Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:15 pm
I should have refocused on this one...Bah ffs this has too many black in it...gonna redo it.
Page 106 of 284
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:57 pm
well the whole point in HDR is you can see the whole, dynamic, range...
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:59 pm
This one is not HDR. But if you guys are up for it, I can post the original and see what u guys make of it. Just to see how you guys would process it.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:00 pm
if it's not raw there's not much point really
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:02 pm
it isn't 
I really need to shoot everything in RAW ffs, don't know what keeps me from doing it. I guess I oftedn take pictures of partys and friends etc that I forget to switch to RAW when I wanna take decent pictures.
I really need to shoot everything in RAW ffs, don't know what keeps me from doing it. I guess I oftedn take pictures of partys and friends etc that I forget to switch to RAW when I wanna take decent pictures.Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:24 pm
You don't need raw for decent pictures, it's a digital negative for post-processing. If you know what you're doing, there's nothing wrong with JPEG. It's harder to correct a faulty white balance setting, but not impossible.
p.s. there are plenty of interesting things to shoot, just look around and start observing.
p.s. there are plenty of interesting things to shoot, just look around and start observing.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:25 pm
I likes it......it has a 70's atmospherel0g1c wrote:Shot with some slide film that's old enough to drive.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:27 pm
I always shoot RAW.. there's no good reason not to. If I want to shoot B&W, I shoot RAW+JPEG (or film).saturn wrote:You don't need raw for decent pictures, it's a digital negative for post-processing. If you know what you're doing, there's nothing wrong with JPEG. It's harder to correct a faulty white balance setting, but not impossible.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:30 pm
bleh.....mostly I'm too lazy to do much post-processing.....jpeg is (too) easy.
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 4:31 pm
we need more cleavage!A1yssa wrote:a self shot...
Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:16 pm
lazy cunts.
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:31 pm
Diving in a tiny bit myself.
Wouldnt ever expect anything near as nice as you guys. And kansas has pretty bland shit to take pics of. but none the less, i bought a shitty Fuji S700. It does the job, i just need to learn more about settings and shit.
Couldnt decide which one i liked. SO f it, theres both.
Some random statue. Fucking with the B&W setting on the camera. Meh
A random wall on the side of a bank.
Wouldnt ever expect anything near as nice as you guys. And kansas has pretty bland shit to take pics of. but none the less, i bought a shitty Fuji S700. It does the job, i just need to learn more about settings and shit.
Couldnt decide which one i liked. SO f it, theres both.
Some random statue. Fucking with the B&W setting on the camera. Meh
A random wall on the side of a bank.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:22 am
FX, got some new film: Kodak 400VC. It pwns and is easy as hell to scan.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:25 am
lol.. and here's what happens to film when the cam gets wet:
The purple marks are stains from the film touching the in the machine and the little orange dots are chemicals that didn't get washed off. Don't use an xpan in the rain...
The purple marks are stains from the film touching the in the machine and the little orange dots are chemicals that didn't get washed off. Don't use an xpan in the rain...
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:02 am
Doombrain wrote:lazy cunts.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:10 am
people just shooting in jpeg because they can't be bothered to process the raw files.A1yssa wrote:Doombrain wrote:lazy cunts.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:48 pm
I'd hit it!A1yssa wrote:a self shot...
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:49 pm
sad, innit?Doombrain wrote:people just shooting in jpeg because they can't be bothered to process the raw files.A1yssa wrote:Doombrain wrote:lazy cunts.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:08 pm
That's fucking creepy, looks like you're floating over clouds above land mass. Timelapse waves are always fun.Dave wrote:
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:09 pm
So Dave do you do all your shots with film and then scan them?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:14 pm
Flip the photo upside down, that's how I really shot it at 1/15s.phantasmagoria wrote:That's fucking creepy, looks like you're floating over clouds above land mass. Timelapse waves are always fun.Dave wrote:
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:15 pm
tnf wrote:So Dave do you do all your shots with film and then scan them?
All of the panoramics and most of the square shots are film. The others depend but are probably digital.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:16 pm
So how much $$ do you have wrapped up into cameras and equipment for this stuff?
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:33 pm
No idea, but considering I can recoup 80-90% its value in the used market, I don't really dwell on it.
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:46 pm
yes, it's true...but I'm just the model and I just pushed the button...don't care about the acquiring process...Doombrain wrote:people just shooting in jpeg because they can't be bothered to process the raw files.A1yssa wrote:Doombrain wrote:lazy cunts.
