Welcome, Guest

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. •  
     CommentAuthorJeff Owens
   • CommentTimeJun 10th 2009

    (5738.141)
   @cjhurtt - That second photo is amazing! My friend over my shoulder is a weather nerd, and he is saying that's a very rare shot and that "microbursts" like that last only two or three minutes.
   
   Badass.
   
   
   
   It's outside, I promise.
2. •  
     CommentAuthorrickiep00h
   • CommentTimeJun 11th 2009

    (5738.142)
   Okay, I have a ton now that I finally got my film processed last night. Shut up. Some of us can't afford a DSLR yet.
   
   The accidental double exposure at the top (thanks to my rotten fucking Minolta's uptake spool) actually adds to it, I think.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   Sorry for the big pile, but I've been sitting on these for like three weeks.
3. •  
     CommentAuthortwitch_ramirez
   • CommentTimeJun 11th 2009

    (5738.143)
   
4. • CommentAuthorDC
   • CommentTimeJun 11th 2009

    (5738.144)
   I was waiting for the June thread but since these photos were taken on May...
   I went to Beja's comics festival (30 and 31 May) and here are some photos:
   
   Beja's regional museum. It was a monastery before turning it to a museum
   
   
   Castle
   
   
   
   And some of the guests (try to guess who's who:P )
   
   
   More on my Flickr account. When I have more time, I'll upload more photos of the city.
5. •  
     CommentAuthorRachæl Tyrell
   • CommentTimeJun 13th 2009

    (5738.145)
   i love the dreary rainy weather
   
   
   
   i take pictures of children out my bedroom window. I'm creepy.
6. • CommentAuthorpi8you
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

    (5738.146)
   Took a run down to the other side of the river in the hope of catching the sunrise Saturday morning, produced a pile of goodies, but I'll just drop a couple my favorites here:
   
   
   
   
   
   and one for Ian:
   
   
7. •  
     CommentAuthorhmobius
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

    (5738.147)
   I was lucky enough to spend the weekend in Stuttgart.
   
   
   
8. •  
     CommentAuthorhmobius
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

    (5738.148)
   Stuttgart also has three big car makers there - Porsche, Mercedes and AMG. Each of them have a very new museum housing their historical cars in a modern art building. In Mercedes, you go up to the top of the building and work your way down. At Porsche, you start at the bottom and walk up. Here are some pics from Porsche
   
   
   
   This last photo - a Porsche 924 - is also the first matchbox car I ever had. A little surprising to suddenly see it in real life.
9. •  
     CommentAuthorRachæl Tyrell
   • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

    (5738.149)
   @ rickiep00h -
   
   I've got a Minota Maxxum (5?) that I keep meaning to try out, and I've got this big bag of film that a friend lest in my fridge and got all damp and condensed and would probably look GREAT and flawed and wierd now... but I'm on the other side of the camera world. My mother had a darkroom all my life, and I've got memories of hanging out with her in there when I was kindergarden age, but I was never allowed to use her cameras, and she never taught me any of her skills, and I never took any art or photo schooling. I'm analog retarded.
   
   Being that you have a Minolta, does that mean if you DO go the DSLR route, you'll go for the Sony? I nearly went for the Sony myself, being that I inherited this Minolta and a few lenses. But gosh, I DO dig my PENTAX, even though it seems to be the odd man out in the land of Nikon and Canon.
   
   Dave McKean hasn't made the jump to a digital camera yet, so you're in good company....
10. •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

     (5738.150)
    @Rachæl (oh how I love the æ, btw)
    
    I love my Minolta. I love it love it love it. But as film keeps getting marginalized I'm having a hard time justifying the expense of processing. I'm hoping to get a Nikon D40 for a first DSLR. A few of my friends have Nikons, and I've been impressed with the photos I find online by D40s. Since I primarily work on digital images, it would just cut out another step from going and getting the film processed. Hell, I don't even get prints when I do, I just have them go straight to CD and I just take my negatives home with me. Add to that that it's only about US$500, and it's good for unemployed rickie's wallet.*
    
    That being said, I love the stupid intuition of my Minolta's light meter. So long as you know what depth of field you want (or will end up with, depending on the light conditions and therefore the f-stop) you can get a lot of really good shots with about three seconds worth of work.
    
    As far as my lenses are concerned (I have three) I might just get an adapter ring--if they have one to go from my Rokkors to a Nikon--so I can keep the same optics from one camera to the next. And so I don't have to dump the cash on buying two new telephoto lenses.
    
    As far as analog photography, you might still be able to take classes. I know the college I was attending before we moved still had one section of analog photography. Of course, it's expensive, and the chemicals still make me a little nauseous if I go into a darkroom. But where's the fun in life if you're not breathing toxic fumes? The only official art schooling I've had was two semesters of photography in high school. And I can't even remember exactly how to do any of it. I haven't touched raw, exposed film in years. Take some shots, get it processed at Target, take the CD home, stick the shots in Photoshop, and never look back. Of course, I worry every day that my drive will explode. Even though I have them backed up on CD and on another drive, I still get nervous.
    
