looks great to me, good use of foreground, middleground, and background.

i snagged this one yesterday:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidraymond/2506053869/

I like this. Really nice composition and white balance.

What is HDR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_dynamic_range_imaging

pic of some random bitches in boracay

If only I knew what white balance meant!

Mt Sopris seemed to get overexposed seems like a good spot for a HDR image.

Here are the others i posted. I don't know wtf happened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_balance

Experimenting with shallow depth of field this weekend. Taken with the Canon 50/1.8.

On another note, I was shocked at the difference between the 50/1.8 and the 18-55/3.5-5.6 IS. The 18-55 is supposed to be a surprisingly good lens for it's price. Much better than the non-IS version and close to the $1000 17-55/2.8 IS.

But I took one shot with both the 18-55 IS and the 50. And the level of detail present in the 50 is amazing.

I wasn't planning on comparing the lenses, so this wasn't a very scientific experiment. I took a picture with the 18-55. A few minutes later, I realized I took it at about 50 mm, so I took out my 50/1.8.

Of course, this whole post is a tease because I forgot to upload the photos. But I'll do so tonight. The difference is obvious at a 100% crop. But I have no idea if it's visible printed as a 5x7, so I'll make printouts also. (I should also point out that the 18-55 is a $200 lens and the 50 is a $75 lens.) I hope this little experiment doesn't turn me into one of those pixel peepers. Because lenses can get expensive.

Here's what I was talking about. All photos were taken in RAW. No post-processing except cropping and converting to JPEG. First, the full scene:

18-55IS:


50/1.8:


Now the 100% crops:

18-55IS:


50/1.8:


18-55IS:


50/1.8:


Again, this wasn't exactly a controlled experiment (as you can see from the differing perspectives in the whole scene photos). But they were both taken at 1/100. And the 18-55 was at f/8, I think, while the 50/1.8 was at f/7.1. I'll have to do a more controlled experiment (tripod, same exposure, etc.) later.

The difference is really visible in the tree leaves, which are a green blob in the 18-55, while you can see individual needles on the 50. But when viewed at a normal size, the difference really can't be seen. I haven't tried printing them yet, or even seeing how each looks after some sharpening.

You're results are telling us the 50/1.8 for $75 outperforms the 18-55IS? If so, cheers to that!

nubs,

the picture with the bird and child is great.

However, I think the second picture with the tyre present in the left foreground is distraciting it, perhaps if the image were cropped differently the tyre could be included without distracting from the action.

Where do you guys host raw images? Basically what I'm asking is, will there be a place where I can upload a handful of shots from my SLR in raw form?

AFAIK, there's no such thing as an on-line RAW viewer. If you want to distribute RAW files, you need a file distribution site and the person who downloads has to convert into JPEG.

(For JPEGs, I use Flickr.)

I never doubted that the 50/1.8 would perform better. I was shocked at how visible it was, though. However, because of the difference in perspective and distance, the shot of the ground bark is probably not a legitimate comparison. I'm going to do a more controlled test (on a tripod, same exposure, etc.) this weekend.

And while the $75 being better is good in one way, it's also disappointing that a $200 lens performed so poorly (even though, in comparison with many Canon lenses, $200 is a bargain).

Thanks for the compliment and critique. I wasn't sure about the tire, here's a crop.



I think you're right, this makes for a much better image imo.

I just finished downloading the CHDK for my Canon SD750, and have been playing around with it a lot today. If you have a point and shoot Canon I'd recommend looking in to this if you want to get more serious about photography. It lets you play with some of the common features from a DSLR on a sub $200 camera. RAW, live color/luminosity histograms, shutter speed down to 1/10000, exposure length, etc.

It can make some pretty nice pictures too (not mine):






People who shoot in RAW, what do you use to edit them? GIMP doesn't seem able to open my CRW files.

I finally finished a roll of slide film in my 35mm camera, got it developed, then some of the slides professionally scanned (i don't have a slide scanner at home), and then slightly processed in PS at home, and so several weeks later and $30 later, I have a few to share:

Really awesome thread I stumbled upon...thanks suzzer. There are some incredible images here from you guys and just wanted to bump it with my three or four favorites.



Suzzer99





ReDeYES88


ipitythefool


Raramahatta

This thread may be what pushes me over that edge to finally commit to getting a "real" camera and putting some effort into photography. I've been on that edge for at least 5 years.

Here's a few fun pics I've shot, all with a cheap "point and shoot" $125 used Canon SD600. These are by no means incredible or awesome or even all that good, but I thought I'd point out that photography can be a lot of fun even with out all the bells and whistles. You simply can't beat the images in terms of color and contrast and depth that you see from the guys with the real guns and glass, but you can still have fun with composition and capturing images.

Shot at midnight on Christmas Eve. Grandpa's actual picture he took is right below...





I found it amazing how the coastline could be so lonely...not a soul in sight.



Believe it or not, I shot this handheld...



This was a panarama of four images stitched together. Just another fun little feature. Incidently, the far left image was completely unrelated to the "pan" and came from a different spot on the lighthouse, if you look close enough you'll see a lot of the "photoshopping"


One feature I've never ever used and probably never ever will use again...the in-camera color scenes. I would just prefer to touch up photos after the fact with photoshop, rather than spoil the raw photo. But this scene was perfect to try it out and it worked pretty well (for the camera feature that is.)

And finally just to illustrate how much fun you can have with an underwater housing and the unique memories you'll save, especially if you have kids.

I use Photoshop CS3's Camera Raw program. I think for a more economical solution, a lot of people use Lightroom.

You know, I really want to like this photo, but there are a couple of elements that are off putting about it for me personally.

I have made a few adjustments that would make it better for me personally. Please understand that it's totally a matter of personal taste for me:



Cropped it, more contrast, more saturation in certain spots. That's about it. Otherwise, it's the same photo.

I like these. You are right, you don't need expensive equipment to create beautiful photos that evoke emotions and memories, etc. I think composition is way more important.

As an example, I am just getting started with doing some Holga experimentation. It is a $30 plastic camera with a plastic lens and is considered a toy. It is a medium format 120 film camera that is known for their "artistic" results with vignetting and blurring and light leaks and such.

You can see a bunch of shots taken with various Holgas here: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=holga&w=all

Wow that is a great shot. I have the same camera, but all my low light pictures turn out blurry. What settings did you use for this photo? Same settings for the other night shot?

MikeMcQ1, thanks a lot!