- Feb 9, 2007
- 761
- 13
the last pic is pretty nice.
teamdecepticon
T R A N S F O R M E R S
2 people using this screen name.sole lovely/mjbetch/a filipino
TEAM MAC
Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by ebayologist,
- Start date
- Jun 30, 2007
- 156
- 10
lol, so NT is going through an HDR phase. Thats cool, never really got around to messing with it. Sometimes it looks tacky, but when used right you get really powerfull effective photos. Looks like its good for advertisements.
- Jun 25, 2003
- 1,086
- 10
TEAM SINISTER
Shopping at The Leftorium since 1977.
Shopping at The Leftorium since 1977.
ar3 ar3 ar3
Banned
- May 8, 2007
- 16
- 10
Some pictures I did of this dude sitting outside of Publix.
- Mar 19, 2001
- 468
- 12
Sup_
I like the 2nd and Last one John.
First one because it has some repetition in it and I took a similar pic back in HS. I love
repetition and angle type of photos.
I kinda agree if the last one was like the second one it would be more effective. You
might of cropped out your son too much. I would of shot it from a side angle.
Nice pic AR3. I like the 2nd portrait. Lots of detail.
I like the 2nd and Last one John.
First one because it has some repetition in it and I took a similar pic back in HS. I love
repetition and angle type of photos.
I kinda agree if the last one was like the second one it would be more effective. You
might of cropped out your son too much. I would of shot it from a side angle.
Nice pic AR3. I like the 2nd portrait. Lots of detail.
- May 20, 2004
- 1,290
- 10
^ That contrast technique comes from B/W film photography it's called 0-5 filtering. Where you exlarge a photograph using both the 0 and the 5 filter one at a time getting exposures times on both and then doing it one and then the next and then developing. Because the 5 filter only lets in white and blacks and the 0 filter lets in mid value greys so you get a great contrast and spectrum of values..
- Feb 9, 2005
- 63
- 10
So if I only had one image file to use, it would work just as well to modify that single image into different exposures and color balances in order to generate an HDR picture?
----
Karmaloop 20% off!
Code: AN7084
----
Karmaloop 20% off!
Code: AN7084
- Sep 9, 2006
- 3,244
- 510
Hey. Ill give this a bump. Could someone HDR this pani i took? THanks.
TEAMlateNIGHT
Team Vintage Heat
teamautobot
- Mar 19, 2001
- 468
- 12
Sup_
- Sep 9, 2006
- 3,244
- 510
before
after - tinypic messed it all up. smh
after - tinypic messed it all up. smh
TEAMlateNIGHT
Team Vintage Heat
teamautobot
- Feb 9, 2005
- 63
- 10
Thanks for the help, this thread is golden.
Bummmp
----
Karmaloop 20% off!
Code: AN7084
Bummmp
----
Karmaloop 20% off!
Code: AN7084
- Mar 31, 2002
- 882
- 32
to those that want to do hdr with 1 image. i STRONGLY suggest you do not make the different exposures from the original raw file. i know there are situations where sometimes you don't have a choice of doing that, but if you can take 3 pics with 3 different exposures, do so because they produce different images.
here is the same hdr image that i previously posted where my canon took 3 images...
now, here is another hdr where i took the neutral setting exposure raw image, composed 2 more raw images of +/- 2 on the exposure. i then put them into photomatix using the EXACT SAME settings to the image you see above...
as you can see, it produces 2 completely different images. now, one can argue a few things when viewing these two images. the first being that they prefer the latter image because they favor oversaturated images. the second being that with different settings the image requiring photoshop to create 2 different exposures can produce the exact same image as the one taken completely by my canon. i can't persuade/dissuade you on which is better of the 2 images, and i can tell you for fact due to my overextensive use of photoshop that with enough time and effort, i can make either image look extremely close to the other....
point being, there is indeed a difference when doing hdr with 1 original raw file and doing hdr with 3 original raw files.
... just do it ...
here is the same hdr image that i previously posted where my canon took 3 images...
now, here is another hdr where i took the neutral setting exposure raw image, composed 2 more raw images of +/- 2 on the exposure. i then put them into photomatix using the EXACT SAME settings to the image you see above...
as you can see, it produces 2 completely different images. now, one can argue a few things when viewing these two images. the first being that they prefer the latter image because they favor oversaturated images. the second being that with different settings the image requiring photoshop to create 2 different exposures can produce the exact same image as the one taken completely by my canon. i can't persuade/dissuade you on which is better of the 2 images, and i can tell you for fact due to my overextensive use of photoshop that with enough time and effort, i can make either image look extremely close to the other....
point being, there is indeed a difference when doing hdr with 1 original raw file and doing hdr with 3 original raw files.
... just do it ...
- Dec 4, 2006
- 423
- 10
what's the name of this effect???
- Jan 19, 2005
- 320
- 10
we need more pics keep this thread alive
I know the Game like I'm reffing It.
I know the Game like I'm reffing It.
- Jul 20, 2003
- 173
- 10
Wish I brought my camera last night to the County Fair.
For some reason my batteries won't charge on my camera, sucks.
For some reason my batteries won't charge on my camera, sucks.
Bape x efined x SupremeToo Busy At Work To Shop
- Oct 30, 2005
- 790
- 20
I know I know... grainy (gives it an old look though... that I like and fits this pic)...
But yea... just post'd any random pic I had uploaded to Flickr in order to BUMP the thread... keep it alive...
But yea... just post'd any random pic I had uploaded to Flickr in order to BUMP the thread... keep it alive...
- May 13, 2003
- 68
- 10
ebayologist...?
Do you know any info on the Pentax 67II medium format camera? I was reading on it a couple of pro photographers I know use it I just dont know to much about Pentax cameras.
- May 20, 2004
- 1,290
- 10
Yo,
I've heard of it and I know what it looks like... I don't know how much one runs if you could tell me that I probably tell if its worth it. My guess is its nothing remarkable but not bad and probably cheaper than any Hasselblad or Mamiya other than a 645 and the non-TLR Rollei. As far as I know it doesnt have waist level view finder, which is pretty uncommon and quite valuable for medium format. Honestly that alone would dissuade me not to get one because if it has a waist level view finder with any of the non-tlr medium formats you can get a regular viewfinder if thats your move. The best 6x7 medium format is by far a Mamiya 67 or Mamiya RB67, which definately the best non 6x6 medium format camera.
If you want a legit (non-tlr) medium format thats good I wouldn't go with it but... thats just me.
My guess is that its not a bad camera by anymeans and probably built for people who like the feel of shooting 35mm but want medium format...
Also I would bet you're paying a medium format price (maybe little less) but in reality not getting all the features of medium format like removable backs and the waist level view finder...
I've heard of it and I know what it looks like... I don't know how much one runs if you could tell me that I probably tell if its worth it. My guess is its nothing remarkable but not bad and probably cheaper than any Hasselblad or Mamiya other than a 645 and the non-TLR Rollei. As far as I know it doesnt have waist level view finder, which is pretty uncommon and quite valuable for medium format. Honestly that alone would dissuade me not to get one because if it has a waist level view finder with any of the non-tlr medium formats you can get a regular viewfinder if thats your move. The best 6x7 medium format is by far a Mamiya 67 or Mamiya RB67, which definately the best non 6x6 medium format camera.
If you want a legit (non-tlr) medium format thats good I wouldn't go with it but... thats just me.
My guess is that its not a bad camera by anymeans and probably built for people who like the feel of shooting 35mm but want medium format...
Also I would bet you're paying a medium format price (maybe little less) but in reality not getting all the features of medium format like removable backs and the waist level view finder...
- May 13, 2003
- 68
- 10
^ Yeah thats what I read its more of a feel of 35mm camera and it looks like one but bigger. I also read their isnt an option for a polaroid back. Prices I seen is around 2gs on them in good condition. Thanks for the info
- May 20, 2004
- 1,290
- 10
^ Yeah, 2gs strikes me as alot for what your getting. If you have 2g's want to get a medium format there are a ton of cameras I would choose before that unless the whole like 35mm camera is your move and if that is then I think there are cheaper cameras that would work equally or close to as well for significantly less.
And polaroid back is super valuable but more importantly if down the road you want to splurge and get a digital back for a medium format your screwed with that camera wheres any of the 500 series Hassy's can take digital back and I think Mamiya will have the same thing with there 645 and 67 if they don't already...
Edit: Also a pentax 67II has a focal plane shutter which is huge disadvantage if you use flashes or strobes... because leaf shutters which are pretty common in medium format allow for syncing at any shutter speed.
And polaroid back is super valuable but more importantly if down the road you want to splurge and get a digital back for a medium format your screwed with that camera wheres any of the 500 series Hassy's can take digital back and I think Mamiya will have the same thing with there 645 and 67 if they don't already...
Edit: Also a pentax 67II has a focal plane shutter which is huge disadvantage if you use flashes or strobes... because leaf shutters which are pretty common in medium format allow for syncing at any shutter speed.
- Sep 25, 2005
- 14
- 10
- Feb 25, 2005
- 446
- 10
- May 20, 2004
- 1,290
- 10
^forget to White Balance? 
It has quite the set of color cast, just looking at it I would say its red and yellow... I'm sure if you have the tiff file you could definately fix some of it.
It has quite the set of color cast, just looking at it I would say its red and yellow... I'm sure if you have the tiff file you could definately fix some of it.
- Feb 25, 2005
- 446
- 10
- May 20, 2004
- 1,290
- 10
^ If your camera has a tungsten setting that would solve most of your color cast issues... it's like film, it's made for daylight or the equivalent (flashes or strobes) and white balancing is just a basic in camera color correction but under such totally different light I bet it can't automatically get to the tungsten setting. But they make tungsten film to shoot under fluorescent lights mostly at night but generally its for when the temperature of the light is way cooler than the 5500 kelvin of daylight. I'm reasonably sure you have a tungsten setting and in the future that will probably remove the color cast.
