The Photography Thread

[thalidomide]

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

Evil,

Nice shots overall. The only two things I see that I don't like, personally is...

1) Is she that bronze? That's the first thing I noticed at any rate.
2) Some of them look like you've lost detail with some of her veil with the background (Had her to close to your backdrop when your blowing it out).

Those are the only two things that I see that stand out right away to me, other than that fantastic lighting, and nice catch lights. Fantastic PP work as well.

1) lol which one, both were quite tanned the first girl's father was Turkish i believe, the second did have a lot of tan on lol
2) yeah the studio only had a solid white backdrop and the dress did blend into the background quite a bit sadly.

the shoot was 4 looks, 2 from each model so i still have hippe and punk to work through.

 

[Alistair]

Evil,

Not meant to come out at ya, just observations I've noticed. That's all, as I'm still far from perfect. =D Good shots overall, tho. =)

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

Evil,

Not meant to come out at ya, just observations I've noticed. That's all, as I'm still far from perfect. =D Good shots overall, tho. =)

Mate don't worry I didnt think you were having a go. Just replying so I don't make the same mistakes in the next load of shots from that shoot.

 

[Alistair]

Evil,

All right! Awesome! I know I'm still a noob as I've mentioned many times, but some people jump down my throat a lot as of late for putting in my input (not here) for how I see it and not offensive way in any shape or form.

G'luck with the next shoot, and can't wait to see them!

 

[thalidomide]

 

[Red Mask]

Great shots guys. Alistair, when you take pictures of your son at the park, what kind of equipment do you bring? BTW, I had a chance last weekend to try my neutral density filter and got these two shots here:

This is really cool, Midnyte_Sun. I've been planning on shooting longs exposures to get that kind of effect with running water. But a 10-stop filter is pretty expensive, so I'm saving up for a later date. What grade is your ND filter for that picture?

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Red mask, thanks!

The filter is a Singh-ray; I have has a 77mm screw in ring with a dial that basically goes from Min to Max. Max being 8 stops. For this picture I had the dial between 7 and 8 stops. It also has a polarizing filter and a color enhancement filter.

 

[Red Mask]

I've stumbled upon an interesting post on YouTube. You see, lately I've chosen the Nikon D300s to be my first DSLR to purchase. I hope to buy it before the end of the year. Now I know it doesn't have the megapixels of today's newer models, and I've used a Pentax K7 and Nikon D7000 already.

But somebody posted that having fewer megapixels for a DX sensor is better than having more. He argues that having more megapixels will only increase the noise when shooting at a higher ISO sensitivity. What does that mean? I thought having more megapixels mean you get more color depth to work with.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I've heard the same thing. I was just reading an article about the Canon 1D-X and it apparently the 1DX had fewer effective megapixels. The writer said that having fewer pixels equates to having pixels that are larger. This means you can shoot the 1DX at higher ISO's and have a higher burst rate.

I think basically having more megapixels,means you have sensors that have a higher sensitivity, meaning more noise at low light settings.

 

[Red Mask]

I've heard the same thing. I was just reading an article about the Canon 1D-X and it apparently the 1DX had fewer effective megapixels. The writer said that having fewer pixels equates to having pixels that are larger. This means you can shoot the 1DX at higher ISO's and have a higher burst rate.

I think basically having more megapixels,means you have sensors that have a higher sensitivity, meaning more noise at low light settings.

That's not good. But if it's only a trait of DX sensors then what other sensors have overcome that problem? I might as well buy a used Nikon D2x which is monster to hold but has fewer megapixels than the D300s.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Good question. That 1DX could shoot at an absurd 200,000+ ISO, but it also came packed with a bunch of other modern advancements. If you haven't already, read every review you can find on the net, including youtube hands on reviews by different types of photographers. From what I see, the D300 has more modern functionality, performs well in low light..but the D2x is built like a tank and is resilient.

I found this comparison review here:

Reviewed by: Bjorn Rorslett:

The viewfinder of D300 is not up to the quality of the D2X because the eyepoint distance is slightly shorter, so if you wear spectacles, or use a rubber eyepiece cup to prevent false light and enhance finder contrast, it becomes much harder to see the entire groundglass and the information areas outside it. This bothers me all the time. I was not prepared for how poor the D300's viewfinder was after just reading the specifications, don't know if Nikon cocomitantly changed magnification too. In fact, I have to press my forehead hard against the camera to see the D300 groundglass clearly but the corners still are marginal at best. I also dislike that the AF brackets are not visible all the time, like they are on the D2x. Then at least you instantaneously know which one to use.

Interestingly, the D3 has an even shorter eyepoint distance than the D300, but since the viewfinder is larger and the magnification much lower, it's very easy to see the entire groundglass and other presented information. Still not as good as an F5 viewfinder, but better than the D300 (and also better than the D2x but not as much as one would expect a priori).

Handling of a camera demands a personal evaluation of course, but in general when you work in a cold climate and wear gloves, a bigger camera always will handle better. The same goes for shooting at slow speeds since the heft of the bigger camera makes for less vibration and better stability.

Having more than 10 non-CPU lenses at a time is my normal situation when I go on field trips. The handling of non-CPU lenses both with D3 and D300 is a big step backwards compared to the D2x. I have dealt with this aspect in my D3 review.

That the D300 is a newer camera and offers some improvements over the D2X is not the salient point here since every one can understand and appreciate this. The question more is if the improvements are in areas of importance to the end user. Better AF is not important for me, neither is the high-ISO improvement (D3 is much better in this department anyway), nor the faster firing rate. Had the viewfinder of the D300 appeared better to my eyes I would be a little more positive in my attitude towards the camera, but I can't neglect what I see (or rather, don't see).

A final point that should be addressed is the interoperability of your camera, i.e. do they replace each other easily in the field. The answer for D300 vs D3 (and D2x) is NO in my experience. D2X and D3 combines nicely, though, since their layouts are closely similar. Not something all people need to consider, but I have to for my own applications.

Let me underscore that I don't belittle the qualities of the D300, it is for sure a very nice camera and will serve many users - including former D2X owners - very well. However, selecting your tools of the trade depends on much more diversified criteria than just having the newest gear at your disposal.

Also:

D300 over the D2X definitely; a better sensor, higher quality image processing programming and hardware, greater ISO range, much better autofocus, much greater dynamic range,lower noise to signal ratio, better tonality, better LCD, very useful "live view" feature and those are just the obvious highlights --I've used both the D2X and the D300.

I guess the best way is to just try them out for yourself; see which camera is right for you in the settings you require it to work well.

 

[Red Mask]

Since the D2x is painful for me to hold, I don't really consider it good to buy. But the DX sensor reports are worrisome.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

hey guys dont know how well know they are to people out side the uk, but i had the job of shooting the westlife farewell gig at the odyssey, would love some feedback

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.234467633335097.50917.141781259270402&type=3

lol got a lot of interest in them, heh who knew to get your work popular all you had to do was shoot a band loads of people fancied

 

[Dr Lee]

Very nice set of images.....

 

[thalidomide]

Some tips

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4HbWhri7Tc&feature=g-u-u

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Playing around with photoshop today. My free trial ran out. Need to crop the side and bottom.

This one didn't turn out the way I wanted, but it was close to what I was trying to do.

Statue I took a night. No tripod; held it as steady as I could

 

[Alistair]

Ultimate,

Nice shots. I wish I could do a concert, just for the challenge at any rate! I think it would be a helluva a blast!

Red,

I would keep doing some research, and if possible go to a camera shop to see how they feel. That's what I did with the 60D before I bought it, and it was in my price range. If if I still want a full frame...hahaha.

Lunar,

Nice experimenting! Keep at it and I really do need to play around with processing a bit more, but it's really not my cup of tea. I've noticed my style seems to be pretty much true what is straight out of camera, and vibrant colours. Ya agree? Hahaha.

I did get into a internet war, despite it really wasn't my fault. It was kinda hilarious how some people defend things, even if you disagree with it, but if you say it works for them they totally disregard your answer saying it's "slander." It's hilarious. All about the overpriced Gary Fong Lightsphere, and if ya just learn how to bounce it can produce the same results and lot less waste of power. =/

Anyways, happier stuff. I decided to redo my little boys pictures with the sunset due to him actually listening and another one during noon, using a manual flash (Wanted to try it instead of ETTL). I know my white balance is off a little bit, I was just experimenting a little bit the balance.

1)

(Modern Day Warrior, Mean, Mean Stride, Today's Tom Sawyer.)

Exposure Time 1/250
F Number f / 3.20
Exposure Program Manual
ISO Speed Ratings 100
Metering Mode Pattern


2)

Exposure Time 1/250
F Number f / 3.20
Exposure Program Manual
ISO Speed Ratings 100
Metering Mode Pattern


3)

Date Time Original 2012:05:29 11:28:45
Exposure Time 1/250
F Number f / 8
Exposure Program Manual
ISO Speed Ratings 100
Metering Mode Pattern

 

[thalidomide]

I like the first pic Alistair

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

Lunar,

Nice experimenting! Keep at it and I really do need to play around with processing a bit more, but it's really not my cup of tea. I've noticed my style seems to be pretty much true what is straight out of camera, and vibrant colours. Ya agree? Hahaha.

I'm pretty much the same for most part. Only time I've played around with images was with my photoshop trial.


I have a question:


I've got my sensor cleaned twice now, but there's still two large black marks(only noticeable when I do long exposures). I'm starting to think it's not the sensor. When I look through the eye piece it looks very dirty and it's coming from the inside, so it's not the actual eyepiece itself. Anyone know what could be dirty other than the sensor that's causing the dirt to appear?

 

[Alistair]

I like the first pic Alistair

Thank you. That's my fave it too. Just he picked up some PVC when we this week when redoing a few pipes at the house that got a little brittle.

I'm pretty much the same for most part. Only time I've played around with images was with my photoshop trial.


I have a question:


I've got my sensor cleaned twice now, but there's still two large black marks(only noticeable when I do long exposures). I'm starting to think it's not the sensor. When I look through the eye piece it looks very dirty and it's coming from the inside, so it's not the actual eyepiece itself. Anyone know what could be dirty other than the sensor that's causing the dirt to appear?

The reason why I don't like that and straight outta camera is I hate all the extra work. I don't mind dodging and burning, and such. But sitting there for hours just do one thing boggles my mind.

How long of exposures are you doing? Just curious for that can increase noise, or bring out artifacts since the sensor is heating up. Also, what time is your ambient temp? What ISO are you shooting at when you did this? I'm thinking that might be the issue at hand from what your telling me.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

Alistair, I love the natural look in your shots. Everything is crisp, clean, and framed nicely.

Lunar, your photoshop skills are better than mine, that's for sure. Keep up the great stuff. I've always been challenged when it comes to framing shots tightly..also getting the right shot without being gimmicky. Then again, it may all be subjective, but as a amateur photographer like myself, is there any way not to offend someone with a shot?

 

[Alistair]

Alistair, I love the natural look in your shots. Everything is crisp, clean, and framed nicely.

Lunar, your photoshop skills are better than mine, that's for sure. Keep up the great stuff. I've always been challenged when it comes to framing shots tightly..also getting the right shot without being gimmicky. Then again, it may all be subjective, but as a amateur photographer like myself, is there any way not to offend someone with a shot?

Midnyte,

Thank you! That's what I try to go for to be honest, as I look at all these other shots that are glamour related, and such. I hate that over processed skin feeling and such. I mean, get rid of acne and such, but keep the other things in that are part of them. Say, a little bit of beard of what not. Don't get that out and turns them into plastic.

What do you mean by offend someone with a shot? Everything is subjective, it just depends on what you personally like and that photographers style. There is people I admire, and people despite my newbie ness likes my lighting style, or my lighting (even around here at home).

 

[thalidomide]

Same here, I don't use Photoshop or lightroom (except when I'm putting some watermarks), my college friend who is a pro photographer told me to avoid them as much as possible.

 

[Alistair]

thalidomide,

Exactly. Those are good words, and it shows how good a photographer is even with less processing if they can get it right straight out of camera, IMO. I mean that's your thing, fine, but that's how I view it. Despite a lot of good photographers do stress this as well.

I do use Lightroom as a organizer, which it does very well and quick edits. Such as White Balance, fill, recovery, vibrancy and sharpening (Since I shot RAW it's pretty flat) or what not. Elements for really bad acne and I do have to skin smooth or dodge and burn a little bit more thoroughly. I try to spend no more than 15 minutes max on each photo.