Post Your Top Quality Disney Photos!

[PacMan2006]

Hi guys,

I love coming here to see everyone's photos, but especially the VERY high quality ones. You know the kind--the ones where it seems that people are either highly skilled, have an incredible camera, or they are a photographer (or maybe all of the above are true).

I'm talking about the Disney photos that look like they belong in a magazine or book. Ones that don't have blur, mis-framing, or were shot with a lower end camera.

I'm not trying to look down on anyone--I'm in the class of one who has a normal pocket digi cam. And while it takes great photos, I know it cannot do this:

or this

So for those with the great quality photos, please don't be modest. If you could post your photos, I'd love to see them placed in one general area (like this thread). If you could share your insight on what camera you used, and how you'd rank the level of usability, that would be great, as well.

Thanks.

 

[Laura]

Actually that first picture of the Sorcerer Mickey hat is a really simple shot to get. I've done it many times. You simply put your camera on auto mode, set it on a trash can, and hit the button. The result looks just like that.

I'd like to say I take some nice pictures at Disney, but it's all a matter of opinion. If you click on my name and go to my profile there's an album there with a bunch of my favorites.

 

[WDWFigment]

You just posted two decent to good pictures that are over-exposed (primarily just the first) with jacked up contrast (although the lightning is nice in the second, it's not of the photog's doing). We already have a picture of the day thread, and the subject (Disney!) matters more to me than the amount of money someone spent on the camera, so thanks, but no thanks.

 

[PacMan2006]

^So why did you post?

This isn't about money or who has the best camera--I was just looking for specific kinds of photographs without having to wade through a thread that's 200+ pages long. That's immensely unreasonable--I just don't have that kind of time.

 

[Laura]

^So why did you post?

This isn't about money or who has the best camera--I was just looking for specific kinds of photographs without having to wade through a thread that's 200+ pages long. That's immensely unreasonable--I just don't have that kind of time.

If this thread turns into a war, you could always try Flickr. They tend to have some really awesome shots on there. Just search for things like "Magic Kingdom" or "Mickey Mouse" or something like that.

 

[WDWFigment]

^So why did you post?

This isn't about money or who has the best camera--I was just looking for specific kinds of photographs without having to wade through a thread that's 200+ pages long. That's immensely unreasonable--I just don't have that kind of time.

Good point, I never considered that one would have to read the entire thread to see what pictures in it are good. Sorry. Good luck!

 

[PacMan2006]

Thanks Laura.

Figment...what's your issue? Tell me...how many pages should I check out in that 200+ page topic? 20? 30? I don't see the point when I'm looking for specific kinds of photos and quality.

It's like me asking for Christmas party photos of Snow White or Donald Duck and you directing me to that enormous thread.

 

[DznyGrlSD]

Ok Kids, please play nice in the sandbox...

 

[mraw]

The top photo [Sorcerer Mickey Hat] has been altered in Photoshop. The sky is a cloud filter, the beams of light are airbrushed, and the actual photo is really cut off at the hat (if you look to the left of the hat you can see how the trees are blurry on the edges). I also think that the lightning in that second photo was placed in afterwards.

I didn't take these images, but these are some wallpapers that I found online a few years ago:

 

[Schmoofy]

The top photo [Sorcerer Mickey Hat] has been altered in Photoshop. The sky is a cloud filter, the beams of light are airbrushed, and the actual photo is really cut off at the hat (if you look to the left of the hat you can see how the trees are blurry on the edges). I also think that the lightning in that second photo was placed in afterwards.

You're thinking way too much, it's called exposure time, and it has been beefed up.

 

[mraw]

You're thinking way too much, it's called exposure time, and it has been beefed up.

Well I appreciate your condescending tone. Have a great evening :wave: OP, I hope that you can use the images that I posted above. I still love looking at them.

 

[blackthidot]

Taken with a ATT Nokia 2610...enjoy!

 

[PacMan2006]

Well I appreciate your condescending tone. Have a great evening :wave: OP, I hope that you can use the images that I posted above. I still love looking at them.

Those pics are definitely nice, mraw.

 

[C&D]

I'm with 'Figment' on this one; don't need an 'elite' thread when most of the shots are subjective anyway. No hard feelings, but I'll be posting on one of the other four major photo threads. I don't think you meant to sound condescending (to the lessor quality prints) but it still came across that way.

 

[dazzer68]

lets not bother with this thread please. Everybodys pictures are great.
'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'
to the late comers of the threads 'wade' through all the picture threads , there are some really great, inspirational,emotional,artistic, and everyday shots there,have a look and enjoy it.

 

[gabroccoli]

I'm with the Figman...

 

[Laura]

The top photo [Sorcerer Mickey Hat] has been altered in Photoshop. The sky is a cloud filter, the beams of light are airbrushed, and the actual photo is really cut off at the hat (if you look to the left of the hat you can see how the trees are blurry on the edges). I also think that the lightning in that second photo was placed in afterwards.

I have to disagree with you on all counts. The trees are blurry because during a long exposure trees move in the breeze. That is completely expected in this type of a photo.

As I said earlier, I've taken the same shot many times. It's one of the easiest "cool" shots to get at Disney. Dramatic skies like the one in that photo are extremely simple to capture just by using a long exposure time right after the sun goes down on a partly cloudy day...or in that case it looks as if the clouds were low enough in the sky due to a fast moving storm that they were lit up by the lights from the ground. (By the way, a cloud filter does not look anything like that.) The beams of light in that photo look exactly as they do in every photo I've ever taken of that scene.

The second picture with the lightning was taken by a professional photographer and based on the rest of his pictures I don't think he would have had any trouble capturing that shot without cheating.

I think a lack of photography experience is shining through on your part, rather than the contrary.

 

[PacMan2006]

I'm with 'Figment' on this one; don't need an 'elite' thread when most of the shots are subjective anyway. No hard feelings, but I'll be posting on one of the other four major photo threads. I don't think you meant to sound condescending (to the lessor quality prints) but it still came across that way.

How is this thread elite? It's a thread of preference. Is someone elite because they prefer mainstream movies over Indie flicks? It makes them elite because they prefer the $200 million blockbuster over the $2 million art film?

No, it doesn't. Everyone has different desires for what they'd like to see.

In truth, I think most people on this board are elite, and I suppose I could be put in that category, too. If you're taking multiple trips to Disney World--especially with a family size of three or more--that's thousands of dollars being spent on a theme-park vacation getaway. Nothing wrong with it, but you should be thankful you're able to be "elite," as there are many people that will never see Disney World--let along enjoy multiple trips--due to their insufficient funds.

Lastly, if you're feeling sensitive about looking at photos--for whatever reason--that's fine. I can't change the way you feel. But please don't bring your negativity into this thread. I don't post negative or snide remarks in your threads, and you shouldn't do it here either. I think I take decent photographs, but I'm perfectly willing to admit that there are many I cannot produce. While I like looking at all photos that are Disney related, I get more enjoyment out of seeing pictures that are of a certain composition/quality that I know I cannot replicate, rather than the ones I can.

 

[C&D]

This will be my last post here; I'm not posting to be negative. Your original post says you don't want to wade through thousands of photos. If that is not looking down at the 'original threads' I don't know what is. Again, photos are very subjective, who is bold enough to say 'my photo' is so good/professional, I can post in 'this' thread. Just saying.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

My photos are fan bloody tastic. which is why I wont post them on here in case that they are exploited by unsavoury sorts.