ShortScale.org

After messing with lots of cameras with great lenses and controls...I still love that silly little plastic Diana F+.

What a fantastic shot Hurb. Lovely. Your wife's got that pregnant "glow" about her too. Basically my feeling of this is: + <3 x YAY!

JamesSmann wrote:

► Show Spoiler

Hurb wrote:After messing with lots of cameras with great lenses and controls...I still love that silly little plastic Diana F+.

What a fantastic shot Hurb. Lovely. Your wife's got that pregnant "glow" about her too. Basically my feeling of this is: + <3 x YAY!

Cheers! This was a few months ago now, just got round to developing the roll of film today...she has a hurb sized baby in there now. A day to go, am excite!

Colour cameras are pretty cheap nowadays, Hurb. Also, looks like you got some marks on your lens. Having said that I keep a black and white tv to save a bit on the licence, so fair play.

BobArsecake wrote:Colour cameras are pretty cheap nowadays, Hurb.

They sound amazing I will look into them!

Lovely pic though

Cheers buddy

looking through appetite magazine(north east food mag) I was shocked to see one of my food images today.
They never asked permission and it was just purely by chance that I noticed it at all as I don't normally read the mag(or even knew it existed actually).
It is rather cheeky but I am sure it happens a lot! but I am actually well chuffed and quite proud

anyway page 4 the picture of the burger and chips!

link

wow, yeah I don't know how I would feel about that. reminds me of something I was reading where this woman came across a magazine and the entire content of the magazine was articles ripped off the internet. she contacted them and they responded like, "hah don't be daft, don't you know the internet is public domain?" like they actually thought everything on the internet is public domain.

Where do you think they found the picture? This is something I'm quite sensitive over as people use my photos all the time without permission. Most of the time it's just for personal use so I don't care, but once I caught a guy using my photos on his for-profit website. I'm not sure how UK laws are...but in the US, it's generally assumed that a photo is automatically copyright protected in the name of the author, and can't be printed or reused without express permission. Even when you print photos at the drug store chains, they make you sign a copyright agreement that says your are the owner or that you have rights to print. If this magazine is widely distributed and if they're making money off it (i.e. if it's not just informational), I would be seeking legal action if I were you.

In other news, I bought the 35mm f/1.4 for my Fuji. The image quality is simply stunning, and it really has "that Fuji look" to it, which I love. But unfortunately everything that's been said about poor autofocus quality is true. Even in broad daylight, AF fails to lock around 1/3 of the time. It's incredibly disappointing, because in my eyes the quality of photos this camera produces is better than most SLRs. I'd post some examples but so far haven't taken anything I think is worth posting.

DanHeron wrote:Nice photo. Really good for a first attempt too.

I like starry photos but prefer them without the trails. Where I live there is loads of light pollution so I haven't had the chance to take any really great shots. It takes a lot of post editing to get the stars to really show up and the end results get quite grainy. The stars just aren't bright enough and if I do longer exposures in-camera I start getting the trails...

This is probably my best one. I have no idea how they came out so well, it must of been a pretty rare clear night. I haven't got anything like this since. The orange bit is a thin layer of cloud I think, made orange by the light pollution. There is also a plain trail in there:


It's a pretty boring image though. When it starts getting a bit warmer I'm hoping to go out into the countryside and spend a night taking some with a more interesting foreground.

Love this, but what is that rod shaped thing at the bottom right? Looks mental, it's great. Have you any more of these to show?

An aeroplane I'd warrant.

yeah

DanHeron wrote:There is also a plain trail in there

Oh I see, I don't understand proper photography, clearly. So that's taken over several seconds?

There's not much light in a night sky, so you have to leave the camera open for a while to get anything to show up, so that more light can get in and get recorded, so it's a long exposure. That looks like a planes lights blinking every however many seconds a plane's lights blink.

Long exposure shots can be cool, and can show the motion that the eye sees, where shorter exposures can freeze the action showing something that the eye doesn't see. Here's two not as interesting photos of mine that show it a bit. In the top photo the camera is open for 1/500th of a second, in the lower it's open for a full second.
The same technique can produce cool and dramatic photos of things moving (even stars):

kinda cool, if you knew the periodicity of the blinking lights on the plane you could estimate the shutter speed used in the photo by counting the lights.

what's the longest shutter speed before you get star trails?

Love those, Paul, especially the river and plane take off. I knew about long exposure to get those types of images, just never even crossed my mind that that's how you'd make maximum use of light. I love looking through this thread.

Yeah, that starry picture I took was a long exposure. I know what you mean about the collecting light thing... it's quite a weird idea/concept. I mean, I understand it fully, but to think you can leave a camera collecting light and it will see things that you can't see with your eyes. It takes in light where there seems to be none, it's quite weird/cool. Imagine if our eyes worked like that. Crazy.

yeah I guess you would only really think of it or really understand it if you've used a camera in these sort of ways and seen the results. I think our eyes do work something like that as in if you swing something really fast it looks spread out. or like a blinking light on a bike wheel, you see a pattern of lights going around the wheel. it's just like that but not nearly as much speed is needed.

They do kind of work like that, next time you go out to do more of those pics, lie back and just stare for ages and you'll see more and more and the sky will look very different and more like your pic, obviously nowhere near as impressive and crisp but some of the way there. I suppose it is akin to pupil dilation and adjustment to surroundings.