The Photography Thread !
- Thread starter Shripad
- Start date
@bladey... the second one is nice. You might wanna crop it so that only the bird is in view. The blank sky really doesn't convey much.
@anish... lovely pic... the gull looks nice but its one of the easiest birds to take pics of cos they move less than the smaller ones. Also where's the EXIF data?
@spyking... beautiful birdie, ugly pipes
. Get rid of them :rofl:
@anish... lovely pic... the gull looks nice but its one of the easiest birds to take pics of cos they move less than the smaller ones. Also where's the EXIF data?
@spyking... beautiful birdie, ugly pipes
. Get rid of them :rofl:bluediamond
Explorer
@Anish: the background for the white bird in the beach... why do u need the blur... wont be macro mode enuf to blur the bg and provide the sharpness for the object??? can u post the orig pic also then???
@spyking.. kingfisher is really cool.. but not the hoop!!! clean it now itself. 
who knows next time who wil come n sit ther...
@spyking.. kingfisher is really cool.. but not the hoop!!!
clean it now itself. who knows next time who wil come n sit ther... ^^BD ur basic idea of macro is flawed. Macro is for blowing up subjects extremely close to the camera. These images are telephoto where the subject is far far away from the camera. In telephoto, you typically focus at infinity. In macro, you focus at the closest focussing distance of the particular lens. Infact you get fixed focal length primes which are designed specifically for macro photography. These are the best for macro. To get blurred backgrounds, what you need is to use a large aperture i.e. a low f-number. If you do that, you get a shallow depth of field which leads to the background blurring. Plus when using a shallow DOF,the number of blades in the lens decides how smooth the background blur (called bokeh) is. The larger the number of blades, the better and smoother the bokeh. So typically portrait lens will support a very large aperture and also have a large number of blades but these are mostly very very expensive. For eg the Canon 85mm f/1.2L lens which is considered by most as the best portrait lens on planet earth costs over 2000$.
Im trying to make out the difference b/w macro and full telephoto
here are a couple of shots of a flower at 6mm macro and 72mm.
The first pic is underexposed since its already pretty dark and windy and high ISO shots came out noisy.
The second pic was from a distance and i was able to use flash to get good lighting..any comments ?
another set with macro and zoom:
here are a couple of shots of a flower at 6mm macro and 72mm.
The first pic is underexposed since its already pretty dark and windy and high ISO shots came out noisy.
The second pic was from a distance and i was able to use flash to get good lighting..any comments ?
another set with macro and zoom:
Okay since I'm been doing nothing but telling people what to click here's time I post something.
Image 1:
Was shot about a year back at a hotel on my Sony W1 (Yes, a perfect exmaple of why you don't need $1000 cam). Unfortunately I saved this copy for web and lost EXIF and lost the original due to a memory stick corruption.
Image 2:
Specially for BD, heh. Its a actually just a drop of water on a leaf. Shot on a friend's Canon EOS 5D with a 65mm Macro lens, cam on a tripod. The most challenging part of this shot was that the water droplet doesn't roll onto the lens front, and of course angling the sunlight as well.
Image 1:
Was shot about a year back at a hotel on my Sony W1 (Yes, a perfect exmaple of why you don't need $1000 cam
). Unfortunately I saved this copy for web and lost EXIF and lost the original due to a memory stick corruption.Image 2:
Specially for BD, heh. Its a actually just a drop of water on a leaf. Shot on a friend's Canon EOS 5D with a 65mm Macro lens, cam on a tripod. The most challenging part of this shot was that the water droplet doesn't roll onto the lens front, and of course angling the sunlight as well.
upload the higeher res pic to some file sharing site like rapidshare and provide the link here.Spy king said:Not that great a one.. the stupid thing keeps moving in the wind...
PS: how do i put the highres ones? change that settin in imageshack??
ps : nice shots smith and anish.
smith in both purple flower photos the depth of field is not on flower itself its for whole field. so in photo with flash the leaves also share the highlights try out manual settings, and enlarge the aperture means reduce the f value. my 2 cents
Blade_Runner
Forerunner
Chaos said:
Oh i thought leaving some space ahead/above it would make it look like it was climbing up.
@Anish: nice pics especially the prawns one.
^^Different white balance. On the XT, shoot raw and u'll be able to correct it in DPP. Also looks like the image from the XT suffered underexposure. In darkness, make sure you bump up the ISO to 800... the XT has a really good sensor and you'd not see too much of noise at ISO 800. The redness in the scene will disappear automatically once you bump up the ISO.
@anish: man that dewdrop pic is insane!
@blade: yup but now you can crop out the rest of the sky in any image editing proggy.
@anish: man that dewdrop pic is insane!
@blade: yup but now you can crop out the rest of the sky in any image editing proggy.
