Quake3World

using the new 350d cannon digital rebel..
decent??

That is one giant nipple...

wonder if thats bannable...

I don't know much about the technical aspects of photography, but they look beautiful to me.

Deathshroud wrote:That is one giant nipple...

The baby definitely wants some of that.

The pics are very sharp. Hope this helps.

Canis wrote:

Deathshroud wrote:That is one giant nipple...

The baby definitely wants some of that.

olo, look at him ogling it.

Really nice pics. Are they with any sort of lens?

Very nice sir.. you seem to have good luck with that 70-300mm lens

yeah it was the canon 70-300mm lens with the image stabalizer

"Would I buy these pics to use them for serious work?"

First pic: Not quite sharp enough
Second pic: Impossible to separate from the background
Third pic: Bad lighting, impossible to separate
Fourth pic: Way too much light on the elephant's forehead
Fifth pic: Technically alright
Sixth pic: Bad lighting, left side is too dark, right side is too bright
Seventh: Technically alright
Eighth: Bad lighting, too dark

"Impossible" means "not possible within reasonable amounts of time/effort"

Apart from that I'd never buy them because they're absolutely boring shots. Throw those fuckers some peanuts next time.

SplishSplash wrote:"Would I buy these pics to use them for serious work?"

First pic: Not quite sharp enough
Second pic: Impossible to separate from the background
Third pic: Bad lighting, impossible to separate
Fourth pic: Way too much light on the elephant's forehead
Fifth pic: Technically alright
Sixth pic: Bad lighting, left side is too dark, right side is too bright
Seventh: Technically alright
Eighth: Bad lighting, too dark

"Impossible" means "not possible within reasonable amounts of time/effort"

Apart from that I'd never buy them because they're absolutely boring shots. Throw those fuckers some peanuts next time.

Well go on then. show us some better ones you've done. If not, be quiet.

Excellent shots Dek

DiscoDave wrote: Well go on then. show us some better ones you've done. If not, be quiet.

I'm not a photographer. I'm just saying why I wouldn't buy them. From the perspective of someone who has used stock photography before for work.
Maybe he's perfectly fine with that because he's only doing it as a hobby.

I don't need to be an engineer to judge a car, toaster or computer either.


Edit: But I'm sure your "EXCELLENT BUDDY THUMBS WAYYY UP" comment helped him a lot more.

SplishSplash wrote:
I don't need to be an engineer to judge a car, toaster or computer either.

What about a ferret race?

I would have tried to get more of the eagle's body, but other than that they're fine... I dont think dekard was asking if you'd buy them. The giraffe is the best IMO, although I might have cropped it just a little bit on the right to get rid of the wall or whatever it is

Nice shots. Is the 1st one slightly blured? From your exif for it:

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XT
Image Date: 2006:02:26 05:04:41
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 190.0mm
CCD Width: 5.14mm
Exposure Time: 0.020 s (1/50)
Aperture: f/5.0
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Auto
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Action program (based towards fast shutter speed)



That lens (from google- if I have the right one) can do f/4. Using f/4 would let more light in, so you can decrease the shutter speed to take the shot quicker. (the more light you let in, the lesser shutter speed you need, the lower the light, the longer the shutter).

(btw I've been reading loads about cameras as i'm looking at a DSLR myself )

Actually, F4 would have given him an even lower DOF, which is why the pic is blurry from just behind the parrots eye to where its body is cut off in the pic. F4 would also haven't as been as sharp as F5.

oh and the lens he's using has a variable f-stop, so by 190mm, the max aperture is F5, not F4

I need to re-read.

PhoeniX wrote: I need to re-read.

read this

http://www.dofmaster.com/hyperfocal.html

The shots aren't that bad, but the main problem for me isn't the technical issues - its the fact that your subject is pretty much centered on all the images. Anyone can buy a decent camera and make normally ordinary shots look crisp - but if you don't have the eye for what works, they're always going to be average at best.

Is this San Diego zoo?

And when you say you use the 70-300mm lens, are you talking about the DO one?

Yea, aside from the first one I think they all look pretty good on a technical level. The main thing you should focus on now is more interesting composition.

I like the picture of the bald eagle... do you have anymore?

mjrpes wrote:Is this San Diego zoo?

And when you say you use the 70-300mm lens, are you talking about the DO one?

He's got the normal one.. i have the DO

Something about these pics makes me want to turn them into some grainy B&W things

Dave wrote:

mjrpes wrote:Is this San Diego zoo?

And when you say you use the 70-300mm lens, are you talking about the DO one?

He's got the normal one.. i have the DO

Something about these pics makes me want to turn them into some grainy B&W things
42copy7sx.jpg[/img]

that takes away from the intricacy of the bird...