Rate the Photo Above you

[SQZY98]

On 14.9.2016 at 2:41 AM, mark_p8 said:

The photo above. At my first glance, I thought it was shot using a ultra-wide lens. I like black and white photos. 10/10

 

Flower at our office.

This photo reminds me of this album cover: 

Spoiler

I like the vibrant colors and the strong contrast to the background

[PCBjon]

1 hour ago, SQZY98 said:

May I ask what lens you used in this shot?

Sigma 70-200 f2.8 

[adams]

 

[Tam3n]

On 9/16/2016 at 10:53 AM, adams said:

 

 

He/she looks so comfortable! The picture has nice warm tones. Framing is also good. Not the sharpest picture though.

 

My dad got an old Zenit FS-12 film camera gear. It includes an old 300 mm Russian lens, also called photosniper with gun stock fitting. I bought a cheap Chinese M42 to Sony E adapter for fun on ebay. It can actually produce some nice teleshots (450 mm equivalent on my APS-C) and is fun to use. I then bought old Paragon MC M42 2x teleconverter for 1£, also on ebay.

 

I have taken shots of the moon without the teleconverter in the mix, but with it I was able to take even better images. With stack processing and stuff applied, one of the results I got is this:

 

 

I'm going to get some solar filter film to try and take images of the sun next...

[Tork]

I have to say I would give the photo of the moon a 10/10. But I know little to nothing about photography. Plus add in the fact I dig astronomy photos. 

 

That all said, I took a photo with my iPhone 6s+. I know it's not the best but I was at the local drive-in theater and didn't have my new D3300 with me. The view moved me. A friend had just been giving me a few tips & as I shot this I recalled him mentioning the "rule of thirds" though I think I understand it I took the shot & now posting it here for criticism.

[LaundyGoggles]

9/10 The people are a bit distracting.

The camera is a bit dusty

 

[vanished]

7 hours ago, Tam3n said:

*snip*

so that's with a 900 mm (equiv) basically?  Interesting.  We have a 12" dobsonian telescope that we can attach the camera to, and actually I'm not sure what it counts as in that situation, when it's basically acting as a lens, but it is supposedly a 1500 mm scope...

 

Anyway, I was able to get this picture on the first night experimenting with it.  I know it's quite poor, but the sky was really bad that night so it was hurting the sharpness a lot.  I'm expecting (and hoping) that I can get something really amazing on a good night  

 

PS, this was cropped and rotated, in case anyone is wondering

 

2 hours ago, Tork said:

*snip*

The sky is fantastic, but I feel like it's let down by the foreground, since it's dark and totally uninteresting.  If it had been lit up in a really cool way, that would have made it much better I think

[Tam3n]

17 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

so that's with a 900 mm (equiv) basically?  Interesting.  We have a 12" dobsonian telescope that we can attach the camera to, and actually I'm not sure what it counts as in that situation, when it's basically acting as a lens, but it is supposedly a 1500 mm scope...

 

Anyway, I was able to get this picture on the first night experimenting with it.  I know it's quite poor, but the sky was really bad that night so it was hurting the sharpness a lot.  I'm expecting (and hoping) that I can get something really amazing on a good night  

 

PS, this was cropped and rotated, in case anyone is wondering

 

The sky is fantastic, but I feel like it's let down by the foreground, since it's dark and totally uninteresting.  If it had been lit up in a really cool way, that would have made it much better I think

Yeah it's 900 mm equivalent with the 2x teleconverter. The pic is also cropped, so the picture looks like ~4000/1440 * 900 mm = ~2500 mm equivalent. I'm not really expert, since this was my first try with this setup, but viewing didn't seem to be very good with a lot of turbulence. I'll try again in the winter, if it gets any better. The sharpness of the old lens (it has just three elements :D) and the converter isn't anything amazing, but it's good for what it is.

 

Is that a single shot or stacked?

[mark_p8]

On 9/15/2016 at 2:27 AM, PCBjon said:

Photo above: Nice flowers always a great subject to learn use of different lighting techniques, But the colours seem a little off to me maybe adjust the blues slightly and also the two stems on the right of the image are abit distracting. Would love to see more height to the flowers.

 

Was this taken outside or against a backdrop?

 

I'm just sitting at the office lounge when I saw the flowers so I just took a quick picture. The lights are only florescent light. The backdrop is actually just a cabinet behind the flower.

 

How can I improve my colors? Because my camera's LCD and my computer's LCD produce different colors. Not big difference but enough to make mistake.

[vanished]

5 hours ago, Tam3n said:

Yeah it's 900 mm equivalent with the 2x teleconverter. The pic is also cropped, so the picture looks like ~4000/1440 * 900 mm = ~2500 mm equivalent. I'm not really expert, since this was my first try with this setup, but viewing didn't seem to be very good with a lot of turbulence. I'll try again in the winter, if it gets any better. The sharpness of the old lens (it has just three elements :D) and the converter isn't anything amazing, but it's good for what it is.

 

Is that a single shot or stacked?

This is a single shot.  Base ISO (100), 1/100 or 1/125, around there, and aperture is N/A because no lens ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

[Tataffe]

23 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

snip

As an aerospace engineering student, I come across one or the other astronomy image and the moon is probably the most photographed body ever. As a photographer however, I enjoy the technical execution of this very much, especially the use of a telescope. Will you get the chance to build this up on a mountain in order to reduce the impact of the atmosphere?

 

This image shows a merry-go-round at a local fun fair, taken at night with long exposure obviously.

 

[Tam3n]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

This is a single shot.  Base ISO (100), 1/100 or 1/125, around there, and aperture is N/A because no lens ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

Nice quality! My shots are much more blurry, but I guess it is to be expected. You should try stacking at some point. How is the camera attached to the scope and do you use an eye piece?

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Tam3n said:

Nice quality! My shots are much more blurry, but I guess it is to be expected. You should try stacking at some point. How is the camera attached to the scope and do you use an eye piece?

Nope, we just bolt it right on  (well, not literally... it can be removed of course)

I know stacking can reduce noise but since this is already at ISO 100, I'm not sure it's necessary.  I know (supposedly) you can also stack for higher resolution but I've never seen an example that proved it can actually work, nor have I been able to accomplish it myself  

Still, if we get out on a good night, I may as well take lots

 

15 minutes ago, Tataffe said:

As an aerospace engineering student, I come across one or the other astronomy image and the moon is probably the most photographed body ever. As a photographer however, I enjoy the technical execution of this very much, especially the use of a telescope. Will you get the chance to build this up on a mountain in order to reduce the impact of the atmosphere?

I very much doubt we'll ever be up on a mountain with it, but there is a website where you can check various sky conditions, like temperature, humidity, cloud, transparency, seeing, etc. and, while that was not taken on a good night, we're still waiting for one to come around    And we're ~1000 m  above sea level here as it is anyway, which should help  

[Tam3n]

8 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Nope, we just bolt it right on  (well, not literally... it can be removed of course)

I know stacking can reduce noise but since this is already at ISO 100, I'm not sure it's necessary.  I know (supposedly) you can also stack for higher resolution but I've never seen an example that proved it can actually work, nor have I been able to accomplish it myself  

Still, if we get out on a good night, I may as well take lots

 

I very much doubt we'll ever be up on a mountain with it, but there is a website where you can check various sky conditions, like temperature, humidity, cloud, transparency, seeing, etc. and, while that was not taken on a good night, we're still waiting for one to come around    And we're ~1000 m  above sea level here as it is anyway, which should help  

 

Stacking works also by selecting the best parts of the best images (so called lucky imaging). It both reduces noise and increases resolution combined with wavelet processing. Software called Autostakkert and Registax are most used for this.

[vanished]

12 minutes ago, Tam3n said:

 

Stacking works also by selecting the best parts of the best images (so called lucky imaging). It both reduces noise and increases resolution combined with wavelet processing. Software called Autostakkert and Registax are most used for this.

I suppose I could also use it to try and improve sharpness by taking the best from each image,  even focusing differently to see if I can get it better (oh yeah, did I mention we have to focus manually with a very coarse nob?)

[Tam3n]

54 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

I suppose I could also use it to try and improve sharpness by taking the best from each image,  even focusing differently to see if I can get it better (oh yeah, did I mention we have to focus manually with a very coarse nob?)

Well I can assure you this thing must not be much easier to use  Also the chromatic aberrations of this lens are not of any help when trying to judge focus. (this image is not meant for rating in this thread).

 

[Aruxx]

8 hours ago, Tataffe said:

As an aerospace engineering student, I come across one or the other astronomy image and the moon is probably the most photographed body ever. As a photographer however, I enjoy the technical execution of this very much, especially the use of a telescope. Will you get the chance to build this up on a mountain in order to reduce the impact of the atmosphere?

 

This image shows a merry-go-round at a local fun fair, taken at night with long exposure obviously.

9/10 I really like the picture, but I think you could've moved to a different position and got a shot without stuff in front of it.

 

[dobo2001]

Took this one at the Notre Dame v. Michigan State game. From Section 10 Row 38 with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105 on the front of it. 

DSC_2748.NEF

[vanished]

3 hours ago, dobo2001 said:

Took this one at the Notre Dame v. Michigan State game. From Section 10 Row 38 with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105 on the front of it. 

DSC_2748.NEF

You wouldn't hang your negatives in a gallery Give us a jpg please  

[dobo2001]

19 hours ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

You wouldn't hang your negatives in a gallery Give us a jpg please  

Sorry about that. Here it is again.

[ALwin]

1 hour ago, dobo2001 said:

Sorry about that. Here it is again.

 

Since you captured that photo in a camera RAW format, why not process it in LR or Photoshop or any other photo editing software that supports RAW before you post it.  I'd clean up a bit of the noise, level the image,  and perhaps brighten it up a bit as the first few things I'd do.

[dobo2001]

 

25 minutes ago, ALwin said:

Since you captured that photo in a camera RAW format, why not process it in LR or Photoshop or any other photo editing software that supports RAW before you post it.  I'd clean up a bit of the noise, level the image,  and perhaps brighten it up a bit as the first few things I'd do.

Third time's the charm (This time with some straightening and editing). The noise is high because I had to do I high ISO to counteract the high shutter speed and aperture since I was fully zoomed in at f5.6 and the high shutter speed to freeze the motion

[Silvercall]

On 9/20/2016 at 2:26 PM, dobo2001 said:

 

Third time's the charm (This time with some straightening and editing). The noise is high because I had to do I high ISO to counteract the high shutter speed and aperture since I was fully zoomed in at f5.6 and the high shutter speed to freeze the motion

I like the action, but I think I would have like a tighter shot/crop on the players and crowd.  8/10

 

My shot...  Tree covered in moss (?).  Shot on Kodak Portra 400

[iamdarkyoshi]

9 hours ago, Silvercall said:

I like the action, but I think I would have like a tighter shot/crop on the players and crowd.  8/10

 

My shot...  Tree covered in moss (?).  Shot on Kodak Portra 400

 

9/10 I like the vantage point.

 

Here is a pathetic non professional photo of a quad core laptop cpu from ten years ago.

 

Had some trouble with the shiny silicon, my phone focuses on ANYTHING it can in the  background, and it kept focusing on the roof of the warehouse instead of the CPU

 

This was the 7th attempt.

[LaundyGoggles]

7/10 It's a bit blurry and there's some glare.