Posts by JeanPaul

Quote from seir

If you have talent (making good photos which are available for printing) and you know how prepare photos to sell them (prepare for printing, correct modifications etc.) you can earn some nice money (not that big as professionals have but enough to buy new camera or better lens). In our "movie cam" world there's a lot of pepole that needs some still images (photos ) - now you need to find them and do them that photos. Sometimes you'll need to get some additional flash lamps or even postumes Now the only barrier is that what you can do with your camera and how good photo quality can provide your camera/lens (don't sell shitty photos ).

Edit:

And BTW. I earned some money on photos but I wasn't aiming for earnings from photography so I don't forced anyone to pay for the photos but if someone gave me money then I took it

Printing well is more difficult than you can imagine.

Quote from Satyre

No buddy, I've sent you the 0EV exposed shot.I picked up with my camera the shadows brightness to have the best luminosity in the whole HDR picture. And I can avoid so any kind of noise after post processing.

Well, I'm going to upload the 3 shots and then I pass them on to you.

Sorry Seir, but I prefer the HDR one...

On your version, the sky is overexposed and colors are dull

Here's is the no-retouching version (+1EV). You could do the difference between colors of my HDR version and standard colors

[Blocked Image: http://nsa06.casimages.com/img/2009/03/29/mini_090329074553759073.jpg]

They are almost the same... only shadows and highlights are improved to have a dynamic photo. That said, I admit I saturated colors a little bit in photoshop.

Display More

Well if thats the 0ev in a bracketed version, they are all overexposed. Thats not me making fun of your work, its just fact, the image you sent me was overexposed. I am going to edit the darkest one you sent me, which is also the most properly exposed one (IMG_5731) and see what I can do with it.

Oh and I dont know why you think Seir did anything other than edit the colors in your image he posted. Its still HDR, and the only thing he did was remove some of the unnecessary (and actually quite odd) colors that HDR can create if not done perfectly. The sky is also the same, I dont know what you are talking about in that comment. And last thing, not all good images are really saturated. (I didnt know this for a while) so just because some colors are desaturated doesnt mean its "dull". Dull implies a lack of contrast, and his edit is far from lacking contrast.

Now, while I dont hate your work, and some of its pretty good, you rely WAY too much on techniques (HDR) than you do composition, capture of light, and subject matter. And honestly, thats backwards!

Anywhoo, in terms of what I came up with in photoshop, it wasnt really all that interesting. The photo itself is boring, and the colors are rather weird. (dont take this the wrong way)

But in the end, try to focus more on composition, subject matter, and quality of light. Because without those three things, you dont have an image

Remember, Im not here to be a jerk (im not FFPMONE) im here to help. And I dont sugar coat my posts.

Hey, you sent me the overexposed one. Of course I cant make it look as good as yours if the entire image is blown out

Send me the properly exposed one and I will show you want I am talking about!

Yes, its horrendous. Your images would be so much better without it.

Give me the normal exposure original raw file for that image and you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Yo man I think its time for something other than sunsets (dont hate me)

Wow, well thanks.

And that distortion you are talking about is coming from my favorite camera/lens set up

Nikon d3 + Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8

[Blocked Image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3546/3387832829_4b40ca4a94_o.jpg]

Self portrait assignment (3 parts to it)

Quote from DvS

I'm amazed you could get such fast speeds with ISO100

And great idea with the flash, I might try that sometime

What? He is using an external flash, and when doing so, you always put it at ISO 100 because of the available light coming from the flash...

Have you actually tried photographing water droplets in mid-air? Even with a lot of available light you need a very quick shutter timer.

DVS you mistaked ISO for shutterspeed

Not really, faster shutter speed = less light = higher iso or aperture required.

And my point was that the ISO should always be put to 100 when using external flash.

Also, quote pyramid

It was shot at f/1.4

So, my line of focus is going to be 1-2 inches as opposed to a larger F-stop

I do sort of agree that its weird how his hair is out of focus in the front, but its just a style etc etc I am not being very eloquent today

Self portrait

Mirror's edge anyone?

[Blocked Image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3572/3380524947_56c2a646f0_o.jpg]

Its still a work in progress

Fuck console games

I told you already, man.

You dont do long exposures of the moon, its really short at a higher F-stop

Try 1/250th at f/8 and you will see what I mean. Also, this was taken with a 600mm f/4 lens and a 2x teleconverter

[Blocked Image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3377118403_8d11a0c34a_o.jpg]

Back to where we started

[Blocked Image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3586/3376646848_651458b15a.jpg]

It looks like poop because of some problems I had (no tripod being one)

That first shot is awesome

Yes, I know. But that has nothing to do with an ISO, especially when using more than available light.

Quote from DvS

I'm amazed you could get such fast speeds with ISO100

And great idea with the flash, I might try that sometime

What? He is using an external flash, and when doing so, you always put it at ISO 100 because of the available light coming from the flash...

NO HDR DAMNIT

But I did pull that one into PS and there are a LOT of possibilities for it, and what I managed made it look pretty awesome

Quote from robert.briscoe

8v8

rofl xD