NFSUnlimited.net

Gotta admit I was really surprised when you said it was still ok after such a drop.

HDR photos shot at -2, 0 and +2 EV, though I'm thinking 2 full stop between each exposure is too much of a gap. Got some weird results in some areas of the images. Hitchiker was my first successful stitched HDR pano. I always had a problem, before, because I was try to take 5-7 shots (-2, -1, 0, +1, +2 or -3 through +3) for each frame and by time I got done with one frame, enough time had passed for clouds and whatnot to move significantly, so now I'm just using the camera's automatic exposure bracketing.

Gonna be gettin' me a 7D in the next few days~

All these years wasted in college when I could have been making bank in data entry...

How fortunate that 1920x768 happens to be an even 5:2 ratio and crop exactly what I needed from the full pic. o:

Cell phone pictures are getting annoying, and I'd really like to get back into Photoshop.

Need a camera for car photos... preferably under $120. I guess I could be swayed into something more expensive if it was truly worth it, but absolutely nothing over $300.

You guys know a hell of a lot more about digital photography than I do, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks for the help.

Mine works fine for car photos, although I get the feeling the more photography-oriented users will probably say it's a bit shiznit.

Fujifilm S1000FD, which I believe has been updated to the S1500FD.

http://www.itreviews.co.uk/graphics/nor ... /h1590.jpg

Here's a couple of car/bike shots I took at TG Live with it:

Valiant (or at least I'm pretty sure it was, all the badges were shaved):
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

Harley with custom flames:
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

HSV Senator Signature:
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

Richards/Skaife R32 GT-R:
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

Holden Torana SL/R5000:
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

Holden VE Race Experience car:
http://tinypic.com/usermedia.php?uo=209 ... h4l5k2TGxc

I won't blame you for thinking this is complete BS, but MS Paint is actually really good for resizing photos. I might go so far as to say it's better than Photoshop. It sharpens a smidge, by default, but doesn't cause as much noticeable haloing as Photoshop's Bicubic Sharper.

Also:



And since I haven't shared any pics, in a while, have some.


A panorama made from several stitched exposures of 30", the landscape illuminated solely by the full moon of New Year's eve.


An old shot from Dec. of 2008 taken with my (now sold) 450D of the Tehachapi wind farm and the Mojave desert in the distance.


A 5-exposure HDR that actually looks (in my opinion) very close to real life. Also the first photo resized in MS Paint.


A good example of a lenticular cloud formation over the Mojave desert just East of Tehachapi, CA.


A cement plant normally visible from highway 58 through Tehachapi shrouded in fog. Creepy as all-f*ck, but I decided to stick around for a few shots, anyway. That is, until some sort of alarm went off inside the plant. Didn't stick around to find out what that was.

Resized a photo in MS Paint? D= That would quite ruin the quality I guess.

Anyway, nice photos ^^ I especially like the last two, nice lighting and such.

That is honestly one of the best photos I've seen of lenticular clouds. Good work.

Congrats with the purchase of the 7D. Coincidentally I was reading a couple of reviews on it before viewing this topic lol.
Awesome photos, too.

I myself got a few accesories for my K20D, mainly the grip. Spilt some coffee on my desk where my flash was lying on, hopefully the buttons don't begin to stick. D:

Ho-ly shiznit.

So the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM finally hit the shelves - I've been waiting for it to come out, partly just to see how it performs, but mostly because it's introduction would mean more second-hand Mk. I's than I could shake a stick at for relatively cheap.

However, after reading reviews and looking at sample photos, I would reaaally like to save up for a Mk. II. This lens is firetruck amazing.

A successor to arguably one of the best SLR lenses ever made, made even better; but not just better - much better. Comparing samples from the Mk. I and the Mk. II, you'll find that the Mk. II is vastly superior in pretty much every way, shape and form, including, but certainly not limited to, sharpness, contrast and CA.

Even at f/2.8, this lens is sharp and throughout the entire focal range. Very slight vignetting, wide open, but stopping down makes vignetting nigh undetectable and hardly improves sharpness, if at all. The Mk. I was not a great performer, wide open, being very soft throughout the image. Stopping down to f/4 greatly improved the sharpness, but even that isn't as sharp as the Mk. II at f/2.8. Even Canon's 200 f/2.8 prime lens doesn't compare to the Mk. II's sharpness, wide open or stopped down. The only Canon lens that seems to be on par with the Mk. II at 200mm is the 200mm f/2.0 prime, which is astounding, considering the f/2.0 costs twice as much.

Chromatic aberrations, distortion, flare - all of these are controlled much, much better in the Mk. II. CA is hardly noticeable at any focal length and aperture and while distortion is present, it is very minimal, something the 200mm f/2.0 prime excels in. Flare is not something that is going to be gotten rid off completely, but it is very well-controlled in this lens. All of this is not only true in the center of the image, but even in the extreme corners of full-frame sensors.

Alrighty, that's enough of me servicing Canon - if you want to see for yourself, there's a very in-depth review including sample images and lens comparisons available at The-Digital-Picture.com.

Whoo, s'been a while, hasn't it? o: Unfortunately, I don't have much in the ways of new content, but this very well could be my favourite photo I've ever taken. I have never seen the Milky Way so clear as I did, tonight.



30" / f/2.8 / ISO1600 / 17mm

This is actually two versions of the same image laid over one another. One image has sharpness set to 10 in Canon's Digital Photo Professional with no noise-reduction while the other has no sharpening and maximum noise-reduction. I placed the sharpened image in a layer above the image with reduced noise in Photoshop and made an image mask of the sharpened layer, bringing out the sharpness of the bright stars while leaving the less-detailed background more noise-free.

Edit:
Ugh, my monitor at home is sooo not calibrated; I thought all the foreground at the bottom was black, but on a different computer, I can see that it just looks like a dark, noisy mess.

Rented a Canon EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM and a 1.4x Teleconverter for a week.

Had an idea for a poster (or three separate posters hung together) of some shots I took at a concert I went to, just recently.
(I rented a Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L USM for these.)



It'd be 5' by 2'1" at 176 DPI.

Hello,

I work with the Teahcapi Wind Museum, and we are intrested in getting permission to use your photo of the Lenticular cloud in Mojave Desert that you posted.

We are a non profit and in the process of putting in a trail kiosk at the Cameron Ridget section of the Pacific Crest Trail. We would like to use your photo on the sign board.

Can you please email me back and let me know if you could give us permission?