You could be like the www.legalnomads.com woman and do workshops abroad. She does food ones in Vietnam, I believe. However, I think these probably work best for landscape or wildlife, whereas travel photography, especially of people, would be tougher in larger groups.

A couple ideas (that still won't get you any money ):

-Submit to photography competitions like the Natgeo one
-Gift to friends
-Give away to businesses with some kind of advertisement attached

One thing that bugs me a bit is that the flash-lit parts have a different color tone than the sunlit parts. The solution I suppose would be a flash filter to warm it up a bit, not sure if they make those for the built-in flashes.

I'm supervising that pilot which is why I need to sit in the right seat, but I could take a different seat in the future. The front field of view would be more interesting, and I could get the pilot to turn his head to keep the eyes still in the shot. 18mm.

I really like the second one, but I feel like to make it really interesting it needs a helicopter or a plane in the distance somewhere. Looks a bit generic to me. I may print this one up as a postcard and see if it sells to tourists who have just done the flight.

I don't know how you could do it in Photoshop, because you'd need to have all of your images open at the same time. You can, however, do the same thing in Adobe Bridge (which you should have if you have Photoshop) for all of the images in a particular folder.

Very nice; I like the aesthetic. What were those shot with?

Hi guys. I'm in the market for a superzoom camera to take good quality pictures of tennis matches. Can you recommend me some good ones?

Doing superzoom instead of DSLR to save money for now. Thanks!

Panasonic FZ1000 or Canon G3X.

Well If you must have a superzoom, and are trying to save money, my recommendation would be the Panasonc Lumix DMC FZ1000. At $800, it currently retails for $100 less than the Canon PowerShot G3X. Furthermore the G3X doesn't come with a viewfinder. For good shots of tennis you'll want a viewfinder. It will cost you $250 extra. (All prices U$.)

But do you really need a superzoom? If you are shooting from courtside, you don't. You won't need an Equivalent Focal Length (EFL - that's focal length in 35mm full-frame equivalent terms) of more than about 200mm. If you are shooting from 10m back from courtside, you will want an EFL of about 300mm. 400mm from the nosebleeds.

If you only need an EFL of 300mm there is a cheaper option than a superzoom that may well give you better photos. Currently you can buy a Nikon D3300 dSLR with the 18-55mm and 55-200mm kit lenses and a camera bag for $650 after instant rebate. On the D3300's APS-C sensor, this will give you an EFL of 300mm. Plus you get a much larger sensor, so less noise and better colour, and a wider maximum aperture diameter at maximum zoom, so you can use a faster shutter speed to freeze action better and blur out the distracting background a bit more. The sensor also has more pixels, so your images will probably be a bit sharper. Since the D3300 is a dSLR, it will probably be able to focus faster and more reliably on moving targets like tennis players or in low light.

If you need 400mm EFL reach, then you can get the D3300 with 18-55mm kit lens plus the 55-300mm lens for a total of $900. It will actually give you 450mm EFL.

You won't need the 18-55mm kit lens for tennis, but I think it always comes with the D3300 in retail sales in North America.

<3

I feel like it could be improved upon with some cropping but that is something i'm terrible at


<3

went to amsterdam for the weekend



there was a gay pride parade



do you like this POV or is this FPSy ?

i caught a couple nice shots



i don't like that she's looking at the camera



I prefer the feel of this one more...it's romantic but the vertical one flows way more and I feel like this is one where cropping could make a huge diff?

think this one captures a better story, just a little bit

Thanks so much for the advice DTM, I really appreciate it!

I took a little trip to Italy and came out with a few pictures I was really happy with.

I like the shot of San Pietro Spotteswoode.

Is the shot of the river Florence? The houses on the left bank look like Florence, but if it is then I can't work out which bridge it's shot from.

Thanks! Yeah that's Florence, the Ponte vecchio bridge. Some of the houses on the right are covered in tarp so that night be why it looks unfamiliar. I went there every night looking for a sunset which I found on the last night, but this one ended up looking way more vibrant.

i've been playing with lightroom the last couple of days, which i have very very little experience with. i have a feeling that when i edit photos i always pump up the blacks too much because i like that look.

out of the camera: http://i.imgur.com/km5JdGx.jpg
edited: http://i.imgur.com/3HmGIPw.jpg

all i've really done there is modify the tone curve, add in some highlights and correct the distortion.

any thoughts? does it look ok or do you think it sucks? it's also noticeably a bit soft in the top left which kinda sucks, but cropping at the same aspect ratio didn't look as good and i don't want to make it square.

i have the RAW if anyone wants to play with it.

many thanks!

Here is my version using fastone image resizer. Reduced the highlights and increased contrast. I'd be interested to see what someone who is good at this sort of thing can do with it

And one I took a couple months ago:

yep that looks way better. i need to go back to the drawing board. can you give me a high level view of how you did that? thanks man.

https://gyazo.com/ac2a68307bffea33a0f9844ca45f9e21

cool, that easy then. thanks!

My tweaks in Lightroom: http://i.imgur.com/F08bRtT.jpg

Hopefully the colors look fine - I'm having some weird oversaturation issue with Imgur. The exported JPG with my tweaks looks fine on both my Macbook and the external monitor. But the Imgur uploaded version in the browser looks oversaturated on the external monitor (but still normal on the laptop screen).

Or to put it another way, when I compare the JPG and the upload on the laptop screen, there's no difference. But there is a huge difference when I do the same on the external monitor. Which makes no sense. Anyone had this happen before?

Wow yours is way better. What did you do?

* Exposure -0.60 (since original was overexposed)
* Highlights -100 (to get detail in the waves)
* Whites +45 (to correct the light parts)
* Shadows +50 (to get more detail, similar to highlights)
* Blacks -57 (to correct the darks. I like contrasty photos)

* Clarity +18

* Sharpening 51
* Masking 78 (so it doesn't sharpen the ocean)

* Vignetting -14 (huge fan of the vignette)

Except for exposure, those are pretty much the sliders I use for every picture. Then if I want a little more control, I go to HSL, like here:

* Added a little red/orange/yellow saturation and some orange luminance to bring out the beach.
* Added some green and plenty of aqua saturation, and a bit of luminance for both, to boost the ocean and trees.

That's it. Mostly I just move sliders around until I like what I see.

I just got LR6 yesterday and there's almost 2000 unprocessed photos from this summer's travels to go through. A few hours in and I'm already yelling at past me: "Use the goddamn tripod!" It's so disgusting to realise that a picture had a lot more potential after some Lightroom tweaks than I thought while photographing. But handheld quality isn't good enough beyond small web resolutions.

So here's a few pics. Any feedback or suggestions would be appreciated.

Those are all strong images to me. #1 and #5 are the least interesting to me in terms of subject matter, but the pictures are good. Only thing is I'm not sure I like the out-of-focus mushrooms in the foreground of #5.

Also I prob would have gone with a deeper DOF for #4 to give it more of a surrealistic edge, but that's a style thing. And clone out whatever that black spot is in the middle-right.

Thanks for the feedback. You're right about cloning #4 (it's a rock in the lake, but looks distracting). I also cleared out the stuff in the water in #2, which improved the photo a lot. Plus the two backlit bugs flying in the upper left corner in #3.

With the mushrooms I probably should've waited for the sun to move, until the light fell from between the trees onto my subject instead of the background.