Well that's interesting...seems the prog I am using, Gimp, can't do fine amounts of rotation, it's 90 degrees minimum. A picture viewing program I have could do a small enough rotation but it buggered up the picture. Can any progs do tiny amounts of rotation?

Edit: oops, Gimp can do fine rotations. Sorry, Gimp.

 

Anybody familiar with the Gimp? When I do a slight rotation it blurs the image. Does rotation normally degrade the image?

 

Dave that pic is pretty bad ***! Very, very nice work.

Next up you'll be shooting like my friend Easton:

 

I'm actually familiar with Easton from another forum.

 

great guy! met him through another forum and talked to him a bit about magazine shots...surely you've seen some. it's amazing how quickly he's risen up over the past year with all this stuff.

 

Here are a couple of shots I did a few weeks go. Shot with my P&S nikon 4300.





I'm hoping to have some new stuff this weekend.

 

Very nice shots, do you have somekind of setup attached to the car and then post-process edit away the setup? How did you take these shots?

I use a 300D(Digital Rebel for you guys ).

 

I read that a little fast earlier, I now read it a bit slower and from what I understand you don't want to reveal your setup, a bit sad for me, but props for you for being able to make it

Is this homemade or one of those really expensive setups? the mounting that is.

Thanks for a warm welcome!

 

I made the setup myself. So far I'm into it for maybe $70 worth of parts. That said I have a few months worth of experimentation invested in it so far and I don't feel like just handing over all the details about it right off the bat. Once someone else on NAM does some similar shots after reading the how-to then maybe I'll discuss it more.

 

I understand and respect your choice.

I think I'm too much of a coward to put something worth around $1000+ on something I built myself.

 

Seeing as how yesterday evening began so nice, I headed over by the beach. Snapped this at a Belmont Shore public lot.

Need to wash car, thus the water spots on the boot. (didn't have the patience to clone out reflection on rear window.) Decided to leave in lens flare.

f.9 @ 25sec.; 44mm; shot a few bursts with flash off camera

 

Dan: Leica M7, Voigtlander 50mm 1.5, Kodak TCN400. I don't recall the time (maybe 1/15th?), but it was hand held. Aperture was certainly 1.5, or at best 1.8

Looking West Along the Champs de Elyse:




Searchlight at the Top of the Eiffel
(This one I can't seem to get the hyper-link to, but it is one of my fav shots. I subtitled it: Asteroid attacking Paris)

http://www.leica-gallery.net/jennysup/image-36755.html

In short, of course a tripod, etc etc is going to help. But holding your breath, leaning on somethng that ain't going anywhere, and hoping for the best sometimes produces great results! (BTW, the strut tower bar is in the Carbiol. Love it!)
d

(looking back, my notes say Supra 800 on the 'asteroid' shot. I thought it was tcn400 since I shot 95% B/W in France. The notes are more contemporanious though, so it probably was Supra)

 

Really nice, Ducttape! How do you like the M7? I have a Voigtlander Bessa-R and some Voigtlander lenses and an M7 (or MP?) is one of my dream-purchases. It's such a nice change from the digital stuff to get out with a rangefinder and a roll of XP-2.

Mark

 

Here's a "Night Shot" contribution--an attempt at light-painting:

 

There is something to be said for digital! See my post in other column about the Panasonic/Leica. This Photoshop stuff is very visual.

I LOVE the M7. Got an M6TTL and maybe 9 months later the M7 came out and I sold the M6 on eBay. Worth the few extra hundred it cost me.

I would say new or used, it is a home run. The auto exposure saves an incredible amount of shots. It's hard enough to focus at .72 without having to worry about exposure all the time. Plus, of course, you can manual everythig if you want.

While I LOVE the looks of the MP, (paint, rewind is kind of kool, etc) it is more lake an M6 and I find that inconvenient. Again, I prefer to have the option of auto if I want it.

To me, photography is just as much composition and visiuals as it is technical. Even Adams and Weston, etc etc worked in the dark room, and we can work in Photoshop (even with film) so I am less concerned that a camera told me how much light then I am with my composing a picture correctly. A great exposed shot, with a telephone pole dead in the center, is still a sucky shot.

But, I just can't bring myself to drop even more bucks on the Leica al la carte. Mmmm, an M7 with paint, round rewind, MP finder, maybe the Leica engaving, my name... wait, I haven't won the lottery yet, have I?

 

Good one Mark. Glad to see you posted it.
When are you going to shoot more?

 

Hey, thanks! :smile: I'll try to shoot more, soon. Weather's always a factor this time of year though bad weather shots can be fun, too. And, assuming the credentials come through, I should be shooting the North American International Auto Show again this year.

Ducttape, I agree with you that, while getting the technical stuff down is important, that's not what photography is mostly about. The creative part is the hard stuff, and also the more interesting stuff. And, yeah, that Leica a la carte is interesting. I only wish I could have one built for me!

Mark

 

Went to one of my usual dives for beer and tacos last night. Since I constantly carry my LC-A with me, I snapped these, using cheap 99-cent Luckycolor film (ISO 200).





Across the street at the Pick Your Part, I was amazed at their Holiday displays. Here's one of them.

Obviously, the Lomo camera has no white balance controls nor noise reduction. Hey, it's a point-n-shoot!

 

Great stuff, blacknblue!

Mark

 

Thanks Mark. I know these type of cameras, and their resulting images, are low on the photo totem pole but I have fun.

(that's what matters, no?)

On a different note . . .
Those of us here in the L.A. Basin are familiar with Samy's but I thought I'd share this article from their website: On Night Photography
I know it deals with film but it's still interesting (just for the guy's philosophy) for those of us nocturnes that also shoot digital.

 

Ive been wondering about those pics that are "in motion"

correct me if im wrong but isnt it possible to achieve the same by doing the following:

1) drive your car passed the point where you want to take the pic thus achieving the blur effect.
2) park your car stationary where you have just taken the pic
3) photoshop the outline of the car and copy the same
4) paste onto first "blur" pic
5) using photoshop trace the outline of the wheel and tyre
6) using "radial blur- spin" gives the effect that the wheels are in motion

I really cannot beleive there is a "set-up" to achieve those images as that would require photoshop in any event to remove the same!

This is my guess at how to achieve "similar" results

:D

 

Good question! You get a somewhat different effect by attaching a rig to a moving car as opposed to panning as it drives by. When you pan with a moving car, you're rotating the camera around its vertical axis so the angle of the film plane changes relative to the scene. The result, especially if the shutter speed is fairly low, is only part of the moving object is sharp. You can use that creatively but it's a different look than what you'd get if the camera was rigidly attached to a moving car.

Here, for instance, is a shot of Alex Tagliani at the Molson Indy Toronto this year:



I panned with him and the nose and rear wing a quite blurred with only his helmet sharp, which is usually what you're trying for in a pan shot like this with an open-wheel car. A rig attached to the car would look make for a nice but very different effect, at least without some Photoshop work (more about that in a moment).

Also, with a rig, you're free to put the camera in places where you couldn't possibly stand, like on the nose or roll hoop or wing, or attached to the side pointing up at a second car.

Another thing, at least for me and I know for some other people, is that I don't like Photoshop trickery. Even if it doesn't scream "fake!", it's a deception in which I don't want to engage. For photojournalistic work, it's something that can (and should) get you fired from a newspaper and it's happened to people for even (relatively) minor things like excessively darkening a background. Now, obviously, for personal fun stuff, artistic purposes, or advertising, it's a different thing completely and, at least in my mind, for those purposes, cloning out the visible parts of a rig is much better than pretty much faking the shot entirely by making a composite.

Mark

 

Having fun is what matters! Nice night photography article! Thanks. Note to self: must do more night stuff!

Mark

 

As I've seen, there are quite a few talented night shooters here. I was hoping we could start up a thread for general tips and techniques you guys use for night shooting. It's something I want to start doing a lot more of, and sure could use everyone's tips...

 

KiLO,

I just merged you post into this existing thread we had going from a while back on the same subject and the issues it presents. Read through it and post up your questions.

Dave