PHOTOS PLEASE
I need an opinion.
I know I need a better camera for what I like to do, but I don't want to spend zillions on lenses and crap like that.
So to Dave, and the other real critics that know a camera......
Would this one suck? for the wide screen prospects that I want to do?
http://www.gadget-inspector.com/digital ... eview.html
Your opinion would be appreciated.
I know I need a better camera for what I like to do, but I don't want to spend zillions on lenses and crap like that.
So to Dave, and the other real critics that know a camera......
Would this one suck? for the wide screen prospects that I want to do?
http://www.gadget-inspector.com/digital ... eview.html
Your opinion would be appreciated.
I doubt it's bad--especially once you learn how to use it, but in my experience, lenses for um... "second tier" SLRs cost an arm and a leg compared to Nikon and Canon probably because of supply and demand.
Actually, I just noticed that one isn't a real SLR. For that much bank, I'd just get an SLR... They cost the same after all.
Considering the fact that cam came out over a year and a half ago and the rate at which digital tech is moving, I'd get something made recently like an XTi or D40 kit. Here's a review of that cam. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung ... page16.asp
Actually, I just noticed that one isn't a real SLR. For that much bank, I'd just get an SLR... They cost the same after all.
Considering the fact that cam came out over a year and a half ago and the rate at which digital tech is moving, I'd get something made recently like an XTi or D40 kit. Here's a review of that cam. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsung ... page16.asp
yeah sure, i'll also post up my bank account details.obsidian wrote:Instead of just posting pics, how about also posting what you did to achieve the affect?
I see some really nice photos in here and I realize I don't have the experience to do the same. Some guidelines and pointers would be a nice addition for us camera noobs.
shot in RAW > ACR aRGB 360dpi for 13 x 19 print > custom WB then play with setting till happy. open in PS > sharpen > resize to 180dpi and 10 x 15 bicubic sharpen > save as tiff > print.....
-
- Posts: 2458
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:56 pm
Menu settings 2dubz wrote:i got a 400d like you macabre, how and where do i set this thing?



Then either shoot in Tv or Manual so you can choose shutterspeed.
2nd curtain makes flash pictures more interesting and colorfull depeding what u wanna achieve ofcourse.
Doombrain wrote:sure.MaCaBr3 wrote:Saw those on your flickr page, nice pictures, I really like the colors and silhouette. Do you mind posting one of the originals so I can see what improvements you made?Doombrain wrote:silhouettes
[lvlshot]http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/5682/img9559ab4.jpg[/lvlshot]
[lvlshot]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1098/859657877_19633f03d0_b.jpg[/lvlshot]
Very nice improvement of colors, wouldn't have thought to post-process it that way like you did. But then again, i'm not the colorspecialist as you, Dave and fanatic

Dunno if you use Adobe Lightroom or Photoshop, but you can pull this off by 'cooling' the colours of your photo if they contain a lot of yellow, orange and red. Reduce the tint/temperature and gain more blues.MaCaBr3 wrote:
Very nice improvement of colors, wouldn't have thought to post-process it that way like you did. But then again, i'm not the colorspecialist as you, Dave and fanatic
-
- Posts: 2458
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 6:56 pm
Is it possible to take a photo of a dimly lit stage without a flash and still have the people on stage not be blurry?
This is my biggest problem with my lack of photography skills. I want to take pictures in a dim room and they just come out super blurry or super ugly due to the flash. Is there a way around this?
This is my biggest problem with my lack of photography skills. I want to take pictures in a dim room and they just come out super blurry or super ugly due to the flash. Is there a way around this?
Last edited by Big Kahuna Burger on Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Your shutter speed should be high enough to capture motion in a dim space. That means 'big glass' a.k.a lenses with large apertures like f/1.8 and perhaps a tripod if you have the space to set it up.Big Kahuna Burger wrote:Is it possible to take a photo of a dimly lit stage without a flash and still have the people on stage not be blurry?
This is my biggest problem with my lack of photography skills. I also want to take pictures in a dim room and they just come out super blurry or super ugly due to the flash. Is there a way around this?
Last edited by saturn on Mon Jul 23, 2007 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Higher ISO values for faster shutterspeeds but with the drawback of having noise.Big Kahuna Burger wrote:Is it possible to take a photo of a dimly lit stage without a flash and still have the people on stage not be blurry?
This is my biggest problem with my lack of photography skills. I want to take pictures in a dim room and they just come out super blurry or super ugly due to the flash. Is there a way around this?
Use big aparture lenses (small F-value). I guess concert photography use lenses between F/1.8 and F/3.2 at most