Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[OO7MIKE]

Nice poses, however it looks like they were shot at ISO 3200. Too over processed in my opinion.

They where all shot at ISO 100 - 200. I was going for the over processed look. I wanted them to look like grainy pencil drawing that I used to make back in my high school days.. minus the wings of course. Besides I like the Kodak T-MAX P3200 look.

 

[shadow_dragon]

More photos, different model, similar processing.

This girl has had some confidence issues lately.. can't imagine why.

Nice work on these ones man. I really like them.

My only criticism is with the second image i think.
It's a little too overexposed for me. I'd rather see more of her form, either through some subtle detail in the material obscuring her or just having less white bleeding over her shape. It is a brilliant photo though.

P.s/ I assume you want criticism, i'm trying to be constructive with it but if you don't want any that's cool. Your photography does own so I hope I don't give you the wrong impression.

 

[Rambowjo]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPR0CviH2hQ[/M]

[M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6v9hkD3ICI[/M]

My mom found a chunk of new born spiders outside, so I went to film it with my camera

 

[Zxanphorian]

How big was that area of spiders?

 

[Rambowjo]

Really small, maybe just a centimeter in diameter.

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

Chunk of spiders I found outside. Recorded with my Canon EOS 1000D camera. Sorry for the lack of sound. Put on some funky music for added effect.

The 1000D can record video?

 

[OO7MIKE]

The 1000D can record video?

You have to connect it to your computer using a hack:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/eos-movrec/

I tried it with my 40d long ago. It overheated after a few min and shut down. It works though

 

[El JuaKo]

from barcelona

should have done something about that nose shadow when i could.

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

You have to connect it to your computer using a hack:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/eos-movrec/

I tried it with my 40d long ago. It overheated after a few min and shut down. It works though

Ah thought so. Somehow hacking into the live view I guess.

 

[Rambowjo]

You can view the live view already with the standard tools that come with a 1000D camera, on the CD. Somebody simply made a program that records the live view.

I haven't experienced that my camera overheats, though some guy on YouTube said something about the pixels on the chip getting burned out and how he had to send in his 40D for repairs. Maybe there's some truth to it? Just sounds weird, since live view is a feature.

 

[OO7MIKE]

You can view the live view already with the standard tools that come with a 1000D camera, on the CD. Somebody simply made a program that records the live view.

I haven't experienced that my camera overheats, though some guy on YouTube said something about the pixels on the chip getting burned out and how he had to send in his 40D for repairs. Maybe there's some truth to it? Just sounds weird, since live view is a feature.

The 40d was one of the first models to support live view on the Canon side. There where obvious heat issues if you used it for too long. The sensor is pretty close to the LCD and when using live view for longer than a min you could feel the eat. Without a way to dissipate that heat, the camera would just automatically shut down live view and the heat would go away. The 1000d is a newer camera and doesn't suffer from it nearly as much.

I am not certain how they solved the heat issues on newer models such as the 5dmk2 and the 7d but I would guess that it has something to do with combination of a heat sink, lower voltage to the sensor, a better sensor designed for video work. The 7d still heats it up inside but at least its not overheating.

The CMOS sensor in cameras where only designed to be used for a fraction of a second at a time. Camera manufacturers saved on battery life by cutting off the power to the CMOS sensor after each exposure is taken. Bulb mode would significantly drain your battery. Although some still think that adding live view or video to a still camera is a bad idea, I welcome it because it makes it more efficient. I like knowing that I can go out on a shoot with my grip and can crank out 2,000 shots and not even get half way through my battery. I couldn't do that with the 40d or the 30d/20d. I can shoot 2-3 big gigs and not have to worry too much about battery life while on the job.


El JuaKo: Your "human" work has a slightly underexposed low key movie feel to them. I think your concept work is your strongest stuff.

 

[El JuaKo]

thanks will keep that in mind, i am just trying to branch into taking stills but you are right, at the moment im shooting more student films than anything else.

 

[Bi()ha2arD]

I'm thinking about getting the Tokina AT-X M100 AF PRO D Macro lens.

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/afl-m100-a.html

Do you think it's good? Is there anything better that is in the same price range? (~450€ max)

The reviews I've seen so far suggests it is really great for the price.

 

[pine]

Some people just like to complain to get attention.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was getting at, in an exaggerated way. If a pretty girl tells you she has self-image problems I would just assume she is trolling for compliments.

 

[Igoy]

I honestly think it's sad that many of you would jump straight to the conclusion that she's just attention seeking. If she says it to everyone, then sure, but if it's something she confides in you... you don't know what goes through her head. It's kinda douchebagish. But then again, this is BuF...

 

[Crotale]

I have been struggling with this photo for a year now, trying my best to clean it up for a friend. My buddy, Roger, is 73 years old, and in this photo are his grandmother's older sister and his great-grandmother. Judging from what I know, the original image is at least 125 years old. Roger happened to find a very old copy of the original print that is well worn out. After attempting to clean up the scan as best he could, he asked me if I would give it a shot. He has since misplaced the print copy and wants to make a new one.

After much trial and error, this is the best I can do. I had worked on this image for numerous hours, each time failing horribly, thus throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I recently picked the project back up, since roger has some older relatives he wants to send the picture to before they expire. This is the best I can get the image to look, as Roger wants it to have its original "charm," as in no digital sterilization or heavy modification to the scene.

The top image is the scanned original, the bottom is my final output. Did I do an acceptable job or should I just give up? Any additional pointers or tips will helpful but are not required. Thanks.

[screenshot]http://www.acliffhanger.com/images/rgr_homey_small.png[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://www.acliffhanger.com/images/rgr_homey_redux_small.png[/screenshot]

 

[Igoy]

It's nice, you've gone a good job. That said though, I don't think the photo was in bad shape to begin with. The only criticism I have is that the smoothness of the photo makes it look a little more like a sketch/painting, rather than a photo itself? I just saved the pic and sharpened it up a bit in PS and it looks a lot better. But thats just me.

 

[OO7MIKE]

I have been struggling with this photo for a year now, trying my best to clean it up for a friend. My buddy, Roger, is 73 years old, and in this photo are his grandmother's older sister and his great-grandmother. Judging from what I know, the original image is at least 125 years old. Roger happened to find a very old copy of the original print that is well worn out. After attempting to clean up the scan as best he could, he asked me if I would give it a shot. He has since misplaced the print copy and wants to make a new one.

After much trial and error, this is the best I can do. I had worked on this image for numerous hours, each time failing horribly, thus throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I recently picked the project back up, since roger has some older relatives he wants to send the picture to before they expire. This is the best I can get the image to look, as Roger wants it to have its original "charm," as in no digital sterilization or heavy modification to the scene.

The top image is the scanned original, the bottom is my final output. Did I do an acceptable job or should I just give up? Any additional pointers or tips will helpful but are not required. Thanks.

Given the difficulty level of the restoration work, it looks pretty good. Overall it looks pretty clean, but you have lost quite a bit of detail in the photo by making it look clean. Remember, this was a photo taken using very old film. Film grain is part of the picture. The dynamic range of old photographs are really low. Don't expect to make the photo look like a photo taken from a modern day camera. I think you should do your best to retain the film grain and detail even if you have to add it on later. Its what pro restoration guys do and its what Hollywood does when they mix footage from film with CGI that has been inserted after the fact. You may want to take the approach of making it look as clean as possible without any grain, then adding you own film grain to the entire photo when you are done.

The photo looks pretty good so far...but there is still much to do. The roof looks aliased, parts of the tree on the right are missing or faded. The sky is a little too bright on the right. It should matched up with the rest of the scene. You have done an excellent job at removing scratches and dust specks though.

 

[Crotale]

It's nice, you've gone a good job. That said though, I don't think the photo was in bad shape to begin with. The only criticism I have is that the smoothness of the photo makes it look a little more like a sketch/painting, rather than a photo itself? I just saved the pic and sharpened it up a bit in PS and it looks a lot better. But thats just me.

The original? Wow, I tried to sharpen it and blah, it looked horrible.

Given the difficulty level of the restoration work, it looks pretty good. Overall it looks pretty clean, but you have lost quite a bit of detail in the photo by making it look clean. Remember, this was a photo taken using very old film. Film grain is part of the picture. The dynamic range of old photographs are really low. Don't expect to make the photo look like a photo taken from a modern day camera. I think you should do your best to retain the film grain and detail even if you have to add it on later. Its what pro restoration guys do and its what Hollywood does when they mix footage from film with CGI that has been inserted after the fact. You may want to take the approach of making it look as clean as possible without any grain, then adding you own film grain to the entire photo when you are done.

The photo looks pretty good so far...but there is still much to do. The roof looks aliased, parts of the tree on the right are missing or faded. The sky is a little too bright on the right. It should matched up with the rest of the scene. You have done an excellent job at removing scratches and dust specks though.

Yeah, I'm going to redo the rooflines and bring back in parts of the tree. I too thought the right sky was brighter for some reason, but it actually is the same level as the right side, last time I checked. I will adjust it anyways, since you mentioned it.

Thanks for the tips, Igoy and Mike!

 

[Igoy]

The original? Wow, I tried to sharpen it and blah, it looked horrible. Thanks for the tips, Igoy and Mike!

No, I meant your edit. And anytime!