Fallout Studios Forums

Fxor, on 16 Oct 2010, 15:59, said:

Yes it certainly helps if you go to beautiful locations in the first place I doubt my shots would look nearly as good if I was stuck in the city all the time. I'm a complete amateur when it comes to taking photos, I may invest in a better camera if I get more serious about it, until then my current camera serves my needs fine.

There are two things keeping your last photo from being extraordinary: The over exposure that dominates the upper left, and the pink spot that lives downwind and to the right. Outside of that, the photo is quite a looker. The rays coming down from the clouds, kissing the earth, and the hushed ambiance that the cloud cover allows is just the business.

Sgt. Nuker, on 16 Oct 2010, 16:09, said:

I have no idea what that pink spot is, I don't remember it being there when I took the picture. If I lower the exposure on my camera it just makes the entire image darker, so it would still be brighter in that corner and the rest would be darker as well. I may have a play around and see if I can tweak the image somewhat.

The pink spot looks like lens flare to me.

If you feel that imageshack adds too much grain, consider using Flickr. Far better for real photos. I believe imageshack reduces the quality to save on bandwidth.

Spent the weekend in the lakes, hence some nice new photos.

Spent the weekend climbing / walking in Snowdonia, heres some of the photos I took. Sadly my camera ran out of battery halfway through the second day :(

Wow I like those mountains, the clouds...make it look...very...damn...I can't find a word. I just want to...play in the clouds

I wish I got to travel and go and holidays as often.

If I was looking to get into this a bit more seriously does anyone have some pointers as to the camera I should be looking for? I wouldn't want to spend more than £300 ideally, but I have more available if its worth the price.
Edited by Ion Cannon!, 22 November 2010 - 17:56.

Brilliant shots Ion.

Cloud shots are great!

Looks like something out of a fantasy film.

I like the framing and constrast in the second shot of your most recent pictures.

If you set a tripod there with a long exposure on a similar day I just wonder what kind of capture you could get.

Ion Cannon!, on 22 Nov 2010, 19:55, said:

Look into the Panasonic LX3 or LX5. The wide end starts at 24mm eqv angle. Provides a really nice wide view. It's also got a bright aperture which makes night shots a little easier to take. The Canon S95 is also a nice cam though its wide end starts at 28mm eqv angle so it is slightly less wide.

Here is a pic comparing the FOV difference


And a small tripod can definitely help. The Gorillapod tends to be popular.

Prof. Scope, on 23 Nov 2010, 23:48, said:

The kind of photography I'm doing isn't really tripod stuff. I just take shots as I'm walking about. The main thing I want is greater sharpness / detail. Although my camera is 12MP alot of things still don't seem to look right. They're in focus, but they lack clarity.

Since you're shooting landscapes, then you're going to want a high f/stop (a low aperture) to get all the details in. Looking at the EXIF data of the thirteenth picture, the exposure time of 1/160 seemed to be a bit fast, which is going to let a little less light in than 1/125, for example. You can safely shoot at 1/125 handheld before camera shake becomes an issue.

Try playing around with the white balance a bit as well. If it's a cloudy day, try selecting the "Cloudy" setting.

If you get a better cam with RAW shooting, you can also play around with the files in a program like Lightroom or Photoshop or Silkypix

Prof. Scope, on 28 Nov 2010, 0:33, said:

And when you do, Scope will get the royalties he's been promised for saying that in every single photo thread we have

Nice pics mate, for the camera you've got. Now go buy a good 'un

Wizard, on 29 Nov 2010, 16:16, said:

I really don't know much about photography, apart from exposure. So if you could suggest something which would give my images better quality that would be great.

Wizard, on 29 Nov 2010, 18:16, said:

Dammit found out! ()
But seriously, I found that tweaking in RAW can save a seemingly doomed pic seen in camera.

Ion Cannon!, on 29 Nov 2010, 23:58, said:

In general a larger sensor will give you more detail. Dunno how much you're willing to spend for a DSLR or Mirrorless cam tbh. Unless Wiz can make you that offer he made me?

maybe lower your ISO?

12MP should definitely do the trick so i'm guessing it's that. apart from that, your camera's quality will be the main factor.

Ion Cannon!, on 16 Oct 2010, 19:31, said:

And out of nowhere Jeremy Clarkson!
I noticed in a lot of the photos they resolution looks like its out. Like looking at bushes/trees the leaves look grainy

Major Fuckup, on 25 Dec 2010, 3:36, said:

Yes, thats what I meant about it doesn't always seem clear. I don't know if thats because of the cameras resolution though, or just the camera isn't that great. It's also worth noting that imageshack adds a fair bit of grain to the pictures.

It looks to me like it was [over]sharpened in-camera via a setting if that was SOOC (straight out of camera).

The river-shot looks...off for some reason...how do I describe it...but I like that valley shot.