Posted by knickers |
8/24/2005 9:06 AM | remove |
i like it alot.
|
|
Posted by lost |
8/24/2005 12:25 PM | remove |
Not very well framed though. :(
|
|
Posted by TurboZutek |
8/24/2005 3:20 PM | remove |
Tripod'd!
|
|
Posted by lost |
8/25/2005 5:12 AM | remove |
I did take a tripod but lack of sense meant I left it at the bottom of the stairs. :-\
|
|
Posted by TurboZutek |
8/25/2005 10:59 AM | remove |
I'm like you Lost, my manual hand framing can be a bit hit and miss - it's easier on the 'pod I find.
That and composition bracketing! :-))
|
|
Posted by lost |
8/25/2005 3:59 PM | remove |
/Now/ I'm lost....
|
|
Posted by SnakeCorp |
8/28/2005 7:23 PM | remove |
I've never used a tripod, as can't be bothered carting one around. If a photo is slightly off balance, I just use the 'rotate canvas' function in Photoshop.
|
|
Posted by lost |
8/29/2005 3:39 AM | remove |
No amount of Photoshopping can get rid of low-light blurriness though. Carting a tripod around isn't so bad, you can keep it attached to the camera permanently and use it as a monopod too.
|
|
Posted by SnakeCorp |
8/29/2005 11:51 AM | remove |
Good point.
|
|
Posted by IIVQ |
8/30/2005 9:56 PM | remove |
Unless you use a devolution plugin of photoshop, lost.
|
|
Posted by IIVQ |
8/30/2005 10:00 PM | remove |
Deconvolution, that is..
|
|
Posted by lost |
8/31/2005 4:24 AM | remove |
Hmm, I'd still rather get it right in the first place.
|
|
Posted by IIVQ |
8/31/2005 9:49 AM | remove |
True
|
|
Posted by Hirnduebel |
7/18/2008 5:28 PM | remove |
and rotating harms the poor little pixels óò
|