Nissan 370Z Forum
Page 80 of 86 « First 30707879 80 8182 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Nissan 370Z Forum (http://www.the370z.com/)
-   Photography (http://www.the370z.com/photography/)
-   -   DSLR Shots and Discussions (http://www.the370z.com/photography/40346-dslr-shots-discussions.html)

Z&I 10-13-2015 10:16 AM
Photoshop to the Rescue
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leingod (Post 3327193)
I wish I could say I was going for a blue tint. I was working with a broken monitor at the time without realizing it hahahahahaha.
It's a great shot - very nice subject matter to say the least :-) and nicely composed !
That blue 'tint' is actually a color cast, which dilutes the color accuracy of the entire image.
Color Casts are Killers ... they will pervade your image and reduce color accuracy.

Eyeballin' the color correction doesn't give consistant results.
But 'going by the numbers' does
Each of the 16 million or so colors in an RGB image has it's own unique numerical identity depending on the value/amount of each of the Red, Blue, and Green primary colors.

Casts can be corrected or removed in photoshop, but it is better to first calibrate you camera's sensor [if your camera has that option] to record a more nuetral capture = less post processing time and better images overall.

A quick check to see if your sensor is producing color casts:
side note - even expensive cameras aren't individually calibrated to nuetral at the factory.

Photograph a gray card in bright open shade in a nuetral setting [no major dominant color such as a green grassy field that will produce it's own reflected color contamination]

Set the camera to AWB , manual focus and exposure , fill the frame with the gray card and make a capture.

Since you are shooting this test in nuetral light [which doesn't have its own color cast], and you are in AWB [which wants to make every thing equally gray] you should theoretically produce an image that has equal values of Red, Green, and Blue.

Open the image in photoshop and run the mouse over the image - observe the INFO palette as you go...

If the camera sensor is spot on The R , G , B numbers should all be of equal value.

ex: R=60, G=60, B=60. Equal values of Red Green and Blue equal Gray.

The acutal number itself isn't that important - it's the equality of the numbers.

Bur for example R=60 and G=60 but B=85 then you have a Blue cast to the image.

If R=60 and G=70 and B=75 then you have a slightly Bluish Green Cast to the image produced by the sensor.

Incidentally, each image that the camera captures will introduce this cast to the resulting image.

Some cameras allow you to adjust the way it records color values.
Check your instruction manual.

The object here would be to get all of the numbers equal when doing the gray calibration...thereby producing a nuetral and color accurate capture in the camera.
Trial and error but it is worth it ... your initial in camera captures will be much cleaner, color accurate and vibrant - and easier to work with.

In photoshop you can also remove or nuetralize color casts in 2 ways:

#1 Open an image and add 2 curves layers.
With one Curves layer pick up the black sampler and mouse over a very dark shadow area.
Perfect black will read R=0, G=0, B=0.
If you are reading anything other than that you have a color cast in the shadow area.
Click on the shadow area with the color sampler and it will change that to perfect black and remove the color cast in the shadows.
You can do the same with the highlights - just dont read a perfect white.

Now go to the second Curves layer pick up the white sampler and mouse over a highlight but not an area that is totally blown out to perfect white.
Perfect white will read R=255, G=255, B=255.
Click on the area and it will remove the highlight cast.

Using this method will produce much more color contrast and saturation.
The only downside to this is that sometimes it will make too much of a change.
But you can fade the curves layers to bring it back some, or add another Curves layer [do an S curve adustment]and introduce gray in to the highligts and shadows to reduce the color contrast

#2 The other method is to open the image and add a duplicate layer ...
On the duplicate layer find the shadow area with the color sampler in the tools menu [we aren't using a Curves layer this time] ...click on it and observe the color window...the sampled color will appear in the top swatch.
This is the color cast which will be nuetralized in the next step.

Now go to Image>Adjustments>Replace Color>adust fuzziness to include only the areas you wish to correct>move the Saturation Slider to desaturate.
This will nuetralize the color cast in the shadows.

Now make another duplicate layer from this layer [not the background layer]
This time sample the highlight area and repeat the process but find an area that isn't completely blown out.

This technique will remove the color casts as well, but can produce a flatter image that needs to be upped in contrast.

Hope this helps ... in photography as in all other things ... an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.

Sorry for the long post :tiphat:

rooftop 10-13-2015 01:47 PM
Pretty pictures

Leingod 10-14-2015 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z&I;3327315[S
]It's a great shot - very nice subject matter to say the least :-) and nicely composed !
That blue 'tint' is actually a color cast, which dilutes the color accuracy of the entire image.
Color Casts are Killers ... they will pervade your image and reduce color accuracy.

Eyeballin' the color correction doesn't give consistant results.
But 'going by the numbers' does
Each of the 16 million or so colors in an RGB image has it's own unique numerical identity depending on the value/amount of each of the Red, Blue, and Green primary colors.

Casts can be corrected or removed in photoshop, but it is better to first calibrate you camera's sensor [if your camera has that option] to record a more nuetral capture = less post processing time and better images overall.

A quick check to see if your sensor is producing color casts:
side note - even expensive cameras aren't individually calibrated to nuetral at the factory.

Photograph a gray card in bright open shade in a nuetral setting [no major dominant color such as a green grassy field that will produce it's own reflected color contamination]

Set the camera to AWB , manual focus and exposure , fill the frame with the gray card and make a capture.

Since you are shooting this test in nuetral light [which doesn't have its own color cast], and you are in AWB [which wants to make every thing equally gray] you should theoretically produce an image that has equal values of Red, Green, and Blue.

Open the image in photoshop and run the mouse over the image - observe the INFO palette as you go...

If the camera sensor is spot on The R , G , B numbers should all be of equal value.

ex: R=60, G=60, B=60. Equal values of Red Green and Blue equal Gray.

The acutal number itself isn't that important - it's the equality of the numbers.

Bur for example R=60 and G=60 but B=85 then you have a Blue cast to the image.

If R=60 and G=70 and B=75 then you have a slightly Bluish Green Cast to the image produced by the sensor.

Incidentally, each image that the camera captures will introduce this cast to the resulting image.

Some cameras allow you to adjust the way it records color values.
Check your instruction manual.

The object here would be to get all of the numbers equal when doing the gray calibration...thereby producing a nuetral and color accurate capture in the camera.
Trial and error but it is worth it ... your initial in camera captures will be much cleaner, color accurate and vibrant - and easier to work with.

In photoshop you can also remove or nuetralize color casts in 2 ways:

#1 Open an image and add 2 curves layers.
With one Curves layer pick up the black sampler and mouse over a very dark shadow area.
Perfect black will read R=0, G=0, B=0.
If you are reading anything other than that you have a color cast in the shadow area.
Click on the shadow area with the color sampler and it will change that to perfect black and remove the color cast in the shadows.
You can do the same with the highlights - just dont read a perfect white.

Now go to the second Curves layer pick up the white sampler and mouse over a highlight but not an area that is totally blown out to perfect white.
Perfect white will read R=255, G=255, B=255.
Click on the area and it will remove the highlight cast.

Using this method will produce much more color contrast and saturation.
The only downside to this is that sometimes it will make too much of a change.
But you can fade the curves layers to bring it back some, or add another Curves layer [do an S curve adustment]and introduce gray in to the highligts and shadows to reduce the color contrast

#2 The other method is to open the image and add a duplicate layer ...
On the duplicate layer find the shadow area with the color sampler in the tools menu [we aren't using a Curves layer this time] ...click on it and observe the color window...the sampled color will appear in the top swatch.
This is the color cast which will be nuetralized in the next step.

Now go to Image>Adjustments>Replace Color>adust fuzziness to include only the areas you wish to correct>move the Saturation Slider to desaturate.
This will nuetralize the color cast in the shadows.

Now make another duplicate layer from this layer [not the background layer]
This time sample the highlight area and repeat the process but find an area that isn't completely blown out.

This technique will remove the color casts as well, but can produce a flatter image that needs to be upped in contrast.

Hope this helps ... in photography as in all other things ... an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure.

Sorry for the long post :tiphat:[/S]
I had to re-read that a few times. So much info!!! Thanks so much! I'm not even sure what some of it even means, but i've started googling like crazy. Maybe one day i'll have the knowledge and insight you do when looking at pictures.

Cmike2780 10-14-2015 12:03 PM
Color correction never turns out the way you want it and a critique on color correction from different perspectives is a bit silly to be honest. It could be numerically perfect, but different monitors will always project images differently. That's not to say you shouldn't take Z&I's advice. Just don't lose sleep if it's not 100%. I like to shoot with a custom WB & a gray card. I shoot jpeg+RAW and use the jpeg file as a reference to start off from. As much as I love Photoshop, sometimes, it's just overkill and you end up with an image that looks.....well...photoshoped.

If you plan to print your pictures, I'd calibrate it to the way your printer is set up.

6spd 10-14-2015 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 3328067)
Color correction never turns out the way you want it and a critique on color correction from different perspectives is a bit silly to be honest. It could be numerically perfect, but different monitors will always project images differently. That's not to say you shouldn't take Z&I's advice. Just don't lose sleep if it's not 100%. I like to shoot with a custom WB & a gray card. I shoot jpeg+RAW and use the jpeg file as a reference to start off from. As much as I love Photoshop, sometimes, it's just overkill and you end up with an image that looks.....well...photoshoped.

If you plan to print your pictures, I'd calibrate it to the way your printer is set up.
Truth

Z&I 10-14-2015 11:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 3328067)
Color correction never turns out the way you want it and a critique on color correction from different perspectives is a bit silly to be honest. It could be numerically perfect, but different monitors will always project images differently. That's not to say you shouldn't take Z&I's advice. Just don't lose sleep if it's not 100%. I like to shoot with a custom WB & a gray card. I shoot jpeg+RAW and use the jpeg file as a reference to start off from. As much as I love Photoshop, sometimes, it's just overkill and you end up with an image that looks.....well...photoshoped.

If you plan to print your pictures, I'd calibrate it to the way your printer is set up.
I agree somewhat ... In the end, you do need a reference calibration for the printer and why not take it a step further - why not nuetralize the camera sensor and image file ?

Trying to Color Correct looking at a monitor and then printing out can be hit or miss at best.
Your eyes can easily deceive you.
Going by the numbers is a proven way to produce a color accurate file.
Couple that with a correctly calibrated/nuetral printer and you are all set.

I started my life in photography some years ago as an apprentice to a pair of commercial photographers back in the days of film.
They shot primarily large format and 120 roll film.
I got to do the developing and printing...so I got my hands wet and my butt reamed when I ran a bunch of prints not up to their standards.
These guys were not only accomplished photographers but also technicians as well.
You really needed to know your stuff to get good repeatable results especially for demanding clients.

They drummed it in to my head to start off by making an in camera nuetral negative or transparency, and correctly exposed of course.
Various film emulsions required some amount of filtration to compensate for production batch differences and varying color temperature of the strobes or hot lights.
After that, everything else would fall in to place naturally - and they were right - good negatives made good prints.
The same holds true for digital files.

The steps I outlined only seem to be complicated at first, like reading an exciting technical manual.
They are in fact simple once you do it once or twice.
A couple of clicks with the eyedropper and you are pretty much done.
You've got a great foundation for added creativity if you so desire.

If not, you can always lessen the effect by fading the adjustment layer to your personal taste if you so decide.

From the Old School :tiphat:

Cmike2780 10-15-2015 11:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z&I (Post 3328454)
I agree somewhat ... In the end, you do need a reference calibration for the printer and why not take it a step further - why not nuetralize the camera sensor and image file ?

Trying to Color Correct looking at a monitor and then printing out can be hit or miss at best.
Your eyes can easily deceive you.
Going by the numbers is a proven way to produce a color accurate file.
Couple that with a correctly calibrated/nuetral printer and you are all set.

I started my life in photography some years ago as an apprentice to a pair of commercial photographers back in the days of film.
They shot primarily large format and 120 roll film.
I got to do the developing and printing...so I got my hands wet and my butt reamed when I ran a bunch of prints not up to their standards.
These guys were not only accomplished photographers but also technicians as well.
You really needed to know your stuff to get good repeatable results especially for demanding clients.

They drummed it in to my head to start off by making an in camera nuetral negative or transparency, and correctly exposed of course.
Various film emulsions required some amount of filtration to compensate for production batch differences and varying color temperature of the strobes or hot lights.
After that, everything else would fall in to place naturally - and they were right - good negatives made good prints.
The same holds true for digital files.

The steps I outlined only seem to be complicated at first, like reading an exciting technical manual.
They are in fact simple once you do it once or twice.
A couple of clicks with the eyedropper and you are pretty much done.
You've got a great foundation for added creativity if you so desire.

If not, you can always lessen the effect by fading the adjustment layer to your personal taste if you so decide.

From the Old School :tiphat:
I think we're trying to say the same thing:tiphat:. That's why I use the RAW file as my base image. It's usually already a neutral starting point. I've used the curves method plenty of times and it can be very helpful. All I'm saying is that color correction or any other type of correction doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to fall into an acceptable range for the final displayed type. I've had the same images up on my iPhone, monitor and printer and all three display color very differently. Heck, the ambient room lighting you're viewing the device/print in changes how your eye sees color. It's really frustrating actually, but that's physics for ya.

