amateur photo thread.

[Carlos]

Went to Photokina yesterday and they had some objects to shoot.

 

[Turtle]

@Carlos Never heard of that event before, but it looks really interesting.

As an American, I am obligated to like the top two. One thing I'd try with the second one is lowering the brightness/saturation of the greens and yellows to make the background less distracting. Another thing would be to rotate and crop to make the horizon level, although I think if you did that it might end up with some feathers out of frame.

 

[Carlos]

@Carlos Never heard of that event before, but it looks really interesting.

As an American, I am obligated to like the top two. One thing I'd try with the second one is lowering the brightness/saturation of the greens and yellows to make the background less distracting. Another thing would be to rotate and crop to make the horizon level, although I think if you did that it might end up with some feathers out of frame.

It was the first time I visited the event and it was great, walked in to the Sigma stand numerous times to check out their lenses. Even got the chance to try out the 200-500mm (Google it) and it was pretty impressive... And heavy.... And gigantic!

The girl that was helping me asked me if I was interested in trying out their new 120-300mm F2.8 and that's really a nice lens. A bit heavier than I expected though but F2.8 with such a lens is just a blast They didn't mind putting it on my D90 so I could take a few shots, the light the lens can gather in such short amount of time is so impressive! The time it needs to focus feels twice as fast as my 120-400 but it's almost 3 times the price new too

Yeah those eagles are pretty cool, was happy to see one there. I'll try to edit the second photo again and maybe crop like you said. It has potential!

I also tried out a D7100. Shouldn't have done that.... I'll try to sell my D90 with grip and try to find a good second hand D7100 in the next few months. Really felt like a good next camera since I bought my D90 brand spanking new in late 2008. So long ago already! I want to know how many clicks I have on it, must check next time I get on the pc. I assume far in the thousands.

Do you think I can post photos of the models that were there?

 

[Turtle]

It was the first time I visited the event and it was great, walked in to the Sigma stand numerous times to check out their lenses. Even got the chance to try out the 200-500mm (Google it) and it was pretty impressive... And heavy.... And gigantic!

Wow, that's not a cheap piece of equipment right there, I can only imagine how much it weighs in comparison to the only lens I have for my camera, which is an 18-55.

I also tried out a D7100. Shouldn't have done that.... I'll try to sell my D90 with grip and try to find a good second hand D7100 in the next few months. Really felt like a good next camera since I bought my D90 brand spanking new in late 2008. So long ago already! I want to know how many clicks I have on it, must check next time I get on the pc. I assume far in the thousands.

It's amazing how fast equipment is improving isn't it? Mine is only 9 years old but seems positively ancient now. Too bad I can't find my dad's old film camera that's as old as him (I think he said it's a Pentax), that would probably really make me appreciate modern camera equipment. If you do end up getting the D7100, make sure to tell me how you like it.

Do you think I can post photos of the models that were there?

I don't see why not!

@Swagger897 Sorry for not replying earlier when I saw your post; I appreciate that you went through the trouble of making that album for me. 👍

 

[Carlos]

Wow, that's not a cheap piece of equipment right there, I can only imagine how much it weighs in comparison to the only lens I have for my camera, which is an 18-55.

Some years ago I wanted to go see WSBK in Assen (2009 I think) and back then I didn't had a zoom lens yet so I thought hey lets go the store and rent one! So I explained what I wanted, something around 300-500mm. He comes back with Sigma 300-800mm I thought WHAT. He secured me it was perfect for what I wanted and it actually was. Holy crap what a lens was that. It was 8k in Euros to buy it And only 25 Euros to rent for a day. 👍 It was fun but never again, too big, too heavy, too useless to do anything else than taking photos of what is coming at you because panning is too hard.

It's amazing how fast equipment is improving isn't it? Mine is only 9 years old but seems positively ancient now. Too bad I can't find my dad's old film camera that's as old as him (I think he said it's a Pentax), that would probably really make me appreciate modern camera equipment. If you do end up getting the D7100, make sure to tell me how you like it.

Yes it is! We are so lucky with this digital era, otherwise you'd had a backpack full of film! And then when you are done making photos, you would still have to develop everything!

 

[Swagger897]

Wow, that's not a cheap piece of equipment right there, I can only imagine how much it weighs in comparison to the only lens I have for my camera, which is an 18-55.


It's amazing how fast equipment is improving isn't it? Mine is only 9 years old but seems positively ancient now. Too bad I can't find my dad's old film camera that's as old as him (I think he said it's a Pentax), that would probably really make me appreciate modern camera equipment. If you do end up getting the D7100, make sure to tell me how you like it.


I don't see why not!

@Swagger897 Sorry for not replying earlier when I saw your post; I appreciate that you went through the trouble of making that album for me. 👍

It wasn't all that bad..

But like you said, I too appreciate modern camera equipment.. I find myself looking at the back of the film plate on my Minolta waiting for the playback image to pop up..

 

[Azuremen]

It's amazing how fast equipment is improving isn't it? Mine is only 9 years old but seems positively ancient now. Too bad I can't find my dad's old film camera that's as old as him (I think he said it's a Pentax), that would probably really make me appreciate modern camera equipment. If you do end up getting the D7100, make sure to tell me how you like it.

I'd say the technology matured enough around 4 or 5 years ago that massive jumps haven't happened - most everything has 18MP sensors or more and you can only tell when pushing extreme ISO (3200+) for absurd low light situations. My biggest reason to upgrade is the AF system on my camera is lack luster, and I find myself recommending mirrorless to more casual shooters that don't need/want fast AF.

In my opinion, image quality for anything besides huge prints or extreme low light mostly comes down to the lens used.

Old film cameras can have a very satisfying feel, from the split circle focus to a solid shutter to how nice a proper focus ring feels. A lot more metals in the construction as well, adding a nice weight and solidness to it... though my old Minolta X-700 does have quite a bit of plastic.

 

[Turtle]

I'd say the technology matured enough around 4 or 5 years ago that massive jumps haven't happened - most everything has 18MP sensors or more and you can only tell when pushing extreme ISO (3200+) for absurd low light situations. My biggest reason to upgrade is the AF system on my camera is lack luster, and I find myself recommending mirrorless to more casual shooters that don't need/want fast AF.

In my opinion, image quality for anything besides huge prints or extreme low light mostly comes down to the lens used.

Old film cameras can have a very satisfying feel, from the split circle focus to a solid shutter to how nice a proper focus ring feels. A lot more metals in the construction as well, adding a nice weight and solidness to it... though my old Minolta X-700 does have quite a bit of plastic.

Well, I suppose after looking at some cameras released a few years ago and comparing them to very new ones there hasn't been a huge leap forward. However, when looking back a couple more years - say, 10 or 15 - one can really see some large advancements: Higher ISO, better noise control, video recording, etc.

Someone told me I should get some of my photos printed, but I don't really know where the best place to go for that would be, or how large I could have them made.

Hopefully I'll find that old camera when looking for things in the attic some day. My only concern would be not knowing if I'm totally overexposing/underexposing until much later, I've been spoiled by being able to instantly check if I'm doing something wrong.

 

[Swagger897]

Old film cameras can have a very satisfying feel, from the split circle focus to a solid shutter to how nice a proper focus ring feels. A lot more metals in the construction as well, adding a nice weight and solidness to it... though my old Minolta X-700 does have quite a bit of plastic.

I believe that style of focus is referred to as a "range finder" (correct me if I am wrong, but that's how I interpreted it)

and the Minolta x-700 I still have is quite the trooper. Although, it does like to suck up some battery juice in the course of a month...

 

[Carlos]

Those old cameras are coming back slightly. At the event there was a stand that had digital backs for your analog camera. I thought that was pretty cool!

 

[GT'S BiG FaN]

Canon SX50 HS, 200x zoom.

P.S Here are some videos I shot with this camera


The Moon


Jupiter and Its Moons

 

[Swagger897]

 

[Turtle]

@Swagger897 I like the photo itself, but I can't stand selective color. I'd also try and remove the reflection on the left side.

 

[Swagger897]

@Swagger897 I like the photo itself, but I can't stand selective color. I'd also try and remove the reflection on the left side.

I normally don't like it either, but this was at Atlanta and is Delta's home (as is mine) so I thought It'd look decent..

I'd like to upload the original but i still have no idea as how to re size it and my image processor I normally use for some reason won't work now..

but the reflections are a bit out of my level... I have yet to get AP or LR so now I just use Gimp (well, try too..)

 

[Bhowe83]

Took this on my Galaxy S4 this June in Daytona. You can see the grandstands to the left of the sun.

 

[Crash]

@Carlos Never heard of that event before, but it looks really interesting.

Photokina is probably the largest and most prestigious trade show on photography and related stuff out there. It's a huge event every year and a lot of new things get announced or released there.

 

[Azuremen]

I normally don't like it either, but this was at Atlanta and is Delta's home (as is mine) so I thought It'd look decent..

But the selective color adds nothing to the image here. It isn't dragging attention to any key area that would otherwise be overlooked, nor is it adding mood or anything.

 

[Carlos]

I normally don't like it either, but this was at Atlanta and is Delta's home (as is mine) so I thought It'd look decent..

I'd like to upload the original but i still have no idea as how to re size it and my image processor I normally use for some reason won't work now..

but the reflections are a bit out of my level... I have yet to get AP or LR so now I just use Gimp (well, try too..)

Crop the image and go for just black and white. I don't think you should do more with this photo.

And what do you use for editing?

 

[35mm]

I wouldn't mind the reflections - everyone's already expecting this to have been taken from behind a glass.
I even think it adds to the mood, however that's down to personal taste.

 

[Swagger897]

Crop the image and go for just black and white. I don't think you should do more with this photo.

And what do you use for editing?

for now since I dont have any paid versions of LR, I just use photoshop express.... not much but it has some usability to it. Im waiting to see if I really should get Lightroom now or save up to get some better lenses for my camera, as all I have now are just the kit lenses..

 

[Pupik]

View attachment 228014

Press lens right up to window...that's about the only way to guarantee get glare-less shots out of multi-paned glass. A circular polarizer works on occasion, but I find airports are jammed with various fluorescent lights that you're basically trading off one set of lamps for another. They're better for dealing with light reflecting in the direction of the lens opening, not the other way around. The drawback to polarizers is that contrast usually increases, and you'll likely have to overexpose/post-process to compensate for shadows and some mid-tones.

Not to mention, it's really hard to get the profile of a long thing like a commercial aircraft without angling the lens, which brings back reflections into the photo...

 

[Carlos]

for now since I dont have any paid versions of LR, I just use photoshop express.... not much but it has some usability to it. Im waiting to see if I really should get Lightroom now or save up to get some better lenses for my camera, as all I have now are just the kit lenses..

You can't do without both.. LR is really nice. I don't think it's worth investing in such expensive software since we aren't professionals, but if you have to then I would start with a getting a nicer lens so your options are wider.

 

[Turtle]

I believe Adobe offers both LR and PS in a monthly payment bundle at $10 USD per month.

 

[Swagger897]

Press lens right up to window...that's about the only way to guarantee get glare-less shots out of multi-paned glass. A circular polarizer works on occasion, but I find airports are jammed with various fluorescent lights that you're basically trading off one set of lamps for another. They're better for dealing with light reflecting in the direction of the lens opening, not the other way around. The drawback to polarizers is that contrast usually increases, and you'll likely have to overexpose/post-process to compensate for shadows and some mid-tones.

Not to mention, it's really hard to get the profile of a long thing like a commercial aircraft without angling the lens, which brings back reflections into the photo...

Yeah, I wasn't close enough for these shots, but then I thought about putting my hat over the lense and that worked great for later shots (I messed up on one of them and had the camera too far back with the hat on and I'll post that soon).

I tried a cpl on it but did not take out the fluorescent lights from the windows, but it did take out reflections off the planes..

You can't do without both.. LR is really nice. I don't think it's worth investing in such expensive software since we aren't professionals, but if you have to then I would start with a getting a nicer lens so your options are wider.

I have a 50 1.7 prime for my Minolta, and it is quite awkward. I'm more into landscape so an ultra wide Fx lens is what I'm looking to get. I know I only have a Dx format camera, but if Nikon keep using the F mount for ever, I'll start getting Fx for my Dx and go on till I have a substantial budget for the D810 future replacement.

I'm in the market for a Variable ND filter. I don't think I'm ever going to get a Lens larger than an 87 mm so I'll probably buy an 87 VND and just buy step up/down rings for the lenses. I think the Tiffen will be my choice, but I'm not sure. I also need an intravolometer so eBay might be my route for that.

I believe Adobe offers both LR and PS in a monthly payment bundle at $10 USD per month.

Yeah, and I don't quite like that too much either... I'd rather just buy it at once. Not much of a payment plan person..

 

[Azuremen]

I have a 50 1.7 prime for my Minolta, and it is quite awkward. I'm more into landscape so an ultra wide Fx lens is what I'm looking to get. I know I only have a Dx format camera, but if Nikon keep using the F mount for ever, I'll start getting Fx for my Dx and go on till I have a substantial budget for the D810 future replacement.

Not sure why everyone thinks they need an ultra wide to do landscape and rule out telephotos or even portrait length lenses. I've shot a great deal of landscape work between 70mm and 200mm, specifically 135mm.

Yeah, and I don't quite like that too much either... I'd rather just buy it at once. Not much of a payment plan person..

It isn't a payment plan; it is a subscription. And pretty much how most software is heading these days, along with music and so on.

 

[Swagger897]

Not sure why everyone thinks they need an ultra wide to do landscape and rule out telephotos or even portrait length lenses. I've shot a great deal of landscape work between 70mm and 200mm, specifically 135mm.

I dont think that I need one to do it, rather than my personal preference towards my type of photo's I like. I don't really give a hoot about distortion as I am unable to clearly see it unless the subject is in front of me and I have the image on a screen beside it.

Im not saying I can't use tele lenses for it, but I have found myself in more situations of backing up further and further to get a good frame. I wish I had my camera when I went to colorado as the switch backs were very short and I could have gotten great shots in a portrait mode of trees on one side of the mountain I was one and the other mountain which was completely burned down..

It's more of how I view my subjects and I like looking at a lot of stuff in the frame, not just some tree in the middle of a field..

Subscription/plan, almost the same thing imo.... Like I said, I'd rather pay $80 or whatever for it, than get pointless features such as storage when I already use other free things...

Like microsoft's new subscription plan for office... Horrible imo because I only need the programs, and not the skydrive or whatever it is...

 

[nobuffalo]

Too bad I can't find my dad's old film camera that's as old as him (I think he said it's a Pentax), that would probably really make me appreciate modern camera equipment.

Depending on the Pentax it could make you think opposite!

Someone told me I should get some of my photos printed, but I don't really know where the best place to go for that would be, or how large I could have them made.

Hopefully I'll find that old camera when looking for things in the attic some day. My only concern would be not knowing if I'm totally overexposing/underexposing until much later, I've been spoiled by being able to instantly check if I'm doing something wrong.

You should definitely get them printed, being able to hang them on a wall or view them on something other than a screen is nice. I've had some photos printed at Bartell's and they do a reasonable job at a reasonable price. I was able to get 16X24 inch prints out of my D200 (10.2 megapixel) and they look good, it helped that I was using a somewhat sharp lens for the photos printed. The cool thing is if you don't like how they turn out you're not obligated to buy them.

As for worrying about overexposing/underexposing the only thing to do is shoot a roll and find out. You could compare the meter from the old camera, if it has one, to the one on your digital to get an idea. The waiting to see how your photos turn out is part of the fun with film. 👍

 

[Azuremen]

I dont think that I need one to do it, rather than my personal preference towards my type of photo's I like. I don't really give a hoot about distortion as I am unable to clearly see it unless the subject is in front of me and I have the image on a screen beside it.

Im not saying I can't use tele lenses for it, but I have found myself in more situations of backing up further and further to get a good frame. I wish I had my camera when I went to colorado as the switch backs were very short and I could have gotten great shots in a portrait mode of trees on one side of the mountain I was one and the other mountain which was completely burned down..

It's more of how I view my subjects and I like looking at a lot of stuff in the frame, not just some tree in the middle of a field..

I can understand wanting a wide angle, as I've got 8.5mm and 17-40mm lenses for my full-frame. What I was more commenting on is the general tendency for people to declare a need for a wide angle when they want to shoot landscape.

As for taking a picture of "some tree in the middle of a field" I'm pretty sure many shots on my flickr and 500px show anything but that being done with telephotos. And then if I do want a bit more width for a panorama, I find stitching from a telephoto delivers gorgeous results over an ultra wide. An example.

But I feel it is good to practice shooting at a variety of focal lengths to develop a robust understanding of composition.

Subscription/plan, almost the same thing imo.... Like I said, I'd rather pay $80 or whatever for it, than get pointless features such as storage when I already use other free things...

Like microsoft's new subscription plan for office... Horrible imo because I only need the programs, and not the skydrive or whatever it is...

Well, it was more like a few hundred for both LR and PS back in the day. And subscription means free updates to newest versions, which tend to have useful upgrades.

Also, just use OpenOffice instead of MS Office... can't really see why anyone has paid for MS Office in ages.

 

[Swagger897]

I can understand wanting a wide angle, as I've got 8.5mm and 17-40mm lenses for my full-frame. What I was more commenting on is the general tendency for people to declare a need for a wide angle when they want to shoot landscape.

Yeah, I definitly didn't want one because Ken Rockwell said so.. It's just that I have found myself wanting to take in more to fill up a frame.

If they made a 8 (or however small) to 50/55/70 Id get that so I'd still have some managing of focal values..

Also, just use OpenOffice instead of MS Office... can't really see why anyone has paid for MS Office in ages.

College... "Can't use 2010/2007/ etc because it just won't work" says all professors ever..

 

[Azuremen]

It is worth noting that the larger the zoom factor on a zoom, the more distortion and image quality suffers. Plus primes are faster and optically superior to zooms for the money.

College... "Can't use 2010/2007/ etc because it just won't work" says all professors ever..

I'm in college. Most professors don't actually care so long as you give them files in .doc (or other MS formats if spreadsheets etc) and what they are tired of is students with no tech knowledge saving things in wrong formats. It isn't as if they see what is installed on your computer anyhow.