PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
1,418 replies · 242K views
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9268/bwcopyln7.jpg

Mew-mew=> my cat.

I was sitting in my chair and I looked down and took a pic.
hm...I like the pic but when you make it a b/w you can see that some parts have no detail such as the washed out part around his mouth and eyes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
~christina~ said:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9268/bwcopyln7.jpg

Mew-mew=> my cat.

I was sitting in my chair and I looked down and took a pic.
hm...I like the pic but when you make it a b/w you can see that some parts have no detail such as the washed out part around his mouth and eyes.

Cool. Would be really cool if you could leave the eyes colored and the rest black and white.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
larkspur said:
Ha! They are cute. Did you have the red eye reduction on? That usually makes my cats shut their eyes in photos.

Nah. they were just sleepy.

The one on the right just fell asleep on my desk, and wouldn't you know it, his tail is on the keyboard.sssdf4 **sorry, that was the cat**

Is it custom for all cats to fall asleep right where you are trying to write?

He just walked on my keyboard and now the PF screen has somehow compressed. How do I fix this?
 
Last edited:
Nice pic, christina. Kind of like the "Emo cat" though.
 
larkspur said:
A lovely cat!

Thank you! :smile:
2300369179_330db9e7ec_o.jpg


Wow, larkspur, that's incredible. You captured her eyes perfectly. I have Photoshop, but I'm seriously an amateur with it. I'll have to try following those instructions, though and see what happens.

That's a nice shot of your kitty, Christina. I'm a fan of black and white.

Andre had an owl photo back a few pages that I wanted to compliment. The perspective was terrific.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Georgina.

Nice cats all, Somehow it occurs to me that the feline density in PF is way above global average.
 
Andre said:
Thanks Georgina.

Nice cats all, Somehow it occurs to me that the feline density in PF is way above global average.

I was thinking the same thing, Andre!
 
Andre said:
Well, when I was young I was not happy carrying a 20 pound case with SLR, 4 lenses (no zoom, those early ones were inferior) further a plethora of filters, macro stuff, flash, tripod on the hikes while trying to keep a couple of kids heading roughly in the same direction at the same pace. All of that replaced by a single 0.7 pound camera.

After I get my new lens I'll have a total of 3 lens' to haul around. (I don't have a tripod, or filters...but I want a circular polarizer)
I don't know but my cam is one of the lightest dslr's out there from what I've heard so it's pretty good since I just carry it in a sling bag.


Although a mini tripod comes in handy occasionaly and 1-2 dioptry macro lens, since in telezoom, macro, the minimum distance is one meter which is simply too much in crowded places.

not really...if you stand in the back on top of something the range is just fine since most people hover around the front of the exibit.

Also at the zoo, grey owl again at max range zoom, free hand, no glass available.

greyowl.JPG


In winter time, the animals are much more response to public, which makes nice pictures but with bad light.

funny owl, I've never seen one like that in person. They have snowy owls at my zoo but they were dozing off when I got there...so you can't really see their yellow pupils.

The light is bad in the winter but late winter photography is better.

I admit that the image quality of a bridge camera is slightly inferior (noisier) to the DSLR's. But there are tricks (self processing of RAW images) and composing a much large picture of several pictures, partly covering the landscape with "panorama maker" and then decrease the size again, this reduces noise and increases the resolution and sharpness.

I've tested that out myself...it's quite interesting.

However or studio work I'm beginning to start contemplating getting a DSLR, additionally, I'm not going to part with the FZ8.

I have to say that that panasonic you have is quite expensive. My bridge camera was much cheaper and my dslr (body only) is still cheaper than your bridge cam.:eek:

larkspur said:
Cool. Would be really cool if you could leave the eyes colored and the rest black and white.
It looks creepy that way (he has green and yellow eyes) and somehow it looks nicer when cats have blue eyes, but thanks for the advice.

GeorginaS said:
That's a nice shot of your kitty, Christina. I'm a fan of black and white.

