Wow, I had army men like that as a kid, exactly like those. Me and my brother had blocks and stuff and set them up. Then we would shoot rubber bands and try to knock each others down :)
jonlevine
July 24th, 2006, 03:21 PM
Wow, I had army men like that as a kid, exactly like those. Me and my brother had blocks and stuff and set them up. Then we would shoot rubber bands and try to knock each others down :)
I drove around for HOURS looking for them! I had no problem finding robotic-cybernetic-remote-control dinosaurs, but little green army men were no where to be found! Shows you what kids are interested in these days. No low-tech toys!
I like the 3rd one, I thought the 4th was a still from Toy Story :D . Look through the whole view finder and don't waste any space. Your legs are the greatest phtographic accessory, try not to use the zoom for a while, fix on 50mm focal length - 35mm film equivalent.
mrbshouse
July 24th, 2006, 09:10 PM
Looks like your getting some good results and I hope your shooting digi as you'll save a fortune! If your shooting over 6MP ezprints can get you enlargements 20x30 or better.
Digi lets you shoot crap like the attached for no reason other than you can ;-)
zimmy
July 24th, 2006, 11:06 PM
I drove around for HOURS looking for them! I had no problem finding robotic-cybernetic-remote-control dinosaurs, but little green army men were no where to be found! Shows you what kids are interested in these days. No low-tech toys!
I had the same problem finding them for my boys. I finally found them at Dollar Tree of all places.
I hope you're enjoying your class - keep up the good work.
SALocalcom
July 25th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Yes, I agree that digital is a lot fun. You can do a lot of image manipulation, fast and easy...it's cheap, too.
http://www.salocal.com/images/geese-bw.jpg
....but there are things you can do with film, especially black and white that you'll never match with digital.
http://www.salocal.com/images/oak-opt.jpg
My 2 cents....get a 30 year old camera, 100ft. of plusX and you'll learn more about photography than you could ever get out of a class (hands on).
http://www.salocal.com/images/f2x300pxl.jpg
jonlevine
July 25th, 2006, 09:48 AM
Wow, what a response!
Paul Ward: I've got a few books, but I've always been more of a "hands on" kinda guy. I've always learned by doing and that's what this class has been helping with. You did say exactly what my teacher said, about your legs being the best accessory.
mrbshouse: I am shooting digital. I have an Olympus E-500 (8MP). The prints that I've made from it have been unbelievable! It's funny that you uploaded the shot you did because I took one similiar on my drive home from my class last week. It's below.
Zimmy: That's EXACTLY where I found mine! I couldn't even get them at Toys R US! The Dollar Tree however, had tons of them.
Salocalcom: I actually have a camara that I inherited from my dad. It's an old Nikkomat that's probably from the late 60's. I've messed around with it and shot some pictures that turned out pretty good, but you just don't get the instant feedback with film that you get with digital. IMO, you experiment a lot more with digital because you can. Just my .02.
http://affiliate.thenerds.net/photos/bulb.jpg
mrbshouse
July 25th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Jon,
Very cool ;-) gota love the digi! I also have a nice 35 mm, but the film is getting old since i went digi some 12k images ago
Looks like you held the zoom at a steady rate, for fun try zooming in an out with a longer exposure, but your miles ahead to have such a smooth road to start. The one I posted was taken while stopped and I simply zoomed in during the exposure.
Did you take the army guys with a micro attachment, or was that the camera's default lens on closeup? Nice depth of field for such a small target...what was the light source?
I looked up the camera...Nice Bro! On the prints, I know there are plenty of affiliate ops for digital processing, but ezprints is the only place that I know of that will send you a sample print to calibrate your screen, so what you see is what you get (after calibration) and the prices are just as cheap if not less than the others. I had a 20x30 printed with no loss of detail...thier rip is amazing!
B;-)ing,
Attached a closeup of an old 3d map of LA...who knew LA had mountains ;-)...er I mean faults
Paul_Ward
July 25th, 2006, 03:19 PM
I've gone over to digital myself, currently have a Fuji F810 - I thought it was the closest I could get to a Leica compact without spending silly money. Also I can get a u/w housing fairly cheaply for diving / snorkelling. It still feels too "digital" to use - I like straightforward knobs and dials where you know what you're doing - no endless push-button menus offering to do stuff I have intention of doing.
Been thinking about getting a digital SLR for some time now, but haven't as I couldn't really justify it - might get one anyhow.
I was thinking about the Olympus - how is it Jon? I had this naive idea that digital SLR's would be small and compact - I learnt photgraphy and took most of my best shots on a fully manual Pentax MX, small, virtually indestructable, simplke to use and delivered great 35mm results. I rather hoped there would be a digital equivalent, but for some reason they're huge!
Digital requires something of a different mind-set of image manipulation and I find of discipline to get the shots. Film was never cheap so I never just shot it off and hoped for the best, each shot was more thought out. The "problem" with digital is that as each shot is so cheap I just blat them off and then have the idea that I've already taken loads of shots, so stop. The result if I'm not self disciplined about it is loads of pictures none of which is as good as half the number I'd have taken on 35mm.
