SilentScope Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Can you do this without Photoshop? Sure, it's called burning and dodging, and it's a PAIN IN THE *albatross* in a developing studio, it's not fun, I used to have to do it a lot when I shot 35mm and medium format in college. ugh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do your fingers still smell like dektol, stop bath, hypo / vinegar? Who needs tongs eh? Were you ever guilty of doing "8x10" test strips Titleist? That is another stupid thing I do to "save time." If they call it something else in your neck of the woods, an 8x10 test strip is when you just guess the exposure time for the enlarger and use a full 8x10 piece of paper under the light and hope for the best. Usually you get a bunch of f-ups which can be used to guess the correct time the paper should be under the light, much like a test strip (only on a larger scale). Ahh real photography Link to post Share on other sites
catfishsalesco Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Do your fingers still smell like dektol, stop bath, hypo / vinegar? Who needs tongs eh? Were you ever guilty of doing "8x10" test strips Titleist? That is another stupid thing I do to "save time." If they call it something else in your neck of the woods, an 8x10 test strip is when you just guess the exposure time for the enlarger and use a full 8x10 piece of paper under the light and hope for the best. Usually you get a bunch of f-ups which can be used to guess the correct time the paper should be under the light, much like a test strip (only on a larger scale). Ahh real photography <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hell yeah.. when i lived in halls of residence at uni i used to dev film in my room, falling asleep after about 10hrs of deving left you with a realy bad headache next day! (and some realy strange dreams) hehe 8x10 test strips... ive been guilty of doing this with 12x18 sheets of paper by accident! usually by hitting the print light before stoping the lens down or putting in the filters! Good times </remisence of darkroom days> Link to post Share on other sites
Titleist Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Do your fingers still smell like dektol, stop bath, hypo / vinegar? Who needs tongs eh? Were you ever guilty of doing "8x10" test strips Titleist? That is another stupid thing I do to "save time." If they call it something else in your neck of the woods, an 8x10 test strip is when you just guess the exposure time for the enlarger and use a full 8x10 piece of paper under the light and hope for the best. Usually you get a bunch of f-ups which can be used to guess the correct time the paper should be under the light, much like a test strip (only on a larger scale). Ahh real photography <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh hell yeah I wasted a TON of paper that way. yeah my fingers probably still smell like dektol. I used to have so many dangerous chemicals in my dark room in college that I bet whoever moved into my house since then instantly got cancer. lol, oh wait that's not funny.... ....actually it is, lol. Link to post Share on other sites
bluemonkey Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) This guy, by far, takes the most beautiful pictures of pistols I've ever seen: Ken Lunde's Pistol Wallpaper Pages Also at the bottom are excellent tips for taking photos. <3 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oooh me likies that site Edited June 16, 2006 by bluemonkey Link to post Share on other sites
Scyxor Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 When you want to make your photos "black and white" dont just use the Image-convert to grayscale option in photoshop, because it becomes realy obvious that you have just done that, mainly due to it looking fairly flat, muddy and lacking in tones. Instead, if you have the full version of photoshop, try doing this instead. http://www.designbyfire.com/000100.html This method requires the full version, i.e. not elements ect, as you need to use the LAB colour channel. If you have elements, you can try this method http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/b...-photoshop.html which doesnt require the use of LAB colour. It should be noted that neither of these methods are simply point and click ways to get contrasty, biting images, as you will have to work with the image to see what works. How the image is expose intially will also have an affect on the contrast, ect of the secne. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> my attempt using that method. Link to post Share on other sites
clmwrx Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) youre pics arent that great, some are very blurry. latest attempt with background. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which ones are extensively blurry. I don't use tripods outside.. It is too hard where I shoot my pictures. I need a monopod Me thinks your just sore because I am straight to the point. Also using JUST camo as a background is boring. If you use it as an element in the picture like static zero it turns out great. Edited June 16, 2006 by clmwrx Link to post Share on other sites
SilentScope Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 I really think monopods are worthless. I wouldnt be caught dead with one. I would only consider using one if I was hiking or something with my 20D since I'm running an optical image-stabilization lens on it (brags) ive been guilty of doing this with 12x18 sheets of paper by accident! usually by hitting the print light before stoping the lens down or putting in the filters! Good times <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah I have a lot of "ohh *beep*" moments like that. Funny how experience changes so little when it comes to this stuff. It's probably just me haha. The timers we got at my school have like a hundred different switches. Its fun to guess which one will turn the timer on and which will turn the light on Link to post Share on other sites
clmwrx Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Like I said some of my pictures require precarious positions. Link to post Share on other sites
SilentScope Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 Still nothing a half decent tripod couldn't handle. You have to be patient and set one up correctly if you want good results. Only reason I mentioned hiking is because of the weight issue. Link to post Share on other sites
dwade32 Posted June 16, 2006 Report Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) Casio, makes high quality cameras under $400,http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/ this is the one my sister and i have before she dropped it 2 stories high http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/Exilim_Card/EX-S600SR/ Edited June 17, 2006 by dwade32 Link to post Share on other sites
Scyxor Posted June 17, 2006 Report Share Posted June 17, 2006 Casio, makes high quality cameras under $400,http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/ this is the one my sister and i have before she dropped it 2 stories high http://www.casio.com/products/Cameras/Exilim_Card/EX-S600SR/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> my sister has that too. Link to post Share on other sites
juzi Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 my sister has that too. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dont excite me too much! Anyway, with my camera if you slightly hold down the 'capture' button it automatically focuses, im not sure if this is the case with many cameras, but give it a try Link to post Share on other sites
Titleist Posted June 21, 2006 Report Share Posted June 21, 2006 Any camera with autofocus does that, professor. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 (edited) Thought I'd try out my new-ish (2 weeks or so) Canon EOS 350D A nice stable tripod and a remote shutter release (on a cable) are pretty key - if you're focusing on something close up, and you move the camera when you press the shutter release, it doesn't matter how good your composition is - it'll be blurry and rubbish. I recommend investing in one if your camera will take one - the Canon one ran me about £20 and is worth every penny. I took about 5 of each just to make sure at least one was clear. I consider this important - there were one or two blurry ones here and there, for whatever reason, and if I'd not taken duplicates, they'd have been dead losses. As far as I'm concerned, this is another golden rule of photography. Also, don't be afraid to try things. If the photos come out bad, forget it, dump them, and move on. I took twice this many, not including multiples of the same shot, but I didn't think they came out well, so I deleted them. I'm no photography expert, though, especially not on macro-style stuff, so feel free to comment Obviously the proper files are about 5 times the size of these, but they should be crisp enough The first and last ones are my least favourites - the first is boring, and the second looks a bit washed out. Some PS tweaking might help a bit, I suppose... Oh, and they were taken outside on a slightly drizzly overcast day. The light was pretty perfect, and the drizzle adds to the look of the photos if you ask me (gives some interest and texture to usually flat and bland parts). EDIT: Eurgh, not so crisp on here, are they? I can post bigger ones if need be. Edited June 22, 2006 by HaVoC Link to post Share on other sites
hardboiledcop Posted June 22, 2006 Report Share Posted June 22, 2006 Holy mackerel Havoc! thats one sweet p226! Can you tell me what you did to make it so beautiful.. (In terms of the gun, not the camera work ) nice camerawork by the way hbc. Link to post Share on other sites
catfishsalesco Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 IF you find your photos are not as sharp as you like out of the camera, look at what aperatue you were using HAVOC- im guessing that you are using the kit lens that came with the camera? These lenses aint so sharp at big aperatures- f4-5.6, so stop to to about f11. this will make shure more of you shot is in focus as well, unless you are delibertly going for a DOF-y look. Dont be afraid to sharpen your photos in photoshop as well, due to the anti-aliasing filter infront of the ccd on Most DSLRS, they soften the final image- using the unsharp mask in photoshop- at about 100%, 1.3 pixel radius, will help nicely, but not make the image too artifact-full. And Finally, Big images are not sharper or indeed better looking than reqized jpegs! a well prepared 800x600 or 640x480 can look briliant. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 That's good info, especially on the aperatures. I'll have a further play around and see what happens - there are so many options for tweakage on this camera, I'm swamped trying to take it all in! Cheers Link to post Share on other sites
scooberoo Posted June 23, 2006 Report Share Posted June 23, 2006 Here's my tips on composition and camera usage. 1. Do not include your toes in the shot. Never. Ever. Especially hobbit feet. 2. Refer to number 1. Link to post Share on other sites
Aeig Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Here's my tips on composition and camera usage. 1. Do not include your toes in the shot. Never. Ever. Especially hobbit feet. 2. Refer to number 1. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Exhibit A: Link to post Share on other sites
Scyxor Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Exhibit A: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> pretty deliberate there.... few questions.... for pictures, do you guys like the following better. 1. Blurry Background or Focused Background 2. Blurry Parts of the Gun or Totally Focused Gun 3. The entire gun or parts of the gun 4. With a simple background (camo) or an extensive background 5. If with a more extensive background or a simple background, should the gun be centered in the photo, or slightly to the side? 6. Any other stylistice properties of photos do you like? Link to post Share on other sites
clmwrx Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 About the only thing that is not a matter of opinion is a overall blurry picture. Everyone likes all different types of pictures. Link to post Share on other sites
Titleist Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 My feeling is only use a short depth of field unless you want us to focus on one part of the gun in particular. For example if I was shooting a photo of my schnazzy new scope, i'd shoot the scope with a short depth of field, so that it's all blured except for the scope. Hence I control where your eye goes. The idea of photography, or design in general is to make an image that makes the viewer look at it a certain way. The worst photos are the ones that make the viewer go, "huh, what am I supposed to be looking at here?" I usually shoot my photos on a white surface, or my stone floor, it's interesting but doesn't make the viewer care more about the floor than the gun or object placed on that surface. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Another batch, taken utilising various hints Aperature was set to f11. Photos tweaked in CS2 with the good ol' Unsharp Mask filter, which I've never really used with photos before, but it helps a HUGE amount, even set to relatively low levels. USP Compact - 1 USP Compact - 2 Mk23 - 1 Mk23 - 2 USP vs Mk23 Link to post Share on other sites
Titleist Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 Get yourself a program like Neat Image or Noise Ninja. My suggestion is to also do an adjustment layer on some of those photos, i.e do an adjustment layer where you boost your curves, then Alpha channel it and paint in your highlights. So of your details get a little lost in the darker areas. Link to post Share on other sites
HaVoC Posted June 25, 2006 Report Share Posted June 25, 2006 My suggestion is to also do an adjustment layer on some of those photos, i.e do an adjustment layer where you boost your curves, then Alpha channel it and paint in your highlights. So of your details get a little lost in the darker areas. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eek, some more playing around with PS is required! I'm still trying to fathom the leap from 5.0 to CS2 Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts