Re: Take some amazing photos and post them here
Posted: Fri May 04, 2018 2:02 pm
Cracking photo mate - congratulations!
Yoshimi wrote:I won a National Museum of Scotland photography contest! The theme was "Tiny Nature".
Suffocate Peon wrote:family holiday
Vermilion wrote:I don't think i've had a single camera which hasn't done that.
I think i'll stick with my lovely new Nikon though.
Suffocate Peon wrote:Does anyone want a Fujifilm S1 bridge camera..after every burst it spends seconds storing the shots to the card. I have the fastest cards. I can't be doing with that.
Green Gecko wrote:Suffocate Peon wrote:Does anyone want a Fujifilm S1 bridge camera..after every burst it spends seconds storing the shots to the card. I have the fastest cards. I can't be doing with that.
That's down to the speed of the image processor and the embedded memory. If the memory is slow then it doesn't matter how fast the camera can write to the card, you still have a bottleneck.
Only really SLRs are built to deal with that.
Have you tried shooting in RAW? That will bypass any image processing, but the larger file size my result in the same delay. It might be a bit faster. You could also limit the number of bursts in the shot to whatever the memory can store in a given moment.
Green Gecko wrote:I like compact rangefinder styles because they are simple and good ones you can go full manual. Anything else I just go SLR. I don't care about zoom. I just walk up to gooseberry fool.
My pair is still a LUMIX/Leica LX3 and Nikon D80 with vintage manually focusing Nikkor lenses. And a manfrotto tripod. I don't have a need for anything else. The megapixels are still a total non issue even with high resolution screens. The sensors are fantastic. (The lx3 is still stunning at 200iso and really wide and bright.)
I don't really like bridge cameras, I find them kind of cheesy. The massive zoom just feels like a waste of space, weight and optical sharpness. If I had the money I'd by interested in a micro 4/3rds. Actually I had the opportunity to just literally walk off with a Sony NEX when they were brand new in Kansai international airport (I found it in the toilet), but of course I handed it in.
Suffocate Peon wrote:oh god i made a thread on dpreview and put up 13 photos. They're saying i should brighten them up and that the underexpose is a gimmick. The response is otherwise positive but then it isn't is it because the reason to darken some and high contrast others couldn't be more obvious. At some point it goes beyond personal taste and you enter the realms of denseness. Class! Can anyone tell me why the photographer might have darkened the image and highlighted the white in contrast to the different tones to increase the unnerving mood and mystery oh god ive given you the answer class dismissed.
Showing people anything anymore is so disappointing it basically at this point is a deep fear i have. I mean i expect nothing else. At this point art to me is like something personal and precious and bringing it up emphasises the disconnection. It'd be like if every conversation with anyone you ever had included them at any point saying 'i'm a tory'. You'd die a little inside multiple times a day wouldn't you?
My photo was cropped. Cropped! They took out the smoker's legs and the row of papers to the left. i mean i just don't even the cigarette is white cigarettes are white tones mood cigarettes are pure white cigarettes are pure white the wall is grey because cigarettes are white the looming face is meant to be shrouded in darkness because it is a looming face and cigarettes are white and the papers are a neat touch that contextualises the photo and adds more degree of tone and cigarettes are white you don't have a white cigarette against a white wall because cigarettes are white the photo is cut into three pieces the man's silhouette cuts it up he's black because the cigarette is strawberry floating white