-EYE OF PHOTOGRAPHY-

Bruneiku Tanah Air ku

2009-11-03T15:57:00.001-08:00

BEDB (LAND OF OPPORTUNITY)

2009-04-29T05:59:00.000-07:00

1-This Picture above taken by Evergreenku.

2-Sorry kalau inda berapa nampak mukanya pasal shaking masa mengambar... nasib jua tarang arah trophy and ehem2 atu.

3-So Syukur tah jua manang. Inda disangka jua manang lah.

4-Sebenarnya ada 8 Keping ku hantar but 3 keping gambar ku kana pamirkan. Actually pemalas aku ni kan outing. Jenis org seperti aku ni suka mengambar potrait saja. Tuah saja tu.

5-Tahniah kepada pemanang yg lain. Kepada perserta yg tak manang tapi berbakat dan berquality, cuba lagi mana2 competition nanti & don't ever give up.

6-MAJU PHOTOGRAPHERS BRUNEI.

Maulud Nabi

2009-03-07T19:39:00.000-08:00

Photoshop cs4

2009-02-13T23:43:00.000-08:00

Installing Adobe Photoshop CS4… Well… still learning new feature.

CANON VS NIKON

2009-01-04T21:44:00.000-08:00

First of all Bismillahirohmanirohim and HAPPY NEW YEAR 2009 and EVERYONE ARE WELCOME TO READ MY BLOG ‘EYE OF PHOTOGRAPHY’. Secondly I admit to feeling considerably unhappy about having to summarize of these two cameras "in public." Usually I used Canon film 35mm and never used Nikon before. When I start working with government I tried Nikon Digital D100, D2x, and D2xs. So far so good when the first digital launch at 2005. Then the Ministry of Defence request to order Canon 30D and I’m very excited about it.

Anyway, I've decided that rather than carefully annotate all of my tests and trials, which wouldn't begin to convince anybody anyway, I'll just come out with it and say what I think.

The most recommendable: This prize goes to the D700. Given its sensible size compared to the D3, robust build, fast autofocus, overall responsiveness, superior ergonomics, unmatched high-ISO performance, and perfectly sensible file size, it's going to be the most bang for the buck for more photographers than either of the others. The Nikon is flat-out a better camera than the Canon, a point exemplified by its clearly superior autofocus performance (the 5D Mark II, when asked to autofocus, is sort of like "Huh? Oh, right," whereas the Nikon is a snappy "Yessir!") Its image quality is really pretty, and its files are superbly printable, and my feeling is that it would help more photographers take better pictures in any situation.

The best compromise: And here's where we come to the Canon 5D Mark II. The Canon does not match the Nikon's high-ISO performance. Don't just look at the noise; look at the pictures. (I say that having made myself bleary-eyed poring over the most inane "test shots"—something I also once promised myself I'd do as little of as possible.) But it's pretty close. And here's the thing: it has much more resolution than the Nikon, and much better high-ISO capability than the Nikon.

My personal choice:
I have to admit I have some mild reservations about the 5D Mark II's image quality. It's very good, no question: Canon has hit the "what consumers want" targets on the nose: More Megapixels! Less Noise! (Great Taste, Less Filling). But there's at least a partial price to pay for all that tasty goodness. It shows up in the form of what I'd group under the heading " My personal choice."

Canon conclusion
The 5D Mark II is a brilliant camera in many ways. It has more, and better, of most of the good things we like. But my holistic overall impression is that its images just look more digital, in some fundamental way, rather than just "photographic."
The Canon 5D Mark II can simply be looked at in two ways. From the positive side, it gives you the lion's share of what the Nikon camera do best. And that's good. And from the negative side, it sort of seems like just another digital SLR, only better (and please don't quote that line out of context). Which way will you see it? That I can't say. All cameras are fine devices with formidable imaging capabilities, and all camera deserve your strong consideration....

DO YOU KNOW?

