I volunteered to help out; on the way back, I took the ferry.
(http://www.roadstergal.info/11_19_05/549.jpg)
(http://www.roadstergal.info/11_19_05/569.jpg)
(http://www.roadstergal.info/11_19_05/571.jpg)
(http://www.roadstergal.info/11_19_05/574.jpg)
Check out the body lean on the beemer!
Quote from: AlphaFire X5Check out the body lean on the beemer!
body roll baby
Some day I would like to do a road course :dunno:
Nice pics as always! How do you do that cool trick where you take the photo and drive like that ? ;)
Quote from: BlazinjrSome day I would like to do a road course :dunno:
.. traffic!
.. no no, just kidding :lol:
Quote from: NightRyderNice 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 :P
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.
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:
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.
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.
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?
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 :thumb: :cheers:
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? :)
Quote from: PhaedrusI 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.
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.
Quote from: 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.
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.
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 :thumb:
Quote from: aaronstjQuote from: 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
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.
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...
Ansel Adams' (who I look up to quite a bit) photos are mostly notable because of their extreme clarity, contrast and his mastership of print making. That man could make a print. Much of his magic was done in the dark room (for modern photographers, you really must learn your way around Photoshop). The clarity was largely due to nice optics, the fact he was shooting on large format film, and the extremely small apeture's he shot at (f/64 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64)). The contrast is mostly a product of being a master of the dark room, but optics affect clarity as well as color.
And in my opinion, photographs today really are better than they were even a decade ago, at least in a technical sense. They're sharper, crisper, have better colors. The photographers may be no better, but the photos definitely are. This is largely due to film technology, though, I think, as well as the advent of digital photography and digital editing tools. Pretty much anything that can be done in a darkroom can be done in digital better, faster, cheaper.
The technology behind camera optics hasn't gotten that much better, though. An old Leica, for example, will still kick pretty much any modern camera's butt. You have to spend a lot of money in lenses to even get on that playing field.
Spending more money on a camera will get you a bigger sensor, area, too, and that counts for a lot. Just like shooting on larger format film will give you a huge boost over 35 mm.
I guess my point is, having a better camera won't make you an any more artistic photographer. Composition and the basics of exposure are think you have to figure out for yourself. But better equipment will really help out on the technical side, which is where a lot of "pretty good" photographers need help.
Quote from: JetSwingyou probably could not tell the difference between pictures from my $1200 and $2200 cameras...
This is true. But I'll bet everyone could tell the difference between your $1200 camera and a $300 consumer camera.
Quote from: aaronstjQuote from: JetSwingyou probably could not tell the difference between pictures from my $1200 and $2200 cameras...
This is true. But I'll bet everyone could tell the difference between your $1200 camera and a $300 consumer camera.
my $1200 camera is now worth about $500 as used camera. i've seen my friends take some crappy pictures with my camera. yes, i can take better pictures with a $300 camera.
A good photographer with a lousy camera will take better pics than a lousy photographer with a better camera, but a good photographer with a better camera will take better pics than a good photographer with a lousy camera.
More expensive =! better. But they are often correlative.
first , you can not compare medium or large format with 35mm. that like comparing a ferrari with a fighter jet...which is faster? :dunno:
what is the only difference between a great photographer and a good photographer, it certainly isn't the equipment. everybody's on the same playing field as far as the equipments goes.
technically perfect shot doesn't make a great photo.
yes, the equipment makes difference. there's no doubt about that. but the overwhelming difference maker is the photographer.
that my last bit on this subject.
I'm not exactly sure what you two are arguing about. I thought I distilled what both of you were saying, and it came to two sides of the same viewpoint.
The only spot where I see you two disagreeing is that equipment today allows for better photographs at the high end, and I do side with the noodist on that. Track times keep going down, and photos keep getting better. I think the equipment is still limiting over the human potential at the moment.
Quote from: RoadstergalA good photographer with a lousy camera will take better pics than a lousy photographer with a better camera, but a good photographer with a better camera will take better pics than a good photographer with a lousy camera.
Yeah, that's about my position. And I maintain that the main difference between a lousy photographer and a good photographer is a lot of photos.
Quote from: RoadstergalMore expensive =! better. But they are often correlative.
better what? pictures?
you can also look at it this way:
better equipments are usually used by better photographers which result in better photographs.
know the baiscs, know your camera, take lots of pictures, buy a better camera.
repeat.
:mrgreen: