Quake3World

Need an opinion here... which one of the two do you like better?

left w/ the color paintings

what about a real color image? no fake B&W?

It's being used as part of a set of other photos, all with that desaturated look. I didn't take the photo, I'm just in charge of post production effects before it goes off to print and that's what the clients want (but they don't really know what they want otherwise I would have asked them).

obsidian, i like the one on the right better. The one on the left has a cooler, slicker feel to it, but the one on the right has that classic look.

It looks like it could be the setup of a coen brother's scene - in the right, the chairs don't look worthy of a b-list actor. They demand high quality.

the one on the right has that look that just captures the imagination.

imo.

one on the right. the coen brothers setup is a nice illustration.
i would also get rid of the outlet, it's really distracting

I prefer the one on the right too.

pissing around in photomatix...

isn't it lovely this time of year, when the bluebells are out?

the one on the right is far more interesting.

I like the one on the left.

why the hell not.

some more:

was at a race this weekend - saw some random stuff like spiderman deciding to perform by one of the bands and a lot of people - and how can people run 8 miles barefoot? Or, why would someone do that?

heh... the dynamic duo

and nice shots seremtan

I have no skills but I'm in some nice country so...

^ nice pix

where is that?

No Macro goodness in this shot.

Set up.....

One rebuilt '69 Pan Head..Suicide shift........
One Rider.....
Sunset......
Storm Cell stretching from Northern Kansas, Northern Missouri.......
267 miles round trip.....
One XTi with a 70-300 IS USM........

Tornado producer that sadly took out houses 40 miles away, no injuries or deaths.....

This is what It looked like at its prime piercing the Jet Stream as the Sun was setting...... Its chain was to long to get in the shot and to darked out from its parent.

I've done this shot a million times now (mainly because I'm just learning about different exposures and all that stuff) but I liked the way the bokeh ended up with this one in the background and the contrast it gave the picture:

seremtan wrote:^ nice pix

where is that?

West of New Plymouth at a surf beach. Sunsets in NZ cause that glare effect on the sea unlike anything I've ever seen on the british coastline.

These should bring it up:
lol cloudz:
http://maps.google.co.nz/?ie=UTF8&ll=-3 ... 9&t=h&z=17
Streetview down to the beach:
http://maps.google.co.nz/?ie=UTF8&ll=-3 ... .62,,0,2.2

You can match up the island in shot with the cluster on the map out to the north-west.

Handheld moon shot - I need a decent tripod. Not very sharp, not a big zoom.

tnf wrote:Handheld moon shot - I need a decent tripod. Not very sharp, not a big zoom.

exif data says 1/400 shutter speed. why would you need a tripod for that? does your zoom not have VR?

Foo wrote:

seremtan wrote:^ nice pix

where is that?

West of New Plymouth at a surf beach. Sunsets in NZ cause that glare effect on the sea unlike anything I've ever seen on the british coastline.

These should bring it up:
lol cloudz:
http://maps.google.co.nz/?ie=UTF8&ll=-3 ... 9&t=h&z=17
Streetview down to the beach:
http://maps.google.co.nz/?ie=UTF8&ll=-3 ... .62,,0,2.2

You can match up the island in shot with the cluster on the map out to the north-west.

you're in new plymouth? i've been there - a long time ago. it's up the coast from my cousins in paraparaumu/raumati (quite a way up the coast, in fact)

yeah, the light in NZ is totally different from the light in Europe - much harsher, with almost no distance haze. find yourself the highest point you can up in the ranges and you can see for 100s of miles in any direction. i miss that

seremtan wrote:

tnf wrote:Handheld moon shot - I need a decent tripod. Not very sharp, not a big zoom.

exif data says 1/400 shutter speed. why would you need a tripod for that? does your zoom not have VR?

yea, I have the 70-200mm f/4 L with no IS. I decided that the extra $400 or $500 it would cost to go with that would be better spent for me on a macro lens in the future.

Snapped a bunch of pics of a nesting pair of osprey this morning. Here are a couple small crops.

tnf wrote:

seremtan wrote:exif data says 1/400 shutter speed. why would you need a tripod for that? does your zoom not have VR?

yea, I have the 70-200mm f/4 L with no IS. I decided that the extra $400 or $500 it would cost to go with that would be better spent for me on a macro lens in the future.

i got one of these: Nikon 55-200MM F4.5-5.6G AF-S VR DX

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-55-200MM- ... 106&sr=1-1

i can't remember which camera you got - D60/80? D40 has no AF motor built-in so i'm stuck with AF-S lenses but this one's pretty good and the VR is solid

seremtan wrote: i can't remember which camera you got - D60/80? D40 has no AF motor built-in so i'm stuck with AF-S lenses but this one's pretty good and the VR is solid

I don't have a Nikon d60 or d80. I have a Canon 50D. I guess it's Canon's competitor to the Nikon D300 - it's Canon's highest performing non-full frame camera, the next step up is the 5D or 5D Mk II.