Markit
How do you do that exactly? You gotta have a very still night and a steady hand or tripod.
Dunaden
Hi Mark, do you know of the canon super shot 50x zoom? Im looking to get one....and then , my next question, which I'm fairly confident of what this forum will suggest....but....I'm looking to leave this camera...with a local person to take and download onto a website photos for me , which will be for sale....what I'm wondering is if anyone had any advice on how I can prevent myself from hearing that "err sorry I lost your camera!" When I get back to Aus? I've thought maybe a $$ bonus each 3 or 6 months? Obviously thy will get paid to fake the photos....and well-no camera-no income...thoughts?
Dunaden
Thanks Mark, the local person would be getting paid weekly definitely , with the 3/6 month bonus an incentive to "not lose" the camera. I hear what your saying....and maybe I will contact you if I come back in 6-7 weeks to get this going...to give me some paid(of course) photography lessons....but I think that is all I'd need...as they don't need to be Nobel winning shots...I know dlsr(or something like that) is the go...but they are beyond budget for the end sale price/product forecasts etc. and I'd be looking to spend a couple of weeks playing with the camera before I passed it on...
SHoggard
. Also, are people going to buy imagery shot by someone without a photographers 'eye'. I guess there are certain genres of imaging that need no skill but if it's beautification shots, landscapes, portraits etc etc then the shooter should have at least some grounding in the understanding of photographic theory. Cheers,Mark.[/QUOTE]Buying a camera is like buying a car, it takes some understanding of physics (light, refraction etc) AND art (angles, cropping, subject etc) just as driving needs an understanding of velocity, rules of the road and spacial awareness.... both take instinct, neither can be 'picked up in A couple of weeks'Mark, how long did it take you to sell your 1st pic? Sorry to crap on another get rich quick scam.... if it were that easy every tourist would be millionaires
Dunaden
Yes I'm hearing you....no offence taken. Without sounding like a wank....the only worry I have is the camera going walkabout.....the rest will be fine:disgust:
Markit
Hey Markit,Half moon, ISO340 on a Canon 5DMkII, f2.8 using a 15mm fisheye. Locked off on a tripod at 25sec exposures. I had an electronic shutter release plugged in and locked so it tripped the shutter immediately once the previous frame had been shot. The good thing is there were five people all in shot but due to the moving around, long exposures and only blending the light areas from each frame they simply disappear. Geeky enough for ya?Cheers,Mark.[/QUOTE]I get the theory but it sounds like the practice is way outside my price range. The camera alone is worth 5k isn't it? Do you simply (haha) overlay each subsequent shot and mask out the stuff you don't want choosing for light areas? How do you stop the movements from blurring the shots with such long exposure times - I know - idiot questions but what have I got to lose?
SHoggard
Dunaden: Depends how well you know the recipient.... 8-10 years, married their sister... you'd be safe.Some dirver you met on your last trip? I'd say a $6k camera would go walkabout the second you cleared imigration (you know the old Balanese saying "A Canon in the hand is worth a bird in the bush"
no.idea
Mark, I have a few "friends" that I would like shot. Are you interested in a bit of side line work?
JohnnyCool
[B]CanonMan[/B] went to a lot of trouble to create his excellent image. However, what nobody here so far has mentioned is the ability to capture good still-shots from video footage. Many point-and-shoot cameras these days have surprisingly good video modes. I have a Canon S95 which I think is brilliant for what it is. I can stick it in my pocket and it takes very acceptable images (both still and video). Don't get me wrong - I am not suggesting it's better than a dedicated DSLR with interchangeable lenses. Unless one wants [I]really[/I] professional results, (and the price tag that goes with that), the little buggers are nothing to sneeze at.I also have a tiny Uniden car camera - it cost me $70 and even it is capable of some stunning results. It's by no means a GoPro but it cost me about a quarter of the price. It can also take still shots, works at night, records audio and is pretty good (for what it is).Image editing software, like Photoshop CS6 and plugins like Topaz can do wonders with "ordinary" images. On-One's suite includes an image enlargement component that can blow-up images to amazing sizes without losing discernable image quality using fractal technology.I had one still image captured from a video off my Uniden iGo-300. Unfortunately, I can't find it on my various external hard-drives. But - it looked amazingly good.As a short, quick and nasty test, I ran a random movie, stopped it somewhere and took a screen shot (Alt-PrintScreen). Saved it as a TIFF and opened it up in Photoshop CS6. I then spent a few more minutes adjusting the levels, and used Topaz filters to tweak it a bit more.I had to save the end results as Jpeg files (not as good as the "original" - Jpegs are a lossy format - which means every time you try and modify a Jpeg, the quality goes down).Anyway, for what it's worth, here are some very rough and ready results, hopefully for your enjoyment.[ATTACH]1695.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]1696.vB[/ATTACH][ATTACH]1697.vB[/ATTACH]:icon_lol:
JohnnyCool
I love seeing what happens when you give a camera to a child and let them go for it.No knowlege of depth of field, hyperfocal plane, ISO, rule of thirds, lighting, etc. [B]No[/B] "rules" to confuse them from taking pictures.And they often come up with very interesting "shots".I agree with you completely about people toting super expensive cameras and not knowing how to do anything with them.A "picture", "snapshot", "photograph" can be anything. The ultimate quality of the actual image varies, of course.Last century, I had a Kodak Brownie Box camera. A total pain in the arse (in retrospect). No controls what so ever.You threw in a roll of film, took the shots, got them processed and cut your wrists later.Unless at least one of the images was OK.Cartier Bresson supposedly shot several rolls of film every day before breakfast. He reckoned if he got [B]one[/B] decent photo, he was on a winner.These days, with digital cameras, smartphones with on-board cameras, [I]everybody[/I] is a "photographer".Unfortunately, not everyone can cut the mustard as far as turning an image into a stunning image.[I]Something like that.[/I]As you allude, what camera one has (cheap/expensive), has little to do with the magic of taking images.The art of "seeing" takes time, but [I]can[/I] be learned (usually through practice).Some of the best photographers are those who take many photographs and learn from their mistakes.And one day, maybe someone will buy 'em.:icon_eek:
