Quake3World

I'd keep it if that XPan didn't do 35 and pano. You'd need to get a lens for it (such as the $90 50mm f/1.8), but it's one of the best film SLRs you're going to ever find unless Nikon or Canon decided to put out another with current digital body technology. I didn't put this in my ebay description, of course, but I dropped it in a wet field and some guy stepped on it... you'd never know it by looking at it. It's built like a fucking tank. One cool thing is that you can semi-easily handhold it at 1/20-1/30s because the shutter mirror is well damped and doesn't make the camera kick as much as it would on a cheap SLR. It's a little noisy, but that's about the only bad part. I guess the other downside is if you're used to a cheap digital slr and use this thing, you'll hate going back to your digital.

l0g1c wrote:edit: and the xpan is a sexy beast. :icon28: Is this your first panoramic?

yep. I've always thought wide, but I've never wanted to put up with the resolution loss involved in cropping. You can get pano kits for Mamiya and Pentax 6x7 that take 35. I'd do that, but fuck giving up my Hasselblad.

Edit: Actually a Mamiya 7 with the 65x24 adapter might not be too bad... Lots of available lenses and the cam is pretty small since it's also a rangefinder. I think FX said he used to have one.

I loved that Mamiya 7 with the 43mm lens. How I regret trading it in for the 400cc Honda.

Fanatic X wrote:

Now that's just breathtaking. I have to learn how to take silouhettes. Did u use any filters and what did you focus on when taking the pictures?

Yeah thats a nice one Fanatix. No need for all those borders/frames though. They just distract from the actual image in my opinion. But whatever, it looks great... lovely colours and composition.

hey dave. i've just been given a 24" HP3100Z. got to say just loading paper in and an ICC coming out the other end without having to fire up profile maker is nice, same the profiles are of no use to anyone needing ISO.
it also looks like your canon is not alone with crippling bronzing issues, this HP without GO is the worst i've ever see. I might even be able to get a pic of it.

Fanatic X wrote:

wow. new desktop if you're feeling up to it?

MaCaBr3 wrote: Now that's just breathtaking. I have to learn how to take silouhettes. Did u use any filters and what did you focus on when taking the pictures?

Expose for the sky and maybe adjust the exposure compensation by +.5 or 1 to boost the shadows a little.

Doombrain wrote:hey dave. i've just been given a 24" HP3100Z. got to say just loading paper in and an ICC coming out the other end without having to fire up profile maker is nice, same the profiles are of no use to anyone needing ISO.
it also looks like your canon is not alone with crippling bronzing issues, this HP without GO is the worst i've ever see. I might even be able to get a pic of it.

LOL, see? CAN YOU SEE?

Bronzing doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as gloss differential. Canon's new black supposedly improves their bronzing issues quite a bit. The HP has a gloss optimizer cart, so I'm wondering how the whites look...

there's a dE of 2 from white to white with GO :-/

Fanatic X wrote:

1st HDR?

like the second one, too bad for the vignetting though

It's probably not vignetting.. either he added it in later or the sky was getting dark in that area of the photo. Dark corners can also help pull your eye to the center (as if you needed coaxing).

Dave's a smart cookie...

This one was at 10:20pm tonight. No colour enhancements.

excellent sky :icon14:

Here's one we made the other day becuase of the dumb ass photo currently on the University of Iowa website...

http://www.uiowa.edu/

lol, that guy on the website doesn't look very bright

I don't think we pulled off the amount of dumb needed to do it justice

Here's a few I took tonight...

My first nightshot and HDR pictures:

Btw, can you guys fix these pictures in PS or tell me what to do. Or maybe there is just something wrong with my lens cuz it looks awfully grainy and it's only shot in ISO 400.

You're seeing noise because you shot at ISO400, which is not noisy on its own so much (mine above are all 400, but not HDR because I looked for where the light was hitting), but then you added several other photos or over/under processed raw files with noise on top of them.

Your second one is much less noisy, but you've got some wicked halos around a lot of structures.

If you want to do HDR, you should use ISO100 to reduce the amount of noise--especially since you're using a tripod. You might need to get a remote control with a lock so you can go past 30 seconds since you'll need 4 times the exposure needed at 400. Also, if you're trying to do HDR from one RAW file, you should really try using a minimum of 3 shots at different exposure times (not apertures). Underexpose one for the highlights and overexpose one for the shadows at the minimum.

Oh and lastly, noise isn't always a bad thing... A pet peeve of mine are people who shoot at 800 or 1600 and apply waaaay too much noise reduction and end up with an overly smoothed out photo with no detail. People who shoot sports do this all the time.

Tnx allot for the advice Dave, I actually was thinking of setting the camera on 100, but since I'm not used to shoot with a tripod and very long exposure times. I have the habit to change the ISO like i'm shooting freehanded.

I totally forgot that overlapping 5 ISO 400 shots would create allot of noise. Also the I shot them all in JPEG instead of RAW.

I took 5 pictures with different exposures : -2, -1, 0 , +1 +2.

Btw on the bridge I actually highlited the halo's for some reason, but i'm gonna edit it now to get rid of the halos.

Tnx for the advice Dave again.

edit: btw, i'm using Photomatix, should I use detail enhance or tone compressor?

Oh, I take that back.. the one of the house was shot at 800 because I forgot my remote at work and wanted more depth of field.

MaCaBr3 wrote:Tnx allot for the advice Dave, I actually was thinking of setting the camera on 100, but since I'm not used to shoot with a tripod and very long exposure times. I have the habit to put change the ISO like i'm shooting freehanded.

I totally forgot that overlapping 5 ISO 400 would create allot of noise. Also the I shot them all in JPEG instead of RAW.

I took 5 pictures with different exposures : -2, -1, 0 , +1 +2.

Btw on the bridge I actually highlited the halo's for some reason, but i'm gonna edit it now to get rid of the halos.

Tnx for the advice Dave again.

The nice thing about digital is you can do whatever you want

Try doing long exposure with film... That's a whole lot trickier, especially because color shifts and the reciprocity rule (the exposure relationship between aperture, ISO and exposure time) no longer applies. Once you get good at it, you just make guesses and leave the meter at home.

edit: jpeg might fare better in this situation because the camera applies noise reduction to it. The raws wouldn't have that depending on the RAW processor. I'm not saying you should use jpeg though

MaCaBr3 wrote:edit: btw, i'm using Photomatix, should I use detail enhance or tone compressor?

No idea, the few times i've done HDR, I've used PS. You can get rid of halos in PS by modifying the radius settings... Your app might have something similar.