• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

GAF Photography Thread of 2017

V

vern

Member
JadedWriter said:
I guess instead of the open nothing he should be composed on the left more to see the subway station entrance he's leaning on.
Click to expand...

I feel vertical orientation and a few steps closer would be more impactful. He'd be looking off the frame and you'd wonder what is to his left. It would be more mysterious. Now we know he's just looking at nothing, probably heard the guy walking up the steps and wanted some change so he turned his head. Not really an interesting story in that regard. It's just a normal interaction with a homeless guy.
 
C

Cosmonaut X

Member
A busy couple of weeks for me recently - a visit to the local RAF base for a chance to get some on-base photography, flypasts for the disbandment of the Tornado squadron and the Man v Horse race along the banks of Loch Ness - and I'm planning for a surfing competition in the next fortnight. I've not had a huge amount of time to process my shots, so this is a sample of what I've been shooting recently. Hope they're of interest!

First up, a couple from the base visit. Tough conditions on the day - very overcast, lots of other photographers getting in shot and very limited time on base - so I'm not entirely happy with these, but it was a fun experience:

DSC_6784 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_6625 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_6873 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

Next up, one of the few shots I've processed from the flypast for the disbandment. The Tornados performing the flypast executed what's called a simulated attack profile - they roar across the airfield from different directions at around 400 knots and at a hundred feet or so and you get no warning from which direction they will come so trying to grab anything is about having good reflexes. I'd have preferred to have a topside shot here - the cockpit visible - but I like the moody sky and the angle here, and I'm reasonably happy with the composition (no cropping on this one!)

DSC_7228 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

...and to give better context for the height they come across, this is from the last airfield attack at the base for the final day of flying operations. Not a great shot, shot on a miserable day, but it gives an idea of how low they go!

DSC_5766 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

Next up, better weather and very different subjects. These were taken during the annual Man v Horse endurance race at a few different locations around Loch Ness. Trying to catch runners and riders in the same shot was difficult because they only cross over very briefly, but I caught what I thought were a few interesting moments of the race. I find nailing composition, exposure and focus during relatively fast-paced events fairly tricky - I find I tend to get one or two of the three, but getting all three right is a bit more hit and miss - but I'm reasonably happy with what I'm starting to get at these things.

DSC_8115 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8042 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8186 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8190 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8224 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8376 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

DSC_8423 by Cosmonaut X, on Flickr

Pretty much all of these shots (apart from the shot of the Typhoon from behind with the Typhoon taking off in front of it) are composed in-camera and I'm not sure whether I should be considering doing a bit more cropping in post to make them a bit more lively. I much prefer trying to nail my shots in-camera rather than going heavy with cropping, exposure compensation etc. in PP but I don't know whether I'm ending up with some slightly stale shots because of it...

Anyway, thanks for looking!
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
I don't crop too much either. I probably should but I really don't. I mostly just touch up contrast and exposure and tone curve stuff, but for the most part I try to get stuff right in camera. I'm not perfect, but I think I do less post than I did when I started. I always do something, but I think it's to get a certain look these days than it is fixing a fuck up.
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
I like the "post process" look -- to me it's part of what separates a great photo from a good one. To that end, I try to do my best on each photo I have, though I have a tendency to get a photo to "good", throw it on Flickr, and then keep adjusting it later on down the road and re-uploading it >_>

On the FE 50 1.8, I think I've decided I'll keep it. The lens quality seems to be fantastic, though I haven't pixel peeped at it, it'll be great for when I'm shooting promotions and such for the military, so I'll keep it. Stopped down focusing is annoying, but apparently that's just what Sony cameras do I guess. :/

Focus isn't really fast but not "slow" enough to bother me. Seems to really nail the focus though.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Astral/H3X said:
I like the "post process" look -- to me it's part of what separates a great photo from a good one. To that end, I try to do my best on each photo I have, though I have a tendency to get a photo to "good", throw it on Flickr, and then keep adjusting it later on down the road and re-uploading it >_>

On the FE 50 1.8, I think I've decided I'll keep it. The lens quality seems to be fantastic, though I haven't pixel peeped at it, it'll be great for when I'm shooting promotions and such for the military, so I'll keep it. Stopped down focusing is annoying, but apparently that's just what Sony cameras do I guess. :/

Focus isn't really fast but not "slow" enough to bother me. Seems to really nail the focus though.
Click to expand...
I almost can't even use my 1.8 lenses wide open. I pretty much have to stop them down to get something in focus unless I'm smack dab right in front of the god damn thing. It's pretty much the reason why I don't want any 1.4 lenses.
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
JadedWriter said:
I almost can't even use my 1.8 lenses wide open. I pretty much have to stop them down to get something in focus unless I'm smack dab right in front of the god damn thing. It's pretty much the reason why I don't want any 1.4 lenses.
Click to expand...

The "nifty fifty" lenses tend to be ones that need stopping down, but this one is nice and sharp even wide open, which is pretty awesome for a nifty fifty.
Also I always shoot wide open, pretty much all the time. It's rare that I stop down, so wide open performance is important to me (aka why I use my 100mm Macro more than my 85 1.4)
Also, maybe this isn't always the case, but my 50mm 1.4 FD is sharper wide open than my FD 50mm 1.8. The 1.8's are really the "cheap crap" lenses, so don't knock the 1.4's until you try em.

(Also you don't have focus peaking SOOOOOOO)

EDIT: Just noticed my name change went through. Whoo.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Astral/H3X said:
The "nifty fifty" lenses tend to be ones that need stopping down, but this one is nice and sharp even wide open, which is pretty awesome for a nifty fifty.
Also I always shoot wide open, pretty much all the time. It's rare that I stop down, so wide open performance is important to me (aka why I use my 100mm Macro more than my 85 1.4)
Also, maybe this isn't always the case, but my 50mm 1.4 FD is sharper wide open than my FD 50mm 1.8. The 1.8's are really the "cheap crap" lenses, so don't knock the 1.4's until you try em.

(Also you don't have focus peaking SOOOOOOO)

EDIT: Just noticed my name change went through. Whoo.
Click to expand...
Even my 85 is dodgy wide open, granted the depth of field is so narrow that I guess getting a whole face in focus from like five feet away is not happening wide open. And yeah no focus peaking and I can't manual focus that to save my life.
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
JadedWriter said:
Even my 85 is dodgy wide open, granted the depth of field is so narrow that I guess getting a whole face in focus from like five feet away is not happening wide open. And yeah no focus peaking and I can't manual focus that to save my life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with my 85mm, it's not quite sharp enough at 1.4 to trigger the focus peaking at a distance, but I guess if I wanted a nice, soft creamy image it'd be great for that. The 100mm however is super sharp, and being 100mm it still gets really good bokeh in the back.

I'd like to try out Samyang's 135 f2, but lol money. I need to use what I have unless I can start making money on it hahah.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Astral/H3X said:
Yeah, with my 85mm, it's not quite sharp enough at 1.4 to trigger the focus peaking at a distance, but I guess if I wanted a nice, soft creamy image it'd be great for that. The 100mm however is super sharp, and being 100mm it still gets really good bokeh in the back.

I'd like to try out Samyang's 135 f2, but lol money. I need to use what I have unless I can start making money on it hahah.
Click to expand...
Yeah I have the same money problem as well. Like I have money for maybe one more thing, but it's pretty much in the "why" territory.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Astral/H3X said:
Yeah, I basically only got the FE 50 1.8 because it was cheap, pretty good, and is AF so I can give less of a fuck.
Click to expand...
Sadly nothing I want is in the "cheap" category. It's either an X-T1 or the Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2. Cheapest is pretty much a Panasonic G7. I'm honestly waiting for best buy to get that specific lens so I can pay half in cash and then just finance the rest using my Best Buy card.
 
C

Cosmonaut X

Member
JadedWriter said:
I don't crop too much either. I probably should but I really don't. I mostly just touch up contrast and exposure and tone curve stuff, but for the most part I try to get stuff right in camera. I'm not perfect, but I think I do less post than I did when I started. I always do something, but I think it's to get a certain look these days than it is fixing a fuck up.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting discussion. When I started with digital photography - having only previously shot film, back in the '90s - I tended to try to do everything in-camera. When I upgraded to my D7100 and started to get a bit more serious about the technical aspects I moved into tweaking exposure, saturation, sharpening etc. in post, but I still tend to try and nail the composition in-camera as best as I can (though with the majority of my stuff being action of some sort, composition is often a compromise as the action can happen so quickly that just nailing exposure and focus and getting the subject in shot is a task, and thoughtful framing isn't always possible).

What I see a lot of in stuff like aviation photography though is heavy cropping using big lenses and high-megapixel bodies to get the kind of really tight, crisp shots that tend to be most popular. As the photographers can be a bit more distant relative to the aircraft, tracking is easier, AF is more effective and motion blur is reduced and then they can aggressively crop to get the "right beside the cockpit" look they're after and still get a solid image. I'm in two minds about that, as it seems like a smart way to work but also feels a little like cheating - almost "saving" the shot in post thanks to having a huge, high-res image to hack about.

Astral/H3X said:
I like the "post process" look -- to me it's part of what separates a great photo from a good one. To that end, I try to do my best on each photo I have, though I have a tendency to get a photo to "good", throw it on Flickr, and then keep adjusting it later on down the road and re-uploading it >_>
Click to expand...

I like post-processing with a relatively light touch. I use Lightroom for pretty much all of my PP, and I'm happy to give the exposure a little nudge, mess with clarity and vibrance, tweak saturation and colour correct, use the lens correction tools, sharpen and use a light vignette but I'm leery of going too aggressive. My aim is to try and get the image as I remember it, rather than push the processing too hard - that said, I do tend to be a bit more full-on with the PP tools for my B&W shots as I feel that it suits the more contrasty, processed look than my colour stuff.
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
I'm of the opinion that the only "cheating" in photography is misleading others in what you did.

An image is an image, and any artistic merit is derived from the image. Unless you're lying about what you did to make it more impressive, then whatever tools it takes to make a photo, they were made to create the photo. Saying certain techniques are "off limits" is a bit off.

Otherwise anything other than using a hand built film camera that you made in your basement with a single shot of film is cheating.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Cosmonaut X said:
It's an interesting discussion. When I started with digital photography - having only previously shot film, back in the '90s - I tended to try to do everything in-camera. When I upgraded to my D7100 and started to get a bit more serious about the technical aspects I moved into tweaking exposure, saturation, sharpening etc. in post, but I still tend to try and nail the composition in-camera as best as I can (though with the majority of my stuff being action of some sort, composition is often a compromise as the action can happen so quickly that just nailing exposure and focus and getting the subject in shot is a task, and thoughtful framing isn't always possible).

What I see a lot of in stuff like aviation photography though is heavy cropping using big lenses and high-megapixel bodies to get the kind of really tight, crisp shots that tend to be most popular. As the photographers can be a bit more distant relative to the aircraft, tracking is easier, AF is more effective and motion blur is reduced and then they can aggressively crop to get the "right beside the cockpit" look they're after and still get a solid image. I'm in two minds about that, as it seems like a smart way to work but also feels a little like cheating - almost "saving" the shot in post thanks to having a huge, high-res image to hack about.



I like post-processing with a relatively light touch. I use Lightroom for pretty much all of my PP, and I'm happy to give the exposure a little nudge, mess with clarity and vibrance, tweak saturation and colour correct, use the lens correction tools, sharpen and use a light vignette but I'm leery of going too aggressive. My aim is to try and get the image as I remember it, rather than push the processing too hard - that said, I do tend to be a bit more full-on with the PP tools for my B&W shots as I feel that it suits the more contrasty, processed look than my colour stuff.
Click to expand...
What are these guys even shooting with. I use a D810 and I don't even crop that much. I feel like I crop like 1 out of 200 shots or something, it's not that often. I used to do no post processing, then I did some, then I probably did too much and now I think I have a pretty good medium between what I do. There's nothing really wrong with it as long as you're not killing an image or turning up sliders till people are green. Though what I don't like is when people pretty much create an image that didn't fully exist when they took the picture. Like adding cows or babies that we know damn fucking well weren't there to begin with. There's a lot going on in that 500px crowd that really turns me off. Why the hell you adding god rays for? We know how depth of field works, some of it just doesn't look possible without photoshopping the hell out of it.
RapidCancel said:
The one that comes with the kit lens is on sale also. I'd look for the link, but I'm at work. The sale is happening at every retailer though.
Click to expand...
I believe it's 1200, pretty much the same as the lens I want. Getting a new camera is something I'm going to flip flop on for a long time I think since there's nothing really wrong with what I currently have and I don't want to buy more lenses unless I need to. If somebody made a Nikon to Fuji adapter worth a damn with working autofocus I'd be all on that shit.
 
C

Cosmonaut X

Member
Astral/H3X said:
I'm of the opinion that the only "cheating" in photography is misleading others in what you did.

An image is an image, and any artistic merit is derived from the image. Unless you're lying about what you did to make it more impressive, then whatever tools it takes to make a photo, they were made to create the photo. Saying certain techniques are "off limits" is a bit off.

Otherwise anything other than using a hand built film camera that you made in your basement with a single shot of film is cheating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, fair point - I think "cheating" is probably the wrong term, and I wouldn't tell anyone that certain things were "off-limits". That said, I lean toward trying to get as much of the image on the spot as possible and I'm not keen on some of the kind of post-processing compositing and fiddling I've seen in places, and though I've dabbled with things like HDR I'm a bit leery of going too hard on that.

JadedWriter said:
What are these guys even shooting with. I use a D810 and I don't even crop that much. I feel like I crop like 1 out of 200 shots or something, it's not that often. I used to do no post processing, then I did some, then I probably did too much and now I think I have a pretty good medium between what I do. There's nothing really wrong with it as long as you're not killing an image or turning up sliders till people are green. Though what I don't like is when people pretty much create an image that didn't fully exist when they took the picture. Like adding cows or babies that we know damn fucking well weren't there to begin with. There's a lot going on in that 500px crowd that really turns me off. Why the hell you adding god rays for? We know how depth of field works, some of it just doesn't look possible without photoshopping the hell out of it.
Click to expand...

I've seen guys at my local base shooting with full-frame high-megapixel cameras and massive primes or 600mm zooms and teleconverters. A lot of the shots they get are of aircraft hundreds and hundreds of feet away, cropped aggressively and presented as is. Stuff like topside cockpit shots which look hugely impressive at first glance - nailing focus and framing of those kind of shots is very difficult with fast-moving subjects and long lenses - kind of fall apart a little when you realise you're looking at an incredibly tight crop of a much, much larger image, rather than someone working at the limit of their lens and nailing a shot.

As I said, "cheating" is probably not quite right, but it does feel a little deceptive and I personally prefer to see shots that are closer to the actual exposure taken. Definitely one where personal preference comes in hard though.

The type of shot that goes over the line for me are the composite moon shots I've seen, particularly around supermoon events etc. where the photographer has composited a large moon into a shot in a way that just isn't possible. I understand that they're trying to create an image that has the same impact as the moon at it's closest to Earth and the horizon but it's not an approach I'm too hot on.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
Cosmonaut X said:
Yeah, fair point - I think "cheating" is probably the wrong term, and I wouldn't tell anyone that certain things were "off-limits". That said, I lean toward trying to get as much of the image on the spot as possible and I'm not keen on some of the kind of post-processing compositing and fiddling I've seen in places, and though I've dabbled with things like HDR I'm a bit leery of going too hard on that.



I've seen guys at my local base shooting with full-frame high-megapixel cameras and massive primes or 600mm zooms and teleconverters. A lot of the shots they get are of aircraft hundreds and hundreds of feet away, cropped aggressively and presented as is. Stuff like topside cockpit shots which look hugely impressive at first glance - nailing focus and framing of those kind of shots is very difficult with fast-moving subjects and long lenses - kind of fall apart a little when you realise you're looking at an incredibly tight crop of a much, much larger image, rather than someone working at the limit of their lens and nailing a shot.

As I said, "cheating" is probably not quite right, but it does feel a little deceptive and I personally prefer to see shots that are closer to the actual exposure taken. Definitely one where personal preference comes in hard though.

The type of shot that goes over the line for me are the composite moon shots I've seen, particularly around supermoon events etc. where the photographer has composited a large moon into a shot in a way that just isn't possible. I understand that they're trying to create an image that has the same impact as the moon at it's closest to Earth and the horizon but it's not an approach I'm too hot on.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm pretty leery of faking shots. Anything that just shows off their skills and photoshop instead of their actual skills as a photographer is something I'm not really a huge fan of. Edit: Real talk here I've done so much night time photography lately that I forgot how stuff is supposed to even look in actual daytime. Actual sunlight bouncing off people is kind of driving me bonkers.
 
T

theepicoftyler

Member
thespot84 said:
Do you have access to any windows that open/close?
Click to expand...

Nah, that shot is out of a parking garage. I was thinking of trying to tie my bag to my tripod as a weight and trying to anchor it such that I can just stick the tripod out the side of the building, but the whole thing makes me nervous haha.
 
Z

z3phon

Member
Some photos from today. Shot with the Olympus EM1 M2.
First one shot with the Oly 12-40 f2.8 and the second one with the Oly 40-150 f2.8.

4oy9SYm.jpg
Click to expand...
ssUc2kW.jpg
Click to expand...
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
Hey guys, so I'm wanting to improve my portraits. I know how to work a camera pretty good, and if I ever get flash I feel pretty confident using it right, but my problem is I'm not super good at posing or picking spots. I'm wanting to figure out how to really change that, but I need either pointers, tips, comments, suggestions, whatever it may be.

I've got an album of my most recent portrait shots here, so you guys can take a look and come up with some ideas on critiques for me, if you could be so kind:

https://flic.kr/s/aHskNwJg5Y
 
C

captive

Joe Six-Pack: posting for the common man
Astral/H3X said:
I'm of the opinion that the only "cheating" in photography is misleading others in what you did.

An image is an image, and any artistic merit is derived from the image. Unless you're lying about what you did to make it more impressive, then whatever tools it takes to make a photo, they were made to create the photo. Saying certain techniques are "off limits" is a bit off.

Otherwise anything other than using a hand built film camera that you made in your basement with a single shot of film is cheating.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, its an artform that includes but is certainly not limited to "documentary." There are things i agree with and things i don't, but ultimately none of it affects me. I shoot what i shoot because shoot for me first.

My problem comes in when people that don't know anything about photography come up and ask "did you photoshop this" there is no easy way to answer that question without a minimum 5 minute conversation. If you say yes, they will assume that what is impressive about the image is fake. If you say no, unless you took it on film, processed it completely in a dark room and printed it from a dark room, then you would technically be lying, because at some point your file went through photoshop or some competitor to photoshop.

Try explaining a raw file and how the fact that raw files come in flat and contain little tone and that you have to "photoshop it" read: edit it and they're eyes glaze over.
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
captive said:
I tend to agree, its an artform that includes but is certainly not limited to "documentary." There are things i agree with and things i don't, but ultimately none of it affects me. I shoot what i shoot because shoot for me first.

My problem comes in when people that don't know anything about photography come up and ask "did you photoshop this" there is no easy way to answer that question without a minimum 5 minute conversation. If you say yes, they will assume that what is impressive about the image is fake. If you say no, unless you took it on film, processed it completely in a dark room and printed it from a dark room, then you would technically be lying, because at some point your file went through photoshop or some competitor to photoshop.

Try explaining a raw file and how the fact that raw files come in flat and contain little tone and that you have to "photoshop it" read: edit it and they're eyes glaze over.
Click to expand...
Usually if presented that question, I just say that I've tweaked the colors and processed it, and usually that satisfies them.
 
V

vern

Member
Long time since I've been out taking pictures, for a ton of reasons, but had a walk the other day to the new Taco Bell(!!!) and took the RX100 point n shoot. I was hoping to get something different from my usual perspective, not sure if I succeeded or not, but was fun anyway.

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Big ass phone by Eric, on Flickr

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Dome by Eric, on Flickr




Bonus Taco Bell shining like a beacon:

Taco Bell Shanghai by Eric, on Flickr
 
A

Astral/H3X

Member
Amusingly, Flickr moderators reviewed my account and deemed that it is "Safe". As in, the opposite of "NSFW". As in, they must be blind.
 
V

Vazduh

Member
Tried doing homemade redscale for the first time (basically, you reverse the color film in a darkroom and put it back to the cassette and then you shoot through not through the emulsion, but the protective layer, and then you overexpose it at least one stop). Gives interesting results. Fujicolor C200 film shot at ISO100.

Apple tree in bloom by Ante Prskalo, on Flickr

The beercan marks the spot by Ante Prskalo, on Flickr

Also one more shot done with expired Efke 100 b/w film and developed in Rodinal 1:50 for 10 mins. The composition is a bit off imho (the right part), but I was happy with the tones.

A solemn moment by Ante Prskalo, on Flickr

Going to my cousin's wedding in two weeks so I'm thinking of trying out some Fomapan 400 @ 1600, but not in Rodinal - I'd develop it in Xtol which is more suitable for pushing. Pushed a roll of Agfa APX 400 New in Rodinal 1:100 recently and it was grain-city. I love grain, but this looked more like a fistful of sand on a canvas.
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
KraftyKrankins said:
Love this one. :)
Click to expand...
Thanks. I have a black and white of that as well. I took a burst of the wind blowing her hair around and in the black and white it gives her hair a bit of a viking horn shape. I always contemplate dropping some money on an XT1 cause it's lighter to carry around but at the same time I don't have the same lenses and it probably will not beat out my D810 in any category so I Just drop that idea almost weekly. Doesn't help that I love my D810. I'm probably getting a new 70-200 though.

vern said:
Long time since I've been out taking pictures, for a ton of reasons, but had a walk the other day to the new Taco Bell(!!!) and took the RX100 point n shoot. I was hoping to get
something
Click to expand...
different from my usual perspective, not sure if I succeeded or not, but was fun anyway.

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Big ass phone by Eric, on Flickr

Shanghai Lujiazui RX100 by Eric, on Flickr

Dome by Eric, on Flickr




Bonus Taco Bell shining like a beacon:

Taco Bell Shanghai by Eric, on Flickr
Click to expand...
I always find it interesting how we shoot almost the same things but we focus on two completely different things. We could walk through the same area at the same time and come out with completely different pictures.
 
V

vern

Member
jaded probably biggest difference between us is I prefer to get as close as I can and you like to chill back and have a longer focal length usually. Also you are on a super bokeh kick recently lol
 
J

JadedWriter

Member
vern said:
jaded probably biggest difference between us is I prefer to get as close as I can and you like to chill back and have a longer focal length usually. Also you are on a super bokeh kick recently lol
Click to expand...
I will be as close as I can within reason, I don't think New Yorkers want me as close as the Chinese people allow you. Trying to not get my shit broken here, it also depends on what lens I have on me at the time. I have a lot of bokeh...well because I'm usually shooting at anything between F2.8-F4 and I use my 70-200 a lot.
 
G

grap3fruitman

Banned
Hey gang, anyone have recommendations for moving cross-country with their glass? No room in the car cause of two puppers. Having a moving company take the other stuff but I don't feel comfortable putting a bunch of lenses in an ordinary box. I couldn't afford to replace them if they broke. So yeah, thoughts?

Speaking of puppers, took this shot with my iPhone and I'm surprised at how good it came out. https://flic.kr/p/QBAW75
 
V

vern

Member
grap3fruitman said:
Hey gang, anyone have recommendations for moving cross-country with their glass? No room in the car cause of two puppers. Having a moving company take the other stuff but I don't feel comfortable putting a bunch of lenses in an ordinary box. I couldn't afford to replace them if they broke. So yeah, thoughts?

Speaking of puppers, took this shot with my iPhone and I'm surprised at how good it came out. https://flic.kr/p/QBAW75
Click to expand...

You can't put them in a camera bag or backpack and put it in your trunk? What about a suitcase wrapped in your clothes?
 
G

Groof

Junior Member
Ryuelli said:
Where did you go for them? Hoping they'll still be in bloom next weekend, didn't have a chance to make it out to shoot them this weekend.
Click to expand...

Children's Grand Park (어린이대공원) right next to Konkuk Uni. Was quite a bit of people but manageable.
 
Z

Zoso

It's been a long time, been a long time, been a long lonely lonely lonely lonely lonely time.
Just started getting into photography late last year when I got a RX100. I've been studying Understanding Exposure, but still have much to learn. I also hope to save up for a DSLR eventually. It's awesome to find this thread and see everyone's work.

Here's a few shots I took during my time in London last winter:










 
S

sneaky77

Member
Zoso said:
Just started getting into photography late last year when I got a RX100. I've been studying Understanding Exposure, but still have much to learn. I also hope to save up for a DSLR eventually. It's awesome to find this thread and see everyone's work.
Click to expand...

Those are great shots
 
B

BlueTsunami

there is joy in sucking dick
Zoso said:
Just started getting into photography late last year when I got a RX100. I've been studying Understanding Exposure, but still have much to learn. I also hope to save up for a DSLR eventually. It's awesome to find this thread and see everyone's work.

Here's a few shots I took during my time in London last winter:
Click to expand...

Fantastic use of lines leading into the frame. Very striking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2025 Edition
2 3
115
12K
LavitzSlambert replied
52 Games. 1 Year. 2025. [BacklogBeat]
2 3
132
5K
Andyliini replied
Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5 6
263
54K
Topher replied
52 Games. 1 Year. 2024. [BacklogBeat]
Social Community 3 4 5 6 7
323
24K
Wozzer replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
61K
DGrayson replied
Top Bottom