It can also vary depending on what photo sharing site you're using and the final image file you save it as. Facebook for example, won't do your images any justice. The way they compress images makes them muddy. It's a wash trying to critique an image's color calibration if you're not seeing it on the exact same monitor in the exact same room. I create architectural renderings for clients and I kid you not, many can't comprehend that shade, shadows and brightness changes what color your eyes see. I show them one without shadows and they wonder why it doesn't look realistic:confused:

I totally agree that putting the work in to make it "perfect" will give you a stunning picture. I know it might not even be what you're sating, but I just think people can go overboard real fast trying to post process what should already be a great shot. Today's DSLR's do a pretty impressive job at calculating the correct exposure and color balance, why not take advantage?

Z&I 10-15-2015 11:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 3328633)
I think we're trying to say the same thing:tiphat:. That's why I use the RAW file as my base image. It's usually already a neutral starting point. I've used the curves method plenty of times and it can be very helpful. All I'm saying is that color correction or any other type of correction doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to fall into an acceptable range for the final displayed type. I've had the same images up on my iPhone, monitor and printer and all three display color very differently. Heck, the ambient room lighting you're viewing the device/print in changes how your eye sees color. It's really frustrating actually, but that's physics for ya.

It can also vary depending on what photo sharing site you're using and the final image file you save it as. Facebook for example, won't do your images any justice. The way they compress images makes them muddy. It's a wash trying to critique an image's color calibration if you're not seeing it on the exact same monitor in the exact same room. I create architectural renderings for clients and I kid you not, many can't comprehend that shade, shadows and brightness changes what color your eyes see. I show them one without shadows and they wonder why it doesn't look realistic:confused:

I totally agree that putting the work in to make it "perfect" will give you a stunning picture. I know it might not even be what you're sating, but I just think people can go overboard real fast trying to post process what should already be a great shot. Today's DSLR's do a pretty impressive job at calculating the correct exposure and color balance, why not take advantage?
Awesome!
Agree 100% on all counts! Especially overprocessing and exaggerated use of filters.
Every avenue of viewing is different whether it be a monitor or print.
I tend to favor prints because that's where I cut my teeth in photography.
And the end result is more in your control as well, so you can present your work without the unknown variables coming in to play.
I'm still using my Nikon D3 which in the digital realm of technology is almost a dinosaur.
Got tired of shelling out $thousands every 6 months just to keep up with the latest and greatest.
Might think of upgrading to a newer model once the 370z build is finished and paid for though !
In the meantime I can still make awesome quality images with it and with a little help from our friends at Adobe [still using CS3 btw ...:eek:...once you've got the basics down you realize that most of the upgraded features are just repackaged actions or bundled tools].
I've also 'recalibrated' my Hasselblad Digital back to import images with a pre-correction to offset the green cast inherent in the raw image.
Thanks for posting !

Cmike2780 10-15-2015 02:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z&I (Post 3328656)
Awesome!
Agree 100% on all counts! Especially overprocessing and exaggerated use of filters.
Every avenue of viewing is different whether it be a monitor or print.
I tend to favor prints because that's where I cut my teeth in photography.
And the end result is more in your control as well, so you can present your work without the unknown variables coming in to play.
I'm still using my Nikon D3 which in the digital realm of technology is almost a dinosaur.
Got tired of shelling out $thousands every 6 months just to keep up with the latest and greatest.
Might think of upgrading to a newer model once the 370z build is finished and paid for though !
In the meantime I can still make awesome quality images with it and with a little help from our friends at Adobe [still using CS3 btw ...:eek:...once you've got the basics down you realize that most of the upgraded features are just repackaged actions or bundled tools].
I've also 'recalibrated' my Hasselblad Digital back to import images with a pre-correction to offset the green cast inherent in the raw image.
Thanks for posting !
I'm actually thinking of doing the opposite and saving up to buy a medium format Mamiya or Hassalblad. I still shoot my Nikon FM when I'm feeling nostalgic. Tough finding film and a place to develop though. I do want to take a shot at developing at home.

HKYStormFront 10-15-2015 09:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780 (Post 3328771)
I'm actually thinking of doing the opposite and saving up to buy a medium format Mamiya or Hassalblad. I still shoot my Nikon FM when I'm feeling nostalgic. Tough finding film and a place to develop though. I do want to take a shot at developing at home.
:icon14:

http://media.giphy.com/media/5yLgoca...Ueu4/giphy.gif

Cmike2780 10-16-2015 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKYStormFront (Post 3329000)
lol, I meant the 120 film versions, like the 500c/m

axmea? 10-20-2015 10:44 AM
Feedback and advice needed on these shots
 
Newbie here. Took some of shots when I saw hummingbirds. Really hard to shoot but want to learn more. Any feedback from anyone here on how to be better at it? ISO was really high.

ƒ/4.8
1/8000
ISO 8000 - about 11000


[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/623/2...9105d5ba_b.jpgADSC_1422 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/576/2...e31f1d31_b.jpgADSC_1395 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/725/2...b8409783_b.jpgADSC_1116 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

forza370z 10-20-2015 09:00 PM
^Nice shots man!:tiphat: But I would turn down the ISO little bit. 8000 is too high. It creates noises. Stay with 100 as much as possible especially at day time. But still, I love your pictures! :tup:

Z&I 10-20-2015 09:26 PM
Nice Shots !
 
The Nature Pro's use a strobe set up for shots like this ... set up off camera and remotely fired.
Allows better depth and also almost completely stops movement [except perhaps for the wing tips]
Sharpness is greatly improved and you get more detail as well.
One of my friends photographs birds and insects this way ... He does get some great shots but he does throw away a lot of them too.

forza370z 10-20-2015 09:34 PM
Took some rolling shots of my buddy's Zs. :)

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psu3erilqf.jpg

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psb5jsaylo.jpg

http://i1037.photobucket.com/albums/...psgpspxptj.jpg

axmea? 10-20-2015 11:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z&I (Post 3331712)
The Nature Pro's use a strobe set up for shots like this ... set up off camera and remotely fired.
Allows better depth and also almost completely stops movement [except perhaps for the wing tips]
Sharpness is greatly improved and you get more detail as well.
One of my friends photographs birds and insects this way ... He does get some great shots but he does throw away a lot of them too.
I get it. Light is my friend on this one. Certainly don't have the right equipment but I think I understand how it should be set up. I'm still learning about how lighting make shots great/detailed or ugly and over exposed shots. On this one, I happen to be right there so it was in the moment and wouldn't know how to stage it properly which is almost what you have to do to get the depth and detail. I think if the feeder was not at the eave and out in the open, I'd get the natural light I need and done a much better job. I have better understanding. Thanks!

Pintsize725 10-20-2015 11:04 PM
All of these awesome shots by you guys has inspired me to go back and edit a few engagement and wedding shots I did for family. This is one of my favorites but I can see where it could use some more work.
Hopefully by the time the kiddo is here, I'll be able to take some decent shots of him. I can't wait to share his birth announcement here. :)

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5803/...57acf7ec_c.jpgIMG_2112 by Panda House, on Flickr

Pintsize725 10-20-2015 11:05 PM
:drool: Nice shots!!

onzedge 10-21-2015 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by axmea? (Post 3331291)
Newbie here. Took some of shots when I saw hummingbirds. Really hard to shoot but want to learn more. Any feedback from anyone here on how to be better at it? ISO was really high.

ƒ/4.8
1/8000
ISO 8000 - about 11000


( Click to show/hide )
These are very good.

forza370z 10-21-2015 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pintsize725 (Post 3331767)
:drool: Nice shots!!
Thanks!:tiphat:

Cletus370Z 10-21-2015 05:43 PM
Great shots! Your friends have some very nice Zs.

Cletus370Z 10-21-2015 06:26 PM
Petit Le Mans/ Continental Sports Car series
 
I spent a very very wet weekend at Road Atlanta a few weeks ago for Petit Le Mans and the Continental series. Although I did not shoot as much as I wanted too, I still ended up with a few shots I am proud of. Here are a few of my favorites

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5800/...53666d79_b.jpgPLM2015-21 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5707/...e155946e_b.jpgPLM2015-38 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5763/...4c4cfe8d_b.jpgPLM2015-22 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5786/...f47d47c9_b.jpgPLM2015-65 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/635/2...7e2214e3_b.jpgPLM2015-60 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/717/2...588caae9_b.jpgPLM2015-63 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/717/2...c809fb0a_b.jpgPLM2015-16 by Paul Pattillo, on Flickr

LAVA 10-21-2015 06:53 PM
http://www.the370z.com/members/lava-...24-z-10-15.jpg

axmea? 10-22-2015 12:41 AM
Moon shots
 
Here's another newbie question on a shot of the moon last night. What could I do better?
I don't have experience with other lenses so I do not know what I don't know in terms of what other lenses can do.

