What's new

Show us your camera's best pix! (1 Viewer)

ManW_TheUncool

His Own Fool
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2001
Messages
11,912
Location
The BK
Real Name
ManW
Thanks for the kind words, Mark and Jackson.


Yes, I do occasionally get "weird looks" or "questions", but also get just as many warm smiles of silent approval or the like. Most times, people just accept my shooting and continue what they do or simply too busy to notice. Occasionally, I do ask for permission depending on the situation. And in general, I approach my shooting in an open and honest manner and do not hide it or anything like that. Most times, I have my camera in full view long before I do any shooting, and I suspect most people just assume I'm some pro photog judging from the occasional conversations I have -- I think the black camera and its size help a little there :D as does my general approach.

Don't you think that guy gave me a certain look there? :D

http://image.pbase.com/image/30484007.jpg

He noticed me aiming a couple seconds earlier and actually turned to see what I was shooting (on his other side) and then turned back for this shot, which is why there's a slight motion blur. Interestingly, another guy, who sat across from me, also noticed and asked me if "that's the D70" as I was getting off the train right after the shot. Seems like I get just as many people asking me if "that's the D70" as I get "weird looks" and "questions" about my shooting. :D

Anyway, here are some more new (and old) ones I like.

From my St Paul's Chapel gallery (http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong/st_pauls_chapel):

http://www.pbase.com/image/29142469.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/30485383.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/27355619.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/30485379.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/30485380.jpg

A couple new takes of the subject in this one(http://www.pbase.com/image/27355617.jpg) I posted earlier:

http://www.pbase.com/image/30799704.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/30799703.jpg

And oh yes, Jackson, I agree w/ John's suggestions for your photos. I don't think you need to follow the rule of 1/3's very exactly, but the idea usually works. I generally vary it as I see the shot and don't proactively think of 1/3's most times. For me, it usually is more of a spontaneous decision, not a deliberate, carefully measured kind of thing. I also like applying the rule in layers or in various different aspects, not just the most obvious.

Seems to me like 3 is a "magic" number that works for most viewers in many ways although I also love 2 as in a duality kind of thing, eg. reflections or something similar. For instance, you can see that in this flora shot I posted earlier:

http://www.pbase.com/image/29191627.jpg

_Man_
 

Dana Fillhart

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
977
Here are some pix from yesterday's events. They were taken with the usual 5mp Sony DSC-V1. Most of the fireworks pictures did not come out as well as I had hoped -- I guess better luck next year? :)

World Financial Center (smaller version) - I thought the reflection in the WFC buildings was pretty neat. Taken right before the start of the WTC Conerstone-laying event.

View of the cornerstone, Ground Zero (smaller version) - I was fairly irritated that the entire region was so blocked from access that there were very few spots one could take pictures. This one I took was along the bridge to the WFC, and in fact right when I was taking this picture someone came in with a bullhorn saying we couldn't stand there. Then I went back down to the PATH train, and I got within 30 feet from the actual granite block ... but they wouldn't allow any pictures to be taken there! I tried convincing the officer on duty but he was pretty adamant about "No pictures taken within subway facilities" -- a lovely case of the letter of the law being applied over the spirit of it. So this was about the best I could do.
Note: The cornerstone in this picture is the object covered slightly with a blue tarp.

Statue of Liberty (smaller version)

Downtown and the Brooklyn Bridge (smaller version)

In a sea of power boats and jet-skis, one man with the strength of arms braves Nature's fury... (smaller version)

"A little to the left -- no, to the right ... there, perfect entry!" (smaller version)

Darts flying through the air? (smaller version) - Actually these are the first set of fighter jets that flew over NYC a couple hours before the fireworks.

Jets over Lady Liberty... (smaller version)

...then over lower Manhattan (smaller version)

Another picture of the Statue (smaller version)

The Macys fireworks barge floats into position (smaller version)

The Main Event - 1 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 2 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 3 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 4 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 5 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 6 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 7 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 8 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 9 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 10 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 11 (smaller version)

The Main Event - 12 (smaller version)

 

Dave_vega

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
168
first off..beautiful shots everyone..

my camera is a 3.2 sony, so it doesn't have all the nifty features of the SLR's but I will post pics anyway..I hope to get into photography alot more than I am now..I bought a Canon Rebel SLR for my wife a few months ago and she seems to like it..pretty good entry level SLR..I mainly bought this sony camera to record my daughters life and it has done pretty well so far..alot better than my old 1 MP kodak ;)

so take it easy on an amateur couple with an entry level camera.. :D

ice storm

ice storm2

ice storm3

lance jump

rhyin1

rhyin carousel

rhyin with bubbles

rhyin on chair

rhyin2

rhyin3

rhyin4

odie and bailey
 

Mark Shannon

Screenwriter
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,991
Dave, even without all the nifty features, your pictures are still pretty good.

Oh, and your daughter is adorable. That's the most unique spelling of her name I have ever seen. Really cool.
 

Citizen87645

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
13,056
Real Name
Cameron Yee
I appreciate the contributions to this thread, but some of the files are just too large for viewing to be convenient. Consequently I've just been skipping over many of them (e.g. Dana's). How about we agree on a file size to maximize viewing?
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I agree Cameron, and I had said the same thing quite some time back. I've just stopped looking at the shots because I got tired of downloading a bunch of 2 and 3 MB files. There's really no reason for the images to be so large, and they can be compressed quite a bit more as well.
 

Dana Fillhart

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
977
Actually, I have a better idea (for mine at least).

When I get home tonight I'll update all my posts with an additional link to a smaller/compressed version of the picture. That way, best of both worlds for all: Those who want the higher quality, and those with bandwidth-challenged connections.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
That's a good solution, Dana. I'm not even that badnwidth challenged, since I have DSL, but it still doesn't make all that much sense to upload pics for viewing that are 4 times the resolution of a 19" monitor.
 

Dana Fillhart

Supporting Actor
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
977
The reason I want to leave the links to the full-quality pictures is so one can (in a separate viewing tool like, say, ACDSee) zoom in on the details. I have an 18" monitor at home, but at work and when mobile, I only have a 15", so it's useful many times to be able to have the highest quality pic available and zoom in if some details aren't readily apparent. For example, in the picture linked above for the cornerstone for the new WTC building, if you've shrunk the picture to fit your screen, it is not immediately obvious what object is supposed to be the actual granite cornerstone block. Zoom in a bit and it's a little more obvious.
 

Mark Shannon

Screenwriter
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
1,991
No problem Dave.

Like John, I too don't have a problem with the large filesizes, as I'm on broadband, but the website from which you are hosting your pics, Dana, has a very slow transfer rate (for me at least). While downloading your pics last night, I don't think it ever got higher than 15 KBps.
 

Brett DiMichele

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2001
Messages
3,181
Real Name
Brett
John,

Good thing you don't hang out with me and all the other
Sigma shooters on the DPReview forums. We almost always
post full resolution shots. Why? Because it makes or breaks
a camera. Consumer P&S's look great when scaled down but
when viewed full size even at low ISO their images just
fall apart :)
 

Dave_vega

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
168
yeah brett I agree..the shots I posted were really scaled down and they lost alot of clarity..but they're easy to view so I guess that's just the way it is..

I have a question to the camera wiz's here though..does aperture value change from digitals to 35mm SLR's? my sony has an aperture of f2.4 to f5.6 and my wife's SLR has an aperture of f5.6 to f50 or so..can anyone explain why they are so different? thanks
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Dave, I doubt your wife's SLR has a lens which closes down to F/50. Standard minimum aperture on 35mm lenses is usually f/16 or f/22, and usually f/32 on true macro lenses, not the pseudo macro/zoom types.

One reason for the difference is because digital sensors are almost always smaller than a 35mm frame. The smaller the sensor or film, the shorter the equivalent focal length of the lens and the more depth of field you get, all other things being equivalent. Beyond that though, I don't know why so many all-in-one digitals tend to have such a large minimum aperture. Maybe they just figure you can go with a short exposure.


Brett, that's great, but that stuff has absolutely nothing to do with composition and general photographic skill, which is what I thought this thread was about. You can't evaluate the aesthetics of a photo if you have to scroll around to see it. I hope Man-Fei doesn't mind me pointing out that he was taking better shots with his G3 than his new SLR. I trust that will be a passing thing, but I also think it indicates something quite weird. If you become so obsessed with the hardware and how well it works technically that your photos suffer, what is the point?
 

Citizen87645

Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
13,056
Real Name
Cameron Yee


Yeah, to "cope" I turned on the built in scaler on IE. So would you rather have control over the scaling or let IE do it?
 

Dave_vega

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 16, 2002
Messages
168
thanks for the explanation john..makes alot of sense..

as for the size of the pictures..all the large pictures I looked at in this thread I just sized down using the Opera browser..makes it really easy actually..it's just a pull down menu on the top right hand..
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Reviewer
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,926
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
Well, I'm busted because Netscape, which I use, automatically scales images that are too large.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top