***DSLR/Photography MegaThread***

[FBJ]

Allright...Finally!

gcalvin.com/gallery (http://gcalvin.com/gallery/main.php)

[VF]

Congrats on getting it up, that is probably the hardest part. Be sure you have the Gallery Remote to upload pics, makes it super nice.

[FBJ]

Updated (http://gcalvin.com/gallery) with a better theme.

[Unfiltered]

Samy's had an ad on the back page of the LA Times sports section today. I created a very rudimentary jpeg with the highlights for the folks that frequent this thread.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2345/2056548840_fc4fd7718b_b.jpg

40D
It's not a great lens, but the (extra) 75-300mm lens added to the 40D kit (body + 17-85mm) is a great deal. This 40D kit normally is 1599.99, so you score the "extra" lens for 100 bucks. They seem to go for $160-200 on ebay, so you can sell it to circumvent the purchase. Throw in the Samy's $100 gift card, and things get really interesting.

Rebel XTi
Costco has the same kit (minus the 17-300) for $699.99 (from $799.99 with $100 mail-in rebate). Again, the best bet seems to be Samy's deal. $849, sell the 17-300 (150-200) plus the $50 gift card, you now have a great entry level DSLR kit for around $719-759. Use that $50 gift card towards some other accessories.

Another kick ass thing about Samy's sale this weekend is the freebies: tripod, bag, and an instructional DVD with coupons. They're not going to be top notch anything, but for newbie, they're necessary.

If you're in market for a replacement or new to the hobby, this weekend looks like a good time to do it!

I'm not sure if these specials are online as well, so here is a link to their locations:

http://www.samys.com/stores.php

Looks like it's their regular store hours for the sale:

M-F 9am-7pm
Sat 9:30am-6pm
Sun 10am-5pm

[FBJ]

Good price on the D300 and that $149 55-200 VR lens is a steal (though it isn't their most recent version of their vibratio-reduction tech).

I'm still mulling over the new D300 body. For me (since I'd buy the battery holder/vertical grip), it will mean $2200 tax included. Save up twice again as much and it's the D3. On the other hand, the D200 I have is great, and I could really use a couple more fast lenses for it (particularly a wide-angle, like the 14-24 f/2.8G ED (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2163)).

In any case, it'll be a couple months at least.

[Unfiltered]

Good price on the D300 and that $149 55-200 VR lens is a steal (though it isn't their most recent version of their vibratio-reduction tech).

I'm still mulling over the new D300 body. For me (since I'd buy the battery holder/vertical grip), it will mean $2200 tax included. Save up twice again as much and it's the D3. On the other hand, the D200 I have is great, and I could really use a couple more fast lenses for it (particularly a wide-angle, like the 14-24 f/2.8G ED (http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=2163)).

In any case, it'll be a couple months at least.

I think that Samy's actually advertised the D300 at all surprised me, disclaimer or not.

But I feel ya' on the D300. Adding the grip, you're at $2273 with tax, $2100. In a few months, I bet you could get a D3 for 4 1/2 stacks. If I had an inventory of Nikon glass, and a D200 already, I'd wait it out also.

[FBJ]

I just read a review this afternoon in the December issue of PCPhoto (on my flight between LAS and IND) about the D3. It's got the full-size sensor, so it's compatible with all Nikon lenses. But with the DX lenses, it automatically crops the image sensor down to DX size. When it does this, the effective megapixels drops to 5.1MP. That kinda sucks.

Because of that, I may just opt for the D300 and the battery-grip with another lens.

But then again, I only have one DX lens (the fisheye).

[Unfiltered]

I just read a review this afternoon in the December issue of PCPhoto (on my flight between LAS and IND) about the D3. It's got the full-size sensor, so it's compatible with all Nikon lenses. But with the DX lenses, it automatically crops the image sensor down to DX size. When it does this, the effective megapixels drops to 5.1MP. That kinda sucks.

Because of that, I may just opt for the D300 and the battery-grip with another lens.

But then again, I only have one DX lens (the fisheye).

See? Full frames aren't what they're cracked up to be. ;)

I got the 40D kit special from Samy's. I can't use the $100 gift card until December 1.

Fortunately, the Sandisk rebate runs until 1/5/2008. This will allow me to pickup (2) 4GB Extreme IIIs for about $5 for both after the rebate and gift card!

[DeaderFan]

It looks like most of the stores got their first shipments of D300s on Tuesday or Wednesday--enough to cover waiting lists and allow for limited stock. What I have heard about it is positive so far. I will have mine next week sometime. Should have bought it local and I would have it already!

[FBJ]

It looks like most of the stores got their first shipments of D300s on Tuesday or Wednesday--enough to cover waiting lists and allow for limited stock. What I have heard about it is positive so far. I will have mine next week sometime. Should have bought it local and I would have it already!

Of course, a full review (including pictures...especially low-light, high ISO ones) is requested.

[Unfiltered]

Of course, a full review (including pictures...especially low-light, high ISO ones) is requested.

I second that "request." All the way to 3200. innocent:

[DeaderFan]

Of course, a full review (including pictures...especially low-light, high ISO ones) is requested.


Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.

[Unfiltered]

Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.

I shot with a bit at Samy's on Friday. I dug it quite a bit, but stupid me didn't bring a CF card. (I went to buy not to try. ;))

I really liked the weight and feel of the body with the lens. (I checked it out with what I think it was a 18-135.)
I liked enough about it, but I couldn't justify the extra 500 bucks for the body, and then have to buy new glass. But if I had a D80/200, and a bunch of Nikon lenses, and you wanted to upgrade, I think it's a no-brainer.

While I'm thinking about it, I created a new Group Pool on Flickr for us LGK photogs. I'll update you all when I have a chance.

[FBJ]

Okay. After reading about this in Popular Science, this is the next thing I want to try:

High-Dynamic-Range Photography (http://popsci.typepad.com/how20blog/2007/05/your_guide_to_c.html).

This is the kind of stuff you can do (not my photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/90306278@N00/)):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2358/2059832205_0f2e31c3c4_o.jpg

[FBJ]

Exactly my plan. The high ISO quality is what I am most curious about. I have been lusting after the D3, but the cost and the larger body put me off. Plus I shoot a lot of my kids hockey games and I like the reach I get with the 70-200 on the DX size sensor. When the DX size first came out I wished for a fullsize sensor, but now I have gotten used to the 1.5x factor, and the less glass (and cheaper glass)I have to carry. Shooting hockey I would love to get better results at high ISO. Can you imagine shooting at 6400 and getting quality images? Once we started seeing limitations of lens resolution in 10 and 12 megapixel images, I have to agree with Nikon that the next thing pros would demand would be light sensitivity and not more pixels. The D3 is probably the most interesting pro camera to come along in years--a journalist and wedding photographer's dream.

Unfortunately it's just a little too expensive for something I mostly use for a hobby.
My hope is that the D300 provides a decent compromise between cost and high ISO image quality. The 3" LCD, extra pixels, and live viewing are a bonus.

There was an(other) interesting article in this month's PCPhoto magazine about improving your low/light, high ISO photographs. (http://www.pcphotomag.com/how-to/digital-photography-techniques/trick-shots-low-light.html)

After reading this article (specifically the part about the guy's student who was so worried about noise that he was reluctant to jack the ISO of his camera up so he could attain the proper shutter speed for his focal length), I realized that I was far too worried about noise. I've also started thinking about buying the Noise Ninja (http://www.picturecode.com/) plugin for PS.

With the picture being sharper due to the higher shutter speed, it will come out to be a MUCH better image (even before you run it through a noise-reduction plugin) than it would have without utilizing the higher ISO settings of your camera. Though having a camera with a CMOS sensor will be very nice (when I do manage to get one), I'm going to stop worrying about higher ISO noise for the time being.

[FBJ]

Nice D300 review (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm).

[Unfiltered]

Nice D300 review (http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d300.htm).

Sweet! I didn't know Ken updated his D300 page. Thanks, FBJ!

[Unfiltered]

Okay. After reading about this in Popular Science, this is the next thing I want to try:

High-Dynamic-Range Photography (http://popsci.typepad.com/how20blog/2007/05/your_guide_to_c.html).

This is the kind of stuff you can do (not my photo (http://www.flickr.com/people/90306278@N00/)):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2358/2059832205_0f2e31c3c4_o.jpg

Yeah, delving into the HDR world is something I plan on doing with the 40D. I can't wait!

You can find the HDR Surreal pool on Flickr here (http://flickr.com/groups/hdr-surreal/pool/).

Another HDR tut (http://www.slrphotographyguide.com/hdr-photo.shtml).

[FBJ]

I just realized that I'll need to upgrade my version of Photoshop in order to work HDR. Argh. There's $199 I'll need to spend.

I could go with http://qtpfsgui.sourceforge.net/ to start out though, since it's free.

[DeaderFan]

Got the D300 today. Pulled it out of the box, charged the battery and put a 28-200 on it. It wouldn't focus-just hunted no matter what I aimed it at. So I put the 18-200 VR and got the same result. One of my D200 bodies was defective from the factory, so I was beginning to think "here we go again." So I switched it from Single Servo mode to Continuous Servo auto focus. Single servo by default won't let you take a picture unless it gets a focus lock. It still hunted, but I was able to release the shutter. After taking that one out-of-focus picture, all focus modes started working. It's the weirdest thing and doesn't give one a lot of confidence that it won't have a problem down the road. It also taints my first impression.

I will take some picture over the next couple days and get back to you with details. Tonight I cut right to the chase and took a picture in my office under fluorescent lights at ISO 1600, 160/sec at f3.5 and auto white balance with both the D300 and the D200. The results were fairly dramatic. The D200 had a pink cast to it and noticeable noise, especially chromatic noise. The D300 had near perfect white balance, some noise but very little chromatic artifacts. It's nowhere near what we have been seeing from the D3 but it is definitely better than the D200. Next I shot the same shots (still in the office) at 200,400, 800 and 1600 ISO. The color accuracy was better for all on the D300. As far as noise, the D300 at 1600 was better than the D200 at 800 ISO. I would say the D200 probably has comparable noise at an ISO setting somewhere between 400-800. That's all for now. More later.

If you have any suggestions for comparing, I'd be happy to try it.

[DeaderFan]

A quick example. These are small portions taken from two of the photos I took. These are window blinds in the corner of my office, in shadow. The blinds and wall are white.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2069596297_1238717ad9.jpg?v=0
D300 at 1600 ISO

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2142/2070390386_db8f5d61ba.jpg?v=0
D200 at 1600 ISO

[VF]

Congrats on the new body! No fun not having it work as you expect out of the box, but good to hear it seems to be working now. As for the high ISO noise (or more accurately, the lack thereof) I have been reading that the D3 has fairly aggressive and sophisticated noise reduction algorithm going on in camera, and I wonder if the D300 has the same thing, only less so, but I have no idea how you would test that.

I have been itching to upload my Thanksgiving pics, but work has been an absolute bear this week (there is even an HDR sunset since you guys have been talking about them)

[DeaderFan]

Thanks! I think that there might be some truth to the idea that they are applying more sophisticated algorithms. But I think the fundamental design differences play a part too. In the case of the D300 it is moving to a CMOS sensor which inherently produces less noise. In the case of the D3 it is the larger sensor and micro lenses. Whatever it is I'm happy to have more sensitivity.

The D300 also employs an optional D-lighting function to preserve highlight detail, which is kind of intriguing. Lack of exposure latitude and highlight clipping is one of the things that has always has bugged me about digital camera images. I will have to play with it and see what it does.

Also, today's announcement by Nikon of loadable user settings (available on their site) that match color to the D2X is kind of cool too.

[FBJ]

Thanks for the sample pics. Amazing difference!

[Unfiltered]

A quick example. These are small portions taken from two of the photos I took. These are window blinds in the corner of my office, in shadow. The blinds and wall are white.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2181/2069596297_1238717ad9.jpg?v=0
D300 at 1600 ISO

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2142/2070390386_db8f5d61ba.jpg?v=0
D200 at 1600 ISO

Were both images shot in RAW? That is quite a bit more noise on the D200.

I'm excited for you and I hope that first impression is molded into a genuine love for the D300. I'm looking forward to seeing shots this weekend. :)

[DeaderFan]

The images were shot using mostly default settings and saved as jpegs. I wanted to see what the camera's processing would do with the images. Although now that you mentioned it, I went back and checked the NR settings and the D200 was set to "Low" rather than "Normal" which would have been the default. So maybe the D200 could have done a little better. I set it to low for my normal shooting and do NR in Photoshop later and I forgot to reset it. So this comparison may not be totally fair, but I will say that my experience with the D200 is that auto white balance is a problem at high ISO and the D300 appears to be better at that.

----Update

This is a similar image shot with the D200 at the same exposure with NR set to 'NORM"

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2274/2071021892_fbc654e82c.jpg?v=0
D200 - 1600 ISO with "Normal" high ISO NR

It is less grainy but detail is lost. The detail of the vertical lines of the blinds holds up much better with the D300. To me, the D200 NR looks blotchy.Keep in mind that this is a 465 pixel square out of a 3872x2592 image. It also looks like I might have a stuck pixel. Also notice color balance is different from the prior image. It's the consistency of auto white balance that is the problem at high ISO. I sometimes take continuous shots and they are all just a little different--this is under fluorescent of vapor lights at high ISO.

[Unfiltered]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2274/2071021892_fbc654e82c.jpg?v=0
D200 - 1600 ISO with "Normal" high ISO NR

It is less grainy but detail is lost. The detail of the vertical lines of the blinds holds up much better with the D300. To me, the D200 NR looks blotchy.Keep in mind that this is a 465 pixel square out of a 3872x2592 image. It also looks like I might have a stuck pixel. Also notice color balance is different from the prior image. It's the consistency of auto white balance that is the problem at high ISO. I sometimes take continuous shots and they are all just a little different--this is under fluorescent of vapor lights at high ISO.

Ah, less noise for sure on this one.

I can see the problem the AWB is causing. It's acceptance of what is white sure is taking a lot of the white out of it.

[VF]

Here (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/posts/tests/D300_40D_tests/) is an very technical (so probably not very useful in real world terms) comparison of the D300 and 40D sensors. But what is interesting is the D300 does some processing before the file is written to RAW (it looks like the 1Ds MkIII might do this as well now, which just seems to go against the whole RAW thing). Also I found it interesting that there isn't much difference in dynamic range between the 12 and 14 bit modes for the D300 (or for any camera), about 1/3 of a stop, which means that the overall size of the loaf of bread is about the the same for 12 and 14 bits, but with 14 bits your slices of bread will be thinner, which means the noticeable difference should be better gradations and less posterization.

On a completely unrelated note, it looks like the 1Ds MkIII will release Friday! At 21mp it will be interesting to see if they can keep the noise under control. If it does, it could give some competition to the medium format bodies for studio shooters, but with the distinct advantage of 5fps. You just need to be ready for the 25MB image size.

For 8 large, it better be good :)

[DeaderFan]

Interesting article, thanks. It looks like the D300 is a significant improvement over the D200 but the 40D is still has the edge in IQ. My understanding is that the D300 uses a Sony sensor that does some NR on the chip. Sony has manufactured mostly CCDs in the past and so perhaps they are a little behind Canon in CMOS technology. The article appears to confirm that the D3 is likely a state-of-the-art benchmark camera.

I am also anxious to see what the 1Ds Mark III can do. The density of the photosites would be comparable to a 14MP DX/APS sensor which would lead you to think noise might be a problem. I will be interested to see what kind of technology they employ to address noise and light fall off in the corners of the image. I'm not sure I'm ready for a 21MP image in a 35mm format though. The workflow would consume a lot of resources and you really can only use the very top quality lenses, which is another huge investment. Although it is still probably cheaper than most medium format digitals.

[Unfiltered]

Interesting article, thanks. It looks like the D300 is a significant improvement over the D200 but the 40D is still has the edge in IQ. My understanding is that the D300 uses a Sony sensor that does some NR on the chip. Sony has manufactured mostly CCDs in the past and so perhaps they are a little behind Canon in CMOS technology. The article appears to confirm that the D3 is likely a state-of-the-art benchmark camera.

I am also anxious to see what the 1Ds Mark III can do. The density of the photosites would be comparable to a 14MP DX/APS sensor which would lead you to think noise might be a problem. I will be interested to see what kind of technology they employ to address noise and light fall off in the corners of the image. I'm not sure I'm ready for a 21MP image in a 35mm format though. The workflow would consume a lot of resources and you really can only use the very top quality lenses, which is another huge investment. Although it is still probably cheaper than most medium format digitals.

I'm looking forward to it, as well.

The non-S Mark III got a firmware upgrade today. Did they not recall these in the US?


1. Increases transmission speed when using high-speed SD cards.
2. Fixes a phenomenon involving not being able to release the shutter.
3. Improves AF tracking in specific conditions.
4. Corrects errors in the Spanish and Korean menu screens.

[VF]

The non-S Mark III got a firmware upgrade today. Did they not recall these in the US?

There is supposedly a serial number range (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=14999&keycode=2112&id=39707) which is affected, and you can send it in for warranty repair to get what they are calling the "blue dot fix" (as the boxes they come back in have a blue sticker on them). So, Canon isn't calling it a recall, but you can get the sub-mirror replaced for free if you think your camera is affected, which certainly sounds like a recall to me.

[VF]

I am also anxious to see what the 1Ds Mark III can do. The density of the photosites would be comparable to a 14MP DX/APS sensor which would lead you to think noise might be a problem. I will be interested to see what kind of technology they employ to address noise and light fall off in the corners of the image. I'm not sure I'm ready for a 21MP image in a 35mm format though. The workflow would consume a lot of resources and you really can only use the very top quality lenses, which is another huge investment. Although it is still probably cheaper than most medium format digitals.

Looking at it again, the pixel pitch of the 1Ds MkIII is (6.4 ?m) actually less dense than the 40D (5.7 ?m), so...perhaps there is hope that the noise won't be too bad. Not like it matters for me personally though, as that body is way out of my price range, so I will have to keep driving my 5D until it dies ;)

As for the vignetting, I have to say I haven't run into it that much on the 5D (same physically sized sensor as the 1Ds) using most decent primes, but that is definitely true with zooms, you really need the L glass to avoid it. I would also imagine that at 21mp, the sensor is going to start out resolving the cheaper lenses, so you are going to want to hang some pretty fancy glass on it.

[FBJ]

I fondled a D300 this morning. Bigger screen is cool. Functions on the screen is cool. Live view is cool. Everything else I can live without, really. Noise Ninja is my friend.

Also, I'm told that it could be a month or so before accessories like the battery grip come out. Boo.

I'm going to save up for the D3. And then I'll never purchase another DSLR again.

[FBJ]

Okay. HDR is a BITCH!!! Why can't I get it to turn out all cool and stuff?? :(

[DeaderFan]

I fondled a D300 this morning. Bigger screen is cool. Functions on the screen is cool. Live view is cool. Everything else I can live without, really. Noise Ninja is my friend.

Also, I'm told that it could be a month or so before accessories like the battery grip come out. Boo.

I'm going to save up for the D3. And then I'll never purchase another DSLR again.

Not a bad call. It's not a major upgrade. The D300 is more like a D200x. For me, I also like the improved high ISO, better AF, and for some of my work, image authentication. And since I like to shoot my kid's sports, the DX lens multiplication factor is a good thing. I also like the physical size. I had a D1x before the D200 and it felt clumsy. Going to the D200 was like when I went from an F4 to a F100. It felt good. The smaller body is just so much easier to handle and carry.

That said, the D3 looks like something special. I'm actually thinking about selling my medium format equipment and getting a D3 somewhere down the road. Then I will have the D300 to travel with and the D3 for those occasions where I really need it. Either that or hope the D400 incorporates the D3 technology. In the meantime, I'm thinking about that new 14-24mm 2.8 lens but there is no release date for that yet.

[FBJ]

In the meantime, I'm thinking about that new 14-24mm 2.8 lens but there is no release date for that yet.

The guys at Hooper were hoping there would be one in their warehouse shipment this afternoon.

[Unfiltered]

Okay. HDR is a BITCH!!! Why can't I get it to turn out all cool and stuff?? :(

Because you suck. ;) I haven't ventured into it yet. I want to get used to new beast before I do figuring I'm going to run into all of the things you've already experienced.

Ya' willing to post what you DID put together?

[FBJ]

Yeah, I'll post what I put together...when I can get the programs I'm attempting to use to put out something that looks half-ass-decent. So far, the only thing I can get the processors to put out is drastically under-exposed-looking garbage.

[VF]

Okay. HDR is a BITCH!!! Why can't I get it to turn out all cool and stuff?? :(

The down side of HDR is that it is very easy to get washed out bland looking images because you are tying to display a lot of information in a very small space. In the end it all comes down to the tone mapping, you have to find a curve that preserves your highlights and your shadows, while still being steep enough in the tones you care about to give contrast. I find I seem to get the best results when I use the Local Adaptation option when converting from 32 bits/channel to 8 bits/channel, that way you can directly manipulate your toning curve (you can click and hold with your mouse over an area of an image to see where it is on the tone curve to make it easier to steepen or shallow out and area you are interested in). It is still something that I am very bad at. It also helps to start with an image that you will care about seeing the extreme highs and lows, and as it turns out my attempt at the sunset was a very poor example as it would have looked great just in silhouette, but at least you can see it is working (and this image seems to be suffering greatly from the Lightroom export debacle)

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4300.jpg

[FBJ]

Alright. Since Sam has uploaded his crappy image, I guess I'll upload mine.

;)

These were taken yesterday at the Reagan Library.

http://gcalvin.com/files/HDRTailTry2.jpg
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDRBellyTry1.jpg
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDREngineTry1.jpg

I think the initial problem I was having (using qtpfsgui) was that I was trying to combine too many images that had too little an exposure difference between them. I then downloaded and tried Photomatix and it seemed to work a bit better, but when I chose fewer images to combine (i.e. every fourth image in a sixteen-image bracket), it worked better yet.

I think that I shot wrong to begin with. I think a two-stop exposure difference between images is the minimum you'd want. Also, I think that maybe this wasn't the best setting/picture for the attempt. I figured it would be, what with the bright day through the windows of the building in front of Air Force 1 and that darkness inside, but I can't seem to get things matched up well enough to allow a properly exposed window-view and interior at the same time.

Sam, are you using CS3 to create your HDRs?

[VF]

Alright. Since Sam has uploaded his crappy image, I guess I'll upload mine.

;)

Oh SNAP! :) I think I the tail shot is interesting because although it isn't immediately obvious it is HDR, you can see the highlights are under control, the one thing I feel is that I would like a little more weight to the blacks, perhaps letting the numbers and the blue portion of the flag clip a bit, but I like that shot, it has an interesting feel to it. The shot under the engine is cool because you can still see a lot of detail in the sky (and it is an interesting sky), but I wonder if you have anymore range to see what is going on in the shadows at the back of the engine, or does it just start feeling flat if you expand the range that much? With the under the belly shot, I also wonder how much room you still have in the shadows to bring them up and try and bring the sky down a little, but it seems that if you do that it might be hard to get interesting contrast in the rest of the image. This is why HDRs are hard :)


Sam, are you using CS3 to create your HDRs?

Yeah, I use their little tool. But I am starting to think doing it manually (lay up my three exposures, 0, +2 over, -2 under, as layers and use layer masks, perhaps with blending options, so paint in areas I want) might be a little more user friendly, although much more time consuming.

[FBJ]

The more work I do with these things, the better I think Photoshop will handle it. QTPFSGUI is too bare-bones and isn't very user-friendly. Photomatix is more user-friendly, but doesn't seem like it can grab the contrast as well.

Argh. $199 for a Photoshop upgrade.

I really need to take a class in PS, too.

[DeaderFan]

I really need to take a class in PS, too.

Don't we all! I bought the Total Training DVDs for CS and got through 3 discs and they came out with CS2. Now I have CS3 Extended sitting on the shelf but it makes me tired to just think of installing it and having to learning all the new features.

The HDR stuff you guys are doing is interesting. I've never looked into it before. I did however take some photos with the "Active D-Lighting" feature on the D300. I liked the results. Unfortunately the picures are of my 12-year-old daughter so I don't really want to post them on the internet. But I will find something else to post soon.

[VF]

If you are the kind of person that can stand his hyper animated style of talking, awesome PS tuts: http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html

[DeaderFan]

Nice. Just added it to my Photoshop "favorites" in my browser. Thanks for the link. I'm gonna try some of those.

[rinkrat]

Should I get a flash for my D30?

Hey I have to try some of this HDR stuff.

[FBJ]

Should I get a flash for my D30?

Hey I have to try some of this HDR stuff.

Yes. Get a flash. Especially one with a tilt/bounce-head and a diffuser.

[VF]

Should I get a flash for my D30?

Hey I have to try some of this HDR stuff.

I highly recommend a flash. The hard part is choosing which one. The 580EX II is the caddy of the Canon speedlights, both in terms of power and features (namely the ability to act as the master flash that can control up to two groups of slaves). The 420EX is a close runner up, not as powerful, and slightly less features, but still an outstanding flash. The nice thing about the 580EX is that it has a PC port on it, so if you want to trigger it remotely using Pocket Wizards, or more cheaply, EBay triggers (http://cgi.ebay.com/4-Channel-Wireless-Flash-V2-Trigger-Receiver-V2_W0QQitemZ130177310248QQihZ003QQcategoryZ64354QQ rdZ1QQssPageNameZWD7VQQcmdZViewItem). Both can rotate for bounce.

There are other "off brand" flashes which are cheaper, and offer a lot of the same features, such as the Sigma EF-530.

If you don't care about E-TTL and just want full manual, it gets really cheap, such as the Vivitar 285HV

[FBJ]

Don't call me a **** but I took these pictures at the Reagan Library the other day, too. The wife wanted to see what was there in the "First Lady's Style" exhibit.

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/v/RRLibrary/

Sort of a "nothing beats existing light and a tripod" sort of post. That being said, though...my tripod sucks major arse. It is the next thing gettin' upgraded.

[rinkrat]

I highly recommend a flash. The hard part is choosing which one. The 580EX II is the caddy of the Canon speedlights, both in terms of power and features (namely the ability to act as the master flash that can control up to two groups of slaves). The 420EX is a close runner up, not as powerful, and slightly less features, but still an outstanding flash. The nice thing about the 580EX is that it has a PC port on it, so if you want to trigger it remotely using Pocket Wizards, or more cheaply, EBay triggers (http://cgi.ebay.com/4-Channel-Wireless-Flash-V2-Trigger-Receiver-V2_W0QQitemZ130177310248QQihZ003QQcategoryZ64354QQ rdZ1QQssPageNameZWD7VQQcmdZViewItem). Both can rotate for bounce.

There are other "off brand" flashes which are cheaper, and offer a lot of the same features, such as the Sigma EF-530.

If you don't care about E-TTL and just want full manual, it gets really cheap, such as the Vivitar 285HV


Looks like the 580EX is the ticket. I think it's on sale at Amazon too.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NP3DJW?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000NP3DJW

[VF]

I have the first gen version of that flash (the not II) and I LOVE it. Powerful, recharges quickly, lots and lots of features.

The Canon flash system seems to be a little different from everyone else's, which if you are coming from another system (namely Nikon, as everyone who has used the Nikon flash system loves it and loathes the Canon system) it tends to frustrate people, but since I have never known anything else, I find it very easy. Basically, there is a flash exposure compensation that you set with the wheel on the back of the flash. This sets the exposure for what the camera thinks the subject of the picture is (what it has focus lock on). Then on the camera itself, you have the exposure compensation, which in Av and Tv modes is changed by the wheel on the back of the camera. This controls the ambient exposure.

So, if you are trying to take a picture of someone in front of a sunset say, where you want the sunset to be a bit underexposed to get more color out of it, and you want the face of the person to be properly exposed, you dial the flash exposure to +/-0, and you set the camera's exposure compensation to -1, and presto chango you have a nice dark but not too dark sunset and a properly exposed person. If you are taking pictures in bright noon sun and you want a little fill flash, you set the camera's exposure to +/-0, and you set the flash to something like -1, and you get some nice fill on faces.

What I think a lot of people find annoying or confusing (and perhaps the Nikonians can better fill me in with this) is that with a lot of systems there isn't that disconnect between the flash and the camera exposure, which can lead to things if you are taking pictures in very dark environments, and you have the camera exposure not dialed all the way down, you hit the shutter, the flash goes off, and the shutter stays open for 15" trying to get enough light to meet the exposure requirement you set with the camera exposure compensation. So you might have situations where you want to go Tv or full manual on the camera (E-TTL will still work with the flash even with the camera in manual) to force the shutter speeds you want.

[VF]

Looks like the 580EX is the ticket. I think it's on sale at Amazon too.

Nice! Way to throw down :) Two resources I would suggets, the first is a great blog about off camera flash use is The Strobist (http://strobist.blogspot.com/), specifically his lighting 101 (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html) and 102 (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/lighting-102-introduction.html).


The other handy flash trick is using a bounce card (http://abetterbouncecard.com/) when photographing events (very boring videos, but relatively informative)

[Unfiltered]

Looks like the 580EX is the ticket. I think it's on sale at Amazon too.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000NP3DJW?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B000NP3DJW

That's a really good price.

[FBJ]

Another of the accessories I need is a second SB800 speedlight. That's down low on the list of **** I need, though.

Up top right now is a new tripod and ball head, a focusing rail, and a set of macro tubes.

[VF]

Another of the accessories I need is a second SB800 speedlight. That's down low on the list of **** I need, though.

Up top right now is a new tripod and ball head, a focusing rail, and a set of macro tubes.

For some reason choosing a tripod was really hard for me, but I ended up getting the Velbon Sherpa 600R with a Manfrotto 808RC4 (a three axis head, not a ball) which I have been really happy with. I got the three axis head over the ball only because I have to use it at work to support a 3D scanner, and isolating the three axis can be really handy, and it just feels super sturdy when you crank down on it (although I have never used a ball, so I can't really compare).

As for the second flash, I went with the more studio strobe Alien Bee 800 (http://www.alienbees.com/b800.html), which I very much enjoy. If I have the option, I will use that instead of the 580EX, even though it is full manual. The power is awesome, and you can do really cool things like over power the sun from a distance or really light up a huge umbrella (and you don't have to worry about batteries, only having an outlet.)

[FBJ]

Here's a few from San Fernando Mission this afternoon. I wanted to get out and practice working with one lens a little. These are all shot with the 50mm.

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/d/762-2/_GCC0004.jpg

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/d/769-1/_GCC0016.jpg

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/d/778-2/_GCC0024.jpg

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/d/784-1/_GCC0030.jpg

http://gcalvin.com/gallery/d/796-1/_GCC0045.jpg

[Unfiltered]

D3 Unboxing (http://www.chomac.com/)

[VF]

Finally got the pics from Thanksgiving up (full gallery (http://www.sampage.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=2425&g2_enterAlbum=1)):

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4298.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071123_4354.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071123_4352.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4258.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4272.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4255.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071124_4442.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071123_4355.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071124_4374.jpg

[VF]

Here's a few from San Fernando Mission this afternoon. I wanted to get out and practice working with one lens a little. These are all shot with the 50mm.

Love the fountain shot. Are you going to keep the 50?

[FBJ]

Love the fountain shot. Are you going to keep the 50?

Thanks. Yeah.

Your page is set up with Gallery, right? What theme is that you're using?

[FBJ]

D3 Unboxing (http://www.chomac.com/)

Who's?

[Unfiltered]

Who's?

Not sure. It's just the first unboxing I've seen in the wild. (Via Engadget)

[Unfiltered]

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071122_4258.jpg



I LOVE the grading on this!

[VF]

I LOVE the grading on this!

Thanks! If I recall correctly it is Lightroom selenium tone right out of the box.

[Unfiltered]

Thanks! If I recall correctly it is Lightroom selenium tone right out of the box.

It's obvious what you were going for and it works great, preset or not. :)

Is that a Fairlane?

[VF]

Thanks. Yeah.

Your page is set up with Gallery, right? What theme is that you're using?

I am using the PG theme, which (along with a bunch of others) can be found here (http://codex.gallery2.org/Category:Gallery_2:Themes)

[FBJ]

Okay. Next question is how to get those themes up on my gallery site. Doesn't look as if I can just upload it to my server. But then again, the instructions look half Greek.

I've found another theme that I'm okay with for now (Siriux), but I'd like some more control over its color pack.

[FBJ]

Okay...here's a question for the Photoshop guru's in here:

Is there a way in PS to take correct the distortion in an image that's introduced by a fisheye lens?

EDIT: I've just tried a plug-in called PTLens. It takes out the distortion, but it makes the edges of the image very fuzzy with a lot of artifacts when it does. AND it only works on jpg images for some reason.

[VF]

Okay. Next question is how to get those themes up on my gallery site. Doesn't look as if I can just upload it to my server. But then again, the instructions look half Greek.

I've found another theme that I'm okay with for now (Siriux), but I'd like some more control over its color pack.

I'm trying to remember how I did it, but if I remember correctly, I unzipped on my local machine, then copied the theme files to the proper remote folders (just copied all the contents of the local modules folder to the remote modules folder, etc.) Once the files where copied, you then have to "install" the theme by going to the site admin select Plug-ins, scroll down to themes and click the install option (I think that is how it goes).

[VF]

Okay...here's a question for the Photoshop guru's in here:

Is there a way in PS to take correct the distortion in an image that's introduced by a fisheye lens?

EDIT: I've just tried a plug-in called PTLens. It takes out the distortion, but it makes the edges of the image very fuzzy with a lot of artifacts when it does. AND it only works on jpg images for some reason.

Filter -> Distort -> Lens Correction? Any correcting is going to degrade the edges a bit because you are going to have to stretch the edges of a fisheye quite a bit to get it into a rectilinear shape

[FBJ]

I am using the PG theme, which (along with a bunch of others) can be found here (http://codex.gallery2.org/Category:Gallery_2:Themes)

Wow. That theme has a lot of CRAP in it that needs to be changed around in order to get it personalized.

I don't even know where to begin, and even if I did, my html skills are minimal. That one isn't for me.

[VF]

Wow. That theme has a lot of CRAP in it that needs to be changed around in order to get it personalized.

I don't even know where to begin, and even if I did, my html skills are minimal. That one isn't for me.

Yeah, it's got a LOT of options. I remember sitting with it for like a week trying to get what I wanted, and quite honestly, now I can't remember all I had to do, so I'm not sure I would be of much help to you. What I do seem to remember though is that the vast majority of the setup was under the site admin and then under the themes link, almost everything can be set up from there.


Now that I think about it, the above is a lie. I do remember having to do some editing to style sheets and what not to get my Personal Gallery image to show up. I'll dig into it if you are interested.

Here is the Gallery article (http://codex.gallery2.org/Gallery2:How_to_visually_embed_Gallery_in_your_own _website_by_editing_theme_templates) which covers some of it.

[FBJ]

Okay. Let me just say that I am REALLY proud of this image:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2088/2090612610_efa2f687bd_b.jpg

I went out close to sundown this afternoon with the express intent of working on the sharpness of my images. I'm trying to get away from the concern about image noise in favor of ISOs that I'm unaccustomed to using (because of the worry about noise) so that I can get higher shutter speeds to decrease blur caused by camera shake. This was at ISO 400, f/2.8 and 1/800th. Turned out nice and sharp! I'd like some more propeller blur, and I probably could have gone up an f-stop to slow the shutter speed down to get it, but oh well.

Sam,

I wrestled around with Gallery some more today. I managed to get it to look somewhat close to what I'm after. I'm still trying to decide how best to organize my images for a more orderly, "professional-looking" presentation.

gcalvin.com/gallery (http://gcalvin.com/gallery)

I still have a lot of work to do. I need a custom graphic for the top of the page among other things.

[VF]

I like the new gallery theme a lot better! That is looking quite nice now.

The plane shot looks great. Personally, I really like the amount of prop blur that you are getting (as you can still see the blades distinctly) at 1/800th, besides I think it might be a busy background if you bumped your aperture much. Call me crazy, but I wouldn't think you would want to change the settings much from what you took the pic at :)

And holly CRAP, that ball head on your wish list can hold 22 pounds! Makes me think I should have looked at ball heads a bit more before purchasing my head.

[VF]

I'm trying to get away from the concern about image noise in favor of ISOs that I'm unaccustomed to using (because of the worry about noise) so that I can get higher shutter speeds to decrease blur caused by camera shake.

I finally got around to reading that article you posted from PCPhoto about this, one thing I wanted to throw in there is when you are worried about noise, try shooting with the histogram as far the right as possible without clipping. This means you want to overexpose the shot as much as possible because noise hides in the shadows, then bring you exposure down in post.

[FBJ]

And holly CRAP, that ball head on your wish list can hold 22 pounds! Makes me think I should have looked at ball heads a bit more before purchasing my head.

Hah! 22lbs! I didn't notice that! I think the tripod can only support 11! I might need to re-evaluate my tripod requirements. Since the primary use of the tripod would be landscapes/macro/portraiture, I don't have any plans to use the tripod and ball-head with the big lens. Nevertheless, I wonder what the D200, battery pack, and 70-200 lens weigh together? I suppose it would be nice to have a tripod and ball-head that can handle the weight of the big stuff in case I ever need it.

[FBJ]

Okay guys. As of today, I am officially a professional photographer!!

I got an email from a guy at the CBC who wanted to purchase the rights to this picture:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/512693613_0c5bfa1888.jpg

and use it to illustrate a follow-up to this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/12/05/nhl-bertuzzi-moore-lawsuit.html

He offered me $25 and I said okay.

Go me.

[Unfiltered]

Okay guys. As of today, I am officially a professional photographer!!

I got an email from a guy at the CBC who wanted to purchase the rights to this picture:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/202/512693613_0c5bfa1888.jpg

and use it to illustrate a follow-up to this article:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2007/12/05/nhl-bertuzzi-moore-lawsuit.html

He offered me $25 and I said okay.

Go me.

W00T! Awesome! See? That assclown is good for something other than adding to the Kings' organization loss record.

[VF]

Wow, that is awesome, congrats!

Did he tell you how he found it?

[FBJ]

He said he'd searched flickr for Marc Crawford.

I really sort of posted this as a funny thing. I find it more amusing than anything else. I don't necessarily have any aspirations of being a professional photographer unless the current career takes a turn for whatever reason. I guess it's good that I've sold something. Now if he actually uses it, that'll be another story.

[VF]

That tells me two things right there: I need to get hip to the flickr, and I need to be better about key wording :)

[rinkrat]

I had a magazine ask for a few Cammy pics and then they didn't use them. :(

A goalie school asked for pics of Quick so maybe I still have a chance at fame and fortune. I'll have to get going on flickr too. ;)

[FBJ]

Flickr: It's the ****, Yo!

I should sell them that. It'd be a good advertising slogan in some places.

[DeaderFan]

Hey BoeingJets,

I was checking out the Young Gallery the other day and I came across this photographer that made me think of you. This series is by France Bizot, called "Aircraft windows."

