The Photographers' Corner 2013-2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im avoiding a DSLR for him, looking for something more compact so he'll carry it. If he really gets into it, we'll consider something else down the road. But I doubt he'd get into carrying a large camera, as I do.

If he did, I'd probably go Nikon so he can have access to my old lenses.

Actually for a slightly lower quality most folks now carry a camera on their cell phone. So the question then becomes what quality does the always carry camera need to have? Obviously the optics on a cell phone are poorer than most dedicated cameras, but when are they good enough?
 
Obviously the optics on a cell phone are poorer than most dedicated cameras,...

Not to mention the shutter lag-time. Cell phones are really only good for up-close stationary objects. (Leaving Video out of the equation... but even then.)
 
I've seen some pretty well done photos and videos out of cell phones.

People are using elaborate rigs to film and edit videos on iPhones but that's obviously not representative of every day use.

You wouldn't obviously use a phone photo to make large prints but for snap shots or capturing something unexpected, they're kind of indispensable.

Remember those giant polaroids that insurance claims adjusters used to carry around?

But people used to take photos worth preserving with those brownies and Kodak instamatics.

I once saw an exhibition of photos taken over the decades by people in their homes in the '50s to the '80s or so. As cheap cameras became widely available, the kind of photos people took and keep changed in subject matter. Compare how in the old days, the only family photos people would have would be those posed in some studio, once a year or so.

Ubiquity of phone cameras make for even more candid photos. A contrast to the deliberative process taken by serious photographers but yet, capturing people in the moment in a way that those posed photos rarely do.
 
If anyone is thinking of buying a X-Rite Colorchecker Passport they are on sale at B&H for $59, almost half off. I have one and it's great for setting white balance in Lightroom/Photoshop when the light sources are mixed, like in a room lighted with daylight and tungsten.
 
A shot from last week's trip to Nashville

15785318740_8b96a5d8f9_k.jpg
 
I've seen some pretty well done photos and videos out of cell phones.

People are using elaborate rigs to film and edit videos on iPhones but that's obviously not representative of every day use.

You wouldn't obviously use a phone photo to make large prints but for snap shots or capturing something unexpected, they're kind of indispensable.

Remember those giant polaroids that insurance claims adjusters used to carry around?

But people used to take photos worth preserving with those brownies and Kodak instamatics.

I once saw an exhibition of photos taken over the decades by people in their homes in the '50s to the '80s or so. As cheap cameras became widely available, the kind of photos people took and keep changed in subject matter. Compare how in the old days, the only family photos people would have would be those posed in some studio, once a year or so.

Ubiquity of phone cameras make for even more candid photos. A contrast to the deliberative process taken by serious photographers but yet, capturing people in the moment in a way that those posed photos rarely do.

In particular the arrival of digital photography has drastically reduced the cost of a picture. I have a folder from 2005 that suggests that slides cost about $.50 per slide back then (film and development). Now with digital one takes multiple shots and with zoom lenses at mulitple zoom levels. It would actually be an interesting exercise to look at minutes of work per exposure back to 1900.
 
Cellphone Pictures

Here are pictures from about the same spot on the Oregon coast, first one taken with my work Blackberry Z10, second with my Nikon D50/18-200 zoom. I posted the full sized images, but the forum software cut them to size. These images are not post-processed in any way.

The Z10 has an 8MP resolution, the D50 is 6MP. But there is so much more to consider in each camera's translation of the CMOS array measurements into an image including a colorspace translation. So, one thing to consider is, from the D50 I can get the raw NEF to work with, but I'm stuck with BB's notions about translating that to JPEG. For web pictures, mox nix, but if you're gonna print...

But the main thing for me is the choice of lens perspectives. The zoom on the Nikon for me is more about selecting a perspective than 'reach'. 18mm on a DX sensor for the Nikon, I dunno what for the Z10. They'll have to figure out a better situation than 'bolt-ons' for cellphones for me to even start to consider tossing the DSLR.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20140926_125758_hdr.jpg
    IMG_20140926_125758_hdr.jpg
    635.9 KB · Views: 24
  • DSC_7655.jpg
    DSC_7655.jpg
    495.5 KB · Views: 24
I rather like these drone images: BBC News - The most stunning drone pictures of 2014 Though I think I'll wait 'till the legal situation settles down before investing!

GoPro is said to be working on a model between $500-1000 for next year.

If that happens, there are going to be a lot more.

I think if you want to fly over some famous sites, your chances are better sooner than later, before the onslaught of cheaper drones fill the skies in these places.

EU is working on a rule and UK has some rule about not flying over congested areas or any sporting event or concert. So why wouldn't a lot of people fly over the Thames and Houses of Parliament? Unless by "congested" they mean all of central London.
 
The Photographers' Corner

ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1419186563.470022.jpg
ImageUploadedByEarly Retirement Forum1419186578.438197.jpg

Walking around Newark Ohio with the AW1.

A little street photography, but the streets are vacant...


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
 
I think if you want to fly over some famous sites, your chances are better sooner than later, before the onslaught of cheaper drones fill the skies in these places.

I agree but for a different reason. In the U.S. there is no law regarding noncommercial use. There soon will be. I keep my membership in the AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics) which is the main organization for model airplane flyers. They are working with the FAA on rules, which means pointing out the unexpected effects of proposed regulations.

But since Congress has mandated that the FAA come up with rules regarding drones by 2015 I think there soon will be rules on use, even for noncommercial purposes. And landmarks are very likely to be one target of these rules.

I don't expect to see the skies darkening from swarms of drones but I do expect to see some foolish and overreaching regulations.
 
They're banned from national parks or maybe certain ones like Yellowstone. There are stories of drones being stranded in trees and geysers.

Practically speaking, if they have minimal regulations on hobbyists, yeah you would see more of them at famous sites, like the Washington Mall or flying over various parts of Manhattan, Golden Gate Bridge, etc.

I certainly would be inclined to try it out, especially if GoPro comes out with a good product at a competitive price. I know there are bigger ones where you can attach DSLRs but I'd be leery about putting my main camera on one of those things.

They do have rules against flying over sporting events and the UK has a similar rule (though the EU is finalizing rules too). Not sure such rules are about safety so much as protecting certain commercial interests.

There's a concern that the final regulation won't discriminate between different weight classes of drones. The bigger ones that businesses would use, to mount professional camera equipment, would be heavy enough to pose danger to the public.

But a lot of the lower-priced ones for hobbyists would be about 2 pounds, have pretty limited range and flying time.

I can also see a use for drones for video stabilization, at least based on some video footage. Even if not used for overhead shots, it seems to produce very smooth videos. So you potentially could have smoothly panned videos, with dolly'd effects.
 
Thanks Ronstar, seraphim, RonBoyd and ggbutcher. I'm a big fan of square crops but haven't owned a camera that takes square images in 30 years ;)
 
I would check the settings, most cameras let you take different sized pictures which have different aspect ratios.

For instance, I thought about using 16:9 format so that I can play slideshows on my HDTV but it's a lower number of pixels.

And my iPhone lets me take square, wide screen or pano pics.
 
Ok after all the talk about panoramas on the equipment thread, here are a couple:
 

Attachments

  • bay027029.jpg
    bay027029.jpg
    93.3 KB · Views: 24
  • bay027133.jpg
    bay027133.jpg
    127.2 KB · Views: 23
  • bay027174.jpg
    bay027174.jpg
    48.4 KB · Views: 23
  • bay029928.jpg
    bay029928.jpg
    53.2 KB · Views: 27
  • bay032918.jpg
    bay032918.jpg
    37.6 KB · Views: 23
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom