-=5D CLASSIC admirers, assemble! (4)

peterbj7 wrote in post #10570719
When/where was that sign last officially displayed?

I have no idea. I saw that at the Flea Market. The date is at the lower right corner. 1931 and left lower corner you see the location Selma, Ala. Beyond that... I have no clue. They have all kind of interesting stuff you can find. Part of history (I hope permanently). flea market in Raleigh, NC.

icebat wrote in post #10570971
Yes sir

you can tell a shot taken with the 135L from a mile away... it has such a distinctive look.

A few with a Vancouver based actress.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tawcan/48110123​20

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tawcan/48103829​27/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tawcan/48110047​44

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/tawcan/48110034​48

JayStar86 wrote in post #10571464
you can tell a shot taken with the 135L from a mile away... it has such a distinctive look.

Yes, everything looks so small

peterbj7 wrote in post #10571647
Yes, everything looks so small

LOL.... thats a good one... you got me on that one

Flowing

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

By-tor wrote in post #10567683
Oh So Sexy!!!

Love the Color...

It's Bianchi green!

lostid wrote in post #10571867
Flowing

You know, I'm not in any way criticising this photographer or the picture, or the countless myriads of others with the same effect. It seems to be given wisdom to show moving water as blurred. It doesn't work for me - when I look at moving water I don't see it as blurred and I don't want/need blurring added as an artificial device to show the movement. I KNOW it's moving.

peterbj7 wrote in post #10572170
You know, I'm not in any way criticising this photographer or the picture, or the countless myriads of others with the same effect. It seems to be given wisdom to show moving water as blurred. It doesn't work for me - when I look at moving water I don't see it as blurred and I don't want/need blurring added as an artificial device to show the movement. I KNOW it's moving.

Feel better now?

peterbj7 wrote in post #10572170
You know, I'm not in any way criticising this photographer or the picture, or the countless myriads of others with the same effect. It seems to be given wisdom to show moving water as blurred. It doesn't work for me - when I look at moving water I don't see it as blurred and I don't want/need blurring added as an artificial device to show the movement. I KNOW it's moving.

It's a style, but I think you will find that it's typically not "blurring added" but rather a shutter speed slow enough to show movement.

Of course if you don't prefer that style of shooting, find some water and shoot it the way you like! I typically take several exposures of things like waterfalls and that way I can choose what pleases me the most.

I personally think Lostid does a pretty effective job with these scenes -- of course it helps that he lives in such a gorgeous location (Hawaii)!

Oh, and another consideration: the style is marketable!

tonylong wrote in post #10572231
It's a style, but I think you will find that it's typically not "blurring added" but rather a shutter speed slow enough to show movement.

Of course if you don't prefer that style of shooting, find some water and shoot it the way you like! I typically take several exposures of things like waterfalls and that way I can choose what pleases me the most.

I personally think Lostid does a pretty effective job with these scenes -- of course it helps that he lives in such a gorgeous location (Hawaii)!

Oh, and another consideration: the style is marketable!

+ 1.... i like lostid's shots... including the long exposure with water movement showing. to each his own, right.

peterbj7 wrote in post #10572170
You know, I'm not in any way criticising this photographer or the picture, or the countless myriads of others with the same effect. It seems to be given wisdom to show moving water as blurred. It doesn't work for me - when I look at moving water I don't see it as blurred and I don't want/need blurring added as an artificial device to show the movement. I KNOW it's moving.

tonylong wrote in post #10572231
It's a style, but I think you will find that it's typically not "blurring added" but rather a shutter speed slow enough to show movement.

Of course if you don't prefer that style of shooting, find some water and shoot it the way you like! I typically take several exposures of things like waterfalls and that way I can choose what pleases me the most.

I personally think Lostid does a pretty effective job with these scenes -- of course it helps that he lives in such a gorgeous location (Hawaii)!

Oh, and another consideration: the style is marketable!

JayStar86 wrote in post #10572402
+ 1.... i like lostid's shots... including the long exposure with water movement showing. to each his own, right.

Key points in bold.

IMO, the photo being taken depends on your intent. Are you shooting for yourself? Shooting for someone else? Shooting for an assignment? Shooting to sell? Each of these "needs" might result in a different image. I love blurred water from long exposures, I shoot for myself, so my moving water photos are always long exposure.

I think selective coloring was invented by Satan. However, if I were going to market my photos at a selective coloring convention, guess what I'd do? Create a bunch of selective colored photos. lol

My Son

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I posted this in people as well but you guys are way more helpful in here. Never done band shots before. They explicitly said that they did not want a "band folding their arms in front of a brick wall" or any derivative of that type of shot, so here are a few things that I came up with. I was hiding in the back for the first one firing it all via pocketwizard. The second one is pretty straightforward, handheld slower shutter speed at high ISO to give it sort of a gritty feel with the motion blur, and action, etc, to emphasize the feel of the band, rather than a perfect well-lit pop star shot.

I also did a bunch of pretty straightforward/slight​ly artsy headshots but I'm more concerned with the group shots, these two in particular.


The only thing that really grinds my gears is her blown out hand, which strayed a little too close to the flash on this one.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR