NikeTalk › NikeTalk Forums › The Lounge › General › Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne - Page 23

post #661 of 14563
post #662 of 14563
I got a few on the way.

No its not a virus. It's a podcast you dummy.
post #663 of 14563
ebay or anyone who can help - Im a little confused about photoshop elements. I asked my brother who used to be a photographer, and he thought it was like an extension pack to photoshop. I think its like a simple cheaper version. Could someone let me know. Thanks.

Team Vintage Heat
post #664 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ Its a cheaper version. I don't know the exact features of it, but I know it's its own program...

Gotdunksbs that a fisheye lomo?

booduh, i was looking to buy a leica but my friend told me theres a panasonic with the exact same lens for way cheaper. Whats the difference between the Leica and Panasonic?

its the panasonic lx2
nearly identical.....i think it is actually identical. if ebayologist or someone else familiar with both could elaborate, would be helpful.

Edit: I looked it up out of curiosity and there is no difference between the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 and a Leica D-Lux 2. Infact they have exactly the same specs and compotents... Its just a rebadging of it... That being said, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 was apparently the creation of a P&S with slr features and there is no Leica equivalent but now they apparently completely switched the branding over to Leica so the latest version the Leica D-Lux 3 is only available with Leica badges...

My guess is Panasonic has some kinda deal with Leica much like Sony has one with Carl Zeiss but in broader sense i.e. beyond just the lense...
post #665 of 14563
Down with HDR or HRD or whatever the heck it's called. In an 'artistic'
aspect, I guess it's cool and interesting. But photos should never look like
paintings, paintings should like photos (well most paintings anyway). And
yeah, I haven't posted in this thread in a while due to the fact I haven't
really left my house for the longest. Not with my camera anyway, so I
guess I should start shooting and contribute to my favorite thread and one
of the few threads I actually view these days. But great job everyone and
you gots to appreciate all the love and information ebayologist has put in
this thread. Good looks fam'.

TRUTH, but you have to admit, when it comes to car photos. HDR makes the car look a million times better. :lol Thats the only situation where I prefer doing HDR. I hate how folks over use it and do it on the simplest of things. :{

OG Member Since 2000, AIR JORDAN TWO3


post #666 of 14563
but panasonic = cheaper also ebayologist:)
few bills cheaper hehe....and in silver or black.....

FS: Opium180 sz12 $110, AM1/95 HOA 9 near retail+ship, AM95 '05 orange+grey 10 gradation and tuxedo PM Me
References: In the Profile......
High Priority Looking For: AF1 HK sz8 DS or 1-2x worn with Box
Myspace - Boring Ol' Lefty
post #667 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ See but you're comparing the previous generation to the next...

Panasonic DMC-LX2 does = Leica D-Lux 2 but doesn't = Leica D-Lux 3

See but the most up to date version is the Leica D-Lux 3 (that as added megapixels, a few other things, etc.) of which they don't make a panasonic equivalent... The Leica still may well cost more for the equivalent but thats probably because it's out of production, but the Leica D-Lux 3 cost more because its newer and has better specs/features...

At least thats what I think based on reading the specs and reviews.. I don't know maybe I'm wrong... either way. That Panasonic is solid deal, its a Leica with Panasonic badges.
post #668 of 14563

Yeah tell me about it.

I am not one to get banned but this dude was talking reckless and I had to put
him in check. Other than that I only post in the WDYW and Photography
post. I rarely say anything at all but knowing ISS Mods/Admins they are
quick to ban someone. I am the nicest, coolest person ahhaha.

Oh well whatever.

As for HDRs. I guess its a love or hate thing. I think it just depends on
how its done. If its overly done like the two pics I did it looks eh.

But for some scenery pics as the other HDR pics I posted the first time I
think it looks very dope.

I was going to take some new pics with my new lens this weekend but
the stupid company sent me a Nikon lens instead of a Canon lens. :rolleyes

post #669 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ What company you order it from?

Cause B&H has been @#%$ @#%$ up hard for me. I ordered 20 rolls of kodak 120 800iso film for my next series of work that I've just be working out all the logistics on. So they shipped to the wrong zip code (like 5 miles away) then shipped back to NY and now they're charging me to ship it again. All because I didn't catch what was happening by checking the ups tracking everyday, ugh... It's taking forever and its incredibly @#%$ annoying....
post #670 of 14563
How do you make pictures sharper and clearer using PS? Do you just use the sharpen tool and just cover the whole pictures or do you do other things ?

post #671 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ No, you're going to end up with noise... you can to a degree but not in the sense you're talking about.

Sharpness in reality is more an issue of how you shot it, i.e. pixel rates, lense, camera used, etc. But changing the contrast is probably what you mean, so the colors are sharper. thats under images/adjustments...

And by clearer you mean like dust or like less blured? because dust or dirt, etc use the masking tool. less blured again is more an issue of how you shoot it...
post #672 of 14563
Image hosting kind of screwed up the quality, but the idea is there.Critique?


Team Macintosh
post #673 of 14563
On photoshop how do I make everythin black n white n jus leave acouple things colored?

Team SK3 we dont miss posts... we got auto updates.
post #674 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ I know how to do it in illustrator if you have that its live trace (it's under the object menu), I never really use the function but if you play around with live trace i'm sure it can't be that hard to figure out... But thats probably the most ideal way to do. Because essentially you're rendering a graphic from an image and Illustrator will render a vector based graphic so that would ideally be the way to do it.. But if you only have Photoshop, I'll look around in min...

Edit: Yeah, I just look around in Photoshop and no clue as how to do what you're talking about as I understand it in Photoshop... Based on what I think you want to do Illustrator will give a far better result anyways...

but the idea is there.Critique?

first photo is the better of the two. But I think the oddity of the subject superceeds the composition of the photograph. The subject is like damn thats crazy and the photograph is kinda like just ok, maybe kinda dull (not in the shiny sense). I know I always say I don't like skewed angles but perspective could be ideally employed here, maybe get closer and lower and shoot upward (remember alittle goes a long way). Personally I'd say its cropped too tight for the current composition, but I like the subject alot, quite the interesting sculpture, just not how its framed...
"Ebayologist's Solutions"
1. I would try employing perspective
or 2. Take like 5-10 steps back, maybe even more... your subject doesnt have to fill half the frame for people to get thats your subject...

second photo, is underexposed. I understand the logic to why it is. It's a silhouette landscape. I just don't agree with how underexposed it is. I think you'd still get the contrast you want but have interesting details that currently get left in the dark (literally).
"Ebayologist's Solutions"
1. Open up the lense i.e. lower the f-stop or Lengthen the shutter speed (not too much don't blur the photo, like if you're on a boat, no less than 1/125, maybe 1/60)
or 2. Raise the iso, thus allowing you to keep the lense closed down and maintain shutter speed.
Either only marginally change I think will do a lot for your photograph.
post #675 of 14563

Yes, it is the first version

post #676 of 14563
oh dear. i have yet another question to ask you guys.
i hope i'm not being a pain.
but uhm, i have an Olympus Evolt E-500 w/ ext. flash.
i don't know if that matters, but basically: i would like to know how to take night shots like some that i've seen in here? Everytime i try to take night, doesn't work out so much. so i was wondering if it had something to do with flash settings, maybe the iso, etc etc?

thanks for any help, guys.
What's a sneaker boutique?

same dude, different name. rip: spaceman23

post #677 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^What kinda night shots are you refering to for starters and we'll go from there... Also how does it "not work out", like what kinda result are you getting?

i hope i'm not being a pain.

Like I think I said from the get go this post is about all things photography. If you got a question, ask it... I'll answer when I see it, or someone else will...
post #678 of 14563
uhm, i don't know quite how to explain it. i guess i like the shots where the city is all lit up and it's night time. or just...idk, anything shot at night, i guess. gah, i'm no help. :lol

and as for the result that i usually get: either the flash is way too overbearing or it's just not enough. do you know what i'm saying?

tomorrow night i'll be heading to the beach (i live in charleston, SC), and i'd love to take some shots of the beach houses that are lit up, as well as some of the buildings along the boardwalk and stuff. so i was wondering if you could suggest, from the little info that i've given you, maybe an idea of what settings to set my camera to (depending on what my surroundings are)?
What's a sneaker boutique?

same dude, different name. rip: spaceman23

post #679 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ Well for starters flashes have an effective range most of which is relatively short, if you tell me what kind of external flash I can probably figure out what kinda range you have with it. But my guess is most of your pictures where you use a flash at night come out where the foreground is almost scorched with light and the background is complete underexposed... Flashes for the most part are used to supplement existing light and or create effects or highlight certain things. not really fill a foreground and background. So I'll just leave the external flash alone for cityscapes.

If you want to blur like traffic and lights like some people in this post do at night, long exposures what your looking for basically just an exposure maybe 2 seconds or more will give a significant blur of motion but things like buildings and whatnot should be realatively in focus and it allows for proper or reasonably proper exposure...

"Ebayologist's Solutions" (use any or all of the solutions. together)
1st use tripod (definately a must for night time photography)
2nd use the self timer
3rd if the subject doesnt move, i.e. buildings, nature... use a long exposure.
4th if you want to blur lights of traffic and moving things use a long exposure
5th again if your subject doesnt move close down the lense as much as you can i.e. high f-stop ex. f16 or f22 and just whatever the coresponding exposure is...
6th use as low an iso as you can. i.e. if you it means a longer exposure, and the subject doesnt move or you want to blur the subject than do that..
7th try going for exposures slightly longer that meter suggests or raise the f-stop a full stop based on what the camera says...

That's all I can think of off the top of my head...

Simply put if the subject doesnt move i.e. a building get as low an iso and close down the lense as much as you can. If that means your exposure is five minutes (probably wont be that much, but still)... well find something to do for five minutes and make sure no one bumps your camera...
post #680 of 14563
Great thread.

Ebay---great tips. Appreciated

Here are some shots I took at Pearl harbor and the Waikiki Aquarium. Not much; still messing around with my new camera. Peace.

Virginia Beach......Slide On The Roof 2003
post #681 of 14563
thanks ebayologist for the insight
Team Macintosh
post #682 of 14563
this thing definitely needs a *bump*
What's a sneaker boutique?

same dude, different name. rip: spaceman23

post #683 of 14563
Nice night tonight so I've been out taking a few pictures.

Got this panorama that I'm pretty pleased with - from a spot that my Grandad painted the city from - my parents have the painting and I always liked it. There's a ripple in the clouds that I just noticed - nothing a little healing brush couldn't fix. Although I was in manual and had all the settings set the same for each pic the clouds were moving really fast so it screwed things up a little.


Then I've been messing around with Photomatix - the Photoshop HDR thing really sucks but I was quite pleased with this.


Shopping at The Leftorium since 1977.

post #684 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ Jeff Wall alot of the time does essentially what Photomatix is with film. One time in the photo computer lab at my school two grad students were going back forth about how digital and how it has a limited value range compared to film and one of those dude's keep on mentioning Photomatix like it was the equalizer... I don't know about that, but if it makes for better digital photos, then more power to those who shoot digital...

- It does do a beautiful job with exposure... an almost perfectly exposed shot. but it almost looks like two seperate images like one bellow layered on the one above. but either def. a nice shot...
post #685 of 14563
what kind of kamera did you use to go underwater to take that pic??
UNLUCKY with the 13 on the toe
post #686 of 14563
so, i finally stopped being lazy and picked a few photos to share with you guys. all of these are kind of old, cause i haven't gone out to shoot a lot lately. uhm, all are shot with an Olympus Evolt e-500.
btw, i do a lot of band photography, so i thought i'd throw in a few picks from a Vanna (favorite band) show.:lol
there's a lot, so enjoy and i'd like some critiques too. :D








(not from Vanna.:lol )



What's a sneaker boutique?

same dude, different name. rip: spaceman23

post #687 of 14563
what kind of kamera did you use to go underwater to take that pic??

if i'm not mistaken, that wasn't taken underwater.
i think it's through the aquarium glass, correct?
i might be wrong though...
What's a sneaker boutique?

same dude, different name. rip: spaceman23

post #688 of 14563

I think you should've shot it at another location. To me the background
kind of throws the subject off, so if you were possibly to the right more and
shooting at the door instead it would've looked a lot better. Basically
to the right more.

I actually like your second pic better. Wish you could've gotten more of a
panoramic shot. It would've been nice. I know its hard to crop that picture
but a little off the top and bottom would make the pic a little better in my

Like this. But then again I wish it was a little wider.


Nice job on the band pics spaceman. For some reason I like the emotions
in those type of pics and its really hard to capture it without it turning out
blurry. I also like the bridge pic even though you took it from a moving car
I would possbly crop out the side mirror out.

post #689 of 14563

Anyone know if that's the STOCK lenses for the Nikon D80?

Also, info on the huge flash piece on the top?
. . ! . .

post #690 of 14563
Thread Starter 
^ the flash is a nikon sb-600 speedlight, I'm 100% sure thats what it is... no clue about the lense...

i'd like some critiques too.

Your 1st two images are nice, but they don't really do much for me... the 1st is better than the 2nd. The 2nd image is oddly composed with sky v. the buildings.. neither are bad images by any means but they rely way too much on perspective and odd angles to create interest.

Your 3rd image does what the 1st two don't, you create a subject and even a such a simple composition goes a long way... I personally would bring the fence more into the frame, either than or take it out, you're riding the fence (figuratively) by having the in the frame just barely in the frame, make a choice, have in part of composition or not, dont just give us the underexposed tips of the fence...

4th image if the tree is your subject you either need more of the tree or less of it. And if the building is your subject then take like 10-15 steps back and frame it properly. i.e. straight on. I can see in my head an image straight across getting the trunk of the tree, the 1st floor window, the fire hydrant the sidewalk, and the image in my head is beautiful, this current one is kinda eh... :lol

5th image has composition and contrast issue much like image #2. The clear sky isn't helping you... Also personally I don't like the lamp post just poping up out of no where its incredibly akward.

6th is underexposed, too much sky... aside from you're shooting directly into direct sunlight... not a whole lot more to say beyond that about this image...

7th I love the bridge. My dad collects bridge pictures and paintings. So I can definately understand the appeal of bridge photography, but your harsh angle murders an otherwise great image.. you make the a potrait with base of the bridge at the bottom of the frame and its @#%$ money. instead you went ala myspace on us with the crazy angle...

The band photos, if I like the first one the best out of them all. But the flashs feel odd coming from below the camera... Also angle with crazy angles. If that's your move than more power to you. End of the day shoot how you like. But as someone who's formally taught photography and the bulk of my own work is portraiture, I like controlled compositions that frame the subject, where the subject falls with in its surrounds not envelopes. It's hard to explain without going to into alot of detail but I would say you crop to tight and the angles take away from your image...

Simply put wild angles don't make images more interesting they make it so the image is harder to visually understand...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General
NikeTalk › NikeTalk Forums › The Lounge › General › Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne