to blur the water you need a long exposure and a tripod. That shot (mine, btw ) was 1/2" @ f29.


the second shot isn't a total spot color image, some saturation is kept everywhere else. You can use a couple of different techniques in photoshop, from adjustment layers and masks, hue/sat. adjustments using only select color ranges, and others. Google search photoshop spot color and you'll get some tutorials.

8/27/2007 7:31:50 AM

random 7:45am pads ftw

8/27/2007 7:44:10 AM

word, guess I gotta beef up my photoshop skills.

and I don't have a slr yet, though i do want one.

I wonder if my regular digital camera can do long exposures to take photos like that.

8/27/2007 8:09:44 AM

what kind of camera do you have?

a simple google search should tell ya what kind of manual features you have access too
but you will still need a tripod. even the slightest movement when taking long exposures will mess the picture up really bad

8/27/2007 9:14:22 AM

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LZ5

yeah I got a tripod

8/27/2007 11:59:03 AM

Just manually set it to several secs, and shooting at dawn/dusk helps to not overexpose the rocks. I'm not sure if photoshop does this like PSP does (I'm cheap, can't afford PS) but I just copy the layer and paste it in a new window, set it to grayscale with whatever contrast/lighting adjustments I need, copy and paste it back to the orig in a new layer, and cut around the object so the color shows underneath with a proper feather (depending on the focus on the object's outline). If I don't do it that way, and instead I create a new layer and set it to gray scale, PSP makes all layers in the image grayscale too. >.<

8/27/2007 12:16:21 PM

hey guys.....is it possible to take such beautiful pictures with a regular digi cam? I mean I just got my new camera and I feel like I don't know how to get the most out of it. Is there a good resource on the internets that deals specifically with regular digi cams?

8/27/2007 12:19:09 PM

I use a digital, and I think taking good pics is a combination of luck, skill/technique, and equipment. Any two of the three makes a decent pic, I think.

8/27/2007 12:34:32 PM

I have a Sony DSC-H2, which is technically considered a point and shoot. It has a 12x zoom and full manual settings, so you can get SLR quality shots with it. The lens built into it is actually better than most kit lens that come with SLRs. So yes, you can get SLR quality shots with a point and shoot, assuming you have one with the right feature set.

A new one from me

8/27/2007 12:50:20 PM

ok don't laugh, but this is my first try of doing that "color in the black and white photo" thing.

I got adobe photoshop cs9; picture taken with same camera as stated up above.

anyways, here's the original


and here's the edited.



fire away; lemme know what you think.

8/27/2007 1:33:34 PM

Very nice job!

If you zoom in on the edges you can get some detailed selection going on, but for starters that is fantastic, and a good choice of subject too.

8/27/2007 1:41:26 PM

thanks. that was a photo that I snapped after it rained at my dad's house when I was home b/n iraq tours.

8/27/2007 1:45:53 PM

I just got a 30D and wanted to know what kind of lens do I need to take a waterfall shot like that and what settings would I need? I currently have these lens, a nfity-fifty f/1.8, Canon 28-135mm IS USM, and a Canon 28-105 II USM.

I am thinking of getting some new glass this christmas. Any suggestions? I would like to get something that is faster than the lens I have now...maybe something like a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Here's one of my first pictures with my camera of my new baby girl.


And my other baby girl



[Edited on August 27, 2007 at 2:07 PM. Reason : Pics]

8/27/2007 1:51:49 PM

I don't know much about lenses at all but I'm thinking if you want a nice romantic blur, go with the lens that is the slowest.
I think the 50mm f/1.8 will have a crystal clear, beautiful exposure under low light,
but it might not blur as much as the 28-135mm when it's fully extended?

I'm probably wrong here, though. Beautiful DOF on the dog, btw.

8/27/2007 3:56:39 PM

Not a digital slr but YanTheManV



[Edited on August 29, 2007 at 10:41 PM. Reason : fhfg]

8/29/2007 10:40:49 PM

One I took back in July that I just put on Flickr

8/29/2007 11:02:00 PM

Thx cd...I got your msg.

Here's another new one.


The other thing that I found is hard is to get a good smile in low light rooms. It gets blurred easily. So I end up taking a bunch of shots just in case some of the get blurred and then I usually get a few good shots. Still learning though.

8/30/2007 10:09:48 AM

Are you shooting on manual? If not, then the problem is that the camera is slowing down your shutter speed which causes the motion blur. Set your aperture as wide as possible and that will allow you to speed up the shutter a little. Also get a flash diffuser or detached flash that you can use to bounce off of the ceiling or wall. That will help a lot and not blow out the highlights from a closeup shot with flash.

8/30/2007 1:47:49 PM

my next purchase will be a flash

8/30/2007 1:59:00 PM

Ya I am trying to learn how use lighting properly. It's tough. Either you have too much light or not enough or it's not positioned correctly. I'll probably get a beter flash later this year.

My friend made a homemade diffuser and said it's easy to do and I might try doing that sometime. Have you guys made one before?

8/30/2007 3:33:11 PM

This is a great image of downslope winds feeding convection.

8/30/2007 3:42:29 PM

that's exactly what i was thinking.

8/30/2007 3:47:19 PM

any tips for taking pictures in bright light situations? i like doing landscapes, but its hard to see the screen on the camera in bright sunlight, and for whatever reason, the composition in the view finder is never the same as what gets recorded. all i have is a cannon a530 and sont DSC-p72, both are relatively low end point and shoot cameras.
these aren't spectacular, but i think they came out ok.





i have a cannon eos rebel x (the one andre aggassi used to endorse) and another old nikon slr, but i stopped using them because film and developing costs plus its easier to share digital photos. i tried scanning the prints, but they looked like crap.



[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : .]

9/3/2007 12:43:34 AM

^ http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/4968/LCD_Accessories_LCD_Hoods_Shades.html

9/3/2007 12:46:56 AM

Damn, didn't know that the viewfinder was off - is that the same with the Canon XTi?

9/3/2007 12:49:44 AM

^ i don't know, maybe the nicer models have the view finder more in sync. when i took that lake picture above, i didn't intend for there to be so much water. the view finder chops about 20% off of the bottom.

9/3/2007 12:54:05 AM

I love wide angle lenses. this one is a 11-25 on D200.





[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : fixed link]

9/3/2007 1:12:03 AM

^ Those are over exposed and under saturated. Check you camera settings or invest in a neutral density filter.

To see what I'm talking about, look at the color histogram for those pictures. They're skewed too far towards the light end of the dynamic range.

Some of that can be fixed in photoshop, but getting your exposure right at the beginning is important.

Here's a quick fix:


[Edited on September 3, 2007 at 1:25 AM. Reason : crazy code FTL]

9/3/2007 1:23:39 AM

from my trip to sweden, north of the arctic circle (very little or no post-processing):

near abisko:


same place, near abisko:


glacial lake, officially one of the clearest in the world:


glacial river, practicing with shutter speed:


same glacial river, still practicing with shutter speed:


top of a mountain, we began hiking around 1am (the sun never sets in the summer, not really):


we got lost, but at least it was pretty


any of you climate/weather nuts know what causes these types of clouds?


up close (with zoom, of course) to a reindeer:


cool flower:


cool fungus:


[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM. Reason : comments]

9/6/2007 1:06:09 PM

damn quag

That should be your job...

9/6/2007 1:07:15 PM

thank you

i've always enjoyed natural photography...i keep trying to work on the perspective kind of stuff, and pictures of people, culture, etc. because that's the stuff i feel i'm really bad at...in the meantime, i do this to feel less discouraged

9/6/2007 1:13:17 PM

No I mean this is shit National geographic puts in their magazines.


Change your career choice now!!

9/6/2007 1:14:31 PM

Quote :

"No I mean this is shit National geographic puts in their magazines. Change your career choice now!!"

Clearly you've not picked up a National Geographic in a while. I'm not slighting quag, they are rad photos, but the folks at NG wouldn't give him, me, or anyone else in this thread the time of day.

9/6/2007 2:04:58 PM

^ sad but true

9/6/2007 3:54:02 PM

They seem similar to me but I do have the untrained eye. I know it takes a lot to get a good picture but from the perspectives he's taking them from...shit I couldn't tell the difference.

What does it take to get into a magazine as kick ass as National Geographic?

9/6/2007 3:55:57 PM

giving really good head

9/6/2007 4:05:15 PM

I really like the effect in the waterfall one, but something seems off to me about the orientation of the camera (they all are like that IMO).

9/6/2007 4:05:53 PM

^ thanks...first of all, it's over-exposed...second, it makes me REALLY sad to hear that because one thing i was thinking about almost all my pictures is that the orientation was off...i'm not sure if it's my camera going bad or whether i've got an inner ear infection or being that close to magnetic north made me crazy or WHATEVER, but in some pictures the orientation was WAY off

^^ i've got a friend who has an interview with national geographic, actually...he just got back from thailand, vietnam, and singapore...now HIS stuff is amazing

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM. Reason : .]

9/6/2007 4:06:07 PM

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/yourshot/faq.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/jobs/faq.html

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/qanda/index.html#g

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngexpeditions/expeditions_type.html -- dreamy

[Edited on September 6, 2007 at 4:14 PM. Reason : 1sdf]

9/6/2007 4:11:16 PM

47

9/6/2007 4:17:09 PM

9/13/2007 5:55:41 PM

how common is it too touch up photos with photoshop? to me is seems like cheating.

9/13/2007 7:21:39 PM

^ very common. the object of the game is to get great looking photos. a little color correction never hurt anybody.

9/13/2007 7:36:16 PM

in the digital world you'd be crazy to not touchup in PS. The sensors have no idea how the colors actually look, they just take a best guess whereas film just does the chemical thing and you get great saturation all the time.

If you're not touching up, chances are your photos are suckin'

9/13/2007 7:36:35 PM

i do very little color stuff, mainly cropping, and i think they come out just fine

Quote :

"any of you climate/weather nuts know what causes these types of clouds?"

some of them look like lenticular clouds, and i know they occur over mountains

9/13/2007 8:53:46 PM

I do crop the hell out of stuff in Photoshop, but I'm still learning the SLR.

9/13/2007 8:59:55 PM

9/18/2007 11:23:02 AM

This thread has slowed down way too much!


There were chickens all over Key West. I think this particular one was at the Truman house.


Outside a museum I wanted to visit, but didn't have time to; also in Key West

9/22/2007 1:21:19 PM

Could be getting a new camera soon, depends on a few things, but starting to seriously think about it again. Just wondering at the current time what you all think the best DSLR for the money is right now. Looking at $1500 or less...preferably less. I do want a nice camera though, I like to take a lot of action shots mostly but want a good quality lens that has a good range from wide to telephoto. I've been looking at Canon and Nikon mostly (Rebel XTi and D80 specifically) and think that I'd prefer one of those two brands, but I'm open to considering any suggestions that anyone may have. Just for reference my current camera is a Fuji D602Zoom and it's been a good camera for the past almost 5 years but I would like something a little nicer now.

Thanks!

9/30/2007 10:49:42 PM

Quote :

""

Gorgeous!

[Edited on September 30, 2007 at 11:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2007 11:34:46 PM