[fluffybunny]

Very sorry about Penny.

[fluffybunny]

staplermofo wrote:
Example: … And so on.

My God, it’s full of beautiful.

[fluffybunny]

Oh yeah, I’ve been silently snickering while you’ve been talking about tasting the new models. I kinda figured it would increase your motivation to upgrade. How can you not? The jump in ISO noise performance alone is worth it. I just wish Canon was a little faster with technology sometimes. I can’t imagine what using a couple generations out from a 7D will be like.

[fluffybunny]

I know that many Canon models do several things during the internal conversion, noise reduction is one of them. I believe there are options to turn it off or change it, but I would not know. The only reason I shoot RAW/small jpg is to have preview files that aren’t 25mB. Even my new fast desktop machine feels the pain on those images.

[fluffybunny]

Taking good photos is covered. The adventurous genius has moved on where genius is more needed.
It’s like lamenting the loss of the radio drama. Radio is going strong, drama is going strong, but radio isn’t the best medium for drama anymore, and voice acting has suffered for it.

So you’re saying we’re the new Garrison Keillor,.. I don’t want to live anymore.

[fluffybunny]

Awesome find.

My idea for this one was to try refractograph photography but I got tied up with work from TX to MI and now CT. Here’s a video about it and it appears to be simple to set up: http://www.picturecorrect.com/tips/how-to-create-refractograph-abstract-photography/ if anybody is interested in trying it.

[fluffybunny]

I looked long and hard at the Tokina some time ago because of its aperture (2.8 IIRC). What I did not realize was at those short focal lengths 1/FL still applies and you don’t need f2.8 as much as you might think. I shoot my Canon 10-22 down at 1/25s and some times slower, all hand held. It is by far my favorite lens for a number of reasons. The f2.8 will still help with astro but you’ll probably see more impact from the T4i and lower noise than the slightly larger aperture. The Canon helps with minimizing lens swaps with the larger FL range. There is also some “magic” with Canon upper tier lenses. The 10-22 produces the most saturated blue skies of anything I have.

/My $0.02

[fluffybunny]

Excellent!

[fluffybunny]

+1

[fluffybunny]

Yes, I have also flattened something important away. Now if the work is non trivial, I save in a native format (Gimp is *.xcf) and layer everything. I flatten as a last step to export but do not save after flattening.

[fluffybunny]

This is a project I’m working on for a G+ venue, theme “Industrial”.

Obviously photoshop is employed. I’m totally unhappy with the shadows; I know they need work (it was my first try; I need to employ some skew).

I’m not thrilled with the layering, either. I am a newb with PS Elements, the whole point of doing this is to improve my skills (self challenge; I didn’t have to go this route). But I think I need some advice on where to go with this.

http://fossilspringsaz.com/pics/2013/jun/12/indyblendprojectsepia.jpg

IIRC PS tools have a “drop shadow” function somewhere that let’s you assign a “direction” and maybe other physics parameters before laying it down. I’m unsure if you used this or did it manually so apologies if I am being redundant. Looks like you have (or had) everything in layers which will allow you to pick the same angle for all elements. Just tweak it until it matches the shadows in your background (in this case the clockworks). Stretching and warping after “drop shadow” are good if your light source is oblique and distant (think evening sunlight).

My aesthetic opinions (disregard if offensive, not intended that way):

Awesome concept.

The clouds are too “out of place”, unless you are after a dreamlike un-reality motif. Maybe a different type of background all together.

The shadows at the bottom of the right most mast seem out of place.

I think I like the monochrome version better but play with that. The workmen seem to get lost in the composition. Maybe have them in multi-chrome and everything else in mono?

Try to soften or smear the clock edges (a few pixels wide) to make the transition to sky a little more natural.

[fluffybunny]

I assume the same thing for mobile device usage. Don’t forget there are a lot of Canadian Farkers, we don’t have nearly the freedom with cellphones that you (Americans) do. We have low bandwidth limits on cellphones and we pay through the nose for extra MBs (yes, MBs, not GBs). My other assumption was that it’s really hard to see the detail in a pic on a tiny screen, so why bother.

I’m aware of the zooming capacity for iPhones, and am really hoping Androids can do the same thing (getting one this summer… refuse to join the iHive). If you want detail, you can get it. If you just wanna see pretty pix, you can do that, too. Voting with those tiny buttons on a mobile device is probably frustratingly hard. That’s got to be at least a certain percentage of it.

I running a Verizon Galaxy Nexus (original Google phone) with Android 4.2.2 and yes, you can zoom images just fine. Two ways (there may be more) they could do it is either the mobile specific site or as an “app”. The “little button” problem is just a paradigm/UI limitation, ie you might handle it with a “long press” and then a context menu for voting among other things.

[fluffybunny]

Distinct enough drops? Or is there too much background waterfall?

Alice Water Flip by Orionid, on Flickr

Quick, someone else cast that last vote so I’ll know what one of my shots will be.

That’ll fit the bill, the blurry waterfall is not the focus of the composition.

[fluffybunny]

Here’s to it working out.

*clink*

[fluffybunny]

+1

[Author]

Posts