10 photos, 10 cities

[albinon]

Pictures from a few trips to different places, all taken with my Canon 350d/Rebel XT with 18-55mm, 10-20mm and 70-300mm lenses (although 2 of the shots are taken with my old camera which I'm not using anymore) :)


1. Singapore


2. Bangkok


3. Patong


4. KL


5. Paris


6. Pattaya


7. London


8. Vilnius


9. Frankfurt


10. HK


cheers!

[LivinLOS]

Great snaps.. I love the HK and sing ones.. Also love the Thai beer one but get dizzy as its on a slant.

[Dodger]

Great pictures, really impressed, not bad colour perception either, for a bloke with pink eyes!!.

[Schmeen]

You seem to know what you are doing, I have the 30D and the 24-105L IS and I'd love to get results like that.

Mind you, I always try to do everything without a tripod

[Nanook]

Some great shots there. I always like city skylines at dusk.

Photography is also one of my hobbies, but I still cannot get used to Digital SLR camaras.
I am still very much in favour of my Minolta Dynax 7, with a 24-105 and a 100-300 lens and using a high quality film.

But when I go to LOS, I just take my compact digital one.

[Soupdragon]

Love the Singapore and KL shots, almost surreal. Presume you used a tripod and long exposure to get these results ??? Great shooting !!!!.

[albinon]

Thank you guys. Photography is one of my hobbies so I take my cam with me during my trips.

The Singapore and HK shots are taken without a tripod. I normally try to place the camera on some hard surface to avoid shaking.

I had some 200 night shots with a tripod from HK and Singapore this year but lost my memcard in one of the hotels in Bangkok afterwards (would not be hard to figure out why ).

@Nanook

I've never used a film camera but I reckon digital is actually much easier to use and requires less resources and care

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by albinon

@Nanook

I've never used a film camera but I reckon digital is actually much easier to use and requires less resources and care

While taking pictures, there is hardly any difference and maybe even that a film camera is easier in use.

I did some comparisation with the Dynax 7 (film) and the Dynax 7D (digital)cameras. To take similar pictures, you needed to do do a bit less settings than with the digital ones.

Moreover, a good quality film averages about 35 mio pixels, whereas (I think) a top digital camera has about 15-20 mio pixels.

Anyway, it is an ongoing discussion what is better. I don't think none of those is better. It is all up to personal taste and demands.

[IRISH JONNY]

excellent pics..i love the singapore pic.one of my favourite cities.........ij

[albinon]

Originally Posted by Bono

Yes singapore pic is great, what I found funny was that the bkk pic, it almost make the city look clean

I wouldn't say Bkk is a dirty place. It's got that feeling of general "disorder" of street sellers blocking sidewalks and all these attributes of a chaotic city. Yet this is more of an illusion. Looking closer Bangkok is reasonably well organized in terms of traffic and cleanliness. Although hardly comparable with Singapore or Helsinki in this sense, it's far from being a "dirty" city.

[albinon]

Originally Posted by Nanook

While taking pictures, there is hardly any difference and maybe even that a film camera is easier in use.

I did some comparisation with the Dynax 7 (film) and the Dynax 7D (digital)cameras. To take similar pictures, you needed to do do a bit less settings than with the digital ones.

Moreover, a good quality film averages about 35 mio pixels, whereas (I think) a top digital camera has about 15-20 mio pixels.

Anyway, it is an ongoing discussion what is better. I don't think none of those is better. It is all up to personal taste and demands.

Just admit it, film cameras are a dead business
Such an argument was rather valid 10 years ago... but no more. Nowadays digital is in essence by all means superior (leaving all sympathies and nostalgic feelings aside) to film cameras. Also the fact that all major companies are concentrating on dSLRs (for professionals as well) suggest what is what.

[Pad Mc]

Great pics... I like City shots too...

Cheers for posting.

[ST66]

Great shots...specially the one from Singapore, must be perfect as desktop background on a computer.

I'm very much into taking photos myself, check out Torben Schou Jensen Photo
Currently 16106 photos online from my International runs with Hash House Harriers.

[albinon]

Originally Posted by ST66

Great shots...specially the one from Singapore, must be perfect as desktop background on a computer.

I'm very much into taking photos myself, check out Torben Schou Jensen Photo
Currently 16106 photos online from my International runs with Hash House Harriers.

Yes, photography is something you might get sucked into
It happened to me that once I just decided that I want to take pictures of buildings and so I did. Which developed into a rather expensive hobby (all those camera lenses, filters, etc.). But the happiness it gives exceeds the price

[Schmeen]

Would you like to give some details of what you did to achieve these results?

Last night I made my first attempt at photographing fireworks. I set up wiyth the equestrian statue of King Rama V in the foreground, tried to get the right exposure for that and then had a bash. I was in a great spot with a few fuireworks exploding right behind the horses head.

I'll post some if they are any good.

[Soupdragon]

Originally Posted by Schmeen

Would you like to give some details of what you did to achieve these results?

I too would like to hear how you achieved the Singapore shot, exposure, f-stop etc.

[Schmeen]

Originally Posted by Schmeen

Last night I made my first attempt at photographing fireworks. I set up wiyth the equestrian statue of King Rama V in the foreground, tried to get the right exposure for that and then had a bash. I was in a great spot with a few fuireworks exploding right behind the horses head.

I'll post some if they are any good.

Not over pleased with the results, some pics where the firework shot is great, some where the horse is very sharp, unfortunately none where both are perfect. These are the best of the bunch. file size required makes them very small.

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by Schmeen

Not over pleased with the results, some pics where the firework shot is great, some where the horse is very sharp, unfortunately none where both are perfect. These are the best of the bunch. file size required makes them very small.

Probably because you used an autofocus setting, so sometimes the camera will meter for the horse and sometimes for the light source.

I've found that the way to shoot fireworks is to focus manually on where you think the explosions will be and leave the shutter open long enough for the explosion to happen; around 1sec.

Some nice shots there, I like fireworks

[steve@thaib]

Originally Posted by albinon

Just admit it, film cameras are a dead business
Such an argument was rather valid 10 years ago... but no more. Nowadays digital is in essence by all means superior (leaving all sympathies and nostalgic feelings aside) to film cameras. Also the fact that all major companies are concentrating on dSLRs (for professionals as well) suggest what is what.

Have to disagree here, I'm almost totally digital but can still see that film has a role to play. There is room for both in my opinion and will be for a long time yet.

Just because Nikon and Canon are not making film cameras doesn't mean that all companies aren't. Whilst many pros will argue for digital over film, there are just as many who will still use nothing but medium or large format because digital, whether you like it or not, is still not quite there in terms of print quality.

Also, a full frame Hasselblad will set you back some £20k, which is what you will need to come anywhere near the same quality as film, whereas a medium format film camera can be had for £500 or so. Don't be too quick to write off film, it will be with us for a while yet.

Nice pics, BTW.

[Schmeen]

Steve

they were all manually focused.

The horse was not sharp because the tripod was a little lightweight for the camera and tended to shudder slightly as people walked by etc.

[Nanook]

Originally Posted by albinon

Just admit it, film cameras are a dead business
Such an argument was rather valid 10 years ago... but no more. Nowadays digital is in essence by all means superior (leaving all sympathies and nostalgic feelings aside) to film cameras. Also the fact that all major companies are concentrating on dSLRs (for professionals as well) suggest what is what.

I value your opinion, but do not really agree. I am more in line with steve@thaib here.
I think even film made pics have a warmer tint than digitals, although I do believe it is a matter of the next 4-5 years until they are equal.

And in IMHO the very best quality picture still is a slide. Far superior to a regular printed picture. But it is all a matter of personal taste as well.

But the pics you posted are quite nice. What kind of hardware you use?

[albinon]

Originally Posted by Nanook

I value your opinion, but do not really agree. I am more in line with steve@thaib here.
I think even film made pics have a warmer tint than digitals, although I do believe it is a matter of the next 4-5 years until they are equal.

And in IMHO the very best quality picture still is a slide. Far superior to a regular printed picture. But it is all a matter of personal taste as well.

But the pics you posted are quite nice. What kind of hardware you use?

Ok ok, perhaps no need to argue about that. After all everyone's got their opinion and most importantly points to back it which is fair enough

Just a note about the tint. Photoshop is the best way to do this sort of stuff nowadays ... never believe what you see in a photo (even those pics of mine )

And I've got a Canon 350D which at the time was the cheapest of the Canon range with also the cheapest versions of lenses: 18-55, 70-300 and 10-20mm.