Cool photos you've taken

[Pitchey]

I'm wondering where the old photo thread went to.... anyway.....

Cool photos you've taken

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Cool photos you've taken

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Cool photos you've taken

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[krasher]

Nice photos Pitchey and Swindle.

HDR Mudface self portrait below at Forestry in the weekend.

[swindle]

Woah. Sick HDR man.

I love the high end super vivid HDR images. They are a real take it or leave it thing, but i'll take that one!

Thanks foR She'll be 4 next month...

[deadmeatwalking]

A few from sunday morning at torpedo bay Devonport

Cool photos you've taken

Cool photos you've taken

Cool photos you've taken

[Pitchey]

Freaky! Pic 2 looks like theres some alien with long fingers reaching outa the mist! Whooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

[Growler]

A couple of quickies I took today. 1 is the borked Catholic Cathedral in chch, i would of been about 700m away for this shot. The other is a real subtle HDR shot.

[deadmeatwalking]

Huia dam

[Nostargate]

Wow still looks awesome, folks used to have a bach in little huia.

[deadmeatwalking]

Bethels beach

[krasher]

Love it. The stripes. The wispy web like clouds mirrored with a similar pattern on the sand. Epic.

[Oddball]

I'm not going to pretend I'm a good photographer, or even a photographer at all, I'm just trying to be constructive.

There are a lot of good, and some cool, looking photos in here, but one thing I notice that is lacking (to an extremity) is good composition, half the photos the subject is sitting smack in the center, or away from power points. What this does, when in the center, is pull the viewers attention, which is good, but the attention doesn't roam from the subject nearly as much as if it were on the power points; this is good in an iconic composition (which is a cause of confusion for a lot of beginners) but none of the images meet the standard.

If you care about your photography, research 'the golden mean', and then go on from that (or, skip to it if you can't be bothered with that much theory) 'the rule of thirds', where the grid is divided into a 3x3 grid and the intersections are known as 'power points'.

Here's a good link for all artists, not just photographers: http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3275&page=1

Additionally, (admittedly in more or less outdated threads) I'm seeing talk about megapixels, megapixels past a certain point is BAD. I believe canon's flagship camera is around... 10MP?... Cameras capture light, that light is stored within a megapixel (somewhere along the road I might be wrong so don't quote me on this stuff, but it's the same basic underlying theory behind it that is correct) as data, but when the light hits it, imagine each MP having a container for R/G/B, when the megapixels that are contained within the camera become too close, the camera has to decide which MP to store the data in, and it can spill into the neighboring bucket, so to speak, because the MP is too close to another MP. If you have too few, the results are obvious, but don't buy into the whole "more megapixels is better" when buying a camera. There are other types with 40-50 MP, but that's a whole other story.

Hope this helps someone, but will probably just induce flaming as usual. Like I said, I'm not a photographer, so don't say something like "if you know so much show me your photos" (I even might if I get some I'm happy with tomorrow, they're not great, I just know the THEORY that comes from other art areas that I actually practice).



And finally, @deadmeatwalking:

Your photos that are horizontal induce calmness, diagonals induce energy (yet your photo [the one at torpedo bay] has no motion and it looks rather confusing to the eye, or it would, yet the composition is quite strong, the ramp pulls the eye to the shore line with the lights, being the center of focus), diagonals are great for large waves, and horizontals are good for still calm oceans that you want the viewer to feel peaceful. I like your first one from torpedo bay, but the final one the viewer's attention is drawn to the lights in the background rather than the wharf? at the front of the image, depth of field would sell your image. Also, there's a bit much negative space in it.



At anyone/everyone: If you want to be a good photographer, research composition!

Feel free to correct me anywhere you think I'm wrong, I'm still learning too.

[Retardobot]

You're kidding, right?

Rather, trolling?

[Oddball]

On what aspect?

[Growler]

some right, some worng.

Rule of thirds is bang on.

MP, somewhat accurate. It's all about the sensor size and how many MP/cm2

The more MP, the bigger the sensor needs to be to accurately collect the data. So as below, The Canon D50 is a much mor expensive camera than  D90, but its more MP on a smaller sensor.

•          Canon D50 15.5mp 22.3 x 14.9 mm (3.32 cm²) 4.5 MP/cm²
  
•                                                               Nikon D90                         12.3mp 23.6 x 15.8 mm (3.72 cm²)   3.3 MP/cm²
  
• Nikon D3x                                  25.7mp 35.9 x 24 mm (8.61 cm²)   2.8 MP/cm²
  

There is a new camera out that has 3 sensors (1 for R G B etc) the detail is meant to be amazing.

[Oddball]

What I was trying to say about the megapixels is that too many MP + small sensor = light spills. So a lot of the cameras out there that claim high MP as a selling point are just screwing the consumers. Something worth watching out for when buying a camera. Probably wont get it as much with DSLR's.

[Growler]

this one... Sigma SD1, 46MP (15.4MP x 3 layers)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sigma/sigma_sd1.asp

[trololololo]

How about a phase one digital back on a Mamiya 645 medium format camera, the latest back has 80mp on a 53.7 x 40.4 mm sensor.

[deadmeatwalking]

a few outa the studio yesterday

Cool photos you've taken

Cool photos you've taken

Cool photos you've taken

Cool photos you've taken

[Oddball]

this one... Sigma SD1, 46MP (15.4MP x 3 layers)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sigma/sigma_sd1.asp

 
As said below, Sigma like making medium format cameras, they're a whole other beast. The sensor sizes compensate for the quantity of megapixels.

I know this without even owning a camera (too poor), so I assume you're just messing with me.

[Growler]

Sigma never has, and I imagine never will, had a Medium Format body, film or digital.

[swindle]

You're kidding, right?

Rather, trolling?

You beat me to it.

You snake in the grass you...

xox

[Oddball]

My bad, but point stands.

The sensor sizes compensate for the quantity of megapixels.

Anyway, the underlying theory behind taking a photo (i.e composition) is my strong point, not cameras themselves.
 
And @swindle/retardobot, I should actually report you both for trolling, that's irony right there.

[Retardobot]

I'm not trolling.

This thread is a show and tell thread.

Have you spotted, ANYWHERE, a critique post in this thread?

Your post, all be it informative, was not needed. No one asked to be so arrogantly judged.

Self-righteous punk.

[Spork]

Rii, keyboard warrior since 05.

[Retardobot]

I mean, come on. It's a simple 'show your pics' thread.

There's no need to drop all this "you could do this better" stuff.