Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

its the noise when im shooting high ISO with lowlight. i dont really mind it, i think it gives the pics more of a feel, depending on the tone.

a lot of my pics? ehh, i dont think so.. - just the lowlight ones. I dont see any with a "pixelated" look that are shot at low ISO.

im getting a 5dII soon, and the high ISO quality is fantastic, i cant wait. i LOVE shooting @ night, so the 5D and 25600 ISO expansion will definitely benefitme.
 
DJ bana - I can honestly say that most of your pictures look pixelated ....

At 1st I glance I was thinking it was the sharpening applied, but then it wasn't just at the edges ...

So then I was thinking it was that you was just super cropping the pictures, but I think you have a good eye so I don't think you are cropping much

So now I'm thinking is the way you save the pictures .. maybe at low resolution .. but I really don't know ...

P.S.

3616208228_22950ea3e8_b.jpg


it seems that you have decent light .. just wondering what ISO you used .. but yeah is pixelated!
 
^^^^ WTH?????

Seriously .. the picture you posted in my PC it looks mad pixelated - the arms and body

then I just copy the link and reposted it and now it looks fine .. but the one you posted looks the same way ..

I don't even know whats all that about .... still scratching my head ...
 
Originally Posted by solemunchies

it's fine Rikan, I don't really see the pixels, it might just be your monitor? idk.
Click to expand...


Its not the monitor and thats why my second reply was like WTH ... she posted the picture .. it looks pixelated .. then i just copy the same picture to showher and it looks not only bigger but none pixelated ... so I dont know WT F is that about ...
 
I might want to start this a little hobby.
Not too serious but I would like to take better pictures because my poitn and shoot jsut isn't cutting it.
Some pics I would like are a some close up, micro shots like the cogs of insides of the watch.

I guess my question is if this is a good start?
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=9999111500050001&type=product&id=pcmprd111600050001

My budget for a complete kit I can play around with for a while is around $750-$900, less if possible.
Again, I am not looking to a serious hobby, just enough to make quality and better shots than the conventional digital cameras.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.
 
Originally Posted by RFX45

I might want to start this a little hobby.
Not too serious but I would like to take better pictures because my poitn and shoot jsut isn't cutting it.
Some pics I would like are a some close up, micro shots like the cogs of insides of the watch.

I guess my question is if this is a good start?
http://www.bestbuy.com/si...mp;id=pcmprd111600050001

My budget for a complete kit I can play around with for a while is around $750-$900, less if possible.
Again, I am not looking to a serious hobby, just enough to make quality and better shots than the conventional digital cameras.

Thanks for any help or suggestions.
Click to expand...
The Xs isnt a bad camera at all, but they make the kit look appealing just because it somes with an extra lens. That lens really not good at all.I would look at the XSi kit which comes with a 18-55 IS and a 55-250 IS. http://www.bhphotovideo.c...OS_Rebel_XSi_a_k_a_.html

Also, if you like taking macro pics, you would need a macro lens, which would run you another $300 minimum.

I would recommend a canon G10. It's a powerful Point and shoot. Awesome macro, decent all around camera.
 
Thanks for the suggestion.
So you think I would be better off with a more advanced point and shoot?
Is the G10 better than the SX10?
I noticed that the G10 only has 5x optical zoom while the SX10 has 20x.
If I were going to get a better point and shoot, I would like to get a decent optical zoom as well.

Sorry if this is too much to ask but what advantages does the G10 have compared to the SX10?

Thanks again for the help, I really appreciate it.
 
The SX10 is good also, but it lacks RAW shooting. That's the biggest difference between the two IMO. The G10 probably beats the SX10 is in image qualitybut not by much.

I don't want to steer you away from DSLR's though, cause no matter what, not many point and shoots come close to the image quality and low lightshooting capabilities that DSLRs offer.

If your ok with spending a bit more later on then definitely go for the DSLR. Only reason I mentioned the G10 was because I shot with it for a while and gotsome really good results, And really enjoyed it, plus they shoot awesome macro which are some of my favorite, but it was a temporarary purchase since I knewit's limitations...

So... Think about it like this, if you're looking for portability, don't care about low light shooting, and are on a tight budget, go for a betterpoint and shoot. If you're willing to spnd a bit more, then you will definitelly get your moneys worth out of a DSLR.

Have a lurk around www.dpreview.com they have side to side comparisons, reviews, etc. Also go to a camra store and play with some of the cameras there.
 
Thanks for the suggestions once again.

One last question, what budget am I looking to spend on a decent starter if I go the DSLR route?
 
Bana, I believe your pictures aren't pixelate .. All Tony and now me are saying is that when you posted the original pictures, on my screen they lookedpixelated. Now after I reposted your picture to show you what I was saying, the picture look perfect (not pixelated) now what we are wondering #*+ is makingyour pictures look pixelated on my screen.

I notice that when you posted the picture I believe the picture popped up about 80+% of the original size (800+ pixels) when I reposted (same link) the pictureshowed at (1000+ pixels) meaning that some how when you posted the picture it wasn't at the original size the picture suppose to be at .. meaning that itwill show like that .. now whether you understand what I'm saying or not .. its a different story .. now i know why they look pixelated on my screen, justdon't know how come they are showing up at a reduce size instead the original size you intended for it to be seen ....

here is something I did playing around in PS .. lol .. overboard!

3622100145_b471d51910_o.jpg
 
Yeah... Rikan summed up what happened.

It's weird how it's not the same for everybody... prolly varies depending on the size of the monitor one is viewing them? Idk?

 
^ I still cant figure out how to stitch them... I think im not "filling in the frame" properly when im trying to shoot for this method. I threw like30 shots on PS with photomerge, it took about 10 minutes to stitch them, and the result was all of the pics lined up one after another horizontally... nothing"merged" about it.
mad.gif


... I then proceeded to flciking my laptop and typing vigorously on the keyboard.

That didn't work either.

Halp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest News

View All News

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

| Xenforo Add-ons © by ©XenTR | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Back
Top Bottom