I seriously think this needs more discussion. I really would like to know what she did to that photo and why? I mean, she obviously is a fan of desaturate, but what about the soft parts? Using gausian blur (at a high percentage nonetheless) does not simulate the effects of a TS lens. I'm just curious.


Also, I watched the Miami game the other night and I thought "I wonder which one is Bweez..."

I figured you were there, you should post some shots. A photographer buddy of mine who occasionally browses this thread had positive things to say about your work btw. That last bird shot is money.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 6:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2009 6:56:23 PM

that bird shot IS money. nice one, Bweez.

^ i don't really understand what's going on in kiwi's picture there either. it looks like she blurred most of the top left corner, a small portion of the bottom left corner and the entire right 1/3 of the shot.

maybe that's just my eyes, but it's hard for me to figure out what's going on.

[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM. Reason : s]

2/16/2009 7:04:15 PM

I spot some DSLR ppl in this thread, but if you haven't seen... Dear god... I think we've found another person actually worse than Kiwi. Kiwi, do you have a brother we don't know about?

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=558672

2/16/2009 9:51:17 PM

i GUARANTEEEEE she was going for a shift lens appearance

its seriously a hip thing right now

and, to quote from the wedding photography thread:

Quote :

"honestly, i think the DSLR thread should just open a wedding photography business at this point if this guy has a portfolio, we could run the motherfucking hood"

if i lived in NC, i would push this issue
but i def think you people should pursue this idea

2/16/2009 9:59:33 PM

probably read about it...


IN A BOOK.

2/16/2009 10:02:26 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rianklong/3206102242/
http://tiltshiftmaker.com/

i'm telling you guyz

its super hip among the Green Square crowd

2/16/2009 10:04:57 PM

The "tilt shift effect" is fucking bogus unless it is from an actual tilt shift lens. Apparently she's not very familiar with what a tilt shift lens actually does if that's what her goal was.

That's just gratuitous use of gausian blur.

2/16/2009 10:05:18 PM

dude

http://www.flickr.com/groups/tiltshiftmaker/pool/

1800 members
3100 images

its not just her

2/16/2009 10:07:06 PM

Touche... but that doesn't make it right or good, even if she did manage to use the "technique" correctly instead of butchering the photo.

2/16/2009 10:08:22 PM

Quote :

"the Green Square crowd"

i lol'ed (i will however admit, i am part of said crowd. however i don't consider myself a "photographer" either...more like idea generator )

2/16/2009 10:12:53 PM

i'm not a big fan of the tilt shift technique anyway. don't get me wrong, i like some pictures of that style, but overall it just doesn't really do it for me.

especially that fake shit when you just blur all but one little part of your photo. weak sauce.

EDIT: i like this one...



[Edited on February 16, 2009 at 10:21 PM. Reason : link work?]

2/16/2009 10:14:18 PM

I like tilt shift pictures when done right and the subject makes me stop and think about it. I honestly love Vincent Laforet's work. I wouldn't mind playing with a tilt shift, but I'm not about to drop 1k on a specialty lens that I'd hardly use. Personally I'd rather get a nice wide angle, fisheye or a really wide aperture portrait lens first.

2/16/2009 10:22:34 PM

same here. i dig wide angle stuff so much more.

2/16/2009 10:23:23 PM

im gonna steal ur kitty

2/16/2009 10:38:46 PM

11-16 ftw.
Sebastian loves his box


Wake Forest @ NCSU




Work camera


Misc



Taken at work today, covering the James Johnson trial in Wilson



I took this one for wilso


30 second exposure from the Boylan St. Bridge
I got one of these

to play with and took a quick minute to check it out, using it only as a cable release
I might try a 6 hours exposure tonight

2/16/2009 10:45:23 PM

Quote :

""

plz edit this and photoshop in the kitty holding a knife... lol

2/16/2009 11:11:46 PM

Quote :

"I might try a 6 hours exposure tonight"

you mean with many multiple images, right?
on single exposures I start worrying about hot pixels after just a few minutes.

Finally stopped by to check out this old truck I always see from 540

2/16/2009 11:50:13 PM

good idea, bad exposures.

Pocketwizard just released more info on their new RF triggers, made specifically for TTL operation for canon cameras. Eat that nikon lovers, you don't get one yet. :p

2/17/2009 12:04:16 AM

i don't think the exposures are bad

they have great color if you ask me

great design for the subject imho

2/17/2009 12:05:49 AM

^^I disagree

2/17/2009 12:11:25 AM

it looks underexposed by a stop on both photos and color is off. Pull the values in photoshop if you don't believe me. The highlights aren't bright enough.

2/17/2009 12:17:52 AM

I under expose on purpose, usually 2/3 stop for a single exposure and almost 2 for the dark if I'm going to blend. It also assists with keeping me out of the final image as I move around to paint.

Will have to check the color when I'm not on the laptop, I'm thinking about cooling the temp some.

2/17/2009 12:32:36 AM

Quote :

"The highlights aren't bright enough."

Quote :

"great design for the subject imho"

2/17/2009 12:34:07 AM

is the original color of the truck white?

2/17/2009 12:35:17 AM

it was definitely white around 40 years ago.

2/17/2009 12:46:13 AM

i didn't know where else to put this

http://community.livejournal.com/photo_polygon/991878.html

2/17/2009 2:27:13 AM

holy cow, that's pretty cool.

2/17/2009 2:47:46 AM

such a humanizing photo

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 2:53 AM. Reason : now i feel like its too small though :-(]

2/17/2009 2:51:08 AM

I used the 55-200 lens on that flower and that was the DOF. I did a little of the blur to sharpen the flower a little more.

No tilt whatevering effect here!

Is heightened glare normal with UV lens? I thought I got a high quality one that was supposed to reduce it but after taking some shots yesterday it was reallllllyy bad.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM. Reason : ds]

2/17/2009 8:56:38 AM

What do you mean "high quality?" A 20 dollar filter likely won't help that.

Also, don't shoot directly into a light source and get a lens hood.

2/17/2009 8:59:31 AM

Good call on the hood. It wasn't direct but the rays were definitely in the subject.

It was like 30bucks and the highest quality we had. I just feel lied to.

2/17/2009 9:02:17 AM

Oh and they're apparently very useful for when horses fucking knock you forwards into a fence!

Some guys like a little artistic flare strategically placed, but when I see it used, it's always too much.

2/17/2009 9:04:27 AM

Yeah, I spent 60 bucks on a 77mm Hoya filter and its great but it doesn't completely negate lens flare (most likely due to it being on a ultrawide 11mm lens). A lens hood will help out a good deal and they usually aren't expensive.

I think if you look online you can even find templates to make your own lens hoods out of paper, but I may be wrong.

Check out a circular polarizing filter if you're shooting outdoors a lot and are concerned about glare. It'll likely cost you a fraction of a stop but in the sunlight that doesn't matter. They are a lot of fun and its amazing how much glare they can reduce. They won't eliminate lens flare, though.

2/17/2009 10:07:12 AM

I find that using my hand to block out light hitting the front element works great too...

Just a reminder to all, Lauren Greenfield's presentation is tomorrow night at 7pm in Asheboro at my School, Randolph Community College. Open to the public and completely free! This should be a blow out event and expect a large audience.

2/17/2009 4:19:21 PM

Shooting with a Nikon dSLR for the first time this weekend, oy.

Checking out a d40 and a 300mm 2.8 with a teleconverter.

Shooting a basketball game and three baseball games.

2/17/2009 5:15:21 PM

Oh God.

2/17/2009 5:38:33 PM

^^thats a big lense for a little camera. hah

2/17/2009 5:45:56 PM

I'd make sure that d40 is on continuous shoot and hope you get some good stuff.

My kit lens doesn't have a snap on area for the hood I own right now, is that common? Instead there's a grooved ring around the end.

So lame.

2/17/2009 6:19:03 PM

sigh, the D40 was the best Nikon they had, and they didn't have a long 2.8 canon lens or I would have just checked that out.

2/17/2009 7:14:07 PM

Quote :

"Also, I watched the Miami game the other night and I thought "I wonder which one is Bweez..." I figured you were there, you should post some shots. A photographer buddy of mine who occasionally browses this thread had positive things to say about your work btw. That last bird shot is money."

Awesome, thanks.

yeah I'll post some from the UNC game as soon as I sort through them, I've been stupid busy with working on student films(some behind the scenes shots are on my flickr), shooting baseball practice, and another women's fail game last night.

I usually wear an orange polo when I shoot the men's bball games, at the UNC one I was on the left baseline to be close to the UM bench, usually I'm on the other end.

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 7:40 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2009 7:40:19 PM

Holy cow! That's a lot of people.

2/17/2009 7:50:23 PM

I love this pic.

2/17/2009 8:15:51 PM

yeah, those hitler shots are amazing

2/17/2009 8:21:49 PM

what the hell are yall talking about with this green box business?

2/17/2009 8:26:04 PM

Green box = the square in the center of your view finder that turns green when your subject is in focus on point and shoot cameras.

2/17/2009 8:27:07 PM

Ok

2/17/2009 8:39:46 PM

wrong

green square = full auto on canon eos cameras

probably other brands as well

2/17/2009 8:40:48 PM

Not for Nikon, I figured you meant wolfpackrr's definition

HAHA JOKES ON YOU

2/17/2009 8:43:35 PM

lol

yeah

the jokes on me

the "green square" crowd, as used to denigrate photographers like you is definitely in reference to the full auto setting

2/17/2009 8:59:53 PM

a building near the site formerly known as the Orange Bowl:



oh, 113

[Edited on February 17, 2009 at 9:23 PM. Reason : ,]

2/17/2009 9:23:19 PM