^^ On a weeklong trip earlier this year I used up about half of a 3 gig card. I've got a three week trip coming up so I figure I'll need at least 4.

I don't mind getting something like 2 2 gig cards, but don't understand what the benefit or appeal of having separates is. Stowaway or chocolatervh, care to tell me why ya'll prefer doing so?

6/4/2006 5:21:44 PM

the rain finally cleared up today, so i went out into my neighborhood (astoria, queens) and started shooting.

here's some stuff i found:

cat in an alley


storage bins (from tractor-trailers)


and then i found this really odd tucked away road, at which point a chicken came running after me


sign by the grounds of a huge powerplant


the ice cream truck guy (greek, of course, like everyone here)


crates by a grocery store


a red door


fixing a car under a gloomy sky


an alleyway


and others...

-ZiP!-

6/4/2006 7:04:23 PM

wtf is going on?!

[Edited on June 4, 2006 at 7:06 PM. Reason : f]

6/4/2006 7:05:43 PM

^sorry man, i think they should all load now. there was a moment there that they hadn't yet been 100% uploaded to my server

-ZiP!-

6/4/2006 7:09:42 PM

they work for me

Quote :

"I don't mind getting something like 2 2 gig cards, but don't understand what the benefit or appeal of having separates is. Stowaway or chocolatervh, care to tell me why ya'll prefer doing so?"

i don't like all my eggs in one basket... if something happens to one... i want to have the other... i could also use it to separate events... i could also have one for personal and one for professional.

another thing is that smaller cards means that i'd be more incline to get the pictures off quicker. if i had 4 gigs on one card... i'd have 4gigs of stuff on that card at some point... thats a looooooooot of uploading, sorting, yadda yadda.

6/4/2006 7:09:59 PM

^^ that one of the cat is nice

6/4/2006 8:11:14 PM

And now it's time for everyone's favorite game: "Spot the Pedosmile!"

6/4/2006 8:20:54 PM

inspiration struck while making my lunch

6/5/2006 3:38:13 PM

^nice man, what lens did you use?

-ZiP!-

6/5/2006 4:10:46 PM

i have a total e-crush on -ZiP!- because of his photography skills.

6/5/2006 4:15:47 PM

Wtf?

6/5/2006 4:22:14 PM

ZiP, colors are BEAUTIFUL.

6/5/2006 4:25:54 PM

that was just the f/1.8 50mm
with a circular polarizer
i think i shot it a step over-exposed

6/5/2006 4:36:54 PM

me tinks we should have a peanut butter photo contest.

6/5/2006 4:45:13 PM

Quote :

"sigma makes some really nice lenses, tamron too. what focal length and price range are you looking at?"

I'm actually looking for a couple lenses. I need something that will go up to about 300mm, and one that will go down to about 28mm. My budget is somewhat tight, so I've been looking for a good deal.

I found these on ebay for a package deal of $180:
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3265&navigator=2
http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3304&navigator=3

It seems like a nice price, but I am not sure about their quality. I have used both lenses before, and they seemed to take good pictures (all those I've posted in this thread were taken with these), but I need a better opinion than my own before I commit to purchase them. The only drawback I noticed myself was that the AF motor was pretty noisy.

6/5/2006 5:01:20 PM

I preface this post as I do all my posts with photos: I am not a photographer. I need feedback and criticism to keep from making the same mistakes.

6/5/2006 5:37:46 PM

set em up

6/5/2006 5:39:08 PM

Quote :

"I preface this post as I do all my posts with photos: I am not a photographer. I need feedback and criticism to keep from making the same mistakes. "

no worries man, everyone in this thread is still learning each day, thanks for contributing.

great catch - with the bird. i like the content of the fishing shot as well, but your water color is getting oddly pinkish. also: both shots feel pretty grey, not representing the true color spectrum, or giving you true whites or true blacks. you can correct a lot after shooting, although, if you're able to white balance a little bit prior to the actual shot, you'll save yourself loads of time later.

keep the shots comin.

i dont have any experience with sigma lenses, cheeze_curd, but personally i'd sooner get a prime from them than a zoom, for some reason... but i don't really have evidence to back up that opinion.

also: keep in mind, with the digital SLR crop factor, a 28mm is going to be significantly larger than a 28mm lens on a normal film SLR.

-ZiP!-

[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 5:53 PM. Reason : one other thing]

6/5/2006 5:53:10 PM

yeah...adjust the curves and levels. also, perhaps a polarizing lens would help w/ those nasty reflections. possibly lower exposure? other than that....good pics!

6/5/2006 7:07:38 PM

Quote :

"me tinks we should have a peanut butter photo contest."

hahaha aaaaawwwweeeesome

btw, am i the only one who doesn't really do any sort of photoshop before putting my pictures into the thread?

6/5/2006 8:51:40 PM

why the fuck wouldn't you do anything to them?

6/5/2006 8:57:25 PM

i post them none photoshopped... i photoshop later when i feel the need to.

therefore for the most part you guys see pre photoshop photos from me. i think its a bit better for people looking to learn anyway... so they won't be like "damn i took a picture and it never looks like that"

6/5/2006 9:18:21 PM

by the way, ronny, i did like those 2 studio lighting shots from page 17, very nice. what mm lens?

-ZiP!-

6/5/2006 9:18:58 PM

From campus today..





[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 10:21 PM. Reason : added the second]

6/5/2006 10:03:40 PM

Quote :

" I'm actually looking for a couple lenses. I need something that will go up to about 300mm, and one that will go down to about 28mm. My budget is somewhat tight, so I've been looking for a good deal. I found these on ebay for a package deal of $180: http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3265&navigator=2 http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3304&navigator=3 It seems like a nice price, but I am not sure about their quality. I have used both lenses before, and they seemed to take good pictures (all those I've posted in this thread were taken with these), but I need a better opinion than my own before I commit to purchase them. The only drawback I noticed myself was that the AF motor was pretty noisy. "

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3303&navigator=3 is a bargain of a lens. I haven't used it but it is a great lens from everything I've read.

http://www.sigma-photo.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3263&navigator=2 is another nice lens. I have used it on film for a while and some on digital. It gives you a wider focal range and is pretty damn good as a walkaround lens.

Something to consider though is if you want any kind of wide angle you will want to cover down to 17 or 18mm. With the conversion (crop) factor of digital you will not be able to get very wide with a 28mm.

6/5/2006 10:05:38 PM

Well I don't have an SLR but that'll come in time.
Got some decent pics of a Kodak DX7590 though.
http://charleshf.zerobrains.com/long.jpg
http://charleshf.zerobrains.com/16sec.jpg

Both taken at nighttime with a 16sec exposure when I was just fiddling with the controls.


I believe my dad has (had?) an Olympus OM2(n) SLR from way back in the day. I'm definitely going to have to get my hands on it. Zukio had some really nice lenses--he has a 24mm shift lens that's pretty much the shit.
edit: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/24mmSHIFT.htm

Most awesome lens ever.

[Edited on June 5, 2006 at 11:24 PM. Reason : ]

6/5/2006 11:23:32 PM

is that the moon?????

6/5/2006 11:25:54 PM

Yes, that is the moon.

6/5/2006 11:36:55 PM

what is that? ISO 100000000001?

but yeah, PC lenses are cool... nikon has a few too.

6/5/2006 11:45:08 PM

?

Both shots were using "ISO100" (I think...these were taking ~a year ago), 16sec exposure, and f/6.3.
If you leave the shutter open for a long time and the moon is out, then your picture will slightly look like daylight--ie the "16sec.jpg" pic.

6/5/2006 11:53:13 PM

Quote :

"by the way, ronny, i did like those 2 studio lighting shots from page 17, very nice. what mm lens?"

24-70 f/2.8L

6/5/2006 11:58:30 PM

so nothing new in a couple of days?

6/7/2006 4:25:00 PM

i have "officially" bought a 50mm f1.8

i've been working with the manual focus for a while... i just got the AF

6/7/2006 4:27:14 PM

well, i still have not ordered my camera
i went to wolf camera and played w/ them and i really like the nikon

do i really need 8 megapixels or will 6 do...you know...for being a noob
plus, w/ the Rebel XT, i would have to buy a grip / the body just dont feel large enough for my hands like the nikon

plus, im pissed at my boss and i think i may quit my job w/in the next week or so
so....i might need that 500 or so dollars for living expenses if i quit.

dammit

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 4:44 PM. Reason : e]

6/7/2006 4:32:15 PM

i dont' think there is enough of a difference between 6 and 8 megapixels for that to be a huge factor.

i'm not saying that because i like nikon, i'm saying that because thats how i feel.

6/7/2006 4:34:05 PM

My camera sucks. The longest exposure I can take is 2 seconds.

Also, a newb question, what is ISO? Mine has a feature where I can adjust the ISO, but i'm not sure which way to adjust it and what it does. I looked it up online and in the manual but it is still confusing to me, as I can't tell much difference in the pictures when I adjust that particular setting.

6/7/2006 4:42:06 PM

if i understand it correctly, ISO is film speed...if that helps

thanks randy for your input / i felt the same way about 6 v/s 8 but would love to hear some other opinions as well

6/7/2006 4:48:36 PM

it represents how light reactive the camera is

the smaller the number
the more light you need

i.e.
you need a lot less light at ISO 800 than you need at ISO 100

in film it has to do with the actual particles on the film
i'm not sure how it works with digital

but either way, you're upping your grain as you up your ISO

which will be really bad if you blow shit up for a print
but not as bad if you just post shit on tww

6/7/2006 4:50:18 PM

International Standards Organization i think is what is stands for.

basically the speed of the film. how quickly the film reacts to light. normally faster speeds like ISO800 and ISO1600 are gonna react quicker. that means you will beable to use higher shutter speeds and there would be less blur... you can also shoot in lower light. but the downside is that higher ISO speeds give you grainier pictures. so less sharpness.

6/7/2006 4:50:41 PM

^^^^ ISO is the sensitivity to light. So (and don't take my numbers as gospel) if you have a shot that is at 1/40th of a second at f9 and ISO 100, and you want to keep the f9 for your shot but the 1/40th will give you too much camera shake, you bump it up to iso 200 and you can get it to something like 1/80th of a second at f9.

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 4:51 PM. Reason : wow, fast responses]

6/7/2006 4:50:59 PM

from a wedding last night

Nikon D70
1/15th sec
f5.6
1600 iso

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 4:55 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2006 4:55:11 PM

mmm... i'm hungry....

6/7/2006 5:03:09 PM

^^ Im interested in seeing a larger file but from what I can tell, the noise reduction on that ISO1600 is pretty good.

6/7/2006 5:09:49 PM

noise reduction doesn't kick in until the exposure hits above a second...

they are just pretty good with noise.

6/7/2006 5:13:04 PM

Tell me about this lens:

http://www.ritzcamera.com/product/255112120.htm

Tamron 18-200mm for $400

Is there a downside to having such a massive zoom range?

I'm looking for a solid lens for my 20D that I'd be comfortable walking around with and getting a variety of shots from different distances.

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 5:34 PM. Reason : shorter link ]

6/7/2006 5:34:03 PM

Quote :

"Is there a downside to having such a massive zoom range? "

Yes. Look at the lens spec's. f/3.5-5.6. That is bad. I noticed in an earlier post you had mentioned shooting football game at night, in which case this lens would do you almost no good.

6/7/2006 6:30:20 PM

^^^ I didn't necessarily mean the noise reduction function, I was just wondering on the camera in general.

6/7/2006 6:43:23 PM

i'll try to get the full size crop tomorrow, but it was damn clean for 1600, probably the best 1600 I've seen from this camera.


oh yeah, shot in raw format, edited in nikon capture to save as excellent jpg, cropped and signed in cs2. in camera noise reduction is off, no reduction in NC or in CS2.

[Edited on June 7, 2006 at 8:14 PM. Reason : ]

6/7/2006 8:10:56 PM

Very cool. Good job.

6/7/2006 8:44:55 PM

I found a Nikon D2x on Saturday and the owner today

6/7/2006 10:19:12 PM