Quake3World

Ya, my work pretty much only consists of blend modes, adjustment masks and high passes. I use a large radius when I want to create an embossed cartoonish effect, and I use a smaller radius when I want to sharpen edges.

I never really use overlay, though. I'd rather use a blend mode that's specific for what I'm trying to achieve. Such as a color mode when I'm trying to drop colour in, or a luminosity mask when I'm trying to push colour through. I also like vivid light with different opacity settings. I also use difference layers quite a lot, but it's very subtle on most stuff.

my god, this thread is over 3 years old. there's a post by splish on page 1

I know, most of the cameras that we are using now didn't exist when this thread was made.

Plan B wrote:

GONNAFISTYA wrote:[lvlshot]http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/3150/hpim5644w.jpg[/lvlshot]

Makes me wonder how he came to an end, there.
Sweet shots, btw

Nooooo... not Jazz!

hah - nice sunsets GFY
I used to work in a small start-up studio in Aspendale ('bout 30min train south of Melb city). I remember every afternoon watching great sunsets over the bay!

Yeahso - it also looks like you've got a 'dirt/grunge' layer there too? Or is it only using the original photo?

Here's a couple from Springbrook, (NSW/QLD - Australia) - we have a small cottage up there I would often visit - before moving OS for work.






And one from near West Wylon, central NSW - Australia. Just cruising to visit a friend there.

urgrund777 wrote:

Here's a test shot taken while out the other evening at ISO5000.



Pretty good noise control - this is before noise reduction with software.

And here is another test shot at ISO 3200 at my backyard farm.

stop stalking andy dick.

5000? i thought it went 3200 6400

btw given the collosal wedge you dropped on the camera, i'd expect nothing less than noise-free perfection

It's still a step up from its predecessors that had the same price-tag at release, but yea, for that price, it better give you good results beyond 1600.

I have my ISO set to 1/3 stop increments, which is why I can go there instead of just 3200-6400.

From a shoot today:

Some shitty pics from New York

[lvlshot]http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/6632/img44692.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4055/4291513372_8a9f9e44f1_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2765/4290775247_4d1285a0a5_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4291515218_c983b918c7_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2695/4291518056_7629854bfe_o.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2774/4290776135_9a6901699d_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

settings on the last one?

Canon Powershot A520
Focal length: 5.8125
Aperture: f2.6
Exposure: 1/20

In photoshop: auto levels

neat New York shots

werldhed wrote:Canon Powershot A520
Focal length: 5.8125
Aperture: f2.6
Exposure: 1/20

In photoshop: auto levels

handheld? if so, gg

Yeah. point/shoot. It was a shitty rainy night, too, as you can probably tell.

The blurriness is more obvious if you look at the original size.

quite like that marbled looking shot. what is it?

nice shots werldwhored

Thanks all.

Grandpa Stu wrote:quite like that marbled looking shot. what is it?

It's some big chunk of mineral sitting in the middle of the NYC Museum of Natural History. According to the museum's website, it is a "4.5 ton pillar of azurite/malachite ore"

Not my photo:

Couple more:

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2740/4290772755_459e920185_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4013/4291513498_7b950fe34e_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4291513950_133206c952_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

[lvlshot]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2724/4290774525_5863695c63_b.jpg[/lvlshot]

tnf wrote:From a shoot today:

Don't know, but this looks strange because of the thin light "aura" surrounding her. Real background?

Mortogon wrote: Don't know, but this looks strange because of the thin light "aura" surrounding her. Real background?

Looks like a real background just with a flash fired directly at her backside. It seems like she's out of focus though

It's backlighting from down below. Wanted some rim lighting on the hair - the light around the jacket wasn't ideal but oh well.
It's in very sharp focus in the original, I did soften her face because her makeup was absolutely horrid but kept her eyes razor sharp for the full sized print. I also smoother her hair out a bit to soften the flyaways. That softness might give the out of focus feel.

I've been very happy with the sharpness of the images with the Mark IV and 24-70 together.