PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[turbo]

Here's a lone buttercup catching a bit of sun.

 

[Astronuc]

I hear that a lot of SLR's are quite big. (I can carry mine on my neck all day without getting neck strain)

Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.

I think Celestron (telescope maker) sold large aperture lenses for cameras. The were essentially reflecting telecsopes converted to camera lenses. When I was studying space physics, I had access to a couple of 14'' reflectors. They were great for observing Jupiter and Saturn, various galactic features like nebulae, and other galaxies.

 

[turbo]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/NAneb.jpg

 

[Astronuc]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/NAneb.jpg

Very nice!

 

[~christina~]

Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.

I think Celestron (telescope maker) sold large aperture lenses for cameras. The were essentially reflecting telecsopes converted to camera lenses. When I was studying space physics, I had access to a couple of 14'' reflectors. They were great for observing Jupiter and Saturn, various galactic features like nebulae, and other galaxies.

Yes I've seen a 800mm lens for canon and it's HUGE!
but then again that person using it uses it for wildlife photography.

This other site, has another guy using a Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT) mounted on a telescope and his pictures are amazing.

Thanks, ~christina~, I like it better too. I've got a Canon 30D and a 100-400mm L-series zoom, and I tend to use it like a point-and-shoot camera at times. I really should pay attention to post-processing a bit more. As I revisited this thread, I noticed that the image didn't seem as punchy on my present monitor as it had before, so tweaked it a bit. I'm never sure if something looks good to me on this monitor will come across well with others using different video cards and monitors, especially some high-quality CRTs. A couple of years back, I was involved in the production of high-quality auction catalogs, and everybody in post-production, graphics, etc was using CRTs instead of LCDs.

I have the same problem with my monitor and a lot of people on my art site say my pictures are a bit on the dark side. It makes fixing my pictures a challenge.

That's one expensive lens you have. The results of your pictures say a lot about the quality though. I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S lens for my Nikon D40X. I'm not quite satisfied with the zoom of the 55-200mm lens that I have.

 

[larkspur]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

Cool!

 

[turbo]

That's one expensive lens you have. The results of your pictures say a lot about the quality though. I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S lens for my Nikon D40X. I'm not quite satisfied with the zoom of the 55-200mm lens that I have.

It is a bit on the pricey side, but the image quality is great over all of its focal length range, and I have noticed that a lot of nature photographers are using this lens instead of (or along with) primes. Critters tend to move around, and since they aren't posing for you (most of the time) you often need to be able to change focal length on the fly. The built-in image stabilization (with 2 modes available) and very fast auto-focus capabilities make this a very versatile lens in fast-changing situations. I've got another 30D that pretty much stays mounted to a 28-135mm zoom, so two cameras can cover a LOT of ground. When I was shooting film, I used to tote 3-4 Olympus bodies, all with prime lenses.

 

[Andre]

Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy.

I think the lightest/smallest (and very affordable) DSLR currently is the Olympus E410, which nevertheless gets a highly recommended from the experts.

After ample comparising, I'm contemplating to start going to think replacing the excellent economical FZ-8 and purchase the 410's slightly bigger brother the E510 with the new 70-300 mm zoomlens (140-600mm eq 35mm) of course,

 

[turbo]

Andre, try them out in the store first, if you can. One reason that I like the Canon EOS 30D so well is that it has a large well-formed grip with a rubberized surface. I cannot imagine using a long zoom on a DSLR without such a grip. A camera that is compact and light and feels great with a normal lens mounted may feel clumsy with a longer, heavier zoom lens.

 

[Andre]

Excellent point, Turbo, thanks for the advise. But I guess a co-user will have to say something about the total weight.

 

[turbo]

Excellent point, Turbo, thanks for the advise. But I guess a co-user will have to say something about the total weight.

Perhaps the co-user can be content with that nice compact Panasonic? My wife is now the principle user of my (formerly) Olympus 3040 Zoom, and I get to keep the 30Ds and lenses to myself. I've got the 18-55 kit lens (if I need a wide field), the 28-135mm zoom and the 100-400mm, so two cameras can cover a LOT of territory, and they're really not too much to carry if you plan well beforehand and have an adequately-sized pack. Back in the bad old film days, I got used to carrying 3 OM-1s and an OM-4, all fitted with primes, because zoom lenses really stunk optically in the '80s.

 

[turbo]

I went to a park along the Kennebec river looking for raptors one day last summer, but the only interesting character I found was this fellow.

 

[lisab]

I went to a park along the Kennebec river looking for raptors one day last summer, but the only interesting character I found was this fellow.

Oh look! It's a beaver-like mammal!

http://www.beaverlikemammals.com/

 

[turbo]

Who knew there was such a site! I could inundate them with BLM photos and use up all their bandwidth. This picture is extremely compressed to meet size guidelines for the thread.

 

[larkspur]

What are you all going to photograph for the still life contest? I bought some tulips today but may try some fruit, or a beer in a frosty mug...or mushrooms...or lots of M&Ms. I have not decided.

 

[turbo]

What are you all going to photograph for the still life contest? I bought some tulips today but may try some fruit, or a beer in a frosty mug...or mushrooms...or lots of M&Ms. I have not decided.

I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.

 

[larkspur]

I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.

Come on Turbo! Find something colorful or pretty or unusual, set it on a white sheet, get a desk lamp,put something over it to diffuse the light and snap away. Don't forget the tripod and shutter release cord or delayed shutter. How about a colorful bowl of your pepper relish? or a martini glass with your salsa in it? light some incense behind it so it looks like it is smokin'.

 

[turbo]

Come on Turbo! Find something colorful or pretty or unusual, set it on a white sheet, get a desk lamp,put something over it to diffuse the light and snap away. Don't forget the tripod and shutter release cord or delayed shutter. How about a colorful bowl of your pepper relish? or a martini glass with your salsa in it? light some incense behind it so it looks like it is smokin'.

Do you work in advertising as an art-director, etc? You're much more creative than I am, and that probably makes a difference in your photography. Your shots seem well-planned and composed, while I'm more of the "get 'er done" school.

 

[binzing]

Even though I've gone digital (I have an Olympus E-500) I saw an ad that I'd like some input on. There was a Minolta XD 11 (also known in EU as the XD 7 or the XD in Japan) with multiple lenses, for $300. What do you guys think.

 

[larkspur]

Even though I've gone digital (I have an Olympus E-500) I saw an ad that I'd like some input on. There was a Minolta XD 11 (also known in EU as the XD 7 or the XD in Japan) with multiple lenses, for $300. What do you guys think.

I have a Minolta X370. It is a manual focus film as is the XD11. The manager at the local Wolf camera store said Minolta has gone out of business. That may make a difference in your choice. If I were to buy a film camera I would go with Nikon or Canon brand. That way, if you were to purchase the same brand DSLR in the future you could always use those lenses on the DSLR.
My suggestion would be for you to decide what you want to photograph. If it is wildlife then go with Canon 30D or 40D or higher up. It has a faster auto focus and the L quality lenses are superb. If you are interested in portrait or still life then the Fuji pro series is excellent.

Go to photosig.com and view the photos by camera and see which results you would like to achieve.

 

[binzing]

I already know how to make good photos and what I like, I'm trying to go pro. I was just asking if you thought it was a good deal. It comes with prolly like 5 or 6 lenses. For $300!

 

[larkspur]

I already know how to make good photos and what I like, I'm trying to go pro. I was just asking if you thought it was a good deal. It comes with prolly like 5 or 6 lenses. For $300!

Do you have specifics on the lenses? mm, f/x

 

[binzing]

Let me grab the ad real fast.

 

[Astronuc]

Oh look! It's a beaver-like mammal!

http://www.beaverlikemammals.com/

It's notabeaver. We have lots of notabeavers in our area. We used to have a family of them in our yard before I relocated them some miles away. They are notawelcome here.

 

[binzing]

OK, here's everything it comes with.

Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.

This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

A girl's best friend...

 

[neutrino]

Coming in for a Landing

Sunday! I got to use my camera again after a week. I noticed a flower in front of our house that I usually miss. It was just after mid-day and the bright sun above created a nice photo-op. (although I was cramped for space.) And there was this insect (I'm just going to call it a bee) to boot!

I haven't processed this shot, and I'm looking for tips. The shadow at the bottom right has to go, right? Too bad the bee appears fuzzy . This was taken in Av mode. I later changed to manual, and made the shutter speed sufficiently fast to get a couple of other images with the bee clearly in focus.

A larger version can be found http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2270482871_ce3cbc9133_b.jpg".

 

[Andre]

OK, here's everything it comes with.

Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.

This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?

I have exactly that same camera ever since 1978 or something with a shipload of assessories. I contemplated to donate it to a museum, never thought of selling it.
Digital photography however is outclassing the classic SLR's by miles.

If I was to spend $300 on a camera, I'd recommend mine here and you have even lots of money left for some gadgets. I added a filter converter ring to 55mm so I can use all my old filters and close up lenses.

You could also contemplate it's slightly bigger brother

but if you compare the life size studio pictures, you might settle for the cheaper one:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/samples/comparedto/panasonicfz8-ISO100.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/samples/comparedto/xfz18_ISO100.JPG

These crops for instance:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/samples/crops/panasonicfz8-ISO100-crop.jpg and
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicFZ18/samples/crops/xfz18_ISO-100-crops.jpg

After all, the output and only the output counts. Who needs all the gadgets when the picture is inferior?

 

[Astronuc]

Sunday! I got to use my camera again after a week. I noticed a flower in front of our house that I usually miss. It was just after mid-day and the bright sun above created a nice photo-op. (although I was cramped for space.) And there was this insect (I'm just going to call it a bee) to boot!

I haven't processed this shot, and I'm looking for tips. The shadow at the bottom right has to go, right? Too bad the bee appears fuzzy . This was taken in Av mode. I later changed to manual, and made the shutter speed sufficiently fast to get a couple of other images with the bee clearly in focus.

Cool picture, neutrino. I'd leave the shadows as they are. If you process the photo, just sharpen it.

 

[larkspur]

Sunday! I got to use my camera again after a week. I noticed a flower in front of our house that I usually miss. It was just after mid-day and the bright sun above created a nice photo-op. (although I was cramped for space.) And there was this insect (I'm just going to call it a bee) to boot!

I haven't processed this shot, and I'm looking for tips. The shadow at the bottom right has to go, right? Too bad the bee appears fuzzy . This was taken in Av mode. I later changed to manual, and made the shutter speed sufficiently fast to get a couple of other images with the bee clearly in focus.

A larger version can be found http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2270482871_ce3cbc9133_b.jpg".

Too bad the camera focused on the petals instead of the pistils and stamens. or the bee. Those are what the eye is drawn to and I doubt you could sharpen that with enough with software. That is where the fun of digital comes in, you toss this one and try again for perfection.

 

[larkspur]

OK, here's everything it comes with.

Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.

This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?

Here is a site to look at that may help you decide:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/" /

I doubt the jc penny or the other off-brands with get you professional quality images. Having owned off brand lenses I would not recommend them. They never match the quality of the name brands.

 

[neutrino]

Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.

larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(

 

[larkspur]

Thats a cool shot. What is being done to the diamond? I see the little flecks coming off in nice detail.

 

[turbo]

Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.

larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(

It may help to reduce the aperture on shots like this to get the depth of field a little larger so that more of the flower is in focus. This will increase the exposure time, so flying bees will be blurred. I like to catch them when they're working, so blur won't be as much of a problem.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/thistle_bee.jpg

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Thats a cool shot. What is being done to the diamond? I see the little flecks coming off in nice detail.

Yeah, it's dirty. That's my fiance's engagement ring, with one of the prongs of the ring that holds the stone. You can see how the soft metal crushes and deforms against the perfectly angular and hard geometry of the diamond... Maybe I'll try editing out the dust/scratches.