DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... The Camera/Picture Taking Thread

Nice pics, both of them. I like the one in your yard. Have always liked close-ups.

A bit rainy today, but yesterday involved a ton of sunshine.


Source


Source


Source

That last one has one gnarly sandtrap. What is the course name?

Old village pumphouse #1.

Canon EOS Rebel. Had my 70-300 zoom lens on. I was probably at about 80-90.

You can't see it here, but if zoomed in more, you can see her eyes following the ball. I'll get it blown up a bit. I love the way her hair was billowing out.

Nice! Didn't know you own a SLR. You, me, and JFan should meet up at Maumee Bay this summer to shoot some wildlife.

Believe it or not, I took a photography class in college. That was back when cameras used........what's the word?....oh, yeah, film. I even developed my own film.

I've always liked photography - I'm just not very good - or knowledgeable.

Some of my favorite "nature" shots are mornings, after a heavy fog or dew, and then it gets below freezing. Trees, plants - with the ice crystals on them - I love it.

Although now I use a Canon 7D, I still have my Pentax Super Program 35mm I bought in 1983. As easy as digital is now, I still prefer film.

Are you going eat it? I bothers me when people shoot wildlife just for sport.

I don't have any pics to show. But back about 1980 I borrowed a Cannon film camera from a friend and a 300mm lens from another. Yet another friend came on to 36exp rolls of 35mm color film in 5 packs for $5 each. If they were stolen I don't know but I bought 5 of them. I had 180 shots for $25.

Using the camera was daunting for me. There was no internet but I did study at the library a bit. I shot all the film and paid to develop all the photos.

That summer was one of my favorite times in my adult life. When I wasn't working I was looking for things to shoot. I had so many pictures and compositions I was proud of, landscapes, animals, flowers and close-ups among them.

In 1991 we had a house fire and I lost all those pictures. I've been following this thread but it wasn't until just now that I remembered the summer I held a good camera and took some good shots.

You should get another one.
Life's too short to not do what you know you enjoy.

I still own my Minolta X-370 35mm camera and many lenses. It was my camera through highschool and college and even beyond. The last I really used it was 1997-2001. I worked as a road hand and photographer for a Columbus based jam band. Shooting film in darkened clubs and bars was a tough gig. I'd get 1800iso film and push it to 3600 which then cost extra to develop as there was only one place that could do it for me. (For those not understanding this archaic language...1800iso film allows for low light. I pushed the film's limit by shooting it set at 3600iso so I could shoot at even lower lighting. This then requires changing the way it was processed.) Not having the instant feedback of today's digital cameras meant it was always a crap shoot as to what kind of images I'd get. I'd shoot hundreds of shots in hopes of getting two or three good images. Often grainy but there were times where I captured some really cool shots. That camera and I saw a lot of stuff over the years. I just can't seem to part with it even though it's sat unused for years.

][/url]

This is one such photo.

Justin and Brant of Uncle Sam's Dream Machine, 1998, at Chelsie's in Columbus.

I'm getting into photography, but I have absolutely no formal training/ classwork.

One great thing they have online is a camera simulator where you can play around with annual camera settings to quickly learn.

Google camera simulator and it's the first link.

One thing I have to say is that I am blown away by photographers who used/use film. Losing the ability to instantly check to see if I had my settings right would be a deal-breaker for me.

How much of the photos you posted is post-processing?

When I shoot landscapes, the best photos I end up with are just so 'ordinary'. I don't think anything has come out of my camera that makes you say "wow!".

A few of the photos I've posted on this thread were shot on film, such as the image on page one of the purplish pink flower with Mt Moran (the Tetons) in the background. Also the one I just posted of the musicians on stage. I've since digitalized them to clean them up.
Shooting on film was challenging. With digital I still take dozens of shots to get an image or two. But I know I'm walking away with something. I've shot entire rolls of film, paid for processing, and really had nothing worth keeping.
Shooting black and white in highschool and college, and learning darkroom skills was something I really loved. A lot more instant response. I could push my film harder, or play with different techniques to do what photo apps do so easily now. I'm glad I learned the old way though. I just wish I could get back the money spent on processing color film. Yikes.

Composition is everything. All the bells and whistles and filters and such mean nothing if an image is poorly composed. The rule of thirds. Learn it. Use it. But also don't be afraid to break it.

This is the best response. Composition really is everything.

][/url]

I know you didn't ask me but I'm answering anyway. I use filters. Sometimes more than others.
Landscapes can be mundane. Change your perspective. Get low. Climb to get a better view. Change the eye level of the camera. Everyone walks around with a view from eye level. If you want to stand out give them a view they haven't seen.
Another suggestion. Think foreground, mid ground, background. Try to have something of interest in at least two of those fields. Draw the viewer into the image by using depth. Making a 2D image have 3D qualities.

Lastly. Photography is the art of capturing light. The best light for photography is in the morning and at dusk. Noon light is harsh. Dawn and dusk is soft and warm. Get up early mornings. Go out before sunset. Shoot.

These things don't have to be used in every image every time but it'll get you started when thinking about composing a photo.

The RAW files, what the sensor catches, usually comes out washed out. Adobe Lightroom helps bring out the natural colors.

Great post! Read it over Oober, and if you can only remember one thing, make it this:

Thanks, everyone (especially Portland). I've never heard of the rule of thirds, but the wiki page focusing on it was illuminating. I'm curious as to what is behind the rule (why is a picture more interesting when the subject isn't centered?).

As for my second post, I always remember back to a summer where I drove to visit a girlfriend in Rhode Island, and I took a bunch of pictures of the Atlantic as the sun was going down and the light was turning the tops of the waves purple when the rest of the water was a darkish blue. Honestly, it was breathtaking and probably the most unforgettable images of the water despite my living in very close proximity to an ocean for a majority of my life. When I got the images onto my computer, they flat out sucked. Since then, I've upgraded my camera equipment a lot, as well as my skill (just a little bit there), but I still have the same issue where shots that are supposed to knock your socks off just end up so 'blah'. That's why I asked about post-processing.

Post processing is pretty standard, every image I post goes through Lightroom at the very least.

The rule of thirds...
I was an advertising student for a bunch of years. A big part of that game is physiology mixed with psychology. Through studies we know that the human eye moves across a page naturally in a couple different patterns. A 'C' , a 'Z', and an 'S' pattern are the most common. So advertising becomes a game of using that to get your message across. Manipulating the human brain preset to either quickly get information across, or hiding in plain sight what you don't want the viewer to see by putting it outside of that natural flow. You're being manipulated like this daily in print adds without even knowing it.
So in photography there's a similar concept. We know how the eye naturally moves. So by placing subject matter in those areas it pleases the eye. A horizon splitting a frame in equal halves is jarring to our senses. The rule of thirds play into this.

Damn all that book learnin' in college stuck with me!!

So, put another way, those pictures earlier in the thread with the crazy blue skies and snow white clouds, and the mind-blowing sunset probably wouldn't be possible straight out of the camera?

If you're photographing people or objects, moving or otherwise, unless you're trying for a dead on view, remember to lead your subject. The rule of 3rds applies here. If you're subject is someone looking off in the distance, keep them in the 3rd of the frame they are looking away from. Have their back, at the edge of the frame, even if you see nothing in front of them the viewer will be able to feel they are seeing something. To put them in the middle of the fame you have no room to visualize with them and you see behind them which is at best distracting to the eye.

Yes you're correct. Filters have been in use for years. Every Natural Geographic photo you've ever seen was filtered through the lense. I had polarizing filters for my 35mm lenses. Much like polarizing sunglasses they take the glare and haze out of the sky. I had red and yellow filters for black and white film. They made the clouds pop off the print. Darkening the blue sky behind them. I had gradient filters that could make the sunset sky gorgeous without messing with the foreground.
Now I use HDR filters and drama filters to do the same. Our eyes see color (light) so much differently than film, or even our digital cameras can see. So filters can push some of the attributes to more closely resemble what our eye sees. You can use filters to get just to that edge, or like the landscape I recently posted, push the palette beyond. I saw all those colors in the sky. Just not that vividly. Nothing is made up. It's just accentuated. How ever much is up to the photographer.

I'm going to wear out the 'like' button on this thread.

Thanks so much for sharing.

I have some volleyball pictures I'd like to post, but I swear I don't know how to do it. I have no clue how I even got the softball picture on here..............

Right-click the Facebook image, select "copy link as url", and then follow the image tagging stuff here on the boards.

Or upload them to imgur.com Then follow the same process. That's what I usually do.

I didn't have the pic on facebook, so I put it there, then did what you said - previewed it - and the pic showed up, but it had my facebook page on it. As in, anyone could see my name, blah blah blah.

I swear, it was just what, 2 days ago that I put the softball pic. up?

Sorry Arch, I'm not sure what else to tell you to help

-------------------------------------------------

So...they brought in a whale today:


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source


Source

How's that meat? Do you eat it?

Just thought I'd toss a couple into the mix.

Just some post processing I was playing around with. This is a runaway rooster I found.



Link

One more and I'm done.

What did you do Tulsa? That looks like an arm and a fist in the water on the lower right.

On the advice of my attorney I can't discuss it.

Oh, that's just the silly Brits choosing another King... nothing to fret over.

Sounds like fun. Got this one at Maumee Bay a couple days ago. Eastern meadowlark.