File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Post your zoo shots. Underexposure can be good. Fortunately for me, the bear's white fur was reflective enough to where I had to expose for him, and everything else turned black.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution540 dpiVertical Resolution540 dpiImage Created2008:10:10 19:05:50Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Honest So You Dont Have To Be !9UISPtwBPo
>>272863

So your saying there was no shooping in this what so ever?

Am going to call BS on this
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
>>272863
>>Underexposure can be good.
Oh u
>> Anonymous
post HR
>> Anonymous
>>272865
Well, of course I had to sharpen (a must), edited curves a bit, and some slight contrast and color corrections. Other than that, no shooping.

If you look at the photo on the monitor at a diagonal, you can still see finger prints on the glass. Hence, no shoops.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>272863

Here's the original file for comparison.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareVer.1.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern670Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution540 dpiVertical Resolution540 dpiImage Created2008:10:10 19:12:44Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>272869
"I didn't shoop it i swar"
>> Anonymous
>>272871

lulz sumuvus have talentz
>> Anonymous
so you bough a d50 so you could shoot at 900*600.

Bullshit.
>> Anonymous
>>272874

Lol, I only do a low resolution so it's not stolen. I don' t have PS so I can't do watermarks. Unless someone teaches me how to do watermarks in Lightroom. I'm a noob to digital developing.
>> Anonymous
>watermarks
>stolen
>4chan

shut the fuck up you pussy. Not only you aren't going to sell this picture, but you think we're going to believe you. No.

Post a screenshot of the NEF or original JPG in your editing program of choice faggot.
>> Anonymous
ALRIGHT YOU GOT ME IT'S NOT EVEN MINE.
>> Anonymous
Photos being "printed" for a computer monitor should be resized to an appropriate size, one that will fit on the monitor.

I do anywhere from 500 to 1000 pixels on the longest side for horizontals (verticals obviously unfortunately limited), usually around 750-800, depending on what works best for the image. Same thing as picking a size for your wet prints.
>> Anonymous
>>272880
I'm not OP, just to make that clear, but anyone posting high res shots for people to look at on the Internet is doing it wrong. Not because of loltheft, but because it's just not how to present when 99% of people looking at it will be doing so on a 1024x768 monitor.
>> Anonymous
except that no one use 1024*768 anymore you retard.

So get over it and post proof newfag.
>> Anonymous
>>272875
>>272869
>>272863

Not buying it at all, faggot.

Either post the original shot, you know, with the lame bokeh of the stones/ice/tank in the background and a shitty rippled reflection of the people gathered around, or go the fuck back to DA.

Also: The shot I'm describing above would be shit. Your shoop is, too, but still.
>> Anonymous
>>272892

Uh, I kind of DID post the original shot? You know, the second one? I mean, it's okay to be jealous, but.
>> Anonymous
wtf is this thread full of trolls or what? Interesting photo op.
>> Anonymous
>>272898

Thank you, kind sir.
>> Anonymous
>>272891except that no one use 1024*768 anymore you retard.

lol, maybe in our circles but the web standard is still 10 by 7 and will probably be for at least a few years

w3c ftw
>> Anonymous
hey op, post the original so we can move on to other threads, khx
>> Anonymous
>>272901lol I kinda already did lol. The only thing was it was in a low resolution, lol.
>> Anonymous
>>272907

don't let these anonfags get to you, man

they're always like that when you can take better pictures than they do, they do nothing but troll. it's always the same for beethy/heavyweather/dc
>> Anonymous
>>272911
Yup, OP, you now just need a name and a tripcode to be EXACTLY LIKE THEM: untalented and overrated.

I think the suitable name would be "polarbearblack". I'll let you decide on the trip.
>> Anonymous
>>272863
>Fortunately for me
>UNFortunately for me

Yup.

I actually believe you that this is not a shoop. However, that doesn't make it all good: Unfortunately, the shadows in the eyes of the polar bear make it lose its bear shape, I at first didn't know what the fuck was it. I actually had to double-read your post.
>> Anonymous
>>272925
Thanks for the criticism. I know it's not an amazing photograph. But it is an interesting accident, as this was taken in broad daylight.. outside.
>> Anonymous
>>272927

Had this been shot in RAW, maybe you'd be able to play with tone mapping, to fix the eyes without shooping.
>> Kilz2latex !!3htj9hFDMA4
originals better...
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Man you guys are fags.

>>272863
Anyway, decent shot and an okay shop op. Assuming you shot in raw, and looking the rescale of the original, you removed the eye detail. Pop this open again and make a version of it to pull out the eye detail, copy it paste as a layer for the first image and mask out everything but the eye. In the very least fake some kind of eye detail man.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
     File :-(, x)
I got bored, you should be able to balance it better if you work from scratch, and I'm way to lazy to balance it properly.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern738Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution540 dpiVertical Resolution540 dpiImage Created2008:10:10 22:46:06Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width600Image Height399RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>272925
I knew since the very first time I saw the pic it was a polar bear. You must be retarded or something.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
?

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D50Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 MacintoshMaximum Lens Aperturef/5.7Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern738Focal Length (35mm Equiv)300 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution540 dpiVertical Resolution540 dpiImage Created2008:10:11 03:19:47Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Lens Aperturef/5.6Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceCloudy WeatherFlashNo FlashFocal Length200.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width900Image Height598RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
How was this taken with a D50? I don't believe it.