    *Also, it's the same fucking camera Walmart used when my mother demanded "professional" pictures of my daughter--which they screwed us on...$90 for ten minutes of sitting, plus the added bonus of them retaining copyright, plus not even getting PRINTS at the time... As soon as I found out how much they charged her, I almost said "Here. Buy this camera. I'll give you five sets of shots this year, save you the expense, and be up on equipment. But then I didn't. For some reason. Oh, yeah, it's because I was about to strangle the Walmart photo person and needed to be talked down.
    
    @pi8you - lovely shots, all. Which bridge is that? I know I've seen it, but I can't place which one it is.
    
    @hmobius - *jealous*
11. •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009 edited

     (5738.151)
    @Jeff Owens : That pigeon heart fascinates me... Simply because I once saw a pidgeon lying dead on the ground, seemingly intact, but its little pigeon heart lying neatly next to its head. Disturbing and strange.
    
    
    Summer. Grass, dirty feet and books. Mmmm.
    If you're wondering, that's Good Omens.
    
    
    This little guy was quite intrigued by the big, blonde pillock with the big, black eye pointing at it.
    
    More coming... I just need to do some editing thingies to them first.
    
    EDIT:
    
    
    A crow, bouncing about at the top of Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh.
    
    
    Some rooftops in Prague and some clouds. Luvverly. I like the scaffolding.
    Prague seems to be in a permanent process of repair.
12. • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJun 14th 2009

     (5738.152)
    @rickiep00h - Thanks, that'd be the Lake St Bridge, where I'm taking photos all the time.
    
    @hmobius - what's the story with the suspended husk of a Porsche?
13. • CommentAuthor256
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.153)
    @rickie - love the last one. Re: cameras - I bought a Nikon D40 as my first camera about a year ago* and god I love it. Don't really have enough experience with other DSLRs to say whether it's better or worse than the competition, but it's a joy to use. One thing, though - if your negative scans are more than 6 and a bit meg (3008x2000px) you might feel a bit ripped off to trade up and find you've lost resolution.
    
    * A year exactly next Wednesday. Seriously considering a birthday party.
    
    @pi8you - I enjoy all your bridge & river pictures, but that top one is just wonderful. I once saw a picture of a half-built skyscraper that recorded a similar combination of fog pieced by shadows and sunlight that was captioned "solar fogogram (soul of a building)". A beautiful soul here, then.
14. •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009 edited

     (5738.154)
    @256 I would say that any DSLR today will trump a 35mm camera in terms of quality. If you compare a 200 iso shot from a DSLR with a scanned negative from an analog, you'll definitely see a difference, I think. If you compare two 1600 iso shots, the difference is astronomical! Perhaps not so much with the cheapest ones, but my Canon 40D, which is a higher-low-end to lower-mid-end camera, looks fabulous with the right lens on. Very fine detail indeed.
    
    There are many factors to take into consideration, obviously. Some people prefer the noise you get at high ISOs from analogues more than the digitals, for example. Some people also prefer not knowing exactly what their pictures look like when they're taking it. Personally, I think there is no greater photographic joy than snapping shots in RAW format and playing with them first in Aperture to adjust exposures and dynamic range and then in Photoshop to go more in detail. I can sometimes spend five to six hours on a single photograph, and I never have to worry about destroying the original! I resisted using RAW for the longest time, but once I went there, I never looked back.
    
    EDIT: Not to mention that you CAN actually change ISO levels on the fly.
15. •  
      CommentAuthorSlick
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.155)
    For optimum quality I would recommend spending at least as much (if not more) on your lens as you do on your camera, the basic lenses that come bundled with dslrs can ruin your shots.
16. •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.156)
    @256 - Nah, they're only 1500x1000 @ 256ppi. But, since I still have the negatives, I can make traditional enlargement prints without worrying about ppi. The chance to get better resolution for digital use is something I lust heavily for, though.
17. •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.157)
    @slick is right. There is a lot of quality to be gained by a good lens as long as your camera is up for it. I still can't justify getting the really expensive ones, but I have an upper-low-end (You see a pattern here?) 17-70 mm Sigma lens which works more than well enough for doing 40x50 prints. Heck, I even made some 30x40s from an 18-200 mm Sigma which were fine... though they required some degree of sharpening to look good... Has to be said, though, that sharpening is always a good idea when working digitally. Not massive amounts, but subtle bits of sharpen can really give the details some extra punch.
18. •  
      CommentAuthorJustLaina
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.158)
    @JeffOwens
    
    I had no idea what that was, til Magnulus mentioned what it was, but I am VERY glad I wasn't eating when I saw that photo.
    
    Awesome photos, all around! Love the second bridge shot, pi8you!
19. •  
      CommentAuthorMagnulus
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.159)
    By the way, @Rachæl, I love that picture of the kids. There's something about the rampant kids and (presumably) the mother pointedly looking in the other direction in the middle of a paved road combined with the crisp, dark tones. Just really tickles my photo-bone.
20. • CommentAuthorHenchbot
    • CommentTimeJun 15th 2009

     (5738.160)
    a weekend in review: