Photographers of Pinkbike-READ THE OP

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Photographers of Pinkbike-READ THE OP
Author Message
Posted: Sep 7, 2021 at 3:47 Quote
A polarizing filter would reduce or eliminate a reflection off of water, no?

Posted: Sep 7, 2021 at 7:36 Quote
ninjatarian wrote:
A polarizing filter would reduce or eliminate a reflection off of water, no?
Yup the reduce reflections, they use them mainly in automotive photography.

O+
Posted: Sep 12, 2021 at 1:28 Quote
First attempt at a sequence. Lots of learning to do, but definitely going to be do more going forward!

photo

Posted: Sep 13, 2021 at 9:49 Quote
jsnfschr wrote:
First attempt at a sequence. Lots of learning to do, but definitely going to be do more going forward!

photo
Looks clean this is my only attempt yet that gap is 8ft.
photo

Posted: Sep 13, 2021 at 10:04 Quote
I find polarizers with wider angle lens kinda sucks. But I've only used cheap stuff.

On the sequence train chooo chooo:

photo

And on the pano topic: have any of you tried the brenizer method for portraits? If you're stitching a bunch of photos together you can essentially get the effect of having a huge sensor for razor thin depth of field. Work well for full body shots with a lot of background, the max I did was "break" the model into two shots, but you can go crazy, just hard to stitch humans back together.

Posted: Sep 13, 2021 at 11:28 Quote
brodoyouevenbike wrote:
I find polarizers with wider angle lens kinda sucks. But I've only used cheap stuff.

On the sequence train chooo chooo:

photo

And on the pano topic: have any of you tried the brenizer method for portraits? If you're stitching a bunch of photos together you can essentially get the effect of having a huge sensor for razor thin depth of field. Work well for full body shots with a lot of background, the max I did was "break" the model into two shots, but you can go crazy, just hard to stitch humans back together.

I use the Brenizer method quite a bit to get a wide-angle view, my depth of field is especially shallow because I generally use an 85 mm f 1.5.
photo
photo

Posted: Sep 26, 2021 at 15:03 Quote
[Quote="Sethsg"]
brodoyouevenbike wrote:
I find polarizers with wider angle lens kinda sucks. But I've only used cheap stuff.

On the sequence train chooo chooo:


I'll raise you one more.

photo
photo

Posted: Sep 26, 2021 at 15:11 Quote
[Quote="privateer-wheels"]
Sethsg wrote:
brodoyouevenbike wrote:
I find polarizers with wider angle lens kinda sucks. But I've only used cheap stuff.

On the sequence train chooo chooo:


I'll raise you one more.

photo
photo

Isn't iceberg climbing one of the most dangerous sports because they can roll over and crush you?

Posted: Sep 26, 2021 at 15:18 Quote
Sethsg wrote:
Isn't iceberg climbing one of the most dangerous sports because they can roll over and crush you?

They are pretty unpredictable, yes. Can can roll, calve off/split, and in the process crush you or drown you, if you are in the wrong place at the wrong time.

I have a couple of friends who have done it a few times, but not something they do repeatedly, exactly for this reason.

This particular guy has a physics based PhD in glaciers/glacial movement, so he probably knows the risks better than anyone.

Posted: Oct 3, 2021 at 20:08 Quote
Does anyone have any suggestions for a small fanny pack or a backpack camera bag that is waterproof? and good for riding on the north shore? I am only carrying a small mirrorless camera and 2-3 large lenses.

O+
Posted: Oct 3, 2021 at 22:01 Quote
Sethsg wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions for a small fanny pack or a backpack camera bag that is waterproof? and good for riding on the north shore? I am only carrying a small mirrorless camera and 2-3 large lenses.

I've got an Evoc Photop 16L that fits really nice. Not sure whether it's waterproof off the shelf but I've treated mine a few times with a spay on waterproofer and it stays dry... it's got a built in rain cover but that's kinda a hassle if you wanna actually access your camera.

They've got the Capture 7L hip fanny too which I'd love to get my hands on but they seem pretty hard to find in stock Confused

Posted: Oct 8, 2021 at 9:02 Quote
Turns out negative clarity is what I've been looking for all along

photo

Posted: Oct 8, 2021 at 9:11 Quote
brodoyouevenbike wrote:
Turns out negative clarity is what I've been looking for all along

photo
Yup, I almost always use negative clarity; a lot of people think their photos loo great when they crank it up to a 100. I have found the opposite is often better.

Posted: Oct 8, 2021 at 9:43 Quote
mysticmountainadventures wrote:
Sethsg wrote:
Does anyone have any suggestions for a small fanny pack or a backpack camera bag that is waterproof? and good for riding on the north shore? I am only carrying a small mirrorless camera and 2-3 large lenses.

I've got an Evoc Photop 16L that fits really nice. Not sure whether it's waterproof off the shelf but I've treated mine a few times with a spay on waterproofer and it stays dry... it's got a built in rain cover but that's kinda a hassle if you wanna actually access your camera.

They've got the Capture 7L hip fanny too which I'd love to get my hands on but they seem pretty hard to find in stock Confused
This place has the fanny packs in stock:
https://www.gearhub.ca/evoc-hip-pack-capture-7l-heather-carbon-gray.html

Posted: Oct 8, 2021 at 9:49 Quote
I like a moderate boost in clarity for certain styles of photography. Like 15-20% max. Some people way overdo it, creating a halo or glow affect around high contrast hard edges that looks absolutely awful.

I recall playing with what I believe was called the Dangan method years ago, where you added a new luminosity layer and did your clarity/contrast adjustments there, so it wouldn't bung up your colors. I quite liked that approach for certain subjects. It again, never going crazy with clarity.

I don't think I have ever slid clarity in the negative direction.


 
Your subscriptions
no posts



Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.037458
Mobile Version of Website