Comments | foxgrrl: BlackHat US2006: Misc. pictures from around Las Vegas

foxgrrl

BlackHat US2006: Misc. pictures from around Las Vegas

Nov 12, 2006 14:56

Instead of sleeping off my cigarette smoke induced migraine, fortune had placed me upon the top of the Augustus Tower of Caesar's Palace &mdash How I got up there is another story. Since I probably would never be there again; I had to take this opportunity to shoot a few photos. This was the first time I had a chance to really do nighttime city ( Read more... )

morning, photo, city, night, las vegas

Comments 7

dymaxion November 13 2006, 08:06:16 UTC

I wouldn't bet money on it, but I think the plate in 2498 (upper right, on the car in front of the van) is probably readable in the raw version, with a bit of tweaking.

wolphin November 13 2006, 11:29:03 UTC

I would go for the plates in 2514, nicely lit by the cars behind, but I'd like to see a raw format instead of a jpeg before deciding. I was hoping the cart in 2945 had plates, thought I would have got my star, but unfortunately its only got a flag :(

catwoman69y2k November 13 2006, 08:43:25 UTC

Im in Vegas too for this weekend (or what was left of the weekend)...wish I had known so we could of hung out.

kitten_goddess November 13 2006, 17:50:21 UTC

One mistake:

About a third of the photos are so dark I can barely see anything. The rest are awesomely gorgeous, as always!

oygevalte November 14 2006, 10:07:13 UTC

Lessee... I'm thinking you were spot metering in some of those underexposed shots. Should have been able to take care of a lot of that in your raw converter, though, and pushing RAW files can me made reasonable by using a proper set of profiles in Neat Image (I swear by that software)... There's also some quite noticeable parallax on some of the tilt up/down shots, which may or may not be considered a "flaw" depending on what you were after (in architectural photography, that would be death; I happen to use the effect a lot on, say, huge redwoods as it really conveys a sense of scale ( ... )

foxgrrl November 14 2006, 11:57:15 UTC

I probably should have stated that, I underexposed some of these on purpose, otherwise they would have lost all color. Also, kitten_goddess's comment reminded me: I processed these on a Mac, so I've been viewing them with a gamma setting of 1.8, Windows/Linux is displaying them with a gamma setting of 2.2 - hence, everything is much darker.

And yeah it's sort of a third technical flaw that I was mentioning to casidhe in person, that I wasn't rotating the camera around the exact focal point, so that whoever stitches these together is going to need to correct for that. I was thinking of two other problems, that aren't really very visible in the images at the tiny 400px size. (I don't think that I did all of the panoramas at 50mm either, but I didn't change focal lengths or exposure during the set - This is also why some frames are underexposed.)

My previous two machines were an AMD K6-2, and a i486DX2.

oygevalte November 15 2006, 01:18:42 UTC

Okay. :) I can usually manage to make a stitched image look decent with a little cut-and-paste if there are alignment issues, but yeah, it'll never be "perfect".

I am going to take a stab in the dark here and guess that you weren't running Windows on either of those machines, the way I am (XP on this sad old hunk of crap). ;) None of my software runs on anything except Windows or OS X (and frankly, I'll take Winders for my ability to delve into its innards without a BS in xNix).