Quake3World

I like the sky on the second and the neutrality of the first

:icon20: wow...another amazing night shot from this guy...

Here's a few I made tonight \o/

I hate having to tell the dummies at Walgreens not to cut the film... They always ask me if I'm sure I don't have weird film. First two are more or less the same

very nice. especially the second to last...i like the compo and light.

you can clearly see the colour depth advantage of good 'ol film.

That 400VC has fucking amazing dynamic range and scans like no other film I've tried... The 2nd to last was with the 160, though, but for an extra 20 cents a roll and not much more grain I'd just stick with the 400.

Unfortunately, even at f/16 the xpan vignettes pretty bad in the right conditions :/ I don't feel like spending $250 on a center filter to flatten it out. I think it draws your eye to the center, but sometimes you'd like to have a little more control over it happening...

Gotta look into the 400VC. I've got dips on an old school fuji GSW690 w/ 65mm for pretty cheap. 8 exposures per 120 roll doesn't help though ...should be interesting if/when I get my hands on it.

You guys always make me feel so noob when you post your amazing photos

Fanatic X wrote:Gotta look into the 400VC. I've got dips on an old school fuji GSW690 w/ 65mm for pretty cheap. 8 exposures per 120 roll doesn't help though ...should be interesting if/when I get my hands on it.

If the 8 per roll thing puts you off, you can get a Mamiya 7 with the 35mm pano adapter and get 20 frames per roll. \o/

Either that or get a 6x17 fuji kit.. you though 8 per roll was bad

MaCaBr3 wrote:You guys always make me feel so noob when you post your amazing photos

Well, I can't make any claims to greatness, but I've learned the best way to help transform from boring to interesting is to 1) think about things before you do them, 2) try to think of them in ways that seem bizarre, 3) come up with a plan and leave it behind and 4) look at books by people who truly knew what they were doing or just got unexplainably lucky doing it. The rest of that is just technical know-how that comes over time. TB asked me to name some books and I didn't do it just because I didn't think he'd care, but some of my favs are Lee Friedlander, Jan Staller, Koudelka, Martin Parr, Sebastio Selgado, Jonas Bendiksen.. that's just what I happened to have on the shelf behind me, there's tons of others. I happen to really like this book: http://www.aperture.org/store/books-det ... spx?ID=514

Make things hard on yourself... get a manual camera and shoot B&W, do something in a way people say is stupid--like shooting sports on film in the digital era. If I've discovered anything, it's that digital is easy and digital is lazy.

Grandpa Stu wrote:that looks like a prison cell...

i found a painting in the street today, thats now in my room

Unedited. No filters, other than -03 on exposure. However it does make me want that new camera more and more.

I liked this one cause of the shelf structure and the infeed updraft to the column of the cell. It however was a non producer and a waste of a chase that evening.

(sigh)

Dave wrote:Here's a few I made tonight \o/

I hate having to tell the dummies at Walgreens not to cut the film... They always ask me if I'm sure I don't have weird film. First two are more or less the same

That reminds me of a place near me, but the signs point out that it's a conservation area rather than no shooting .



Is there an easy way to fix the clouds looking overexposed? I can drop the exposure/brightness when I import the RAW - or even after I've opened the image - and its fine (the detail is still there)?

I.e.:

Previously I posted one image of a series.

I was bored and stuck them all into one shot.


Titel: Rider On The Storm

PhoeniX wrote:

Dave wrote:Here's a few I made tonight \o/

I hate having to tell the dummies at Walgreens not to cut the film... They always ask me if I'm sure I don't have weird film. First two are more or less the same

That reminds me of a place near me, but the signs point out that it's a conservation area rather than no shooting .



Is there an easy way to fix the clouds looking overexposed? I can drop the exposure/brightness when I import the RAW - or even after I've opened the image - and its fine (the detail is still there)?

I.e.:

You can shoot, just not from the lot... So I did end up breaking the law, but not because it's a conservation area

Oh and to answer your question, get an ND grad filter. It's a filter that gradually blocks more light across the filter so you can even out exposure between sky and land. You can also try using multiple exposures and HDR techniques, but the filter seems like it would be a lot easier to manage... I usually use adjustment layers with masking instead of applying brightness/contrast/color adjustments directly to the image--sort of like what a raw processor does only not as efficient.

Dave wrote:Oh and to answer your question, get an ND grad filter. It's a filter that gradually blocks more light across the filter so you can even out exposure between sky and land. You can also try using multiple exposures and HDR techniques, but the filter seems like it would be a lot easier to manage... I usually use adjustment layers with masking instead of applying brightness/contrast/color adjustments directly to the image--sort of like what a raw processor does only not as efficient.

I never thought of that - I'll give HDR a try later. I only have one exposure for that shot but I should be able to save off a darker image and use it.

I'm holding out on buying filters as I was going to buy a new wide lens but never got around to it. The 16-35mm I used in that shot was very nice, so I may look at the 10-22mm for mine (cropped).

Thanks .

Just some shots from Mexico while i was sober
1st is my Fav pic...

WP sir. Why the first one, out of curiosity?

Fanatic X wrote:very nice. especially the second to last...i like the compo and light.

you can clearly see the colour depth advantage of good 'ol film.

I just got the MF version from the photo place... I think I like it more

eh.. what the hell... I've been bored lately:

Looks like a lot of you have been collecting some nice texture structure and ambiant images for map inspiration there guys.

Dave wrote:eh.. what the hell... I've been bored lately:

edit: first pic

Great light!

p.s. wow, what happened to the forum lay-out

Dave wrote:

MaCaBr3 wrote:You guys always make me feel so noob when you post your amazing photos

Well, I can't make any claims to greatness, but I've learned the best way to help transform from boring to interesting is to 1) think about things before you do them, 2) try to think of them in ways that seem bizarre, 3) come up with a plan and leave it behind and 4) look at books by people who truly knew what they were doing or just got unexplainably lucky doing it. The rest of that is just technical know-how that comes over time. TB asked me to name some books and I didn't do it just because I didn't think he'd care, but some of my favs are Lee Friedlander, Jan Staller, Koudelka, Martin Parr, Sebastio Selgado, Jonas Bendiksen.. that's just what I happened to have on the shelf behind me, there's tons of others. I happen to really like this book: http://www.aperture.org/store/books-det ... spx?ID=514

Make things hard on yourself... get a manual camera and shoot B&W, do something in a way people say is stupid--like shooting sports on film in the digital era. If I've discovered anything, it's that digital is easy and digital is lazy.

Tnx for the advice again and great pictures again aswell.

Been to France last week, the Auvergne region. Beautiful rural area and excellent weather.
Shot this photo while we were biking the area. Using a 24mm manual focus while guessing the shutter time going with f/8 and a polarizer filter on top. Ah well, on a digital body you can always check the lighting grossly on the LCD.

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id ... 330&size=l

edit: hmmm....can't post the direct image-link, getting It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image., posting the url instead

Dave wrote:WP sir. Why the first one, out of curiosity?

I just like the light colour and the ambience