Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthormanglr
    • CommentTimeDec 16th 2011
    @Steve - Those shots were actually quite good. Very sobering and I think you did a wonderful job processing the enormity of the experience into something useful from a photographic experience. Thanks for sharing!
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
    A big thank-you to all who post in this thread. I'm not much of a camera guy, but there's always something wonderful to see here.
  1.  (10245.223)
    @mamgir Thanks for the compliment ;)
    • CommentAuthorBankara
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
    @oddbill, I really like the color treatments in those. The angle, color, mood, and (dayum!) subject are all really bang on. I am a bit envious because I am contemplating doing some nudes/pinup style stuff and I find it really difficult to approach. The reason why I specialize in self-portraiture is because I don't feel awkward in front of the camera myself. The self-portraits come out of my testing different lighting setups on myself so that when I use them on other people I already have an idea of how it is going to look. I do this so I feel like less of a fraud, or I suppose if I were to sound less self-derogatory, more confident. I am far from a prude but I have a hard enough time directing clothed people so nudes pose a real challenge. I have shot them but been deeply dissatisfied with the results. I am going to try again though because I think the only way you grow as an artist is to deliberately and repeatedly do the things that make you profoundly uncomfortable. Probably this lesson is applicable across many other disciplines besides photography.
    • CommentTimeDec 17th 2011
    @Bankara - re: making yourself uncomfortable - I could not be in stronger agreement.

    "Go where you aren't wanted" has got to be the Zeroth Law of art.
  2.  (10245.226)
    A birthday celebration:


    lady laps

    I like the feel of these photographs, but I'm frustrated with my camera. Though I've every single setting set to NOT filter anything no matter what the ISO or shutter speed, it STILL manages to filter my low light photographs so they look all airbrushed. Argh. I suppose I shouldn't complain, what with the ISO going up to 51,200.

    Also, @JoanneLeah, @Bankara, @Oddbill, @Oldhat, and other photographers I may know who are or will be in the NYC area: I'm less sickly these days, and I'm shifting my life priorities about and would like to model for any of you, if you so desire. I'm comfortable with being naked if that's what you are looking for (though I'm not as in shape as I should be from all the bed rest and whatnot, and I am probably an older specimen than you'd prefer). Perhaps I'd make a better muse than an artist.
  3.  (10245.227)
    You have a Panasonic, right? If you have the long exposure noise reduction turned on, how long does the exposure have to be before it kicks in? I know with Nikons if you want a true unfiltered high ISO or long exposure you actually have to turn the long exposure NR on and then either shut the camera off instead of closing the shutter (when shooting Bulb) or turn the camera off while it's taking the dark frame for the noise reduction (I had to do this all the time when I did astrophotography on the D50 because any amount of noise reduction tended to blur out a lot of the stars. The D7000's resolution is high enough that I don't really notice it). The Panasonic might do the same thing.

    Since I haven't posted any pictures in forever (because there's not much to take pictures of in Phoenix):

    Some pretty nice god ray action over Phoenix. Taken with my phone.
  4.  (10245.228)
    Nope, I've got a Pentax. It seems that with the lesser settings I can choose to turn off the filtering, but with the highest settings, I've no ability to opt out.

    So, I saw the latest incarnation of Psychic TV on Thursday night. It was fucking amazing.

    Psychic TV

    Psychic TV
    (I hate using flash, but there was no light on Genesis whatsoever. For a while there was a strobe light on [him/her/them], and in over 25 shots I managed to miss the light out of all but one blurry shot. Hence, my resorting to flash.)
    Psychic TV
    the guitarist was so amazing. so very amazing. i want to see his every show. beautiful man.
    Psychic TV
    (couldn't decide between these last two)
    Psychic TV

    There's more at my Flickr, too. But do you see how it looks filtered? I've done relatively little tweaking, but the low light shots look significantly processed. Is that just how digital cameras react to bright and saturated colored light?
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011
    @Rachael - do you have the option to shoot in RAW. This automatically precludes all in camera filters, of course you need a program that can handle RAW files to process them. I shoot exclusively in RAW and use adobe camera raw to process.
  5.  (10245.230)
    Yes yes yes, I do shoot in RAW almost exclusively. HOWEVER, I have to switch it to jpg to be able to shoot in HDR, and perhaps I'd forgotten to switch it back again! huzzah! Thank you, you may have solved it. Gosh, I'm angry at myself.

    EDITED TO ADD: Upon further consideration, I was trying to NOT be a photographer that night, and instead actually enjoy the experience. I won't be so terribly angry at myself.
  6.  (10245.231)
    @Rachael - is that an in-camera HDR option that requires jpg? Could you not just bracket and combine the RAW files into HDR in photoshop?

    My dad's just bought a new Pentax - very nice thing it is too...
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011
    Glad to be of help. I too use bracketing for HDR.
  7.  (10245.233)
    I could combine them in photoshop, but the notion that my camera can do it FOR me inside the camera itself is kind of awesome, and I like being able to see what the end result will be so that I better know what kind of direction to continue in with my shooting. What's most upsetting to me about this is that I had wanted to email the band and offer them my shots, and it kills me to know that they could have looked so much better.
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011 edited
    (deleted for stupidity, but will just say that I haven't used RAW due to program difficulties but today I just got Lightroom 3 so maybe that will help yes)

    And I'd love to do a shoot with you! The next time I'll be in NYC will be January 6th in the evening, but I won't have the time then. Not sure when I'll be there next.
  8.  (10245.235)
    but the notion that my camera can do it FOR me inside the camera itself is kind of awesome

    Indeed! I didn't know you could get that...

    @Oldhat - I shot in jpg when disc space was a consideration and found it fine for most things, but then realised that RAW gave me much more fine control and also better insurance - if you blow out highlights in a jpg it's so much harder to rescue. I know what you mean though - my little Leica has RAW files which I can't open in CS3 because Adobe are just the worst bastards ever, so that stays on jpg.
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011
    Well, I'd like to edit in RAW, but Photoshop just won't let me and Lightroom 2 somehow lightens all the images, which isn't how they were set up. Until I figure it out, I shoot in JPEG and am fine with that. I'm just a little sensitive sometimes over people's obvious preference because I have actually been told, by several people, that I should not consider myself a photographer if I don't shoot in RAW, REGARDLESS of my skill.
  9.  (10245.237)
    GIMP+UFRaw+The D90 Input Profile, oldhat. Export as TIFF or PSD when you finish any adjustments in GIMP/UFRaw, and then your other photo softwares should be able to edit that.

    Lightroom also might be doing something weird with the input profiles. I've never used it but there might be a setting somewhere were you can point it at the D90 profile I've linked instead of whatever generic profile it's using. I know when I had the profiles messed up in UFRaw it was making all of my NEFs really dark.
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011
    kool thing
    • CommentTimeDec 18th 2011
  10.  (10245.240)
    @oldhat: I have it set up so it shoots in both RAW and jpg. I don't have the programs to do RAW, but I like having a copy of the photo in RAW for when I do eventually get around to buying a new desktop and new software etc etc. I had to have a photo teacher help figure that one out. That said, while using RAW gives you extra benefits, not using it doesn't make you any less of a photographer as the person who has all the crazy fancy stuff. It's like if the people who used medium format film telling the people who use 52mm film that they aren't real photographers. It's not the gear that makes someone an artist/photographer/etc, it's the work they put out. Anyone who tries to make it about the tools are full of it. And are probably tools themselves.