Digital is great, especially when preparing pictures for the web - printing is easier too, I have a A3+ Epson Photo 2100 printer - but I'm glad I learnt on 35mm and with chemicals in a dark room.
mrbshouse
July 25th, 2006, 03:28 PM
Paul,
everything you learned on the 35 will apply in digital except the chem ;-)
a good DSLR can be just like your 35, although the knobs will be buttons will be in a new place. Olympus & Canon both have great 8 mp DSLRs for under a grand.
jonlevine
July 25th, 2006, 03:38 PM
mrbshouse: actually that "streak" shot was taken with the camera on "bulb" and resting on the dashboard of my car while driving! Yeah, I know, not safe, but it turned out to be pretty cool.
The army guy was taken with a macro "filter" that screws on to the front of my 14-55mm. I used all natural lighting for the shot (after all, I am in the sunshine state!).
I'll definately check out ezprints the next time I'm ready to make some hard copies. I love that picture of the map! I love the DOF and the texture is great with the lines on the mountains.
Paul Ward: I love the Olympus. I really researched a lot before I pulled the trigger on the purchase and after looking at everything in the marketplace, I went with the E-500. For the money, I truly feel it's the most full featured camera on the market and it executes perfectly. Plus, now with Sigma starting to make lenses in the 4/3 mount (which was the only drawback to the new system), I'm able to get glass at decent prices.
I think that the manufacturers kept the size of the dslr's consistent with their film cousins (actually, most are just adaptations of film bodies) because pro's were accustom to the "feel". That being said, my Oly is extremely lighter than other dslrs on the market because they built the system from the ground up and didn't convert one of their old film bodies.
Regarding your comments about film shots vs digital: I agree, with digital you can just keep snapping away and hope you get something. However, I also believe that you are more apt to attempt shots that you might not have or shoot things a few different ways (differnt apertures, f/stops, etc) with digital than with film for the same reason.
SALocalcom
July 25th, 2006, 05:05 PM
....film shots vs digital: I agree, with digital you can just keep snapping away and hope you get something. However, I also believe that you are more apt to attempt shots that you might not have or shoot things a few different ways (differnt apertures, f/stops, etc) with digital than with film for the same reason.
Let's see, how much are those color ink cartrages?
I'm getting 100 feet of PlusX for $32 (what 800 or more images?), fresh w/2008 expiration.....and 50) 20x24 Ilford Multigrade RC for $60. True I tend only to print 12x18s, but how many 8x10s are in a box like that?? That's pretty cheap fellas.....so if I choose to, I can shoot like a nut, or plan each shot. It does take longer to process...., but $15 for 4 mos. worth of chemicals.
jonlevine
July 25th, 2006, 05:18 PM
Let's see, how much are those color ink cartrages?
I'm getting 100 feet of PlusX for $32 (what 800 or more images?), fresh w/2008 expiration.....and 50) 20x24 Ilford Multigrade RC for $60. True I tend only to print 12x18s, but how many 8x10s are in a box like that?? That's pretty cheap fellas.....so if I choose to, I can shoot like a nut, or plan each shot. It does take longer to process...., but $15 for 4 mos. worth of chemicals.
I stand corrected. I don't shoot film so I'm not too up on the economics of it.
I don't print out my own pics at home, though. I usually order them online and have them sent or take them to my local Target and have them run them on the machine.
mrbshouse
July 25th, 2006, 05:20 PM
don't forget processing fees, then if you'd like to share these with anyone away from your living room, you'll need to scan them. If you intend on using any for stock photography you'll still need to scan, catalog and then burn a disk for submission.
The argument used to be quality....that's no longer such a sticking point, unless your using a 4x5 or something (then again there are 13mp and larger available too ;-)
Film will never go away completely, but it's not like I ever needed to have all my crapy photos printed either.
MichaelColey
July 25th, 2006, 05:28 PM
The other major difference with digital is that you only print the good ones. I've taken thousands of digital pictures in the past few years, but I bet I've only had a couple hundred printed. At $0.15 each, that's like $30 total.
It's definitely better to use a service to get digital prints rather than printing them yourself. Not only is it cheaper, but the quality is much better. Time isn't an issue anymore, either. You can upload them to local places like Wal-Mart or Sams and pick them up an hour later.
MichaelColey
July 25th, 2006, 05:31 PM
Also, for some fairly basic photography lessons, check out the show "The Whole Picture (http://www.diynetwork.com/diy/shows_dtwp/0,2499,DIY_23301,00.html)" on DIY Network. Some of it is pretty basic, but some of their tips and hints are really helpful.
ABCMonkey
July 25th, 2006, 07:02 PM
I stand corrected. I don't shoot film so I'm not too up on the economics of it.Well, Jon and everyone, I am a film guy with several Nikon cameras including an F5. Just love the camera and enjoy shooting with it. However, I think there are certainly arguments for both digital and film formats.
For me, going digital meant that I did not need to lug all my heavy equipment with me just to take vacation and family shots. Digital meant more convenience and cost savings (relating to color film) since I could shoot and shoot and shoot without any worry about how much the images would cost to process and print. Meant it was easier to send copies to family and friends with relative ease.
Although, charging the battery and downloading a full card is something to mindful of when shooting digital. Not really a big deal. And digital is come a long way, too. The quality is so good now. Almost as good as film.
However, if you were trained in the conventional darkroom sense, then anyone knows how easy it can be to process your own black and white film and print it. I still prefer film for black and white. Although I have scanned countless images and placed them into Photoshop for further manipulation.
I guess what has prevented me from going all digital at this point is the expense. I do not ever want to relinquish my Nikon lenses. I have newer and the older "manufactured by Nikon" lens that were superb in quality. So, my choice would be the Nikon D2X. Although a great and expensive camera, I've heard lately that Nikon has not come up to speed with quality lately, and they don't grind their own glass anymore. The latter not so important since I have every lens imaginable. I just wish I could simply buy the camera and upgrade it as time went on, instead of buying a brand new body.
I am purchasing a small camera for my color explorations. Again, not for art style work, but for vacation, family gatherings, etc type of work. The SD700 looks like a good one for that. Else, when it comes to high quality color work, I'll be extremely happy with my F5, until I finally make the big move to professional digital.
Great work Jon, thus far! I am floored by the capture quality of your Olympus E-500 (8MP). Your use of depth of field is quite nice, too. I hope to see more of it as you progress. What did you end up paying for the camera? Is battery life good?
jonlevine
July 27th, 2006, 10:53 AM
Great work Jon, thus far! I am floored by the capture quality of your Olympus E-500 (8MP). Your use of depth of field is quite nice, too. I hope to see more of it as you progress. What did you end up paying for the camera? Is battery life good?
Thanks for the compliments and sharing your experience when it comes to the subject. I've heard many of the same comments from people in my photography class regarding lenses that are already owned and switching to digital. Many of the older lenses will work with the newer digis and that is the reason, like you said, for sticking with a particular system.
As far as the Olympus goes, I'm enamoured with with it. The pictures that it takes are razor sharp and I rarely, if every, even color correct in Photoshop (all the above pictures are right out of the camera). The battery life is amazing and I only charge the battery maybe once a week, if I remember. I've never been below a half charge and I'm constantly shooting. I purchased the two lens kit (45-45mm and 40-150mm) and a Sandisk 2GB Extreme III CF card for a little less than $1,000, plus I got a $100 rebate on the camera, so it ended up being closer to $900. I recently purchased a 11-22mm wide angle that set me back a bunch, but it was well worth it (all of the pictures above, other than the army man, were shot using it). I whole-heartedly recommend the Olympus.
Le_ShareResults
July 27th, 2006, 05:56 PM
Hey Jon,
Just wanted to say great stuff you have there... keep at it!
I'm a fellow photog as well...am doing a commerical photography degree at night when I'm not affiliate marketing :)
I just wanted to share some of the pics I have had the chance to take so far, though most of them are from been locked in the studio. I'm taking a page from your book though and will be using my legs to find me some shots. Hope you like the ones I've included here. (none have been retouched, yet) heehee
Just wanted to say great stuff you have there... keep at it!
I'm a fellow photog as well...am doing a commerical photography degree at night when I'm not affiliate marketing :)
I just wanted to share some of the pics I have had the chance to take so far, though most of them are from been locked in the studio. I'm taking a page from your book though and will be using my legs to find me some shots. Hope you like the ones I've included here. (none have been retouched, yet) heehee
WOW! Great use of lighting! I love both of them, especially the first one (I'm a sucker for depth of field shots).
I actually just got back from Denver last night and took some great shots while I was out there. As soon as I can get them out of the camera, I'll post some here.
mrbshouse
July 31st, 2006, 11:29 AM
ok I was bored in the hospital on night three and had to take some pictures of the staircase...nearly got kicked out and my lack of Castillion didn't help anything ;-)
http://loeffler.com.ar/images/misc/stairs.jpg
jonlevine
July 31st, 2006, 11:32 AM
That's a really interesting composition. Had you not told me what it was, I don't think I wouldhave gotten it. At first, I thought it was a macro shot of something. VERY COOL! :super:
elbowcreek
July 31st, 2006, 04:25 PM
Nice pictures, and a fun thread to boot. Here is one picture I took a while back of my cat. Nothing really special about it, but I like the colors and lighting in it...
http://www.urlcrazy.com/assets/images/paws.jpg
Paul_Ward
July 31st, 2006, 05:11 PM
Here's a couple of shots that may be of interest taken here:
http://aam.iwm.org.uk/server.php?show=nav.00h
when I took my son earlier this year - great fun for boys of all ages!
http://www.angliangardener.co.uk/z/pic1.jpg
http://www.angliangardener.co.uk/z/pic2.jpg
10 points each to whoever names the machines :nerd:
Copyright (C) 2001 - , ABestWeb - All World Wide Rights Reserved
Trademarks are property of their respective owners
Content may not republished, in any manner, without prior written
permission
