• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Photography today , whats wrong with it, my struggles

Delvo said:
I tend to take at least one of the area around my tent, while standing away from the tent so the tent is in the picture. This, for example, is not just any picture of the gravel bar at Redwood Creek; it's my picture of the gravel bar at Redwood Creek, from my experience there. My favorite pictures are the ones that don't just look the best in some abstract sense, but also anchor my memories of what I was doing at the time
Click to expand...
Weird and weirder... not only is that link not what I originally posted, but it's also something I never even clicked to reply to or copied to paste anywhere... and on top of that, my first subsequent response to correct it is gone! Anyway, obviously, that link to a post I never quoted is not the picture I was referring to; this is. (Unless it vanishes again. Or gets replaced by some random other thing again.)

attachment.php


CORed said:
I've been pretty happy with fixed lens digital cameras with high-ratio zooms. Image quality isn't quite as good as DSLR's or mirrorless cameras, but it's pretty damn good, and you can go from wide angle to extreme telephoto without changing lenses, so the bird or other critter isn't gone by the time you get the lens changed.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite. I have one of those with the big built-in lens, but I've found multiple occasions on which I throw it out as far as it goes and still need more range and can't believe how tiny the thing I'm pointing at still looks, or I'm as close as I can get to something small and can't zoom the opposite way any farther when I want to. Plus, at the small end, I can't figure out how to get the focus to behave consistently, which I presume a more serious camera and a dedicated close-up/macro lens would have a solution to. And at both ends, if I blow up the image, sometimes I'm disappointed with the detail (less real picture information than what the number of pixels would seem to indicate, like a small picture blown up with an algorithm that adds faint random noise dots instead of being as smooth as possible), and I can't tell whether it's because the lens system gets smudgy because it's just trying to handle too much range, or because the sensor, although bigger than in compact cameras, is still just not big enough for its number of pixels. Either way, the solution would apparently be to go SLR. (And its old NTSC video resolution just reminds me how thoroughly I've gotten used to HDTV. :D) And any place where I'm taking out my big current camera in the first place, I'm already taking a tripod anyway, so including another lens or 2 with the tripod is no real difference.

I've been checking out the choices at both Canon and Nikon. I'm sure I'll end up going for the cheapest body one company or the other makes just because of the expense because there's no sense in replacing my current camera without getting at least 2 lenses (one for long shots and one for close-ups) if not 3 (if the first 2 don't overlap). The ones that come with even one lens at all come with a lens with a very small zoom range. I don't know how to pick between those companies or whether any other might even be worth considering, but I'm tempted to go Nikon just because they also have field-scopes (essentially portable modern telescopes) to which you can attach a Nikon SLR camera at the eyepiece...
 
Last edited:
I think that anyone serious about photography would buy a digital Hasselbald H5D-200C medium format DSLR camera. 50 MP 23.8 x 32,9 mm sensor. Only $44,995 for the body- a lens will set you back at least $7000 more. Plus given the file sizes generated you will probably need to upgrade your computer and buy a lot of external hard drive capacity. And it is kind of heavy and big to carry around. But why do a hobby only half way??
 
Giordano said:
I think that anyone serious about photography would buy a digital Hasselbald H5D-200C medium format DSLR camera. 50 MP 23.8 x 32,9 mm sensor. Only $44,995 for the body- a lens will set you back at least $7000 more. Plus given the file sizes generated you will probably need to upgrade your computer and buy a lot of external hard drive capacity. And it is kind of heavy and big to carry around. But why do a hobby only half way??
Click to expand...

That reminds me of this one photographer I worked for that had a dedicated tripod assistant for fashion photography. He would move all over the place with a long, expensive and heavy system while the assistant would move about like a drunken master.
 
When I bought my 'fancy' camera before the trip to Prague, I thought "Well, I'll just take hundreds of photos and through sheer luck, something will turn out great".

And then I sat there in front of my computer staring at 20 pictures of the exact same thing trying to figure out which one was best. After doing this about 5 times I was done. It's overwhelming.

So, now I have the Africa trip coming up and this is going to be about capturing animals in motion. I'm almost overwhelmed enough to ditch the fancy rig and just get something point and shoot so I don't have to think about it. I won't do that, but it's very tempting.

I'm determined to experience it first - before I take a picture of it.

I'm rambling - I like this thread.
 
I am contemplating an equipment upgrade - new camera body, mostly because my existing does not have a view finder. As I age, it is becoming a pain to have to use progressives to see my subject in real life far away, then to try and line it up on a 3" screen on a sunny day, holding my hand over it to shade it, looking through the bottom of my glasses.
I've played with the 'upgrade' model and I am like the viewfinder. Has adjuster to compensate for my 'old man' vision.
 
The Sparrow said:
I am contemplating an equipment upgrade - new camera body, mostly because my existing does not have a view finder. As I age, it is becoming a pain to have to use progressives to see my subject in real life far away, then to try and line it up on a 3" screen on a sunny day, holding my hand over it to shade it, looking through the bottom of my glasses.
I've played with the 'upgrade' model and I am like the viewfinder. Has adjuster to compensate for my 'old man' vision.
Click to expand...

One of the advantages of an SLR, and of some newer mirrorless cameras, is a better and faster auto focus system. An SLR uses a completely different AF system from a point and shoot. Phase detect AF uses an independent focus device, which when adjusted right is quite good in low light, and good at tracking motion. Mirrorless and compact cameras use contrast detect auto focus, which reads directly off the sensor. For this reason it's very accurate, but unfortunately not so good for tracking motion and for some of the tricks that phase detect can do. Nowadays, some mirrorless cameras are coming out with a hybrid system that works better, and I've heard there's much improvement. But the best mirrorless cameras are pretty expensive, too.

One other advantage of a proper viewfinder is the ability to hold the camera and sight it well, and to see the image in bright light. A live view screen is poor in direct sunlight, and hard for some to hold steady.

so all in all, I'd heartily recommend a proper viewfinder, even if it's an electronic one, and would suggest looking carefully at auto focus systems if you plan to shoot wildlife or sports.
 
Delvo said:
Weird and weirder... not only is that link not what I originally posted, but it's also something I never even clicked to reply to or copied to paste anywhere... and on top of that, my first subsequent response to correct it is gone! Anyway, obviously, that link to a post I never quoted is not the picture I was referring to; this is. (Unless it vanishes again. Or gets replaced by some random other thing again.)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=28729[/qimg]

I'm the opposite. I have one of those with the big built-in lens, but I've found multiple occasions on which I throw it out as far as it goes and still need more range and can't believe how tiny the thing I'm pointing at still looks, or I'm as close as I can get to something small and can't zoom the opposite way any farther when I want to. Plus, at the small end, I can't figure out how to get the focus to behave consistently, which I presume a more serious camera and a dedicated close-up/macro lens would have a solution to. And at both ends, if I blow up the image, sometimes I'm disappointed with the detail (less real picture information than what the number of pixels would seem to indicate, like a small picture blown up with an algorithm that adds faint random noise dots instead of being as smooth as possible), and I can't tell whether it's because the lens system gets smudgy because it's just trying to handle too much range, or because the sensor, although bigger than in compact cameras, is still just not big enough for its number of pixels. Either way, the solution would apparently be to go SLR. (And its old NTSC video resolution just reminds me how thoroughly I've gotten used to HDTV. :D) And any place where I'm taking out my big current camera in the first place, I'm already taking a tripod anyway, so including another lens or 2 with the tripod is no real difference.

I've been checking out the choices at both Canon and Nikon. I'm sure I'll end up going for the cheapest body one company or the other makes just because of the expense because there's no sense in replacing my current camera without getting at least 2 lenses (one for long shots and one for close-ups) if not 3 (if the first 2 don't overlap). The ones that come with even one lens at all come with a lens with a very small zoom range. I don't know how to pick between those companies or whether any other might even be worth considering, but I'm tempted to go Nikon just because they also have field-scopes (essentially portable modern telescopes) to which you can attach a Nikon SLR camera at the eyepiece...
Click to expand...

I suspect the last fixed lens zoom camera you used is a few years old. The first one I had had NTSC video and 10x, or maybe 12x zoom ratio. The telephoto was long enough for larger animals (deer size or larger) but not really adequate for birds. I've got a couple now (one Fuji, one Nikon) that have 30x zoom and hi-def video. The telephoto end is long enough for bird pictures, and also about as long is it is practical to hand hold, even with image stabilization. You definitely give up some image quality for the convenience, and that may not be suitable for what you want. The smaller sensors definitely are more prone to noise, especially at higher speeds (ISO number), but they are also what makes the high zoom ratios feasible.
 
The Sparrow said:
I have sold 3 in a gallery. I don't say this as a money making proposition. Frankly, the prints (metal prints look great by the way) are expensive, there was also commission on the pieces, and the vast amounts of beer I drank on opening night, basically mean I made $0. The reward, I guess, was that I created something that touched someone. I communicated. I think that's 1 reason to "do it".
Click to expand...
I'd like to get to that point!
Photojournalism has a valid function. Any kind of documentary photography arguably has a function. Capturing beauty that you and others can look at and feel pleasure from serves a function I think.

This is all making me think, in a good way :), about why I take pics.
Click to expand...
I'm still trying to work it out, and what I'm going to do with them, too.

The bulk of what I take are of events, mainly rock bands and burlesque shows, and I'm trying to capture images that convey the feeling of music, or the occasion. For that, I might take a few hundred pictures of one gig. I'm trying to be more selective, and plan more shots, but I'm not too upset about that number, I used to take more. Because you're trying to capture a fleeting moment, and in challenging conditions (the lighting is usually pretty bad and unpredictable), you might as well take advantage of the fact that it costs little to take more. The major downside is that there a more to review and choose the best ones from; I think I'm getting better at the editing process.

For other subjects, portraits, or street shots, or landscapes, I spend a lot more time planning and only take a few shots. I'd like to do some studio work, and have had a couple of lessons, but haven't yet come up with the inspiration for a session. It's a completely different way of thinking about producing an image, with everything planned.

I did some work for a local paper for a few months last year, mainly sports matches, but also some local stories. It's not something I'd want to do full time, but it was good practice for fulfilling a brief, and also getting out and talking to people.

I take some nature shots, because that's what it's easy to get to at lunchtime, but I don't think I have the patience or dedication to be a serious nature photographer.

I'm still trying to get my head around what makes a good photo. As already alluded to, in some quarters, especially for commercial work, heavy processing seems to be required, and there are fashions which change. At the other end, there is more art photography (as seen in the BJP, for example), where it's sometimes hard to see what's special about the image at all.

I use Lightroom, and do fairly minimal tweaks, or convert to monochrome. I'm still some long way from having my own style.

bruto said:
One other advantage of a proper viewfinder is the ability to hold the camera and sight it well, and to see the image in bright light. A live view screen is poor in direct sunlight, and hard for some to hold steady.

so all in all, I'd heartily recommend a proper viewfinder, even if it's an electronic one, and would suggest looking carefully at auto focus systems if you plan to shoot wildlife or sports.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly second the recommendation for a viewfinder. I have a mirrorless camera with a viewfinder; I had one without and I was struggling to see the screen clearly enough to focus, or properly compose the shot. I've never had a DSLR, but I currently have no desire to pay more to carry more weight about. :) I do have a couple of big and expensive zoom lenses, but I can also still put a prime lens on and stick the camera in my coat pocket. I mostly do things in manual mode.
 
Unfortunately, Photography is one subject that fascinates all of those "Engineer with Gears" types. Cycling has its fair share of them too. There's something about endlessly talking about ratios, f-stops that they find soothing.


Perhaps, its better to remember that most people on DPreview don't actually own the lens they say is the best. They're just talking about their dream set-up that they never got around to buying because the tech is always getting better.

Check out
Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1 or Level 0:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm

Bonus material.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm
 
Elagabalus said:
Unfortunately, Photography is one subject that fascinates all of those "Engineer with Gears" types. Cycling has its fair share of them too. There's something about endlessly talking about ratios, f-stops that they find soothing.


Perhaps, its better to remember that most people on DPreview don't actually own the lens they say is the best. They're just talking about their dream set-up that they never got around to buying because the tech is always getting better.

Check out
Equipment Measurbator: Bottom Level 1 or Level 0:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm


Bonus material.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2-kinds-of-photographers.htm
Click to expand...
Go ahead and click "home" on either of those Ken Rockwell Links. Or, here, I'll do it for you.
That's a really good example of the oversaturated unrealistic colors complained about upthread. It makes my eyes bleed. Or want to bleed, anyhow. Even the B&W one.
 
Trebuchet said:
Go ahead and click "home" on either of those Ken Rockwell Links. Or, here, I'll do it for you.
That's a really good example of the oversaturated unrealistic colors complained about upthread. It makes my eyes bleed. Or want to bleed, anyhow. Even the B&W one.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's Ken Rockwell. So take anything he says (or does) with a grain of salt. The last photo at Mono Lake is with film-Fuji Velvia. So he tries to recreate the Look of Velvia with his dslr settings.
 
Ken Rockwell is a favorite chew toy of many serious photographers, and I would indeed take much of what he says with a grain of salt. I dislike his photographic choices in many areas. On the other hand, he tends to be fairly accurate about equipment, and on some subjects, such as what lenses fit what cameras, and whether a piece of equipment operates as it should, he's a useful resource.

As for recreating Velvia. Good luck. Velvia was pretty heavily saturated, but it had other qualities that make it almost impossible to duplicate digitally. There's a "Velvia green" which I doubt can ever be quite duplicated. When I was shooting slides, I did not care greatly for Velvia because its saturation was acoompanied by very high contrast and a dark look, which while often dramatic did not, in my opinion, do justice to the earth tones. Nearly alone in the world, I preferred the much-hated Velvia 100F, whose reds were mediocre and whose greens were cursed aloud, but whose grays and browns were sublime.

Now I shoot digital, and leave the saturation low. If a thing is worth looking at, it's worth looking at without a color-blocked dagger in your retina.
 
Elagabalus said:
Yeah, it's Ken Rockwell. So take anything he says (or does) with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

I'm not questioning this evaluation since this is the first I have heard of the guy, but this is some deep wisdom, no matter the source:

If I worked in an office and could waste my employer's time researching personal hobbies on the Internet, I'd rather look at pornography than research other people's cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Trebuchet said:
Go ahead and click "home" on either of those Ken Rockwell Links. Or, here, I'll do it for you.
That's a really good example of the oversaturated unrealistic colors complained about upthread. It makes my eyes bleed. Or want to bleed, anyhow. Even the B&W one.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Very velvet Elvis unicorn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom