Jump to content

ICF photography thread


zen

Recommended Posts

^ I trust you know your business, but my2cents - have you (and other ICF photographers) considered this - http://www.deviantart.com/ ? It is quite a popular place for sharing/showcasing works of digital art, and there are some other marketplace sort of sites where you can upload your 'stock photos' and if someone wants to use your art, you get some moniez too (of course more important is the appreciation/feedback you will get).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks rett :) Didn't liked this picture ,but anyway will like you share you with you guys . Jaisalmer Fort 5904184991_0654ff1ea2_z.jpgDRI: 4 images blended . Hate the foreground in the picture :(
Nice effort at HDR! Btw, How do you get to travel so much? From the beautiful Kerela to Jaisalmar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update on new photography gear: Fuji introduced a compact, well built, fixed lens camera with APS-C sized sensor ----> The X100 .... and it's getting some good reviews. Leica X1 has some competition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice effort at HDR! Btw, How do you get to travel so much? From the beautiful Kerela to Jaisalmar
was the just plain lucky you can say. both trips were family vacation trips :) between its not a HDR .4 images were manually blended in CS5 [DRI = dynamic range increase].I seldom do hdr . Another Example of DRI[5 images manually blended in CS4] 5911259905_afdaa5936c_z.jpg @phaedrus: thanks :) @sree_india: price is jaw dropping :two_thumbs_up::two_thumbs_up: @akshay:Yes ,I have a deviant art account ,but I mostly use Flickr .Maybe time to rejuvenate my deviant account again .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My current camera -- 15 Megapixel, 5x zoom and can shoot in 1080P FULL HD. Nifty little thing fits in my jacket pocket, another WIN. Quite a bargain too, $400 bucks it originally cost, got it for $150. img0131d.jpg img0132ve.jpg img0133ag.jpg
I would take this opportunity to pass on a few tips to all (for informaiton only): 15 MP on a 2/3" sensor is asking for trouble as to get all those pixels on that tiny sensor, the pixels would have to be small, thereby reducing their ability to absorb light (in layman terms). Also as the aperture reduces, diffraction is likely to set in and with all those tiny pixels, the image quality could get worse than a camera with less pixels .... Ever wondered why the enthusiast compacts like Canon G12, Nikon P7000 have 10 MP, while a regular point and shoot (P&S) compact which has a smaller sensor than on a G12 or P7000 often have more pixels .... May be the camera companies know that consumers probably associate more pixels equating to better quality and ofc they could also be using P&S as a real world testing ground Sensor comparision table is below: 428px-SensorSizes.svg.png * Medium format: Cameras from brands like Phase One, Hasselband, Leica S, etc .... Here it is like deciding b/w investing in a system or buying a $30k-$40k car :P * 35mm is full frame in DSLR: Nikon D700, D3 .... Canon 5D MK2, ID .... Sony A800, A900 .... Leica M9 * APS-H: Canon 1D (one with faster frame per second) * APS-C: Nikon D7000, D90, 5100, 3100 .... Canon 60D, T, Rebel, ..... Fuji X100, Leica X1 * Four-Thirds: Olympus and Panasonic DSLRs and mirror less cameras unless micro four thirds uses a smaller sensor :hmmmm: * 1/7": Advanced compact like Canon G12, Nikon P7000, Panasonic LX5 (hope I got the model name right) * 2/3": Point and shoot .... I guess anything over 10 MP in P&S, and you start getting diminishing returns unless there are some improvements in technology that alllows the pixels to capture more light Pixel size on sensor for reference: •50 Mp/sq. cm —> 1.4 micron pixels [e.g. 14-megapixel compacts] •35 Mp/sq. cm —> 1.7 micron pixels [10-megapixel compacts] •24 Mp/sq. cm —> 2.0 micron pixels ["enthusiast" compacts, e.g Panasonic LX3] •16 Mp/sq. cm —> 2.5 micron pixels [Fujifilm F31fd, circa 2007] •5 Mp/sq. cm —> 4.3 micron pixels [New micro Four Thirds models] •3.3 Mp/sq. cm —> 5.5 micron pixels [typical APS-C sensor DSLR] •1.4 Mp/sq. cm —> 8.5 micron pixels [professional Nikon DSLR]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

was the just plain lucky you can say. both trips were family vacation trips :) between its not a HDR .4 images were manually blended in CS5 [DRI = dynamic range increase].I seldom do hdr . Another Example of DRI[5 images manually blended in CS4] 5911259905_afdaa5936c_z.jpg
Oh Ok, I must say I am not good at post processing so thought HDR is the same as DRI .... Despite having Photoshop, I open my files in elements for minor adjustments like for contrast and sharpness :P .... But I do like to play with the filters and B&W though :two_thumbs_up: Why don't you try your hand at HDR? You can create some breath taking images like the ones below: 2613944240_e6dc5f1eb2.jpg2398273933_32e79e35cc.jpgPhotomatix offers a software for HDR .... Once I have some time on my hand, I might download the trial and check it out! PS HDR examples from Photomatix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Rett but I am not sure I understood any of the technical jargon. I bought the camera because it was cheap, light weight and a basic point and shoot that didn't need the settings to be changed.
Yup .... I just took the opportunity to speak about how manufacturers increase pixels on small sensors, which could in fact degrade image quality as with more pixels, their size become smaller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@rett:HDR Yes ,I use photomatix to whatever hdr I do ,but for some reason hdr doesn't go down well with my taste :(.I prefer DRI over HDR . Magical Water 5921094793_129ceff941_z.jpg Leica is good for those who can afford it :)Ultra rich people +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== HDR done using photomatix (forgive me for the tilt ) 4495083782_8d6c4fa968_z.jpg4538026121_441817fe5e_z.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...