Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2013 16:07:25 GMT 10
Ooooooo and the were so many sore .......arrrr... heads afterwards..
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Mar 3, 2013 23:54:39 GMT 10
All running up a public street naked. The lot if them should be arrested for indecent exposure.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 4, 2013 0:59:28 GMT 10
All running up a public street naked. In San Francisco there are dozens doing just that. |
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 6:46:51 GMT 10
The two images above with the folded butterfly wings? They're great. Jody, if you're there, how do they achieve so much background exposure (pardon the double entendre)? Is it the ambient light from the big spotlight/s in the background or has the photographer pushed the ISO? I'd love to be able to get shots like that.
I don't mind the homosexual parade each year, they have the time of their lives and it's all harmless. If people don't like seeing tits and bums then don't go there. My $0.02 worth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 7:08:16 GMT 10
Volk...an extremely good camera, lens and flash and an aperture of 2.8 if you can get it. The DoF is excellent and yes, the large lights in the background would certainly help getting that DoF.
|
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 7:16:37 GMT 10
I now people who go to the mardi gras and I they love it. Apparently the heteros get up to more no good than the gays.
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 7:27:00 GMT 10
Volk...an extremely good camera, lens and flash and an aperture of 2.8 if you can get it. The DoF is excellent and yes, the large lights in the background would certainly help getting that DoF. Thanks Jody. The two "butterfly wing pics" are brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 7:28:19 GMT 10
I now people who go to the mardi gras and I they love it. Apparently the heteros get up to more no good than the gays. Bleedin' heteros, they've got a lot to answer for you know?  |
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 7:33:42 GMT 10
Volk...an extremely good camera, lens and flash and an aperture of 2.8 if you can get it. The DoF is excellent and yes, the large lights in the background would certainly help getting that DoF. Hmmm. I just tried looking up the EXIF data and Metadata on those two images. It was asking a bit much, they both came up blank. Damn, I was hoping I could steal someone else's ideas! |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 7:44:40 GMT 10
Interesting they are blank....I wonder how they managed that!
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 7:48:05 GMT 10
Interesting they are blank....I wonder how they managed that! Dunno. Do you think they might do that with media images that are publsihed online? Software that wipes all EXIF data so nothing can be revealed about the source of/techniques used in the image? (That's my layman's theory.) |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 8:00:53 GMT 10
could be. I just tried them in photoshop too and no info at all on either.
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 9:16:28 GMT 10
In Windows 8 (probably earlier versions) you can go to the file properties / details of an image and there is an option to remove properties and personal information.I think you can do similar on Yahoo Flickr, where you can elect to hide the data? Personally I think it's cheating...!!! How can an amateur like me steal ideas if they hide the technical data...!!! |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 9:20:31 GMT 10
it is silly to take the data off.
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 4, 2013 9:31:56 GMT 10
it is silly to take the data off. I agree Jody because, for people like me, it's a valubale tool in finding out how some shots are done. But, as a professional, do you think other professionals remove the data (hide the data) so others (a) can't see how they take a shot or (b) others can't replicate their work or artistry? |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 4, 2013 12:04:38 GMT 10
They probably do Volk which in my opinion is unnecessary.
When I was doing my freelance course my teachers used the data to find out whether we had shot the image correctly on one of the manual modes and also checked that we didn't do any more to the image than adjust levels and sharpness. 11 of 12 of our final exam portfolio images were not allowed to be over shopped. The 12th we were allowed to do whatever we wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 4, 2013 15:38:54 GMT 10
The two images above with the folded butterfly wings? They're great. Jody, if you're there, how do they achieve so much background exposure (pardon the double entendre)? Is it the ambient light from the big spotlight/s in the background or has the photographer pushed the ISO? I'd love to be able to get shots like that. I don't mind the homosexual parade each year, they have the time of their lives and it's all harmless. If people don't like seeing tits and bums then don't go there. My $0.02 worth. On my camera there are two setting for night. The setting for night time portrait and one for night time scenery. the night time portrait take clear shots and the background is clear - to clearish too. if you take a night time scenery shots, you get ghost like images in the foreground if people move!.. To get a shot like the winged girl... the setting has to be on night time portrait.  |
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 5, 2013 7:11:45 GMT 10
.... To get a shot like the winged girl... the setting has to be on night time portrait. I was actually thinking you may have been able to use manual settings but Night Time Portrait eh? Photography has become so easy hasn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 5, 2013 7:41:07 GMT 10
I much prefer doing night time photography manually. You get far better shots. Large DoF is necessary as is using a tripod and cable release. I usually set the Tv on my camera to what I want and allow the camera to choose the Av. I don't mess with the ISO too much as it can create too much noise. For something like a floodlit building I will set the Tv for 4 seconds this will give me an aperture of roughly f 5.6....on an ISO of 100. I also manually focus as auto focus is somewhat pointless at night. Plus bracketing 2 or 3 stops over or under can come up with some interesting results too. Photography is easier in this modern world of technology but I still prefer to work for my images a little bit. There is no fun in point and shoot. |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 6, 2013 11:52:54 GMT 10
you have to use a tripod at night... that goes without saying.
Who said it's point and shoot?
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 7, 2013 9:00:11 GMT 10
you have to use a tripod at night... that goes without saying. Who said it's point and shoot? Because when you select 'night time portrait' or night time scenery' it is without doubt point and shoot. You push a button or select a position on a dial and the camera does everything for you from that point onwards - you simply frame your shot and press the shutter button. Jody describes using manual settings to achieve optimum results, where you have far greater control over the exposure/s. The creative modes of 'night time portrait' or night time scenery' are compromises where your camera is trying to give you what it thinks you want.you have to use a tripod at night... that goes without saying.Not always. Wouldn't that depend on the night time subject? The 'butterfly wing' shots above? Do you think the photographer would've used a tripod setup there in the middle of a parade? |
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 7, 2013 9:03:21 GMT 10
Ooh ... a bit of photographic snobbery creeping into the discussion? D'you see it as snobbery Earl? Interesting. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 9:17:43 GMT 10
I like how a thread which could easily have delved into the usual anti-gay doldrums has turned into one about night photography!! Love it!
Art begets art
|
|
|
|
Post by volk on Mar 7, 2013 9:25:51 GMT 10
I like how a thread which could easily have delved into the usual anti-gay doldrums has turned into one about night photography!! Love it! Art begets art The magic of social media combined with fertile minds Grim? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 9:27:49 GMT 10
Very likely, Volk...
|
|
