Quote :

"JUST WASN'T NEEDED"

i don't come to this website, this section, or this thread for anything "needed"

the day i "need" something from tww is the day i "need" to stop using it

1/26/2009 9:23:13 PM

Hey, some people need TWW, ok? Don't judge him.

Way to keep this thread on track, gunzz.

Quote :

"well then why dont you and others stop trolling so fucking much and actually post something useful? this thread didnt need to be moved into the lounge until recently...wonder why????"

Does not compute.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 9:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2009 9:42:37 PM

Quote :

"Maybe wasnt perfectly in focus, but pretty close i think. "

No I think you did pretty good, the eyes are pretty sharp. My instinct would be to get the eyes really sharp rather than to squeeze more of the dog in the DOF.

I can't quite read the phone number on the tag though...

I'm trying to decide between the 1.8AF 50mm the AF-S 50mm, and the sigma 30mm. It'll be months before I have any money though.

1/26/2009 10:46:59 PM

What camera?

Its pretty tough to beat the $120 50mm F1.8 for the buck i think. The new AFS one adds AFS, but its still the same lense optically. So i'm stuck manually focusing it on the D40 for now, but i imagine i'll get a new body sooner or later and anything else will autofocus it. And really manually focusing it isnt that bad. Ie, id rather put the additional $330 saved on the nonAFS version toward a new body.

30mm might be nice too, though. the 50mm on my 35mm camera looks nice and thats about what a 30mm would look like on a digital.

[Edited on January 26, 2009 at 10:53 PM. Reason : fdf]

1/26/2009 10:51:38 PM

oh right, d40.

In a few years, I would want to get a motor-in-body body like a d90, if you don't need AF-S there are a few lenses where it makes a huge price difference, like the wide zooms. I might just put some money towards a flash instead of a faster lens.

but I need to do better with what I have first, thassfersure.

1/26/2009 10:59:26 PM

This pic actually came out pretty bad. The bottom flower which i wanted to be the main focus was in focusish, but in a shadow so it didnt stand out. So i used lightroom's auto mask to mask off the flower and increase its exposure and brightness a bit. tweaked is contrast and sharpness too. that was my first fiddle w/ lightroom's auto mask and it worked pretty darn well.

I do think the final "sharpen for screen" in the export plugin was too much though. it screwed up the softness of the bokeh a bit.

Do you guys use any extra output sharpening? i guess it makes sense for printing, but maybe nto so much 'for screen' since i'm editing it on screen as it is...

1/26/2009 11:09:01 PM

Quote :

"The new AFS one adds AFS, but its still the same lense optically."

Actually...it isn't. The new 50mm AFS is an 8-element design while all the others out there for decades have been 7-element designs. This lens also gives you the ability to manually focus without twiddling switches.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f14-afs.htm



New 50mm 1.4 AF-S.



Old 50mm 1.4 AF-D.

1/26/2009 11:16:28 PM

Quote :

"why not? it was at F/4 so not super shallow DOFwise. Maybe wasnt perfectly in focus, but pretty close i think. MF is getting easier, but still not perfect."

That dog pic looks plenty sharp for me and a nice composure.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 12:10 AM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 12:09:42 AM

^^ah, well thats a F1.4. i was thinking there was a new F1.8, but yeh its that F1.4.

Here's what i got to be clear: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

It also has a proper aperture ring so it'll work on all the old Nikon 35mm SLRs like the F3 i want to get.

1/27/2009 12:22:04 AM

Thanks for the tip on the rifle pic JBaz

1/27/2009 7:20:50 AM

70-200 F/4L w/ or w/o IS?

or

10-22mm?

wide or long?

1/27/2009 10:10:51 AM

I saw this and thought it was pretty neat.

http://designzen.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/camera-autopsy-nikon-d3-cut-in-half/



[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 10:28:04 AM

Quote :

"70-200 F/4L w/ or w/o IS? or 10-22mm? wide or long?"

What do you plan to shoot? what do you think you'd accomplish? Do you have a steady hand?

