Photography?

[ResQTech]

I use a Canon 20D. My lens (or is it lenses) include a 17-40L, 24-70L, 70-200L f4.0 (I wish it were an f2.8), 100-400L, 50mm, 180mm Macro.

You've got a nice assortment of quality glass!

 

[Dogliness]

I have never posted any photos of birds, and feel a little nervous about it.
Here are a few photos taken at the Bosque del Apache Wildlife Refuge.

 

[Flying Turtle]

Nice pics, Dogliness. Watching, feeding, and photographing birds are favorite activities of mine.

Geoff

 

[cmacclel]

I was heavy into Photography as my last hobby before this one

Here's a few shots I had up online


http://images8.fotki.com/v111/photos/1/141020/531519/img_0257_e-vi.jpg

http://images6.fotki.com/v103/photos/1/141020/531519/IMG_0054_E-vi.jpg

http://images7.fotki.com/v122/photos/1/141020/531519/IMG_0574_E-vi.jpg

http://images8.fotki.com/v124/photos/1/141020/531519/IMG_0684_E-vi.jpg

http://images7.fotki.com/v118/photos/1/141020/531519/img_3229_e-vi.jpg

http://images16.fotki.com/v280/photos/1/141020/531519/IMG_5877-vi.jpg

http://images7.fotki.com/v121/photos/1/141020/1506671/IMG_3867_E-vi.jpg

http://images8.fotki.com/v124/photos/1/141020/1506671/IMG_4367_E-vi.jpg

http://images8.fotki.com/v123/photos/1/141020/1506671/IMG_4409_E-vi.jpg

Mac

 

[WAVE_PARTICLE]

Wow, Mac!


Great shots there!!!!!

:thumbsup: WP

 

[Billson]

Mac & Dogliness,

What cameras did you guys use for those photos? The photos are very nice.

 

[cmacclel]

Mac & Dogliness,

What cameras did you guys use for those photos? The photos are very nice.

RebelXT
Canon 20D
Canon 10D


Mac

 

[slick228]

I'm also a big fan of photography. I'm having a blast with my Canon Rebel XT with a 24-70mm f/2.8L lens. Unfortunately, once you go into the "L" series lens, there's no turning back. My lens cost significantly more than my camera body!

I take a boat load of pictures when I'm out. Being that it's digital, it's guilt free when I push the shutter button repeatedly.

 

[Dogliness]

Mac & Dogliness,
What cameras did you guys use for those photos? The photos are very nice.

I used a Canon 20D. The glass (lens) plays a big part in the quality of the image. I used a Canon 100-400mmL lens. The processing of the image is also important. I shot the images in RAW and processed most of the images in Photoshop but some using a program called Raw Shooter by Pixamentec. Adobe recently purchased the intellectual property assets of Pixementec, and is developing a new RAW conversion program called Lightroom. Lightroom is released in beta. A production version should be released sometime next year (I hope it is integrated into the next version of Photshop, although it may be sold as a stand alone program, I am not sure).

If you have Photoshop, you can download a picture, open it in Photoshop, and then go to the File pull down menu and click on File Info. Then go to the Camera Data item, and for most images it will tell you, for the image, the make and model of the camera that took the image, the shutter speed, exposure program (eg shutter priority), f-stop, focal length at which the image was taken (eg 100mm), lens used, meter mode, and whether a flash fired.

 

[Billson]

Well, that dashes my hopes of ever taking pictures that nice. I'm afraid of starting this hobby knowing how expensive it is unless I stop buying flashlights altogether.

Thanks.

 

[Dreamer]

Here's some of my bird shot. Taken at the local bird park.

 

[Dogliness]

Something I learned from trial and error is that if a photo of a flashlight lineup is taken at an angle where the camera is pointing downward instead of perpendicular to the flashlights, it results in a more interesting photo.

This is a photo where the camera is perpendicular to the flashlights.

This is a photo where the camera is pointing downward at the flashlights.
To add some interest, I added the lettering in Photoshop.

However, I think the first photo is better for judging the relative sizes of the flashlights.

 

[Dogliness]

Here's some of my bird shot. Taken at the local bird park.

WOW! Those photos are fabulous, particularly the first one.

 

[Dogliness]

I was heavy into Photography as my last hobby before this one
Here's a few shots I had up online Mac

Great photos! There must be room for both hobbies.

 

[Dogliness]

Well, that dashes my hopes of ever taking pictures that nice. I'm afraid of starting this hobby knowing how expensive it is unless I stop buying flashlights altogether. Thanks.

I hope it does not dash your hopes, but peaks your interest. One nice thing about digital photography is that you sink some cost in the equipment, and then the cost after that is minimal. What I recommend is to buy an entry level Nikon or Canon DSLR, one good zoom lens, a basic tripod, and Photoshop. I learned basic Photoshop skills from the Total Training for Photoshop DVDs, which are quite excellent.

 

[Billson]

I've been interested for quite some time just haven't gotten enough resolve to jump into it. I'm the type of person who never does anything half-hearted. If I ever start to buy, I figure it will cost more than I have ever spent on flashlights and the mere thought of it scares the hell out of me.

Is it true that some lenses cost more than the camera body itself? If so, then I can hardly call that minimal. The cheapest DSLR (body only) seems to cost around $700 already.

Thanks for the advice.

One last question. What quality do you guys use for taking pictures? I've noticed that the difference in space it takes up is huge. Using superfine vs fine or normal could reduce the number of pictures by half or more.

 

[Dogliness]

One last question. What quality do you guys use for taking pictures? I've noticed that the difference in space it takes up is huge. Using superfine vs fine or normal could reduce the number of pictures by half or more.

There are many forums devoted to photography, and posts of questions generate numerous different responses. Others may have difference advice.

I use what is called the RAW mode. It is a quality setting on the camera, like fine or superfine. Not all cameras have a RAW mode. Sometimes RAW is referred to as a digital negative. An advantage of RAW is that you can modify the image (for example the white balance or exposure) without degrading the image. The price of CompactFlash memory cards has come way down. For example, you can buy a Sandisk Ultra II 2GB CF card today at ZipZoomFly for $70 with no shipping charge. On my camera, using the RAW setting, I get about 100 images per 1GB on the card. Some good photographers do not like RAW becasue the Photoshop processing time can take longer and for them the greater processing burden outweighs the benefits, but it is more forgiving for someone who does not take perfect photos without some processing (like me). Some point-and-shoot cameras have a RAW setting, such as the Canon S70, which I have (an older model). To use RAW, you need a program that will process RAW images. I believe they will become more and more common.

Given the price of flash memory cards these days, my advice is to use the finest setting (largest picture file size) on the camera (except I would not use the TIF file format if my camera had it). That way you can crop or otherwise edit the image and end up with something with less degredation of the image. You can always lower the resolution or image size later in a program like Photoshop. If you do not want to process the image, and do not want larger print sizes, then using the highest quality setting on the camera probably is unnecessary.

 

[cmacclel]

I was a daily member over at www.fredmiranda.com which is probably one of the best Photo sites out there. Many people use RAW mode but I always thought it was a pain in the rear as I had enough post processing without having to convert RAW images

Yes memory cards have DROPPED considerably. I paid $200+ for my first 1GB card.


Mac

 

[nekomane]

The camera on the left is a Kodak/AP DCS 2000/e.
TypeIII PCMCIA HDD cards were used for saving images (all RAW) and cost about 600$ for 170MB :green:

I now use Nikons (D2Hs, D200 etc) with lenses ranging from 8- 1,700mm but would switch to Canon if they could make those buttons and menus easier and faster to use.

Photography has interested me since I was a kid. My first camera nearly 30 years ago was a Kodak 110. Saved up some allowance and money earned by washing dishes to buy an Olympus OM10 and later, a second hand Nikon FA. Favorite lens was a 24mm/2.8 and 105mm/2.5. Zooms were not cool back then.
Shooting photos is part of my job now and I find much less time to shoot just for pleasure. I also have little experience photographing tiny items that don't move but taking pics of lights to show off here at CPF has opened up some new frontiers and is enjoying!

Most of the pics I post here are taken with a digital P&S Ricoh GX. Macro capablity and manual control is great. Image quality is good enough for viewing on a computer.

Private photos are still taken with film, a black Contax G2 or a P&S Yashica T5. The FM2 I bought with the first paycheck will stay with me forever

 

[WAVE_PARTICLE]

RAW is for the anal types who want maximum control over your images....like me!

Like what dog said, it's a digital negative. It is the basic intensity (or brightness) information that is recorded at each pixel point of the camera sensor, and that's it! After that, YOU decide how you want to process this data. This is different from a JPEG image, in which you trust the camera to apply all the processing, adjustment and filtering algorithms for you (such as white balance, sharpness, noise reduction, color balance, contrast, brightness...).

When post processing, you will find RAW to be more flexible and forgiving than with JPEG. For those really anal, you can also extract more dynamic range and detail out of RAW than JPEG also.

Downside is what Mac aluded to. It can be a lot of work. Especially after you come back from a 3 week trip to Alaska with 1000 images.....you will be kicking yourself if you shot all of them in RAW..... :laughing:

Use the format that fits the situation and your preferred workflow.

WP