The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with 4/3rds cameras/ Image Thread

Brian Mosley

New member
Jack, I'm running a Lightzone workshop on line over on mu-43.com... picking up some fantastic ideas from the participants and pushing myself further with this fascinating application.

Here's my PAD shot for today :

E-P2 + Hexanon 40mm f1.8
1/100s f/1.0 iso200


I used some of the ideas from the lomo effect on this.

Cheers

Brian
 

Diane B

New member
The Panny Leica 45 f/2.8 thread (if there was one) has faded far away, so thought I would add a shot (actually a diptych) done handheld with the G1 and the 45--@f/2.8 in both instances.



I posted this in the Spring thread also, but thought I would add it here--just because there haven't been many with the 45.

Diane
 
K

Kirby Krieger

Guest
Hi.
This has probably come up before (I didn't search), but ... what is the reason for having a 38 page image thread? I am interested in participating in the forum, but this thread is slow to load, I have to click though the opening page in order to get to the last page, and its use and existence befuddles me.

If it's just me -- please accept my apologies for whining.

Many pleasing shots, btw.
 

roanjoh

New member
Hi.
This has probably come up before (I didn't search), but ... what is the reason for having a 38 page image thread? I am interested in participating in the forum, but this thread is slow to load, I have to click though the opening page in order to get to the last page, and its use and existence befuddles me.

If it's just me -- please accept my apologies for whining.

Many pleasing shots, btw.
No problems loading from my end................
 

kweide

New member
Hi.
This has probably come up before (I didn't search), but ... what is the reason for having a 38 page image thread? I am interested in participating in the forum, but this thread is slow to load, I have to click though the opening page in order to get to the last page, and its use and existence befuddles me.

If it's just me -- please accept my apologies for whining.

Many pleasing shots, btw.
Easy, the answer is FUN, pure fun and lust. Show own work, watch others work....photographic love....
The integrative power of pictures. Come in, join us, show your work..the reason for 38 pages of fantastic pictures
BTW: You can jump to the last entry: You see that small red square with a white arrow inside aside the name of the last contibutor ?? Press the square ...

Helping hand
E-P1, ISO3200, 17mm f2.8

 
Last edited:

photoSmart42

New member
...I have to click though the opening page in order to get to the last page, and its use and existence befuddles me.
Actually you can simply click on the Last Page link (or on any page number link for that matter) in the thread title (i.e. (1, 2, 3, ... Last Page)) and it'll take you directly to the last page.

Welcome, and enjoy.
 

m3photo

New member
Re: Emboss Light Angles

... so thought I would add a shot (actually a diptych) ...
Diane, I like the flowers - there's a but coming here somewhere, she thinks ...
But have you noticed the angle of light on the embossing? Photoshop has always had a quirky error in that by default the angle of light on their frames is at (minus) 55 degrees when the correct one is diagonally opposite; i.e. 135 degrees, that is, coming down from the top left corner and not up from the bottom right. Try running their "Wood Frame" action in the Sample Actions set then open the ensuing Blending Options dialogue and there you will see the figures - now in the Shading section reset the Angle figure to 135 degrees. Now does it seem more natural? If you agree, do the same to each part of your diptych.
:angel:
 

Diane B

New member
Re: Emboss Light Angles

Michael, I'll have to check that but I use layers/canvas sizing, layer styles to do it and actually set the angle myself for the bevel---so I can't blame PS LOL.

I just went through what I normally do (for those I didn't use my own action which are created for 3:2 and 4:3) and I use +135 deg. and set the bevel for down--I suppose that's the difference. Interestingly enough, I didn't even realize there were any sample frames in PS--I had to find them and load them. Always have used my own actions.

I'll play with the changes--thanks for the tip.

Diane


Diane, I like the flowers - there's a but coming here somewhere, she thinks ...
But have you noticed the angle of light on the embossing? Photoshop has always had a quirky error in that by default the angle of light on their frames is at (minus) 55 degrees when the correct one is diagonally opposite; i.e. 135 degrees, that is, coming down from the top left corner and not up from the bottom right. Try running their "Wood Frame" action in the Sample Actions set then open the ensuing Blending Options dialogue and there you will see the figures - now in the Shading section reset the Angle figure to 135 degrees. Now does it seem more natural? If you agree, do the same to each part of your diptych.
:angel:
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
... windowshopping


Panasonic G1 + Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
ISO 160 @ f/2 @ 1/30 second


comments always appreciated, thanks for looking!
 
D

Devon Shaw

Guest
Re: ... windowshopping


Panasonic G1 + Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
ISO 160 @ f/2 @ 1/30 second


comments always appreciated, thanks for looking!
Oh I like this.
A lot more creepy and surreal than your usual work.
I'm wondering how it would work with the baby in focus and the lights blurred... I think your way is probably better but did you try both?
 

Diane B

New member
Re: ... windowshopping

Ooooo---or maybe its ohhhh---I like this one. Devon's comment about it being 'creepy' was interesting, but it is surreal. Its another of those that starts a story in one's head--and gets you to look again--and deeper.

Diane



Panasonic G1 + Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
ISO 160 @ f/2 @ 1/30 second


comments always appreciated, thanks for looking!
 

Terry

New member
Leica77 - looks like the men's stort at Bergdorf's

Diane- missed the flowers yesterday....they look great sprouted through the snow?

Godfrey- like that shot a lot. Don't know that I would love being toted around that way..
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: ... windowshopping

Thank you's to Terry, Diane and Devon for commenting! :)

Oh I like this.
A lot more creepy and surreal than your usual work.
I'm wondering how it would work with the baby in focus and the lights blurred... I think your way is probably better but did you try both?
It's an interesting question and one I've been thinking about lately. It asks more about the process of vision to capture than about technical specifics ...

In a more generalized form, it comes to: "When you see something that suggests a photograph, how many different ways of capturing it should you try to ensure that you 'get it'?" The answer depends on many things, most of them dynamic and of the moment at hand ... is the subject static or in motion? does the light last or not? does your vision see opportunity for several framings, or is one particular thing about what you see all you're interested in? are there opportunities for alternative DoF, alternative focus placement, etc, that need to be exploited?

What the question boils down to in many cases is "how well formed is the intent of your making an exposure?" ... or "how much are you paying attention to the scene at hand?"

This is a static subject. While the light was changing fairly rapidly, I had only some minor interference from passing headlights to work around for the four or five minutes I was in the locale shooting. I could have made many exposures trying different things.

But I knew upon seeing this scene what it was I was after. I made four exposures, two each at different apertures to slightly influence the DoF. I knew that, for me, blurry foreground objects were not going to work so my focus point was the same for all of them: on the stars. I made two exposures at each f/stop (f/2 and f/4.5) to try to ensure that I'd have at least one sharp one ... 1/30 second with a 20mm lens on FourThirds is right on the line for hand-holding, notice how the ISO has gotten pushed up by Auto ISO to 160.

When I looked at them afterwards in Lightroom, the f/4.5 shots had too much DoF for my druthers (and the better of the two was only just acceptably crisp on the foreground detail due to camera motion, I blew the other one). I wanted this softness in the background. I've also rendered this one to both color and B&W versions ... they have what is to me a very different feel.

I see the photograph as unsettling but more dreamy than creepy. I like the depth of it, and there are a ton of emotional connections that can be made symbolically between the baby, the threads of stars, the suggestions of toys, etc etc. I have to study it more myself ... something emerges here that I like very much but don't fully understand yet. ;-)
 

Terry

New member
Godfrey,
When I took a course in NY called "Roll a Day" we needed to print a contact sheet for the day (and if you were using digital you weren't to be in deleting frames). We had a very interesting discussion one night that ended up spanning the rest of the course. "How long do you stick with your subject before you move on" What was so fascinating about the discussion (and we had all the contact sheets hanging on the walls each class) was to look at the patterns of how people worked and when they gave up on a subject. For instance some photographers never did more than 6 shots and just moved on whereas others would be content to try a shot many different ways.

This provided great insight about how I personally worked but also made me think going forward if I was doing the subject justice and being creative vs just "recording the moment". Sometimes the latter is better sometimes the former pushes you in new ways which is exciting.
 
Top