|
That poo poo is hard, 23. I think I could have done better but I started to get bored and stop caring part way through.
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
That was enjoyable to watch, and I hate those judge shows. He thoroughly owned them, but was the lady the photographer or the owner of the company? It sounded like she would just shoot in green box and toss it off to be printed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 06:05
|
|
|
HPL posted:It looks like a travel mug. It's not? It looks like it has a spout or something on the top. That's why I want it, at least. That way I can be a real... *glasses* L-Coholic 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
I wouldn't bother ordering the mug yet, wait for someone to do a batch order and sell them with cheaper shipping. I think if you give it a week or two, it'll probably be available to order for $30~ or so shipped. That one isn't a travel mug, it's a regular coffee cup, but you can close it with a 77mm~ lens cap, which is interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2010 16:42
|
|
|
To anybody who was interested in the 70-200 replica mug, you may want to send an email to: info@simonscameras.com so they will add you on the list for one. They put in an order for a few but sold those out and ordered the maximum they could for their next ( and likely last ) shipment. They're expecting about 100 of them by the end of next week, and over 40 have been reserved by people. $30 canadian + shipping (8-12~ canadian to the US) I put myself on their list for one because I need a new thermos, and I'd rather spend $40 on a crazy unique one than $20 on a regular one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 9, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
Whoa Now posted:Noticed a weird S shaped mark on some of my pictures, looked like a smudge on my lens, decided to get in closer to have a look. It's an omen, go buy a 17-50 Tamron!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
PushingKingston posted:Also, noise reduction has been unlocked, thank god! The noise reduction actually looks like it can rival noise ninja. Very interesting, and expensive future upgrades.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:30
|
|
|
Phat_Albert posted:I havent even owned a DSLR that long, and I'm already like that. I was out to lunch today with family, and outside the restaurant the waves of Lake Michigan were crashing over the break wall, and all I could think abut is where I could get the best shot, and how I wished I had my camera with me. I actually have to decide if I can bring my camera with me when I go out with people, because they don't want to wait around while I try to find a shot/angle I like. I end up wishing I brought my camera way more often. I need a discrete looking backpack that can carry my netbook, dslr, accessories and other stuff so I can just carry it with me whenever anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:37
|
|
|
I thought the 70-200 2.8IS was water resistant/proof. He obviously didn't have a UV filter on to complete the waterseal, but shouldn't a lot of inner stuff be protected cause of the gasket sealing? The AF confirmation section of the lens works, so is there just condensate on the inside of the lens? How is that not worth Canon to fix? I'd send him an e-mail with further questions/if it takes pictures and how they currently look. e: I hate my p&s, for the most part. I have it inside my bag because its like 300 grams, so it doesn't really add anything noticeable to my bag.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2010 19:45
|
|
|
GWBBQ posted:As promised Thanks buddy, I downloaded them all just in case some day I or someone else needs them, and I can't find the site. Took a while because I couldn't remember what I could use to download everything on a single page 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 03:33
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:If you're going to carry it, a netbook with an SSD is pretty bulletproof. SSD netbooks own because there are 0 moving parts in them, so you can abuse the gently caress out of it, but SSDs are still ridiculously expensive, and the speed upgrade over a 5200RPM regular drive is barely noticible (hard drive speed isn't the bottle neck in netbooks). I'd probably feel a little safer if I swapped the hard drive in mine to SSD because I never turn it off, it's just in hibernate/suspend while I'm walking around with it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2010 22:43
|
|
|
Needs to be resubbed about an argument that his cell phone has more megapixels than her camera and he can take pictures without poo poo like *throws camera*
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2010 16:30
|
|
|
If you have liveview you can do the double zoom in and be like, psh I can do that too. Or take a picture and zoom way in. I've gotten tired trying to explain that dSLRs dont use zoom by multiplication numbers (I know you can divide the high end of the focal length by the lowest end to get a rough approximation but people look at my 70-200 and say 3times zoom? MY FIVE YEAR OLD CAMERA CAN DO MORE THAN THAT) I just say 200 times if I'm using my 70-200, and they just respond, "oh... wow!"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 22:04
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I don't show off my gear, I would just nod and say "ah" and "hmm" if somebody was telling me how great there point and shoot was, but if they seriously went over the top, being a dick about it, I would just say "this camera cost more than your car". I don't really like showing off either, mostly because my results are still mediocre. Just end up getting frustrated when people vehemently argue their P&S/cellphone would outperform an SLR. And when I say people, I mean, probably more than half the people that ask me a question about my camera.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2010 23:09
|
|
|
Can that be the OP for every thread? It's a great lens but, drat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2010 02:15
|
|
|
I love how the picture of herself is so horribly photoshopped, and it even has LENS FLAREEEEEEEE ^Also, what he said. e: Another thing is the deer in the headlights horrible flash for the olympic shot. I really think I should be less scared of attempting to sell my services if somebody like her is able to (possibly?) make a living, or at least money from their shots.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2010 02:43
|
|
|
OJ.SImpson posted:The one thing i LOVED and greatly miss from the sony camera was the color representation straight out of camera. The skin tones were perfect. With the nikon and the canon cameras at the studio, i pretty much always have to adjust the color balance in some manner. Does this actually have anything to do with the sensor in the camera (Doesn't Nikon make Sonys sensors, or is it the other way around, but either way...there shouldn't be a large difference between them) I think it has more to do with how you set your WB(custom, incorrectly?) and the quality of the lens you're using. Were you using a higher end lens on your Sony than you use on the Nikon?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2010 23:05
|
|
|
Bloody August posted:Canon mug came in yesterday! Do all the 70-200 mugs have the sticker, and is yours slightly crooked, or is that just the angle playing a trick on me. e: It looks like, after doing a little googling, a lot of the chinese knock off ones have a sticker focus window, which is what I want to avoid. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on May 27, 2010 |
|
#
¿
May 27, 2010 19:39
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:My "Canon PowerShot SD4000IS 10 MP CMOS Digital Camera with 3.8x Optical Zoom and f/2.0 Lens (Black)" is set for delivery today. Which means I'll get home, have a "we tried to deliver" note, sign the form, and they'll deliver it tomorrow. You cant go to the tracking page and print the paper that you can sign so the delivery man can leave it? I thought UPS, Fedex, and USPS do that now a days.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 13:57
|
|
|
Bojanglesworth posted:Do they really? That would definitely be helpful for me, I dont know about the other guy. I think there might be some sort of thing the seller has to do on their end to enable it, because I couldn't really find anything on the search engines for UPS/Fedex. The last two packages I've received via FedEx have had a link I could click on to print out and sign, if I wanted the delivery man to leave it without anybody being there to accept the package. I'm fairly certain UPS can do it as well, but I'm not certain how it works with them or USPS.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2010 14:31
|
|
|
Nikon Camera lens mugs are coming out soon, for those of you Nikon shooters who were jealous(ish) of the 70-200 / 24-105L mugs: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250643811884
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2010 15:38
|
|
|
spf3million posted:Thanks for the advice everyone (a while ago). Ended up going with the XSi, 10-20, 135, tripod, and s90. Seemed to work out ok. I really just want a uwa full frame or maybe an old OM mount wide angle prime or something (they're tiny!). Not super thrilled with what I came away with but here's the set anyway in case you're interested. http://www.flickr.com/photos/spf3million/sets/72157624188410302/ You got some pretty nice shots, but I can't believe you left your 5d2 at home
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2010 02:29
|
|
|
You guys seen the new iPhone 4 camera? http://images.apple.com/iphone/features/camera.html It uses a backside illuminated sensor, and the results actually aren't bad at all for a cell phone camera with no PP done to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2010 17:04
|
|
|
squidflakes posted:
Buy a new lens or body! If you can afford it after the medical bills without causing further problems.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 18:01
|
|
|
I had a horrible day of shooting yesterday for my fiancees graduation. Day was crazy overcast and rainy, indoor lighting was abysmal at: house, graduation venue, restaurant, one of my flashes poo poo itself and it was the only one I brought that day because I wanted to travel light. Our seats only allowed me to take pictures of her while she was facing away from us on the stage (I had to use my 70-200 f/4 and underexpose like crazy in hopes I could bump it up, LR3 noise reduce, and it would look okay, and it kind of sort of worked) To top it off, sometime in the middle of the day somebody moved my loving dipoter so some of my shots that should have been perfect were slightly misfocused, and I couldn't tell because of a 2.5 inch screen. When I say abysmal lighting, I had to shoot at f2, 3200 ISO, 1/20 and was still under exposed by 1-2 stops, so there is still some blur anyway. On the plus side, her family only cares about facebook sized pictures, where everything looks good enough-ish. e: And she had to return cap+gown after the ceremony, so I had to try to take indoor portrait shots of her-- 100-200mm @ 1/50 or slower, and still bumping exposure up in post. Literally nothing went right for me yesterday. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Jun 14, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:And I can't really use a feature like this for my photos so bah. And humbug. You've never taken a shot with so much dynamic range that you have to choose to either blow highlights or lose shadows?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 01:12
|
|
|
