The Random Pictures ~Cakes Takes

[Geoff]

Traditional film has ISO noise too, by the way. So that's a digital AND film issue.

 

[BlueScreen]

Traditional film has ISO noise too, by the way. So that's a digital AND film issue.

Yeh, I'd forgotten the coarser grains and all. Been a long time since I've even seen film.

 

[Lady_X]

i appreciate both styles very much. it depends on what sort of image you want to create. i know that when i do portraits i do very little processing and occasionally none but i also appreciate using photoshop as an artistic medium...i'm just learning both photography and photoshop and the image i posted was photoshop practice...so it was about that.

 

[SurlyAdam]

Oh yeh, and this one is incredible. How did you take it into direct sun with no flare or anything? Is that a long exposure too, or just the clouds making the effect? Looks a bit like a nuke .

I suspect the clouds allowed me to get away with it. A little luck too, as another image a few frames later does have flare. Taken as a whole, there was no way my film could have handled exposing the entire scene correctly, so I decided to expose the sun properly and hoped the rest would fall into place, and it seemed to work. It was shot with a medium format camera, 210mm lens (equivalent to a 130mm lens on a 35mm camera), ISO 50 Velvia, 1/250th @ F/4. Only the tree is in focus, so the sky is a blur, and most of the scene is underexposed.

Is the line on the last photo a filter because of the difference in light levels, or is it two photos stitched?

That was taken before I knew anything about GND filters. The line is just the curve of the Earth. The mountains are overexposed and lacking definition though, which is something I've seen in many of the photos I've taken with distant mountains. I think it's beyond the film's exposure latitude. The same thing happens with my digital camera, but it's accentuated here.

There are many films out there and they all have their pros and cons. I prefer Velvia 50 for landscapes because when you get it right, the results are truly stunning. It does not have a lot of latitude however, so underexposure & overexposure is always a concern. You go through a lot of film when learning.

 

[Maabus1999]

hmm...maybe. i don't know why though! i don't know of any digital photographer that does not do their post processing in photoshop....as far as i know that's how it's done....but i'll look.

I have never "shopped" a digital image, so now you know one. Of course, I don't consider myself an expert either if you are talking professionally. Seems disingenuous to change an image unless its for an obvious reason (like blurring just to do some weird effect). Maybe I'm just strange eh?

 

[cascadeco]

I have never "shopped" a digital image, so now you know one. Of course, I don't consider myself an expert either if you are talking professionally. Seems disingenuous to change an image unless its for an obvious reason (like blurring just to do some weird effect). Maybe I'm just strange eh?

Yes, I have not altered my photos in photoshop or any other digital editor either (aside from rotating some images 1-2 degrees because I have a problem with tilting horizons), and there's something distasteful to me about it, when you go about altering colors and all of that. Not that it doesn't create a neat artistic effect, and I am mostly referring to nature photography when I talk about manipulation. Because I want the image to be real, and realistic, and just what I saw with my own eyes, because I don't want to change nature, I want to capture the beauty of it as it is. And that just makes it all the more challenging for me to try to find good shots that don't need to be altered to be amazing (not that I am saying my stuff is amazing, because I'm not, and it's not. I have a lot to learn).

I remember when I learned that all of the calendar images -- like of the greek isles, or other beautiful places -- are massively photoshopped. That was disappointing to me, haha. Using a paintbrush or pencil? Sure, adjust colors and use your imagination for all it's worth. But for some reason I want photos to capture reality. When you go to some of these places and realize that the water isn't really that blue, or there's a power line going across a windmill that wasn't there in the calendar photo, it just makes the photos themselves...seem less impressive. Certainly makes you realize these places aren't really as 'ideal' and perfect as the images lead you to believe. [But yes, I'm aware from a consumer standpoint the consumer wants to buy the Ideal in many instances.]

But I know I 'cheat' in other ways, as my camera is set to 'Vivid' to achieve more saturation. And I cheat with a polarizing filter. Etc.

I do understand Surly's sentimentalities about film though. Until the start of last year, I was using film, and I didn't like the idea of digital. So I resisted for a long while.

But I switched to digital because I did not want to bother with worrying about film going through x-ray scanners at airports anymore. It's a million times easier to go traveling now that I have a digital camera. And then I never got enough practice, or felt able to practice, with my film camera, because it was too expensive to practice. With digital, I am finally learning about the technical stuff, and think I am getting much better as a result. ;-)

 

[BlueScreen]

Seems disingenuous to change an image unless its for an obvious reason (like blurring just to do some weird effect). Maybe I'm just strange eh?

Yes, I have not altered my photos in photoshop or any other digital editor either (aside from rotating some images 1-2 degrees because I have a problem with tilting horizons), and there's something distasteful to me about it, when you go about altering colors and all of that.

I'm guessing you are talking about filtering and effects. Correcting levels to be true to the original scene is pretty common, though other programs than photoshop do that stuff. If it is shot in raw, you need to decide user defined stuff at some stage though, and without photoshop filters that can still make huge changes to the final image. I think most professionals who use digital would at least tune the photo in this way. And maybe enhance a few things like saturation, sharpness and contrast to correct for some of the effects you get when printing. Though they probably have really good printers. I think the gist is that a camera is not a perfect tool, so take as is isn't always being true to things, because that absoluteness doesn't exist.

I don't have Photoshop either. Not that I wouldn't like to have it. And I shoot mostly to JPEGs cos I'm lazy and can just view it then.

 

[Lady_X]

i understand that perspective totally...i would absolutely think that a good photographer wouldn't need to do a lot of post processing.

i do enjoy photo manipulation though but i guess it's more digital art than it is photography, right?

 

[BlueScreen]

i understand that perspective totally...i would absolutely think that a good photographer wouldn't need to do a lot of post processing.

i do enjoy photo manipulation though but i guess it's more digital art than it is photography, right?

Yep, it's art. And art shouldn't have rules .

 

[Lady_X]

right...let's change the subject

 

[BlueScreen]

photos?

 

[Lady_X]

wow!!!!! blown away! really... just gorgeous!

 

[SurlyAdam]

photos?



Me playing with bird bath .

Not sure what I'm looking at, but I like this.

 

[BlueScreen]

Finger just touching water so there is a meniscus. I found it does really weird things, the change in the water distorts the background like an effect. It isn't photoshopped or anything.

 

[SurlyAdam]

Finger just touching water so there is a meniscus. I found it does really weird things, the change in the water distorts the background like an effect. It isn't photoshopped or anything.

I see! That IS your finger. Nice...

I focus on landscapes mostly... I like to show people what different parts of the country look like, and seeing the photos takes me back there too. Lately, I've been spending time in the farmlands southwest of Minneapolis, around New Ulm, MN (Think Little House On the Prairie). I drive around on the dirt roads, using my GPS, until I see something I want to frame and then wait for the light to agree. I'm always amazed at the end of the day, the distance I've traveled. It was nearly 300 miles yesterday, round trip...

Being an introvert, I couldn't be more content to stand in the silence of the Prairie and notice everything around me. I was near Redwood Falls Friday night and after the sun had set and I was done with film, I sat down on the front bumper of my Jeep and had a beer as the light faded.

(-1 stop to bring out the blue in the sky)

I bought a new point n' shoot digital camera a few weels ago, a Canon SD880.

 

[BlueScreen]

I love doing what you are doing in your photo. Just going out with my camera and exploring. Finding something to shoot. And setting up and letting it take the photo. It's just calming and I feel in my zone. Love the photo also.

I bought a new point n' shoot digital camera a few weeks ago, a Canon SD880.

Nice little point and shoot, was just looking at the photos, they look really nice.

I only have a compact so far, but wouldn't really call it a point and shoot. It's a Panasonic Lumix LX3 (rebranded Leica DLux 4). Fits in my pocket still, and makes it a lot easier than trying to take good photos with my old Canon A75 . I pretty much worship it as a camera.

 

[SurlyAdam]

Nice little point and shoot, was just looking at the photos, they look really nice.

I only have a compact so far, but wouldn't really call it a point and shoot. It's a Panasonic Lumix LX3 (rebranded Leica DLux 4). Fits in my pocket still, and makes it a lot easier than trying to take good photos with my old Canon A75 . I pretty much worship it as a camera.

Ooooohhhh... Leica optics! That is a nice camera. I have a thing for Velvia slide film, so I can't bring myself to buy a high-end digital camera when I could use that money on more lenses for my Mamiya M645.

I had a 4MP Canon A430(?) that I carrier around the West for a couple of years. I just love Canon cameras... They've always had perfect color and I could just "point and shoot." Then one day it simply would not turn on anymore. It took me about 6 months to decide on a replacement digital camera before I settled on the SD880. No manual controls, but it's very easy to use when I just want to document the moment, and the colors are very rich. Plus, it has a 28mm (35mm equivalant) lens to fit everything in. It's small too, not much bigger than my cell phone.

I like your camera more... And those are exceptional photos.

 

[BlueScreen]

Ooooohhhh... Leica optics! That is a nice camera. I have a thing for Velvia slide film, so I can't bring myself to buy a high-end digital camera when I could use that money on more lenses for my Mamiya M645.

I had a 4MP Canon A430(?) that I carrier around the West for a couple of years. I just love Canon cameras... They've always had perfect color and I could just "point and shoot." Then one day it simply would not turn on anymore. It took me about 6 months to decide on a replacement digital camera before I settled on the SD880. No manual controls, but it's very easy to use when I just want to document the moment, and the colors are very rich. Plus, it has a 28mm (35mm equivalant) lens to fit everything in. It's small too, not much bigger than my cell phone.

I like your camera more... And those are exceptional photos.

Yeh, I loved my canon, even though it was only 3.2MP. It worked perfectly in almost any conditions. And took really nice photos. In the end the shutter button broke though, so I sort of used it with makeshift fixes for ages before it died completely. Still they are so no fuss and good.

The whole film thing sounds intriguing. I did a bit of film stuff in photography at school, but I haven't been really into photography for long. I had a look at your camera too. Very classic look. What is the advantage of it over normal SLRs?

 

[SurlyAdam]

The whole film thing sounds intriguing. I did a bit of film stuff in photography at school, but I haven't been really into photography for long. I had a look at your camera too. Very classic look. What is the advantage of it over normal SLRs?

The main, indisputable advantage of a 645 over a 35mm is the size of the negative. The 645's negative is about 3 times as large, allowing for sharper, larger prints. They're very similar cameras to use, but the 645 is lot bulkier to handle.

My Elan 7 is light, fast and very easy to operate. The matrix metering is also very smart so most exposures are dead on. For portraits, I think it's perfect. The 645 is for landscapes, where I want prints at 16x20 or 20x30.

 

[kyuuei]

I took these today in the rain, it was the first day it bloomed and I thought of my favorite cake.