the ubiquitous chip, drank in there a few times couple of mates worked in there back in the day. good shot.
It's not that I'm against processing, just as I said earlier that for me it's easier to learn the camera to get the shot than learn to manipulate afterwards. I'm probably lacking imagination as I learnt photography in the film age and although you could spend time in the darkroom we typically didn't. I am interested though, so perhaps you could take one of my shots from post 40 and improve it? I would like to see if I'm missing something and I'd like to know what can be done (like others I assume) with home tinkering rather than professional help. Perhaps you could have a go and let us know what software you use and what steps you take? I only choose post 40 as IMHO they're decent photos but as shot, so not previously improved, and are therefore a blank canvas. I am in no doubt that it has its place, my wedding photos from a few years ago were expertly manipulated but they're professional artists not "home tinkerers". I still think you need to know how to take a photo in the first place, for example in @Old Jock's before and after photos above the original still has good focus, depth, exposure and framing. I know modern cameras can do most of this but looking at the photos friends load on Facebook it's still not easy! You can't polish a turd as they say.
Found myself in jessops Sunday, and looking at the new Canon consumer SLR. 20 meg and touch screen. Makes my 350D seem like an old kodak...bet I cant take a better picture tho What surprised me was the big lens stuff, ok Tamio or whatever the brand is, being about the same price as it was 5 years ago. Still wont pay £900 tho....but ebay may get a look later
Some of the features are rather handy; touch screen for focus point etc. But you are right, the equipment is a tool and seeing and composing the shot is the real art. I was once in a really serious camera club (Cathay Camera Club) and we had a competition using disposable cameras and all had a couple of hours taking photos of a certain theme. The old boy who normally won the serious competitions using one of his very expensive Rolleiflex twin lens reflex cameras, still created amazingly good photos with the plastic lens Kodak disposable.
Well I am just a "home tinkerer" Stang. You mean the pictures at the bottom of page 2 with the bike racer and the Porsche? If you can send the original it would help, if not I can try with what's posted not sure what I'll be able to do. With all of these you are better working with RAW than JPG. A bit like the Protune with GoPro, the image undergoes much less "in camera" manipulation to permit more latitude in post processing. I'm up for a challenge even if it means more Humble Pie. IMHO what you say is all true. The most important I reckon is focus, almost everything else can be manipulated but only to a degree. As far as software I don't use Photoshop its just a step too far for me but Photoshop and Lightroom (or Adobe RAW) are the weapons of choice. Lightroom & RAW to manipulate levels etc: then Photoshop, to do more or less whatever else you want. I'm using Capture One Pro 8 its not a cheap piece of software either, but can really turnaround a well framed and focused shot that's perhaps wanting in the exposure department or needs touched up in areas. The stuff professionals and keen amateurs are doing now are amazing, one I discovered just yesterday is using the bracketing option in the camera, then using the 3 images (+1, 0, -1 stops exposure etc) to manipulate the sky and ground and then blend the 2 images together again, google exposure blending if you're interested. Another thing on the hardware front that's pretty awesome is a camera where focus can be altered in post, the Lytro Illium. I don't think its quite there yet, from the reviews I've read, it can be quirky is not good in low light and it hasn't got video yet. So its a work in progress. If you can't be bothered to go through the whole thing go to 3:30 for a taster of just one of the things that this camera can do
Rule for me, camera bodies are 10 a penny, base a a system around lenses, you can have a mediocre camera body with a fantastic high quality lens, and get a far better image, than a top body and average lens. You keep top lenses for years and years, Canon L lenses + 10 yrs old still far better than a lot of lenses sold today. Bodies change every few years now. Even an old body in the right hands in manual can do pretty well anything today's Bodies can for general photography. That said even a camera phone in the right hands takes great images with good light, every tom dick and sheila can take a decent image, now is the time to experiment with something different, infra red, Quadcoptor for different field of views, night sky photography getting popular, think out side the box
I think my mate has been experimenting with photography. I heard this morning he's been charged with " Indecent Exposure ".
I agree they are cracking shots, anyway, a bit of a quick and dirty edit and I've probably overdone the sharpening. I could improve yet further with time & this is with a very limited image to start with. Be interested to hear what you reckon Stang? I'm not sure what happened there, originally I had the 2 images side by side, anyway the one above now is the slightly breathed on image
Overcome more like... Back on topic...if I wanted a 2nd hand lens, 300mm type, whats recommended without stupid money?
Stigma 120-300 f2.8 is an awesome lens, but big money, and weighs a ton. Trouble is Bradders good lenses cost money. you could look for a 100-400 Canon L lens, they have recently replaced that lens so prices are really good on an L lens, downside is F5.6 and push / pull but in good light you can get some fantastic images, I would not go for a prime on a 1.6 crop, and if you have few lenses
