Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Yeah GoldZilla I'm thinking the bottom one would have been best in that case

but actually - the main problem was probably just the long shutter speed...

also try turning on auto ISO maybe

reason i say this:

you were on aperture priority mode - and you had it open all the way - which is good.

but because you had the ISO fixed to 100 it means the camera has to leave the shutter open for so long

generally when using a tripod or shooting in bright light the lower the ISO the less noise you have in a shot

BUT no use having ISO so low that you get blur

:thumbsup:

aperture - how big the lens is open

shutter speed - how long the shutter stays open

ISO - how sensitive the sensor is

ps you can take awesome shots using auto/program modes :P

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Zennon - nice pics dude :( I like the star trails.. I miss doing them..

Passive - Just thought i let you know that you dont need a tripod to take pics of the moon. Off-course if you have a telescope its going to be hard to hand held it, but for a lens up to say 200mm is just fine hand held. Also i see your exposure is 1 second; hense why its blury. The moon is the brightest thing in our sky at night so there really isnt a need for long exposure.

Here is a photo hand held at 200mm and shutter speed at 1/250th of a second from memory.

20090729164728_img_9036_sig.jpg

I understand you need a zoom lens to see this much detail, but just thought i let you know that if you taking a pic of just the moon then you dont need such a long exposure and hand held is do-able.

Love the penguin photo!! Got any more?

Yeah originally we had a crazy long exposure because, to be honest, i'd only JUST figured out how to set it. We started off with photos that looked like the day time. But the one i posted had the kind of affect i wanted, the moon really wasnt that bright at the time :P

Though we tried to get rid of the extreme glow, it'd either be too bright or too dark.

I was trying to do something like this guy has. Under tip #4 -planning and patience

http://www.stephenoachs.com/how-to-better-...cape-photos.php

Ps i just had a look at that moon photo that i posted and it looked so much better on my lappy

it looks REALLY crap on my work monitor... :thumbsup:

wow, some great phots here guys. sl!m, those laneways look teriffic!

and that Audi...Mmmmmm

lost my net for a while (found someone stealing from my wireless modem. p'word protected now;)

4008352554_0861e4e2ac.jpg

4008350734_d1247c1759.jpg

had two 580exII's fired from pocket wizards. just trying to experiment where to put the lights to get certain effects and light the subject certain ways. the duck just wandered over to us so i just pointed one flash down and took a pic lol. i found it a bit hard using the 70-200 but my 24-70 rocks up this week so i hope to get out and do some more experimenting

self portrait. trying out stuff with the flash again. this time going into manual mode and setting things myself.

16-35 f2.8 @35mm F4 about 15cm from my face.

580exII with a 1/2 CTO Gel set at 1/32 @105mm - this was placed a slightly left of the camera and back another 10cm shooting straight at me (no diffuser or umbrella)

i think next time id probably shoot at about f8 to bring more detail to the entire face. but im happy for my first self portrait!

IMG_2654.jpg

oh and a randomly snapped one of my dog Jack. just had held the flash and camera to see what i could get! still using the CTO gel

IMG_2680.jpg

Edited by A31cefiro

How much was the new flash?

I wish i had time to screw around with my camera :banana:

The only photos i ever post are ones from holidays etc, not just seeing what its capable of...then again, i might be getting a new LENS for christmas...so i'll prob play with that a lot.

The top pic is cool (A31cefiro)

the power lines (IMO) ruin the bottom one

I took these late on Saturday night, so it was right at the end of October...

I made myself a little photo "studio" with two pieces of wood that were covered in some dodgy white vinyl, and used two sheets of A4 paper to make the join more seamless. I think I'll need to replace this with some thin white A3 cardboard instead.

Anyway, here are the photos I took:

IMG_4937v2.jpg

IMG_4888v2.jpg

IMG_4888v2.jpg

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Very nice - I also have a 92 GTST and hardly see any others around these days
    • When I need something else to edit, I use Movavi. A friend who does video editing on a daily basis recommended me) it's an easy video cutter to use for beginners
    • I need to edit some videos for work but I'm not good at all this. Which video editor can you recommend?
    • I think you're really missing the point. The spec is just the minimum spec that the fuel has to meet. The additive packages can, and do, go above that minimum if the fuel brand feels they need/want to. And so you get BP Ultimate or Shell Ultra (or whatever they call it) making promises to clean your engine better than the standard stuff....simply because they do actually put better additive packages in there. They do not waste special sauce on the plebian fuel if they can avoid it. I didn't say "energy density". I just said "density". That's right, the specific gravity (if you want to use a really shit old imperial description for mass per unit volume). The density being higher indicates a number of things, from reduces oxygen content, to increased numbers of double bonds or cyclic components. That then just happens to flow on to the calorific value on a volume basis being correspondingly higher. The calorific value on a mass basis barely changes, because almost all hydrocarbon materials have a very similar CV per kg. But whatever - the end result is that you do get a bit more energy per litre, which helps to offset some of the sting of the massive price bump over 91. I can go you one better than "I used to work at a fuel station". I had uni lecturers who worked at the Pt Stanvac refinery (at the time they were lecturing, as industry specialist lecturers) who were quite candid about the business. And granted, that was 30+ years ago, and you might note that I have stated above that I think the industry has since collected together near the bottom (quite like ISPs, when you think about it). Oh, did I mention that I am quite literally a combustion engineer? I'm designing (well, actually, trying to avoid designing and trying to make the junior engineer do it) a heavy fuel oil firing system for a cement plant in fricking Iraq, this week. Last week it was natural gas fired this-that. The week before it was LPG fired anode furnaces for a copper smelter (well, the burners for them, not the actual furnaces, which are just big dumb steel). I'm kinda all over fuels.
    • Well my freshly rebuilt RB25DET Neo went bang 1000kms in, completely fried big end bearing in cylinder 1 so bad my engine seized. No knocking or oil pressure issue prior to this happening, all happened within less than a second. Had Nitto oil pump, 8L baffled sump, head drain, oil restrictors, the lot put in to prevent me spinning a bearing like i did to need the rebuild. Mechanic that looked after the works has no idea what caused it. Reckoned it may have been bearing clearance wrong in cylinder 1 we have no idea. Machinist who did the work reckoned it was something on the mechanic. Anyway thats between them, i had no part in it, just paid the money Curiosity question, does the oil system on RB’s go sump > oil pump > filter > around engine? If so, if you had a leak on an oil filter relocation plate, say sump > oil pump > filter > LEAK > around engine would this cause a low oil pressure reading if the sensors was before the filter?   TIA
×
×
  • Create New...