it looks like there's a greenish hue in the top left. it's pretty slight though. i'd try and clone out the radio/antenna tower if i could.

good foreground exposure in both. i like the detail.

where were these taken?

7/31/2009 11:41:33 PM

They were taken in Auburn, CA.

I really don't see the green at all....I tweaked it using iphoto on my mac, which I have never used before, so I'm wondering if you guys see something different than I see?? Is that even possible?

Good tip about the tower, I hadn't even noticed it.

8/1/2009 12:42:11 AM

sho nuff, there is a green tint.

8/1/2009 6:51:03 AM

aren't all mac displays color calibrated?

8/1/2009 8:42:42 AM

Well, that is troubling. How can I fix it, if I can't see it?

^Not sure about the calibration, I'm new to macs, and I've only had this one a couple of weeks.

Here is the original if anyone wants to take a crack at it - maybe I'll see the difference if someone else fixes it.



Here is my second attempt - is this one any better?



[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 10:54 AM. Reason : second attempt]

8/1/2009 10:48:42 AM

Your original is better. Your 2nd edit still has a green tint to it.

Quote :

"aren't all mac displays color calibrated?"

No, calibration is still done with a screen calibration device like a Spyder or EyeOne.

8/1/2009 1:21:53 PM

I think the display at work is just bad, I can't see it at home. I guess when doing photo work, you would need a color corrected display.

8/1/2009 1:22:25 PM

its nothing to write home about, but about the best my little pas is going to do. what do you guys think?

8/1/2009 1:42:21 PM

Quote :

"but about the best my little pas is going to do. what do you guys think?"

It isn't the image quality that is hurting that photo. Try paying attention to composition and framing, because that really isn't a picture of anything.

8/1/2009 1:50:01 PM

ha ha. i couldn't even see what i was framing.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 1:59:15 PM

Quote :

"No, calibration is still done with a screen calibration device like a Spyder or EyeOne."

Damn. I was considering buying a mac a while back because the salesman at Best Buy said that their screens came color calibrated. If they don't then the guy just blatantly lied to me. (Although I wouldn't consider a Best Buy employee the best source here, it seems like something he should know)

And amber1, I'm seeing the same thing as JBaz on your photo.

Quote :

"Your original is better. Your 2nd edit still has a green tint to it."

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : k]

8/1/2009 2:04:25 PM

Quote :

"No, calibration is still done with a screen calibration device like a Spyder or EyeOne."

HA. the bastard at best buy told me that macs come with calibrated screens.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ^lawl]

8/1/2009 2:05:12 PM

you guys in different parts of the house browsing tww and replying to the same comment?

8/1/2009 2:21:00 PM

we were talking about it and didn't know we were both responding

8/1/2009 2:22:54 PM

what about this composition:



[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 2:26:01 PM

thats a lot of brown

8/1/2009 6:35:36 PM

Quote :

" "Your original is better. Your 2nd edit still has a green tint to it.""

Quote :

""No, calibration is still done with a screen calibration device like a Spyder or EyeOne.""

Interesting. Thanks for all feedback, guys.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/1/2009 6:54:23 PM

HAHAHA, I laugh at all you people who actually believe the sales guys at Best Buy... Wow... lol You are technically suppose to calibrate a monitor every 2 weeks. I do mine every month. Monitors shift colors slightly over time.

8/1/2009 7:18:32 PM

How much do the readouts change across a month? I would suspect it to be minimal, but directly associated to usage and displayed material. What kind of display are you using?

8/1/2009 7:21:53 PM

^^ I did say this:

Quote :

"(Although I wouldn't consider a Best Buy employee the best source here, it seems like something he should know)"

I don't understand your holier than thou attitude here. I know literally nothing about Macs, and personally, do not care to. They aren't for me. I just mentioned something a salesperson told me. Get over yourself, man.

I didn't know your monitor display changes over time either. I guess I could see how it would degrade, but I wouldn't think a month would be substantial time for that. But I'd be more inclined to believe you (even though you seem to know everything) with a source for said information.

8/1/2009 7:27:39 PM

^^ For LCD's, depends on the panel type and manufacturer. If you are using a high quality LCD, it may not even change over years. The main culprit with LCD's is the backlight fading, which in turn can mess up your gamma, contrast control and fade the colors a bit. Cheap panels would have some color shifts over time, but even then, its very small over a span of a month, you might see a shift over a year, but only a few points.

^ You weren't the only one, so don't feel left out. 2nd, It's best buy... 3rd, it's a sales guy at best buy. 4th, it's a sales guy at best buy getting paid 7.50 an hour.

If you can't tell, I don't like retail. They will say anything to get a sale. At least the Imac's have an IPS panel in them, which is one of the best types to have, but again, shouldn't you get a good panel for spending 3x the price for something similar you can get with a PC?

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

8/1/2009 7:31:58 PM

Nevermind. You were helpful in your edit.

My apologies.

[Edited on August 1, 2009 at 7:42 PM. Reason : k]

8/1/2009 7:35:52 PM

Actually, I take that back. The only retail chain that I trust the sales guys are Gamestop guys. They know their games. :p

8/1/2009 7:47:44 PM

Haha, those nerds will talk your ears off! I always get stuck in there.

8/1/2009 7:50:18 PM

If I had no ambition in life and was still a virgin, I'd probably work there too.

8/1/2009 7:51:50 PM

You're not a virgin?


j/k lol

8/1/2009 8:58:33 PM

does anyone have a sigma or tamron 70-200 f/2.8?

8/1/2009 9:18:08 PM

Ok, so I'm going to the beach for the week and I'm thinking about renting a lens from Southeastern to do some surf photography (hopefully there will be waves). I'll be shooting either from the beach off a tripod or from a pier using a tripod. I have the Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS lens, but I was thinking about either getting something a little faster like the 70-200 f/2.8L IS or something with more zoom like the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS. The thing is, I don't know what is going to be more important, that extra zoom, or the speed. I can always up the ISO, but I don't want to go too high. Help me out!!

Any recommendations?

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 1:40 PM. Reason : please guys, i have a trip tomorrow]

8/2/2009 1:31:36 PM

If you're shooting on the beach the last thing to be concerned about is a fast lens. It will be bright, and you'll probably want to shoot at 5.6 or greater anyway. I'd say for that, since you'll not be shooting wide open, get the best glass you can afford. Something that focuses quick and is accurate. A 70-200 with a teleconverter would be a good bet, and the 100-400 would possibly be a good idea too.

Chances are you won't need a tripod either. That will kinda be a pain to shoot a distant, moving object with.

8/2/2009 1:44:32 PM

I don't have a monopod, which I would prefer for this, but I guess I could go handheld. I'm just worried a big ol' lens will be tough to hang on to for a while.

And I'd probably shoot early in the morning when there is less wind and the waves are better. So it won't be as bright.

8/2/2009 1:52:20 PM

Fair enough, but you still shouldn't need to bump up to 1600 iso or anything. Handheld should be fine, but if you're planning on spending an entire day shooting with a long lens then the tripod could give you a break for a bit depending on how it works. If you have a pan/tilt head it might be usable, moreso than a ballhead would be.

8/2/2009 1:54:45 PM

Yeah, I wouldn't think I'd be up at 1600 anyway

I have a Manfrotto 488rc2 ball head. I can pan with it though.

8/2/2009 1:58:47 PM

i was gonna spring up for an SLR before my upcoming vacation, but i just can not see myself looking like a japanese tourist. maybe if i had some tight jeans and got me an emo haircut, i could go for a four thirds camera and carry it around in a manpurse so i have a G10 coming in the mail in the next couple days, should allow for a bit more creativity than the p&s lumix that i just murdered

[Edited on August 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM. Reason : one of these days]

8/2/2009 3:24:52 PM

The g10 is a solid camera. Excellent purchase. Good luck with it, and post shots.

8/2/2009 3:42:22 PM

^probably more of a camera that i can handle at this point, but i have room to grow. and of course there is always a full auto mode

this brings me to another decision i will have to make. Should i shoot RAW pictures at all or should i stick to JPEG? Obviously memory is cheap these days, but i'm not sure how much of a better job i can do than the internal image processor. Is there a specific situation when i should shoot RAW other than shots with difficult lighting? I have been doing some basic brihghtness/contrast/color correction (haha maybe even overcorrection) on my recent JPEGs out of the lumix, but nothing really serious.

8/2/2009 3:56:20 PM

I don't really shoot on RAW. It does give you more options when it comes to post-processing, but if you're just a casual shooter then I don't think it is necessary. If you're getting paid for your shots and it is necessary that they be absolutely spot on then maybe RAW should be used.

Jbaz would better be able to inform you on the benefits of shooting RAW. As for me, I'm good with high quality fine jpeg.

8/2/2009 5:36:18 PM

RAW gives you more information than jpeg so if you want to show more detail in the shadow and blown highlights, its a lot more recoverable in RAW, but again, it depends on if you want to do all of the post processing. For the most part, you will be more than happy at shooting JPEG on a g10. It's just an incredible advanced point and shoot.

8/2/2009 5:38:11 PM

Pulling up the bottom of the page.
Part of a smoke project we were playing with.

8/3/2009 4:56:46 AM

http://www.s.leica-camera.com/

Want.

37.5 megapixels, medium format sized sensor in a DSLR body. Word.

8/5/2009 2:03:32 PM

I'd rather have the $30k.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 2:29 PM. Reason : but if someone gave it to me I would take it no questions asked.]

8/5/2009 2:26:01 PM

There are tons of old school 35mm and medium-format film cameras where i happen to stay now.. are they good for antyhing more than decoration at this point? (i know theres still a crowd of lomo followers out there..) mostly old russian and european junk, some with bellows-style lens extenders, some with twin and triple lens etc. not that im trying to develop film, done a little of that back in my day and do not miss it

8/5/2009 3:15:44 PM

not a dslr but pretty neat
http://dvice.com/archives/2009/08/nikon-s1000pj-w.php



NIKON INTRODUCES FOUR NEW COOLPIX CAMERAS OFFERING SUPERIOR PERFORMANCE, DESIGN AND INNOVATION

Nikon Continues to Lead in Innovation with a New Touch Camera and First Compact Digital Camera with Built-in Projector*

MELVILLE, NY (Aug. 4, 2009) - Nikon Inc. continues its tradition of innovation, design and performance with the introduction of four new COOLPIX Style Series compact digital cameras. Building on the success of Nikon's previous touch-screen models, the ultra-stylish COOLPIX S70 features an enhanced interface and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display technology for a new user experience, housed in a stylish camera body. The COOLPIX S1000pj features the world's first built-in projector, which enables consumers to share their images and videos in an all-new fun way. Additionally, the COOLPIX S640 and COOLPIX S570, leaders in speed and affordability, respectively, complete the new smarter, cooler, simpler COOLPIX line.

8/5/2009 3:24:38 PM

NIce^#1 in google resluts right now, but sill now quite as cool as the fuji 3-d camera from the previous page. have big homes for that one. nikon probably will need a bad-ass battery or an adapter for that projector to really shine

8/5/2009 3:31:37 PM

I'm looking for a wide angle (non-fisheye) lens for my Canon XTi; something under 18mm. I'd like to get something nice, but something that doesn't break the bank. I can't afford to drop the cash for L-series glass. Fast glass would be nice, but if I have to choose I'll take sharpness first.

Any suggestions?

8/5/2009 4:22:09 PM

I hope I will have a D90 and a prime 200mm telephoto for Oceana Airshow in October, so maybe I'll have some hella nice shots from that. Going to go up there and stay for both days to get the most out of it. Can hardly wait, since its gonna be both the Blues and the Snowbirds headlining the show.

8/5/2009 4:52:30 PM

^^I think Ronnie uses the 11-16 tokina and loves it. It's about $600 new, but you may find it for less on ebay. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554035-REG/Tokina_ATX116PRODXC_11_16mm_f_2_8_AT_X_116.html

Otherwise, canon has the 10-22: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-USA/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html

Both perform well. The canon is about 100 more.

[Edited on August 5, 2009 at 4:56 PM. Reason : ]

8/5/2009 4:56:08 PM

crimon, I like that photo illustration, very cool.

Ronny, The new Leica is one badass camera system. I'd totally love a compact DSLR body with a medium format camera sensor. Leica makes some badass stuff, just wish they were a little bit more affordable.

8/5/2009 5:30:23 PM

My birthday isn't until the 27th, but I got an early present...



Super stoked!

8/7/2009 11:47:10 PM

cody took this one this week. no post processing.



i <3 it.

8/8/2009 8:43:00 AM

8/9/2009 1:32:33 AM