Either the 70-200 f/4 variants are great, personally, if I went with a small L zoom, I'd go with the 70-200 f/4 non-IS cause it's small, light and very portable. If you can keep your hand/arms steady or know how to pan using correct techniques, you really don't need IS. I've only played around with a 10-22 before and it's a fairly decent lens, but for the money I'd rather spend it on something that gives you more value. I think Tonika has a similar range and after playing with Ronny's wide angle lens, I'm definitely impressed with the build quality and image quality from a non-Canon lens. Only wished they made full EF lines.

1/27/2009 2:45:10 PM

does Ronny have the 11-16 or 10-17? I feel like I want the zoom moreso, but hesitate when thinking of when I'd use it. I think I could more interesting with the wide angle. Just seeing what you guys thought.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : nummmmbers]

1/27/2009 3:21:12 PM

D3 + 14-24mm cutaway:



14-24mm detail:

1/27/2009 3:35:03 PM

Hey all, I've been trolling this topic since page 1 and admiring everyones' work. I've been wanting to pick up a new hobby and seeing everyone stuff motivated me to give it a try. As a result I just recently picked up a Canon Rebelt EOS XTi and I love it!

Just one question. Shooting in RAW. Does this make a noticble difference and where does it help out the most. I have tried looking it up online but I'm still getting used to how things work and the terminology that goes with photography only confused me more. Thanks!

1/27/2009 4:05:37 PM

if you like/want to dick around with your pics and "develop" them to get the very best, then raw is the way to go. You need some kinda software to process them with. Did you camera come with something? If not somethign like Adobe Lightroom is good.

RAW is better because it is uncompressed data right off the sensor. This is often 12bit and so how more data than a compressed jpeg. A lot of times this gives you some leeway in setting exposure, etc. ie, something that looks like a dark shadow can be lightened to reveal some real detail/data in there. If it was a jpg that detail would be long gone.

1/27/2009 4:09:41 PM

I would personally suggest doing everything you can in-camera rather than relying on post-processing later...

I am always more impressed by a good photo that had very little or no post-processing, than someone's photo that they 'fixed' in Photoshop.

1/27/2009 4:12:47 PM

Thanks for the quick responces! The camera did come with software that I assume would process them but I haven't installed it to check it out yet.

1/27/2009 4:15:20 PM

It is a very good idea to practice getting good pictures right off the camera but I don't see anything wrong with post processing either. If you look around at a lot of photography websites most, I'd say 99% of the pictures, have some post processing done to them. Granted some can be over processed but that is a matter of personal opinion.

Be careful with the people in this thread, many think they are elitist and will give you shit if you go against the grain. Some will give good advice though.

1/27/2009 4:17:58 PM

RAW is format of where it stores all of the information that your sensor catches at that particular moment. It has more information than what you really see and gives a photographer absolute control over their digital image. The main difference between RAW and jpeg is that jpeg is the compressed version of an image and has a set color space/color temp. When you export an image from RAW you still have control with what color space you want to display your work in and the color temp of the scene as a whole.

RAW also gives you much more exposure latitude in terms of exposure compensation than jpeg. Since jpeg is a compressed image, it throws away unwanted or not needed data that is either out of range or can't be seen. It doesn't have the same latitude as film does, but you'd be amazed at what you can save/use with technically bad exposed pictures in photoshop. RAW requires a special program to view and process either from the manufacturer, with photoshop, or a host of other 3rd party programs. Some camera's use TIFF as the "RAW" format.

Most camera's now days can view color in 12 bit, newer ones see in 14 bit (well technically they cheat to see 14 bit by using software interpolation), but high end commercial grade camera's see in full 16 bit. The more colors that can be viewed and recorded means the better the gradients, more shades of color, the more accurate that picture will be. There is no known printer yet that can display all of the images captured by a camera. Epson and Canon still can't reproduce all of the colors in the AdobeRBG gamut.

^warning, she takes bad duck pictures and try to pass it off as being artistic... then yells at everyone for being an elitist because we say she's not cropping it like it's hot.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:25 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 4:22:33 PM

troll

1/27/2009 4:26:36 PM

hey, you started it

1/27/2009 4:34:40 PM

thanks for the good advice and info! I'm going to assume you're both not one of the elitist!

1/27/2009 4:35:04 PM

LOL I'm far from it, still learning everything I can.

1/27/2009 4:36:47 PM

Can someone give a rundown of who in this thread is a pro or in school for photography?

I assume JBaz and Ronny but I'm just curious as to who else.

1/27/2009 4:43:40 PM

I am in school in photography.

Rob is an elitist...

1/27/2009 4:48:29 PM

Quote :

"I would personally suggest doing everything you can in-camera rather than relying on post-processing later... I am always more impressed by a good photo that had very little or no post-processing, than someone's photo that they 'fixed' in Photoshop."

RAW vs JPEG has absolutely nothing to do with the artistic merit of postprocessing...

1/27/2009 4:48:58 PM

It depends on your definition of professional.

If you think convincing someone to let you shoot their wedding makes you a professional then there are several "professionals" on here.

I'm not sure how many of us make a living slinging a lens, so that definition of professional might not yield many results.

I know Jbaz is in school for photography, Bweez is going to school for film I believe (although I may be wrong). There are a few other photographers on here whose accomplishments go way beyond shooting a wedding or selling a print, so be careful with the advice you dismiss.

^^If that's true then I'd say he is the only person who posts in this thread who can rightfully be elitist.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 4:56 PM. Reason : .]

1/27/2009 4:55:15 PM

I was making a joke, hoping Rob would chime in and say "I totally am..."

In an ideal world, everyone would be shooting RAW, but that eats up space, slows processing time and requires a lot more technical knowledge. RAW is the digital version of a film negative (actually .DNG would be...) The only time of where I compromise on is for speed, such as sports, or random crappy photo's that I don't care about.

Even if you don't post process, you still have a digital work flow method, which I probably have the most chaotic way to accomplish. I just wished Bridge worked and worked faster. I love me some photo mechanic, but doesn't offer the same level of viewing and editing right from the same program. I mean if a 7MB program and preview hundred's of RAW and/or JPEG files from one folder in seconds, Bridge should be able to do the same too... if not faster. Seriously, wtf Adobe? I can't wait 2 seconds to preview with a magnifying glass...

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 5:09 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 5:08:26 PM

Oh I just assume anyone that can crop at an angle is a pro.


but on a serious note, I'm just wondering who actually studies this stuff. I'm impressed by a lot of it but I don't have the time to learn for myself so I wanted to know if most of you guys are just amateurs with a lot of experience in photography or if you're doing it for a living.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 5:10 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 5:10:15 PM

"The photo, which was shot using a Canon G10 and Gigapan Imager, is comprised of over 200 different shots that were then combined over the course of six hours using Gigapan software. The final product has a resolution of 1,474 megapixels and a TIF file size of almost 2 gigabytes"

this is really cool / you just pick a section of the photo and zoom in as far as you can.

1/27/2009 5:10:51 PM

I'm just some dude with a cheap dSLR and cheap lenses.

1/27/2009 5:11:12 PM

I see some clipping errors. lol, like the picture with just some guy's walking legs...

I'm fairly certain, there aren't many photographers here that make a living off of photography. I make most of my money in graphic design/marketing, which allows me to play around with photography. I find the same thing with most photographers in the Raleigh area, most have "real jobs", even the Pro photog's. All have real working jobs that pays the bills, or mooch off their wives... lol

Anyone here part of any photographer's association? I think the NC photographer's association is having their conference very soon in Charlotte.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 5:17 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 5:15:12 PM

right...I kind of assumed as much. I've looked into it a bunch and there is a lot of complicated shit that goes into some of this so I guess people just have time to play around with it.

1/27/2009 5:18:40 PM

no, they take the time to learn

1/27/2009 5:20:34 PM

Quote :

"amateurs with a lot of experience in photography or if you're doing it for a living."

I make a living through a lens, technically, but it doesn't apply to this thread since it is video.

I'd say we're all in your first categorization, but again, some have TONS more experience than others.

1/27/2009 5:22:01 PM

learn... play... same difference with we are talking about adult toys... wait... that doesn't sound right...

Heh, just finished with design lab and we had to go up in front of the class to explain our post processing with our film print and my roommate tries to explain what he did and accidentally said a flop. He had a picture of himself with some cool after effects but when explaining the printing step he goes "and then I just exposed myself to the light... wait...". It was a good hard laugh of the day. He's a crazy polish dude, like me.

1/27/2009 5:23:43 PM

^x7
deserves a dedicated thread for a scavenger hunt.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 5:28 PM. Reason : this thread has moved waaaay too fast the past couple weeks]

1/27/2009 5:27:55 PM

Quote :

"Anyone here part of any photographer's association? I think the NC photographer's association is having their conference very soon in Charlotte."

My mom is. She actually makes a living off of photography in Charlotte. Was the first female photographer for the Charlotte Observer. She mainly does non-profit and documentary work now. I blame my current state on sitting in her dark room as a kid watching her develop photos. I do remember when she got her first Nikon D1 though. No more film in the freezer! She was hesitant to make the switch to digital until all her clients started asking for CD's.

I've done some work on the side as a hobby but until i get a job i won't be buying the expensive adult toys. One thing my mom always said was, "It's relatively easy to take good photos, but getting paid and making a career out of it is a different story." Think it's mainly about human relations. If you can network and meet/remember people than you'll be a good photographer (as well as take decent photos).

1/27/2009 5:28:46 PM

agreed. I like the box of remote camera's on that platform island... I see a lot of fisheye's. I'm pretty impressed of how sharp those pics are stitched together from a p&s.

^your mom is not on this board so she doesn't count. lol. But I agree with her statement to a point. If you can market yourself, you will have no problems. This either means having people skill or really a good understanding of marketing and business. There are a lot of crappy photographers that make $$$ out there just because they can sell prints to the retail world.

I don't deny it, some of those retail guys pump out some serious shit and I have worked with a few businesses like that. Some are better than others, but when I worked as a 2nd shooter for this racing business up in VA. I mean you could tell which pictures were mine easily...

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 5:34 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 5:29:58 PM

lol i go to the meetings with her sometimes! Does that count?

There's also a big difference between market/product photography and documentary/journalism stuff. The later you really have to sell yourself and network.

1/27/2009 5:39:41 PM

Quote :

"Bweez is going to school for film I believe (although I may be wrong)."

Yep, double major, Motion Pictures and Photography. Oy.

1/27/2009 6:04:37 PM

everyone loves to play with adult toys.

1/27/2009 6:20:29 PM

Quote :

"There's also a big difference between market/product photography and documentary/journalism stuff. The later you really have to sell yourself and network."

true, but I was just stating the fact that you don't have to take good photo's to make a living from photography. I'm not talking about product/commercial photography, I'm talking about retail, like portraits of families or kid photography, anything sold to mass market. There are tons of horrible photographers that make big bucks on technically bad photos, just because their quality of standards doesn't have to be high, just have sentimental value.

I do have to say networking is still important.

1/27/2009 7:30:24 PM

ewww like those mall portrait photographers. i hate that shit.

1/27/2009 7:35:36 PM

somewhat, some studio's are ok, but there are plenty that can't shoot for shit. I'm thinking more of the shitty photographer who goes to people and can't pose people properly or understand what a properly exposed photo means. I see this happen a lot with child photography, specially with sports portraits. It's like... what? they paid how much? for that? rip off.

Even then, I hear a lot about the wedding photographer shit that goes bad. I tell ppl, don't cheap out on a photographer then. Sure, it may sound like a good deal to hire a college photographer to cover a small wedding, but when it comes to a large production in the 100k+ wedding, spending only 1k on a photographer is probably not the best sound investment. Expect only a 1k value.

[Edited on January 27, 2009 at 7:45 PM. Reason : ]

1/27/2009 7:41:45 PM

yeahhhh my high school's sports portrait photographer was always terrible and didn't know wtf to do with gym lights, the pics always turned out horrid.

1/27/2009 7:53:29 PM

i miss all the pictures that used to be in the thread.


i have no camera smarts so the words don't mean a thing

1/27/2009 8:46:35 PM

[quote] 70-200 F/4L w/ or w/o IS?
or
10-22mm?
wide or long?
[\quote]

I have the Sigma 10-20mm--it is good quality and a cheaper alternative to the Canon 10-20mm. I also have the 70-200 F/4L. It's awesome outdoors on sunny days but often I wish I had the faster 70-200 f/2.8L.

1/27/2009 8:52:53 PM