Yes! that would be the one.

 

I like taking motion pics... Unfortunately my friends don't like helping so I have a suction tripod for cars but the arm length isn't long enough. Anyhow, due to a little motion (about 5 m/h!) the results look like a high speed car chase!

Sometimes you need a few tries but I normally get them right first try. And the last thing I do is use photoshop. I hate artificial pictures... They look overdone. Here a "selection" of what I like doing most...








I suck at landscape photos... As well as portaits More so detail or motion... Most commonly cars

 

Love the first one, where the background is almost abstract, and the tunnel one, which looks a bit like the time tunnel in Doctor Who. Turning produces an interesting effect.

I definitely use photo editing software. Enhancing contrast, bringing out shadows, reducing glare from highlights, changing the white balance, that sort of thing. Every so often I'll remove something from an image. I do try and keep things looking natural, however--excess HDR looks silly. I can never tell how they're going to show up on someone else's screen (and mine sure isn't a professional image editing screen by any means).
Mind you, sometimes I do go for more abstract changes. The light is real enough, but the colours are not, nor is the contrast:

 

Yeah, HDR pictures just look weird. On a pro's screen they can look great, but no hobby photographer has a pro screen (or at least rarely) so you don't really get the good results. Then again, in the world of "Everyone is a pro because they buy a top of the range camera", skills can't be bought.

A friend of mine bought himself one of the newest ace cameras from Canon. It can do good pictures - in the hands of a person knowing what to do. But he just leaves it on "automatic" and gets "normal" results. Nothing fancy. A cheap smartphone can do the same nowadays.

I on the other hand only use a cheap Nikon D3000. Yonks old, it was never a pro camera and it wasn't expensive either. Heck, I don't even have any gear other than an 18-55 mm lense. That is it... Oh, and a remote. The suction mount for my car was for a camcorder. I just repurposed it. Most times, I'll adjust the settings a few times before I get the result I want. Most of my detailed pictures are on auto BUT I select what kind of focus point I want etc. Very rarely do I use my flash...

It is like cooking. The pots don't make the cook, it is his skills and taste. The same goes for photography. The camera doesn't take the pictures. The person behind it does and he/she needs to have an eye for the motive.

As said, I can't do people (I don't like having my own picture taken so I avoid taking other people's) and I have nearly no experience in the landscaping segment. Probably because there is nothing to see here Technical and cars as well as building? No problem!

 

Amaaaaaazing!

 

Nice Work Daim

Perhaps we should ask for a Sticky Photo Thread?

'What XJS related Photo did you take today'

 

Definitely, to an extent. Photographers can get pretty sick of being asked "That's an amazing photo! What camera did you use?" as if merely getting a better camera will allow everyone to take better photos. That said, a good photographer can generally get better photos with a better camera. Or rather, better (or different) lenses. Get a good camera, but get great lenses seems to be the ideal. I use a Canon 60D, which is probably a step above your Nikon 3000, but is still very much entry-level. It's a good camera, but not great. Above it are the 80D (newer model), 7DII, 6D, 5DIV, and 1D. With correspondingly huge increases in price....

Here's a couple of examples of photos that simply could not be got with a smartphone camera:
The first was taken with a 600 mm zoom, and then further cropped. A larger sensor with more pixels makes it easy to crop in on areas you want - and though phone cameras are getting up there in pixel numbers, their sensors (chips) are still very small, so there's more noise. And they don't have anything like this zoom range.


Another example, at the other extreme. This was taken with a dedicated macro lens, which lets you get really close to the subject (or rather, photograph it in extreme close-up detail). The other thing this photo illustrates is the shallow depth of field possible with faster lenses and larger sensors. Something smartphones cannot do.

(The colours are actually natural - it was the light filtering through the early autumn leaves.)

So while I absolutely agree that using an expensive camera won't automatically make you take great photos, a good camera (or good lenses, rather) will let you take better photos, with a wider range, than you could otherwise.

 

Hi Someday

Those Photos are incredible!

Apart from setting the Bar so high for some of us to aspire to, there's nothing more to say.

Except........How would you take a Photo of a Sunset, without damaging the Sensor in your Camera.

Which up to now I've stayed away from because the instructions tell you not to point the Camera at direct Sunlight.

 

It entirely depends on your camera. A point-and-shoot is not happy being pointed at the sun, because the shutter's open all the time, and you do risk overheating or damaging your camera. A DSLR (at least no in Live View mode) is safe, because the shutter's only open for the instant you take the photo.

However, I think sunset photos, so long as you don't keep pointing the point-and-shoot at the sun for too long (just enough to compose and shoot), should be fine.

I have a DSLR, which means photos like this can be taken safely. I stopped the lens down to get cool light rays coming off the sun. When shooting into the sun, however, there's always the chance of getting lens flare and of course any dust at all on your lens is going to show up clearly - as you can see....


But honestly, I wouldn't worry too much. I've taken shots into the sun with a point-and-shoot before, and it didn't do the camera any harm. Here's an example, shot with a Panasonic DMC-TZ7:


You can see that the sun glare overwhelms the sensor, making for an uglier shape than with the DSLR, and it does so even more at noon, but the camera was perfectly fine after that.

For more details, here's a site to check:
Can I damage my camera by pointing it at the sun? :: Digital Photo Secrets

 

Hi Someday

Cheers!

I've got a Canon, so why can I not take Photos as good as you Lol!

That Rock formation Photo is really off the Chain! absolutely Awesome but seeing your Photos is going to help me try and raise my game.

Thanks for the Tips on Photographing Sunsets.

 

True SDSD. A better camera can produxe better pictures in the hands of a better photographer.

I'd say 9 out of 10 DSLR users don't need a DSLR. A simple 'system camera' like the Samsung Galaxy camera etc. would be enough. The wide base of users don't even go into the settings. They as written leave the camera on AUTO and hey presto.

Some time I wanted to get some newer lenses. Well, not a new camera, as the D3000 is more than enough for me (a friend just bought a Canon für like €700 and only uses it for snapshots...) but just to extend my chances. A better tripod is also something I need, as I am a little shakey (I find it hard to be shakefree, due to a minor heart problem).

Worst thing is, that everyone now classesmthemselves as a world class photograoher because they have the most expensive camera and gear. They comment on other peoples work etc. but if you ask them what shutters are etc. they'll shrug their shoulders... And theor comments start with: I'd use my Canon/Nikon/... to take a better picture And then comes the 'my camera has 20 giga pixels' or whatever fraction...

I am always open to critisicm at the same time...

 

I should note that generally I only post the GOOD photos....

What model is your Canon?

Those rocks are a skinny cairn someone piled up by Lake Tekapo in New Zealand's South Island. There were quite a few of them.

 

Hi Daim

No Criticism from me about your Photo's as to be honest I was Shocked at just how good they were!

Very atmospheric, they would look good on a Poster.

Not just an Ace Mechanic then Lol.

 

That's certainly true, Daim. I see a lot of tourists wandering around with better cameras than me just snapping away. I like to think I'm one of the 10% that actually uses the features of a DSLR, but I don't kid myself (or try not to kid myself) that an upgrade would actually make my pics better. Tempting as it can be. Actually I would like to upgrade to full-frame, as that offers both better low light performance and shallower depth of field, but that's an expensive step. (I can't actually remember how many megapixels my camera has. 20? 18? 24? I do know I'm not happy with its low light performance, though fast glass can help a lot.)

I am able to say that basically the only time my camera goes into Idiot (full auto) mode is when I'm getting other people to use it. Otherwise it's too much hassle, especially as I use back-button focus which needs a careful explanation most times.

Does your current lens have image stabilization? Modern ones can be really good, like I posted earlier. There's no way I would have got that shot without it. Good glass lasts for decades. Which is actually a reason to think carefully about which lenses you really need, I guess - it's too easy to fall into the habit of getting anything that looks just slightly better than what you have. I tend to take too many when travelling - often one on the camera, two others, plus my video camera. It's a hassle at the time, no doubt, but the pain is temporary and the photos last forever....

 

Hi Someday

A Canon 700d, which I always use on Manual rather than Auto, so for Starters I need to take more care in composing my Shots.

I'm tempted to say that you are a bit of a Natural, as with the kind of skill you have you could work all over the World.

So its great you've joined the forum as its really inspired me to try harder.

 

That's a very good camera, OB. No worries at all about taking sunset shots with that, or even shooting into the sun, as it's a proper DSLR (just remember it's still not a good idea to stare at the sun through the viewfinder). You can take pretty much any shot you like (except in the bath, perhaps...). Get some lenses - for a bargain hunter like you, you'll no doubt be hunting up second-hand lenses, some of which can be really good value (though the very oldest ones will need an adaptor, and you'll lose autofocus). I'd highly recommend an ultra-wide lens - it's one of my favourites to use, and you can make your photos stand out simply by virtue of capturing images standard point-n-shoots can't. This photo, for example, was only possible because of my 8 mm ultra-wide - normal lenses couldn't begin to get that all:

That's St. Peter's, in Rome. Or rather, the Vatican. You don't need skill for that shot, just the right lens. But it does have a lot of impact, precisely because it's not the sort of shot most people can take.

Anyway, thanks very much for your very kind words. I rather doubt I could compete with the true professionals, but I enjoy it. I see myself not as creating art, but recording the art that is already there. Just tweaked a little bit to make the photo look more like my impressions.

 

Another incredible Shot!

I'll start saving up for New Glass

P.S. I sent you a PM.

 

Cheers OB but I'm neither an ace mech nor a photographer... Just hobbies. What I am good at is negotiating prices and making suppliers come crawling to me on their hands and knees

It doesn't have stabilisation. That is one down side of such a basic camera. Heck, it won't even film (the D3100 does). But then again, when I film, I use my GoPro (which is probably one of the best camcorders out there for the price you pay).

Of course, I only post good pictures as well. Sometimes I will post a bad one, if I couldn't get it done any better (like a slightly blurry picture etc.). But otherwise I also sort my pictures.

My most favorite picture I did so far, is in my signature. A rather dark picture of my XJ-S in a rather dull car park. Position of the car under the lights, the way it sits and the reflections all contribute to a picture, which won a couple of competitions so far... All of course NON-shopped... Not even exposure or brightness touched. Though it was one of something like 200 pictures I took on that evening with every photo having a different combination of settings and from different angles...

Whilst I was doing that, some youths who meet up in the same car park every Saturday night stood behind me and wanted their cars done, as I was able to take all the pictures off the camera onto my tablet, which has a good quality display very close to "reality".

I ended up earning something like EUR 500 that evening Just by taking some pics of a few BMWs, VWs and a beautiful Saab 900 Aero Turbo... Shame I did't keep the pictures. I sold them to the owners and passed on my "artist rights" to them. Never mind.

 

Yes, that's a nice pic. I like the rear especially. Two hundred pics in one evening? That's an impressive amount. And yeah, you're right - every so often there's that one pic that's just perfect the way it is.

Hmm. You probably should have negotiated for more money for passing over copyright as well.
While I'm not a pro, and haven't even bothered entering any contests, I have read on places like Petapixel that people who commission photographers are only buying the photos, not the raw files, and not the copyright either. There's actually often debates there between pros and the rest about that sort of thing. Might be interesting reading.

 

Yeah, as you said, there is that ONE picture what you really like

With the money, I think €500 within something like 1h is a good price I don't even cat a 20th of that per hour in the office, so I was happy!

Regarding the contest: I won the SNG Photo Comp in 2015... Boy was I happy!

This is the untouched uncropped picture:


I have had it as a background pic for YONKS!