Pics from today - Nov. novice school.

[Roadstergal]

I volunteered to help out; on the way back, I took the ferry.

[Alphamazing]

Check out the body lean on the beemer!

[Blazinjr]

Check out the body lean on the beemer!

body roll baby

Some day I would like to do a road course :dunno:

[NightRyder]

Nice pics as always! How do you do that cool trick where you take the photo and drive like that ?  

Some day I would like to do a road course :dunno:

.. traffic!









.. no no, just kidding  :lol:

[Phaedrus]

Nice pics as always! How do you do that cool trick where you take the photo and drive like that ?  

I am still trying to figure out how she takes pictures like that, letalone how she can be on both sides of the camera  

[aaronstj]

Having a nice camera helps a lot.  The other two keys are basically waiting for the right time (that skyline was taken at sunset - sunrise and sunset have the best light) and taking a lot of pictures.  Like, a lot.  There's bound to be a good one in there somewhere.

[NightRyder]

Aw, that's cheating. I was hopping for a reason like; Because I'm a professional photographer.  Which means, I should be able to get nice photos too. Which means, I just suck, and don't take enough. ... yeah, I guess that's true. I usually take one or two of something. I'll have to remeber to take a bunch. But, It seems like they all would come out the same.. other then focus, what would I change? - to make them better? If the white blance was good, and shutter speed is good enough, .... ah nm.


It seems like to me, Roadstergal just ends up in good photo locations. I mean, where would you be to take that seattle shot? On a boat? (Maybe she touches them up? Or do they come out like that ?) I guess real life just never actually looks that good. .. must be fixed up pics.. yea.  :mrgreen:

[aaronstj]

She's on a ferry to get that shot.

I don't mean, take the same photo a lot of times, I mean, take a lot of photos.  In different light conditions, from different angles.  You just have to take a lot of photos.  I'd estimate something like 5% of the photos I take are even worth looking at.  So you need to take a lot to get the good ones.

[JetSwing]

well, you should take multiple of same shot too. you can vary the exposure, white balance, or apeture settings. it never hurts to shoot multiple of same shot. for example, it's hard to check for blurriness just by looking at the lcd. so if you just take one shot, go home and find out it came out blurry, there's not much you can do to fix that.

the general rule of thumb is if you take a one roll of film (24-36) and you have more than 2-3 "keepers", then you're either the next coming of ansel adams or you're doing something seriously wrong  

when i go on a shoot, i usually take at least 500 shots at one location, i rarely keep more than 10 pictures.

[Phaedrus]

I still think it is more photographer and less camera. I use a Nikon Coolpix 5000 at work, which is a pretty good camera. However, I've seen people take better photos with much less capable cameras.

What do you use, Jetswing?

[Lukewarm Wilson]

Nice pics Roadstergal but just to go off topic for a moment your saddle bags try mounting the top straps under the seat there are 2 cut outs in the body work to take the straps although the one at the back takes it close to the lock but just jiggle it about and it will fit, its a much better way then just throwing them over they also sit more securly  

[number1]

yeah those are some really nice pictures, every time that i try to take pictures they always turn out like crap. lol but any ways so you were practicing or teaching people to drive?  

[JetSwing]

I still think it is more photographer and less camera. I use a Nikon Coolpix 5000 at work, which is a pretty good camera. However, I've seen people take better photos with much less capable cameras.

What do you use, Jetswing?

yup. that's absolutely right. if you can't take decent pictures with low-end camera, you're not going to take good pictures with a high-end camera. what a higher end camera does for you is give you more options and performance but the basics are the same.

i using olympus e-1 which is a digital slr but it only has 5 megapixels which is a lot less that some of point n shoots out there.

[Roadstergal]

The BMW bike guys get huffy if you call a car a beemer.  Cars are bimmers, bikes are beemers.  That bimmer was by far the fastest car in the slalom.  And it looked like it was on a stock suspension.   :lol:

I go digital because a) I'm a cheap bastard and throwing away 90% of film is pricy, and b) I get instant gratification and can tweak my shot right away depending on how it looks.

Post-snap processing is part of the art of photography.  You can go too far, but in general, a camera does not automatically create a faithful representation of what you see; there is distortion inherent in the photographic process.  Post-photo processing is there to achieve two aims; to better represent what's actually there, and to better represent what you see there.  Photography is making a representation of what you see, and there is much work between the light entering the eye and the image appearing in its final version in the brain that makes the difference between looking and seeing.  So I try to focus in on what I see and make it the highlight of the shot; additional crap (background detail) is edited out by your brain, but others' brains will not do the same editing job, so you have to do it for them - by angle, by crop, etc.

You have to look, see something that stirs you, and then think about how you want to capture what it is you see in just that way that stirs you.  I don't walk around with my eye in a camera; I bust out with it if I see a moment and a context that I want to capture.

[aaronstj]

yup. that's absolutely right. if you can't take decent pictures with low-end camera, you're not going to take good pictures with a high-end camera. what a higher end camera does for you is give you more options and performance but the basics are the same.

That's true to a point.  But there's a lot to be said for quality optics, though.

Many digitals these days have automatic bracketing, which is where they'll take, for example, three pictured every time you press the button, one "properly" exposed, one a half stop or so underexposed, and one a half stop or so over exposed.  That can be helpful.

[Roadstergal]

Oh - I don't have the pics, since I gave the camera back, but I was co-shooting with both my camera and my friend's D70.  That camera will frikkin' spoil you.  I didn't use any of the swanky features, but it acted just like a 35mm; no write delay or shutter delay at all.  Prolly two to three grand for the camera and some decent lenses, though.

[Phaedrus]

I can't imagine spending $2-3k on a camera, but that is probably because it isn't proportionate to my skill level. That would be analogous to a new rider purchasing a Heyabusa. Having a better bike will help you go faster, but it isn't going to make you a better rider. Only practice and experience can do that. I guess the same goes for a camera.  

Well, regardless of what you use Roadstergal, you always have excellent photos. Keep'em coming  

[JetSwing]

yup. that's absolutely right. if you can't take decent pictures with low-end camera, you're not going to take good pictures with a high-end camera. what a higher end camera does for you is give you more options and performance but the basics are the same.

That's true to a point.  But there's a lot to be said for quality optics, though.

Many digitals these days have automatic bracketing, which is where they'll take, for example, three pictured every time you press the button, one "properly" exposed, one a half stop or so underexposed, and one a half stop or so over exposed.  That can be helpful.

better optics basically gives you, "better" zoom, smaller apeture, less distortion, sharper image. all of those doesn't really result in better pictures. what it does for you is give you options.

a high-end camera will have a superior sensor which could result in better colors, higher dynamic range, etc.

i shoot everything in manual unless it's an action shot. i couldn't do that with a lower end camera. it doesn't give you full control.

like i said before i can take just as good photo with a lower end camera. it's just that i'm going to struggle bit more. again better camera give you more freedom, not better pictures.

but the key to taking better photos are knowing the basics of photogrpahy, knowing your camera, and having the skills (talent). it takes more than just the right equipment. i would say equipment is on the bottom of the list.

even if your camera has the ability to bracket, you still have to know how to meter correctly, for example. if your base is off, any kind of bracketing is useless.

giving a novice a professional camera is probably the worst thing you can do. a $3000 camera with out a good photographer is like the yamaha team without rossi

[aaronstj]

I disagree.  There's no harm that can come to a novice photographer for having a camera that's "too nice."  It's not like they'll go to fast and crash and die, like, if a rider had too much bike.  I agree that if you're a downright bad photographer, a nice camera won't help.  But once you're a basically competant photographer, good optics are half the battle, precisely for the sharpness and color clarity you're afforded.  Take RG's second photo, for example.  The composition is striking.  But a lot of the appeal of that picture is the extreme sharpness and the color (although it looks like Photoshop may have helped just a bit).

I'm not saying the camera makes the photographer, either.  A lot of it is just taking a lot, lot, lot of photos.  But having a good camera hleps a lot, especially helping you cross that line from "decent" pictures to "good" pictures.

[JetSwing]

one of the most renowned landscape photogrpaher, ansel adams, shot everything in black & white. his great photophy had nothing to do with colors. and if you look at any macro photography, it would be rare to see the entire frame of the picture in focus.

there's really no correlation between better equipment and bettter photographs. do i think photographers from a decade ago aren't better than todays? absolutely not. but we do have equipments that are light years better.

two of my camera were $1200 and $2200 when they first came out. the only reason why i would buy a $3000 would be for efficiency (speed), better technology (more pixels), and higher quality.

you probably could not tell the difference between pictures from my $1200 and $2200 cameras...