What makes good coaster pictures?
Cropping also helps you get better composition.
-Jeff
1. I personally don't think the train is a necessity. Especially on shots showing an entire layout. Maybe I'm weird but I appreciate coasters for their looks almost as much as their rides. Like certain people enjoy automobiles just for the lines, the styling, the look - I feel that way about coasters.
2. Actually, I don't think Joe Schwartz (joyrides) does a whole lot of "touching up" on his pics aside from the basics. That's why the selection is limited. He only uses the pics that are good to begin with. I wish I had that kind of discipline with what I offer...I just don't.
3. I'm of the mindset that if you took a good picture to begin with, you shouldn't have to do much to it afterwards (cropping, colors, levels, etc.) - a good photo will be good without "help".
4. I don't use my polarizer as much as I used to, I really need to quit being so lazy about it.
5. Breaking the rules usually results in the most interesting shots (to me at least). One of the first tips you'll get is "always take photos with the sun behind you". Sure it's a basic rule that's great for beginners and experts alike, but all you'll end up with is vanilla photos (as far as lighting goes). One of my all time favorite pics was taken with my lens pointed directly at the sun.
6. Always have a tripod and an understanding of exposure times and their effects. You can do great low light/night stuff. Example 1 - Example 2 - Example 3
7. I like pie :)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
An overview shot showing most of or the entire layout is the one time that I don't think a train is neccessary. Sometimes they even look better without the train.
Here's one of my favorite shots: http://americacoasters.com/Photos/KBF/28.php
-Jeff
That said, my favorite photo of my own is one I took of Riddler's Revenge, as I was on the lift hill of B:TR. I didn't even notice until I got the photos developed, but the RR train is right at the top of the loop in the photo.
------------------
A day is a drop of water in the ocean of eternity. A week is seven drops.
I also disagree on people and trains. Sometimes the twisting metal and such with the themeing below it can make for a great picture, although that might be the engineer in me. Plus, a picture that's so close to show people isn't really a "coaster picture" to me - that's a photograph. A coaster picture shows the coaster and can be taken regardless of people.
And I can't believe I've finally seen someone else put it as simply as I always do...
I like pie.
------------------
"As soon as you design something that's idiot-proof, the world will go and design a better idiot." ... Thank you EchoVictor!
--Brett
To be honest, switching to a good digital camera has helped me a LOT. With digital, I can very easily say "when in doubt, take the shot, I can always delete it later if it sucks."
Another thing if you ARE using digital. I know some people use low resolutions so they can fit more pictures on a memory card. I do the opposite -- I use the highest resolution the camera affords me (although not raw TIFF mode usually, as the high-quality JPEG compression generally doesn't degrade the image enough to be noticeable, and you really do get a lot more pictures that way). Memory is cheap, and you want all the pixels you can muster. Even if you're not getting prints made, the more information you have the better -- you can always remove information you don't need (resize for web, crop to get rid of that tree you accidentally caught in the corner of the frame, etc.) but you can never add.
And yes, I sometimes cheat. Got the shot you wanted, but it's got an extra support on the edge? Bring out Photoshop... Again, the basic "good picture" has to be there, though. Photoshop is a tool that can help, but it can't work miracles.
Pie is good food.
------------------
--Greg, aka Oat Boy
My page
"Mary Jane, don't you cry, you can give it a try, Again when the sequel comes out" -- Weird Al, Ode to a Superhero
*** This post was edited by GregLeg 6/12/2003 1:41:34 PM ***
Lots of good advice in this thread. One tool that I use that I don't see much is a digital wallet. Instead of buying huge CF cards, I carry around a 20 GB laptop hard drive. Fits nicely in my camera bag and I don't have to worry about those 8 mb photos. Not that I take a lot of pictures ;)
------------------
Walt Schmidt - Virtual Midway
"Okay, here we are, alt dot nerd dot obsessive." - Comic Book Guy
*** This post was edited by Gemini 6/12/2003 1:55:09 PM ***
I too, have a 10D (and D60 before that), and I've been far more likely to shoot anything just because I can. I started back in the day with a Nikon F, a camera older than me. I learned the fundamentals of photography, but by the time I had feedback (processed the film), it was a little late to remember what I did at the time.
For example, if you reload the home page of GTTP enough times, eventually you'll see the photo of Wicked Twister in motion. It took a lot of tries to get that right, and I'm still not 100% happy with it. But the immediate feedback let me know how far ahead to shoot, and what shutter speed to use so that the train was sharp, but the wheels and background still appeared to be in motion.
------------------
Jeff - Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com - Sillynonsense.com
"Pray that your country undergoes recovery!" - KMFDM
So I, too, use some trickery...cropping images, enhancements if an image is too bright, etc.
Jeff's point about the trains is one that I've always stuck on though. Which put me in a rather sticky dilema at the Beastbuzz walkback. Do I capture SOB in the loop? (took 2 tries before I got the shot) or do I wait for the Adventure Express train? (Missed 3 times then had to leave).
I like to have at least one good shot with the train, and sometimes try to capture some "artistic" shots as well.
------------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
http://www.webtechnik.com/ebony/CPLady.htm
1. I'm not saying I don't use photoshop - I rely on it heavily. I created my own action that runs my little series of steps that give my photos the look they have. I describe it as soft, yet sharp. I like it and that's what matters I guess. Of course you get photos that just don't cooperate with said action and punching them up by hand becomes necessary. I do crop when it's needed, but I always take a minute to line up the shot when I'm taking it and usually get what I need off the negative.
2. More on digital - and more specifically my hesitation at this point:
Instant feedback is a plus, but again seems best suited for someone just learning. I'm very confident when getting pics and usually get what I was after. Yes, it's bitten me in the a$$ a few times when I end up finding out I missed that great shot or it didn't come out quite right, but still it's not something I feel I need at this point.
Another thing I don't like about the digital cameras I've used (and I've not tried anything on the level of a D60 or 10D or whatnot) - but the shutter lag kills me. With my film SLR, the shutter is instantaneous. With the low/mid priced digital cameras I've had the chance to try there is a short lag when snapping a photo. Basically they're slow. These crucial milliseconds make all the difference to me.
My third hesitation is that the LCD imager on a digital camera is smaller than a frame of 35mm film. If you use a digital SLR there is some field of view crop. The 10D has a focal length multiplier of 1.6. This means a 28mm lens will provide the same field of view as a 44mm lens on a film SLR. This is also unacceptable to me. I do like tight shots, but when I go wide - I go W-I-D-E. I'd be lost without my 28mm. In fact I've been looking into even wider lenses getting into the "fish-eye" range. I think there's some interesting wide angle shots to be had. However I can see this as a possible plus on tight shots. My 300mm now becomes essentially a 480mm which would be pretty sweet. Still, one plus doesn't outweigh the rest for me.
Those three reasons are enough to make me stick with film a while longer.
3. Good to see other lovers of pie (not in an American Pie sort of way, of course)
I guess I'm just old skool :)
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
I thought that the 1.6x would bother me, but I haven't really noticed it. Hasn't been an issue ... but I do like the extra zoom on the other end.
Shutter lag doesn't exist on the D10. In fact, it's a heck of a lot faster than my Canon EOS Rebel. I couldn't tell you how many times this season that I've missed a coaster train because of the shutter being faster than I thought ... so I end up with just the front half. (Good thing I can instantly check :) ) I think it does something like 9 shots in 3 seconds, if you use continuous mode. You should really get to a camera store and try out the D10. It does everything that a comparable film SLR does and more. It's nothing like the point and shoot models you've probably tried. For the most part, you can't even tell it's digital - though, there are exceptions.
------------------
Walt Schmidt - Virtual Midway
"Okay, here we are, alt dot nerd dot obsessive." - Comic Book Guy
*** This post was edited by Gemini 6/12/2003 3:16:20 PM ***
-Tina
------------------
Feel The DragsterGasm....
www.intenserides.com
Obviously, if I were REALLY into photography and very high quality shots and photos, I would spend the money (well, if I could AFFORD it) to get a much better digital, but I'd likely have to give up the convenience of a much smaller camera that can be stuck into a pocket when I want to RIDE the coaster that is the subject of my picture.
For now, I'll enjoy the instant gratification of knowing I got a shot (or not), the money saved on film/processing, the fact I can upload my photos from the camera to the PC in minutes, print them on high quality photo paper if I want something to put into a frame, and do it all with a camera small enough to fit into a pocket instead of having to put it into a locker for fear of breaking it on a coaster.
------------------
I'd rather die living than live like I'm dead
http://www.webtechnik.com/ebony/CPLady.htm
I do like the prints, though. Not that I couldn't have them made from digital, but I don't mind. With one hour developing the time frame isn't a problem for me either. With few exceptions I don't need it online now. However it would save some time in getting them to my PC. A quick upload from a camera beats feeding negatives into my scanner - that I can't argue.
I still have issues with the "look" of the digital pictures too. There's that mysterious intangible I can't quite put my finger on that is the difference between the digital and film pics. I do like how digital cameras tend to pull out the blue sky that is often missed with film. But when you catch a deep blue sky on film - nothing touches it! The top end cameras are darn close in getting that "look", but...awww, I don't know.
The money savings would be nice (who doesn't want more $$$ in their pocket) but I'm far from starving. I've dropped plenty of cash in developing, but after two years probably just recently would have broken even if I had chosen digital over film when i bought my equipment almost 3 years ago. Times have changed, but I'm still not sure it'd offer everything I want, need or would like quite yet. Another generation or two for quality to go up and prices to go down and I'll be on the bandwagon with everyone else.
I'm more interested in a digital camcorder first - I just love the new Sony models. The TRV-33 just has my name written all over it! After that I'll worry about the camera.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
I find no merit whatsoever in POV shots (both stills and video)
I know I'm in the minority, but I never saw the point of it. I honestly don't understand the interest.
I guess it's the "I want to see what it'd be like to be on it" mentality, but I'd personally rather actually get on the ride. I know that's not always possible, but I've never been so intrigued by a ride that I had to see what it looks like to be on it. It might go back to my preference in "artistic" over "documentary" syle photos.
Is there something I'm missing in the high interest in POV media?
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
------------------
If you have a problem with clones, the solution is real simple—Stop traveling.
But, you're right - you can't beat the deep blue sky for a great photo ... even more reason to do your serious CP photography in the early morning.
------------------
Walt Schmidt - Virtual Midway
"Okay, here we are, alt dot nerd dot obsessive." - Comic Book Guy
That, plus sheer patience, is how I get shots like this one. (Not perfect, but I think it's fairly good)
------------------
--Greg, aka Oat Boy
My page
"Mary Jane, don't you cry, you can give it a try, Again when the sequel comes out" -- Weird Al, Ode to a Superhero
I think most cameras do that Greg. Even my $70 point and shoot has the "two-step" shutter. But even with the prefocus there is a discernable lag on most digital cameras when compared to their film counterparts. (why is this? anyone know?) Although Walt's info makes me think (understand) that if you go high enough, it's a non-issue.
Here's another stream of consciousness thought that's really going to make you guys think I'm a nutcase. Digital looks too clear and sharp to me a lot of the time. The photos are just so crisp. I think it's one of the tell tale signs of someone using a digital camera. I like the softer look of film. That's not to say blurry or less than crystal clear, but rather simply "softer". A scanned negative can look every bit as sharp and clear as a digital pic, but still retains a quality that's preferrable to me. Again my LP vs CD analogy is the best I can do. A mint condition album will sounds every bit as good as it's CD counterpart, but there's some kind of organic, almost human nature that CD's (in all their digital glory and "perfection") just don't have. With that said, I should mention that I currently own zero LP's and more CD's than I can count - so take that for what it's worth.
------------------
www.coasterimage.com
Dorney Park Visits in 2003: 5
You must be logged in to post
