Go Back   Sports Car Forum - MotorWorld.net > Hobbies and Leisure Time > Photography



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2005, 08:05 PM   #16
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by jakaracman
Originally Posted by nthfinity
Originally Posted by ZfrkS62
if i dont start sharing photos on a regular basis, somebody slug me, and PM with absurd comments...

An open invitation to flame? ooh this is my lucky day you have 2 days before the flames begin j/k

hope you have fun with your glitzy top of the line camera
hehe, keep pestering me, i'll be bound to post pictures of my sightings... yeah, i had a hard time choosing that i wanted this camera (the cost really, but i hope to be able to off-set it with earnings from energyrecoverysystems... and still be able to buy a 'vette... hopefully

anyway, as promiced some early test pictures:
please keep in mind, i just clicked some unkown setting for shutter speed/ quality/ ISO etc. and just chose a focus and snapped away... so these first shots will be CRAP even so, i can tell this will be simply amazing quality photos!
Youn need to learn how to use AF, both cars are out of focus ...
mabey you didn't read what i said... "so these first shots will be CRAP"

the second is not out of focus... just not the fucus you wanted it to be, the first... blame that on a hand not as steady as a tripod... and not knowing what buttuns do what; also low light levels requiring longer exposure time.

i'll be the first to say it, but AF sucks balls... conversely, it is the best working one ive yet seen
so put up or shut up :fist:
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2005, 05:12 PM   #17
Toronto
Regular User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,252
Default

did you shrink down the size of the images? your new cam is amazing, blows my new rebel the hell out of the water

please try a shot like this
I made it smaller, and lowered the quality to "6" in PS
www.nocureknown.com/edit1.jpg
__________________
Toronto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 12:26 AM   #18
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

that looks great toronto! i'll go try it now
EDIT: ISO 1600, 400, and 100 ... with focal length 38mm, 33mm, and 34mm all saved at a quality of '6' in PS
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 05:49 AM   #19
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

WOW, even at ISO 1600 there isn't much grain! If you have time, just out of curiosity, can you please take two pics outside, one at ISO 1600 and the other at 100? Thanks in advance
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 01:40 PM   #20
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by TT
WOW, even at ISO 1600 there isn't much grain! If you have time, just out of curiosity, can you please take two pics outside, one at ISO 1600 and the other at 100? Thanks in advance
your wish is my command this is one of the things that drew me into buying the 20D
(this is my back yard) 8)
first ISO 100, second ISO 1600 to fit on imageshack, i saved the files at a ps quality of 5
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 02:46 PM   #21
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

First of all, what a peacefull backyard

And second, indeed grain is really low compared to my Pro 1 wich I have blocked at ISO 50 (wich is 100 in reality).

But it seems the 20D at 100 ISO is a bit slow (do you remember the shutter speed?)
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 03:33 PM   #22
jakaracman
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Ljubljana, Slovenia
Posts: 665
Default

Originally Posted by nthfinity
mabey you didn't read what i said... "so these first shots will be CRAP"

the second is not out of focus... just not the fucus you wanted it to be, the first... blame that on a hand not as steady as a tripod... and not knowing what buttuns do what; also low light levels requiring longer exposure time.

i'll be the first to say it, but AF sucks balls... conversely, it is the best working one ive yet seen
so put up or shut up :fist:
Hey, I just wanted to say these AFs are hard to learn to use properly. I occasionaly use 1D Mk 2 and i havent got a clue about all the AF options our regular photographers use, so results are more or less poor ...
1st thing you need to learn is AF lock ... Then you can have the subject anywhere in the frame and still sharp ...
jakaracman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2005, 11:08 PM   #23
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by TT
First of all, what a peacefull backyard

And second, indeed grain is really low compared to my Pro 1 wich I have blocked at ISO 50 (wich is 100 in reality).

But it seems the 20D at 100 ISO is a bit slow (do you remember the shutter speed?)
yes, that is the important part. and i agree, mine @ 100 felt slow compared to my sony.. which at 800 was extreamly grainy... i had that docked @100

the first
ISO 100
3/10"
F 8.0

the second one
iso 1600
1/80"
F 8.0
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2005, 12:46 PM   #24
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

hell indeed to have a 1/80 (for me, anything under 1/60 is too slow without a tripod), you need to use ISO 1600 :shock:

bizarre that F was always at 8.0, maybe it was set there manually? beucase for sure at ISO 100 usually in auto mode the camera should lower that value to speed up the shutter a bit
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2005, 08:46 PM   #25
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

bizarre that F was always at 8.0, maybe it was set there manually? beucase for sure at ISO 100 usually in auto mode the camera should lower that value to speed up the shutter a bit
i put it @8.0 for a better comparison
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2005, 03:37 AM   #26
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

I guessed so

Ah yes, I think I forgot to put my usual blabber in this topic: buy a polarizer filter asap if you plan to shoot car pics (*cough* and a tripd *cough*)

edit - ok just noticed in another topic that you already have the filter
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 04:09 AM   #27
SDK2003
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Solihull - UK
Posts: 502
Default

Originally Posted by nthfinity
just found out the 20D doesnt do video small sacrifies
You bought an D-SLR and didn't already know this !?!?!
__________________


|| Canon 20D x2 | 17-40L | 24-70L | 100 USM Macro | 100-400L IS | 580EX ||
SDK2003 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 08:19 AM   #28
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

BTW, since this topic was brought back up, I have a question.

Were you latest pics like the one in your signature taken with the 20D? if so, did you do some editing to the pics? The colors, contrast and saturations are VERY weird and not really top stuff like such camera should do. So I was just wondering if it is done afterward while editing the pics or if it's a problem with the settings
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 10:18 AM   #29
nthfinity
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Detroit
Posts: 9,929
Default

Originally Posted by TT
BTW, since this topic was brought back up, I have a question.

Were you latest pics like the one in your signature taken with the 20D? if so, did you do some editing to the pics? The colors, contrast and saturations are VERY weird and not really top stuff like such camera should do. So I was just wondering if it is done afterward while editing the pics or if it's a problem with the settings
i have to admit several things... one, im always in manuel mode. i do this for a few reasons.
1. it helps give me a better idea of what settings work in what light conditions... helps me learn.
2. its easier most of the time in ideal light conditions once i find what works.

there are a few drawbacks, however.
1. when light condidions are changing (e.g. nearer to sunset/clouds) and if i dont happen to think about it, then the picture ends up too dark, or too bright...
2. then perhaps the white balance is off (sometimes im not changing settings since i stop thinking about it) (this itself will give strange colors to the images

when the image is too dark, and/or white balance is off, then when editing some of the images, it may be bright enough... but finding the balance thats close enough to what i saw in person isnt easy
----the 355 spider i shot is a prime example of this. the morning light was bright, but the gas station he was parked at was much darker... so i ended up with very low values of color. i put it in PS, and brightning this up alone didnt work, as the red looked wrong, so i ajudsted the color curve of the reds to bring out the Corsa Rosa... which looked good for the car itself, but not so much for its surrounding environment.

the opposite happened later at Concorso, towared the end, it took some shots of a DB2 in the shade, and left the settings active... just as some of the show stopping Ferrari 250's, 275, Dino, Porsche 550 RS... etc. were leaving down the road, there was serious overexposure. the result is that most of the cars themselves turned out somewhat satisfactory, but the baground is beyond repair.

the image in my sig was just a quick job that wasnt even close to right in PS, but i didnt care so much, as the larger image i posted looked much better; the only editing i did was make the image a little greener in the background, and IMO, helped it look less 'dry' without sacrificing the color of the cars much.

other images, i suppose you could say i didnt care quite so much about the background, opposed to making the car's color looking better. so you are really, quite right about the saturations/colors being wierd in some of the pictures.

really, it either is too warm, or too cold. for the most part, i think the greens arent too strong.

really, im still an amature... but getting better
__________________
www.nthimage.com
Car photography website
nthfinity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2005, 03:55 PM   #30
TT
Regular User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
Default

Thanks for the explanations, but isn't it a bit risky to learn while taking "important" pics and risk to mess up? wouldn't it be better to do the testing before a meeting or such and go there with the needed setting in mind?
__________________
TT is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump