Jump to content

7-16 Photo Shoot


wagner
 Share

Recommended Posts

All of these are raw, not photochop, and thanks to Nic for providing the location

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_8900.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_8940.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9055.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9086.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9180.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9202.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9238.jpg

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/IMG_9256.jpg

 

 

 

Full album

http://s35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/lt1wagner/CR%207-16%20Photo%20Shoot/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More pics from ME!

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/xmod_supra/029.jpg

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/xmod_supra/098.jpg

 

WASNT SURE WHICH ONE I LIKED MORE BETWEEN THESE??? ^^^ Or down???

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/xmod_supra/102.jpg

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/xmod_supra/112-1.jpg

 

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y269/xmod_supra/127.jpg

 

I took 153 and this is all I kept... :gabe:

Edited by Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of those are underexposed, what camera are you using?

 

It's not the camera. FWIW, he's using a 10yr old D60. It's a decent camera. The exposure appears to have been caused because he was in full manual mode and had the shutter speed too high. 1/350th on those shots when he easily could have gotten away with 1/125th at that 70mm range.

 

If they were shot RAW, it can be fixed without much issue. I can probably even fix the jpeg. More to come.

 

Overall, the shots of Wagner's car work mainly because of the angle. Again, getting low like that is one technique that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the camera. FWIW, he's using a 10yr old D60. It's a decent camera. The exposure appears to have been caused because he was in full manual mode and had the shutter speed too high. 1/350th on those shots when he easily could have gotten away with 1/125th at that 70mm range.

 

If they were shot RAW, it can be fixed without much issue. I can probably even fix the jpeg. More to come.

 

Overall, the shots of Wagner's car work mainly because of the angle. Again, getting low like that is one technique that works.

 

I need.a.big boy lens :(

 

That pavement was like.a hot griddle so.there was no way I.was doing a lot of low angle stuff. I need to learn me some photochop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need.a.big boy lens :(

 

I wouldn't say that man. My good friend Penney is a class act and just went to pro lenses in 2008. Prior to that she shot film and digital, and used many of those same old school consumer grade lenses for her shoots. It's about the lighting.

 

Look through her stuff, go back to 2008 and look at her work. Consumer grade glass with an 8mp Canon 20D. I do a lot of reception work with her. She shoots the weddings, goes home and I take over from there. We trade off a lot of work together. Great photography. I'm a 2/10 compared to her.

http://adlerhouse.com/

 

That pavement was like.a hot griddle so.there was no way I.was doing a lot of low angle stuff. I need to learn me some photochop
I hear ya. I didn't read the post until around 9pm or else I would have shown up there too. The MS3 was clean and I was itching to get out.

 

Here's the best I could do with the second image given it's a highly compressed low res jpeg.

 

http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/136489654/original

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I need.a.big boy lens :(

 

That pavement was like.a hot griddle so.there was no way I.was doing a lot of low angle stuff. I need to learn me some photochop

 

I didnt even know i posted pics that they didnt want... I didnt even know they didnt want pics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the camera. FWIW, he's using a 10yr old D60. It's a decent camera. The exposure appears to have been caused because he was in full manual mode and had the shutter speed too high. 1/350th on those shots when he easily could have gotten away with 1/125th at that 70mm range.

 

If they were shot RAW, it can be fixed without much issue. I can probably even fix the jpeg. More to come.

 

Overall, the shots of Wagner's car work mainly because of the angle. Again, getting low like that is one technique that works.

 

I just want to express that I never thought it was the camera. It was a statement followed by a question. I appreciate your vast knowledge, but sometimes you come off as assuming people are flat stupid.

Edited by Steve R.
made it meaner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to express that I never thought it was the camera. It was a statement followed by a question. I appreciate your vast knowledge, but sometimes you come off as assuming people are flat stupid.

 

Not sure why you took my comments that way :confused: I wasn't being condescending. Just as you had a statement followed by a question, I stated a fact answering your question and followed it up with supporting details as to what caused the underexposure. That is all. :no: However by your use of the statement and a question within a single sentence with a comma vs. two separate sentences it is completely plausible and grammatically correct to assume you did mean the underexposure was as a result of the camera being used.

 

In terms of photography related topics here on CR I don't think I have ever treated anyone as if they are flat out stupid. I've always supported those with an interest in a very constructive manner and drove the creation of the digital darkroom for just that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why you took my comments that way :confused: I wasn't being condescending. Just as you had a statement followed by a question, I stated a fact answering your question and followed it up with supporting details as to what caused the underexposure. That is all. :no: However by your use of the statement and a question within a single sentence with a comma vs. two separate sentences it is completely plausible and grammatically correct to assume you did mean the underexposure was as a result of the camera being used.

 

In terms of photography related topics here on CR I don't think I have ever treated anyone as if they are flat out stupid. I've always supported those with an interest in a very constructive manner and drove the creation of the digital darkroom for just that reason.

 

Well, looking back at it I suppose you were not trying to be condescending. I don't know why I took it that way. So, I apologize for being an ass about it. I do understand most of the basics with manually shooting a DSLR. Anyways I probably should have let it be informational for others and not act like you thought I was stupid. :fa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...