2008-12-24T06:02:00.000-08:00

JENIS NAMA KAMERA DAN TRIKAKI YANG TERKENAL :

AGFA :
BIMBO :
CANON :
LEICA :
HORSEMAN :
ZENZA BROBICA :
KODAK :
CONTAX :

NIKON : nama syarikat kacamata jepun 'NIpon KOgaku' (Nipon opti cal Co). Berlaku dalam tahun 1917. Ditambah huruf 'N' untuk menyedapkan bunyi.

OLYMPUS :
PENTAX :

POLAROID : Sebutan asalnya 'Land-Wheelwright Laboratory'. Nama sebuah Syarikat. Akhirnya nama syarikat itu ditukar kepada 'Polaroid' semasa pengeluaran pertamanya pada tahun 1937. Bahan berpolarisasi digunakan dalam peralatan tentera dan cermin mata kalis matahari. 'Oid' ditambah kepada perkataan 'Polaro'. 'Oid' bahasa Greek bermaksud pengumpulan.

RICOH :
ROLLEI :

TOKINA : 'To' dari singkatan 'Tokyo'. 'Kina' adalah campuran bahasa Itali dari perkataan 'Kinatography' yang sekarang ' Cenimatography'

VIVITAR :
YASHICA :
MINOLTA :

Photoshop is IMPORTANT to ME!

2008-12-18T02:51:00.000-08:00

Hello people who CLICK my Blog. Well i want to share somthing. Read! Read! Read!

It seems there’s a huge misunderstanding of how people always presume that photographers’ job could be as easy, simple and KACANG as ABC or 123 or ALIF BA THA. It’s just about snapping around by clicking the shutter, isn’t it? SO DON't CLICK CLICK, THINK BEFORE CLICKING THE SHUTTER BUTTON.

For the statement above, it is only half true. Yes, menjadi seorang Photographer is basically to CAPTURE THE BEST MOMENTS for their clients. They need to find GOOD angles, posing the clients, to communicate wisely and etc. But if you think their job ends after the event, sending the photos straight out from the cameras to their clients as end product, perhaps you may want to know it may not be as simple as that. Banar tah! i'm not saying that i am a proffesional photographer, Belive that! I only shoot what is the best view/angle for me.

No doubt, some photographers do not do post editing after snapping from the events. They would just BAGI SAJA--> ‘whatever is captured’ photographs to their clients. They burn the photos into CD, no cropping, no editing and basically they do nothing. Therefore and probably this is one of the reasons you may find some photographers charging minimal photography service fee in the market, often cheaper by more than 50%. THIS IS NOT FILM ANYMORE. THIS IS DIGITAL DAY.

I do not compromise with low quality. I rather not having the job if my end products (the photos) did not go through post editing. It’s totally unacceptable to me. Often I ensure each and every photo that I pass to my clients MUST go through thorough post editing process. It’s about quality, my self satisfaction, reputation and more importantly, I want to have satisfied clients who are happy with my service. I will jaga my products.

But the painful process of post processing is something bitter to bite(hahahahahaa). To photoshop photos is a long and time consuming process to the photographers. It usually takes about 10 to 15 minutes, in average to get a photo properly edited. Imagine laa kalau I have 600 photos capture from 1 event, I am expecting sleepless nights then. So must faham. Inda senang hati kalau di bagi macam tu je... i want terbaik untuk client dan ku merasa puas.

Gambar Kereta above are some of the examples to show you the pre-edited and post edited photos for your personal comparison. I’m sure after all you would fully understand why Photoshop is so essential, to both photographers and the clients.

Each photographer has a style himself/ herself. Therefore there are many photo editing styles. My personal preference would be vibrant colored photos. I let the vibrance to express on my behalf. However, some applicable styles like black and white or sepia might also be applied shall the photos are suitable.

What is a good photographer?

2008-12-05T02:05:00.000-08:00

Once

you know how to operate your camera successfully, the next step in

improving your photographic skills is more subtle. It's easy to recognize a technically poor photographer.

Overexposed or blurred images can be corrected with improve understanding and a little practice. It's much harder to distinguish between a genuinely good photograph and one that's merely good enough. And it may be hardest of all to describe why some photography seem to be truly great.

Pahlawan still wondering which is the best camera for all...! Pahlawan often get asked for advice on what digital camera to buy. I’d estimate that I was asked that at least a dozen times in the last couple of years. I’ve been asked by co-workers, friends, cousin. I usually explain things this way: there are two classes of cameras — SLR and what used to be called “rangefinder”. SLRs range from bulky and heavy to galaxy sized black hole; from very expensive to small-Manhattan-studio-apartment-down-payment expensive. Rangefinders range from 007-spy-camera-sized to brick-sized; from very cheap to pretty damn expensive. The image quality on both types ranges from crappy to very good. SLRs have one huge advantage: they look professional. And expensive. Two advantages. Well, actually while we are at it, there is a third advantage, and the only one that matters. Some SLRs come as a part of a camera system. A camera system is a collection of accessories that your camera can take. It includes lenses, flashes, extension rings, adapters, and other various obscure doodads like focusing screens and right angle viewfinders. Repeat with me - it’s not the camera body and the lens it comes with. It’s the System that matters. GOT IT?!! hehehehe so When you are buying a non-system camera, you have to make a one piece investment as you won’t be able to upgrade it later. With system SLRs, your investment in lenses, flashes and other accessories is separate and much longer lasting than investment in the body of the camera. More than that, you’ll have a choice of several camera bodies at different price points. But the main thing is, you can have a lens and accessory collection and it will stay with you for many years. In the olden days there were popular rangefinder systems and even TLR systems. Not anymore. But the main reason for rangefinder popularity still remains: they are smaller and easier to use than SLRs. A picture taken with a well-made rangefinder will be almost indistinguishable from that taken with a well-made SLR with a normal range lens (that is, not a macro or telephoto or something even more exotic). Rangefinders add something to photography that no SLR can add - spontaneity. To be able to whip a camera out of your shirt pocket and take a picture is priceless. 70% of photographic opportunities disappear in the time that it takes to take an SLR out of the bag. I often try to steer people into buying a nice rangefinder because I know that they’ll take it with them more, take more pictures and enjoy it more. A camera that wants to stay at home is not of much use, unless, of course, like me, you are Ok with dragging a heavy bag with you everywhere. If it’s the SLR that they want, I explain the choice even simpler. You have to buy into a major camera system, which these days means Canon or Nikon. Once you buy your camera and lenses, you are pretty much stuck with the system, unless you never buy any expensive lenses. Canon and Nikon systems are pretty equivalent in quality and variety. They are both awesome. Generally Nikon stuff is heavier and sturdier, and also more expensive. Just about anybody finds that appealing. I find the relative heaviness a huge drawback. Picture quality at slow shutter speed is mainly limited by three factors: sensor quality, lens quality and camera shake. So, if you are not using a tripod for every shot, a heavy, although sturdy camera is a huge drawback - it will make your hands shake a lot more than a lighter one. For these two reasons I am, and always was a fan of Canon. Most of the people I ever advised on purchasing a camera bought Nikons though. More than that, most of my friends and co-workers are Nikon owners already. As a rule of thumb, prosumers that I know like Nikons. In general, among professionals and amateurs, Canon and Nikon are represented equally, as far as I can tell. I do have one observation that might raise a lot of controversy. I find, in my empirical observations, that Canon owners take and share way more pictures than Nikon owners. Nikons are usually found stashed away at home, while Canons are out there in the world, taking pictures. The conclusion is pahlawan still support Nikon user. All the best!

Mencari ilham

2008-12-05T00:25:00.000-08:00

Kepuasan dalam Hutan tropica.

2008-12-04T06:34:00.000-08:00

Working Day

2008-12-03T21:35:00.000-08:00

GRAPHIC DESIGNER...