Always make the best of something.

Bio's personal thoughts about stuff.

Moderator: BioHazard

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Always make the best of something.

Post by BioHazard » Mon Nov 13, 2006 8:56

I took a picture of a bottle brush plant (flower?) yesterday, it looked fine on the screen, but it was crap when I downloaded it. Here's the original:
Spoiler: Original picture
As you can see, it's a bit out of focus. I noticed it had interesting composition, so I decided to stylize it. I ran it through a few choice filters and ended up with this:
Spoiler: Stylized picture
It's definitely a little better at least.
What do you guys think?

User avatar
Phobus
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:48
Location: Orpington, Kent, England
Contact:

Post by Phobus » Mon Nov 13, 2006 18:01

Your take on it is much better, though I imagine scaling the original down a little (even in Paint) would have improved the look of the thing :P

User avatar
TheDarkArchon
Damn right I'm mighty.
Posts: 1000
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:58
Location: What's that fucking smell
Contact:

Post by TheDarkArchon » Mon Nov 13, 2006 18:34

Too much contrast there. It hurts my eyes.

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Mon Nov 13, 2006 21:00

It's abstract art, it's supposed to hurt your eyes. :)

User avatar
Risen
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48
Contact:

Post by Risen » Tue Nov 14, 2006 17:44

My advice is to take another photo.
I've seen those filters applied so many hundreds of times...

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Tue Nov 14, 2006 19:55

Risen wrote:My advice is to take another photo.
I took about 16 pictures and they were all blurry. (though not as bad as the one above). What's strange about it is that I was using a tripod.
Risen wrote:I've seen those filters applied so many hundreds of times...
Heh, I'll bet you have. It's not difficult. :)

User avatar
Risen
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48
Contact:

Post by Risen » Tue Nov 14, 2006 20:57

You didn't include the EXIF data with the photo. I'd be interested in that. (ISO, exposure, aperture, lens, etc)

Having a tripod is great, but when you deal with close-ups, things get difficult quickly. It needs to be a good, stable tripod, that can stand up to the elements in its envrionment. A friend of mine once witnesses an L-series lens go crunch when the wind blew a tripod over. Of course, if you're shooting something in the wind, you need to really crank up the shutter speed in order to avoid blur anyway.

But even with the best tripod and no wind, your hand pushing the shutter release may also cause vibration. You can use the camera's timer for this, but that can get tedious, especially since most cameras have only one timer setting: 10s. The best way is to fire it is with a cable release or remote switch.

You also need a lens that can focus at that distance... but I'll assume you're not completely blind and it looked okay in the viewfinder!

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:15

Risen wrote:Of course, if you're shooting something in the wind, you need to really crank up the shutter speed in order to avoid blur anyway.
D'oh! Yeah, it was at 1/250, I probably should have bumped it up to 1/500 at least.
Risen wrote:But even with the best tripod and no wind, your hand pushing the shutter release may also cause vibration. You can use the camera's timer for this, but that can get tedious, especially since most cameras have only one timer setting: 10s. The best way is to fire it is with a cable release or remote switch.
I use a cable release for exactly this reason.
Risen wrote:You also need a lens that can focus at that distance... but I'll assume you're not completely blind and it looked okay in the viewfinder!
Well, this is one of those cameras with a seperate viewfinder, so the viewfinder view is totally worthless for close-ups. The screen has a tendancy to look sharper than the image itself. Now that I'm making gobs of money at my new job, I'll be able to buy myself a nice camera pretty soon. (Actually, I might be able to do a bit of photography for the magazine itself too since I seem to be the only one with experience in the building. :) )

User avatar
Risen
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48
Contact:

Post by Risen » Wed Nov 15, 2006 14:17

Oh, it's a rangefinder camera? That's likely to be your problem. Rangefinders are nice when they are medium to long distance from their subject, but at short distances, they really exhibit their weakness. For macro photography, you really need an SLR.

You should look at the recently released Digital Rebel XTi... it's a pretty awesome camera for the price!

User avatar
BlazingPhoenix
Posts: 488
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:11
Contact:

Post by BlazingPhoenix » Wed Nov 22, 2006 1:58

That stylized picture looks nice. I don't really care if it hurts my eyes.. :P

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:29

Risen wrote:You should look at the recently released Digital Rebel XTi... it's a pretty awesome camera for the price!
Heh, I totally forgot about this post and that's exactly the camera I bought! Funny how that works out. :)

It seriously rocks. I really need to get a monopod though.

User avatar
Risen
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48
Contact:

Post by Risen » Wed Jun 20, 2007 14:23

I have 2 tripods. One is incredibly lightweight and compact. It goes anywhere, but I don't trust it to actually keep the camera steady. The other is much larger and sturdier, and I can get clean 30s exposures off it even when fully extended. I find this system works pretty well. I never used a monopod... I guess I'm not convinced of their usefulness as of yet.

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:54

Well, I just need the little tiny bit of extra stability and a lot of places won't let you take full-blown tripods in.

I also have a couple lightweight tripods but setting them up is a ridiculous hassle.

User avatar
Risen
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 17:48
Contact:

Post by Risen » Thu Jun 21, 2007 13:35

What's the gain in stability? (What shutter speed can you go to without blurring?)

User avatar
BioHazard
Needs more free time.
Posts: 408
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:02
Location: Middle of California where there is no air.
Contact:

Post by BioHazard » Fri Jun 22, 2007 7:17

I don't know as I've never used one. I do know my hand shakes enough to make anything slower than 1/400 often blurry. Since my lens only goes to F5.6, that's a lot.

If I have anything to rest my camera on, my shots are dramatically better.

Locked

Return to “Bio-Waste”