Anybody tried SnutterSnitch yet-- I might cancel my connection kit and get an eyefi if it works well enough. My kit probably wont ship for another week or two anyway. http://itunes.apple.com/app/shuttersnitch/id364176211?mt=8
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 14:21
|
|
|
Wow, holy poo poo, if any of you guys own an iPad (iPhone too, but I think it's probably less useful) go buy TouchRetouch. Content aware fill on the iOS, and this poo poo works about as well as it. e: Actually after playing with it, it's slightly worse than Gimps version of it content aware fill, but I was impressed because my first two tries with it were extremely impressive. Still worth $1 to try it out though, it's pretty interesting. Shmoogy fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jun 24, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2010 22:36
|
|
|
Monster USB cable, Canon memory card, Canon printer and (re)scanner.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2010 04:42
|
|
|
Have any of you guys seen this? http://fstoppers.com/iphone/ Photoshoot done with an iPhone 3Gs and continuous lighting.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 02:48
|
|
|
The last two people that asked me to take their pictures with their P&S had me fumbling around to actually take a god drat picture, making me look like a retard with an expensive camera. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised we haven't heard about a thief who walks around with a broken prosumer/pro camera he bought off eBay running off with peoples cameras.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2010 17:56
|
|
|
My SSD came in today, and I'm super happy with it (It's kind of a low end one speed wise, Kingston 64gb) I put all my lightroom catalog, cache, and images onto the drive, and things load instantaneously now on LR3. Not even joking, it's day and night difference, if you guys do paid work, you owe it to yourselves to make your workflow less irritating. If you're a hobbyist, and can spare the cash, it's a gigantic huge upgrade. It's like going from using a $400 Vista laptop w/ 1gb of ram and a Celeron or Pentium M or whatever to a desktop with a quad core, 16gb ram, and loving magic that makes things load instantly. I can't even imagine the people running Raid0 with Intel x25s or better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
dakana posted:After that Phorumr script broke with the new Flickr page, I got tired of manually putting in the BBCode and copying over URLs, so I wrote a new one. Thank you so much, you're awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2010 13:50
|
|
|
robertdx posted:I wish I knew enough about Photoshop / Lightroom to start a tips/tricks thread. I'm still trying to learn keyboard shortcuts. The "Lightroom Queen" hasn't released her shortcut list for LR3 yet, but this is her one from LR2. http://www.lightroomqueen.com/lightroom/lightroom_shortcuts_win_20.pdf It's got a lot of nifty things that you might have never known about, so it's nice to glance at once or twice to try learning some new things.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2010 15:00
|
|
|
Costco has/had an 8gig Sandisk Extreme3 (20MB~) for $27, if you've got a membership.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 25, 2010 16:09
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:I don't feel like buying a point and shoot anymore, just get an iTouch. You joke, but I can see people doing this. It's actually a pretty decent camera, but the flash is even more of a joke than point & shoot flashes usually are For $200-300 you get: camera, camcorder, music player, video player, pocket web browser/facebook and whatever else they want, etc. The only thing that a normal point and shoot has over it is optical zoom, but everybody I know with a p&s zooms to full optical, and then digital anyway, so 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
Haven't seen it here, but some silliness: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/04/iphone-4-gets-stuffed-inside-canon-slr-body/ Is it wrong of me that I'm almost infuriated that somebody would go through all that, and repeatedly call it a Cannon camera.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
AIIAZNSK8ER posted:Is anyone else noticing that when taking photos of people in public, if the response is negative, it has changed from "Don't take my picture" to "You should pay me for taking my photo". People understand that they don't have expectation to privacy, but now expect compensation for it. Really? It's mostly homeless people that ask me for a few bucks to take their pictures, I don't think I've really run into anybody that's asked me for compensation, but they always want to give me their e-mail so they can have a copy.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
RangerScum posted:At the end of the video, the lady offered a free 30 minute session to everyone that signed up for her deal on groupon. I'm sure not everyone would take advantage of that, but still, she just offered to work 500 hours for free... and that's session time only. What the gently caress! I'm sure shes counting on upselling the hell out of them, but it's still a stupidly risky move.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 19:12 |
|
|
Good on you, I've been considering doing the same thing, but I'm a little bit too busy right now, and already do volunteer work at a hospital on the weekend, it's a little tricky to fit anything more into my schedule. My only advice is to: Make sure you're not using flash, as a lot of animals have suffered abuse and are obviously scared. Just have fun, and try to photograph the older dogs with less chance of being adopted, your pictures might be the difference between them being put down or being adopted into a loving family. The puppies, while adorable, don't need the better pictures, they're a lot more likely to be picked up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2010 18:18
|
|