File :-(, x, )
one
like the idea?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-T9Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution1496 dpiVertical Resolution1496 dpiImage Created2007:04:15 15:33:26Exposure Time1/320 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating80Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.33 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2356Image Height1767RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormal
>> Anonymous
not too much..

fix horizon lol
>> one
>>41551
yeah thx, good idea...
>> Anonymous
>>41549
Nice to have seen it but nothing to save. Still, the idea is nice.
>> Anonymous
is that some dominican republic
>> one
it's been shot when i was in gran canaria with my gf last week (masopalomas) - just with a small cybershot, dunno why she isn't a fan of the idea me bringing my eos 30d with a 18-200mm lens to the beach... said it kills the romantic mood - whatever :(
so the photo was just quickly edited and will be retouched soon
>> F64
>>41561
digikiddie
>> ac
>>41577
Hey Ansel, got of your own pictures to share, or are you just here because you get off on making fun of anyone who's not taking pictures on a 20x24 wet glass plate?
>> Anonymous
>>41581
lol, pwnt, and well pwnt.

>>41577
Great camera does not equal a great photo. There are ALOT of untalented, unskilled photographers out there charging a fortune for it.
Likewise, there are millions of highly talented and skilled photographers who use lower end cameras.
Plus, you'll find most professional photographers have gone digital, for the sheer efficiency, financial and editing benefits.

GB2 /b/, troll.
>> F64
>>41581
You mean 8x10 glass plate- I suppose you could do 20x24 but it's not really a doable thing, unless you're using one of the few 20x24 Polaroids left in the world (one is at my college, I never got around to using it though- mass art doesn't foot much bill)
>>41582
not pwnt at all. Most artists shoot film and then scan, which I do, in fact one of my shots are just a few threads below this one- Unless the aesthetic of the shot relies on the low quality of the shot- or the artifacting issue with digital, I see no value in using digital processes. It's just too easy for some kid at the mall to take a photo and think he's the next
gary winogrand. Put some work into your work.
>> ac
>>41586
No, I meant 20x24. People did, in fact, take pictures on 20x24 glass plates at one time. Not, you know, a *lot*, since it required you to have a strapping young lad just to carry around your "film"--not to mention all of the developing supplies to let you use a wet plate in the field--but people still did it.

>It's just too easy for some kid at the mall to take a photo and think he's the next
gary winogrand. Put some work into your work.
So said the 8x10 users when upstarts shooting on little 4x5 negatives started showing up.
So said the 4x5 users when upstarts shooting on little 6x6cm negatives started showing up.
So said the 6x6 users when upstarts shooting on little 35mm negatives started showing up.
So said the people who always manually metered and focused their 35mm cameras when autoexposure, autofocus cameras started appearing.

I'm not sure what's going to come along and make photography easier than digital, but when it does, I'm sure there will be some luddites saying that you're not a real photographer unless you're shooting on an honest-to-goodness CMOS chip rather than those newfangled whatever-comes-nexts.

Yes, most artists doing landscapes and whatnot are using at least medium format, if not view cameras. But street photographers and journalists and documentary photographers have all gone digital. You can bet your ass that if Winogrand were alive today, he'd have been first in line to get a Leica M8. The way he shot, it would have started saving him money the second day.
>> F64
>>41587
you present good points but the op sure sounds like he doesn't shoot what you listed as feasible use of the small digital format. The op photo (if it were, you know, interesting) could be improved drastically by use of EVEN 35mm film. at least I'm not getting flamed to hell for my negative stance on digital, and for that I thank you
>> Anonymous
>>41603

Eh? Using film instantly makes a photo better somehow?
>> ac
>>41603
Yeah, see, I personally think that this shot would have been just as lame on film. Wouldn't be a bad landscape without the fingers in the way (and an untilted horizon, and a decision on whether he's composing to show the sky or the land), but I don't really think the making-a-square-with-mah-fingers idea is a good one.

But hey, he's thinking outside the box and trying something new. He's got moxie, and I've gotta respect that.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>41612

That isn't true; some films out there really suck, but having an actual print or slide can sometimes make colors or textures pop more than digital can capture.

That is why I, too, still shoot film. Slide film, to be exact. For what I am photographing, digital doesn't do it for me.
>> Anonymous
>>41614
agreed. i think it was a good try, just not executed right.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
>>41603
EXAMPLE TIME: I just happened to take two shots of nearly the same scene last time I was in St. Louis. One with my Minolta SR-T-SC II film SLR, one with my Digital Rebel XTi. Let's see which one you prefer.
>> ac
     File :-(, x)
>>41617
>> F64
>>41617
the film one, obviously.
>> ac
>>41620
I agree that neither girl is ugly. Also, it's only one girl, just two pictures of her. Try to pay attention.
>> ac
>>41619
Interesting. Why is that?
>> Anonymous
>>41623
i think he was saying neither is preferable, the girl is ugly.
>> ac
>>41626
I know what he was saying, but I decided to subtly mock him for his decision to forgo punctuation.
>> Anonymous
>>41626
But that's not what he said. Grammar and puncutation is more important in some cases than others.

>>41625
He's a filmfag, obviously. No offense to film which I personally use as well. But there's no point in arguing if film is better than digital. You only have to recognize that sensors on digital cameras are different than sensors on film cameras and how color gets interpreted differently because you're simply using something different.
>> SR
>>41618

So, which is which? I'm guessing the second is film? Also happens to be the one I prefer.

Honestly couldn't tell you why I think that one is film, though.
>> Anonymous
>>41617
Ugly girls make for uninteresting photos, I care for each of them equally, which is to say not at all.
>> ac
>>41633
Now that would be telling.

I stripped the EXIF off of the Digital Rebel shot on purpose. ;)
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>41636

Funny; the lighting in both looked the same to me, actually. Though i dont' really care for either photo in general. I shoot digital for my people shots, film for the more artistic ones.
>> ac
>>41639
Yeah, neither of those are the best from that set. I was just using them because they were two shots of more-or-less the same scene, one digital and one film, that I had access to from work.

The question is whether one of them looks better simply because it was taken on film rather than a CCD, with a side order of can-you-tell-which-is-which.
>> ac
>>41641
(Er. CMOS, not CCD, in the Digital Rebel. This has absolutely no bearing on the conversation, but I'm a bit obsessive compulsive)
>> elf_man
Can't say I have the most studied eye, but I don't see any real difference in the two. The image quality seems the same.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>41641

Top's the film, bottom's the digital.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Oop sorry, will specify a little more. I said the top was the film because it's got more grain to it. As far as I can tell.
>> Anonymous
First one is film and it looks better. And I don't even own a film SLR.
>> Anonymous
>>41618
I prefer this one, but mainly because it is lit and composed better.
>> Anonymous
personally i think the second one has better quality. not talking about composition or anything else, just quality. the colors seem richer, albeit warmer, and just the overall quality looks smoother and sharper.