Share your own art here :)

[MrNewportCustom]

HD! Your carvings are always beautiful. You have wuite the talent.

I got my DSLR last night. I love it! Finished this shot a little while ago.

Lee

 

[Dinerman]

 

[Dinerman]

Quick sketch I did today.

 

[Lady Day]

Ok - this isn't my own artwork, but that of my seven-year-old daughter. She has an amazing talent to look at something and recreate it with paper and pencil.

Here's her latest: Donald Duck. She looked at a DVD cover and drew this. I actually had to compare the two to convince myself that she hadn't traced it! (And she definitely didn't!)

I use to do that all the time. To copy art is a great way to learn. And this is awesome!

LD

 

[AmateisGal]

Thanks, Lady Day! She is constantly drawing, so we're going to try and set up her own little spot with a nice drawing table, etc. Although I wonder if she'll just be as comfortable drawing on the coffee table in the living room!

 

[fatwoul]

A D40x eh? How are you getting on with it? After a week with my new camera, my fragile wrists envy you and what looks to be a delightfully small DSLR. At least, it looks very small in the DPReview review.

What lens are you using? I see it was shot at 120mm. Are you using the 18-200 VR? I liked that lens. I was sorry to see it go.

Still using Photoshop 7 eh? Me too. I have CS2, but it's mostly a pain, and I only go into it when I need a tool PS7 doesn't have.

Anyway, nice lighting. Thanks for sharing.

 

[fatwoul]

Anyone else into Lomography here?

Yes, although my Olympus Pen-EE actually serves as a better LOMO than most of my LOMOs do.

 

[fatwoul]

Forgive the spamming of this thread.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

That's a very nice shot. Did you adjust the perspective in your computer?

A D40x eh? How are you getting on with it? After a week with my new camera, my fragile wrists envy you and what looks to be a delightfully small DSLR. At least, it looks very small in the DPReview review.

What lens are you using? I see it was shot at 120mm. Are you using the 18-200 VR? I liked that lens. I was sorry to see it go.

Still using Photoshop 7 eh? Me too. I have CS2, but it's mostly a pain, and I only go into it when I need a tool PS7 doesn't have.

Anyway, nice lighting. Thanks for sharing.

Thank you.

Well, except for being too sick to get out from under the blankets without shivering uncontrolably since Sunday, the camera and I are getting along fine. It is a small camera - almost too small for my hand, but I'll get used to it. I'm very impressed with it.

I only have one lens, right now. A Tamron AF 18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro. I'm very impressed with it, too.

Yes, I'm using Photoshop 7. I haven't anything newer, except for Lightroom 1.3.

The lighting was tungsten. I used two lights, difusing one with a plastic sheet and the other with plastic sheet banded to a bottle - the bottle I got from Vintage Betty. Using my Autometer IIIf, I metered it at F/22 at 25 seconds and then underexposed by 2/3 of a stop.

I shot this next one shortly after posting the previous one. I tacked the backdrop to a wall, moving the bow away from it to get a cleaner black. Same settings as the above shot, but I added a little light painting on the riser and string with a Mini Maglight. The blue on the tip is from the TV - I forgot to turn it off. lol

I've never tried Lomo. Honestly, I'd never heard of it before Miss Hannah brought it up.


Lee

 

[fatwoul]

That's a very nice shot. Did you adjust the perspective in your computer?...

I did, but in fact not as much as you would expect. It's not a digital picture, but an XP2 shot taken on a Nikon F3HP back in 2001, a little over two weeks before the towers were destroyed.

I had some free time recently (the post Christmas lull is a killer), so I finally scanned my New York and Cuba negatives.

I've recently sold most of my remaining film gear in order to help fund my new camera, and while I am very gald I did so, it's still nice to go back and find I can get a few pictures I like out of all the stacks of negs I have stored away.

...Well, except for being too sick to get out from under the blankets without shivering uncontrolably since Sunday, the camera and I are getting along fine...

Glad to hear about the camera, but sorry to hear you are poorly. I wish you a speedy recovery.

...It is a small camera - almost too small for my hand, but I'll get used to it. I'm very impressed with it...

A while back, I was considering a compact camera to compliment my other stuff, to give me a lightweight option when carrying a big bag of equipment wasn't sensible. But with something like a D40x, the size of the camera is really only dictated by the size of lens on it. Your camera with a Nikkor 50mm/1.8 on it would be a fantastic carry-around camera, for those days when you want to go back to basics. That's why I got my 50mm, and with hindsight I should have stuck with the f/1.8 because it is a nicer lens than the one I got.

