chezzyr Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 That brings back memories - the first horse I rode (bareback too) was on red dirt. She was the sweetest QH mare, I was a total beginner and she carried me safely over red dirt tracks and in between grapevines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubiton Posted March 6, 2008 Share Posted March 6, 2008 (edited) Well said chezzy - the burst mode is of extreme importance in horse sports. The more the better in some cases. And photography is about what you can get out of your camera isnt it not what you can do on a computer - or at least maybe Im from the 'old school' and am sticking with it! The computer is a tool to enhance but should not 'make' the image. As I said that racing one was as it was taken except for a little cropping. With film photos unless you had the facilities to print your own images (and not many did have colour printers) you had to rely on the colour changes that the printing machine operator made to the images. They use to colour correct, lighten and darken but the customer collecting the photos would not know unless they asked. All but one of the other professional horse racing and equestrian photographers I know of take photos using jpegs. Its suits sports photography especially something like horse racing where the faster the camera the better. I know that the 60 odd burst will be perfect for the victory gallops at the AIHT after the poor 10 D was on the verge of meltdown. They do two laps less than a minute and the 10D would do it but you would be waiting those precious seconds for it to write and clear the buffer. With the huge buffer in the 40D it will be much easier. Being able to reel off a heap of shots helps with the yearlings too - yesterday there was one who wouldn't stand was fidgeting etc and once right then its to get the ears and eyes and tail right. Being living animals they blink they swish tails yet amongst the short bursts got every one eventually with the fidgeting one coming out perfectly in the end. Would hate to be waiting for the camera to write RAW when trying to take those pics. yearling image Edited March 6, 2008 by rubiton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) This is for ruthless. Here are some photos I took with ruthless' mid 1990s model SLR, its lens and slide film. I didn't know exactly how it worked, ruthless, so just used the landscape settings. I tried to manually meter but it was very different from my 350D that way so I just used the program settings. I was experimenting to see how they would turn out. Here you go, old film photos scanned in by a photo place and left alone. I cropped the lighthouse one and resized them, that's it. These are from our road trip in January. The rest of my photos were shot on digital but mostly in raw and I don't have time to convert them all. Never again! I hate sitting on the computer at night. Smoky Cape Lighthouse, Hat Head National Park near South West Rocks, NSW. Thunderbolt's Lookout, Barrington Tops, NSW The sun setting, Barrington Tops ranges, NSW Edited July 17, 2009 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 Wow, they're beautiful pics Ripley It's not a bad little camera, it served me well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 They look good Ripley. Can't wait to get my slide films developed now. The Thunderbolts one looks much better to me on this screen What lens were you using with the film camera? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruthless Posted March 9, 2008 Author Share Posted March 9, 2008 It's 35-80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) Er, what ruthless said. Her really old lens. Now I'm thinking I might buy a film camera and some slide film, learn how to use it properly. The only thing is I would have no idea when it's last been serviced - does that matter? You can pick them up pretty cheaply on ebay and OH said he saw one in a pawn shop the other day. ETA: I took the Thunderbolts Lookout photo in digital and film as the hike there was only a kilometre from a picnic stop. When I pressed the shutter (I didn't have a tripod but steadied it on the lookout railing that was wide enough (I had the strap around my neck) it made this really slow whirring sound as it wound the film on, haven't heard that for years. The digital one came out blue as well but I don't remember the look out being THAT blue. It was blue but the slide film has intensified the colours, my digital image of the same scene is paler. When I took it to Ken's to get developed the young bloke said to me, "Slide film, how retro!" Edited March 9, 2008 by Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chezzyr Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Slide can be quite punchy. Film cameras can be cheap, I picked up one for chicken feed and its one of the more later model ones. And I LOVE the whirr sound of the film wind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Just like to say, Smoky Cape at Hat Head National Park is one of the most beautiful coastel sites I've seen. You can do the walk down to Hat Head beach and go through a cave around to another, isolated beach. A local told me it's a well kept secret, that cave. The park has camping facilities but if you wish, you can stay in the house on the photo above near the lighthouse. It's a B&B and charges $187 per