seeking

why cant your boys handle their own beef? ohhhhh, cause when its one on one, they get beat down, thats right.

you certainly captured the blueness of that sponge. ha. just kidding, thats cool. i thought the bbq shots were good, simply because they were so unbelievably boring. its rare that you can so effectively capture 'nothing' in action. usually 'nothing' does not 'act'. in this case it did, and then it was caught red handed. kudos.

fbs kids stomp kids asses huh? is that what you call it when you roll squad deep on one dude? cause i heard it goes down a lot differently when its one on one. :rolleyes: either way, if you wanna post pics of your own people, have a field day but keep others off the board.

it still seems a little bit off, but definitely works better in B&W. as much as i dont like using 'photoshop filter' like effects, some vignetting around the edges and a little more of a 'worn' grainy kind of effect would give it a cool old tymey sort of feel.

yours doesnt look under exposed? granted, my pshop washes it out some, but with an under exposed image, theres only so much you can do. i could have multiplied a bunch of layers and cut and pasted various sections, but its not worth it to me. the problem is that you're trying to make it look like a high noon shot, which should be bright and happy. knowing you used a 30 second shutter speed (why didnt you go with bulb?) this must have been taken at night...problem is, it doesnt look like a night shot, it looks like an overcast day. that is what makes it a not very good photo. dont take it personally, just learn from it. i dont for a second think im the god of photography, but i do have eyes. ;) jibberish, camera was ordered today, so i should have it in my hands soon. but if i post in here, im gonna continue to keep it critical (and expect the same of my stuff). i have no interest in hand jobs and i pretend that others feel the same. its so easy to be a boring photographer...not on my watch.

its underexposed, lacks contrast, saturation, a clear focal point, any kind of natural flow and the blurred clouds hurt your eyes. or if you'd like the short version: no offense, but it's simply not a very good photo. see how fun it is having me around again? :)

im not jesus, i just like to pretend on the internets.

did you do polaroid transfers too? don't lie, jesus hates liars. seeks/he also hates fags, fyi.

just tried to order camera, but was 8 minutes too late. stupid lazyness. ill handle it on tuesday (oh yeah, fuck a 'holiday' as well).

that was a question for 'for placement only'. lomo is a kind of camera. vignetting is when the edges of a photo are 'softer'. usually it's a result of cheaper lenses. art school kids love it cause it makes boring shit more interesting. loki, does being wack somehow make you go faster? the photo had zero photographic merrit, so obviously you were just looking for props on your work. that's not going to happen, sorry. please don't ruin their thread with complaining, just accept it. k thnx bai.

that paint is worse than the stickers. yikes.

stricker bombing is fucking gay. how's that? just kidding. yours: mine: the difference: image>adjustment>curves sticker bombing really is gay though.

you dont want me hanging out in here too long. i'll just start freaking out and being way over critical. ha.

after browsing ebay i came up on this it's only $200 more than the d40x, and as far as i can tell, a way better camera. my lack of patience should get the better of me by tomorrow im sure, and it'll be ordered. thanks for your help. if there are any last words, speak them now. seeks/i cant wait for transformers. shit is gonna be sick.

im just not a tripod person. im not really a 'photographer'. i like to explore shit, taking photos is secondary. i do imagine ill take a good bit of my pictures at night, or in low light, so anti shake would be benefitial i think.

having pentax lenses doesnt really matter i guess. i could sell them all and get one nice 55-200mm nikon lens and be perfectly happy. sorry, i know im being a little redundent at this point. i just get kind of obsessive about shit. i want to like the d40x, it just seems like there has to be some big drawback that im not noticing. i wish dpreview had a full review of it.

D40x pros. $800 off ebay, with lens, wide angle adaptor (i know they're cheap, but will work for most my applications), tripod, 4gb memory, hard and soft case, other nonsese. small and light. cons seems too cheap to be this good. lack of easy access function buttons. no top lcd screen, which bothers me, although im not sure why. anti shake and auto focus is built into lens, which means if i want either feature, i have to buy priority lenses built with them. mucho dinero. k10d pros anti shake in camera, so even my old ass lenses can use it. lcd on top. again, not a big deal, but something. more controls that dont require a bunch of menu> > > > to acess them. i have a whole bag of pentax lenses and a couple flashes. cons $300 more

grrr....it wont let me post lengthy nonsense. i think its trying to tell me something... actually, i was looking at the k10d, not the 100. k10d is the 10mp upgrade, which, from everything ive read, seems to be a step above the d80 for the same price (if not a little cheaper). i definitely want to go with 10mp. i have no immediate plans for printing at large sizes, but i want the option. also, as stupid as it is, the ide of having to say 'naw, it's just 6', when you can get 10mp point and shoots for $300 bums me out. ive pretty much narrowed it down to d40x, or k10d. d80 is still an option, but k10d just seems like a better camera for same price, so why bother? cont...

basically, im not a professional photographer and i have no intention of being one. if the d40x will be sufficent, then im totally fine with that, but if there are features that the k10d or d80 have that you think i'll need, lemme know. money isnt an issue, but i dont want to spend more than i need to, just to get a bunch of features that i'll never use. id rather spend the money on a lens or cocaine or a designer kitten like toyger. sorry about having this discussion twice, ive just spent the last few days scouring sites and im finding a ton of reviews, but no solid straight up answers.

-from everything ive read, with the D40/x, all the controls are on the back of the camera and accessed through menus that are kind of tedious. that annoys me. then again, i dont plan to use a whole lot of settings, so maybe it wont matter? -i cant really figure out what the D80 has that the D40x doesnt, other than a little bigger body and the ability to auto focus with any lens. i could really give a shit about auto focusing, so that's a non issue to me. also, i know it has more features accessible through buttons, which i think i like (even though i dont like functions). -i have some pentax lenses, and i like that it has anti shake built into the body. this makes me like it. is there any reason i shouldnt? -i will never use it in a studio, with remote flashes, or on the moon. im gonna take pictures of abandoned stuff, flowers, trees, rocks and shit. not literal shit, shit as in 'etc'.

sorry, one more time... and it wouldnt let me post this as one piece for some reason, so i had to split it up into three posts. bear with me. im reading everything i can, but nothing seems to be flat out telling me what to do, which is frustrating and annoying. they're all so concerned with being PC and explaining features i dont care about, that i cant read through the jargon to understand what really means what. rage (or anyone) please answer these questions for me and tell me what to do. -is the D80 worth the extra $200/300 over a D40x? -is the D40x worth the extra $200 over the D40 (6 vs. 10mp) -pentax K10D vs D80?

sweet. my problem with the noise filters (and im not sure if this article addresses this, since i havent read it yet) is that the 'noise' pixels were always tiny, where as film grain wasnt. i always wished there was a way to increase the dot size. god, i have so much to re-learn about photography, i dont remember anything. pushing shit, depth of field, all of that is totally lost on me. appreciate all your help, and since i was so self absorbed earlier i forgot to say it, congrats.

naw, that always looks like shit, and doesnt actually recrete film grain. i love the way b&w looks, shot at super high speeds so its grainy as shit. almost looks like pointalism. when you shoot at high speeds with digital, it has that moire look and just looks...digital. i hate that.

come on isaaaaaaaaaaaaaac, id considered all that. i dont know anyone who has one. plus, i like wasting money, i just wanna make sure i should waste it on this, instead of more guns or something even more useless.

yeah. ive got 3 slr's if i wanted that. theres no way i could go back to shooting film. its been too long. im too used to poin and shoot digitals, taking 15 shoots to get one decent one. if i had access to a dark room, i might consider it, but no thanks. i was reading up on soem camera, cant remember who's making it, but it has a 'film simulation mode', where it automatically reproduces the color/feel of a bunch of popular films. that was pretty fresh i thought. oh, this is something ive been wondering for a while, i'm sure someone has come out with a filter that accurately reproduces the grain of high speed b&w. anyone know of such a thing?