photo, would make a good desktop.

MacBandit: Thanks! It was on my desktop before I ever posted it. It just seemed like a natural

Tazo: Thanks to you too!

It is great to have support of everybody in the forums about our respective creative efforts with photography. Everybody in here does such an amazing job! :)

Here is another I took of the same area in my yard...

manitoubalck

Nov 10, 2003, 01:55 AM

That photo is almost sereal, Well done.

Genie

Nov 10, 2003, 02:21 AM

Thanks so much for the advice on the lenses... I didnt understand it all, but I'll be saving up for a nice zoom lens.

h'biki

Nov 10, 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Genie
Thanks so much for the advice on the lenses... I didnt understand it all, but I'll be saving up for a nice zoom lens.

Well, my preferred lens on the D10 is a Canon 28-135mm zoom lens -- and I'm happy with the results. Its a big heavy lens, but it covers the range nicely, its super sharp, quite fast, and has a great 'bokeh' (now that's a photography term to impress your friends with! Basically it refers to how your out of focus areas look). Its minimum focus distance is about 50cm, which isn't too great, but certainly not shabby -- and that can be adjusted with a close-up lens.

Its not *too* expensive either. I've seen it for around $800AU, so about $500-600US.

http://www.canon.com.au/products/cameras_lenses_accessories/standard_zoom_lenses/ef28_135mmf3556isusm.html

As a testament to the lens' greatness, I use it on an XL1 for doing macro videography... and it looks *amazing*. I've had pro-cameraman look at the graded footage and think its either digibeta or film.

While its true that the artistic quality of a photograph is up to the photographer, having a good piece of glass really helps. It's like a musical instrument. A good player will play great on any decent instrument, but they can shine with a great instrument.

(I've also use quite a number of different lenses with the D10 but that one is my semi-professional recommendation)

Anywhere, here are two photos which demonstrate about the combination of sharpness, macro ability, and bokeh!:

http://www.biki.net/photos/image/microweb.jpg

http://www.biki.net/photos/image/microweb_winter.jpg

MacBandit

Nov 10, 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by h'biki
Do you have a wide(ish) EOS lens already? Cause if you don't, then I'd recommend getting the standard lens with the Digital Rebel and saving up to get a decent long zoom (75-210; 75-300)............................

Long story short specialization can be a good thing and don't buy something that does everything because often it's a jack of all trades and a master of none.

Great information though a lengthy read thanks for the input. It's great for those of us that need a reminder/refresher and some needed input for people new to SLR photography.

MacBandit

Nov 10, 2003, 02:57 AM

Originally posted by MacMumm
MacBandit: Thanks! It was on my desktop before I ever posted it. It just seemed like a natural

Tazo: Thanks to you too!

It is great to have support of everybody in the forums about our respective creative efforts with photography. Everybody in here does such an amazing job! :)

Here is another I took of the same area in my yard...

What kind of camera and setup are you using? The images are just stunning.

h'biki

Nov 10, 2003, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit
Long story short specialization can be a good thing and don't buy something that does everything because often it's a jack of all trades and a master of none.

Hahaha. I think Nikkor makes like a 28-300 or something lens which is really sharp, and quite fast, but a minimum focus distance of over 2 meters!

I just think people need to figure out what kind of photos they're really going to take before they put down their cash on a zoom lens.

I know a few people who have big telephoto lenses they *never* use because they're too big to carry around, and they're too long to be useful for anything but taking voyeuristic photos of the girl across the street :)

So, moral of the story: talk to the photographic store guy about the types of photos you do take and want to take... and they can usually recommend a good zoom range for you.

[/B]
Great information though a lengthy read thanks for the input. It's great for those of us that need a reminder/refresher and some needed input for people new to SLR photography. [/B]

Hahaha. Thanks. I am prone to ranting... especially when I'm procrastinating :(

Now its got me all inspired to peruse various lens catalogs to decide what I should buy next. I'm thinking a fixed lens -- 28mm? Fast. Wide. Gives me the discipline of working with a fixed focal length.