night, per couple inluding a 3 course breakfast. You can also rent the cottage in that photo - sleeps 6 - for a few days to a week. We got there just as the light was fading, maybe next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 (edited) Looks great!! The colours on these are really WOW! I love the mountains shot - just beautiful. I never touch my old Canon film cameras any more - there's no where to get slides developed here and I can't wait for sending it away! Ripley - I don't know what you're doing that's taking all this time with RAW! I'm lost. If you have the software, there's almost nothing to be done except hit a button RAW isn't the be all end all, but it is another tool that is useful to learn how to use. I hate that you're having such a hard time with it - it's stories like these that scared me off at first! Edited March 9, 2008 by kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 Beautiful photo Ripley, especially love the 2nd last one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 9, 2008 Share Posted March 9, 2008 I have the photo of Smoky Cape Lighthouse (first one) as a desktop background on my monitor. Husband remarked as he saw it, "that's a nice photo". I told him it was the slide film. "Doesn't look real" he said. He said the colours are too vivid. No pleasing some - it's an unphotshopped slide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoweis Posted March 17, 2008 Share Posted March 17, 2008 Thanks but I'm on a mac and they're PC only :rolleyes: Mac's rule! I will email you some links to some great Photoshop actions. just discovered this thread; i too have just become the proud owner of a beautiful mac and love it to bits - also noticed your wonderful photos in the dane thread and perused your website Charlotte; you're very talented and very generous to give information on here; I'm guessing that Photoshop is the best editing software to use on the mac? Wonder whether you'd mind posting links as a response to this? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Just found this thead, I should come in here more often. First - We only shoot in large format jpeg - We went with RAW for a while but found it more time consuming. If you have your exposures right to begin with, then there is no reason to shoot on RAW. as for the purist debate - photos worked on in the dark room are no different to photos edited in photoshop. I have seen many weird and wonderful compositions created in a dark room that most people wouldn't be able to copy with Photoshop. If you look up the categories for APPA competition (Aust Pro photography awards), it will tell you just how much or how little work is acceptable - whether in the dark room or on the computer. They DO have a photographic art category also for those images that just don't fit into traditional criteria. You want to see some heavy handed editing? Follow this link to have a look at the work of last year's winners - there is some stunning stuff there: http://www.aipp.com.au/aipphome.php?ID=240...nsors&A=?A= There is more that I can add but I am too annoyed at the moment. I am a lover of film and much prefer it to digital but when shooting over 1000 images a week, the digital wins on ease of output and cost. I find it really offensive that there are people who consider PS cheating or 'unpure', when in reality, if you knew what you were doing in a dark room, you could reproduce many of the same effects. Maybe I will come back later and add more when I have had more sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 great link, I really loved the Australian Editorial Photographer of the Year - that style really appeals to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 great link, I really loved the Australian Editorial Photographer of the Year - that style really appeals to me Steve (the editorial photographer) is a friend of ours. He fills in for us when we are too busy. Great guy and very talented :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 (edited) Small world, anyway you can tell him that I said his work on the site just stands out from the rest and is sensational - and tell him I am jealous of his pond LOL Edited March 22, 2008 by helen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Small world, anyway you can tell him that I said his work on the site just stands out from the rest and is sensational - and tell him I am jealous of his pond LOL :rolleyes: He lives in the middle of nowhere and has a nice set up on his property. I'll let him know he has an admirer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kja Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 First - We only shoot in large format jpeg - We went with RAW for a while but found it more time consuming. If you have your exposures right to begin with, then there is no reason to shoot on RAW. This is a little oversimplified. There's much more to RAW than just tweaking exposures RAW or jpeg - both are just tools to an end. Each has uses and each shooter will find something to meet particular needs for particular results. There's no right or wrong way to do something in photography - it's one of the many things that makes it so much fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helen Posted March 30, 2008 Share Posted March 30, 2008 great website and photos Kja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now