Poundbury again. That's the pub on the right, a pastiche of the Ritz Hotel. Apartments on the left: a miniature Buckingham Palace...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo Of The Day May 2017
- Thread starter Hughmac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Poundbury again. That's the pub on the right, a pastiche of the Ritz Hotel. Apartments on the left: a miniature Buckingham Palace...
Just love the look of this place.
A random shot of my Maine Coon, 6 mo old 'little kitty' @ almost 7 Kg, unedited
Last edited:
Normally the Leica look to me is where the subject is in the centre and there is a real shallow depth of field. As a result of the rangefinder patch being in the centre and also that Leica lenses unlike most others are optimised to be shot wide open as opposed to middle apertures like the Canikons (as I understand it. May be wrong).
So it kind of results in a similarity between shots sometimes - centrally heavy subject matter with shallow DoF and stronger microcontrast.
I have not seen the fabled "Leica Glow" in any of my shots thus far. I would like to see it but suspect I may have had it previously and purged it for being too soft...
oops... i dont know, I suspect I like the Leica for reasons I dont realise.
When I shoot the Sony, I machine gun away and let the technology compensate for my haste I think. I treat it as more disposable from an image perspective. With the Leica I obviously slow down as I know I have to or it just flat out doesn't work. So maybe my subconscious slowing down and being more deliberate on the Leica vs the Sony is what is actually making the better picture, not the Leica itself.
Does that make sense? as in it is the adapting to use the different camera that makes the difference to me NOT the camera and I am misinterpreting the more deliberate execution as being the body giving a better result?
Either way I am lucky to be able to have the choice and so I enjoy it all the more.
I am however seriously thinking M43 to get access to good enough CHEAPER gear... I am seeing the new Sony G Master lenses and they are lovely but christ, I cant spend that kind of cash anytime soon whereas I could load out an Olympus E-M5 mark ii with the 60 macro, the 12-40 Pro and 80-150 pro and have a kit that is plenty good for my level of shooting almost all in for less than I would have to drop on my next Sony lens.
I look at my images and I just dont think I am good enough for Full Frame so whats the point continuing on this charade of expensive gear....
Wow that took a dark turn there...
Sorry
Well, I am no professional photographer, but I have seen enough good photos, so I have a decent eye.
Still 7/10 is not too shabby.
Normally the Leica look to me is where the subject is in the centre and there is a real shallow depth of field. As a result of the rangefinder patch being in the centre and also that Leica lenses unlike most others are optimised to be shot wide open as opposed to middle apertures like the Canikons (as I understand it. May be wrong).
So it kind of results in a similarity between shots sometimes - centrally heavy subject matter with shallow DoF and stronger microcontrast.
I have not seen the fabled "Leica Glow" in any of my shots thus far. I would like to see it but suspect I may have had it previously and purged it for being too soft...
i dont know, I suspect I like the Leica for reasons I dont realise.
When I shoot the Sony, I machine gun away and let the technology compensate for my haste I think. I treat it as more disposable from an image perspective. With the Leica I obviously slow down as I know I have to or it just flat out doesn't work. So maybe my subconscious slowing down and being more deliberate on the Leica vs the Sony is what is actually making the better picture, not the Leica itself.
Does that make sense? as in it is the adapting to use the different camera that makes the difference to me NOT the camera and I am misinterpreting the more deliberate execution as being the body giving a better result?
Either way I am lucky to be able to have the choice and so I enjoy it all the more.
I am however seriously thinking M43 to get access to good enough CHEAPER gear... I am seeing the new Sony G Master lenses and they are lovely but christ, I cant spend that kind of cash anytime soon whereas I could load out an Olympus E-M5 mark ii with the 60 macro, the 12-40 Pro and 80-150 pro and have a kit that is plenty good for my level of shooting almost all in for less than I would have to drop on my next Sony lens.
I look at my images and I just dont think I am good enough for Full Frame so whats the point continuing on this charade of expensive gear....
Wow that took a dark turn there...
Sorry
So only 'good' photographers go full-frame? Nah, I've got a 6D....Leica ain't exactly cheap either
Stick with what you have and enjoy it!
So only 'good' photographers go full-frame? Nah, I've got a 6D....Leica ain't exactly cheap either
Stick with what you have and enjoy it!
You are a superb photographer!
I missed a few days here as we were out of town camping and for some reason we are perilously low on data this month, so I had to go off the grid. Three more days till we reset!
Anyway, it is almost the end of Macro May...not sure what I will share with you all next month, but for now.....It rained. Again.
Three more days till we reset!Anyway, it is almost the end of Macro May...not sure what I will share with you all next month, but for now.....It rained. Again.
More flowers. Not as interesting as yours @mollyc
I just liked the fact I could fill the frame with these little beautiful flowers.
_DSC3783 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr
I just liked the fact I could fill the frame with these little beautiful flowers.
_DSC3783 by apple fanboy1, on Flickr
Ohh, I did a variation on a fill the frame today, too.
I will post it tomorrow since I've used up today's allotment.
I look forward to it!Ohh, I did a variation on a fill the frame today, too.
Normally the Leica look to me is where the subject is in the centre and there is a real shallow depth of field. As a result of the rangefinder patch being in the centre and also that Leica lenses unlike most others are optimised to be shot wide open as opposed to middle apertures like the Canikons (as I understand it. May be wrong).
So it kind of results in a similarity between shots sometimes - centrally heavy subject matter with shallow DoF and stronger microcontrast.
I have not seen the fabled "Leica Glow" in any of my shots thus far. I would like to see it but suspect I may have had it previously and purged it for being too soft...
i dont know, I suspect I like the Leica for reasons I dont realise.
When I shoot the Sony, I machine gun away and let the technology compensate for my haste I think. I treat it as more disposable from an image perspective. With the Leica I obviously slow down as I know I have to or it just flat out doesn't work. So maybe my subconscious slowing down and being more deliberate on the Leica vs the Sony is what is actually making the better picture, not the Leica itself.
Does that make sense? as in it is the adapting to use the different camera that makes the difference to me NOT the camera and I am misinterpreting the more deliberate execution as being the body giving a better result?
Either way I am lucky to be able to have the choice and so I enjoy it all the more.
I am however seriously thinking M43 to get access to good enough CHEAPER gear... I am seeing the new Sony G Master lenses and they are lovely but christ, I cant spend that kind of cash anytime soon whereas I could load out an Olympus E-M5 mark ii with the 60 macro, the 12-40 Pro and 80-150 pro and have a kit that is plenty good for my level of shooting almost all in for less than I would have to drop on my next Sony lens.
I look at my images and I just dont think I am good enough for Full Frame so whats the point continuing on this charade of expensive gear....
Wow that took a dark turn there...
Sorry
If you need a certificate of competency to possess a full- frame then a lot of us are in trouble . Stick with what you've got , there's nothing wrong with the stuff you post .
He's just looking to buy his fourth camera system in as many years!
Cannon, Leica, Sony he's nearly tried them all!
But agree with what you say. It's not the camera that makes the shot. It's the person behind the lens.
This is my little boy, literally defining happiness. I took this photo of him about 10 minutes before we were heading home, which ended up in a horrendous accident where he fell, head first onto concrete. Nine years of medical training did not help me keep all of my wits about me. I was in pieces. But I pulled it together, and 4 hours of A&E later, there is no lasting damage.
Still, I've never seen a head injury balloon up so quickly. I won't forget that absolutely sickening feeling that consumed my entire body when I heard the sharp sound of his head meeting the concrete anytime soon.
It's sort of ruined this photo for me - I can't look at it without thinking about what came next. Hopefully that will pass.
Still, I've never seen a head injury balloon up so quickly. I won't forget that absolutely sickening feeling that consumed my entire body when I heard the sharp sound of his head meeting the concrete anytime soon.
It's sort of ruined this photo for me - I can't look at it without thinking about what came next. Hopefully that will pass.
Glad he was alright in the end. Sounds horrible though.
[doublepost=1496181186][/doublepost]
Looks like a nice evening.
Too kind Ken, just lucky sometimes.
New Lanark again. Comments always appreciated.
New Lanark by another scotsman, on Flickr
41770007-104
Too kind Ken, just lucky sometimes.
New Lanark again. Comments always appreciated.
New Lanark by another scotsman, on Flickr
To quote an unlikely visionary on luck... "Luck looks an awful lot like hard work..."
So credit where credit is due mate
[doublepost=1496213635][/doublepost]
Ha ha ha ha you know me so well....
