Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
The Photographers' Corner
Old 04-22-2014, 05:54 PM   #1081
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,476
The Photographers' Corner

ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1398207277.665947.jpg

Glacier NP
__________________

__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

The Photographers' Corner
Old 04-22-2014, 05:55 PM   #1082
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,476
The Photographers' Corner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Since it was raining for most of the day I found something else to play with. It took 40+ tries with different lighting but I got the "sorta Twilight Zone" effect I was looking for, or perhaps a time warp as in Stargate. One SB-900 on each end of the plastic slinky and -1 with the on-camera flash to light up some shadows.

It took a little gaffer's tape to hold the slinky in place.

Lol I'm enjoying these fun experiments you're doing...
__________________

__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 06:30 PM   #1083
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Thank you. I'll stick with the D7000 then. Or perhaps talk myself into the successor to the D7100.
Rumors of a D7200 later this year.

Also would be leery about buying the D610 because the D600/D610 design is coming up on 2 years so it may also have a successor soon.

D5300 has the same sensor as the D7100, but it's not as prosumer as the D7100 so it won't focus with the older Nikkor lenses nor does it have all the physical controls. You have to go into the menus.

I may get the D5300 to use for couple of years. Maybe by then Nikon will have something like the Sony A7.
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 06:43 PM   #1084
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
Although I haven't used a full-frame DSLR, my sense is that unless there is a specific reason for wanting full-frame, you're not significantly better off with one.

Possible advantages to full-frame include -

-The ability to print at greater sizes
-The ability to crop more
-The slightly better high iso performance - although this depends on which camera you are comparing it with. APS-C sensors are far from shabby in this regard, and are getting better and better
-The fact that you can get a wider angle of view with your full-frame lenses on a full-frame than on an APS-C body
-The slightly more limited depth of field for a given aperture (if you consider this an advantage)

I think that full-frame bodies were thought of as more of a holy grail before it became apparent that APS-C sensors were becoming pretty darned good. Just my POV, of course, and I'd welcome any other perspectives.
__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 06:52 PM   #1085
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
Also would be leery about buying the D610 because the D600/D610 design is coming up on 2 years so it may also have a successor soon.
This sort of stuff does my head in when I'm deciding what and when to buy. The nice thing is that whatever you get will make images every bit as good in 5 years as it does now. The Canon 20D that I bought in 2005 still works just as well as it did when I first got it. It has been superseded many times since, but the fact that my photo portfolio is mediocre at best has nothing to do with the camera and everything to do with me
__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 07:00 PM   #1086
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,802
Oh the D610 gets good reviews. I'm sure it's fine enough.

I wish it had a better focusing system than the D7000 though. The D7100 does, getting the focusing system from the D4.


As for FX in general, the DR and low light performance is still better than DX. But I've also heard comments like you need good technique to get results from FX, so things like using tripods, hyper focal manual focusing, etc.

The D800E is sometimes compared to medium format. Well it's not as big and heavy but the comparison suggests that it's for a deliberate, planned-out type of photography.
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
The Photographers' Corner
Old 04-22-2014, 07:25 PM   #1087
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,476
The Photographers' Corner

Still using a D200, point and shoot, and iPhone. Might be nice for the improved tech, but still not necessary... It's all in the eye. One has to visualize the image they want...

ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1398212707.208318.jpg

There's a little resort east of Fairbanks, and they keep these ice sculptures in a refrigerated building. They even have rooms with ice beds lol.

Two highlights closest to edge and the lowest highLight need to be burned in, maybe cropped out - they're too distracting

And if you look in the mirror, you can see the beast - having a martini...
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
The Photographers' Corner
Old 04-22-2014, 10:48 PM   #1088
Moderator
Ronstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere between Chicago and Phoenix
Posts: 7,409
The Photographers' Corner

Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
Lol I'm enjoying these fun experiments you're doing...

