Quake3World

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:51 am**

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.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:42 am**

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

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:55 am**

Saw that before you posted the link.

(ponders)

thx

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:22 am**

Finally got an old roll developed.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 4:50 am**

saturn wrote:That's rear flash exposure. A longer shutter time to catch ambient light and freeze motion at the end with a flash.

I must learn this!
It's really cool!

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 11:30 am**

It's really ez to do, it's just a setting on your camera (if it has the option), most of the time it's called 2nd curtain flash. Means that the flash will go off at the end of the exposure instead of the beginning. Then choose you're desired exposure time and voila.

You can do stuff like this:

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:22 pm**

i got a 400d like you macabre, how and where do i set this thing?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:27 pm**

Maybe i should post mine a big bigger.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:39 pm**

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.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:41 pm**

Beautiful colors on the first shot, DB :icon14:

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:45 pm**

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.

yeah sure, i'll also post up my bank account details.

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.....

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:00 pm**

I have to understand more about the post-processing you guys do when you convert to another color palette etc. I need to understand how to make my photos warmer and richer in color.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:04 pm**

start shooting in raw then in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) you can change all manner of shit, including the white balance.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:07 pm**

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:27 pm**

can you do rear flash exposure on a Nikon D40?
edit: nevermind, google says it can..

edit: also Dave, what settings did you use on the photo of the girls playing lacrosse in the rain? Did you use a tripod?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:43 pm**

Doombrain wrote:silhouettes

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?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:51 pm**

MaCaBr3 wrote:
Doombrain wrote:silhouettes
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?

sure.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:21 pm**

dubz wrote:i got a 400d like you macabre, how and where do i set this thing?

Menu settings 2

Custom Function ok

Custom Function 9

set to 1: 2nd-curtain sync.

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.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:28 pm**

Doombrain wrote:
MaCaBr3 wrote:
Doombrain wrote:silhouettes
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?
sure.

[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

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:32 pm**

Big Kahuna Burger wrote: edit: also Dave, what settings did you use on the photo of the girls playing lacrosse in the rain? Did you use a tripod?

Probably using high shutter speed with a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:35 pm**

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

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.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:47 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?

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:47 pm**

Or set WB to Tungsten...

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:51 pm**

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?

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.

Posted: **Mon Jul 23, 2007 8:57 pm**

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?

Higher ISO values for faster shutterspeeds but with the drawback of having noise.
Use big aparture lenses (small F-value). I guess concert photography use lenses between F/1.8 and F/3.2 at most

Quake3World

PHOTOS PLEASE