Official Misc Photography Crew, Part IV "You're not close enough."

[VmissileX]

what are some necessary accessories?

What are you planning on shooting mosts?

[ko300zx]

Thanks for the Appreciation

Here is one more to end the day (atleast for me)


f16 + 244sec + ISO50

Was 99.4 Pulse on 500px

Little late but really like this one. Nice job.

Some nice shots I took after work, always get the best scenery after work

Yeah man, I ride my bike to work about 3/4 of a mile and I'm always snapping shots of the sun going down on my phone. A shame the foreground is a bunch of 7-11's and Grocery Stores but the sky is just crazy some days or I'd be forced to take my camera to work every day. Days I do head to the beach or somewhere cool, the sky is boring

These are straight from my phone so I'm sure you can imagine how vivid it was in person. On the way to work:



on the way home:

[VmissileX]

A portrait of a fine young lady i did this evening. More to come, i'm somewhat happy with this one. Wish I could pose her better. Part of the evening was just understanding how best to use the christmas lights and borrowing / getting used to a sweet 70-200mm lens (which i wish i had right now but oh well). Shot couldn't of been achieved i think without good MM focus. Correct me if i'm wrong.


What i did was place the model on the opposite end of the room and pitch lchristmas lights right in front of me, focus on the model and collect the booked from the lights.

\

[manuelthegreat]

What are you planning on shooting mosts?

I plan on doing mainly nature shots but sport shots every once in a while

[Dominik]

Just saw yet another film vs. digital comparison. They used the D800e, an IQ 180 Phase One and medium and large format films.

Cliffs version: Large format films, drum scanned, basically won in the overall resolution and color department but the IQ 180 wasn't far behind.

But I'm sure you guys can guess why I still won't be switching to film...

For those who haven't read it, the full article is here.

I have a few reasons for not going to film. One of them is simply this: I will still need to have a digital camera with me at all times even if I do switch to film. So ... hard to see the point.

If you meter properly then you don't. Not directed at you but for most digital photographers shooting RAW accurate metering is an afterthought. They blindly trust matrix metering, getting close enough is good enough, and then they bracket either side and try to fix any issues in post.

Shooting on Velvia slide film you've got a latitude of around 4-5 stops. The obviously requires a lot more patience, planning and skill than digital which will give you at least 10 stops if you don't mind a little noise.

Canon's rumor of a 50mp+ DSLR is... interesting. Not because I think I need 50mp. I don't. But because I wonder if this means they have some new sensor tech in the works with better DR than their current offerings.

If the sensor size is unchanged then it's not really of great interest to me. Cramming more pixels onto a small sensor isn't going to produce better images. I already get more than enough resolution with the D800E panos printing up to 100" across.

[ThundaHorz]

[pieceofdebri79]

^ well those are goddamn cute! Especially like the frog. You pose that, or just find it chillin there?

[tomdotcom]

Because if that once-in-a-lifetime moment comes, and I've got two choices, one being film and the other being digital, I am *always* going to grab the digital.

With LF film I'd get one chance. If that.

With digital I get many -- spray and pray (but with the skill of many years behind the shutter). ~5 shots a second with my D800.

And every time I am out shooting I am looking for that once in a lifetime moment. Conditions are always changing. Light, clouds, wildlife, sunrays, double rainbows, aurora... in other words all of the wild, awesome constantly changing things in nature.

I want to be ready when it happens and digital is just more suited for that.

Fair enough, I'd still rather shoot that shot on film though and pretty confident in my abilities to be able to do so.

For those who haven't read it, the full article is here.

If you meter properly then you don't. Not directed at you but for most digital photographers shooting RAW accurate metering is an afterthought. They blindly trust matrix metering, getting close enough is good enough, and then they bracket either side and try to fix any issues in post.

Shooting on Velvia slide film you've got a latitude of around 4-5 stops. The obviously requires a lot more patience, planning and skill than digital which will give you at least 10 stops if you don't mind a little noise.

If the sensor size is unchanged then it's not really of great interest to me. Cramming more pixels onto a small sensor isn't going to produce better images. I already get more than enough resolution with the D800E panos printing up to 100" across.

Less actually, think you only get about 2 stops for Velvia. You can shoot Portra 400 from anywhere between 50-800 comfortably, and even 25 & 1600 if you don't mind losing a bit of detail.

I've always treated digital like slide film, not going anywhere more than 2 stops +-, highlights blow way more easily on digital, hence the obsession with HDR & grad filters in the world of photography at the mo.

If I'd have shot these on digital on my hols I can guarantee that the sky would be blown out way more:

[Dominik]

Less actually, think you only get about 2 stops for Velvia. You can shoot Portra 400 from anywhere between 50-800 comfortably, and even 25 & 1600 if you don't mind losing a bit of detail.

I've always treated digital like slide film, not going anywhere more than 2 stops +-, highlights blow way more easily on digital, hence the obsession with HDR & grad filters in the world of photography at the mo.

According to data online and based on my own experience it's between 4-5 stops.

That's sufficient latitude to capture beautiful landscape images using grad filters and shooting at the perfect time after the light in the sky has dropped off and before the foreground has become too dark. Beyond a certain point it starts to look fake anyway and there's a limit to how much of that DR captured will make its way into a print.

If I'd have shot these on digital on my hols I can guarantee that the sky would be blown out way more:

[img]http://www.t-horton.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/travel-34.jpg[img]

I love the way the highlights roll off smoothly with negative film. Digital is utter garbage in that regard — all or nothing. Pulling back the highlights and mids in that JPEG reveals a lot more detail.

[VmissileX]

I plan on doing mainly nature shots but sport shots every once in a while

I think a tripod/monopod would be useful. Monopod for sports and a tripod for LE landscapes.

I use the mefoto globetrotter. Cheap wireless remote relase too.



What is useful is a good lens and a good body.

[Vikes723]

Little late but really like this one. Nice job.



Yeah man, I ride my bike to work about 3/4 of a mile and I'm always snapping shots of the sun going down on my phone. A shame the foreground is a bunch of 7-11's and Grocery Stores but the sky is just crazy some days or I'd be forced to take my camera to work every day. Days I do head to the beach or somewhere cool, the sky is boring

These are straight from my phone so I'm sure you can imagine how vivid it was in person. On the way to work:



on the way home:

Yeah man you're in SD too so we see the same sky I'm up towards Orange County.

I love concert photography that's my main thing so the sky can get boring. I'm still trying to get my foreground on portrait photography.

[VmissileX]

The itch to shoot a landscape this weekend is unbelievable. IDGAF what i get, i'm going out and climbing some mountain or something and just gonna point my camera and hope for the best.

[snorlaxxx]

any brahs know any good forums dedicated to photography with a lot of traffic/users?

[Final_Rep]

The itch to shoot a landscape this weekend is unbelievable. IDGAF what i get, i'm going out and climbing some mountain or something and just gonna point my camera and hope for the best.

Do yourself a favor and load up TPE (The Photographer's Ephemeris) and look at the angle of the sun/moon for the time of day you want to go out, then plan accordingly.

[VmissileX]

Do yourself a favor and load up TPE (The Photographer's Ephemeris) and look at the angle of the sun/moon for the time of day you want to go out, then plan accordingly.

Ahh yes, this is a great app.I definetly am gonna get this.


But i'll be planning accordingly the weekend after (new years) or the weekend after that. I think i got more of a itch to just go on a hike. This may be more of a scouter trip.

[Dominik]

Ahh yes, this is a great app.I definetly am gonna get this.

Web version is free to use.

http://app.photoephemeris.com/

[tomdotcom]

According to data online and based on my own experience it's between 4-5 stops.

That's sufficient latitude to capture beautiful landscape images using grad filters and shooting at the perfect time after the light in the sky has dropped off and before the foreground has become too dark. Beyond a certain point it starts to look fake anyway and there's a limit to how much of that DR captured will make its way into a print.

I love the way the highlights roll off smoothly with negative film. Digital is utter garbage in that regard — all or nothing. Pulling back the highlights and mids in that JPEG reveals a lot more detail.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/8gF6EXM.jpg[img]

Do you mean 4-5 stops either way or 2 stops either way making it 5 stops overall? I think we were on different wavelengths in terms of how we worded it.

Yeah it's much much smoother. Lot's of detail recovered there jeez. Just shows what can be done in PP. I did like the original though, I really like that style of photography especially for travel stuff, a bit Cereal Magazine-esque.



The difference between a £20 Epson 2450 and a £300+ Epson v750 for those interested:




















Sharpness & shadow details are outstanding in comparison. There's some disparity in PP but tried to get them as similar as possible in terms of exposure/contrast.


Yes, the negative for the last shot is filthy lol.

[Dominik]

Do you mean 4-5 stops either way or 2 stops either way making it 5 stops overall? I think we were on different wavelengths in terms of how we worded it.

Yeah it's much much smoother. Lot's of detail recovered there jeez. Just shows what can be done in PP. I did like the original though, I really like that style of photography especially for travel stuff, a bit Cereal Magazine-esque.

4-5 stops overall from the darkest shadow detail to the brightest highlights recorded. Doesn't sound like much these days but more than enough to get the job done for landscape photographers who know what they're doing.

re: the photo, I think somewhere between the original and that extreme example would be ideal. I was just trying to show what was in the JPEG file. With digital, same exposure settings, it would be a blown out white sky.

[tomdotcom]

4-5 stops overall from the darkest shadow detail to the brightest highlights recorded. Doesn't sound like much these days but more than enough to get the job done for landscape photographers who know what they're doing.

re: the photo, I think somewhere between the original and that extreme example would be ideal. I was just trying to show what was in the JPEG file. With digital, same exposure settings, it would be a blown out white sky.

Yeah I guess that makes sense, I meant 2 stops either way so that makes it 4-5 stops overall as you say.

I did think of trying to save some of the highlights but ended up sticking with it because I just like that dreamy over-exposed look on shots like that, just my personal preference I guess. Rescanning a few photos on my new 750 so tempted to do that one and see just how much detail there is in it. Got a few lined up that I've been wanting to do for a while first though.

[KRANE]

And a word about film. First, I agree totally -- its good to learn film even if you do it just for the experience. Especially since doing so insure a better appreciation, and understanding, of the art of photography. But film does have its limitations:

For one, and a very important one, its inherent fragile nature and volatility. Expose that canister to light and/or environment, and all your precious work is lost. There's also no way to duplicate it on location. So everything is riding on the successfully delivery and processing of that one reel. Sure, there are corruptions problems associated with digital too. But a lot of them now have secondary and tertiary redundancies to limit their occurrence. Especially on more advanced shoots.

For example, you can also write to two cards simultaneously (and extend beyond that). And you can duplicate unlimited copies so you have multiple backup on location. And as I've mentioned before, the greatest disadvantage with film is not knowing what you've shots until its developed. Which can be an expensive chance if you have to return to a location to re-shoot.

These negatives (is that a pun?) aren't meant to discourage anyone from using or investigating using film. In fact, having gone through it in still and motion film photography I highly recommenced it. There's nothing like the visceral experience you get by anticipating the final results you get with film. Or the important lessons you learn from the value of preparation. Especially since every picture you take cost you money, no matter how it comes out.

The itch to shoot a landscape this weekend is unbelievable. IDGAF what i get, i'm going out and climbing some mountain or something and just gonna point my camera and hope for the best.

Now you know that's not a good idea.

I think a tripod/monopod would be useful. Monopod for sports and a tripod for LE landscapes.

I use the mefoto globetrotter. Cheap wireless remote release too.



What is useful is a good lens and a good body.

A good lens cannot be overstated. Its like the speaker in your sound system: no matter how good the rest of the system is, your sound will only be as good as the speakers that produce it.

[Vikes723]

got some prints finally done and loved them. Hope to get more very soon

[IJustWannaPuke]

Sup bros,

Is it possible for me to get a camera/lense/tripod that will allow me to take pics of the stars/milkyway for under $500? if not what you you recomend? Im currently living in a small town in the mountians +1km in altitude and would be awesome if i could take my own pics.

Cheers

[Vikes723]

Sup bros,

Is it possible for me to get a camera/lense/tripod that will allow me to take pics of the stars/milkyway for under $500? if not what you you recomend? Im currently living in a small town in the mountians +1km in altitude and would be awesome if i could take my own pics.

Cheers

under 500 is tough... maybe on craigslist u can find a deal but i spent 1k on mine and thats on a budget.

Brand new body alone on most decent High ISO cameras are on the higher end.

[tomdotcom]

under 500 is tough... maybe on craigslist u can find a deal but i spent 1k on mine and thats on a budget.

Brand new body alone on most decent High ISO cameras are on the higher end.

Don't buy it new then.

You'll be pretty limited for $500. Might be best off getting a decent Canon body (spend around $350-400) and spending the rest on an old MF Nikon 28mm & adapter or something. If you try and get a decent Canon AF lens & a decent body for under $500 you're going to have to sacrifice quality somewhere, I'd personally rather sacrifice autofocus, especially if you're planning on doing landscape/stars where AF doesn't make a difference.

Either that or get something with the 18-55mm which are dirt cheap, although there's no lenses that I hate more in the world lol.

[akappa]

Do many of you guys sell your photos digitally or do you just sell prints?

I've been contacted by a few people lately about buying the digital file for some photos but I don't like the idea of the printing stage being out of my control. If it's done badly it'll make my work look bad, but on the other hand it's less work for me to hand over a file.

How do you work out a price for digital files that compliments the price of your prints?

[Burtle1]

How many of you have a photography business?

Was it hard to start ?

What do you shoot? weddings? portraits? Landscapes? Houses? concerts ? all ?

[tomdotcom]

Do many of you guys sell your photos digitally or do you just sell prints?

I've been contacted by a few people lately about buying the digital file for some photos but I don't like the idea of the printing stage being out of my control. If it's done badly it'll make my work look bad, but on the other hand it's less work for me to hand over a file.

How do you work out a price for digital files that compliments the price of your prints?

Would much much rather sell a print, digital files = they can print 1,000,000 versions of it if they want. Plus as you say if they cheap out it'll make your photo look crap.

[KRANE]

Do many of you guys sell your photos digitally or do you just sell prints?

I've been contacted by a few people lately about buying the digital file for some photos but I don't like the idea of the printing stage being out of my control. If it's done badly it'll make my work look bad, but on the other hand it's less work for me to hand over a file.

All I can tell you is what I was taught in digital cinema: everything is for sale. Just make sure you protect your work by having the proper contract. Sell the use rights. That way no one can profit from the reproduction, sale, duplication or distribution of your work. As far as I'm concerned, its fine for them to make a profit from something I originally created, so long as I get a piece of the action.

How do you work out a price for digital files that compliments the price of your prints?

Negotiation. Which means you need someone experienced in the field as your dealer. Again, that's digital cinema. But it doesn't appear that far removed from still photography.

[EatingPancakes]

I thought this was interesting.



Hawaii pls.

Not surprised Wyoming has Ansel Adams. Seems like it's usually hometown heroes, Norman Rockwell and Vermont for example.

[pieceofdebri79]

Terry Richardson didn't make the list?