Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => Arts & Talents => Topic started by: Fineus on May 06, 2005, 06:06:05 pm
-
Just thought I'd do a couple of things:
1 - Pimp my photography over at DeviantArt a bit...
2 - Beta test their new Pastie feature on a forum.
Feel free to take a look, or not. Hope you guys enjoy either way :)
-
Oooh, purdy. And the load times are great for DeviantArt, which has always been extremely slow to load in my experience.
The first one is my favourite, though the second one is a close call.
-
I normally hate photography, but some of those are actually quite pleasant to look at.
-
Superb work! :yes: I've been meaning to upload some of my stuff to DeviantArt, but I just haven't gotten around to it. What kind of camera do you use?
-
Thanks :) I use a Fuji Finepix S602z... but hopefully this summer I'll be upgrading to a Canon 350D, something far more robust.
-
That Canon one is the digital compatible with all the standard Canon Lens isn't it? Nice. I think my dad was looking to get one of those. (who is a photographer)
Some nice shots in there mate. :D
-
Is that pastie feature only for subscribed members?
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Thanks :) I use a Fuji Finepix S602z... but hopefully this summer I'll be upgrading to a Canon 350D, something far more robust.
Wow, a Digital Rebel? That's going to set you back quite a bit. Hey, I've been meaning to get a digicam for a long time. Do you have any suggestions for an amateur photographer that also likes to screw around as well. I need something that allows me to go out but also has enough features to do photography, midrange preferably.
-
Grug - Sure is! Actually I believe all the Canon DSLRs are compatable with all current Canon lenses (although some may lack certain features... you can still take shots with them). Since my father already owns a Canon EOS 3 I think a Canon DSLR is the obvious choice to go for since I can steal his lenses ;)
Corsair - 'Fraid so. It's part of the DA Beta Testing feature that subscribers get access to. Means you get to test out new (potentially buggy but also quite cool) features.
EtherShock - I know, it's more expensive than I'd have hoped. Truth be told I would love a Canon 20D but since those things weigh in at over a thousand pounds I don't think there's any chance of me getting one!
As for suggestions... I honestly couldn't say specifically... it depends how much money you have available, what kind of photography you wanted to do and how big the camera can be. The Canon Ixus range for instance is very good but doesn't have that many true photography features... though they're incredibly compact.
-
I'd say for now EtherShock just pick up a small 3.0+ Megapixel digital camera. Though they miss a lot of features, there certainly is enough in there to keep an amatuer going for a while.
Even my Dad uses a little Canon 3.1MPx digi cam that came with his Ipixma printer over his EOS film equivalent of that Digital Camera Kal mentioned above. (for general happy snaps anyway) They make photography much more affordable.
With film, everytime you click the shutter you can count in your head, "That's $1.50, another $1.50" etc. Whereas with Digital you can snap away to your hearts content as long as you've got the memory available. :)
Even with a film scanner, developing just the negatives film can be quite expensive.
I'm kind of interested in the field as well, I love IT but also dabble a bit in Graphics Design and hopefully soon, some more Photography. I hope to pick up just a small digital camera for my own amusement soon.
-
Yeah, as long as your batteries don't go dead. :p
Film is very expensive. I took a photo class, and I had to buy a brick, which is around 20 rolls of film, high grade stuff. The class cost me a lot of money, but I learned a lot and took some damn good pictures as well. It's just too bad the professor hated my work. Digital isn't necessarily better, it's a trade-off, a trade-off I'm willing to make. Thanks for the advice though Grug.
-
Tis just my two cents, everyone has there own preference. :)
Hope you have fun once you pick one up, you sound like you know more about photography than me anyway. :p
I've only picked up stuff from me Dad and a little bit of reading, I've never actually studied it. :)
Good luck! :D
-
(I should wake up allready... I misread "A little Pornography")
Really nice photos indeed K. Overall good job.
-
Cheers man :)
On the subject of Mega Pixles by the way... I reckon you begin to lose track of any quality problems around 4.0MP. That said it rather depends on the resolution of the shot and what have you... and 4.0 is rather low for any serious prosumer photography. I reckon 6.0 or high is nearer the right mark for that. For reference the Nikon D70 is a 6.0MP camera, while the Canon Digital Rebel 350D is an 8.0MP camera (as is the more expensive but better build quality 20D).
-
Originally posted by Grug
Tis just my two cents, everyone has there own preference. :)
Hope you have fun once you pick one up, you sound like you know more about photography than me anyway. :p
I've only picked up stuff from me Dad and a little bit of reading, I've never actually studied it. :)
Good luck! :D
Well thanks, I don't really know much though, only as much as a college student that spent hundreds of dollars on a photo course. ^_^ You don't need to take a class, unless you've got some money burning a hole in your pocket. All you need is a good book and some free time. My professor actually stifled my creativity for a while until I finally just said, "screw what he thinks" and photographed what I wanted, when I wanted. He was one of those "art is what we tell you it is" types. :rolleyes: I still can't understand why we didn't have gloves to handle the film in the lab. I ruined some good negatives my first few rolls. >.<
Hey Kalfireth, just looking at those pics makes me want to visit England, and that lens flare around the sun is a nice touch. Unplanned elements like that are always a bonus when they work out.
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Wow, a Digital Rebel? That's going to set you back quite a bit. Hey, I've been meaning to get a digicam for a long time. Do you have any suggestions for an amateur photographer that also likes to screw around as well. I need something that allows me to go out but also has enough features to do photography, midrange preferably.
You looking for something like this (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv3/)?
-
Photos look great, especially the Sunset and Worthing. :) Hmm... Right now I want to go to Worthing. :p
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
You looking for something like this (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonydscv3/)?
Meh, I was looking for something around 300 USD. I don't really think I need more than 4 or 5 megapixels. I really have to do more research, because I've changed my mind on size/zoom.
-
With regards to zoom, I've found it depends what you were thinking of photographing. If you were going to do still life shots or portraits then - lets face it - you're not going to be using your zoom. Just move the camera closer to the object. However if you're going to be photographing huge buildings or landscapes then indeed you may need a zoom.
I will say one thing in favour of film cameras... it makes you think. Because you don't get to rush in and start photographing, then adjust the settings depending on what you see in your preview - you make sure you get it as close to right the first time as you can. This hasn't put me off digital and I'd rather have a good digital SLR than a film SLR for preference, as they're far more versitile and I've no experience with film development.
Sandwich has indeed picked out quite a nice digital there though, I believe Setekh uses something similar as well :)
-
Zoom is important to me, as I do quite a bit of landscapes. I'll take your suggestions into consideration. Thanks guys. :)
On the contrary, I think someone with experience would still think before he or she took the shot. I think digital would be great to learn from because it's cheap compared to film. Although, there is potential that the person will just be lazy and not think before they shoot.
The appeal of film is that it's unpredictable. You know exactly what you're going to get with a digital and when editing in an image program, but film is a *****. If you developed your own film here, you'd have to have tight control on the chemicals and dispose of them properly. It varies from state to state, but If you do something wrong, you could be arrested. I don't know how the laws are in England, but they are probably similar.
I worked in a photo lab once, and those chemicals are dangerous in even a diluted state. Some of them have warnings like, "may cause thyroid problems." I got a chemical burn once, but that's because I didn't wear chemical gloves. I learned my lesson after that. I used to be made fun of by the cashiers because I actually wore the stuff, even my manager didn't wear the gear. He even told me I didn't have to during training. Wearing it made the process much slower when refilling chemicals. I even took flak from a lot of cutomers, but I felt much safer, screw them.
Film is very dangerous. People should learn from an expert if they want to develop their own pictures, because you're working with harzardous chemicals.
-
Dude, sweet shots. I particularly like the macros... I die for a good macro. For instance... (see attachment) From my frontyard, even!
Originally posted by Kalfireth
With regards to zoom, I've found it depends what you were thinking of photographing. If you were going to do still life shots or portraits then - lets face it - you're not going to be using your zoom. Just move the camera closer to the object. However if you're going to be photographing huge buildings or landscapes then indeed you may need a zoom.
I was just about to nod emphatically, but I'd like to add a little sidenote there. Zooming can have a very useful effect even when you're taking shots of things like still life or portraits. Portraits particularly - when you go into telephoto, the change in perspective ratios and the shallower depth of field are very pleasing to the eye. I almost always take portrait shots at 2x or 3x telephoto - if you stay at wideangle, it tends to make faces look fatter, with their nose exaggerated and the rest of their features pushed towards the extremities of their face. I think the difference that a bit of telephoto adds is subtle but really nice.
Well, that's my 2c. And yes, we do indeed something similar - the V1, predecessor to the V3. :nod: