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 - November 2008
- Thread starter kylos
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We had crazy snow today, from 3pm - at least 1am, might be still going!
Anyways took my camera out in the neighbourhood and shot one house.
It is a little noisy and I took it in RAW and played around with it in Photoshop a little. I'm still new and trying to figure out as much about photography as I can, I am learning lots on this forum and reading "XSi for dummies", but still can't understand why it is so noisy. Any tips and suggestions are recommended as you guys really know what you are doing and I really want to take some good shots this winter.
Thanks!
0.3" (3/10)
f/4.5
28mm
400 ISO
Anyways took my camera out in the neighbourhood and shot one house.
It is a little noisy and I took it in RAW and played around with it in Photoshop a little. I'm still new and trying to figure out as much about photography as I can, I am learning lots on this forum and reading "XSi for dummies", but still can't understand why it is so noisy. Any tips and suggestions are recommended as you guys really know what you are doing and I really want to take some good shots this winter.
Thanks!
0.3" (3/10)
f/4.5
28mm
400 ISO
I haven't been around this forum as much as I used to be once upon a time, but it just occurred to me that lots of pics are posted here without any exif information. In the beginnings of this "thread" (POTD) back before it was monthly, one of the expectations was that each photographer would post this info with each pic, so it would serve as a learning tool for folks wondering what exposures were used, what focal length, and any other useful information. In fact there was a preferred format to make things consistent.
Exif data is so easy to get these days - it's already tagged to the file for digital cameras. For film it's a bit trickier if you didn't write it down, but equipment used, film, etc is still helpful and interesting information.
I propose that we try to emphasize adding basic exif data to our posts, once again. Keep it simple, we don't need all the extraneous stuff, like sensor dimensions, metering mode, resolution, orientation, camera date, etc... Just include camera model, focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture - the basics. Anything else you want to add of course is up to you, which helps understand how you made your image.
This may seem obvious to some, perhaps redundant, and lots of folks still are adding exif to their posts, but so many shots now just ignore it that it became noticeable as a trend to just leave it off. I'm just trying to steer things back to the original concept of the POTD.
Of course, if I'm out of line with this... just ignore this post...
Exif data is so easy to get these days - it's already tagged to the file for digital cameras. For film it's a bit trickier if you didn't write it down, but equipment used, film, etc is still helpful and interesting information.
I propose that we try to emphasize adding basic exif data to our posts, once again. Keep it simple, we don't need all the extraneous stuff, like sensor dimensions, metering mode, resolution, orientation, camera date, etc... Just include camera model, focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture - the basics. Anything else you want to add of course is up to you, which helps understand how you made your image.
This may seem obvious to some, perhaps redundant, and lots of folks still are adding exif to their posts, but so many shots now just ignore it that it became noticeable as a trend to just leave it off. I'm just trying to steer things back to the original concept of the POTD.
Of course, if I'm out of line with this... just ignore this post...
Try using a tripod and dropping the ISO down to 100. In dark situations an ISO of 400 can produce noisy shots, in well lit situations you may hardly notice it.
I use "EXIF Viewer", by dragging the image from Safari into it's app icon in the dock. This doesn't work for those who host with Flickr and several other hosting services though
Mine for today:
traveling light
Nikon D300 . Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 AF-D micro -
SS 1/30 . f/3.2 . ISO 200 . handheld . natural light
No Post Processing whatsoever save for convert to jpg and resize
Nikon D300 . Nikkor 60mm f/2.8 AF-D micro -
SS 1/30 . f/3.2 . ISO 200 . handheld . natural light
No Post Processing whatsoever save for convert to jpg and resize
...Or was it shot in a museum? Look, you can see the wires. C'mon, Mr Reef... tell us how you got the shot...
Got my new camera yesterday.... haven't got to stretch its legs yet but just snapped off a few pics around the apartment.
And dodging, burning, and cropping too!
I know. Cropping is SO fake; I mean, that's the image the lens made, and that's what you should stick with. If you can't put the subject in the right place when you took the picture, then that's your own fault.
You know what else I hate? Adjusting contrast, exposure, or saturation. Photographs must only ever present precisely what the world really looks like, and no more.
Those birds are stunning - it does look a bit like a painting you might expect to see in the Natural History Museum!
The daytime is grey grey grey at the moment so I'm going for evening shots. C&C appreciated as always.
D40, 24mm, 20s, f/14, ISO 200
The daytime is grey grey grey at the moment so I'm going for evening shots. C&C appreciated as always.
D40, 24mm, 20s, f/14, ISO 200
Not out of line at all. These thing should be brought up.I haven't been around this forum as much as I used to be once upon a time, but it just occurred to me that lots of pics are posted here without any exif information. In the beginnings of this "thread" (POTD) back before it was monthly, one of the expectations was that each photographer would post this info with each pic, so it would serve as a learning tool for folks wondering what exposures were used, what focal length, and any other useful information. In fact there was a preferred format to make things consistent.
Exif data is so easy to get these days - it's already tagged to the file for digital cameras. For film it's a bit trickier if you didn't write it down, but equipment used, film, etc is still helpful and interesting information.
I propose that we try to emphasize adding basic exif data to our posts, once again. Keep it simple, we don't need all the extraneous stuff, like sensor dimensions, metering mode, resolution, orientation, camera date, etc... Just include camera model, focal length, ISO, shutter speed and aperture - the basics. Anything else you want to add of course is up to you, which helps understand how you made your image.
This may seem obvious to some, perhaps redundant, and lots of folks still are adding exif to their posts, but so many shots now just ignore it that it became noticeable as a trend to just leave it off. I'm just trying to steer things back to the original concept of the POTD.
Of course, if I'm out of line with this... just ignore this post...
I myself have been lazy in that department, especially since my latest stuff has been lighting work, I typically just post the setup, but I guess I will start putting the exif as well.
touchy,And dodging, burning, and cropping too!
touchy,
I know. Cropping is SO fake; I mean, that's the image the lens made, and that's what you should stick with. If you can't put the subject in the right place when you took the picture, then that's your own fault.
You know what else I hate? Adjusting contrast, exposure, or saturation. Photographs must only ever present precisely what the world really looks like, and no more.
touchy!
People, people, come on, now. There is quite an obvious difference between this
and this
and this
and this
The first one is HDR done right. The situation called for extending the dynamic range, and the tone mapping was executed subtly and effectively.
The second two, while suggesting the need for an HDR exposure (although not necessary) were executed terribly.
The last one is the absolute bane of my photographic existence. This subject does not require, does not even hint at any sort of need for the HDR processing it has received, and yet, here it is. Why?
As far as the overreaction and saying: "oh well you might as well not burn or dodge or color correct or crop--" Hell yes, you're right. If you're going about it as horribly as most people go about HDR processing, then do us a favor and cut off your hands or destroy your keyboard and mouse.
This is getting ridiculous when grown people can't take a bit of criticism, not even directed at them individually, but at the advanced-amateur/enthusiast/semi-pro photographic community as a whole. Why can't we agree to hold ourselves to higher standards? Is that so wrong? Why should we not question the status quo?
Get over it, grow up, and get some thicker skin.
Thanks for the comments ,
It's a crop, zoomed 75mm, probably 5 meters away, a with bit of edge sharpening and a vignette to make the clouds appear even darker.
Can't remember if I was standing in the water or not for this one.
The lighting was really good yesterday arvo, a storm was passing and it was late afternoon.
From seenew's sig "Cameras don't lie, but photographers can."
,It's a crop, zoomed 75mm, probably 5 meters away, a with bit of edge sharpening and a vignette to make the clouds appear even darker.
Can't remember if I was standing in the water or not for this one.
The lighting was really good yesterday arvo, a storm was passing and it was late afternoon.
From seenew's sig "Cameras don't lie, but photographers can."
Seenew, let's recap.
This sweet chestnut was posted earlier...
...which was what I was responding too when you quoted me saying I'm being "touchy."
That quote is about as informed and intelligent as saying something like "I can't wait until this whole "Internet" craze is over."
Well, I'll just say that I'm usually not all that impressed with what is viewed favorably by the general "advanced-amateur/enthusiast/semi-pro photographic community." Like the rest of the art world, the egomaniacal derisions sputtered forth from *some, possibly many* of the photography community are not to be taken seriously. And, I see no reason why someone is to automatically command a greater respect and stature in society because they're a photographer - and yet that is the insufferably and intolerably arrogant tone I often derive from those who are indeed experienced photographers. I find it nauseating, in fact.
Yes indeed though, the first HDR thumbnail you posted is sublime, and the rest are, well, not. Obviously. But please don't forget the fact that as long as there has been art, there has been bad art.
It seems to be the photography community and the art world are ready throw to the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
This sweet chestnut was posted earlier...
...which was what I was responding too when you quoted me saying I'm being "touchy."
That quote is about as informed and intelligent as saying something like "I can't wait until this whole "Internet" craze is over."
Well, I'll just say that I'm usually not all that impressed with what is viewed favorably by the general "advanced-amateur/enthusiast/semi-pro photographic community." Like the rest of the art world, the egomaniacal derisions sputtered forth from *some, possibly many* of the photography community are not to be taken seriously. And, I see no reason why someone is to automatically command a greater respect and stature in society because they're a photographer - and yet that is the insufferably and intolerably arrogant tone I often derive from those who are indeed experienced photographers. I find it nauseating, in fact.
Yes indeed though, the first HDR thumbnail you posted is sublime, and the rest are, well, not. Obviously. But please don't forget the fact that as long as there has been art, there has been bad art.
It seems to be the photography community and the art world are ready throw to the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
Looks like fun... and plenty of room for more experiments...
Great shot, Do you have a website with all of your Lake District pictures on?
You were being touchy. No one has targeted you this whole time, but apparently it's something you are self-conscious about, or it wouldn't get such a rise out of you.
Not exactly, no. It's more like "I can't wait for this light-up shoes trend to be over"
(although, I do miss them so!)
I'm not commanding a greater respect for myself, if that is what you're suggesting. I'm just trying to get people to experiment a little more, test out HDR and find out what it is for, and find out what it's not for--- and then don't use it for the latter. But people have found this quick and easy way to make a WHAM BAM COLOR CONTRAST SHINY image that is just a snapshot wearing a gaudy mask, and they're sticking to it.
I don't understand why it's so wrong to ask people to innovate a little bit. I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater; as I showed, I recognize legitimate and beautiful use of HDR processing. But the bathwater is getting dirty, and needs to be emptied out sometime...
edit:
here's mine for today
Model: Canon EOS 5D
Shutter Speed: 1/125 second
F Number: F/13.0
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 100
AlienBees ABR800 Ringflash with 30" "Moon Unit" diffuser.
