Pictures Taken By you...

Printable View

05-29-2011, 11:53 AM
Gilliatt Gurgle

Quote:

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

Gee, so many good photos - good this isn't a competition...

Gilliat got to me about submitting some actual photos so here are a few practice shots

Helicopters:...

Wasps:...

And a twinkly star magnified 300 000 or 3 000 000 times (I can't remember):

haha...In other words you had to force yourself to shed the white smock and stay out of that DreamWorks lab of yours!
Thanks for sharing.
By the way what are you shooting with? I couldn't recall if you mentioned it in your digital photography thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

Actually if the star doesn't show up properly I've had a lot of trouble with the compression

Yes, it looks like something went awry. I happened to catch the star earlier this morning when it was in focus, or at least it had clear, well defined layerd edges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Thanks Gilliatte,

They're not really my photos, as such, because the camera was on auto and I was able to use the tele-photo lens to line up each picture. As I've said before, having a miniature computer with a lens makes it so much easier. I haven't worked out how to use the manual override so for the moment it stays on auto.

I have to take you to task. We have talked in the past about the initial digital let down for us old timers from the film generation, but I believe a great photo is much more (maybe 70%) about the composition and being cognizant of and capturing, those short lived anomolies that surround a subject, such as the unusaul pattern in the veiled clouds that shroud the Church and vicarage, the two people in the background that give a sense of scale, but small enough so as not to spoil a serene scene (with those nasty humans). The Church and vicarage are framed well and the horizon at a "classic" 1/3 up from the bottom.
The footpath too is well composed with the strong axis of the trail slightly off center. The vertical massing of the trees on the right side are balanced or offset by the gently rising hill to the left.
The digital camera did not create the clouds or frame the photo or snap the shutter as Mystery says.
Good Lord, where did all that come from? Anyhow, I understand what you are saying. Perhaps when you do start to experiment with the manual settings, you will discover that sense of mastery over the computer.

.
05-29-2011, 08:25 PM
MystyrMystyry

That's exactly what I meant Gilliatt - I remember an article in an old (though it was new then) photography magazine just before the digital age dawned - photo essays taken by professionals armed only with Kodak instamatics and development entirely local lab controlled - and what do you know: they were great (and some of the best were from those tiny 110 cartridges

Point being the only manual control was the shutter button (no zooms, no filters, nothing beyond the fixed focus lens it was supplied with. I don't know how much was crap but one said he always had an instamatic spare and often took entire shoots with that alone

My main camera - joy of my photographic life really (Nikon s8100) fully auto (that is multi-programmable) would choose the settings I would choose if it had manual override 99% of the time. For the other 1% I've learnt how to trick it into doing what I want.

My pics were through the 30-300 zoom, experimenting with it - the wasps using its marvelous macro, though because they had to be reduced and transfigured, they're not exactly as taken. I was trying to stick to an imaginary brief that they should be as seen, but I went back in time and discovered Weltanschaaung had submitted some manipulations, so it shouldn't matter* - but I'll post some experiments on the digi thread later

*I also noticed that Emil's been going on about learning to use the manual settings for at least the last six months!
05-30-2011, 12:06 PM
Emil Miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

*I also noticed that Emil's been going on about learning to use the manual settings for at least the last six months!

:lol: I bought the camera and took some trial shots before getting involved in other things, so it's only recently that I've thought to take it up again.
Interestingly, there isn't much by way of explanation in the manual.
05-30-2011, 01:23 PM
MystyrMystyry

That's probably because they don't expect you to seriously want to use them - these modern 'computers with lenses' are the pinnacle in developments ever since the first autofocus attachment was built into a Leica slr (Konica produced a pocket camera in the seventies with AF and that spawned the whole 'camera with a bit more' race - I think it was Canon's shutter/aperture priority that then led to the 'AE Program' SLR, and computer photography had arrived and was here to stay!

(I haven't googled this, just using fallible memory - so I could be slightly wrong)

But if you think about it the history of the camera is one of certain 'desirable' standards like 24/28mm wide-angle, f22, built-in flash, Leica, Contax, and Nikkor lenses, rule of thirds (some had markings in the viewfinder to ensure you got them right), etc etc

The Canon s95 and G series are manual/program and to get the right results you really have to be prepared to use the manual controls because, considering their potential, the program modes are shoddily implemented

That's why I got this beast:

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...VL_AA1500_.jpg

Anyway - happy clicking!
05-30-2011, 01:43 PM
Gilliatt Gurgle

.

Nice and compact as compared to either of my Pentax SLR's (film & digital)
Here are a couple of pictures of our cat, Lily. Taken with the K-7 and an old (late 70's to early 80's) Albinar 28 mm Macro lens. Manual settings of course, due to the lens:

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...bum/Lily03.jpg

http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/a...bum/Lily02.jpg

.
05-30-2011, 02:41 PM
Emil Miller

Quote:

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

That's probably because they don't expect you to seriously want to use them - these modern 'computers with lenses' are the pinnacle in developments ever since the first autofocus attachment was built into a Leica slr (Konica produced a pocket camera in the seventies with AF and that spawned the whole 'camera with a bit more' race - I think it was Canon's shutter/aperture priority that then led to the 'AE Program' SLR, and computer photography had arrived and was here to stay!

(I haven't googled this, just using fallible memory - so I could be slightly wrong)

But if you think about it the history of the camera is one of certain 'desirable' standards like 24/28mm wide-angle, f22, built-in flash, Leica, Contax, and Nikkor lenses, rule of thirds (some had markings in the viewfinder to ensure you got them right), etc etc

The Canon s95 and G series are manual/program and to get the right results you really have to be prepared to use the manual controls because, considering their potential, the program modes are shoddily implemented

I agree but my old Nikon EM 35mm SLR goes back a long way and I did at least get to set the focus, aperture, and speed. Also, the digital camera stops the shutter button from being fully depressed until it has worked out that all conditions are correct. This is disconcerting for someone who is used to simply pressing the button without resistance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle

.

Nice and compact as compared to either of my Pentax SLR's (film & digital)
Here are a couple of pictures of our cat, Lily. Taken with the K-7 and an old (late 70's to early 80's) Albinar 28 mm Macro lens. Manual settings of course, due to the lens:.

Not fair Gilliatte, you know that it's practically impossible not to to take good pictures of cats. :D

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/5250/dsc0355z.jpg
05-31-2011, 09:51 AM
qimissung

Lily doesn't have a bad "side," does she? She and Milly-adorable.

Revolte, Emil, Mystr, your pictures on the previous page are great, too.
05-31-2011, 10:04 PM
Gilliatt Gurgle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

...Not fair Gilliatte, you know that it's practically impossible not to to take good pictures of cats. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by qimissung

Lily doesn't have a bad "side," does she? She and Milly-adorable.

Cats are quite photogenic aren't they? Looks like that is one of Milly's preferred spots. Cats always seem to occupy the most inconvemnient spots...for us.

.
06-01-2011, 01:11 AM
kittypaws

Emil....you are not alone in shooting your photos on auto and whether you believe it or not they are YOUR photos.

Quote:

They're not really my photos, as such, because the camera was on auto and I was able to use the tele-photo lens to line up each picture.

I studied photography in school and learned how to set the 'f' stops and all that yahoo and to be honest some of my best photos were shot that way...but now a days...it is made so easy.

I agree with Gilliatt...

Quote:

I believe a great photo is much more (maybe 70%) about the composition and being cognizant of and capturing, those short lived anomolies

shoot on!
06-01-2011, 07:47 AM
MystyrMystyry

Psychedelic Birds

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...styry/UU-1.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...tyry/UUU-1.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...yry/UUUU-1.jpg

http://i1134.photobucket.com/albums/...ystyry/U-1.jpg

This is what they look like when there's too many of them on the same tree (watch to the end for some real action):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3GrN8bOHVo

And this is what they look like having breakfast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7c3RWHECXQ
06-01-2011, 09:10 AM
LitNetIsGreat

Wow, they are nice birds but they don't half make a row.
06-02-2011, 08:13 AM
Snowqueen

Here are two little chicks. My cousin bought these few weeks ago.

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...rds/chicks.jpg

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/v...ds/chicks2.jpg
06-02-2011, 11:03 PM
Gilliatt Gurgle

Quote:

Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry

Psychedelic Birds...

....This is what they look like when there's too many of them on the same tree (watch to the end for some real action):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3GrN8bOHVo

And this is what they look like having breakfast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7c3RWHECXQ

Beautiful birds. I ventured into some of your other videos. "Bryce rendering entertainment"?...I'm really beginning to worry about you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowqueen

Here are two little chicks. My cousin bought these few weeks ago....

Nice to see you back posting photos.

.
06-04-2011, 02:16 AM
Snowqueen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilliatt Gurgle

Nice to see you back posting photos.

Thank you Gilliatt, and I loved your cute cat.
06-04-2011, 09:23 AM
kittypaws

The closer I got the faster they moved!

http://i801.photobucket.com/albums/y...y/P5070044.jpg

*Snowqueen* the chics are sooooo adorable!

Quote:

Gilliatt Gurgle
Beautiful birds. I ventured into some of your other videos. "Bryce rendering entertainment"?...I'm really beginning to worry about you.

MystyrMystyry like the Psychedelic Birds! I too stole some peaks at your videos.....enjoyed your sense of humor!

kittypaws