Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (5100.1)
    @ Osmosis - photoshopping old photos can be terribly rewarding. In a number of images on my site and book, I was able use my photo-fu which has grown far superior to my skills of 5 years ago. I finally got to bring out what I originally saw in a number of shots.

    @ Munin- Totally Bladrunner looking shots! Awesome!

    @ lexmachine - thank you for the kind words - especially since I, in turn, love your stuff.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOOP
    • CommentTimeJun 12th 2009
     (5100.2)
    A couple from my shoot with Kymberly Jane.

    L1530491.jpg

    L1010659.JPG

    L1010646.JPG
    •  
      CommentAuthormichaelk42
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2009
     (5100.3)
    I p2kcommander'ed my phone again, being bored of the previous motif:

    And then I fixed it

    The Verizon logo that was there originally was hideous, anyway.

    And I found another interesting dead thing by the road riding to work:

    Wild Gutterbadge
    •  
      CommentAuthorlexmachine
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2009
     (5100.4)
    @COOP No, no! Don't let her stick the fork in the socket! I like the buildings through the window in that shot. Weird, but cool.
    Also,that is an awesome chair.

    @michaelk42 Very nice. we all need the signal on our mobiles. And I hope you took that impala logo home. I would've.
  2.  (5100.5)








    •  
      CommentAuthormichaelk42
    • CommentTimeJun 13th 2009
     (5100.6)
    @lexmachine Normally I leave the FORD stuff where ever it lies, but yeah, in this case I made an exception and pocketed it... Shiny object rule, yeah!
    •  
      CommentAuthorOsmosis
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009
     (5100.7)
    @ lexmachine - Been loving your fashion shots throughout this thread. Excellent stuff, the tones are superb. You asked where I took that picture -- it's from the West Lake in Hangzhou. It's a famed beauty spot in the area, lots of couples go there to marry (and get their wedding pictures done, I suppose ...). In the middle of the lake is an island which itself contains lakes -- so this is the inner lake.

    @ rachaelnoel - I do have a big heap of photos still waiting to be gone through and tweaked. My photo-fu has improved, but I definitely have an itchy shutter finger! Thanks for your advice. I really appreciate it, as I'm a big admirer of your work. (spillover from Sat Open Mic: I sympathise -- I'm currently unemployed, living with the folks. Not a great situation. Let's keep our fingers crossed and make something happen!)

    @ Munin - Repeating the love for the NYC pics. Especially that first one, they're stellar.

    @ COOP - Thanks for the invite. I'll um, try to find some girls who smoke? There's some excellent work up there already.
    •  
      CommentAuthordispophoto
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009
     (5100.8)
    camphone fun!
    More :)
    Wow, detail!
    what happens when you forget to turn the flash off...
    What happens when you leave the flash on
  3.  (5100.9)
    DSC00102
    DSC00100
    DSC00095
    DSC00042
    All of these, except the bug, are from our trip to Charlotte, NC for Heroes Con last weekend.
  4.  (5100.10)


    I did a lot of darkroom stuff in college, like this series of photograms. I still have a decent digital kit, and do photo work for friends.
  5.  (5100.11)
    Went wandering around the city cemetery this evening, then played around with the photos a bit.
    Cemetary Angel 5
    Cemetary Flower
    Cemetary Angel 4
    Cemetary Angel 3
    Cemetary Angel 2
    Cemetary Angel
  6.  (5100.12)
    my mawmaw's birthday rose

    singer special

    the sew sister factory
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOOP
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2009
     (5100.13)
    I tagged along on Friday before last to document a wild collaboration between Corporate Vampire, Gary Baseman, Skye Shelly and Zoli Suicide. More photos here.

    L1020015.JPG

    L1010978.JPG

    L1020031.JPG

    L1010955.JPG

    L1020178.JPG
  7.  (5100.14)
    Goodness. That last photograph is TERRIFYING. I love it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCOOP
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2009
     (5100.15)
    Yeah, I thought so too!

    L1020180.JPG
    •  
      CommentAuthoroddbill
    • CommentTimeJun 27th 2009
     (5100.16)
    @dispophoto -Cameraphone pictures from the Moon?! How did you manage those? Telescope?
    •  
      CommentAuthorOsmosis
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009
     (5100.17)
    I feel like an idiot for having to ask this, but can anyone talk me through RAW versus JPEG? I shoot in .jpg, but was watching a (fairly leet but still amateur) friend spool through his workflow for some wedding shots, and noticed he'd shot in .raw. Is this something I should be doing? What format do you all shoot in?
    •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009 edited
     (5100.18)
    I shoot in RAW.

    While a jpeg is a jpeg and you get what you see, a RAW file is basically a digital negative. The key difference between a negative and a jpeg is that if you've grossly underexposed a negative so it goes really dark, it takes a lot more to make you lose the detail. If a jpeg is overexposed so the sky goes pure white, that's it, you're stuck with a featureless sky. However, if you overexpose a RAW file, you can pick some of that detail back in with some tampering in software that handles RAW. You can play a lot more with the contrast and colours and exposure than you could with a JPEG.

    Extra bonus: The changes are saved in a separate file, so you don't run the risk of destroying the original if you do something with it, save and then come back to it. The separate file is only a few kilobytes, too.

    The downside is that the weight of the file is about quadruple that of a full-quality JPEG, but you get so much back for it that it's definitely worth it if you're at all interested in photography as a real hobby. I resisted RAW for a long time, but after playing with Aperture (it's a mac thing) for a bit, I saw the considerable benefits of it.

    Basically: A JPEG only contains what you see. A RAW is like a Transformer. Not a robot in disguise, but more than meets the eye.

    If you'd like me to, I can cook up some examples of what I'm talking about.

    PS: You can also use RAW for something called HDR, which is also very interesting, but not something you should think TOO much about if you're just getting into it.

    EDIT: Also, if you'd like to talk about it in real-time, I'd be more than happy to. You can find me on Skype as Magnulus or even on the Whitechapel IRC chat that Ginja set up.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDon.Leitch
    • CommentTimeJun 30th 2009
     (5100.19)
    I almost always shoot in RAW. In my opinion, It gives back some of the things lost in digital photography.
    It gives you more editing options. You can create zone systems, and all sorts of other things.

    Like Magnulus said... JPG files capture an equivalent to the visible light spectrum the human eye can see. RAW files capture all the light information, including things the human eye cannot see.

    A flicker RAW vs JPG thread.
    •  
      CommentAuthorOsmosis
    • CommentTimeJul 1st 2009
     (5100.20)
    Cool. I'm gonna be doing some mad hiking today with my camera, so I'll slide that little slider across and see what happens. I'll get the results up here in a day or two, I expect. Thanks heaps for the advice, guys.