Vancouver Photography - Page 28

subdude · #**541** Posted **Jan 28, 2008, 3:35 AM**

Taken by me today:

giallo · #**542** Posted **Jan 28, 2008, 5:24 AM**

Nice wide angle shots, subdude.

Delirium · #**543** Posted **Jan 28, 2008, 1:43 PM**

that second pic is awesome! love the colors.

here's a bunch of recent aerial shots from a guy who rode the CTV Chopper.

bonus shot of the Golden Ears Bridge

all from www.flickr.com

subdude · #**544** Posted **Jan 28, 2008, 6:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by giallo

Nice wide angle shots, subdude.

Thanks, just getting the hang of my new lens... a little bit of barrel distortion on that first photo...

Delirium · #**545** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 2:26 PM**

some cool skyline shots from flickr.com
the last one should be the new postcard view of downtown!

Canadian Mind · #**546** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delirium

This one made me shit myself.

SFUVancouver · #**547** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 7:29 PM**

I was out in Fort Langley on Tuesday with my girlfriend to enjoy the snow and see were BC began. I had never been there before I and was very taken with this quaint main street that has been lovingly preserved and respectfully added to in recent years.

This looks like an old house... It was actually built in 1997.

And it's an office building!

My photos, taken January 29th, 2008

SpongeG · #**548** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 8:16 PM**

nice

fort langley is quite neat its been getting better - a few years ago there were a number of empty lots along the main street but they have been filled in nicely and there is more to do and see now

vanman · #**549** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 9:49 PM**

Awesome pics everybody!

Canadian Mind · #**550** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 12:09 AM**

Ft. Langley's my old home (when I was born to about 1 years old). We have family friends that have lived there as long as I've been alive. Nice to see the place on film, haven't been there to visit for a couple years now.

Delirium · #**551** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 1:47 AM**

one of the best night pano's i've ever seen. taken by Dan Barham http://www.flickr.com/photos/bearfodder/2225068838/

> > >

osirisboy · #**552** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 2:09 AM**

nice pano shot, i wish the light on the Melville was turned on though.

and those fort langley pics are really nice. i've never gone there before but i should try and make a trip out one day.

Yume-sama · #**553** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 2:26 AM**

Wow I love that panorama. How come I can't take good night photos

Jacques · #**554** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 3:12 AM**

maybe I can ask here, what type and kind of camera can one get around 400 to 500 to have the ability to take pictures such as the great photographers here do?
I always wonder, I have just a small digital camera, but it doesn't do nothing like what you here do!
Thanks

SFUVancouver · #**555** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 3:21 AM**

I haven't a clue what sort of camera was used for that excellent dusk panorama but I can tell you what I have and my experience with it.

I have a Panasonic Lumix TZ2. 10x optical zoom, optical image stabilization, 28mm wide angle Leica lens, 7 megapixels. About $450 for the TZ3 model (same camera, slightly bigger lcd screen)

I am still learning how to get the most out of it but I find I am hard pressed to take poor photos. It does not have quite as much colour depth as I would like on overcast or dreary days but that may be a setting I need to play around with.

bils · #**556** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 3:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques

maybe I can ask here, what type and kind of camera can one get around 400 to 500 to have the ability to take pictures such as the great photographers here do?
I always wonder, I have just a small digital camera, but it doesn't do nothing like what you here do!
Thanks

photographers will often say that it's not the camera that produces a nice photo, but rather it's the photographer. although i could not tell you what type of camera the photographer used for the pano posted above, i could tell you that the quality of the photo was acheived by a combination of the photographer's expertise (i.e., choosing proper aperture, exposure time), vantage point, time of day selection, the use of a tripod, and editing on a program such as Photoshop. it would be definitely possible to acheive a photo such as that one even without the use of a fancy professional camera. on the flip side, improper use of a fancy camera would not produce the level of photography you desire.

SFUVancouver - as for getting colour depth on a dreary overcast day, may I suggest the following. Take a photo in its normal mode (i.e., P mode or 'auto' mode). Then take a look at the settings with which the photo was taken (i.e., 1/200 f8.0). In order to get better colours, re-take the photo in 'manual' mode at a higher f-stop value, which in this case would be 1/200 f9.0. This will make the image appear darker, since a higher f-stop value will close the 'eye' of the camera just slightly. After uploading the photo onto your computer, use a program such as Photoshop to manually 'saturate' and 'brighten' the photo. You will then find your photo to be very lively in colour. If you have a nice photo you want me to play around with, just post it on here and I'll do a little demo for ya. I think I played around with one of your Shangri-la images once that you took on Georgia (I turned it into a future render).

zivan56 · #**557** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 3:54 AM**

During boxing week, you could have had a Canon Digital Rebel XT w/2 lenses for around $500. I bought my Fuji S6000fd from Dell for $399 last year and it's pretty good. However, I wouldn't recommend even a bridge camera if you are willing to spend more than $500. Go for the Canon Rebel if you can spend around $700 w/taxes.

Keep in mind no matter which camera you buy, it's up to you how much time you want to spend taking the picture and learning how to use the camera. I wouldn't buy anything not listed here:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/best_cameras.html
If you want something below 400, I would get the Canon S5 IS. However, I would rather keep mine due to better lens, manual zoom, longer exposure time, RAW support, and a number of other things.

For night shots, lens and sensor size are crucial; along with exposure time. There is also the issue of F/Stop as mentioned above. Some night pics I posted a couple of pages back had 15 seconds exposure. You will need to invest in a tripod as well, which can be bought for $15 at XSCargo.

bils · #**558** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 4:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by zivan56

Some night pics I posted a couple of pages back had 15 seconds exposure. You will need to invest in a tripod as well, which can be bought for $15 at XSCargo.

zivan, for night shots - how do you determine how long to expose for? i know a 15s exposure will give you a 'dreamy' looking photo, but other than that what are the advantages?

zivan56 · #**559** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 5:37 AM**

Trial and error basically. You won't need that long if you have a good camera. However, I get lots of grain when I up the ISO on mine...and too much light entering creates too much of star effect.
The above pano was at least 5-10 seconds, as you can see by the smoke trails from the buildings, that's what I was referring to.
For example:

Jacques · #**560** Posted **Feb 5, 2008, 6:09 AM**

WOW thank you for the wealth of information about the usages and kind of camera recommended, I hope to follow on this by spring, will let you know.
maybe a basic course would serve me well.
I have photoshop CS 3xtended, I am always in awe at the wonderful submission from photographers no mater their subjects, they all offer so much wonders to the eyes.
cheers