Thanks GeorginaS
 
Last edited:
~christina~ said:
http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/9268/bwcopyln7.jpg

Mew-mew=> my cat.

I was sitting in my chair and I looked down and took a pic.
hm...I like the pic but when you make it a b/w you can see that some parts have no detail such as the washed out part around his mouth and eyes.

Mew-mew looks great in black and white! Love that! It really suits a tabby cat.

I tried looking at some of my photos in black and white...I hadn't thought to do that since I switched to a digital camera. The landscapes look OK if there's enough contrast, but most of my pics are of cloudy days.

Of course Miss Phoebe is already in black and white - there's no difference for her :rolleyes:!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lisab said:
Mew-mew looks great in black and white! Love that! It really suits a tabby cat.

I tried looking at some of my photos in black and white...I hadn't thought to do that since I switched to a digital camera. The landscapes look OK if there's enough contrast, but most of my pics are of cloudy days.

Thanks lisab

You can always up the contrast and pull down the brightness in your pics. (not too much but a little could make it look more dramatic)
 
So what DLSR do you have?
 
binzing said:
So what DLSR do you have?

If your talking to me I have a Nikon D40X. I hear that the Nikon D40 is better when it comes to noise but...well I purchased mine before I heard that.
 
Cool, I have an Olympus Evolt E-500. I probably would have gotten a Nikon or Canon, but they were too expensive. Question: On Canon's you are able to have the camera connected to your computer and when you take a pic it sends it straight to the comp, or at least views it on it. What is that feature called and is it Canon specific?
 
binzing said:
Cool, I have an Olympus Evolt E-500. I probably would have gotten a Nikon or Canon, but they were too expensive. Question: On Canon's you are able to have the camera connected to your computer and when you take a pic it sends it straight to the comp, or at least views it on it. What is that feature called and is it Canon specific?

I think that is called live view. I can connect my digital rebel to the laptop and run a focusing program when shooting astro photography. You can also write programs for the camera to snap at specified intervals. With the EOS 1D Mark III you get this: http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1752""
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Snapshot or Photograph

http://www.jmg-galleries.com/blog/2007/05/01/philosophy-of-photography-photograph-versus-a-snapshot/"
It made me think about how I take a picture. When I look through the lens I compose a scene before I press the shutter button. I will pan the area while looking through the lense until the composition is what I am looking for. If I don't think it would look good blown up and hung on a wall I won't take the shot...I find I take less and less photos because my standards have risen (too high maybe). I no longer take a photo to document that I have been there but rather take a photo to bring the scene home with me. I also delete a lot of photos. If they aren't perfect I won't keep them anymore just because I took them.

What do you think about when taking a shot?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
~christina~ said:
After I get my new lens I'll have a total of 3 lens' to haul around. (I don't have a tripod, or filters...but I want a circular polarizer)

I like the circular polarizer. I have a Coolpix 5000 since I don't really have the time and patience for an SLR (I don't think turbo would like it, though - it has a very slow response). It's still hard not to get sucked in with so much nice scenery here to photograph, so I ordered a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens with the filters thrown in along with the package. Tried them out yesterday morning and I'm pretty happy with the results. Here's a sample:

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9314/dscn0308it4.jpg
Maximum zoom without the telephoto lens

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9397/dscn0312hu4.jpg
x3 with UV filter

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/3125/dscn0313jr4.jpg
x3 with flourescent filter

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/8403/dscn0314ev7.jpg
x3 with circular polarizer

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9875/dscn0315ys8.jpg
x3 with polarizer rotated 90 degrees

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9792/dscn0315akz0.jpg
Last one touched up on the computer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
~christina~ said:
After I get my new lens I'll have a total of 3 lens' to haul around. (I don't have a tripod, or filters...but I want a circular polarizer)

Well in many cases you may find a tripod a necesary gadget.

I don't know but my cam is one of the lightest dslr's out there from what I've heard so it's pretty good since I just carry it in a sling bag.

The lightest DSLR is probably the Olympus E-400/E-410 with an excellent value for money

About range to subject:

not really...if you stand in the back on top of something the range is just fine since most people hover around the front of the exibit.

Well try to back off to one meter distance in a butterfly house to get this:

orange-2.JPG


and you will find two-three people jumping in front of you, trying to get the same picture.

I have to say that that panasonic you have is quite expensive. My bridge camera was much cheaper and my dslr (body only) is still cheaper than your bridge cam.:eek:

Really? I paid something like $280 in an AAFCE shop in Europe, which is fortunate since the average price in Europe for camera's in general is more in Euro than it is in dollars in the US. This FZ8 should not be confused with it bigger brother, the FZ18, which retails for about 375$. That's a fun camera to play with, omnipotential, but with slightly inferior pictures. I don't want to concede on quality and of course the Leica lenses are superior to the competition.
 
Nah, that's not what I'm talking about. What I'm thinking of only allows you to see after the picture has been taken.
 
Can you spot what is wrong with this photo? Not something little like dust but a major oops on my part.
2291440067_a9a6830b54.jpg
 
Nice picture, the oops?

Well I see that the left side of the cover is out of focus, you're probably not happy with the small reflection just below the ring on the right and the horizontal slightly lighter bar on the left but it's probably about the clock face being rotated 90 degrees to the left.
 
larkspur said:
Another tongue shot.
2291637054_3259bf289c.jpg
Love the tongue. That's probably the sexist cat photo I've ever seen. :smile:

As for the oops on the watch picture, I'd say that the depth of field could have been deeper, or the lighting a little different, but I'm not sure what effect one was intending. The clock face orientation is interesting, a little beyond 90° conterclockwise, as Andre indicated, but that's not an oops in the photographic process, but the watch.
 
Andre said:
Nice picture, the oops?

Well I see that the left side of the cover is out of focus, you're probably not happy with the small reflection just below the ring on the right and the horizontal slightly lighter bar on the left but it's probably about the clock face being rotated 90 degrees to the left.
Yes!

Astronuc said:
Love the tongue. That's probably the sexist cat photo I've ever seen. :smile:
:smile:That is a sultry pose isn't it?

As for the oops on the watch picture, I'd say that the depth of field could have been deeper, or the lighting a little different, but I'm not sure what effect one was intending. The clock face orientation is interesting, a little beyond 90° conterclockwise, as Andre indicated, but that's not an oops in the photographic process, but the watch.
Yes, the DOF and lighting are flawed.
 
Last edited:
The rotated watch face is really not a flaw. Many men's pocket watches were made with such a rotation. It suited right-handed people who retrieved the watch from a pocket using a watch chain cradled between the thumb and forefinger. They could actuate the case latch with the thumb and the watch would be perfectly positioned in the hand to have the 12 up. Many women's watches were made in Hunter cases with the 12 on the opposite side as the winding stem. These watches were often meant to be hung from chains or pinned to clothing, so simply flipping them upward would put them in the correct orientation for reading. Sorry for being pedantic, but I really love antique watches.
 
This does not qualify as good-quality photography for this thread, but I present it as an excuse for why I haven't been posting any nice nature shots for a long time. The weather has been particularly nasty this winter.

marchhouse.jpg
 
Better seasons will be here soon, Turbo, can't wait to capture the natural -rather rare- Pulsatilla vulgaris (in Dutch "wild mans herb") blooming very soon here, probably the end of the week

B350-0901020.jpg
 
turbo-1 said:
This does not qualify as good-quality photography for this thread, but I present it as an excuse for why I haven't been posting any nice nature shots for a long time. The weather has been particularly nasty this winter.

marchhouse.jpg

WOW! That is a lot of snow!
 
Andre said:
Better seasons will be here soon, Turbo, can't wait to capture the natural -rather rare- Pulsatilla vulgaris (in Dutch "wild mans herb") blooming very soon here, probably the end of the week

B350-0901020.jpg

Those are beautiful Andre!
 

Similar threads

Are There Any Flickr Members Willing to Give Photography Tips to a Newbie?

  • fluidistic
  • · Replies 22 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
22