Photographic Equipment...

**Snick** · 04-02-2008, 07:01 AM

I shoot raw 90% now - took a bunch of photos at the Bangkok Motor Show, and some of them would have been junk if they were normal JPEGS. Underexposed, overexposed, or white balance all wrong. But 2 minutes in Photoshop and they were great,

**donnnnnny** · 04-02-2008, 11:01 AM

in raw you can adjust the white balance back on the old mac pc. modern technology hmmmmmmm
do you adjust white balance ? incandescant fluro etc

**seanbeag7** · 04-02-2008, 11:22 AM

this sounds too complicated for me

**Snick** · 04-02-2008, 12:06 PM

With photoshop ( or other raw editing software ) you can change a lot of things, including the 'temperature' for white balance; the exposure ( to a degree), brightness, contrast, vibrancy, etc...

It help make a good picture better, but its really invaluable in saving an otherwise fucked picture.

What I normally do is press the auto button in photoshop, see what it changed, then change the same things to the amount I like.

**rxpharm** · 04-04-2008, 07:30 AM

(seanbeag7 @ Apr. 02 2008,18:22) this sounds too complicated for me

Think of raw sort as as a digital "negative" that you can make a lot of adjustments on to give the best exposure.

As Snick has pointed out, it is great if your original exposure is not correct and you want to still get a reasonable image from it.

Some cameras produce good *.jpg straight out. I am very happy with the ones from my Minolta 5d. Raw is getting easier to process with the newer photo imaging programs automating many of the steps.

Raw files also tend to be larger as they are the least compressed information coming from the digital camera, so of course you will need more storage space for the files.

donnnny good deal on the flash - really comes in handy for situations where there is no other way to get the photo. If you end up using it a lot, consider getting a diffuser like this one: Flipit

I've got one and it helps portraits look much better than direct flash.

**Looker** · 04-05-2008, 04:26 AM

I use an OLYMPUS OM-1 made in 1978
Oh..but I got 3 lenses to change over

**rxpharm** · 04-05-2008, 05:33 AM

Looker, that is a classic camera, one of the smallest 35 mm SLR film cameras made, and good quality lenses.

Do you scan the prints into your computer, or do you have a digital camera besides the Olympus OM1?

**Looker** · 04-05-2008, 07:05 AM

Yes..it's a very nice compact reflex from the '70s. To be honest, I'm not much in to photography nowadays as I was back in the '80s. Got tired of going around visiting places and having to keep changing lenses, changing film rolls, cleaning here and there and finally not enjoying what I was seeing.
So, I do not even own a digital camera, although I could get one within 10 minutes walk from my home since I live in Hong Kong. But I got a phone with 2 megapixels, just in case.

When I need some quality pictures, I use my OLYMPUS, print the film in 4R size in those 1 hour quick developing shops and then scan it. Very old style of doing things, but that's me..a Dyno on the road to extintion

**rxpharm** · 04-05-2008, 07:23 AM

Understandable, but now there are good quality zooms, like the 18-250 Sony (also from Tamron), that produce very good photos for dSLRs, with minimal need for lens switching (equivalent field of view to 27 - 375 mm on full frame sensor).

Phone cameras are always a compromise, but are ok for just a quick snapshot.

Some of the point and shoots have good zoom range as well, like the Panasonic TZ series (10x optical zoom with compact body).

Anyway, the key is to enjoy your trips, which you certainly are doing!

**Looker** · 04-05-2008, 08:14 AM

In fact, I don't even use my phone camera because I've been told that needs some small equipment to D/L in to the computer..not sure what is it.

Certainly, there are wonderful cameras outthere for any budget. My conclusion is that I will never be a pro in taking really good pictures, as I don't have the capability. I will never enjoy the trips if I've to take care about having a camera, even a small one, and being careful not to lose it and so on. I don't really need it for my job either.

I realize I'm not exactly the best individual to make an economy prosper

**Malakor** · 04-05-2008, 05:02 PM

The new Olympus E-420 looks pretty nifty - must be the smallest dSLR on the market. Even has a 50mm/f2.8 lens on it. How's that for nostalgia?

I shoot RAW as well and run them through Silkypix after; works well with my camera I have to say.

**Looker** · 04-06-2008, 02:43 AM

(Malakor @ Apr. 06 2008,02:02) Even has a 50mm/f2.8 lens on it. How's that for nostalgia?

The 50mm is often an under-considered lens because we all like to show off the 'tele-guns' we can buy or trying to put the whole world in a pic with the grandangulars.
Some of the best pics I've ever taken were with the humble 50mm f 2.8

**donnnnnny** · 04-07-2008, 06:13 AM

yep raw files are much bigger than shooting say jpeg fine. but is that really a problem with memory card getting so large. i have a 4 gig card and get around 350 shots shooting rRAW. rxpharm you are right it is like using a digital negative. Mind you if you shoot the pic right in the first place it will need little adjustment in the dark room(computer) afterwards.
The iphoto program is brilliant at adjusting pics. and you can make a good picture into a brilliant one. especially when shooting raw. at one stage i waw shooting raw and jpeg fine.(nikon d80) gives the option to shoot both together..
might buy a Hasselblad digital next. renowned as the best digital camera"s in the world. Hasselblad H3D11-31 is a 31 megapixel camera mind you it costs around $22k

Attached Files

48812.jpg (25.6 KB, 11 views)

**donnnnnny** · 04-07-2008, 06:24 AM

another Hasselblad H3D11-39 this one is 39 megapixle camera with a big price tag around $30k and of course german made

Attached Files

49446.jpg (37.9 KB, 11 views)

LADYBOY.REVIEWS
This site contains Adult Content.
Are you at least 18 years old?

Photographic Equipment...