jupitersolo

It's the same as adjusting your image for printing. You have to pump up the image to get what you want on on paper.

Mizouse

Please post an example please

Undying Dreams

iTrader: (3)

Amen, Stogie.

Mizouse

srika

is flickr like, super slow for anyone else? click on a pic and it takes a while to load?

srika

I believe I have done some recently.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10353159523/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10353159523/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr


http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352661923/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352661923/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr


http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352195824/http://www.flickr.com/photos/delobbo/10352195824/ by http://www.flickr.com/people/delobbo/, on Flickr

pttl

Anyone know of really good vantage points from which to get great panos of NYC?

stogie1020

Look, let me start by saying that most of photography is "Art", so make it look however you like to fit your vision.

Having said that (and having been guilty of being heavy handed on the saturation slider myself), here are some shots that I personally feel are overcooked. Of course this is subjective, and of course the fact I have been looking at and planning B+W shots a lot lately has affected my sensitivity, but here are a few (absolutely no disrespect to the photographers, I think these are great compositions, exposures, etc):

<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26133205/78327416bb247d61eab70a8aab57fe1d0dd06ef3/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Untitled by Tom Corey on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26133205">Untitled</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/TomCorey">
Tom Corey
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/26334651/4e0636da656c6b120a72cafd3cef8d2386234ced/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Tucson Sunset by Steve Steinmetz on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/26334651">Tucson Sunset</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/sjspix">
Steve Steinmetz
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<table cellpadding="2">
<tr>
<td style="border-bottom: 0px solid #fff;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">
<img src="http://ppcdn.500px.org/49573508/f71269e06b82723f459717264d8337a8c4357b76/3.jpg" width="280" height="280" alt="Valley View by Mark Myhaver on 500px.com" border="0" style="margin: 0 0 5px 0;">
</a>
<br/>
<font style="font-size: 120%;">
<a href="http://500px.com/photo/49573508">Valley View</a> by <a href="http://500px.com/Myhaver">
Mark Myhaver
</a>
</font>
</td>
</tr>
</table>

stogie1020

None of the above are extreme, or powerful HDR or anything, just what I would consider a "too liberal" use of oversaturation. I live in the desert, I know what it looks like and can spot what, to me, would be mis-representitive greens, yellows, etc.

jupitersolo

You have to go to Jersey, start at Liberty Park

srika

I like those you posted stogie. haha

Mizouse

Yea it's all personal preference. I like them too, but I do think they're a bit over saturated.

pttl

What is this "jersey" you speak of?

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

Canon's cheat sheet. lol

einsatz

Got a letter from Adobe yesterday in the mail as a follow-up to the hack that had all of us change our passwords...
They're offering 1 year of free credit monitoring, suggesting we monitor our credit accounts (duh), check our credit reports, add fraud alerts and consider a security freeze on credit file.

Yikes. I may take them up on the credit monitoring deal.

einsatz

1M photo views yesterday...
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/ep_jhu/10494562126/" title="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot by ep_jhu, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5547/10494562126_a7bbe5b626_z.jpg" width="640" height="158" alt="Obligatory 1M Photo Views Screenshot"></a>

srika

congrats!

cmschmie

I am thinking about picking up a new DSLR.
Currently have a Canon Rebel XT (w/kit), the 50 1.8 and 70-300 (non-L). I also have a Panasonic GX1 (w/kit) and 20 1.7.

I am leaning towards the 70D. I like what I am reading about this camera.

Here are my questions:
I like landscape photography so I am leaning towards the 70D w/18-135 as a kit and a 10-22. However, for the same price I can get the 70D body and the 17-55.
Which would you recommend?


I did look into the Nikon D7100, but my familiarity with Canon plus that fact that I do have some (not a lot) of money tied into Canon gear led me towards the Canon.

Mizouse

I'd go with the 70D 17-55 combo. Save up a nice 70-200L lens.

mdkxtreme

cmschmie, if you like landscape photography I really recommend the Sigma 8-16. Yes it's a Sigma but I had absolutely no problem with mine when I bought it used. I sold it because I was focusing on my automotive hobby and since it was a specialty lens, I didn't use it as much as I would like. It actually has lower distortion than the Tokina 11-16. I don't know too much about the 10-22 but I was definitely happy with the 8-16.

One bad thing is that this lens is slow. But since I was doing mainly landscape, there were always plenty of light. And if the light was low, I'd always use a tripod. But then again if you can live without the 8mm, nothing is wrong with the 10-22.

jupitersolo

You missed landscape photography in that post, going to need some wider than 17mm (over 27mm cropped body).......

is300eater

yeah, if you're really into landscapes, unless it's high noon with plenty of light, always be prepared and have a tripod. Because you should always stop down for the sharpest capture. At the very least, have one of those Gorillapods (the heavy duty ones)

Mizouse

Who says you need wide angle for landscapes?

jupitersolo

Tell me many who don't have wider than 17mm crop that do shoot landscapes?

jupitersolo

And that's not going to work....

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

Congrats.

Well, how much are both kits? Off hand i would get the 70D w/17-55. as forth a 10-22. I loved that lens. Actually that lens is getting cheaper

Mizouse

Asianspec 17-55 is constant 2.8 + IS

I loved that lens on my XTi and 40D

It was my PJ work horse.

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

Yes. i know.

Mizouse

is300eater

+1 lol

einsatz

You sound like a buddy of mine here in DC. He had a Rebel XS and also liked landscape photography. He got a 7D and the Tamron 17-50 2/8 and has been quite happy with it. He's taking the combo to the Utah deserts this week... I'm sure he'll do fine, as would you with a similar combo.

cmschmie

Thanks for the replies everyone. I may lean slightly towards the 17-55 since the max aperture does allow more flexibility for low light situations.

However, the 18-135 (or 15-85 ) would make an damn good walk around lens due to the focal length. Plus I think the 10-22 is coming down in the price and the similarly priced Sigma 8-16 had a pretty good review on The Digital Picture.com.
Decisions decisions




Just a random question based on my research over the last couple weeks.
Are companies getting away from CF cards? Both the 70D and D7100 are SD card only.

Mizouse

I think so since they're finally catching up to speed of CF cards.

stogie1020

SD cards are physically smaller, so it makes sense if the speeds are equal (or nearly).

Mizouse

jupitersolo

This is why you want better than 18mm on a cropped body...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ov2pHV98Fc#t=221

stogie1020

^ never heard of that guy. Hack.

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

Me personally, i am trying to stay away from crop sensored lenses because of always wanting to go to full frame, but also if you want to sell, you aren't limited to only crop sensored users. like the 18-135, i would go with the 28-135mm IS

could be a possibly since it is small and cheaper to buy. i still prefer CF cards though.

stogie1020

The one thing I will say about that video that BP fails to mention is that in many situations, a person with a crop sensor and 18mm simply has to back up a little bit to achieve the same composition. I know, not always possible, but when it is, it sure works...

einsatz

^
Zoom with your feet. Not a problem when shooting barns, and sometimes even gives you other shots while you're walking to get the compo you want. Shoot with a prime enough and you'll get used to it.

That said, widest I have is 17mm (on the 17-55) but IQ is so bad at the edges that I rarely use the full crop at that focal length