crazybobbles
-
Posts
4,628 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Events
Articles
Store
Downloads
Posts posted by crazybobbles
-
-
If I was gonna spend shitloads I've gotten a bit fixated on this one...
https://www.eglobalcentral.co.uk/sony-cybershot-dsc-rx100-iii-digital-camera-pal.html#/product/13361
Mostly cause my last (and first) was a canon and it was pretty nice
And all the knobs and such
And it's usually like the first canon on 'good compact' reviews
I really find researching stuff stressful though, so much subtlety, annoying little things you'd only know if you were really into whatever, biased reviews, numbers being irrelevant, numbers being relevant and OK but others being not OK...
If money isn't an issue, best compact to get is an x100s or x100t by Fuji
All about the retro dials for settings. My go to camera for most occasions including the odd gig
-
hmm yeah, I've been looking but second hand ones are barely any cheaper than brand new! I'll just keep my eyes peeled I guess.
tried grey market? I've used this site for my lens purchases, I'm more weary of getting camera body since i won't be able to deal with Canon or whatever directly BUT for lenses, I tend to go nuts and just get them grey market (besides, they do offer alternative warranties where they just foot the bill, mileage my vary)
I use this for getting a feel for how cheap lenses can be
-
i was thinking about buying one of those fuji instamax cameras, but i'm not sure if i'll like how small the pictures turn out plus the film seems pretty expensive ?
what are y'alls thoughts on analog photography
i have one, they are fun for the occasion of shooting and giving the photo to the person afterwards.
However if i were to pick again I'd probably get the newly released instax printer
I shoot with a Fuji X series camera anyway so we're not really cheating when we're printing them from it
it's definitely not something you'd bring along all the time and use so if it's for advancing photography skills, i'd steer clear (it's hit and miss most of the time given you don't have the ability to focus properly or adjust any settings).
-
Cuba!
love this!
-
To be honest, I hadn't tried the tone curve thing until you suggested it the first time, so I did appreciate it. I'd played with some of the highlights, shadows, whites, blacks options, but hadn't tried the curve itself before you mentioned it, and like I said, it was the key to getting exactly the look I wanted on one particular picture a few months ago, haha! I'll accept that the pictures can look a bit flat sometimes, although I do like them to look soft somehow. I found the tone curves worked best when I was trying to get a contrast but without losing the detail, so it might be something I go back to on a few photos and see if I can tweak them further at some point. It's probably harder to tell on the final picture when you can't see all the different stages it went through to get it there, so I do accept that. It's hard to judge exactly without seeing it on different screens with different brightnesses too though. I know how I'm seeing the picture when it's finished, but unless I make a brighter version for uploads, there's probably always going to be people who'll complain about some of the softer ones. I do like some dramatic pictures too, and I have some like that, and some that are very saturated with colour, but it needs to be a particular kind of picture I think, and it depends how I'm looking at it and what I'm remembering, I suppose. My only criticism by the way was the whole 'don't try to justify yourself' thing. Of course I'm going to try and explain what I've done if someone says something about it, but that doesn't mean I don't take the other options on board. It just came across a bit like 'your pictures aren't good enough, and don't bother trying to tell me that you think they are, because I'm not interested' - I don't think that was quite the intention, it just came across a bit that way. No harm done obviously. I'll try and sort through some more pictures over the weekend hopefully anyway and see what I can put together.
haha well you know me, that's how i roll with giving feedback, most of the time I mean no harm.. and if i do... well, I probably won't post. Think one of your reply was just all about the justification and didn't "respond" to the suggestion.
Photoshopping tweaks are probably the least of my worries anyway, you can always revisit them later. I've been relooking at photos I've taken years ago and wow so many of them need more tweaking (plus lightroom has improved in noise reduction and how it processes photos in general so even that is worth relooking at), my style has changed quite a bit which makes me wonder how I'd react when I look at my photos another 3 years later.
also here's a photo of a grubby trent reznor, damn thing popped when I added some vignetting
-
I just find it funny that I already do both of those things anyway, but you're still arguing about it. Tweaking the tone curve was the key to nailing the look of the sky I wanted on my picture of Toji in the snow back in February, and as I mentioned, I posted a picture of a tiger up ages ago in which all the colour was taken out apart from the vivid orange on its body. It depends on the picture and the look I want to go for, but why try and engage in discussion if you don't want a reply about it?
Ah didn't know you played with the curves on it. Some areas just looked flat. I like getting into conversations, just you know.. statements like "I shoot for myself" kind of make replying a waste of time. I would never say that for my photos I share and post (because you know, I've shared it with everyone). When I post and share with people I take their criticisms on board because they don't have the ownership and attachment to the photo and can be a bit more objective in getting to something everyone or most folks can agree. Granted I don't get much feedback besides the odd "it's not sharp enough" back in the days (400d was a crippling camera with shit ISO and noise reduction)
So yeah, this is why I don't really want to reply. Also Miranda did a better job at explaining the colour desaturation stuff than I did, I was going about the route of boosting the dynamic range of the shot to make it work but I think embracing the colours is much better.
-
Haha you just justified yourself again. I just wanted you to try playing with curves and potentially look at selective colouring, if you don't like it, fine, if you do, better. Even something like "I tried what you suggested earlier but I wasn't keen on it" would suffice.
If nothing is going to change no matter what I say, then I might as well say nothing.
-
Of course it's processed. There's no trying to hide that. That's what I find odd when people start thinking it isn't (ie, the infamous white balance discussion). Some things I want sharper and more in focus, and some things I want softer and less obvious, it's just trying to bring out the details I want more of, and taking away the ones that I want less of.
It's not about "trying to hide it", it's trying to do it in such a way that the viewer doesn't get overly distracted by the processing and miss out on the photo. Pretty much why I hate HDR shots.
Selective desaturation for me has always been a big cliché, but there are times when it makes absolute sense to do this, the main theme which you've pretty much touched on is focus on a particular subject. However I feel like you've left some areas coloured which makes it hard for a viewer to know exactly where you want to focus, needs to be more concentrated (like a red balloon in a crowd, a girl in a red dress in a crowd, a wild rose in a field, blood on some battlefield, some tumbling phonebooths I took 7 years ago) The iconic shots always focus on red being the primary attention drawing colour, if you're going to spare others then you're only going halfway with the selective desaturation. The red lips has always been the centre of focus for geishas so that's why i suggested to only focus on that (i'm assuming that was the point of the mono makeup).
Play with the curves! None of this is definitive "you need to do x to make it a good photo" because all of this is subjective however you should mess around with it just to see if it really is better as it is.
if I get another justification reply then this conversation is OVER!
-
Here's the original if you're interested.
I tend to find that a lot of the colour in pictures is distracting from the forms, shapes, and actual subject and so on, so I tend to take a fair bit of colour out of my pictures in order to increase the attention on details and things like that. The more you take colour out, the more other things become apparent which I quite like. I do like there to be some colour though, so it ends up being somewhere between colour and black and white. I do edit on full brightness though, so I acknowledge they look a bit too greyed out when posted up sometimes.
The lenses are the Lomography x Zenit Petzval lens that was posted about here ages back. I found myself quite intrigued by it, and had the chance to save a decent amount of money if I got it while I was in Japan so I decided to go for it. The other is the Nikkor DX AF-S 10-24mm lens. A large proportion of my pictures are landscapes and I'd had plenty of occasions wishing I'd had a wider lens, so I figured I should finally take the plunge and get one. Not had chance to try either of them out since they arrived in the past week anyway unfortunately.
photo looks too obvious that it is processed (although you could look at playing with the curves on that shot if you are going the black and white and boosting the dynamic range). Personally I would rock just ONE colour if you were to go the selective colour route and that would be the classic red on the lipstick
-
Total price from MGW was £3,457.50 (shipping, upgrades,etc). The conversion rate made it about $5,700. Then the bank wire fees...they only accept bank wire...was another $300. So we're at $6,000, then customs was $275.
Now we're at $6,275.
I am also including my Korg Kaoss Pad KP3: $350 and my custom made dual channel effects loop.
So, that's about $6,600.
Why am I defending myself? This is total crap.
i don't think James was insinuating that the price doesn't match, just wondered how you got there.
But yeah, sucks losing a job man, hope you find a buyer
-
Single
. The extra wood gives 0.05% more tone. But yeah, good thing with batch 3 is the fact that Hugh and Tim assembled them. More of an original Manson and all, worth the loss in tone -
Woah. Sorry to hear about the situation. My comment was more directed at the fact you may find it hard to sell at that price. It's your guitar, you can sell it for however much you like - don't agree with the scalping comment either as I can't see a problem with it. Not as if its a gig ticket or something.
you can't see a problem with scalping a limited edition guitar? not that this situation is scalping as he was intending on keeping it but situations screwed him over (seen this far too many times which saddens me)
BUT
are you saying you don't see it as a problem if 25 people went and bought the guitars, got on the list blah blah and upon receiving it they put it on ebay for sale immediately. That's ok? Basically scalping can be a massive problem like it did with the iPhone 5s. Fortunately we don't have scalpers for guitars, otherwise they'd be more beefs
-
I don' think you guys understand...I AM listing for just about what I paid for it after shipping and the conversion rate to USD. It was over $7,000 US when I bought it (with shipping). The conversion rate sucks for USD.
Just perception at first, must be sad being forced to sell your guitar after only acquiring it. Hope you get back on your feet and perhaps not need to sell it
-
Actually, no. I am not scalping. I have it listed in USD for just a bit more than I paid for it (exchange rate, shipping, etc).
I bought this guitar in 2012 (after putting my name on a wait-list in 2011) and would only play it on "special occasions", as it is very special to me.
However, I lost my job a couple of months ago and I now support my mother who has Alzheimers. The US economy is absolutely horrible for small business right now and I am forced to sell the guitar in order to pay bills for my family.
I have no clue what the value of the guitar is at this point as there is no data to go on...where would I find the price for an MB-1 on the after-market? I just assumed it is worth quite a bit because of its rarity.
Do you all know what a fair value is for a 4th gen MB-1? I payed about $6,500 US (with shipping).
Still scalping if you're raising the price. If it's an auction with the price at RRP and people bid more then yes, bonus. But raising it up without a bit of back story to why you're selling and the guitar not being used sounded like you bought it with the intention of selling it for profit.
Perceptron at work
-
bloody scalpers
-
Lightroom for cheaps http://bit.ly/1llkAp6
-
Yeah, I have loads to put onto Flickr at some point but I just don't have the time at the moment. Depressingly Facebook's upload resolution is better than Photobucket's, so I'm using those as temporary links to show people pictures until I can get the originals uploaded properly. I don't know what other sites are available until I can get round to sorting my Flickr account out. Needs a proper sorting through but I'm tied down with uni reports at the moment, and it's going to be that way for the rest of this month really.
Get a dropbox account, on the house
you get extra space via this link, go on. -
To be honest, I tend to edit my photos on full screen brightness to make sure I can make out the details, so if they're not viewed the same way, they can seem a bit dark sometimes. My Mt Fuji picture was similar - looking at them on full brightness I probably wouldn't change anything. I will experiment one more time on the background of the bird picture later though, but I'm not sure what I'll be able to do without affecting the balance that's already there. Mt Fuji picture in question.
It's just a tad dark, editing in full brightness means folks with a darker brightness setting won't enjoy it. And lol facebook uploads.
-
Hmmm, yeah, I did wonder about that. I might give it a go later. It was pretty late when I was sorting it out last time and I was too tired to try anything else with it at the time, haha.
All about the curves man, ALL ABOUT THE CURVES.
Right now I'm revisiting 2008 photos I took and boy do I need to increase the exposure of those shots. I think the old lightroom did a shit job in noise compression back in the days so any increments in exposure would make it look horrible. Now I have a new breath of fresh air on the photos. Might upload some to show, plus you get to see 2008 photographer me rocking a 400d camera.
-
Interestingly, I did play around with some of the exposure, contrast, tone, etc, options on Lightroom but any change I made only seemed to take the drama out of the picture somehow. I'd planned to bring out the detail in the wings more by brightening them up, and maybe lightening the background a bit, but all it did was to take power away from the focus on the head that's there at the moment. That contrast of the light across the head and giving it more definition over the wings really makes the picture somehow, and I didn't want to lose the detail and emphasis on that, so I chose to keep it how it was in the end. Happy enough with it anyway - I didn't think I'd managed to get a good one when I was taking them and I was a bit frustrated about it, but I'm pleased with how that one's come out in the end.
Did you play with the curves? Essentially bring out the background only and keep the foreground the same. Foreground exposure is perfect.
-
Good compo, needs more exposure to make that shot POP.
-
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00DM7X6HC/ref=ox_ya_os_product
Only time I'll post a deal.
-
Been shooting manual again pretty much all day today - so rewarding. I'm not sure why it's taken me until now to really find this out, but hey, it's definitely going to be a massive asset for the future.
manual is definitely more rewarding in regards to getting the right amount of light coming in etc. not so good in the world of concert photography when light scenarios change so drastically
auto iso feature is a GODSEND, means you can rock manual pretty much the whole time and let auto iso compensate for the light -
That sounds like it might be an option - at the moment I've got -
18-55mm (kit lens) - covers a wide range of shots without specialising in any of them
55-300mm (telephoto lens) - a bit more specialised but definitely a bit better picture quality
If I could upgrade my 'general' lens to something that still covers all the bases but better quality, it's something I'd definitely consider, but I don't really know my options on that - I've only started thinking about this very recently though and I can't see it happening before I leave Japan at the very least - spending enough here as it is.
How much cheaper are lenses in japan?
. The extra wood gives 0.05% more tone. But yeah, good thing with batch 3 is the fact that Hugh and Tim assembled them. More of an original Manson and all, worth the loss in tone
you get extra space via this link, go on.
Photography 3
in Creativity
Posted
Good job Sophie