A lens I lusted after briefly was the Sigma 30mm/1.4. It looked like a very promising lens, but it had front focus issues with my D200 so I didn't bother. Now I'm back to full frame I can use lenses at the focal lengths I grew up with, so 50mm and 85mm are more practical again, and wide is wide again.

...I only have one lens, right now. A Tamron AF 18-250mm 1:3.5-6.3 Macro. I'm very impressed with it, too...

That sounds like a good all-rounder. If it ever breaks or gets lost or you just want a change, I really recommend the Nikkor 18-200. It has vibration reduction that actually works, and pretty decent distortion management. However, my favourite general-purpose fun lens has always been the Nikkor 28-105mm, because it is stupidly cheap and does sufficiently well in most things, as well as being quite a good macro lens. I sold mine, and missed it so much I ended up buying another!

...Yes, I'm using Photoshop 7. I haven't anything newer, except for Lightroom 1.3...

I really like PS7, more than CS2 or CS3. They're good programmes, but the added features really aren't things I have any need for most of the time (I have seperate panorama software, for example), and PS7 runs like lightning, even on my crummy old laptop.

...The lighting was tungsten. I used two lights, difusing one with a plastic sheet and the other with plastic sheet banded to a bottle - the bottle I got from Vintage Betty. Using my Autometer IIIf, I metered it at F/22 at 25 seconds and then underexposed by 2/3 of a stop...

Works well. I metered seperately (a Sekonic Zoom Master L-508) quite often with my D200, but now I have D-Lighting and clever things like that, I am finding less need.

...I shot this next one shortly after posting the previous one. I tacked the backdrop to a wall, moving the bow away from it to get a cleaner black. Same settings as the above shot, but I added a little light painting on the riser and string with a Mini Maglight. The blue on the tip is from the TV - I forgot to turn it off. lol...

Yeah but the flecks of blue add something. A part of me kinda wants to see the tip of the bolt in focus, but that's probably just because I've spent a week messing about with large aperture lenses wide open, trying to focus on pin heads and silly things like that.

I'm considering getting a couple of those little poseable Energizer torches for painting with light, but I really should make more use of the macro flashes I got last year. They came with coloured gels - red and blue - so I should be doing really "Tony Scott" lighting on things and people (see "Crimson Tide" for the best example of this lol).

...I've never tried Lomo. Honestly, I'd never heard of it before Miss Hannah brought it up...

Lomography has really, I think, become more of a philosophy than specifically use of LOMO cameras. The original ethos of Lomography was that the cameras weren't always that well made, and that the faults that resulted were "part of the process". So those of us who got into Lomography a while back - before it became trendy and people started wearing Action Samplers around their necks like fashion accessories - were more interested in the randomness, and the failings being successes in their own rights. Fortunately people like Miss Hannah reassure me that Lomography hasn't been lost amongst the trendiness, and that some people are still interested in it for what it originally offered.

That's why I consider some of my favourite LOMO experiences to be with Kodak Brownies and Olympus Pens, and not actual LOMOs at all.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

I thought it looked like part of WTC.

I like the shot you just included. It's very vintage looking. I like that effect. All of my old negs are of aspiring models or just shooting around town. Nothing to write home about.

I'm coming back together rather well, thank you. But I'm taking one more day off work to make sure.

I would like to get other lenses, but the Tamron is, as you said, a good all-rounder. That's why I got it. It does everything from macro to wide angle to telezoom. I would have got a Nikkor, but for the money this one was faster, longer and cheaper.

I shot this just moments ago, with it. The figurine is 4 1/4 inches tall (about 21 cm). I'll save space here and leave viewing the metadata to you.

I did try to get the entire arrow sharp, but I somehow missed the tip. As it was, even at f/22 I couldn't bring the entire arrow into focus. I couldn't bring very much at all, in fact. I took four shots, each focused at different places along the arrow shaft. I tried to bring it all together in Photoshop, but with limited success. Somehow, even though it looked sharp in the viewfinder, I missed the focus on the tip. It took a bit of moving bits and pieces around to get the arrow to look as much like a single shaft as it does. But, I'll keep practicing.

Lee

 

[Lady Day]

Anatomy of a Drawing

Here is how I work.

The first sketch in red is one on printer paper. I then use tracing paper to work out kinks. Then I draw it in graphite, then I scan it in and do a quick digital paint.

LD

 

[AmateisGal]

I just love these cartoons, Lady Day. You're such a talented gal!

 

[fatwoul]

...I did try to get the entire arrow sharp, but I somehow missed the tip. As it was, even at f/22 I couldn't bring the entire arrow into focus. I couldn't bring very much at all, in fact. I took four shots, each focused at different places along the arrow shaft. I tried to bring it all together in Photoshop, but with limited success. Somehow, even though it looked sharp in the viewfinder, I missed the focus on the tip. It took a bit of moving bits and pieces around to get the arrow to look as much like a single shaft as it does. But, I'll keep practicing.

Lee

That's the kind of situation that makes me grateful for now having Live View. I realised how useful it was going to be when I started trying to use my 85mm wide open. Turns out the D3's focussing is wonderfully accurate as it is, and of course I can fine tune any small front/rear focus if there was any, but that only happens with my 50mm.

I noticed you use a lot of narrow apertures. Learning on film, I was the same, but I have since shook the habit. Digital chips react differently to film emulsions, under very small apertures - they can be sensitive to the diffraction effects of small apertures, which was never really a problem with film. As I understand it, this is mostly due to the linearity of digital sensors - the pixels lying in regimented patterns that can cause interference with diffraction patterns moreso than the random dispersal of film grains. I did notice some problems with narrow apertures, with a tail-off in quality with small apertures almost as noticeable as with wide ones. Even with landscapes, I try to avoid anything more than f/11 unless I am given no choice.

 

[MrNewportCustom]

I would love Live View, but with the money I had available for purchase, I couldn't afford a camera with it. Ironically, my $139.00 Nikon Coolpix L11 point-and-shoot has Live View. Next camera!

I used a small apperture because a wideone would have forced me to take nearly a dozen pictures of the arrow alone: It's twenty-eight inches long and I didn't feel like adjusting and moving that many peices of the arrow.

I have a lot to learn about digital, as this is my first "real" digital camera. And, so far, you've already taught me a few things, and I thank you for that.

Speaking of narrower aperatures, here's an experiment I did last night. I believe I shot it at f/9.

Lee

 

[MrNewportCustom]

. . . And Lady Day hits another one out of the park!! :eusa_clap

That's quite a process you go through there, Miss Day. On average, how much time does it take you to complete a drawing?


Lee

 

[MrNewportCustom]

A World Traveller's Pocket Change

A little something I put together this afternoon. I hope you like it.


Lee
_______________________

Note: "U.S. currency and stamps may be reproduced only in black and white and only if the reproduction is at least 150 percent larger or 75 percent smaller than the currency's actual size." The Law (in plain English) for Photographers - DuBoff. p86

 

[Lady Day]

MrNewport, that is stunning.

Im a HUGE fan of monochromatic art. I love value. And the slight over exposure gives it a tension I dig.

As for my process, thats normal. I rarely erase (its a bad habit), I just build up a better drawing.

I also rarely draw in black unless its a final. Im pretty heavy handed so I draw in a red or brick color.

All in all that little doodle of me in my jammies took about 40 min with most of the work on the plaid part. Once its scanned in, about 40 more mins.

LD

 

[MrNewportCustom]

I'm very glad you like it.

So, LD, you average about 80 minutes, with half of that being actual pencil to paper time. I'd say that's moving along rather well. And I can see where the details would be the slow part. I think the definition of the word, "Details" is "Intended to slow something down!" lol

I probably took about thirty minutes to set up my shot, not counting deciding on which coins to use. Shooting time ran from 3:16 pm to 4:41 pm, and you're looking at frame 69 out of 71. The time between then and when I posted was spent trying different looks in Photoshop (which I'm still learning.) I was going to post it in color - which is quite dramatic in it's own right - until I remembered the quote I posted alongside the picture.



fatwoul. Re: "interference with diffraction patterns". Would that be what is known as moire, or is that something else? Also, would the "aspherical" printed on the barrel of my lens be related?

I'm just learning digital, and what I've been shooting with it is vastly different from what I shot on film more than fifteen years ago: I shot people almost exclusively. F/8 and f/11 were about the only aperture openings I'd use, unless shooting a very intricate set.


Thank you again,
Lee

 

[Lady Day]

LD