163

[Edited on May 20, 2010 at 7:01 AM. Reason : from pg 162: damn did that dude get mauled or am I just imagining the blood?]

5/20/2010 7:00:54 AM

If I had to guess, with the dogs jumping over him and all, he could've gotten nicked by a paw in the face or something.

Mauled isn't the word I'd use there.

5/20/2010 7:15:14 AM

lol zomgdog

5/20/2010 7:43:17 AM

Reposting them since it was at the end of the page.







As for the guy in the first pic, it was a freestyle timed event when I was there. He only had like 3 minutes or whatever. That guy showed like 5 dogs and had some really good routines. The dog that is going over his shoulder about 30 seconds in jumped on his right shoulder and went off his left shoulder (sorta like in that pic) but he missed his position. Instead of springing off his shoulder, he went off the guys neck and face. So his back right paw dug into the guys face. The guy finished the timed round so he wouldn't be disqualified and then he showed a couple more dogs after. He just cleaned it up some, but it looked like he could have used a couple stitches.

5/20/2010 7:45:11 AM

Quote :

"but I'm using a wide angle, so macro (or anything even remotely close) come out with a really shallow DOF."

lolwut?

Do you even know what factors determine depth of field?

5/20/2010 11:31:06 AM

^Yes....

Camera-object distance, f-value, focal length, etc. The point I was trying to make was my camera-object distance and focal length... I can never get in close enough to make everything clear, due to my lens. In order to make the entire picture sharp, I have to zoom waaaay out.

5/20/2010 7:50:39 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/unincbrtn/4625120977/


...double post, too late to edit.

5/20/2010 8:52:03 PM

soo i now have access to a dslr.. no idea what model it is but its a cannon and it has an extra lens

i guess i'll fuck around with it and see what i can do, but i may be back in here asking simple/durr questions

but im kind of excited. i wish someone would show me how to use it!

5/20/2010 9:14:27 PM

^ 1 "n"

It should have the model on the front below and to the right of the lens when looking head on at it. Also Congrats! Welcome to the wonderfully addictive world of DSLR's.

5/20/2010 9:26:48 PM

Some awesome Poppies.....

5/20/2010 9:38:28 PM

^ i really like it, but there's...something...not sure what

5/21/2010 6:57:06 AM

No clear focal point. What am I supposed to look at?

5/21/2010 8:07:24 AM

I, maybe, would've focused on the lone, tall flower.

5/21/2010 9:15:06 AM

I wouldn't have. It's too busy.

5/21/2010 9:24:23 AM

my eye is drawn to the second tallest (in-focus) flower on the left

not enough presence to be the object of the picture though

5/21/2010 9:25:05 AM

Quote :

"I wouldn't have. It's too busy."

Yeah, I don't know. There are better ways to frame that shot.

5/21/2010 9:27:36 AM

Another

I kinda like that t's so busy, that's sort of the point as there are so many. That first one just shows a clear line of poppies while the rest are crowding around. This second one has a defined focal point, and yes I realize it does not meet at the intersection of the rule of thirds but I wanted to capture the busy poppies below too so I made it go higher in the frame.

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 10:40 AM. Reason : k]

5/21/2010 10:36:15 AM

how big is this field of poppies? I think it'd look neat as a backed out wide angle shot, to contrast the red with the blue sky.

but i don't know shit.

5/21/2010 10:41:50 AM

Try and get closer to the poppies in focus and shoot as open as possible at as long of a lens length as possible (not sure what you're shooting with) to see if you can crate some separation between the poppies in focus and the background. Maybe get a bit lower so the poppies are juxtaposed against the green background rather than the rest of the like-colored flowers.

5/21/2010 3:59:13 PM

Quote :

"Do you even know what factors determine depth of field?"

Quote :

"Camera-object distance, f-value, focal length"

You are correct, but you are not correlating the right idea of how they factor in to determine the depth of field.

The more telephoto (like 200mm)you get, the shallower your DOF will become.
The wider your aperture (lower number like f/2.8), the shallower your DOF will become
The closer your object distance is to the lens (like 3ft), the shallower your DOF will become.

The same goes in reverse.
The wider your focal length (like 24mm), the more DOF you will get.
The narrower your aperture is (like f/11), the more DOF you will get.
The more further away your object distance is to your lens (like 20ft), the more DOF you will get.


Also, the lens is based on optical properties (durr), where the light rays are accepted into lens and pass through a centralized position, called the node, and then appear on the other side upside down onto the image plane ( >< ). Because light comes in at an angle, shaped like a cone, Your depth of field is more like %40 in front of the plane of sharp focus (your object) and %60 behind. It again really depends on the focal length, object distance, and aperture.

Also, I didn't really relay the factor of the image distance (the distance between the image plane and the nodal point).

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 6:48 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2010 6:42:12 PM

ok so this is what i have

canon rebel xti

the lens is a little dirty (no cap for it) what is the best way to clean it?

the additional lens is efs55-250mm f/4-5.6 is

no idea what any of that means, thats whats on the box

i have a few local friends who are into photography. i'm going to see if they'll give me some lessons on it and then maybe i'll post some stuff. please be nice, i barely know how to use my point & shoot!!

camera history--belongs to my boyfriend, he's in hawaii until sept and i pulled the camera out of his storage because i want to learn how to use it (hence, he's not around to show me)

5/21/2010 10:18:29 PM

^I've got the XTi, it's a decent camera for a starter. After all, it's what I started with. It's a little overwhelming to start, but as long as you play with the manual setting, you'll start to learn.

If you haven't already, you're gonna wanna read up on the basic basics. Aperture, shutter speed, and ISO. Once you figure those out, you can move onto more technical details.

And if all else fails, turn the dial to programmed auto (P) mode, and you'll at least be able to get photos properly exposed. But until you get past that, you're not using the camera for its real abilities.

What are you trying to photograph? People? Landscapes? Artsy stuff? Animals?

The dirty lens, is it the kit lens (18-55mm)? The other lens is gonna give you more reach (better zoom on further objects), while the kit lens (if that's what it really is) is gonna be better for taking closer shots to the subject and/or getting a wider angle into the shot.

[Edited on May 21, 2010 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2010 11:12:03 PM

I use my breath and a clean t-shirt to clean the front element of my lenses. For everything else, there's Wikipedia. Enjoy!

5/22/2010 3:02:13 AM

IMO, a clear focal point really isn't necessary in Kiwi's picture

5/22/2010 4:33:09 AM

And why is that?

5/22/2010 7:15:47 AM

I think something like this, in a photo, would look nice:

5/22/2010 11:22:45 AM

The surroundings lol, this is why I kept it a little tight.





Tighter



[Edited on May 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM. Reason : k]

5/22/2010 1:01:50 PM

Do you use a polarizer?

5/22/2010 1:12:34 PM

I see a field of weeds and some flowers...

5/22/2010 1:35:14 PM

Nope Tanzarian, should but don't, we had like five minutes of blue sky before a really gray cloud came over top us. (PS I realize it'd probably cut out some of the haze in the mtns too)

and lol JBAZ also another reason I went in tighter.

This tiny ass field was surrounded by roads, it was in the center of an exit for a highway.

Fun, fun.

[Edited on May 22, 2010 at 1:40 PM. Reason : fedf]

5/22/2010 1:39:37 PM

if you want to make some pretty flower pictures, get a nice macro lens and find some better subjects, like in a flower garden.

5/22/2010 1:42:48 PM

whew...that sky is really washed out....

5/22/2010 1:43:50 PM

SHOULD HAVE HDR'D IT!

5/22/2010 1:48:52 PM

Maybe the kiwi crop would have helped!!

5/22/2010 9:33:28 PM

SOMEBULLSHITFROMTHEBEACHTHISWKND:





(cellphone as light)






[Edited on May 22, 2010 at 10:46 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2010 10:42:13 PM

^ what do you shoot with, dont see any exif info

5/22/2010 10:47:50 PM

7D. first two are with 50mm 1.4 and the last two are with tokina 11-16mm 2.8

and i see exif with chrome's exif viewer

[Edited on May 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2010 10:57:20 PM

You play around with any video on your 7D yet?

Im looking for a decent but not expensive external mic for my 5D, any suggestions?

5/22/2010 11:01:05 PM

I have, it's sweet.

But expensive to really do right.

I dunno, I've been using completely off-camera sound with a DAT recorder.

people seem to like the Rode VideoMic or something.

[Edited on May 22, 2010 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

5/22/2010 11:02:35 PM

I like the coronas bweez, the lighting is hotness even if it is just a cell phone.

5/22/2010 11:49:15 PM

I've used the Zoom recorders with a Rode shotgun mics at school with good results. Although now that I have full manual input control on the 5d mkII now after the firmware, I think I'll just drop the money on a nice shotgun mic and use the input on the camera. Saves having an extra device on me for making youtube vids.

5/23/2010 12:14:34 AM

The Zoom is cool.

I dunno, if you're on an actual movie set, having something that you can move around freely away from the camera is nice, and there are great sound sync programs.

but for events and fucking around and less sound intensive stuff putting a mic on the camera is fine.

5/23/2010 5:28:01 PM

yeah, but I don't want to invest in a $300 zoom recorder just to capture simple audio. Although, I will probably buy one in a future... when I get a job that will pay for it all. It sucks being in the student mode and no one wants to pay you. One more semester left at photo school then back to NCSU.

5/23/2010 8:38:59 PM

That's what I'm saying

5/23/2010 9:42:39 PM

plus dumping 1800 on a new pc probably wasn't a good idea at the moment.

5/24/2010 12:00:20 AM

Does anyone have an opinion on an Olympus E-510 or Sony a300k? I can get either for a decent price (used). This will be my first DSLR so I don't need anything too high-speed. I've worked with 35mm SLRs before, but it's been awhile. Any help is appreciated.

5/24/2010 11:26:57 AM

Personally I'd stick with Canon or Nikon just for the accessories, but if you were looking at Olympus or Sony route, I'd probably pick Olympus. Sony's lower end consumer dslr doesn't compared to what Olympus offers and their image quality suffers a lot at higher ISO and I think they are restricted to 1600, which is so 2008. Olympus has their semi-pro E-3 line for pretty cheap which is actually pretty good. Even though Sony has their semi-pro full frame chip, their image processors just suck ass, It can't even get ride of noise at ISO 1600 compared to the original 5D that's more than 3 years old now.

Honestly, I'd look at the cheap rebels or the cheap nikon (D-9000 is it?) bodies. Or just pick up a used 30D for like 300ish.

5/24/2010 5:40:08 PM

Shit get a fucking Nikon D40. I don't give a fuck if it is 6MP, with some good glass, it turns out some decent shit. A number of reviews said it was better than the D3000, which is a lot newer and a bit more expensive, but has some cool features (12MP, 12 focal points, etc.). But really get a good D40 and go from there. You probably won't be selling photos with it, but its the best bang for your buck.

5/24/2010 5:46:53 PM

^yup, totally agree, D-40 still spanks, probably the most sold consumer DSLR in the history of DSLR...

5/24/2010 5:52:31 PM

^^D3000 is 10mp & D5000 is 12mp. I have a D3000 and I've used my neighbor's D40 several times; I still like the D3000 a hell of a lot more... for the price, the D3000 is a sick camera.

For a full compare/contrast (taken from CNET):

5/24/2010 6:55:45 PM