View Full Version : Some of my fav shots
Been a DSLR user for a couple of years and here are a few of my fav shots I've taken. Hope u like 'em.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/44/177643532_2bbfd5d479_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/182811691_ecdada632e_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/86/209209649_5a8a5938cc_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/164/364379137_839119f028_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/123/409977137_54a87e80b8_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/460379173_3a1c70480c_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3208/2815283283_5f9eb6334c_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3083/2816133974_5913d9d155_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3219/2961439934_4a20687f92_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3236/2961443648_7b8dd8b438_b.jpg
Lots more on my Flickr site: http://www.flickr.com/photos/madmac-gallery
Nice :)
Do you do any HDR stuff, or just nice lenses + some touching up? :lol:
Just looking at the last one looks like a nice subtle HDR shot!
callumburns
18-05-10, 18:20
wow those are nice shots, really professional :D
Nice :)
Do you do any HDR stuff, or just nice lenses + some touching up? :lol:
Just looking at the last one looks like a nice subtle HDR shot!
wow those are nice shots, really professional :D
Thanks :)
I use multi RAW conversion on some shots (like the last one) to achieve an HDR effect yeah - but mostly a little tweaking of the curves in post processing.
Not got any really nice lenses - got a Canon EOS 30D, with the 18-55mm kit lens, a Canon 50mm f1.8 prime, and a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG Macro f4.5-5.6
Looking to get either a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 or a Canon 17-85mm f4-5.6 IS USM at some stage to use a general walkabout lens to replace the distinctly average kit lens.
Definitely some good results there then! As you say, its not a top end set up (although its not too shabby either!! :lol:), and you've got some great photos with it!
What programs do you use to do the raw conversion?
Nice pics, love the eagle shot, birds in flight are a bitch to get and i haven't managed a decent one yet.
Definitely some good results there then! As you say, its not a top end set up (although its not too shabby either!! :lol:), and you've got some great photos with it!
What programs do you use to do the raw conversion?
I use Photoshop CS4 and usually just tweak the levels for foreground, then background then sky. Then layer them to create the final image.
Nice pics, love the eagle shot, birds in flight are a bitch to get and i haven't managed a decent one yet.
I think I was really lucky to get that one. I went back to Warwick Castle (where that one was taken) the other week and the recent attempts to recreate it are not as good. You gotta be very quick with a swooping eagle heading straight for ya :D
michaelkenward
18-05-10, 23:09
Worth the bandwidth. For once.
What's the pixel count on that camera?
Not that high if it isn't a new machine.
Do they print well?
Very nice, keep it up.
Worth the bandwidth. For once.
What's the pixel count on that camera?
Not that high if it isn't a new machine.
Do they print well?
Thanks :)
it is only 8.2Mpixel - pretty low by todays standard, but the quality of the sensor is pretty good.
They print pretty good - I've got a few on the walls at home and exhibited a few in a gallery recently.
michaelkenward
19-05-10, 10:54
Thanks :)
it is only 8.2Mpixel - pretty low by todays standard, but the quality of the sensor is pretty good.
They print pretty good - I've got a few on the walls at home and exhibited a few in a gallery recently.
I was talking to a professional photographer (a Nikon man) a couple of years ago. He was of the view that high pixel counts are the camera makers' equivalent of willy waving.
Anything above 10 MPixel is a waste of money. And, as you have shown, if you know what you are doing you can get away with less.
That's why I asked.
If anything, too many pixels can be a pain. No better quality for most users. And likely to eat storage space.
There are more important things. Sensors, for a start, as you say. ASA is a key factor here.
I was talking to a professional photographer (a Nikon man) a couple of years ago. He was of the view that high pixel counts are the camera makers' equivalent of willy waving.
Anything above 10 MPixel is a waste of money. And, as you have shown, if you know what you are doing you can get away with less.
That's why I asked.
If anything, too many pixels can be a pain. No better quality for most users. And likely to eat storage space.
There are more important things. Sensors, for a start, as you say. ASA is a key factor here.
Yeah - good lenses and a decent sensor will give you far better results than a camera with a higher Mpixel count. Before I bought a DSLR I had a Panasonic FZ-3 - only 3.2 Mpixel but it had a Leica lens. Got some cracking shots with that :thumb:
High pixel count only really matters if you are printing out larger pictures OR doing some heavy cropping.
The storage space argument is pretty moot imho not many pictures take more than 10-20mb so thats quite a few pictures to fill a dvd / hdd or something as back up and how much do they cost? When you are paying hundreds of pounds for a "half" decent lense £35 for a few hundred gb of storage space is nothing.
Some great colours!
how many of the pics are taken with the RAW bracketing? just the last one or the whole lot.
The colours in this one are really vivid!
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/193/460379173_3a1c70480c_o.jpg
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.