[Pics] Fountain in park | xltronic messageboard
 
You are not logged in!

F.A.Q
Log in

Register
  
 
  
 
Now online (1)
big
...and 254 guests

Last 5 registered
Oplandisks
nothingstar
N_loop
yipe
foxtrotromeo

Browse members...
  
 
Members 8025
Messages 2614130
Today 2
Topics 127542
  
 
Messageboard index
[Pics] Fountain in park
 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:40 [#01338209]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



got bored on the lunch break, took a few pics.

Let me know what ya think!

1

2

3

4



 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:40 [#01338210]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



all have been resized down to 1024/1280 levels from 3000


 

offline hyakusen from 8=============> on 2004-09-17 15:43 [#01338214]
Points: 7021 Status: Addict | Followup to elusive: #01338210



great shots, i assume the camera is good, the water looks
near perfect.


 

offline hyakusen from 8=============> on 2004-09-17 15:44 [#01338215]
Points: 7021 Status: Addict | Followup to elusive: #01338210



btw, where is this place ? looks kinda gothic.


 

offline recycle from Where is Phobiazero (Lincoln) (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:46 [#01338218]
Points: 40066 Status: Lurker



#1 -8/10

#2 - dont like to scarey, do like the roman face

#3 - same as #2, but with more detail

#4 - same as #2, but showing whole fountain

#5 - needs improvement on the focus maybe


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:51 [#01338221]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



i only posted 4 pics


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:51 [#01338222]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



and it was QUITE the shit day, not good lighting for taking
pics but hey ... calmed me down a bit on my lunch break.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 15:52 [#01338223]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



detroit, belle's island park, btw...


 

offline oxygenfad from www.oxygenfad.com (Canada) on 2004-09-17 16:21 [#01338249]
Points: 4442 Status: Regular



Those are actually pretty cool : )

It makes me feel like I am not sitting in a cubical typing
all day lol.


 

offline DeadEight from vancouver (Canada) on 2004-09-17 16:26 [#01338256]
Points: 5437 Status: Regular



that is one freaky fuckin' fountain'... honestly... i think
if i saw that as a child i would be traumatized... way to
capture all the tiny detail and the droplets are quite nice
in the first one... shame about the sky really... it makes
that last pic seem a lot less balanced than it could have
been otherwise...


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 16:38 [#01338270]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



thansk, there's always tomorrow


 

offline DJ Xammax from not America on 2004-09-17 16:41 [#01338274]
Points: 11512 Status: Lurker



Not really great pics but it looks very real!


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-17 16:54 [#01338281]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



shot in jpg (eww) at higher ISO (double eww) and handheld
and i was on lunch break.

I hope to get some better ones (maybe to print out or for
backgrounds) this weekend,


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2004-09-17 17:39 [#01338335]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



I like em.


 

offline recycle from Where is Phobiazero (Lincoln) (United States) on 2004-09-17 23:40 [#01338593]
Points: 40066 Status: Lurker



i see 5, beLIEve it or not


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-18 20:38 [#01339213]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



shens until pics


 

offline JivverDicker from my house on 2004-09-18 20:52 [#01339223]
Points: 12102 Status: Regular



Technically it's okay if the weather was really overcast.
Is this an aesthetic thing or technical? If it's digital
you need to play around quite a bit in photoshop or if it's
old school dark room style, your work is really cut out with
these straight prints. I'd wait for better conditions or
find something other than a still water shot for the
subject.


 

offline Ophecks from Nova Scotia (Canada) on 2004-09-18 20:54 [#01339225]
Points: 19190 Status: Moderator | Show recordbag



Beautiful, I love it. And I LIKE the sky, adds a bit more
foreboding atmosphere to it. Those little ''cherubs'' look
absolutely evil. When was that fountain built?

The water looks great, frozen in time.


 

offline hedphukkerr from mathbotton (United States) on 2004-09-18 22:22 [#01339287]
Points: 8833 Status: Regular



gotta say 1 is my fave, as ophecks said, the sky is key in
that one


 

offline zaphod from the metaverse on 2004-09-18 22:48 [#01339292]
Points: 4428 Status: Addict



that first one is cool. the last one is ruined because the
sky and water are nearly the same tone, so the effect is non
existent.


 

offline JAroen from the pineal gland on 2004-09-19 02:25 [#01339339]
Points: 16065 Status: Regular



i like em, although im not a fan of pics with water falling
and such taken with a small shutter time (is that correct?
when it looks like the water isnt moving). i like it when it
looks more dynamic.

anyway, 1 is really ace, you should try shooting some when
the sky's clear blue


 

offline REFLEX from Edmonton, Alberta (Canada) on 2004-09-19 03:06 [#01339349]
Points: 8864 Status: Regular



I enjoy the photos.. especially #1.. nice work.


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2004-09-19 03:34 [#01339361]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker



#1is really good, would have been better with blue sky or
more light though


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-19 03:52 [#01339371]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



the sky was shit, and i was on my lunch break so i was just
shootin with shitty overcast, shitty lighting, shitty
weather...but ill be back there soon when the weathers nice,
cause that fountain has a lot of potential.

and too much photoshopping = bleh.

photoshopping pics is like cheating


 

offline Cheffe1979 from fuck (Austria) on 2004-09-19 04:08 [#01339373]
Points: 4630 Status: Lurker



nice camera, you seem to be well equipped


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-19 10:00 [#01339545]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



eh, the canon rebel really has it's limitatios ... but it's
my first step into the SLR world...selling that soon for a
canon 20D, as it seems to be really proving itself;
especially for the price.

glass is so fukggin expensive :/


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2004-09-19 21:02 [#01340018]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker



I really think that it turned out great. There is a mood
here that is being represented. I love it. Damn your cam
gives wonderful quality. I would like to see these in
various times of the day. Night seems like it would be great
especially with moon light!

Wonderful pics!

Thanks for sharing!


 

offline Paco from Gothenburg (Sweden) on 2004-09-19 21:10 [#01340020]
Points: 2659 Status: Lurker



Canon has a nice EF-S 10-22mm lens coming. Finally a really
wide lens for 1.6x FOV-crop cameras. Should be around 16mm
on the EF-S models (300D and 20D).

I just hope it will be sharp enough.


 

offline zaphod from the metaverse on 2004-09-19 21:38 [#01340035]
Points: 4428 Status: Addict



pfft, canon. i recently acquired a Nikon D70. now thats a
camera.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 05:42 [#01340166]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



yaeh that 10-22 is lookin' aight.

still can't believe the 20D isa 1.6x but oh well : /


 

offline pOgO from behind your belly button fluff on 2004-09-20 06:28 [#01340191]
Points: 12687 Status: Lurker



what an evil fountain!


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 13:35 [#01340630]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



fisheye 1

fisheye 2

russian glass finally came in today, only took 4 weeks but
well worth it.


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2004-09-20 13:38 [#01340634]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to elusive: #01340630



Do you or have you ever taken photography classes? Or is
this just a hobby? Those pictures are sure clear!


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 13:45 [#01340637]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



hobby, albeit expensive one : /


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-09-20 13:47 [#01340640]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



it doesn't have to be expensive, you have chosen it to be
expensive.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 13:57 [#01340651]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Eh....ok, if you say so.


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2004-09-20 14:00 [#01340655]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to elusive: #01340637



Hey if you go meet nigel in chicago take pics! I will try to
make it!


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-09-20 14:00 [#01340656]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



why should photography be expensive? sounds like a rather
snobbish attitude you have if you think that


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2004-09-20 14:02 [#01340659]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker | Followup to earthleakage: #01340656



Well if you want better equipment it becomes expensive. I
myself (if i had the money) would find this to be a fun
hobby but i rather use what he uses as opposed to a
disposable camera.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-09-20 14:06 [#01340662]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



better than what? when does something become expensive? what
does expensive mean?


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:11 [#01340664]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Umm, aparently you don't know the first thing about digital
photography.

Good glass, is very expensive.

How about you ask questions about why it is expensive,
instead of calling me snobbish. Sheesh, you don't know how
to go about things very well, do you.


 

offline virginpusher from County Clare on 2004-09-20 14:12 [#01340665]
Points: 27325 Status: Lurker



example

a used 1977 black and white television would be cheaper than
a 2004 flat screen HDTV.

The difference is in the quality of the picture. The items
that utilize newer technology cost more money making it more
expensive.

Same with the camera and lenses. More expensive camera use
newer technology and can do things that cheaper cameras
cannot. Or basically cant achieve the same standards as a
higher value technologically advanced camera.


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:13 [#01340667]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



whatever, you dont need all that shit to take decent digital
photos. I have a 5 megapixel camera that cost me $400, and a
few expensive memory cards and thats about it. $650 total
prolly. Anyone who spends any more than that is a sucker,
imo.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-09-20 14:15 [#01340670]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular | Followup to elusive: #01340664



yet another pointless argument with elusive which
degenerates into insistance of correctness without wavering
and repetition of previous point whilst being defensive and
ignoring what anyone else says.

and you wonder why people think you're an arsehole? it's
because you ARE an arsehole.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:16 [#01340673]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Ok, sorry about that.don't mean to get defensive.

Glass (lens, etc.) costs a great deal of money.

Not only is focal length important, but almost more
importantly is the aperature or widest f-stop.

I don't have time to turn this into a discussion on prices.

When it comes to cameras, well that's a whole nother story.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:17 [#01340679]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



weatheredstoner, you cannot get the pics I can with a f/1.4
lens and a SLR camera.

Not to mention the camera i'm getting is 8MP (p.s., mega
pixel means nothing in terms of quality.) and it does 5
frames per second.

Five 8MP pictures in 1 second. Can your camera do that? Not
to mention the interchangable lenses (which is most
important feature) because there are certain lenses for each
type of application.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:18 [#01340680]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



Weathered, your 5MP camera has more noise than other 5MP
camears, and less than others.


 

offline earthleakage from tell the world you're winning on 2004-09-20 14:20 [#01340683]
Points: 27795 Status: Regular



so far as i can ascertain, to you the most important aspect
of your hobby is not the enjoyment of taking the picture,
not the enjoyment of looking at your own art, but that
people giving you recognition for something which looks good
just because you used a camera that is, to you expensive,
whatever that means. expensive is a relative term and thus
in this circumstance is meaningless.


 

offline weatheredstoner from same shit babes. (United States) on 2004-09-20 14:23 [#01340686]
Points: 12585 Status: Lurker



For starters, who the hell wants to take 5 8MP in a second.
Absolutely frivilous.

Maybe you can tell a difference in detail, but because the
amount would be so insignificant that it doesnt matter
because no one would even care.

I dont need different lenses anyways, my camera has options
to customize depending on the setting anyways.


 

offline elusive from detroit (United States) on 2004-09-20 15:32 [#01340779]
Points: 18368 Status: Lurker | Show recordbag



umm, sports?


 


Messageboard index