cashmerethought96
Banned
- 1,177
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
Found this pic im just in love with it since its my car just diffrentcolor same interior without navi..
Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by ebayologist,
- Start date
elboricua 6
Banned
- 1,978
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2006
Originally Posted by Rap Sizzle
haha, I'll get back to you on that tonight but it really would be best if you could design one yourself so that you can create it as an action on PS. Right now I've got a Chicago food trip to go on.Originally Posted by elboricua 6
^^Good Point ... Now if you could make me a hot sig, I'll be in debt ..
well if you can do me one and give me like the font size colors I believe I can duplicate for an action myself, the problem is me, making one has been damnnear impossible .. just don't like anything I do ..
elboricua 6
Banned
- 1,978
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2006
IMO that picture is just OK .. the composition is good and everything but the picture is OOF especially when you get into the interior ....
kdawg
Staff member
- 10,515
- 11,569
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
I don't see what's wrong with tagging one's pictures no matter how good or bad you think their work is. They took the shot and therefore have full copyright of the image. Also, it's a good way to get a photographer's name out there. For those of you who tag your pics, whether you're starting off or not, don't be turned off by such comments. Some of your photos may be passed around and used without your consent. Placing a watermark does not make you look better than everyone, it's just a way for others to recognize that a photo is indeed yours.
I don't think that's what we were saying - certainly not what I was saying.
I have no problem with people tagging their pictures - it's only when I put "kdawg photography" that it becomes silly - especially whenthey're just snapshots.
- 13,033
- 7,203
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2007
I don't see what's wrong with tagging one's pictures no matter how good or bad you think their work is. They took the shot and
therefore have full copyright of the image. Also, it's a good way to get a photographer's name out there. For those of you who tag your pics, whether
you're starting off or not, don't be turned off by such comments. Some of your photos may be passed around and used without your consent. Placing a
watermark does not make you look better than everyone, it's just a way for others to recognize that a photo is indeed yours.
I don't think that's what we were saying - certainly not what I was saying.
I have no problem with people tagging their pictures - it's only when I put "kdawg photography" that it becomes silly - especially when they're just snapshots.
Yeah...you got me all wrong. Tagging photos are fine but there is still a design to copyrighting your stuff. Actually (not to pick on you) your stuff is reallydope but sometimes the way you embed your watermark or tags has me scratching my head sometimes. Majority of the times they go good with the composition butthere are times I think it is just too much. I mean a watermark is a watermark but you go against the grain of that and actually put it with the flow of yourphoto which makes sometimes makes your photo more of a design like for a mag layout or something. Sometimes I just think it looks good just to have it in thebottom right hand corner and keep it consistent with all your photos......but that is just me and my two cents. I don't even tag my photos at all and hadsome stolen online but luckily I don't care and know that I put photos out there for the taking.....
And with adding the word "photography" to a tag, it just seems redundant. Just a person's name seems suffice. It is just something I don'tlike....but again...do you.
elboricua 6
Banned
- 1,978
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2006
I need to hit up my storage and look thru all my kicks .. I say about 50% of them will be sold .. the crap of the crap that I bought just to add quantity to mycollection ..
TheGodFresco
formerly gsdoubleu
- 24,478
- 2,308
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
little help please? Appreciate it
- 4,032
- 245
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
That first Tamron you posted is far from a fisheye.
You need something under 20mm at least, unless you're on a full frame camera. But that 28mm isn't close to "fish eye"
My-T.
TheGodFresco
formerly gsdoubleu
- 24,478
- 2,308
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
Do you have any recommendations for a fish eye around the same price or less maybe?
- 4,032
- 245
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
Is it for a DSLR?
Cause if so, definitely nothin' close, that doesn't even look like the right type of kit either.
My-T.
Cause if so, definitely nothin' close, that doesn't even look like the right type of kit either.
My-T.
TheGodFresco
formerly gsdoubleu
- 24,478
- 2,308
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
Thanks, i saw some on Amazon that are like around $60, but figured they werent any good.
- 4,032
- 245
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2002
I paid 580 with warranty for my Sigma 10-20, Canons are like 150 more.
The only thing I hate is that they're such slow lenses. The 4-5.6f is unacceptable.
My-T.
The only thing I hate is that they're such slow lenses. The 4-5.6f is unacceptable.
My-T.
- 3,788
- 63
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
I'd put a watermark on my pics but I don't think you can do actions on ps elements.. i need cs4... or to figure out elements
nice pic.. i really like the subject. a bit overexposed on the right side of the picture tho imo
nice pic.. i really like the subject. a bit overexposed on the right side of the picture tho imo
elboricua 6
Banned
- 1,978
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2006
im not sure what u guys are talking about cause im on my cell but a 10-20 or any UWA are not fisheyes .. they are made to have minimal distortion .. the onlyreason i use my 110-22 for lanscapes n its always mounted on a tripod so it does not need to be any faster than what it is .. i can see a 2.8 serving forcertain occasions like inside and stuff but not necessary as for the most part once again for those shots i like to have it on a tripod ...
a fisheye is intended to have distortion and 15mm and up works better on fullframe cameras as in a crop camera the crop factor kicks in and minimize thedistortion .. so youll need like 10 and below .. sigma 10mm 8mm or 4mm are good and the tokina 10-17 i believe is another good fisheye ...
a fisheye is intended to have distortion and 15mm and up works better on fullframe cameras as in a crop camera the crop factor kicks in and minimize thedistortion .. so youll need like 10 and below .. sigma 10mm 8mm or 4mm are good and the tokina 10-17 i believe is another good fisheye ...
- 173
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2003
some stuff from the La Brea Tar Pits
TheGodFresco
formerly gsdoubleu
- 24,478
- 2,308
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
Just won this 18-55mm IS and some extras off ebay. good deal?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eB...em&item=180336419188
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eB...em&item=180336419188
- 3,788
- 63
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
yo rizobs where is that at? looks interesting
- 1,920
- 104
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
Just some random shots from yesterday:
(I really don't know why I tagged the second one or added the border)
(I really don't know why I tagged the second one or added the border)
TheGodFresco
formerly gsdoubleu
- 24,478
- 2,308
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
Some pics from today, Still need A TON of improvement
Excuse the Mach from being dirty
Let me know if it was too much
Excuse the Mach from being dirty
Let me know if it was too much
- 3,788
- 63
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
nice pics everyone.. i'm still to lazy/busy to upload to flickr so here are some pics i put in the wdywt forum
- 1,434
- 120
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2005
my boy took this when he found another pair of sz 13s for me
- 6,362
- 12
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
CC? Took this really quickly the other day, I like how it turned out. Had my D40 for 8 or so months, still havent used it enough to know how to use it (inmanual mode).
- 1,817
- 11
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
^what wide angel lens do u have?
diggn that cabin pic btw
diggn that cabin pic btw
- 1,607
- 10
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2003
10-20, sigma =]
