or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 106

post #1576 of 4186
Crane's you should do podcasts. Everything you write is interesting and also very helpful for a clueless beginner like me? Thanks for your great contributions in the thread.

I went to find a lens for the Minolta but due to the alpha mount, all I was looking at was quite expensive. So I've spent appr. what the 50mm f/1.7 would cost me and bought a barely used Canon EOS 3 which can then use my existing EF lenses. Also I hope that I'll find some nice things this week to fill up my current film in the Minolta so I can get it developed.
post #1577 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhoKnewI View Post
I think the colors need to be toned down here a bit, especially the greens. Look how the greens are glowing right behind the flower. too unnatural imo.

Maybe, but I only cut the picture.
post #1578 of 4186
Two more zoo pics. (Not completely sure whether I've posted the pelican before. Sorry if I have.)

tab
post #1579 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Szeph el ratón View Post
Crane's you should do podcasts. Everything you write is interesting and also very helpful for a clueless beginner like me? Thanks for your great contributions in the thread. I went to find a lens for the Minolta but due to the alpha mount, all I was looking at was quite expensive. So I've spent appr. what the 50mm f/1.7 would cost me and bought a barely used Canon EOS 3 which can then use my existing EF lenses. Also I hope that I'll find some nice things this week to fill up my current film in the Minolta so I can get it developed.
Well thanks. It's funny you say that because the magazine I shoot for has given me a couple of columns to teach people how to take better photos. The first lesson is going to be on white balance which is the most overlooked thing in digital photography. White balance is to digital what filters are to film. IMO fully understanding WB is probably the single most important thing a digital photographer should know all about. So your Minolta is an A mount eh? KEH Photo is your friend in the biz for lenses. I bought a 24 to 105 f3.5-4.5 tele Minolta Maxxum lens for about 140 bucks. It's the same thing as the 600 buck Sony Alpha lens.
post #1580 of 4186
Great shots, NODB!
post #1581 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post
So your Minolta is an A mount eh? KEH Photo is your friend in the biz for lenses. I bought a 24 to 105 f3.5-4.5 tele Minolta Maxxum lens for about 140 bucks. It's the same thing as the 600 buck Sony Alpha lens.
Great site but if I order from there I'll have to add the tax and 19% VAT so even the cheapest lens I'm interested (50mm 1.7) in adds up to ~ 100 EUR if I include shipping. Unfortunately I didn't find any great camera equipment pages like that in Europe so far and buying used here locally is ridiculously expensive (example: I get the Canon hot-shoe cord on Amazon for 56 EUR. The local shop wanted to charge 117).

Sometimes I'm really jealous of people living in big, urban areas.
post #1582 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post
Well thanks. It's funny you say that because the magazine I shoot for has given me a couple of columns to teach people how to take better photos. The first lesson is going to be on white balance which is the most overlooked thing in digital photography. White balance is to digital what filters are to film. IMO fully understanding WB is probably the single most important thing a digital photographer should know all about.

I was always under the impression that shooting in RAW negates having to worry about white balance because you can change the temperature later on in lightroom anyway, is this not correct? I don't see how white balance affects DOF or exposure.
post #1583 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
Great shots, NODB!
Thanks, dhowini! * * * Some more zoo pics I'd like to see photoshopped, so feel free all to adjust them. They obviously lack contrast/strength, so I wonder how much you can pull out of them (and how). I've already made a b/w version of one of the pics, which I'll show later.
post #1584 of 4186
sweet, what lens are you using to get this close?
post #1585 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kas View Post
I was always under the impression that shooting in RAW negates having to worry about white balance because you can change the temperature later on in lightroom anyway, is this not correct? I don't see how white balance affects DOF or exposure.
99% of the P&S cameras don't have RAW and many people who have DSLRs capable of RAW don't use it as well. Many of my posts target beginners or intermediate photographers. IMO a paid professional photographer already knows what they're doing or at least I hope they do. IMO if you spend more time fixing things in post processing than you did on the actual shot then there's a problem. I get paid well by the magazine that hired me. One of the reasons is because about all they do is crop a shot to suit their purpose and it's off to print. Most of the time it's print ready as is. In any case the goal of any photographer should be to get the shot they're after in camera. The less post processing the better. This is especially true if you are doing commercial work. Post processing is time and time is money.
post #1586 of 4186
NOBD I would look at the histogram and see if you have room to tighten it up on the white side. If you do then you can kill some of that muddy look and brighten the lighter colors (the cat). After that if you want more contrast you could try playing with a contrast curve but that might wipe out highlight detail.
post #1587 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post
sweet, what lens are you using to get this close?

A rather crappy Canon 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III. On my camera that makes 120-480mm, which is quite nice.

Again (to all): feel free to play with the pics.
post #1588 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post
NOBD

I would look at the histogram and see if you have room to tighten it up on the white side. If you do then you can kill some of that muddy look and brighten the lighter colors (the cat). After that if you want more contrast you could try playing with a contrast curve but that might wipe out highlight detail.

I'll check, but I don't think there was any room in the histogram.
post #1589 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOBD View Post
I'll check, but I don't think there was any room in the histogram.
If there isn't you can use a curve that lightens the color of the cat or one that increases contrast. What was the sky conditions for these shots? Overcast/cloudy?
post #1590 of 4186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crane's View Post
If there isn't you can use a curve that lightens the color of the cat or one that increases contrast. What was the sky conditions for these shots? Overcast/cloudy?

(Had to check back to 2009.) It was a sunny winter's day. But the pics were taken through lion-proof glass. I guess that partly explains the lack of contrast.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)