well the 17-40 is ONLY what, ~$700?

I got some new toys today... new tripod and 50mm f/1.8.
I tried the 1.4 as well, but for the pictures I took, I couldn't justify the $240 price increase.
The build quality was definitely better on the 1.4, but I'm fine with the 1.8 for now.

[Edited on October 3, 2008 at 8:27 PM. Reason : #]

10/3/2008 8:26:21 PM

Quote :

"finally gots me one: http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/03/nikon-d90-unboxing-and-hands-on/ Mr. Wuf made it into the gallery too "

looks nice, lets see some pictures and video from it!

where did you get it from?

10/3/2008 8:52:08 PM

^ I had it ordered on Amazon, but it got backordered, so I found that the Best Buy on Crabtree had 1 left. Had a 10% coupon to sweeten the deal.

Barely had time to open it, plan on getting to know it over the weekend

10/3/2008 9:51:19 PM

Quote :

"well the 17-40 is ONLY what, ~$700? "

MSRP is about 650 and you can find it used for about 550. I had one last year for about that, but found out it had a focusing issue and just sold as is. I really want a 16-35.

10/3/2008 10:32:52 PM

I went back home today and dropped by my dad's office to play with some of his older SLR photo gear. He's an architect, so he loves to use his Olympus 24mm f/3.5 shift lens.

Interesting story about it -- the original lens they bought was flooded out in a hurricane several years ago. He called Olympus to see if they had any more he could buy, and after hearing his story they shipped him a new one for free. They haven't been making them in a few years but this was apparently on a shelf somewhere. This lens regularly goes for $1,500 to $2,500 used...

Also got to play with a few other Olympus lenses -- 28mm f/3.5, 50mm f/1.8, and 80mm f/4. Awhile back my dad also had a 135mm but we're not sure where it is.


Here's the shift lens attached to an Olympus OM1n:









Here's the lens shifted to the side (usually it would be shifted up for pictures of buildings):


[Edited on October 4, 2008 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ]

10/4/2008 12:46:26 AM

So this may be a stupid question but forgive me. I've never seen those rigs for cars before and that's pretty sweet. But do they get in the way of the shot, do they have to photoshop it out? If so how are they so damn good at making it look flawless?

I've just learned about the clone stamp and that is quite a tricky tool to use, I'd imagine it'd be very hard on a car.

Give me your knowledge oh awesome one.

10/4/2008 12:58:08 AM

For the rigs that can be setup from under the car, it really doesn't obstruct the view of the car from the camera, so it's pretty easy to clone out the foreground and background. The rigs that is attached to the actual body of the car is a little harder. Usually you'll still get enough of the car in the frame to take samples and clone the rig out.

For the blurred fore and background, I'd probably clone it first to get the tone right then use the heal tool to blend the tone in smoothly. But, I haven't done this, only read about it and conversed with other students about how it's done.

btw, if you look at the Volvo SUV closely, you can see they forgot to clone out the main support bar from the hood above the right (our left) headlamps.


[Edited on October 4, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : image]

10/4/2008 2:20:41 PM

Ok, took the whole day and updated my site with like a shit ton of new material of past events I haven't had time to deal with.

MotoGP at Indy






































You can read the whole trip [link=http://jbaz.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=27]Here[/link] on my site.

FashionCon at SparkCon












After Party








Raleigh Convention Center















Salsa & bikini night

10/4/2008 10:49:11 PM

i like the MotoGP pictures

What setup did you use for those?

10/4/2008 10:58:24 PM

I did a right up on my website here about my trip: http://jbaz.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=27

Shot mainly with the 1D, 300 f/2.8 IS + 1.4x TC.

10/4/2008 11:09:56 PM

as for the 3 reasons to pick nikon on the last page... as of recently 2 of the 3 are kinda true.. and one really isn't. like i could say nikon is a camera company but i don't even think thats where they make all of their money. big into optics... microscopes... things like that.

also the new cameras can "fit" the old lenses but honestly they won't fully function with them in their intended way unless they are the new AF-s lenses. which i personally think is crap. but yeah you can put an autofocus lens on a nikon d60/d40x/d90(i think) and it wont' autofocus. which i find a bit annoying.

i know nikon fairly well too. played with canon and picked my nikon over every canon i have played with. just fits better for me. but i can't totally agree with that posted quote

10/5/2008 1:52:33 AM

I think the whole deal with Nikon's being backwards compatible with older lenses is pretty irrelevant now since the EOS is already 20+ years old. It's a nice feature but there's already a large amount of new glass for either manufacturers.

10/5/2008 2:36:39 AM

Standard cheesy macro blur. I really need to take some mini-trips for new material. Im planning on going to a couple soccer games, do some downtown work, etc.

Im still using the xti kit lens for anything under 70mm. I plan on buying the 50mm1.8 sometime soon but would also like to upgrade my under 100mm zoom lens (maybe 17-50, 28-80, etc)...Any suggestions for a nice walk around lens under 300? Im primarily looking at Canon but will consider Sigma, anyone else worth looking at?

Also -- fantastic pics as usual JBaz, Im pretty sure youve taken the reigns from Zip on this thread.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 3:08 AM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 3:06:38 AM

Quote :

"I did a right up"

I THOUGHT IT WAS A FUCKING LEFT UP.


"WRITE" DUDE.

"WRITE."

10/5/2008 7:39:50 AM

Quote :

"also do note, most of the slr's used in rig shots tend to be cheap bodies and cheap glass... you can figure why... If I was doing that, I'd probably buy a cheap 20D and a 17-55 craptastic lens, although those pics have the 17-40, which is the "cheapest" L lens... "

I'd probably be using my D50 which is pretty cheap... i almost hope i break it so i have a good excuse to get a D90. I'd be using my Tokina 12-24 mm lens though, and i don't want anything to happen to that thing.

great shots up there btw JBaz

10/5/2008 9:23:30 AM

^^LOL

10/5/2008 10:54:45 AM

bleh

10/5/2008 12:20:39 PM

Quote :

"i know nikon fairly well too. played with canon and picked my nikon over every canon i have played with. just fits better for me. but i can't totally agree with that posted quote "

Just one guy's opinion.

10/5/2008 1:30:40 PM

Quote :

"I went with Nikon for three reasons 1) they're the only company of the three... 2) Nikon cameras are forward ... 3) I know Nikon very well..."

Just one guy's opinion.

10/5/2008 1:52:00 PM

...uh...that's what I meant...maybe I don't see your point?

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 2:02:52 PM

plz to link us next time, JBaz. that practically crashes my browser.

10/5/2008 3:15:35 PM

Crap I don't see my point either. nvm.

10/5/2008 3:45:50 PM

Quote :

"Crap I don't see my point either. nvm. "

Well I'm glad we're on the same page, then.

10/5/2008 3:47:45 PM

are we? soon it will be page 77

10/5/2008 4:33:33 PM

10/5/2008 4:53:43 PM

So -- I've tried to see the EXIF data on a few pictures here and there in this thread and other places online, and noticed that 9 times out of 10 it has been removed. Is this done on purpose on the part of the photographer or website, or does a post-processing program remove them by default?


It isn't like I'm trying to see the data to copy their idea, I'm just curious about the equipment used to make the shot, and lens/exposure combo.

10/5/2008 6:41:08 PM

does anyone have a tokina fisheye 10-17?

I need something wide. only wide is my shitty kit 18-55 or whatever.

maybe the canon 28mm 1.8

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 7:58 PM. Reason : nmnk]

10/5/2008 7:55:53 PM

The Canon 28mm 1.8 is not going to be wider than your standard kit lens.

If you want something wider than the 18-55 kit lens your most economical alternatives are going to be the Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM or Tamron 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II. I don't know the specifics on either lens, but Sigma EX lenses are usually very good.

10/5/2008 8:34:00 PM

If you guys could have only one zoom lense for "all purpose" shooting, what range would you be looking at?

I have a D40 w/ the kit 18-55 and call be a whiney ass, but i want some more zoom. Its getting old just taking landscape pics, etc. Do you think as a beginner that i should just make due with what i have and practice, practice? Or is it reasonable to want some more reach?

I'd really like to be able to grab some more wildlife as well as zoom around the city on smaller things from afar to get a little more artsy w/ them. As it is, i'm pretty much just taking landscape pics.

I'm thinking about getting the Nikkor 55-200mmVR lense for around $225. The 18-200VRII is nice but its closer to $750. Or maybe even a Nikkor (or Sigma) 70-300mm

10/5/2008 8:53:35 PM

I'd look at the 18-200 range b/c it gives you wide angle to telephoto. Sigma makes a 18-200 MM with or without stabilization for $320 and $500, respectively (@ B&H).

Quote :

"I've tried to see the EXIF data on a few pictures here and there in this thread and other places online, and noticed that 9 times out of 10 it has been removed. Is this done on purpose on the part of the photographer or website, or does a post-processing program remove them by default?"

It depends. Sometimes the photog removes it, sometimes websites remove it for them. You can delete the EXIF data off a photo in Photoshop by going to "Save For Web & Devices" instead of "Save" or "Save As". I usually leave mine intact.

[Edited on October 5, 2008 at 9:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/5/2008 9:03:08 PM

well the trip to Alaska and the west coast resulted in about 1500 pictures just from my camera... lord it's going to take a while. I'll pick out some of the better ones and see what you guys think.

JBaz... were you shooting in the South end at the Canes game today? I thought I saw you down there...

10/5/2008 9:06:50 PM

Quote :

"The Canon 28mm 1.8 is not going to be wider than your standard kit lens."

oh obviously, I'm saying less shitty. Kit lens is terrible.

10/5/2008 9:20:04 PM

Quote :

"JBaz... were you shooting in the South end at the Canes game today? I thought I saw you down there..."

Yup, I'm covering all of the games at the RBC this season.

^The kit lens isn't that bad, but yeah, compared to others, it's pretty shitty. At least the 17-55 kit lens from Nikon is actually pretty decent.

As for the EXIF data, I process from RAW and sometimes it doesn't retain the data.

10/5/2008 9:36:01 PM

10/5/2008 10:05:08 PM

Fall will be in full swing shortly -- let's get some nice photos of the changing leaves.

10/5/2008 11:21:49 PM

Canes with with a 2-0 victory over the Predators.

10/5/2008 11:58:53 PM

I can't wait to take pictures of fall!!!!

10/6/2008 12:00:34 AM

and because I can't help myself.

10/6/2008 12:07:25 AM

Quote :

"I can't wait to take pictures of fall!!!!"

I can wait. Leaves, flowers, butterflies, waterfalls, etc. just aren't my thing. I highly prefer to shoot people.


Set 'Em Up!

[Edited on October 6, 2008 at 12:26 AM. Reason : ]

10/6/2008 12:25:23 AM

77

10/6/2008 12:31:44 AM

Quote :

"I can wait. Leaves, flowers, butterflies, waterfalls, etc. just aren't my thing. I highly prefer to shoot people. "

Interesting how different people have different preferences for their material. I prefer to shoot things while I'm above water, and I like to shoot people underwater while diving, or at least have them as part of a scene.

10/6/2008 12:38:07 AM

I like to hunt people...

10/6/2008 12:52:04 AM

man is the only game worth hunting.

10/6/2008 12:59:15 AM

they call that paparazzi's in our line of work.

10/6/2008 1:09:48 AM

Paparazzi hunting is what then?

10/6/2008 9:37:53 PM

natural selection

10/6/2008 10:01:45 PM

Cool article I found on digg, figured this would be the place to post it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/2762343734/

Quote :

"Light and time may not be endangered species but we are still always losing them. “Light makes photography. Embrace light. Admire it. Love it. But above all, know light. Know it for all you are worth, and you will know the key to photography.” -- George Eastman It is not often I post things to my stream that were not taken by me, but this is one occasion. Simply, this is a glass negative found across the street at the Salvation Army. If I had to guess I would say it is probably a bit over 100 hears old, considering that was the era when glass plates were being shot. Say the 1890's. Amazing huh? So at about 3 pm today I found myself holding a piece of glass with an image of three gentlemen on it over 100 years old. I love my job. But more importantly, I love photography. This really just sort of blows my mind. I start thinking about the fact that I am holding a once-sensitized piece of glass, that contains the imprint of light that bounced off of these three men over 100 years ago. In a sense it is almost a "light shadow" cast by them and captured on this glass. And here I am using a state of the art scanner to digitize that image and bring it on to the web. Once again, amazing. I don't want to make it seem like I am taking a dig at digital photography (digital imaging is why this image exists on the web right now) but this is a very big reason why I shoot film. The tangible nature. Being able to hold a piece of film that was struck by the very light that came off of the subject. Thinking that, that very same piece of film may one day be pulled from a box in someone's attic 80 years down the road, and that someone can hold it up to the light and see what I saw. They will even be able to still print it or scan it. But it is not the ability to still print it or scan it that so amazes me. It is the physical evidence that light has left behind on this particular piece of film, or paper, or glass. Digital doesn't have that. The sensor carries no trace of that light, rather it is converted into electronic bits and bytes. A digital copy. A replica of what that light cast. There is nothing tangible, nothing physical to hold unless a print is made, which so often it never is. And in some way this makes me deeply uneasy. I don't like thinking of the work of my life as being so intangible. It scares me in a sense and I never feel quite easy with digital images, despite the many amazing shots I have taken on digital cameras. And also despite how careful and redundant I am in backing those same images up. But it is not just my work. I think of all the pictures snapped every day. All those snap shots of sons and daughters. Mothers and grandmas. Beautiful sunsets and sunrises. And I think of what awful percentage of those images will have ceased to exist within ten years. Or twenty. Let alone a hundred years from now. I know that even film is not permanent, nothing is really. Not our negatives. Nor us. Or our planet, or even our universe. But nonetheless, I am pretty certain that I will not be able to pull any of my CDs of digital files out of a box in 100 years and still have them be usable. Nor any CF cards. My external drives won't last more than 10 years I bet. My digital files won't ever be anything more than bits and bytes. Sure I can print them, but those are just copies of copies. Better than nothing, but still far lacking. And so I shoot film, because I like to think each of those negatives carries the physical effect of light off of a beautiful waterfall striking it. Or the light bouncing off of my son Owen playing when he was 6 months old. And then again when he was 12 months old. Or even the very light that reflected off of an old friend no longer living. It is not so hard to hold a negative, or a plate like this, in your hand and feel like you are holding just a tiny shred of some past time itself. The last physical remainder of a moment long extinct, and that when I hold a negative in my hand, I am touching that light again. And that is one of the things that drives me to shoot film. That deep sense of not just recording light and time, but preserving it. “What makes photography a strange invention is that its primary raw materials are light and time.” -- John Berger ------------------------------------------------- If you have not browsed through it, the photo stream run by the Library of Congress is amazing. Really sit down and take your time taking it in. Don't just browse, really give yourself the time to look. "

[Edited on October 9, 2008 at 11:59 AM. Reason : have to click the link to see the picture]

10/9/2008 11:58:03 AM

we took these this evening (mind they have...obviously..been edited)

10/10/2008 10:40:21 PM

you crazy kids

10/10/2008 10:43:50 PM

truth.

10/10/2008 10:56:43 PM