What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
48 Comments
- spect3r, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13http://rorr.im/digg.com/arts_culture/40_beautiful_ ...
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+8That second photo (the crappy HDR one) makes me want to vomit. Most of the rest are pretty decent. The ones that use photoshop motion filters are pretty lame. I mean if you want to capture motion through photography than freaking do it in the camera.
The last one and the Big Ben one are my favorites. I have no idea what the blurry surfer, the windmill, and the crappy HDR ones are doing in there. - chmpdog, on 06/25/2009, -1/+8http://rorr.im
- Peach3s, on 06/24/2009, -3/+10photos in motion= oxymoran?
- Enjoikr3w, on 06/25/2009, -1/+7My Avast Antivirus keeps going off on this site. Is it a false positive?
- mrnobody546, on 06/25/2009, -0/+5what a moran....
- brickbat, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4My best in motion shots
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickbat/3552454604
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brickbat/3551625909 - mrpunman, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4ermm.. oxymoron
- mrnobody546, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Mirror so i can sees them?
- tonychenyj, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Really nice. love the water motion one.
- whiteyMcBrown, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Does anyone have any personal views about Aperture vs. Lightroom? My brother is a pro and uses Lightroom, but he's never been a Mac guy. I thought they were comparable, but I think Apple got me confused by pricing Aperture at $100 less. All signs are pointing to Lightroom as the king, but the Apple fan in me wants to go Aperture; I'm just worried that it won't be that much better than iPhoto (as cool as iPhoto is).
I'm a little more knowledgeable about Motion vs. After Effects. Clearly After Effects is the winner here. I wish that if Apple was going Pro App, then they'd really put some weight into their Pro development and release new versions a little more dependably. - 3Y3CON, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Some of these pictures just seem like a blurry mess.
- newman8r, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3hmmm.. looks like this site already got bad-dadded
- GarageMann, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3error establishing a data based connection
- b1kerguy, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3photoshop will make "pros" of everyone
- brickbat, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3I used to use Aperture and switched to Lightroom. Lightroom has more features and updates more often. Aperture STILL doesn't have an LX3 raw import. Lightroom had it months ago. The thing that pushed me over the edge was when I saw that the new iPhoto actually has more features than Aperture.
- zagatbuzz, on 06/25/2009, -1/+4FYI - "This Account Has Been Suspended"
- tragedyfish, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Why do people have to put red dye in their hummingbird feeders? It's dangerous to a birdy's digestion.
- newman8r, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2ok now I can see it... nice
- michaelblea, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2These are awesome pictures!
- mrnobody546, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Thanks for the new wallpapers "De Web Times"
- darklich14, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Say what?
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2True, but at least they'll never lose those quotation marks. I find that many people who use photoshop as a crutch never evolve past the point of "hey, let's take a badly composed shot of something stupid and just fix it in post".
I guess there are a few "I'm going to take a pretty good photo and ruin it with a stupid grunge filter and an inordinate amount of saturation", but they're in the minority. - tragedyfish, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Wikipedia says it is. So, you can take their word as fact or fiction.
I use purified water mixed with refined white sugar at a 1:1 ratio, and they absolutely love it. I don't think that they add anything other than water, sugar, and red dye to the pre-made mix. - MushinVin, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2@picture with matches
WTF is your aperture set at? That's a rediculously short depth of field. - coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1I think the mix that comes with many hummingbird feeders is red by default. At least the stuff we have for ours is.
Is it really harmful to the birds? If so I might have to look into getting something else. - b1kerguy, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1i have a 4 yr degree in photography and digital imaging, and i use adobe (lightroom, photoshop, bridge, ect)
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1I agree. In a few of them the blur definitely works, but there are also a few that just look like the "motion" in the photo was due to a bit of unintentional camera shake.
I find that just about every photodump on the net aside from WSJ Pictures of the day is pretty much a bunch of junk mixed with a few good photos.
In case you don't know what I'm talking about: http://blogs.wsj.com/photojournal/ - coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1I'm going to grammar nazi myself and correct my incorrect "than".
- woofers07, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Lots of images + small server + Digg = ENABLE CACHING ON YOUR GODDAMN SITE
- DarkenKO, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1photography captures light, not necessarily motion. (though you could argue that light is in fact in motion... but then you are just splitting hairs)
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1I have nothing to say about Aperture (I haven't used it), but Lightroom is pretty damn handy. For single photos I still use Photoshop, but if I'm editing stuff in a batch, Lightroom is hard to beat.
Seriously, I flew through a wedding I shot with my wife in that program. It's handy. - ClevelandBrown, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2***** this site, it set off my virus alert.
- Kempachi, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Get a brain, moran!
- coheedcollapse, on 06/26/2009, -0/+1Oh wow. Might as well convert. Good for me because it's cheap, good for them because it's better. Awesome, thanks for the tip!
- fquednau, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Gosh, what other connections are there in IT?!
- subaruwrt, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1http://bhavyaholidays.com/suspended.page is apparently the iframe page/ redirecting
- coheedcollapse, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1The bokeh is fake. Looks like it was added in post. The picture is apparently of a brush and the f-stop was at f/5. It looks way too narrow for that, even for a macro lens.
At least I think so unless I'm totally missing something. I don't work with macro photography, so I could be completely wrong. Says she's at 60mm so she has to be reasonably close to the thing. - chaosatom, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2You mean oxymoron? Wait....am I missing something? oh i see what you did there
I think it would have been better if you took out the 'let me try to be funny on Digg' part. It always backfires. - slashdotordigg, on 06/25/2009, -1/+240 Eye-burning photos by long exposure
- Jimmylecroy21, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Damn takes like A BILLION years to load but still awesome pictures
- oSallyo, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Mine too, I also use Avast.
Malware Name: HTML:Iframe-gen
Malware type: Virus/Worm - inactive, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1mine too, dunno if it's a false positive or not.
- isorfir, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Link = virus
- TeCuervo, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1I trusted mine and ignored the site.
- PsychoticCarp, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Mine went off to
- LordAlexandor, on 06/25/2009, -1/+1Avast is doing the same for me. Buried for malware.
- newman8r, on 06/25/2009, -4/+3I bet my article wouldn't get bad-dadded if people would just digg it... http://digg.com/arts_culture/Church_of_Scientology ...
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is