ITT photography

[Necromotic]

some shots i took with a regular digicam

[Saturn V]

I generally shy away from too much editing after post processing the RAW files(75% of the time I just batch process them with settings to auto), but I see what you mean. Most of the photo editing I do is for models, who need a little "healing brush" to get rid of wrinkles.

Why shy away? You're not one of those "purist" idiots, are you?

And I'll just throw the greatest comment I've ever read about that, even if you're not (that way I don't have to come back later):

You want "straight from camera" images on film? The only way is to yank your film right out of the camera once your roll is exposed. Only you can't of course, can you? You need to carefully unreel that film in the dark and put it through a multistage bath of chemicals or exposure to light will wipe the images out the emulsion. Your choice of chemicals, temperature of the mix, development time and how good you are about agitating the tank to clear bubbles all play into the final results, and those choices can drastically alter how the negatives turn out. Development is a vital stage of the film process, and an art unto itself. That's just to get the negatives set. Printing is a whole other ball game with its own set of variables and options, all in the hands of the one in the darkroom.

Digital photography spares you the chemicals and makes manual fine-tuning optional as far as just getting to see and print your images, but the automated processing that makes it possible isn't magic handed down from the heavens. The image processing is designed by real human beings. When you get those jpegs, they've been processed based on algorithms written by engineers far away who've never met you. It's their decisions that are determining how your images turn out. Very convenient, but I can't see how bowing to those results is better than casting a critical eye on their limits and going to work yourself. I mean, you are the photographer, right?

I find saying you're a "purist" that takes your images "straight" from your digital camera, is rather like saying you're a purist because you send your film away to a mini lab for development and prints on their automated machines instead of doing it yourself. There's nothing wrong with either, but I can't see any virtue in handing off the control and pretending that you're somehow doing better by not wading in, getting your hands dirty and making some of your own decisions about how to tune your own images from the slight change to the drastic modification.

Sometimes I think the most under appreciated disservice that digital imaging did to photography was create this idea among amateurs that post processing was not only unnecessary, but somehow a plebeian product of the digital age and turn "Photoshop" into a four-letter word among some. Photographers, many now legendary, have been retouching photos and (gasp!) altering the content outright since before the vacuum tube. It didn't make them any lesser, and I can't see how it would make modern photographers any less either it's done well.

[Bioture]

Do you do much photo editing Bio? Those last three pics were good, but a tweak in colour or contrast could really make them pop. The bird has a slight red cast to it; adding a bit of cyan would even it out. Taking a bit of the green from the forest could also bring out the whites in the water.

I generally shy away from too much editing after post processing the RAW files(75% of the time I just batch process them with settings to auto), but I see what you mean. Most of the photo editing I do is for models, who need a little "healing brush" to get rid of wrinkles.

[Troll King]

Do you do much photo editing Bio? Those last three pics were good, but a tweak in colour or contrast could really make them pop. The bird has a slight red cast to it; adding a bit of cyan would even it out. Taking a bit of the green from the forest could also bring out the whites in the water.

[DoTheFandango]

[PUNK rock]

Took this while I was at Busch Gardens.

[Bioture]

i really enjoyed these

i'm looking to get into this interesting hobby as well- any tips you could give a beginner with a few hundred dollars to spare for starter equipment?

In terms of equipment, deciding on a brand/mount to go with is pretty important, even though a starter dslr from any major brand (canon rebel, nikon d40, sony a200, etc) will pretty much do the same thing. I'm a sony person since I had a minolta before, and thought the image stabilization in the body was a good idea.

Do you have friends that you can share equipment with? Maybe you should buy the same mount so you can share lenses and etc. As far as I know, I'm one out of two guys at the studio that uses minolta/sony equipment. And sometimes it's a pain to be on your own island.

The most important piece of startup equipment, other than the camera/lens combo itself, is a book that'll teach you about exposure and the photographic triangle (aperture, shutter speed, ISO), along with composition. Eventually you'll figure out what you like to take pictures of, and by then you'll know what additional equipment will do the job.

hope this helps!

[WuTang420]

ok thats enough, dont kill me for spam pls

[WuTang420]

[WuTang420]

[WuTang420]

i take mostly underwater pictures. i have thousands but ill just show a few. i know some aren't quite perfect but if you haven't attempted taking pictures through glass and water before you should know it isn't easy.

[Pearl Jam]

here's a few more on my recent trip to San Francisco... and I got the flickr acct and it seems pretty good so far.

i really enjoyed these

i'm looking to get into this interesting hobby as well- any tips you could give a beginner with a few hundred dollars to spare for starter equipment?

[Saturn V]

Shot a skate park today. Loved it.

[Bioture]

here's a few more on my recent trip to San Francisco... and I got the flickr acct and it seems pretty good so far.

[H.M.S. Stargazer]

Call national geographic! :O
Very nicely done.