Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Rambowjo

Rambowjo

Das Protoss
Aug 3, 2005
5,073
5
38
33
Tapeland
I've been using my lensbaby a lot, and that is probably the hardest manual focus there is, so I might look into those as well. Can't say I'm too hot on getting a fisheye, but if my lens repository starts to feel a bit stale one day, I might pick one up :)
 
BillyBadAss

BillyBadAss

Strong Cock of The North
May 25, 1999
8,880
61
48
49
Tokyo, JP
flickr.com
Last night I discovered the work of Saul Leiter. Some really inspiring stuff from his early color works. I would love to be able to shoot with that film he used. The grain and color is really cool. Check out this blog for more of his photos.

SaulLeiter_Paris1959.jpg
 
Israphel

Israphel

Sim senhor, efeitos especial
Sep 26, 2004
1,136
0
0
53
Lisboa,Portugal
Apologies for people on Google+ who have already seen these.

A couple of shots taken around an hour to an hour and a half after sunset at a beach in south west Portugal.
Very little of what you see in these shots was visible to the naked eye - some of the brighter stars and the faint glow of the breakers...Other than that it was pitch black and I was working by torch light and trial and error for composition, focus and exposure.
The yellow light behind the rock is actually ambient light from a couple of tiny villages further up the coast- This wasn't visible to the naked eye at all, but I set the camera up to absorb as much light as possible during the exposure.
Almost no post processing, just a little contrast work using the histogram levels and curves, and noise reduction on the shadow area at the bottom.

ISO 1100 | 60 seconds | f2.8
85.jpg


ISO 1600 | 30 seconds | f2.8
84.jpg
 
B

Bi()ha2arD

Toxic!
Jun 29, 2009
2,808
0
0
Germany
phobos.qml.net
First couple of shots from my trip to Norway

[screenshot]http://phobos.qml.net/bio/photos/nw/IMG_3342.jpg[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://phobos.qml.net/bio/photos/nw/IMG_3534.jpg[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://phobos.qml.net/bio/photos/nw/IMG_3562.jpg[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://phobos.qml.net/bio/photos/nw/IMG_3574.jpg[/screenshot]

[screenshot]http://phobos.qml.net/bio/photos/nw/IMG_3681.jpg[/screenshot]
 
Last edited:
Vaskadar

Vaskadar

It's time I look back from outer space
Feb 12, 2008
2,689
53
48
35
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I like the first shot and the fourth shot quite a bit. The first one is exceptionally vibrant. Did you add some post-processing to it?
 
BillyBadAss

BillyBadAss

Strong Cock of The North
May 25, 1999
8,880
61
48
49
Tokyo, JP
flickr.com
A guy I know here in Tokyo made a parody video of a Justin Bieber song about people stealing your photos on the internet. Fucking rad shit if you have ever had this experience. I think it's still funny if you haven't. Great lyrics though. Singing, hmm... not so much. :D

[m]http://youtu.be/yKPQiKDsMgk[/m]

EDIT:

Link to his website.
 
Last edited:
OO7MIKE

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,027
113
63
Nalicity, NC
Here are a few photos from a wedding I shot last week end. Strangely even if they hire you for your ability to get excellent candids, people seem to be drawn towards the classic portrait shots. I'll mix a bit of an edgy look in there with a small mix of fashion. They love it!

1. Tamron 17-35 - This $200 lens delivers!
MBP_9964_5_6_7_8_tonemapped_5.jpg


2. Nikon 16mm Fisheye
MBP_9726_2.jpg


3. Tamron 17-35
MBP_9652_4.jpg


4. Shot on my D3100 with a 1970's Tamron 90mm f2.5 manual focus lens. As long as you dont give it any reason to flare it will deliver beautiful images. Got this lens for $100 with all the adapters.
DSC_0647.jpg
 
Last edited:
OO7MIKE

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,027
113
63
Nalicity, NC
BillyBadAss said:
Another photo a friend that came to visit and shoot recently. Also, a rant about smartphone camera apps.
Click to expand...

I read your rant and I agree with some of it. I really don't think instagram or other apps that add filters to your photos is meant to serve any other purpose than to simply have a photo with cool effects. You can bet that less than 5% of its users will have even a glimmer of an idea to actually get them printed. That btw is just a guess and a conservative figure at that. Most users who shoot digitally keep their photos in digital format. It is a shame though because a good display of prints says so much more about your work than any website. There is just no control over quality out there. For the majority of users out there.. they don't care, never will, and that is quite alright with them.



das_ben said:
Click to expand...

LOL I like that they are goofing off.



Israphel said:
ISO 1600 | 30 seconds | f2.8
84.jpg
Click to expand...

What lens did you use for this? You have some crazy distortion on the far edges. Looks cool!
 
Israphel

Israphel

Sim senhor, efeitos especial
Sep 26, 2004
1,136
0
0
53
Lisboa,Portugal
OO7MIKE said:
What lens did you use for this? You have some crazy distortion on the far edges. Looks cool!
Click to expand...

It's the 17-35 2.8
The distortion is no different (and actually better controlled) than most UWA lens. You're not confusing the stars in the corner trailing, are you. That's an astronomical effect caused by the rotation of the earth against the night sky. Stars directly infront of you - of the centre of the frame, will move less than the ones at the edge of your vision of frame. It's why in star trails with a WA lens there seems to be a fixed point in the middle around the stars rotate in ever growing circles.

Anyway, with any exposure of the stars that lasts 30 seconds or more, the stars in the corner will start to move.
 
Last edited:
OO7MIKE

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,027
113
63
Nalicity, NC
Israphel said:
It's the 17-35 2.8
The distortion is no different (and actually better controlled) than most UWA lens. You're not confusing the stars in the corner trailing, are you. That's an astronomical effect caused by the rotation of the earth against the night sky. Stars directly infront of you - of the centre of the frame, will move less than the ones at the edge of your vision of frame. It's why in star trails with a WA lens there seems to be a fixed point in the middle around the stars rotate in ever growing circles.

Anyway, with any exposure of the stars that lasts 30 seconds or more, the stars in the corner will start to move.
Click to expand...

Oh no, its definitely the ultrawide softness in the corners. No.. I didn't think there would be more earth rotation in the far corners than on the top of the frame. LOL!
 
Israphel

Israphel

Sim senhor, efeitos especial
Sep 26, 2004
1,136
0
0
53
Lisboa,Portugal
OO7MIKE said:
Oh no, its definitely the ultrawide softness in the corners. No.. I didn't think there would be more earth rotation in the far corners than on the top of the frame. LOL!
Click to expand...

Well, it's shot wide open at 2.8 (to get absolutely as much light in as short a time as possible) so there's going to be corner softness. It's a trade off that has to be made to do these kind of shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom