Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

sifu said:
Am I a complete tool to spend 50 euros for m42 500mm mirror lens? Havent done it yet.. but with 2x extender and crop factor 1600mm lens sounds tempting + there is a m42 3x extender for 25 euros.. which would make it a 2400mm + I can stack my 3x and 2x also..4800mm :D
Click to expand...

Mmm...4800mm F/48... :lol:

my math is probably off, but in any case, you're gonna have to be shooting the sun itself to get enough usable light out of that!

EDIT (Random thought of my own): After taking a few self-portrait photos, I've come to the realization that when I think I'm smiling (with my mouth closed), I look indifferent, and when I think I look indifferent, I look pissed. Attempting to smile for the camera while showing teeth was about as successful as Kimi Raikkonen's attempt. Does anyone else have this problem?
 
Last edited:
BerserkerCatSplat said:
He wasn't seeing things, Future Shop screwed up their website and clearly can't tell the different between a 35mm macro and a consumer telephoto.
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest, the Zuiko 70-300 is decent as a "Macro". It's not a 'real' macro, but it'll work reasonably well for bugs and stuff.
 
^ Sorry, still using SD here ;) :dunno: FWIW, Kingston and Crucial are the names in memory.

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like "I rock, everyone else sucks", but here goes...

The organizer of the concert I recently shot wants to use some photos for compilation DVD that will be given to record labels who provided bands, for promos for next year's event... basically, to anyone who wants them for event memorabilia. As these DVDs are being given away and it's a non-profit event for the local food banks and youth drop-in centres, I have little problem with just giving them some photos as long as I can leave a watermark in a corner or otherwise have a credit listed on the DVD.

[ego-mode] However, I have seen the "promo for the DVD" video that contains a few photos they're using. I saw the other people taking pictures there, mostly with point-and-shoots or SLRs in full-auto using the on-board flash :)puke:). There was one other guy using off-camera flash, but I've seen his pictures, which are nothing special for the most part. [/ego-mode]

Would I be helping or hurting myself by letting my work be seen among these photos?
 
Last edited:
Meh, you'd look a lot better than the rest, would you not?
 
That's what was thinking, but I wasn't sure if there was some "average brings down the best" sort of situation that could occur.
 
Cosworth said:
Anyone here have any experience with Kingston Elite Pro CF cards ? Can pick up two 16GB cards for ?60 but have only ever used Sandisk / Fuji in the past ...
Click to expand...

epp_b said:
^ Sorry, still using SD here ;) :dunno:
Click to expand...

x2, it is a Kingston, as was the smaller one I had, never had any problems.
 
Cheers guys ! Ordered two 16GB cards earlier along with two 8GB Sandisks which should quench my thirst for memory cards for a while anyways !

@epp_b

Submit your absolute best, if it's only two or three from an entire event, perfect. Your better off with two or three awesome images than ten good images.
 
One of my lenses had a brief fight with gravity today and lost the battle, badly. I will be taking the camera out tomorrow for a "run through" with another lens, hopefully it hasn't damaged the lens mount or anything similarly nasty. Thinking positively, my gear is insured (even if I did forget to update the 18-70 lens price :cry:).

Truth be told I secretly want the body to be totalled too as it would allow me to get an upgrade of sorts. Either way I must put my brave face on to deal with these insurance fellows.
 
nomix said:
Meh, you'd look a lot better than the rest, would you not?
Click to expand...

sifu said:
^ what he said..
Click to expand...

Cosworth said:
Submit your absolute best, if it's only two or three from an entire event, perfect. Your better off with two or three awesome images than ten good images.
Click to expand...

Agree. From what I can tell, you're still in a position where you're trying to get your name out and build a client base. If you have no other avenue to sell these pictures, you might as well use them for self promo, and if you think yours will be the best and they will get wide exposure then even better.

I can completely understand not wanting to associate yourself with a production that you feel to be mediocre, but if you can clearly identify which pictures are yours and they stand out above the others then it won't be too much of a problem.
 
I can completely understand not wanting to associate yourself with a production that you feel to be mediocre, but if you can clearly identify which pictures are yours and they stand out above the others then it won't be too much of a problem.
Click to expand...
That's exactly the dilemma I was wrestling with. Thank you for clarifying.
 
Well I went and bought my lens this morning. I'm diggin it as of right now and I'm looking forward to putting it to work outside tomorrow since I didn't really get a chance today due to work.
 
falling snow over a mid toney blurred background = awesome effect

http://img44.imageshack.**/img44/5742/hehwc.jpg
 
Last edited:
Why post processing is necessary, using my dog because he's a perfect example of a camera's dynamic range not being sufficient:

Shot raw. The top one is my defaults in camera raw, which is similar to OOC jpgs. If he weren't in the shade his fur would have more highlights, but he is in the shade so his fur has very little detail. I merely bumped up the fill light slider (basically like dodging all the shadows in the image, but the results aren't quite the same) and presto, now it's like what you would see with your own eyes.

https://pic.armedcats.net/r/ra/ramseus/2009/10/10/fuckyocouchnigga.jpg

the moral of the story: fuck people who don't process photos
 
The camera has plenty of DR, it's the JPEG processing engine that doesn't extract enough of it. PP is needed to extract what's in the sensor in cases like this.

:)
 
As far as post goes, a few of my favorite B&W film prints each took about an hour to get right (and a dozen or so sheets of paper) and now take about 2-3 minutes to do all the burning and dodging correctly. Post is a part of photography; it's all about how much and what style you do it in.
 
chaos386 said:
After taking a few self-portrait photos, I've come to the realization that when I think I'm smiling (with my mouth closed), I look indifferent, and when I think I look indifferent, I look pissed. Attempting to smile for the camera while showing teeth was about as successful as Kimi Raikkonen's attempt. Does anyone else have this problem?
Click to expand...
*raises hand*
I'm not photogenic in any way...

As for my own random thought, it appears my A200 decided a few days ago to reset itself to .jpeg from RAW.
When do I find out? When it comes to processing a bunch of photos from yesterday's bike trip. FFS.
 
If I try to look normal, I look like an absolute dork. If I try to smile with my teeth, I look like a guy that would sell you a clocked second hand Vectra from a shed and a parking lot.

Neither are very photogenic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top