300 mm kit lens
Tripod
5 second timer 2 shots 1 sec intervals

ƒ/9.0
1/60
ISO 100
exp -.3

[IMG]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5835/...1b582f5a_b.jpgBDSC_1800 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]


ƒ/9.0
1/60
ISO 100
exp +.3

[IMG]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/740/2...fe5d7ccb_b.jpgCDSC_1845 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]


ƒ/11.0
1/80
ISO 100
exp -.7

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/610/2...711f466c_b.jpgBDSC_1806 by Raf, on Flickr


ƒ/10.0
1/80
ISO 100
exp -.3

[IMG]https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5727/...ff5265fe_b.jpgBDSC_1820 by Raf, on Flickr[/IMG]

forza370z 10-23-2015 10:22 AM
^Love those moon shots!

forza370z 10-23-2015 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus370Z (Post 3332371)
Great shots! Your friends have some very nice Zs.
Thank you!:tiphat:

forza370z 10-23-2015 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus370Z (Post 3332422)
I spent a very very wet weekend at Road Atlanta a few weeks ago for Petit Le Mans and the Continental series. Although I did not shoot as much as I wanted too, I still ended up with a few shots I am proud of. Here are a few of my favorites

( Click to show/hide )
Very nice!:tup:

kayha12 10-28-2015 02:24 PM
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/698/2...c2247ea2_b.jpgpj2015fall-63 by Khoi Ha, on Flickr

Tigger 11-01-2015 12:16 PM
i'm interested in this camera. anyone ever heard of it?

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/11...57a361fb6d.jpg

HKYStormFront 11-01-2015 12:57 PM
I've seen videos about it but I have my doubts... It may be everything they say it is, but I just don't know yet. Need independent reviews!

Tigger 11-01-2015 01:22 PM
well. we'll have to wait another year until release! i'm thinking about pre-ordering it. $200 now and the balance next fall. if it is awesome then it saves me almost $3k. Hmmmm!!!!!

6spd 11-02-2015 06:25 AM
I have my doubts that something "revolutionary" will come out to dethrone the DSLR. Sure, these new cameras may have high megapixels, optical zoom, multiple lenses in one camera, etc. but what they don't have is near the dynamic range, near the burst fire capability, huge separate lens lineups, glass quality, manual modes, hot shoes, etc. In other words, I'm highly skeptical of these cameras. They may be great point and shoots, but the they can't possibly be replacing all of DSLR's uses, like pro shooting.

HKYStormFront 11-02-2015 07:01 AM
Yeah I'm trying to figure out how I would do panning shots with that thing...

redstarcg 11-06-2015 01:24 PM
More practice, with water again :)

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/736/22...6575f8ba_b.jpg

redstarcg 11-07-2015 10:43 AM
And another one I just finished of my buddies car.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/635/22...8e97fbd3_b.jpg

Meulen 11-10-2015 10:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by redstarcg (Post 3342970)
And another one I just finished of my buddies car.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/635/22...8e97fbd3_b.jpg
WOW!!! what are the chances you get the leaves blowing around the car like that and not disrupting the focal point!?!?!?!?!:yum:

HKYStormFront 11-10-2015 02:08 PM
Thread for my latest photoshoot:

http://www.the370z.com/photography/1...11-8-15-a.html

forza370z 11-10-2015 10:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HKYStormFront (Post 3344548)
Nice pictures! I like your style:tup:

Masterbeatty 11-11-2015 08:23 PM
http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/...intsunset1.jpg

Here is the first picture I ever edited using photoshop. That program needs a course to be able to master. I was messing around with it on a plane flight from the west coast to the right coast so i have much more to learn.

Leingod 11-12-2015 07:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masterbeatty (Post 3345584)
( Click to show/hide )


Here is the first picture I ever edited using photoshop. That program needs a course to be able to master. I was messing around with it on a plane flight from the west coast to the right coast so i have much more to learn.
You may want to give Lightroom a try. Way easier to grasp for beginners and more forgiving. I started with LR and then watched copious amount of youtube videos for PS. Now I'm on to indesign.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:41 PM.
Page 80 of 86 « First 30707879 80 8182 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2