sup Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 HDR isn't a filter or anything in photoshop, it's bracketing exposures to capture the full dynamic range of an image. So you could take one image exposed for the shadows, one for the midtones, one for the highlights, then combine them all together. Better example from the forum I'm on: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kegger Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 One of you guys has got to hook me up with PS. I can't afford the 600 bones for CS3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airjordan223 Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 you can get gimp for free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nancy Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 One of you guys has got to hook me up with PS. I can't afford the 600 bones for CS3. i downloaded my cs3 off of frostwire and then went to a photo forum and asked for a serial number anyone wasnt using. i know its a little risky but now i have free cs3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeryon Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 even now I find myself staring at the sliding midgets for unacceptably long periods of time... if you don't mind living dangerously: file sharing systems are your friend. Me personally: I own all the software that I use on a regular basis, like MS Office, XP Pro and a few of my fav games, but for something like PS that I have only used for 3-4 hours in the last 6 months, screw buying it! What nancy did was a little different, should be easier to just DL a version with a crack included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 The moon, straight from the camera. 100% crop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannaBstuntin Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Here's something I did....not exactly photos, but I thought it was still cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Crappy self-portrait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 My 17-85 FOR SALESEZZZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
speedfreek09 Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 how muchee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lceah Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 sup, that's a profile!? is there a way to set it and then hold it somewhere so it's all of you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannaBstuntin Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 sup, that's a profile!? is there a way to set it and then hold it somewhere so it's all of you? No. Cameras don't have that feature anymore. Especially the new high tech ones. JK LINA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lceah Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 thanks and mine does...lol mine must be bad then lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 sup, that's a profile!? is there a way to set it and then hold it somewhere so it's all of you? If I went wider on that shot, you would have seen all the crap in the background of that room Maybe I'll take another tomorrow if I'm up to the challenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lceah Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 LOL Ryan, even though I was surprised, I actually believed you lol oh ok sup, gotcha... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 how muchee $400, shipping included Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kegger Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Wow Gary, that's pretty cheap for a kit lens.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Silly Kegan, the 18-55 is the kit lens. :fool: I want to sell this, scrap together $200 more, and buy a 17-40mm f/4L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Woo hoo, just sold my 17-85mm for $410. 17-40mm f/4Lcoming soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Another shot of the moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wannaBstuntin Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Nice stuff, sup. Did you get the eclipse the other night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kegger Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Must be a Canon thing to spend that much money on a lens. I got my 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR for $250. And why spend that much on a 17-40 when you can use the kit lens? Must be the f stop, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CleanGSR Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 A canon thing.....wake up to the expensive world of nikon man. A kit lens (18-55) costs around $150ish.....but the Nikon 17-55 f2.8 comes in at a slightly higher $1199.95 with pretty much the same focal range. It's all the diference in glass and comparing pro glass to consumer glass is like comparing apples and zebras. Plus the lower f-stop plays a decent role, but the quality of optics as much as anything. I'd guess that his new 17-40 is probably pro glass with better optics and a faster lens overall......cause let's not forget, when shooting nice gear, isn't the best quality picture possible our ultimate goal? Oh and to compare.....your Nikon 55-200 is nowhere near as good as a 70-200 f2.8 for around $1600. Sure the 55-200 lens will let you get a shot at 200mm but the faster 70-200 has more advantages over the 55-200 to even list and is definately worth the extra $1400 if you can afford it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sup Posted February 25, 2008 Share Posted February 25, 2008 Kit lens pros: light cheap Kit lens cons: Terrible optics Built like a toy My 17-85 probably had slightly worse optics than the kit lens. The only pros were that it had an awesome range (equivalent to a 5X zoom) and Image Sbalization (IS). Looking at the wall full of prints in front of me, everything taken with my 70-200 and 50 f/1.4 is a lot better looking than anything with the 17-85. I'm buying the 17-40 because I rented it once in November and was blown away by it. The reason Canon L lenses cost so much is because they're as good as it gets. Watch any NFL or even MLB game and you'll see nothing but Canon L lenses on the sidelines. The 17-40 is no faster than my 17-85 (both f/4), but the 17/40 is a constant f/4, opposed to the 17-85 which is f/4-5.6 when extended. The next step up in Canon's zooms that are f/2.8 are the 16-35 f/2.8L II and the 24-70 f/2.8L, and those are both $1000+ which I'm not looking to spend right now. The 17-85 optics are bad like I mentioned, really bad distortion on the wide end, bad chromatic abberation, and it's very soft. The 17-40 doesn't have distortion as bad, has ultra low dispersion elements to eliminate CA, and the images are tack sharp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris(pa) Posted February 25, 2008 Author Share Posted February 25, 2008 I might be selling my 24-70 2.8 Maaaaybbbeeee Then pick up a 14mm f/2.8 and 135 f/2 We'll see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.