jinp6301 Posted February 25, 2009 Report Share Posted February 25, 2009 http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3616/3305930594_d139126392_b.jpg I set the saturation levels very low on all three of these shots when I tonemapped then in Photomatix. My goal was to avoid as much of the cartoony aspect of HDR as possible. Hey can I get a wallpaper size (1280x800) of this one. It looks fantastic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonShine Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggeh Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 ^ I like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted February 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Hey can I get a wallpaper size (1280x800) of this one. It looks fantastic! *mutter* That's an uh... 16:10 aspect ratio, which is not exactly the same as the 3:2 native ratio of my camera. Meaning I'd have to crop the photo differently than I framed it. I just peeked at the original, and it seems sort-of possible. I'd have to trim some off the bottom of the frame. Get back to me in a couple days and I might have it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinp6301 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Well, if you dont mind, you can send me the original, and I can crop it myself. I dont want you to waste your time cropping when you can be taking awesome photos like that! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonShine Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 ^ I like that. Thanks Duggeh. Here's another. A little blurrier than intended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggeh Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 The blurriness is part of why i like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voltron Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 I'm with Duggeh. I like them both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted February 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Hey can I get a wallpaper size (1280x800) of this one. It looks fantastic! Cropped and re-sized: http://i39.tinypic.com/25ko709.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Damn, that looks great. Any chance I can get a 1280x1024? And in anticipation of my upcoming monitor, a 2560x1600? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted February 27, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 1280x1024 is 5:4, the same aspect ratio of large format cameras, and one I often use when cropping. That said, here is the bloody original. This is officially a DIY project now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jinp6301 Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 Cropped and re-sized: http://i39.tinypic.com/25ko709.jpg Thanks a lot senor Knuckledragger! Damn, that looks great. Any chance I can get a 1280x1024? And in anticipation of my upcoming monitor, a 2560x1600? Heh, I kinda thought you would like it for your wallpaper too. Its very Dusty-ish. Whatever that means Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted February 27, 2009 Report Share Posted February 27, 2009 1280x1024 is 5:4, the same aspect ratio of large format cameras, and one I often use when cropping. That said, here is the bloody original. This is officially a DIY project now.Fair enough. And thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulveling Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 We haven't had a good snow here in Atlanta for at least a few years, until today. Too lazy to go out much, but took a few pics just outside my door. Wish I had a camera with a working autofocus in its body - my D40 kit lens's AF broke, so I've just been using an older (and better) 100-300 lens. Still, too many come out soft because I don't even have one of those split-viewfinders to aid in focusing. It's a lot easier taking pics of inanimate audio gear. My gf being a good sport: View of Kennesaw Mountain from my VERY SLIPPERY roof (wind has picked up considerably by then) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pa Posted March 1, 2009 Report Share Posted March 1, 2009 Another "nice surroundings" () from the Northwoods; some HDR action from last October And the old D70 pulled through several years ago to capture a Moose Lake Dawn with Venus & Mars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefy Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 My gf being a good sport: Number 2 is a great shot. Looks like you caught that one second where she was being herself rather than having her photo taken. View of Kennesaw Mountain from my VERY SLIPPERY roof (wind has picked up considerably by then) Sweet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Chalk Posted March 2, 2009 Report Share Posted March 2, 2009 Gorgeous! The mountain's nice, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted March 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2009 ...and now, porn: Click to link to the original flickr page with notes for all the gear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted March 10, 2009 Report Share Posted March 10, 2009 There is a pair of bald eagles nesting nearby. My wife's boss lent me his 500mm lens and 1.4TC and I still couldn't fill the frame with these huge birds but I'm still reasonably pleased. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asr Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Today, from Vail ski resort, probably the last time I'll be heading up for the winter season. I thought the 2nd pic below worked better in grayscale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted March 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This here is some impressive strobist work. A quick peek at the exposure info explains a lot. 1 second exposure @ F/13, ISO400. That means the photographer had some wiggle room to trigger the gun and the strobe, yet didn't have to worry about ambient light making the pellet appear blurred. What I surmise he did was trigger the gun and strobe simultaneously, and had a digital delay actually fire the strobe X milliseconds later. Knowing the FPS of the pellet and how far it had to travel to pass the razor, it would be reasonably easy to compute. Getting a shot like this actually work is a whole nother matter. My hat's off to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mulveling Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 This here is some impressive strobist work. A quick peek at the exposure info explains a lot. 1 second exposure @ F/13, ISO400. That means the photographer had some wiggle room to trigger the gun and the strobe, yet didn't have to worry about ambient light making the pellet appear blurred. What I surmise he did was trigger the gun and strobe simultaneously, and had a digital delay actually fire the strobe X milliseconds later. Knowing the FPS of the pellet and how far it had to travel to pass the razor, it would be reasonably easy to compute. Getting a shot like this actually work is a whole nother matter. My hat's off to him. I had a silly, but cool, little strobe photography project in high school. You can take a dedicated camera flash unit and hook up the trigger points on its foot to an SCR (Silicon Controlled Rectifier - Silicon-controlled rectifier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Then hook up a microphone to trigger the SCR. Any loud noise past a certain threshold on the mic will trigger the flash. A clap, a pop, or certainly a gunshot will do. You can control the time delay of the strobe relative to the event by varying the distance of the microphone to the event source - the calculation is simple, given the speed of sound is 330 meters/s. Obviously, more sophisticated circuitry is required for longer delays, but this is very simple and works well enough in a large enough room - in fact it gives you a very fine time granularity. For setup - the camera and the microphone each get their own tripod. Tripod for the flash is optional but recommended. You'll need to completely (or nearly so) darken the room (this part can be tricky - we used a darkroom). Set off a nice long shutter exposure (make sure you have a nice long exposure), trigger the event, and the flash will fire automatically. I think the typical dedicated camera flash will have a duration on the order of 1/10,000 to 1/20,000 of a second? Fast enough for some cool stuff. In practice, one of the issues was that the darkroom was small enough that the slap echo would tend to trigger a SECOND unwanted strobe. Also, firing a gun in this room was not an option Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Pa Posted March 23, 2009 Report Share Posted March 23, 2009 Early March, Tucson Botanical Gardens, Spring in the oasis desert of the Sonoran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knuckledragger Posted March 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Oh, Snap. Pentax recently showed off a demo of their long promised 645 medium format digital SLR If this thing lives up to its promise (and that's a big "if") then it will vastly out perform anything offered by Canon, Nikon or Leica in terms of IQ. It stands a fair chance to best Hasselblad at their own game for a fraction of the price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dreadhead Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 If this thing lives up to its promise (and that's a big "if") then it will vastly out perform anything offered by Canon, Nikon or Leica in terms of IQ. What do you mean by that? I have yet to understand the Hasselblad mystique especially since you can get shots of the same quality from Nikon/Canon with a little Photoshop work. Hasselblad is just plain overpriced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.