Photography
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-06-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: Photography
(29-06-2016 01:39 AM)Free Thought Wrote:  I've started to get more into photography, thought some people might like some of what I've managed to fumble across and take pictures of...

[Image: 13528203_1264673833543464_7865955717069340714_o.jpg]
[Image: 13558612_1264664576877723_3699317997484463459_o.jpg]
[Image: 13558953_1264664630211051_3875756184916230450_o.jpg]
[Image: 13522965_1264664923544355_2893513976337101766_o.jpg]
[Image: 13575903_1264665246877656_3400607862791270703_o.jpg]
[Image: 13575969_1264665813544266_7923999202748173424_o.jpg]
[Image: 13575921_1264666676877513_7052263617083455243_o.jpg][Image: 13502892_1264666130210901_208363135680214316_o.jpg]
[Image: 13522958_1264665696877611_7985440053993681283_o.jpg]
[Image: 13576619_1264668923543955_8735913252966493800_o.jpg]
[Image: 13528648_1264670426877138_4685994408730240648_o.jpg]
[Image: 13522884_1264674206876760_280635721887326436_o.jpg]
[Image: 13568832_1264671990210315_2139002018077593413_o.jpg]
[Image: 13559209_1264666083544239_4796079868553781695_o.jpg]
[Image: 13558842_1264666056877575_1023687618535807682_o.jpg]

Thank you!

Those are great! You have a good eye. One of the things I had a hard time with when I started doing photography was looking out for background distractions. I would be so focused on what I was taking pics of I wouldn't even see the background until I developed the film. Many funny and unfortunate things happened because of that. I still have to remind myself to see the whole and not just the centerpiece. lol

Great job!

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-06-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: Photography
(29-06-2016 05:37 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  One of the things I had a hard time with when I started doing photography was looking out for background distractions. I would be so focused on what I was taking pics of I wouldn't even see the background until I developed the film. Many funny and unfortunate things happened because of that. I still have to remind myself to see the whole and not just the centerpiece.

You're not alone in this regard, particularly with digital point and shooters. And which is why I prefer to use 35mm film—I can manually check the depth of field far more precisely through a "real" optical viewfinder rather than an auto-everything camera. Plus I can use a specific lens for a specific capture in order to get the desired end result.

And yes... I dislike digital cameras LOL. They've destroyed much of the artistic endeavour of photography.

You'll never get this sort of atmospheric sunset shot with a digital camera:

[Image: Piazza%20San%20Marco%20web%201000%20n%2072.jpg]
— © Jonathan Paulson

Note the exceptional tonal range and crisp, deep winter shadows.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
30-06-2016, 07:12 PM
RE: Photography
(30-06-2016 04:55 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(29-06-2016 05:37 PM)Heatheness Wrote:  One of the things I had a hard time with when I started doing photography was looking out for background distractions. I would be so focused on what I was taking pics of I wouldn't even see the background until I developed the film. Many funny and unfortunate things happened because of that. I still have to remind myself to see the whole and not just the centerpiece.

You're not alone in this regard, particularly with digital point and shooters. And which is why I prefer to use 35mm film—I can manually check the depth of field far more precisely through a "real" optical viewfinder rather than an auto-everything camera. Plus I can use a specific lens for a specific capture in order to get the desired end result.

And yes... I dislike digital cameras LOL. They've destroyed much of the artistic endeavour of photography.

You'll never get this sort of atmospheric sunset shot with a digital camera:

[Image: Piazza%20San%20Marco%20web%201000%20n%2072.jpg]
— © Jonathan Paulson

Note the exceptional tonal range and crisp, deep winter shadows.

A digital SLR allows one to do that.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
30-06-2016, 08:20 PM
RE: Photography
(30-06-2016 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 04:55 PM)SYZ Wrote:  You're not alone in this regard, particularly with digital point and shooters. And which is why I prefer to use 35mm film—I can manually check the depth of field far more precisely through a "real" optical viewfinder rather than an auto-everything camera. Plus I can use a specific lens for a specific capture in order to get the desired end result.

And yes... I dislike digital cameras LOL. They've destroyed much of the artistic endeavour of photography.

You'll never get this sort of atmospheric sunset shot with a digital camera:

[Image: Piazza%20San%20Marco%20web%201000%20n%2072.jpg]
— © Jonathan Paulson

Note the exceptional tonal range and crisp, deep winter shadows.

A digital SLR allows one to do that.

Where I used to work, the photographers had digital equipment that was something like $20k per kit. They took photos of microelectronic circuitry and such that was published in scientific articles and journals. The resolution was incredible. My picture got published in the LA Times once. The picture took up 1/4 page, and you could actually tell who I was. My FIL saw it and asked. I had had no idea that they had published it. No, I don't remember what the date was, so you'll have to wait until I self-publish my tush, because the pic was from the back. What was I doing? Nope, not giving up a search string. You might see the top of my balding head, too. Sadcryface
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fireball's post
01-07-2016, 12:27 AM
RE: Photography
I do mostly drive by shooting with a cheap camera.

Life on the road

[Image: baYL]
[Image: iOYb]
[Image: PJmn]
[Image: l91k]
[Image: MgKU]
[Image: O64L]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Grassy Knoll's post
01-07-2016, 05:24 AM
RE: Photography
(01-07-2016 12:27 AM)Grassy Knoll Wrote:  I do mostly drive by shooting with a cheap camera.

Life on the road

[Image: baYL]
[Image: iOYb]
[Image: PJmn]
[Image: l91k]
[Image: MgKU]
[Image: O64L]

Beautiful pics. Yes, I use a cheap cam too and my phone when I don't have it.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Heatheness's post
01-07-2016, 12:35 PM
RE: Photography
(30-06-2016 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:You'll never get this sort of atmospheric sunset shot with a digital camera...
Note the exceptional tonal range and crisp, deep winter shadows.

A digital SLR allows one to do that.

Possibly, but that image is straight out of the camera. Without using Photoshop and and/or HDR software, a digital sensor—even a common consumer-level APS-C—just won't have the dynamic range needed to capture both deep shadows and highlights, without muddying the shadows or highlight clipping.

[Image: camera-sensor-size-12.jpg?auto=format%2C...56f79af9f7]

This diagram gives an indication of dimensional digital sensor sizes in comparison to a 35mm film. The Samsung Galaxy K phone utilises a 1/2.3" sized sensor, on to which they cram a ludicrous 20MP, and which is 30 times smaller in area than the 35mm area. Because of this, the Galaxy (and many other phone cameras) lack the dynamic range of film.

Phone manufacturers would do better image-wise to limit their sensors sizes to—say—8MP, but the gullible buying public demand ever higher MP numbers, without even knowing why LOL.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-07-2016, 08:33 PM
RE: Photography
(01-07-2016 12:35 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(30-06-2016 07:12 PM)Chas Wrote:  A digital SLR allows one to do that.

Possibly, but that image is straight out of the camera.

That's not actually true.
The film was developed and the negative printed. Much can be altered in both those processes.

Quote:Without using Photoshop and and/or HDR software, a digital sensor—even a common consumer-level APS-C—just won't have the dynamic range needed to capture both deep shadows and highlights, without muddying the shadows or highlight clipping.

[Image: camera-sensor-size-12.jpg?auto=format%2C...56f79af9f7]

This diagram gives an indication of dimensional digital sensor sizes in comparison to a 35mm film. The Samsung Galaxy K phone utilises a 1/2.3" sized sensor, on to which they cram a ludicrous 20MP, and which is 30 times smaller in area than the 35mm area. Because of this, the Galaxy (and many other phone cameras) lack the dynamic range of film.

Phone manufacturers would do better image-wise to limit their sensors sizes to—say—8MP, but the gullible buying public demand ever higher MP numbers, without even knowing why LOL.

I have a Nikon D700 - its sensor is the size of 35mm film frame. It has excellent dynamic range, though it is likely that film exceeds it.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
01-07-2016, 09:12 PM
RE: Photography
(01-07-2016 08:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have a Nikon D700 - its sensor is the size of 35mm film frame. It has excellent dynamic range, though it is likely that film exceeds it.
Still an excellent camera, although it used to sell for around $4K body plus lens, so I'd not class it as a "consumer" level bit of gear.

High speed 35mm film tops out at the equivalent of approximately 20MP, and will never get any better (unfortunately), so many new dSLRs easily beat this.

I guess as a photography "dinosaur" I'm just disappointed to see people snapping away indiscriminately with compact digitals or smart phones, with virtually no thoughts about framing, exposure, focus etc. And of course these snappers seem not to understand the value of mono photography; there'll never be another Ansel Adams.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
02-07-2016, 07:39 PM
RE: Photography
(01-07-2016 09:12 PM)SYZ Wrote:  
(01-07-2016 08:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have a Nikon D700 - its sensor is the size of 35mm film frame. It has excellent dynamic range, though it is likely that film exceeds it.
Still an excellent camera, although it used to sell for around $4K body plus lens, so I'd not class it as a "consumer" level bit of gear.

High speed 35mm film tops out at the equivalent of approximately 20MP, and will never get any better (unfortunately), so many new dSLRs easily beat this.

I guess as a photography "dinosaur" I'm just disappointed to see people snapping away indiscriminately with compact digitals or smart phones, with virtually no thoughts about framing, exposure, focus etc. And of course these snappers seem not to understand the value of mono photography; there'll never be another Ansel Adams.

I have a different POV on this. "Snappers", as you call them (condescension... really? was that necessary) are taking pics to please themselves. They aren't out there claiming some great artistic endeavor or competing with art photography. Or maybe they are and you're jealous of that, IDK. You seem to me to be of the POV that only artistic endeavor should be allowed or has merit. I disagree.

Photography for the shear joy of the moment or the capture is its own reward and should never be diminished, IMO. For the millions of "snappers", myself included, do just that, they enjoy what they do. Nothing wrong in that. They aren't forcing you to look. In fact this entire thread is full of sharing from "snappers" and enjoyed by many here.

If that's not your thing, that fine but really I take issue with your photographic snobbery.

And as for Ansel Adams, he did not start out as a "great one", he started out as a snapper and developed over many years and many thousands of unacceptable pics into the genius he was. And yes, there are many monochromatic lovers out there (again, myself included) and many talented ones as well.

I also feel that one of the benefit of "snappers" is that some child will see what they do and how much they love it and think "I'd like to try that..." and that child may someday be an Ansel Adams. There's never been just one genius at anything, there's always a "next" one.

My two cents.

[Image: dnw9krH.jpg?4]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: