Author Topic: photos  (Read 4955 times)

Offline Olli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7128
photos
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2005, 10:55:34 am »
Oh btw, one other thing, while most of you camera's do all their sharpening and saturation stuff themselves, the SLR's need some post editing, I've taken one of ricks pics and did some of the usual Canon colouring sharpening on it and it will appea alot nicer already:

PRE:


POST:
who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep

Offline FoiD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9443
photos
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2005, 12:45:01 pm »
hmmm... heineken pizza
Save the world... have ur kids spayed or neutered!

Quote
Wow, that was incrediblt rude, even by your standards.
Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill Kill... Oh and send me money
Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime.
Give a man a fire, he's warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2005, 04:14:47 pm »
Well, I wasn't in the mood to fuck around with each picture individually to find the ideal saturation, brightness and gamma settings.
If I want to do large prints, I would do that, but as long as I view them with my crappy monitor, it's no use anyway

ISO settings were iso 400 for most, and iso 640 for some others..
I could have gone a bit lower on some, but ISO 400 is usually reasonable, and even at lower values, if there isn't enough light the sensor gets a bit noisy. I could of course run a color smoother over it and maybe even a gaussian and then resize to 25% to improve psychovisual quality. But it's a lot of work.
I don't have the time to invest 20 minutes or more, and I don't have a decent monitor either, so I can't save a brightness and colour state which resembles the prints the most. Making a set of about four prints just so I can recalibrate my screen is a bit excessive :-S
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Piter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8723
photos
« Reply #28 on: October 11, 2005, 04:58:49 pm »
Someone at volleyball just bought a D70 and he took some pics of volleyball last weekend.. Damn, those were bad!!!
They were all far too dark, incredibly grainy and out of focus.. Even the walls were out of focus when he took a stationary shot!   :shock:

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2005, 05:08:35 pm »
indoor shots are -very- difficult.
and the built-in flash is ridiculous.
I only use it to trigger my SB 600..
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Piter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8723
photos
« Reply #30 on: October 11, 2005, 05:23:46 pm »
Well, I've also got pictures taken by someone with a Canon 300 (or 350) and they look so much better (same sportshall, same lighting).

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #31 on: October 11, 2005, 07:54:41 pm »
and as for bees and flowers, how about this:

http://strike9.com/Rahvin83/a_bee.jpg
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Aimless

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
photos
« Reply #32 on: October 11, 2005, 08:19:53 pm »
GFL man RESIZE.
Sometimes I think, sometimes I am

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #33 on: October 11, 2005, 08:22:46 pm »
your browser should resize it for you.
Really, I can't be bothered resizing for every scrren resolution and bandwidth.

900kbyte ain't that bad.
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Aimless

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
photos
« Reply #34 on: October 11, 2005, 08:25:11 pm »
Yeah well I don't think anyone on FF would ever have a problem with 1024*768 :P
Sometimes I think, sometimes I am

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #35 on: October 11, 2005, 08:28:18 pm »
I would, because that would distort the image, and the loss of detail would be about 90%...
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Aimless

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7793
photos
« Reply #36 on: October 11, 2005, 09:10:09 pm »
FFS :P



's a nice shot :)
Sometimes I think, sometimes I am

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2005, 09:28:04 pm »
the model didn't clean before, though :(
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Fred's Bimbo Girl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5742
photos
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2005, 07:14:59 am »
Quote
Well, I wasn't in the mood to fuck around with each picture individually to find the ideal saturation, brightness and gamma settings.
If I want to do large prints, I would do that, but as long as I view them with my crappy monitor, it's no use anyway


ah, see mine are almost always for print. that bee one was a gift for my mother in law at 5"x7" size. i rarely use mine for digital stuff, except to have as a screen saver or to show friends and relatives around the world.
i'm just attracted to shiny things. and soft
fluffy things. god help me if someone ever invents a soft fluffy shiny thing.


i always knew i had to let go of dax's virginity some day *sigh*

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2006, 03:16:27 pm »


it's like a box of fries! With two fries in it!

(scanned from ISO 400 slide, shot with Leica R3 with Summicron 50/2)

Yes, it could need a little touch up, but for now, see it in its original glory..

Edit: Olli, could you disable the inline-resizing that punBB does?
Sure, it's nice when the layout stays the way it's meant to be, but scaling images is so wasteful...
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Olli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7128
photos
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2006, 03:26:24 pm »
Fuck you, resize your images and link to the original. There is no fucking need to post 6 megapixel images since most screens can't display anything that size anyway
who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2006, 03:44:19 pm »
...if you'd checked this one you'd notice that it's not even one megapixel (850*600 or so), which is precisely the reason while scaling it down by about 20% (760*500) or so absolutely cripples it.
I could link to the original, but that's a 16 MP or so image, so for that reason I'll refrain from doing so.
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Olli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7128
photos
« Reply #42 on: August 25, 2006, 03:46:27 pm »
Well the forum is fullsize and by restraining the size of the pictures I ensure NO SIDESCROLLING. I don't give a fuck about my layout, but sidescrolling gets on my nerves :P

Quote from: Rick
I could link to the original, but that's a 16 MP or so image, so for that reason I'll refrain from doing so.
What? you refrain from linking to a 16MP picture? You're getting soft these days :P
who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2006, 03:49:07 pm »
not everyone is running 800*600 on their screens olli.
I ensure you, 1000 pixels horizontally won't make anyone sidescroll.
And you least of all.
or make it a user-configurable option, then everyone gets the images scaled down however much they want.
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Olli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7128
photos
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2006, 03:50:47 pm »
Quote from: Rick
not everyone is running 800*600 on their screens olli.
I ensure you, 1000 pixels horizontally won't make anyone sidescroll.
And you least of all.
or make it a user-configurable option, then everyone gets the images scaled down however much they want.
well obviously it would make it sidescroll, otherwise it wouldn't resize it. Here at work my res. is 1280x1024 and it's not even chopped in size. it only does that when the boundries of the screen are reached.
who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #45 on: August 25, 2006, 04:08:59 pm »
Hmm, now I resized the window and it no longer scales.
Ugh, I'd prefer a little side scrolling.
As long as the HTML generating engine doesn'T stretch the other posts as well, it's not really an issue anyway.


... and now say something about my snapshot, or I'll sulk for days!
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline Olli

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7128
photos
« Reply #46 on: August 25, 2006, 04:36:09 pm »
McDonalds... you disgust me... :P

Anyway, I like it, the light seems a little to yellowish, but if I compare that to the obvious white light on the McRib box, I think we can only blame that on MackyD.

Other than that... it might be nice as an illustration of something, but the subject is utterly boring. :)
who | grep -i blonde | date; cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #47 on: August 25, 2006, 04:50:10 pm »
of course it's boring, it's not supposed to enthrall the viewer, but I like it for it's gesture mostly, and for how well the depth works.
Also, I think it would make a great poster. Mostly because of the colour composition. And the stripes on the box work out quite well too.

Anyway, the print I have is slightly brighter...the weird colours are also due to the film I used, I guess...
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.

Offline k0ge

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1393
photos
« Reply #48 on: August 25, 2006, 05:10:06 pm »
I can't see the pictures :(
The world that's made us can no longer contain us.
-Regina Spektor, The Consequence of Sounds

Offline Rick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4767
  • Omg hi 2 U.
photos
« Reply #49 on: August 25, 2006, 05:49:45 pm »
http://home.arcor.de/rahvin83/pommes.jpg

that's the link to the one.
The simplest thing is to work with n-dimensional Minkowski spacetime.