The Photography Thread

[Ginger Tosser]

Went to a mates party for his close family, thought i'd have a play with Flash and slow shutter speeds.





Oh, btw that Chocolate fountain is superb!

[Ish]

Thats for close family? My god... I could fit my close family in a shoe box!

[Gareth C]

some more oldies...

[PeteJ]

Click for larger.

The first shot is another messy HDR image.
The second shot is an old one of mine, but I've tweaked the sky and beach to give the shot more contrast between beach, sea and sky.

edit - while I'm at it, have another. I like the colours, not so much the rest.

[Gareth C]

Pete, I like the second shot a lot. I seem to remember the original (might be imagining it) and this seems punchier.

Not so sure about the first shot, it just seems to have no real point of focus but the colours are nice.

The third, I agree with you, nice colours but the boat is a bit too flat and washed out.

[Ginger Tosser]

I like the simplicity of the sheds. Nice colours in the last shot, just a pity there's not a lot of detail in the left side.

[MartyG]

Found another really great photographer on Flickr, well worth checking out this guys photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahmedzahid/

[PeteJ]

Found another really great photographer on Flickr, well worth checking out this guys photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahmedzahid/

He has some wonderfuly peaceful looking shots, the simple ones with bold colour and an obvious subject. His more detailed shots do not strike me so much.

Not sure aboutthe Thesaurus-inspired names though!

Thanks for the link, enjoyed looking through them (only managed the first few pages though).

[Ginger Tosser]

Nice set of pics

[Gareth C]

And interestingly, for most of his shots, he is using this camera (hardly cutting edge pro-gear)...

[Ginger Tosser]

Its not what you've got its what you do with it that counts.

........................been telling the missus that for years (before anyone else posts it)

[PeteJ]

These days cameras are so good that anyone can take a superb photo. Good job too I say. Less worrying about the technical side and more focusing on the interesting subject is what counts.

The magin of error has been reduced.

[MartyG]

The technical side is still very important because this is what controls the amount of movement and DoF in your photos, as well as colour, lighting, white balance and contrast and this all leads to making your composition.

What you find with many point and shoot cameras is the DoF is normally quite massive in most shots, due to the lenses in them.

It has been mentioned a number of times in this thread, it's the photographer that takes the picture, not the camera ( which I guess is what you were gettings at ), it's not that anyone can take a superb photo because of the equipment they are using ( even if the process is helped by a compact or the latest ?3000 pro D-SLR ), anyone can get a superb photo despite this - it's simply a means to an end.

This is something that's really causing me issues with chosing a new lens. I very much like the new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18 - 200 mm f/3.5-5.6G DX ED VR, but can I really justify spending ?600 on what is still a zoom, even if it's a good one when I could spend that on a Sigma 17-70 and a 105 macro. It's not going to make me a better photographer.

[Gareth C]

Yes, its an interesting series of trade offs when choosing lenses and the camera itself.

I finally went for the Rangefinder that I had been lusting after for so long and I am loving it so far. However, it does of course mean I have no access to zooms and am largely unable to work in the macro field etc (not really my bag anyway). But, on the plus side I have a camera and lenses that I love using and is small enough that it comes with me a lot more than I would be prepared to lug around a DSLR (which I don't even enjoy using).

[Ginger Tosser]

but can I really justify spending ?600 on what is still a zoom, even if it's a good one.

Go on! spoil yourself (if it doesn't get you into a pile of debt or missus trouble).

It looks a nice lens, but you can go mad on glass. For my 70-200 i could have gone mad and got the f2.8 IS lens but its ?1200!. Went for the cheaper f4 non IS variety. I suppose the thing about lenses is they tend to have a good resale value, maybe if i feel the need to upgrade in a few years i'd hope to still get around 60% of the original cost.