The Official TB Photography thread - f/2.8

[HEIST]

DigMe, great exposures and some great shots! I'm a fan!

[DigMe]

Thanks, Heist!

bc

[DigMe]

I don't consider myself a big landscape shooter but I do love the beauty of a sunrise and sunset.

Here is a sunrise I caught as I pulled up to work really early a couple of weeks ago. I like that I could still see a bright star or a planet in the sky as the orange of the sun was lighting up the horizon:



Yesterday as I was coming home after work and picking my son up from daycare the sunset was really nice looking. I was kind of in some trees and low areas and I was trying to chase it down and get a shot. I wasn't seeing any good vantage points towards the sunset from the church parking lot I had pulled into but I found this looking off to the side of the sunset:

[chuck norriss]

Rad

[NML1986]

Originally Posted by DigMe

I don't consider myself a big landscape shooter but I do love the beauty of a sunrise and sunset.

Here is a sunrise I caught as I pulled up to work really early a couple of weeks ago. I like that I could still see a bright star or a planet in the sky as the orange of the sun was lighting up the horizon:



Yesterday as I was coming home after work and picking my son up from daycare the sunset was really nice looking. I was kind of in some trees and low areas and I was trying to chase it down and get a shot. I wasn't seeing any good vantage points towards the sunset from the church parking lot I had pulled into but I found this looking off to the side of the sunset:

Very nice, in the first one I would say that is Venus at that time in the morning.
Jupiter can been seen earlier in the night near Taurus.

The colours remind me of this photo I took, they are so similar. http://nml-photography.deviantart.co...86484#/d5es2i7

[chuck norriss]

some early b/w film work scanned to the www:


Untitled by CXK, on Flickr

FOr the record, I don't condone drug abuse.

[DigMe]

Whoa.. Gritty.

bc

[chuck norriss]

It was a gritty era.

[carlos840]

Finally managed to print and scan a batch of pics from my trip to NYC!
As usual it is all done with my MP with 28mm lens, Ilford HP5 film, printed by me and scanned on a flat bead scanner.

I need to print a lot more and will post them when i get a chance to do it.

I couldn't help but notice that my style feels somewhat different compared to what i usually do in London... Strange how you shoot differently in different cities!
I really struggled with light, everything is so dark over there, it made me wish i had a flash and balls of steel like Gilden!


IMG_0003_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0005_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0001_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0004_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0007_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0008_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr


IMG_0006_NEW by Carlos840, on Flickr

[NML1986]

Nice photos carlos840, I always love your work.

[chuck norriss]

difficult images no matter what side you're on, a parent mourning the violent death of his child is the worst thing there is in the world
http://www.demotix.com/news/1613732/...#media-1613647

[MAJOR METAL]

Not my shot, but I'm a fan.

[Michael Jewels]

Originally Posted by MAJOR METAL

Not my shot, but I'm a fan.

Who is this?

What's up, Kevin?

Mike

[NollyPeriphery]

Hi guys, first photos I'm posting on here. My band recently toured Europe and I used the downtime to go out wandering with my camera





















Cheers!

[jmorbita]

i like these

[Michael Jewels]

Hello, everyone.

I have a question: What determines the megabyte content of an unedited photo?

Below you will find two photos of the same garden.

The photo of this garden was taken in July, and the exif states that it's 4.26 MB (megabytes.)

This photo of the same garden was taken in September, under very similar lighting conditions. The exif for this photo says it's 2.45MB


The first photo was taken with a standard zoom, the second photo was taken with my Lensbaby.

So, why is the MB content so much higher in the first photo?

Remember: both photos are unedited.

I do have other photos taken with the same lens under the same lighting conditions showing this same wide variance in unedited MB content, but not of the same subject.

I've been wondering about this for a while.

Mike

[carlos840]

I think that the second picture is smaller because it has less color variation, ie mostly blue... And less things going on, ie no house, less trees in the background.
The more variations in color and brightness you have, the bigger the file!

Try taking a picture of a clear blue sky, or a white wall, small file. Now take a picture of something with many colors, shapes and shadows, like a field of flowers with a forest background, big file!

I mostly shoot black and white, and i have noticed that files with a lot of black or a lot of white are small. A file with a lot of grey variations will be a lot bigger as it need to contain more info.
For example, if you look at my pictures in the middle of the page,the first two, that are mostly shades of grey are 3 to 4 Mb per pic. The next two, that are mainly blacks and whites are 2 Mb!

[uOpt]

Space taken up after jpeg compression essentially depends on "how random" the picture is.

The blur compresses a lot better.

If you have a picture with a lot of noise it will compress a lot worse.

[MAJOR METAL]

Originally Posted by Michael Jewels

Who is this?

What's up, Kevin?

Mike

Howdy Mick

It goes, one day at a time. The man in the photo is Steve Sandvoss, he is an actor and model.

[chuck norriss]

Jewels you should be shooting / editing raw format. Jpg is for the www, equivalent of a print; raw file is the negative or slide film.