BMW MOA co-founder
Originally Posted by SheRidesABeemer
Don't you mean strapped on the passenger saddle?
− BMW MOA Co-founder (1972)
Originally Posted by SheRidesABeemer
It's funny; I've been hauling my tripod around for the past ten days or so, too. It rides very nicely but block opening my top-loading bags. Still, it's helped me get some really great images, at least IMHO.
I really like your three shots in the PA thread. Really nice stuff.
I've enjoyed viewing the photos here, thought I'd finally try it myself.
"Boathouses on Ice"
RFC: Request for Comments
So what do you all think of these? All of these are attempts to show something that is instantly recognizable as to their location but with a somewhat different perspective than what one can find any thousands of times.
The first two were shot from the Jefferson Memorial looking across the Tidal Basin at the Washington Monument and White House that form the shorter leg of the Cross laid out by them and the Lincoln Memorial and Capitol Building. While the first has better exposure of the Washington Monument and sky contrast, it’s a bit tilted.
The third shows just the White House and more of the interior of the Lincoln with more tourists in an attempt to show the contrast of what's nice about living in DC (the history and buildings) and what can be something a down side, i.e. the plague of tourists that make visiting downtown a real PITA!
The next three (above) are night shots of the Capitol at night, (DuH!) but again they seem to suffer from a slight tilt. (note here: a P&S with cross-hairs like the DSLR would be really handy!) These are attempts to show something that is instantly recognizable as being in DC, but with a somewhat fresh view, though I am sure they are not totally new, by any means. They also don’t incorporate the contrast as do the first three (inclusion of the dangnab tourists clogging everything up)! I had hoped to capture some shots of these or other landmarks with some of the street people to illustrate the contrast of whats good and bad in DC, but due the cold there just weren’t any around, so I had to settle on the next best thing, the dang tourists! Ha Ha!
And lastly a night shot of 14th street as it transects The Mall looking north at one of the Gubberment buildings that line The Mall. Not as instantly recognizable perhaps, unless you live here, but still typical of the architecture of the many buildings lining The Mall. All these are with the P&S, for the night shots I used a full size tripod, I imagine I looked kinda funny with this iddy-bitty camera on big tripod, but it was that lying on my belly on the cold, cold ground to use the little 4 inch mini-pod that I generally use with the P&S!
That is an excellent first go, nice sky and the ice is very evident, something I'm finding is not always easy to capture.
Originally Posted by grant
Glad you decided to join in the fun. Add two more of your home town or enviorns and remember to post your three final submissions in the other thread HERE
So I have some issues that I'm not sure I can correct with the camera...
While I'm not an expert, I know that in the "old days" of film, you could control the contrast and saturation of the image by controlling aperature and shutter speed. Even using different film manuafacturers made a difference.
Using my digital, I have been unable to control the contrast or saturation in the same way. If I control the aperature, all I do is control the depth of field and the shutterspeed just stops the action- or not. I haven't really tried going to full manual to see what differences I can get there, but I've played with some long exposures in dark places and liked the final product.
Anyone have tips or ideas?
BTW I've edited some of the pictures I submitted for the project, and like the edited results much better than the originals.
If you'd like to CC these, please, I could use the help.
Here's one I didn't even submit because of several reasons:
I find it too dark (yeah, I had forgotten to adjust it back to 0EV). The contrast is poor, and the distortion from the lens is pretty obvious. This may be a product of my framing the shot, but I find that my little point and shoot tends to exaggerate perspective.
So I changed it in Photoshop (I use Elements):
I used "skew" to straighten the left side of the theatre, to get it more or less vertical but it sees to introduce a "lean" to the buildings which I need to go back and straighten. I adjusted the contrast and like the final product a bit better. I suppose with further editing I may be able to get the buildings upright.
I submitted this one. It looks diagonally across a vinyard rather than straight down the rows. Again, as in the last set, the camera is level, but because of the perspective the image appears tilted- also, the left side of the image is "up hill" so technically the camera is level to gravitational force, not the terrain. I like the colors and the contrast isn't bad. An interesting thing about this shot is that everything seems to be slightly out of focus. I can't find the focal plane (I belive it was infinity), perhaps because it's so busy?
Rotated and cropped. I think I went a bit overboard on the contrast now that I'm seeing it close to the original.
Ok, I like the dark silhouettes inside the memorial. It accentuates the nameless, faceless masses that are a PITA to y'all. It's very effective, it could be anyone. Also, the second shot of the capital looked to me like I was standing on a runway and the Capital 747 is on approach.
You guys are doing such a fabulous job...we've decided to incorporate a new photo opportunity of sorts in the Owners News.
Check the homepage for the guidelines, and get your photos published!
Kool Beans! SNC1923 pointed it out me just a bit ago.
Originally Posted by mandypants
headline in today's Wash. Post "Photo Forum takes over BMW ON!" Ha Ha!
Love it, Mandy. It's a neat idea and I expect we'll get a lot of good/humorous images from this prompt. I'm already planning mine . . . .
Originally Posted by mandypants
I'll have a go.
Originally Posted by BONEY
Off the top of my flattish head, I don't think there's anything you can do to film with an aperture/shutter speed that you can't do to digital. I don't think manipulating either of these parameters would influence saturation or contrast in and of itself. You COULD influence either, however, to some degree, with exposure. And that would be true with digital as well--probably not identical, but in the same ball park.
MANY photographers underexpose their images to boost saturation, to make colors appear more rich. This can be accomplished by exposing manually and simply rolling up your shutter speed or down your aperture. This underexposure is usually only 1/3 of a stop, so it's best to do it with the +/-EV setting (I think all cameras have this). In the old days, people would set their ASA (now called ISO) to 125 even though they were shooting ASA 100 film.
Many digital cameras offer the ability to alter contrast and saturation in their menus. You can boost it, lower it, whatever. Fancier cameras allow you to set this as a custom function to be deployed when needed. Others (like my 40D) incorporate these changes into the menu under the guise of taking "portrait," "landscape," etc. shots. Each has its own contrast/saturation setting ideal for this type of photo. I had the saturation permanently pumped on my Rebel XT. Haven't found that necessary on the newer camera.
On the more mechanical end of things, if you are using a DSLR, a polarizing filter and/or lens hood is your best friend for boosting both contrast and saturation.
Finally, most people accomplish boosting contrast/saturation in PhotoShop, LightRoom, iPhoto, etc.
Of the two shots above, which are nearly identical, I vastly prefer number two. Whereas number one is a unique view of a familiar subject, number two is that and it tells a story. A familiar scene is being enacted here, and it bolsters the hidden witness feel that the viewer has when looking at the image.
Originally Posted by rocketman
I posted a couple of shots, one close up and the other far, in my set this week. Bricciphoto suggested to me that the wide shot was better as it adds a sense of atmosphere and that the viewer can see the subject in its context. I thought that was good advice, but I can't apply it here. The first photo just seem bisected to me by the lights. It's a neat shot, but it doesn't work because the receding lines distract. The close-up, however, is a dramatic, very well-exposed image. Seeing it divorced from its context is less problematic, I suppose, because it is so familiar a subject.
Originally Posted by rocketman
I've generally skipped all the different "mode" (landscape, portrait,etc) on the cameras based on mostly ignorance I suppose. I'll have the check them out. From what I can tell by manipulating the "EV" on my camera is it only serves to change the exposure less than a "stop" or shutter speed. The images appear the same, just brighter or darker... the contrast doesn't look to change much. I can manually manipulate both the aperature and the shutterspeed, but again, it only seems to adjust the brightness of the exposure and not the contrast or saturation.
Originally Posted by SNC1923
I guess I'll have to look more closely at the G9 before I drop the cash.
I looked your camera up on dpreview.com.
From the review/spec sheet, I can't tell if you can manipulate contrast or saturation (I suspect not).
You do have some interesting settings. In the "shooting" mode you have portrait and landscape. I suspect this is just a depth-of-field preference, but it may adjust the parameters in question as well.
Under "My Colors" you have a "vivid" setting. This should certainly boost your saturation. this combined with -1/3EV should produce a noticeable difference. Maybe give it a try.