+1. Walt's experiments are turning out some great shots that are very unique.
__________________
"And in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years" - Abraham Lincoln
Ronstar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:12 AM   #1089
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
Oh the D610 gets good reviews. I'm sure it's fine enough.

I wish it had a better focusing system than the D7000 though. The D7100 does, getting the focusing system from the D4.


As for FX in general, the DR and low light performance is still better than DX. But I've also heard comments like you need good technique to get results from FX, so things like using tripods, hyper focal manual focusing, etc.

The D800E is sometimes compared to medium format. Well it's not as big and heavy but the comparison suggests that it's for a deliberate, planned-out type of photography.

i find i can run my d800 up to 3200 iso before i can see a big difference in noise and sharpness compared to iso 1600 on the d7000 before we look the same. not a big difference in low light ability between the two but enough to make a difference.

after that point it is variable as to subject , lighting and background as to what you get.

but if i use auto iso i max it at 3200 on the d800 and 1600 on the d7000.
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:00 AM   #1090
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
This sort of stuff does my head in when I'm deciding what and when to buy. The nice thing is that whatever you get will make images every bit as good in 5 years as it does now.
That's the thing too. I've not come near exhausting the capabilities of the gear I have. And I keep a Sony Betamax in the basement solely to remind myself not to go chasing the latest gizmos. Perhaps I'd best go take another look at it.

mathjak, I've also concluded that ISO 1600 is the practical limit for the D7000. By the time the noise is taken out too much detail is gone.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 09:12 AM   #1091
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Nodak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Cavalier
Posts: 2,154
I can't take credit for any of these pics but they are so good I had to post this.
30 Photos Of North Dakota That Will Make You Want To Move There
__________________
"Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent." Pogo Possum (Walt Kelly)
Nodak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 02:38 PM   #1092
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
mathjak, I've also concluded that ISO 1600 is the practical limit for the D7000. By the time the noise is taken out too much detail is gone.
For the sake of providing an alternate viewpoint, I sometimes wonder if we photographers (pros and enthusiasts alike) put more stock in certain things than the average viewer does. While digital noise in images is not as unattractive as it used to be, I agree that it doesn't look as nice as does grain in film. Having said that, I wonder if we think about noise too much. If you're shooting in a low light situation at high ISO, it's quite possible that it's presence could even add some ambience or at least, IMO, not detract from the image.

This picture was taken in the fairly low light of a bar. It was shot at 1600 ISO on a Canon 20D - a crop camera with an APS-C size sensor. On top of that, the camera is 9 years old and has old sensor technology. Granted, it's not a 100% full-size image, so benefits from the noise reduction that happens when you downsize an image for the web. I admit that I'm making this point rather sloppily by not posting a 100% crop, but my general point is that here is an image shot at 1600 ISO from a 9 year-old camera (with older technology in the sensor) and to my eyes, it looks fine -



This camera probably has about the same amount of noise at 1600 ISO that a modern body does at, say, 6400 or even 12800 ISO. That was a wild guess. Perhaps someone else knows from experience how much of a difference in stops there is between the maximum usable ISO of older cameras vs the modern ones?

On this body, the noise at 3200 ISO is very noticeable but, depending on the image, still not objectionable. It tends to look pretty good in black and white, of course.

In other words, what I'm saying Walt, is that if you leave the noise in, you get to keep the detail as well, and maybe the whole combination won't look that bad? Just a thought, and I hope I'm not being objectionable.
__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 02:58 PM   #1093
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
A few years ago, a friend of mine wanted a headshot. She is a DJ at a local station, a pursuit that she absolutely loves. She's a bit of a music nerd, and a happy soul. I wanted to shoot her in the control room of the station, surrounded by all the equipment, and create a sense that she was in her element and completely happy there - surrounded by the thing she loves doing.

It's not an approach that I'd normally use for a portrait, but I rented an extreme wide-angle lens so that the station equipment would almost look it was wrapped around her. IIRC, it was a full-frame 8mm lens and even on the crop body I was using, gave a very wide angle effect. It did caricaturize her features somewhat but I think it did so in an appealing way and even more important - she liked the picture. To me, she looks like a happy music geek, completely in her element.

There are only two things I'm not completely crazy about in this shot. Firstly, I have never been able to get exactly the black and white conversion that I wanted. The distribution of tones looks a bit lacklustre to my eyes, and not quite crisp and punchy enough. Secondly, this was shot with the lighting already present in the control room. It's not bad, but I wouldn't mind trying it again with some strobist techniques - perhaps with the light focused mainly on the subject and less so on her surrounding environment, for a slightly more dramatic effect.

Aaah well - I will never, ever take the perfect photo!

__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 03:56 PM   #1094
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
In other words, what I'm saying Walt, is that if you leave the noise in, you get to keep the detail as well, and maybe the whole combination won't look that bad? Just a thought, and I hope I'm not being objectionable.
Not objectionable at all! What we all want is perfect clarity at ISO 10 million. And we won't be happy until we get it.

Seriously, I think digital cameras are terrific. I remember shooting with Kodachrome 25. And now we complain about a bit of noise at 1600.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:04 PM   #1095
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Tom View Post
There are only two things I'm not completely crazy about in this shot. Firstly, I have never been able to get exactly the black and white conversion that I wanted. The distribution of tones looks a bit lacklustre to my eyes, and not quite crisp and punchy enough. Secondly, this was shot with the lighting already present in the control room. It's not bad, but I wouldn't mind trying it again with some strobist techniques - perhaps with the light focused mainly on the subject and less so on her surrounding environment, for a slightly more dramatic effect.
Given the objective and the constraints you had to work with I think it came out great. Can't help with the punchiness on the B&W since I'm not very good at that either. Re highlighting her, how about the radial filter in LR or a similar effect in Photoshop? Almost a vignette effect, but not as pronounced.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 04:30 PM   #1096
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
Shot some at the railroad roundhouse in Martinsburg, WV, one of the few remaining. Locally it is something that many people are trying to preserve but of course money is tight.

And tried to do one in B&W. Playing with the color sliders in LR does a lot with the B&W.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Roundhouse-1.jpg (164.0 KB, 12 views)
File Type: jpg Roundhouse-2.jpg (175.2 KB, 10 views)
File Type: jpg B&W_Roundhouse-1.jpg (141.8 KB, 7 views)
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Photographers' Corner
Old 04-23-2014, 07:20 PM   #1097
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,476
The Photographers' Corner

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Not objectionable at all! What we all want is perfect clarity at ISO 10 million. And we won't be happy until we get it.

Seriously, I think digital cameras are terrific. I remember shooting with Kodachrome 25. And now we complain about a bit of noise at 1600.

+1

How many of us shoot for prints anymore, anyway? And I can't remember the last time I shot anything other ISO 100. I was just lamenting that GIMP doesn't have a CYMK mode, then realized I really don't need it, anymore.

Tom makes an excellent point.
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:21 PM   #1098
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,476
ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1398298898.360282.jpg
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:27 PM   #1099
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 14,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by seraphim View Post
A bit darker and it'd be a good opening for a horror movie set in the South. At least that's my first impression.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 07:56 PM   #1100
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Major Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: SF East Bay
Posts: 2,883
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Shot some at the railroad roundhouse in Martinsburg, WV, one of the few remaining. Locally it is something that many people are trying to preserve but of course money is tight.

And tried to do one in B&W. Playing with the color sliders in LR does a lot with the B&W.
Those are interesting. The relatively limited color palette almost makes them look like a color illustration from a book. Did you use HDR at all, or some other post-processing technique?

They look very much like the pictures of buildings you would see in an archival database. Good job!
__________________

__________________
ER, for all intents and purposes. Part-time income <5% of annual expenditure.
Major Tom is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.