This gallery charges big bucks for prints. Now that you are a "pro," maybe you too can start raking in the cash :)



http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/bizot/images/06.jpg


Here is the link for the gallery: http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography.html

By the way, I was flying back to LAX from PHX yesterday on an older 300 series and we had to declare an emergency and go back because the cabin started smelling like smoke. You guys get that often?

[FBJ]

Nope. Chances are it was a recirculation fan going bad. Happens every now and again, but isn't anything dangerous.

Hope we took good care of you during that, though. Lots of passengers would tend to "think big" when the reason for returning is rather small.

http://www.younggalleryphoto.com/photography/milstein/images/001.jpg

[VF]

Okay...here's a question for the Photoshop guru's in here:

Is there a way in PS to take correct the distortion in an image that's introduced by a fisheye lens?

EDIT: I've just tried a plug-in called PTLens. It takes out the distortion, but it makes the edges of the image very fuzzy with a lot of artifacts when it does. AND it only works on jpg images for some reason.

Another plug-in I completely forgot to mention is DxO, but it isn't cheap ($300)

[FBJ]

D3 Review.

http://www.letsgodigital.org/html/review/nikon/d3/nikon-d3-photo-gallery.html

D3 vs 5D Comparison

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/vs-5d-180mm.htm

[FBJ]

Just f'in around today:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/2099428640/

That'd be a good stock photo. I might have to redo that one with the camera mounted on a tripod set to a lower ISO and have it on a background instead of just on the floor.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/2098693901/

I didn't realize how dirty my living room floor was. This photo is kind of strange, because it looks as if the tower tilts to the right. I swear I lined up the tower to the crop grid when I rotated it! I even tried it three times! I think the near-white highlight on the right side of the tower of blocks draws they eye and makes it appear tilted when it isn't.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[DeaderFan]

Nope. Chances are it was a recirculation fan going bad. Happens every now and again, but isn't anything dangerous.

Hope we took good care of you during that, though. Lots of passengers would tend to "think big" when the reason for returning is rather small.


Our captain said it smelled like grease in the A/C system and said it was nothing to worry about. However I heard him tell the maintenance guys who came on the plane that he was not going to fly it again. One of the flight attendants also said he was getting off. It was a little exciting to see the PHX fire crew lined up along the runway as we landed, but there were no problems.

Thanks for posting the reviews on the D3. Looks like the much cheaper 5D still stands up to it fairly well. So far I have been very happy with the D300. Both the white balance and auto focus performance are noticably better than my D200. I still have not taken a lot of shots yet. Perhaps when I get some time over the holidays.

[FBJ]

Anyone who uses flickr:

I just realized something about the way that's site's image protection works. Normally, if someone right clicks and tries to save any of my images, they're unable. However, if while logged into flickr, I right click and copy image location to post a picture here via the image tags, it completely removes all download restrictions on the image.

Word to those who want to protect their work. I need to develope a watermark.

[VF]

Just f'in around today:

That'd be a good stock photo. I might have to redo that one with the camera mounted on a tripod set to a lower ISO and have it on a background instead of just on the floor.



I think the wood floor has a very "homey" feel that works well with the blocks, but I guess it never hurts to try it out :)


I didn't realize how dirty my living room floor was. This photo is kind of strange, because it looks as if the tower tilts to the right. I swear I lined up the tower to the crop grid when I rotated it! I even tried it three times! I think the near-white highlight on the right side of the tower of blocks draws they eye and makes it appear tilted when it isn't.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

For me, it is the horizontal shelves, they look like the are sloping down on the left, which I am guessing might be due to not being perfectly parallel to the shelf unit when taking the shot. That or you have crooked shelving ;) I also really like the GCC0041, a very contemplative look. CGG0004, omg that is a cute cat, great shot, those Christmas lights really have a nice quality of light to them.

[FBJ]

I think the wood floor has a very "homey" feel that works well with the blocks, but I guess it never hurts to try it out :)

Good point. Though I think I'll have to play with the yellow hues a bit.

That and clean the floor before I shoot it next time.



For me, it is the horizontal shelves, they look like the are sloping down on the left, which I am guessing might be due to not being perfectly parallel to the shelf unit when taking the shot. That or you have crooked shelving ;)

Another good point. Since the shelves are straight, it must be that I didn't have the camera's face parallel to the shelves. It's amazing how a relatively small oversight like that can make or break the image.

[FBJ]

double post...sorry

[DeaderFan]

Although I have not taken many pictures yet with the D300, I happened to be at TSC during a Kings practice. Unfortunately I only had my 50mm lens with me. I shot this picture though the glass. While nothing special, it gives you an idea of what the camera can do under the lights at TSC. This was shot at ISO 1000 at 1/800 sec., F2, recorded as a jpeg on "Norm" setting.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2103/2104355907_9af6aeaa7d.jpg?v=0

Here is a full resolution crop of just the goalie's mask, to give you a better idea of the image quality.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2334/2105133420_d76918fd15.jpg?v=0

[VF]

Wow, where you shooting custom white balance (like off a gray card) or did it white balance on its own? Looks great! Noise is fantastic as well for ISO 1000. Does this body also have some version of highlight priority? Did you get a chance to test that with the ice?

Very, very impressive image.

[DeaderFan]

The white balance was set to Auto. I took about a dozen shots and some had a little bit of a pink cast due to the vapor lights. You can see it a little in the lower left corner of this one. Other areas of the ice are balanced correctly. The problem at TSC is that some lights are pink and others are not so you get spots on the ice that are pinker than others. Also the corner of the ice below the security booth is in shadow and about a half stop darker than the rest of the ice. Still this rink is way better than most. On the Olympic side they converted to fluorescent lights and the lighting seems very flat and not quite as bright. I have not tried shooting on that side yet since they changed.

When I shoot at TSC (my kid's hockey) I shoot manual and set the exposure off the gray brick wall and Stanley Cup poster. This gets me close. I also look at the histograms of my first couple shots. Sometimes I might also use a hand-held light meter if I have it with me and am close to the ice surface. The thing about hockey is there is so much white ice that auto exposure often makes everything gray.

I think the auto white balance on this camera does a great job. With my D200 it varied quite a bit. Sometimes I would balance off the ice and still get inconsistent results. I had a wedding photographer friend play with my D300 a bit and he too was very impressed with the white balance. The D300 focus accuracy on moving objects seems better too.

[FBJ]

Last time I shot at TSC, I took a custom white balance setting off the ice itself. Worked pretty well.

Nice stuff, DF.

I need to work more so I can save faster.

[rinkrat]

So I took your advice and got the 580EXII and used it for the first time at the Derby Dolls chanpionship game. I was amazed at how much it evenly lit huge areas or even select parts of an area. Check out this page where they susd a few of the pics and look how well the flash lit things up.

http://www.losanjealous.com/2007/12/11/blood-fishnets-la-derby-doll-championship-bout-the-doll-factory-12807/

Thanks for the advice, I'm glad I got the right flash! In fact I used it for the Naked Raygun pics later in the night and it was perfect. The technology on these things has sure improved sinced back in the day.

[FBJ]

Mike, those are some kick ass action pics, man!

Did you use a diffuser of any kind? If not, that'd be the only thing I could suggest that might make them look even better. Soften that light a little bit and cut down on the sharp shadows.

I lost the one that came with my SB800. I need to order a new one.

[Unfiltered]

Hey, Rinkrat -

Without having to go through all of your DD pics, are these settings consistent with what you shot with all night?

http://www.flickr.com/photo_exif.gne?id=2099260679

[VF]

So I took your advice and got the 580EXII and used it for the first time at the Derby Dolls chanpionship game. I was amazed at how much it evenly lit huge areas or even select parts of an area. Check out this page where they susd a few of the pics and look how well the flash lit things up.

http://www.losanjealous.com/2007/12/11/blood-fishnets-la-derby-doll-championship-bout-the-doll-factory-12807/

Thanks for the advice, I'm glad I got the right flash! In fact I used it for the Naked Raygun pics later in the night and it was perfect. The technology on these things has sure improved sinced back in the day.

Yeah, its a big flash with lots of power, which is really really nice. Glad you like it! The pics look fantastic. There are some great captures there. The one comment I would make, and this is purely personal preference, but for action shots I might switch from front curtain sync (which is the default, the flash fires as soon as the shutter opens) to rear curtain sync (flash fires right before shutter closes). The only reason I would say that is that way you have motion blur leading up to the clear, frozen flashed image instead of a clear image with the blur following (if that horrible description makes any sense), you can see this clearly in the shot of the single red shirted skater's helmet and the shot of a couple of the ladies falling. Again, that is only personal preference, but I find that with action shots it feels a little better, as it feels like the subject is blurring into the image instead of blurring out, so it is more of a crescendo into the capture.

[VF]

Mike, those are some kick ass action pics, man!

concur!


Soften that light a little bit and cut down on the sharp shadows.

Even a piece of paper in a pinch

EDIT - Now that I am reading what you wrote with a fresh brain, my reply didn't make much sense. I thought you said "Stofen that light a little bit...", to which I was replying that if you find yourself without any of the standard light modifiers (stofen, Gary Fong Lightsphere) a piece of paper or index card and a rubber band works as well. I should really read what people write before replying :)

[Unfiltered]

Yeah, its a big flash with lots of power, which is really really nice. Glad you like it! The pics look fantastic. There are some great captures there. The one comment I would make, and this is purely personal preference, but for action shots I might switch from front curtain sync (which is the default, the flash fires as soon as the shutter opens) to rear curtain sync (flash fires right before shutter closes). The only reason I would say that is that way you have motion blur leading up to the clear, frozen flashed image instead of a clear image with the blur following (if that horrible description makes any sense), you can see this clearly in the shot of the single red shirted skater's helmet and the shot of a couple of the ladies falling. Again, that is only personal preference, but I find that with action shots it feels a little better, as it feels like the subject is blurring into the image instead of blurring out, so it is more of a crescendo into the capture.


Maybe if you could find some examples, that would be awesome. :)

[rinkrat]

Yeah, its a big flash with lots of power, which is really really nice. Glad you like it! The pics look fantastic. There are some great captures there. The one comment I would make, and this is purely personal preference, but for action shots I might switch from front curtain sync (which is the default, the flash fires as soon as the shutter opens) to rear curtain sync (flash fires right before shutter closes). The only reason I would say that is that way you have motion blur leading up to the clear, frozen flashed image instead of a clear image with the blur following (if that horrible description makes any sense), you can see this clearly in the shot of the single red shirted skater's helmet and the shot of a couple of the ladies falling. Again, that is only personal preference, but I find that with action shots it feels a little better, as it feels like the subject is blurring into the image instead of blurring out, so it is more of a crescendo into the capture.



Good call! Since it was the first time with the unit, I mostly shot with it on auto mode to be sure everything came out ok. I'll check the setting for the curtain because I would like to blur some on purpose but need to experiment and the championship game was not the place to do that. ;)

[rinkrat]

Mike, those are some kick ass action pics, man!

Did you use a diffuser of any kind? If not, that'd be the only thing I could suggest that might make them look even better. Soften that light a little bit and cut down on the sharp shadows.

I lost the one that came with my SB800. I need to order a new one.



Yeah I have one that looks like tupperware and I used it on a lot of the shots. I wasn't quite sure when to use it so I tried it for most of the night since everyone said it was something you need. I kept the unit at 45 degrees as it says in the docs. I can't believe how it lit the entire bleachers on a couple of shots. I also like how it will light the subject but leave the background dark. Here is a good example of lighting the whole place up

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2141/2099198395_d48df1d498.jpg

[VF]

Maybe if you could find some examples, that would be awesome. :)

A very dry, but clear example can be found at on the Nikon Japan site (http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/workshop/kumon/10e.htm), if you scroll almost all the way down the the bottom of the page, they have two images, one with a front curtain sync:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/workshop/kumon/img/k10-14a_i.jpg

and with rear curtain sync:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/feelnikon/discovery/workshop/kumon/img/k10-14b_i.jpg

And here are Canon's examples or the same thing (their flash page can be found here (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/flashwork/index.html)):

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/flashwork/functions/curtain/img/02-05_r4_c2.jpg
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/flashwork/functions/curtain/img/02-05_r7_c9.jpg

The one thing that is a little strange with the Canons is that both the camera and the flash have a setting for 2nd curtain sync, on the 5D it is custom function 15. On bodies that have a built in flash, that will control how the built in flash works. It will also control off camera flashes that are not "smart." The 580ex has a button to set the sync, the three triangles >>> is rear curtain, this will override what the camera custom function is set to.

[FBJ]

I'm having some problems with the SB-800. When I set it up to shoot remotely with the D200 and the 50mm lens, I get great exposures when the camera is set to f/2.8, but the image ends up under exposed when I stop the lens down to f/8 so that all the subjects in my portrait will be in focus. The flash is saying that I'm -3 EV, but I can't figure out how to jack the power of the flash up to properly expose the image at that f-stop.

I've tried increase the EV on the camera to its max and that doesn't work.

Any ideas??

[trdi]

I've tried increase the EV on the camera to its max (+1) and that doesn't work.
Was it at least better?

Also what remotes you have, what's the configuration? You are having one remote SB-800 in slave mode, right? Is it ALWAYS like you described when shooting at f8? I mean it always ends up underexposed by that much, no matter what the light is and what the subject is? What happens when you point at something far away? Also is it the same if you use spot metering and matrix metering?

[FBJ]

I've tried jacking the camera EV all the way up. The SB-800 still shows -3 EV. Metering mode doesn't make a bit of difference.

The ONLY way I've been able to get properly exposed images is if I jack the camera's ISO to 1200 or so. And then the picture quality is crapola for portraits.

Maybe I just need to get a second flash?

YouTube - SB-Love

[VF]

Hmm, of course I don't have an SB800 to try this out, but you can change the flash exposure by hitting the sel button then the + or - buttons, then hitting sel again to set it, you should be able to get 3 stops out of it that way. Something else sounds fishy though as the flash should automatically change it's output as you change your aperture if the flash is using i-ttl. Is the flash in TTL, TTL BL, or...., and is it set as the master in the group?

[rinkrat]

I just tried that with mine and it works. Pretty neat.

[FBJ]

Hmm, of course I don't have an SB800 to try this out, but you can change the flash exposure by hitting the sel button then the + or - buttons, then hitting sel again to set it, you should be able to get 3 stops out of it that way. Something else sounds fishy though as the flash should automatically change it's output as you change your aperture if the flash is using i-ttl. Is the flash in TTL, TTL BL, or...., and is it set as the master in the group?

Yeah it was set in TTL and as the master. I think that I'm just asking too much of it. In fact, the incessant beeping and the -3 EV that's displayed on the flash after I shoot is telling me that very thing.

From what I've read (and been told at Nikonians), direct illumination wouldn't have been a problem at f/8 and ISO 200, but asking it to bounce off the ceiling (and therefore asking it to illuminate the whole room rather than just the subjects I'm photographing) is just asking it for more power than it can put out.

Looking back on the images I shot last night at f/2.8, I thought I'd focused on my wife's eyes. But when I got into the picture next to her, it moved her just enough to the right so that the focus point I'd chosen in the viewfinder was now on the Christmas tree behind us. The tree is in perfect focus, of course. My wife and I are slightly soft, and my little girl is noticeably out-of-focus.

And here, when I looked last night, I thought it was a too-shallow DOF thing when instead it was an operator-error thing. Had the focus point stayed on my wife, I think we all would have been tolerably sharp in the captures.

I'm not a portrait guy to begin with, but I'm learning more every time I try it.

I really do think I need a second (and perhaps a third) SB-800 and some umbrellas. Or maybe just an inexpensive studio kit.

[trdi]

You trying to illuminate too much with your flash was one of the first things I thought of. But somehow I thought you might get offended, if I asked you about it, since it's so trivial.

[FBJ]

I don't necessarily think I was trying to illuminate "too much," just asking the flash to overcome the tighter f-stop.

You thought I'd be offended by the suggestion?

That's offensive!

[VF]

...I really do think I need a second (and perhaps a third) SB-800 and some umbrellas. Or maybe just an inexpensive studio kit.

I found deciding between getting more flashguns (like the SB-800 or the 580EX) and getting studio flashes was a tough one. I think it comes down to what you imagine yourself doing with them. The nice thing about the flashgun set up is that it is more of a "oh I was walking around and I found a setup that I thought would look good with a bit more light" as you can always carry them with you and they are battery powered. They also have the advantage if you are using in the case of Nikon their wireless i-TTL of being relatively smart, in that you set you exposure, and you can set group A to be a -1 stop, group B to be -2 stops, regardless of what the exposure ends up being, the camera figures it all out. If you are willing to go manual with them, and go off brand, you can add flashguns super cheap, as in $80 a head (for a Vivitar), which makes it very accessible.

With the studio strobes, it is much more, "OK, I know I want to shoot a portrait today, and I know where it is going to be and what it is going to be." There isn't the freedom that you have with the flashguns, as you need AC power (they can be mobile however with a battery pack and inverter, and they work very well). They are also going to be full manual, and the highest sync speed you are going to be able to get with them is probably 1/120th to 1/160th (remember that the flash duration is around 1/10,000, so even though the shutter is open for a while, with such a short flash burst, there isn't much motion blur, where it is a problem is if you are trying to use it as a fill light on a bright sunny day for action shots) but their greatest advantage is MUCH more power, which is most handy when you want to use light modifiers, such as BIG umbrellas or soft boxes, light up big rooms or fill a large area. I went with the studio strobes (from Alien Bee) which I currently love, but I imagine that making this set up mobile will hurt in the future if I want to do more location shooting, but for around the house, at work, or in studio, they have been great. As long as I have power, and more importantly, am willing to tote them around, I am very happy with them.

[rinkrat]

OK, so now I have swapped the camera I use and the lens I use and got a new flash. ALL of these items are things you guys recommended and now my pics are WAY better than before in fact I would call them PRO quality since I saw a lot of guys taking Derby Dolls photos with tons of pro equipment and then compared my pics with theirs after the fact. (I can say without a doubt that mine were higher quality than the LA Weekly.) Having this kind of quality available is essential if you want to be taken seriously and now that the playing field is (almost) even then I can at least have a chance of expressing what I want and having it come out like I envisioned it. Still, I can think of a few more lenses that would fit nicely in my collection, but at least I have a start.

SO I just wanted to say THANKS to you guys for pointing me in the right direction with the D30, the 17-55 2.8 EF-S lens and the 580EXII flash. Having this ability has given me a new inspiration to go out and take more pics. In fact I'd really like to get into some concert photography and may look into doing something like that and I might be able to use some old connections to do so, hopefully.

[FBJ]

OK, so now I have swapped the camera I use and the lens I use and got a new flash. ALL of these items are things you guys recommended and now my pics are WAY better than before in fact I would call them PRO quality since I saw a lot of guys taking Derby Dolls photos with tons of pro equipment and then compared my pics with theirs after the fact. (I can say without a doubt that mine were higher quality than the LA Weekly.) Having this kind of quality available is essential if you want to be taken seriously and now that the playing field is (almost) even then I can at least have a chance of expressing what I want and having it come out like I envisioned it. Still, I can think of a few more lenses that would fit nicely in my collection, but at least I have a start.

SO I just wanted to say THANKS to you guys for pointing me in the right direction with the D30, the 17-55 2.8 EF-S lens and the 580EXII flash. Having this ability has given me a new inspiration to go out and take more pics. In fact I'd really like to get into some concert photography and may look into doing something like that and I might be able to use some old connections to do so, hopefully.

Now all you have to do, Mike, is set up a net-gallery somewhere!

I don't think I've personally gotten to the level of "pro quality" yet. I've got some pictures I'm pretty proud of, because to me they represent some small advancement somewhere on the learning curve I'm bound to. But in terms of thinking "I could sell this photograph," I don't think I've gotten there just yet. I need more equipment! ;) Well...practice is probably what I need more of, actually. But I find that if I leave the house with my camera and have in my mind something I want to work on technique wise, I'm better able to "see" opportunities for photo-taking that suits the skill I want to practice.

I've got to say that this thread has been a HUGE help for me with overcoming some plateaus and getting my learning curve trending upward again. By wanting to be able to "hang" with the quality of the photographs that you guys post in here, I feel my images are getting more and more interesting and better overall.

So, thanks. Let's keep this thread going until it chokes the bandwidth!

[trdi]

In fact I'd really like to get into some concert photography and may look into doing something like that and I might be able to use some old connections to do so, hopefully.
What kind of concerts and what kind of concert photography?

[VF]

OK, so now I have swapped the camera I use and the lens I use and got a new flash. ALL of these items are things you guys recommended and now my pics are WAY better than before in fact I would call them PRO quality since I saw a lot of guys taking Derby Dolls photos with tons of pro equipment and then compared my pics with theirs after the fact. (I can say without a doubt that mine were higher quality than the LA Weekly.) Having this kind of quality available is essential if you want to be taken seriously and now that the playing field is (almost) even then I can at least have a chance of expressing what I want and having it come out like I envisioned it. Still, I can think of a few more lenses that would fit nicely in my collection, but at least I have a start.

SO I just wanted to say THANKS to you guys for pointing me in the right direction with the D30, the 17-55 2.8 EF-S lens and the 580EXII flash. Having this ability has given me a new inspiration to go out and take more pics. In fact I'd really like to get into some concert photography and may look into doing something like that and I might be able to use some old connections to do so, hopefully.

Hey, talking gear is fun, so I'm sure collectively that part is a pleasure for all of us! But although the tools make it easier, the photographer makes the image, so really any kudos you have should go to yourself. It is always nice when you can capture the image that you are envisioning, especially when things are moving quickly, such as with the Derby Dolls, and a lot of those images are fantastic.

I think this thread has been great for gently nudging the bar for all of us, as well as providing constructive criticism, which is, in my opinion, greatly appreciated. I actually read through the whole thing again yesterday to pass the time during this snow storm the East was getting hit with.

So, thanks to all of you guys for participating and keeping this tread alive!

[DeaderFan]

I would echo VFs comments. This has been one of my favorite threads this year. It is kind of odd to talk cameras on a hockey fan site, but I have to say its also a little frienlier and less intimidating here than other photography forums.

It's also kind of funny when I tell my pro photographer friend something he doesn't know and when he asks me, "where did you hear that?" I say Letsgokings.com

[rinkrat]

What kind of concerts and what kind of concert photography?

For the moment, just small clubs since they are the only ones who allow cameras. I'm not really looking to sell photos, I just like taking action shots of things that I like. Having this cool setup inspires me to take pics and since action is what I like then what the heck. So far I have taken pics of a few bands and emailed them and they seemed real pleased with the results, so maybe I can find something to do that is fun and useful like supply a fanzine or something. :) In a dream world I would be taking hockey photos.

[HeShootsNScores]

+1

Hands down my favorite thread on LGK... weird huh?

Okay... if not my favorite thread, then the thread I check everyday for sure.

[FBJ]

In a dream world I would be taking hockey photos.

You and me, both.

I'd thought about trying my hand at concert photography as well, but I think it's going to have to wait until I get the new camera body and a faster wide-angle lens. I'd like to be able to do that without having to stun the performers with flash.

So on that note, how would you all augment your current portfolios? What kind of stuff would you like to try shooting that you haven't tried yet?

For me, I'd like to fill the portfolio out with some more sports (field or court-level stuff) like basketball and volleyball. I'd like to get an opportunity to shoot aircraft air-to-air. I'd like to do some macro and super-macro work. I'd also like to work on my portrait skills a well.

[trdi]

In a dream world I would be taking hockey photos.
That's one stressful job as a pro. We take great care of our toys, but their equipment is all bumped and half broken. As long as it focuses and the glass is not scrached, it's great, they say. :)


Hey, talking gear is fun, so I'm sure collectively that part is a pleasure for all of us! But although the tools make it easier, the photographer makes the image, so really any kudos you have should go to yourself. It is always nice when you can capture the image that you are envisioning, especially when things are moving quickly, such as with the Derby Dolls, and a lot of those images are fantastic.
I remember when I was participating in a workshop, led by a top photographer (when you get 7 pages in National Geographic (the main edition), you know you are good). First of all, his equipment was top of the line, I mean that stuff costs a fortune. When he goes working, he carries about 140 kg of equipment (that's why he needs an assistant). He said a couple of things regarding that:
- he needs top equipment, nothing else is good enough
- the difference between top equipment and just very good equipment is not about the "more perfect" photo quality, it might be the difference between getting and not getting that photo you wanted to take. It's not just about very bad conditions, where that helps. Sometimes you have only a moment to take a photograph you've been waiting to take for more than 6 months. With top equipment, your chances to actually get a photo are higher.

That was the best photo educational stuff I've participated in so far. The guy was so friendly, he told us everything we wanted to know, including how much money different magazines are paying and even how photo stock industry is working (damn, that's tough and mean). The stories of his experiences are just priceless. :) When you see a top photographer (=world class) is having anything similar near you, grab the chance, it's invaluable. When you hear how a certain photograph has been taken and that preparations for that particular photograph might have taken as long as 7 months (!) and bribing a police officer to let you when other photographers can't go, you see that damn photo from completely different perspective, I assure you that. :)

[rinkrat]

http://a143.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/78/l_4d2703aa6664ff25b0ad03211cc5f206.jpg

RR in the trenches. These two came through the railing. So much for protection.

(I didn't take this one, that is me about to get kicked in the face)

[FBJ]

(I didn't take this one, that is me about to get kicked in the face)

Holy **** I laughed my ass off at this!!!

I'm SO making that my new avatar!

BTW, looking at your pics from Chix-Pack, I wondered what ISO you were shooting. Looks like if you'd jacked the ISO up a little bit to get some faster shutter speeds, you'd get much less motion blur (from both subject movement and camera movement) in images like those.

I forget if you've mentioned it, but do you shoot jpeg or RAW? Just curious. Either way, if you process in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, you can check out an add-on called Noise Ninja to help out with the noise from higher ISOs.

[HeShootsNScores]

(I didn't take this one, that is me about to get kicked in the face)

Still a good shot... hahaha

[VF]

So on that note, how would you all augment your current portfolios? What kind of stuff would you like to try shooting that you haven't tried yet?

For me, I'd like to fill the portfolio out with some more sports (field or court-level stuff) like basketball and volleyball. I'd like to get an opportunity to shoot aircraft air-to-air. I'd like to do some macro and super-macro work. I'd also like to work on my portrait skills a well.

In reality, I need to work on everything. I think I would like to focus this year on working with lighting more. I have a limited lighting setup now, that I mostly use for work, taking very drab progress pictures, orthographic type pictures of objects to be drafted, which means very flat, uninteresting even lighting so you can clearly see the entire object, so I can't really play, but it has gotten me intrigued to try it more with portrait work (most of my portrait work is available light, or very boring lighting setups). So, I need to make a few more purchases to try it, and find a willing model (the cat doesn't count, and besides he only sits for one flash, then freaks out and takes off ;) )

[FBJ]

Set up my POS tripod underneath our hummingbird feeder this morning. Put the camera on top with the 50mm and the IR shutter release on it and took an 8gb card full of captures. I got five mediocre ones out of the lot, and all of those were of the least-colorful hummingbird that showed up. That's my luck as a nature photographer.

Here's one. Rest are here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/glenn_calvin/).

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/2128753171_8e725990de.jpg

I set the camera up in manual focus and focused on my hand that was placed where I thought the birds would be. It worked okay, but still the bird was kind of soft-focused. The background is crap, too (the undeside of the eaves on the back of my house).

[rinkrat]

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7957.jpg

Walking around the neighborhood drunk with a camera and a dog

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7954.jpg

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/img_7942_398610.jpg

[rinkrat]

I just ordered a polarizer. They sure as heck have gotten expensive since the last one I bought!

I also am convincing myself that I need the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens next in my arsenal. I got a nice Canon backpack for Xmas so I need to fill it with ****. ;)

[nocturn]

Momma gave this to me for Christmas.

http://www.adorama.com/SG10528DNKAF.html?searchinfo=sigma%20105mm%20macro&item_no=7

As soon as the weather breaks, I'll run it through the paces.

It has killer reviews everywhere I read. Shoud be a good medium macro...

[Unfiltered]

Momma gave this to me for Christmas.

http://www.adorama.com/SG10528DNKAF.html?searchinfo=sigma%20105mm%20macro&item_no=7

As soon as the weather breaks, I'll run it through the paces.

It has killer reviews everywhere I read. Shoud be a good medium macro...


Nice! Looking forward to some pics!

[FBJ]

I got like $400 in gift certs from Hooper Camera.

I see a new tripod and some extension tubes in my immediate future.

BTW, cool pics, Mike.

[Unfiltered]

I got like $400 in gift certs from Hooper Camera.

I see a new tripod and some extension tubes in my immediate future.

Beauty.

[KBM]

Well, I bought myself a Canon 40D on Christmas Eve. I knew Santa wasn't gonna fork out the dough for that bad boy. I'm at the fun part which is learning how to use all the features this thing has. It's quite an upgrade from the Digital Rebel. The kit came with a really nice image stabilized 28-135mm zoom lens. As soon as I get some worthwhile shots, I'll post a few up.

[rinkrat]

Nice one KBM. Great upgrade.

[Unfiltered]

Well, I bought myself a Canon 40D on Christmas Eve. I knew Santa wasn't gonna fork out the dough for that bad boy. I'm at the fun part which is learning how to use all the features this thing has. It's quite an upgrade from the Digital Rebel. The kit came with a really nice image stabilized 28-135mm zoom lens. As soon as I get some worthwhile shots, I'll post a few up.

Let me know if you have any questions. I got a 40D kit (w/ the 85mm lens) and I totally dig it.

[Mr. Irreverent]

Let me know if you have any questions. I got a 40D kit (w/ the 85mm lens) and I totally dig it.

Where are your friggin' pictures then???

[FBJ]

I got like $400 in gift certs from Hooper Camera.

I see a new tripod and some extension tubes in my immediate future.

So I went out this morning and shot the wad. I picked up:

- A set of Promaster extension tubes
(http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?page=PROD&CatID=230&SubCatID=4&CatName=Lenses&SubCatName=Extension%20Tubes&sm=sm2_2304&product=9760)
- A Manfrotto 055XPROB Tripod (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/offonce/pid/14791/lang/en)

- A Manfrotto 486RC2 Ball Head (http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/bypass/pid/2304?livid=80|81&lsf=81&child=2)

Let me tell you, this tripod and ball-head are AMAZING pieces of machinery. The tripod itself is rock-solid and has leg angles up to nearly 90 degrees (which means it can sit very very low to the ground). It also has a center column that can be mounted horizontally as well as updide-down for strange angles or macro photography.

The ball head is really strong! Listed max capacity is a bit over 13 pounds, but I loaded it up today with my D200 (with the battery pack), the 70-200 lens, and all the crap I could literally hang off the mount to see if I could get it to move and it held up like a champ. I imagine that it could handle some of Nikon's big lenses with little or no problem! The quick-connect mount is extremely solid, with absolutely ZERO play when the plate is locked into the head. It has a quick-release that works flawlessly, along with a safety that prevents you from accidentally disengaging the locking mechanism.

The extension tubes should be in next week some time. I'll be macroing like a mofo soon.

Good Christmas haul for me!

[Unfiltered]

Where are your friggin' pictures then???

Not taken. I got laid off for 3 weeks ago and I got roped in to doing all of those things I promised to do all year since I now "had the time."

In time, son. In time.

[AutomaticBzooty]

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2004/2128753171_8e725990de.jpg

I set the camera up in manual focus and focused on my hand that was placed where I thought the birds would be. It worked okay, but still the bird was kind of soft-focused. The background is crap, too (the undeside of the eaves on the back of my house).

Wow, that's beautiful.

I never even knew this thread existed! Serves me right for never wandering off Home Ice.

There's a lot more to LGK than I had realized!

[rinkrat]

I've got to look into tubes. That sounds interesting. Check this out from a Canon Expo 2007 in Hong Kong

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2304/2056284489_f760123709_o.jpg

[FBJ]

One word comes to mind when I look at that lens:

Beefy...and Expensive!

TWO! Two words come to mind...

(Cardinal Fang!? Get the COMFY CHAIR!)

Imagine it with a lens hood on it!

[HeShootsNScores]

The guy who is doing my engagement photos/wedding photos is/was ranting and raving about this lens he bought.... I know nothing about it. I have a Nikon... anyway... speaking of big....

http://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2506.jpg

http://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2502.jpghttp://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2492.jpg

http://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2484.jpghttp://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2476.jpg

http://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2480.jpghttp://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2487.jpg

http://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2488.jpghttp://www.evokephotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/img_2490.jpg

[FBJ]

That's a big mama-jama, to say the least. No way to make a small 400mm f/2.8.

Sam, wasn't that the lens you rented for Red Bull?

So what is the real deal behind the gray paint on Canon's big lenses, anyhow? Is it really to help keep them cooler in direct sunlight? Personally, I think it clashes with the camera's black. :P

Oh, and Nikon karma for HeShootsNScores!

[FBJ]

Incidentally, with the new purchases yesterday at Hooper, I had to update the "Want List" on my gallery page to include a couple new things I need:

- a couple more speedlights
- an iTTL remote cord
- a macro focusing rail, and
- a table-top lightshed kit

That's all in addition to the D3 body with the 14-24 f/2.8.

[rinkrat]

That lens is not cheap!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6X0?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00009R6X0

[rinkrat]

I'm seriously thinking of the EF-S 10-22 to kind of round things out. I have seen some amazing pics taken with this lens that challenges your composition skills and creates amazing other-worldly photos. I admit that it would be only for special shots but those would really hit home when mixed with the standard telephoto shots at something like a Derby Dolls bout, a stage show or a hockey game.

ALSO, the price of a decent polarizer sure went up! I just got a 77mm for my EF-s 17-55 2.8 and it was nearly $200. Yikes! Luckily the 10-22 and the 17-55 have the same 77mm mount.

[FBJ]

That lens is not cheap!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6X0?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00009R6X0

It's a product liability thing. They've gotta charge that much to cover the lawsuits they get from people who drop them on their own feet.

;)

Seriously, the more elements, the bigger the elements, the more money. With the 2.8 aperture, you need big elements with lots of coatings to prevent flare at those long focal lengths.

But for the cost of a Nikon 400mm f/2.8 lens (http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-400MM-2-8G-AF-S-Lens/dp/B000VDF5JC/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1198866354&sr=8-6), I could have a D3 body with both the 14-24 f/2.8 and the 16mm f/2.8 fisheye. For that reason, I'd rather rent the big glass if I have to.

[FBJ]

I'm seriously thinking of the EF-S 10-22 to kind of round things out. I have seen some amazing pics taken with this lens that challenges your composition skills and creates amazing other-worldly photos. I admit that it would be only for special shots but those would really hit home when mixed with the standard telephoto shots at something like a Derby Dolls bout, a stage show or a hockey game.

But is the f/3.5-4.5 going to be open enough for you in a dark club or inside a hockey arena? I imagine you'd have to shoot at ISO 800+ to get shutter speeds to exceed focal length.

If you want wide-angle and other-worldly together, you could always go with a diagonal fisheye like Sigma's 15mm f/2.8 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3279&navigator=4).

And why doesn't Canon make a fisheye or a standard wide-angle lens with a fast aperture?

[HeShootsNScores]

well... now I know why my wedding/engagement photos are costing me so much...

[FBJ]

Anyone know of a motion-triggered shutter release?

For instance, if a person wanted to set up a camera in front of a bird feeder so that it automatically takes a picture every time a bird lands?

I'd also like to know if there are any decent wireless RF remote shutter release systems. I've got Nikon's IR remote which works well indoors or in the shade, but if there's any kind of sun on the camera-mounted sensor at all, it doesn't work if the remote is beyond three feet from the thing.

[VF]

Man, I go to the in-laws' for a few days and this thread goes nuts! Every one got toys, people posting pictures. Nice pics RR, and nice capture of the hummer FBJ.


Sam, wasn't that the lens you rented for Red Bull?

So what is the real deal behind the gray paint on Canon's big lenses, anyhow? Is it really to help keep them cooler in direct sunlight?

I rented the 300mm f/2.8 and used a 1.4x tele-extender on it. I was thinking about the 400, but was told it wasn't hand hold-able for an all day deal. As for the white / gray, that is the official word. If you are sitting in hot, direct sun all day, a lens of that size will heat up quite a bit, and may start causing AF problems (which is what is happening with some of the 1D MkIIIs bodies)

As for my toys, I just ordered another AB800 flash, a beauty dish, and (drum roll) a ring flash! which I am very excited about. So no I can't bitch and moan that I don't have the equipment to do interesting lighting, and I'm going to have to step up to the plate and start trying to make some interesting images.

[VF]

And why doesn't Canon make a fisheye or a standard wide-angle lens with a fast aperture?

In my opinion, this is the weakest area of the Canon lens lineup. The best they really have is their 14mm f/2.8L, which despite being hyper expensive and an "L", is pretty fuzzy on the edges. It seems that because they have had larger sensors for so long, there wasn't much demand for fast ultra wides, but I think they are starting to feel the pinch of not having anything fast, wide, and good in an EF mount. Although the 10-22 isn't an f/2.8 or faster, it has stellar image quality, but it is an EF-S mount only.

[VF]

Anyone know of a motion-triggered shutter release?

For instance, if a person wanted to set up a camera in front of a bird feeder so that it automatically takes a picture every time a bird lands?

I'd also like to know if there are any decent wireless RF remote shutter release systems. I've got Nikon's IR remote which works well indoors or in the shade, but if there's any kind of sun on the camera-mounted sensor at all, it doesn't work if the remote is beyond three feet from the thing.

Don't know about motion release, but you can get cables (I don't see the D200 listed here, but I would imagine that it has a cable to go with it) which plug into remote flash triggers, these are from Pocket Wizard (http://www.pocketwizard.com/HTML/cables3.asp), which is pretty much the gold standard in remote triggers, but are uber expensive. You can get cheap knock offs, which will work (with out as much range, but still much better than IR) such as the Gadget Infinity (http://www.gadgetinfinity.com/product.php?productid=16766&cat=0&page=) stuff. All of these would do shutter only, no AF.

[DeaderFan]

Incidentally, with the new purchases yesterday at Hooper, I had to update the "Want List" on my gallery page to include a couple new things I need:

That's all in addition to the D3 body with the 14-24 f/2.8.

The 14-24 f/2.8 was my Christmas present. I can tell you it is heavy and the front element is gnarly... but it's sharp as a tack. It would be a lot of fun on a camera with a full size sensor.

BTW for remote triggering, I bought a Nikon cable which plugs into the remote connector on most newer cameras. It is kind of a break out cable where one end is Nikon multipin connector and the other is wires with either bananna plugs or aligator clips (cant remember which). You connect leads to either pre-trigger or trigger the camera (by contact closure). I can connect it to a roll of wire and trigger from as far away as I need to be. I use it in lab testing where I have to capture something like an explosion. The D200 has like a 51 milisecond delay so I can use an electronic timer to trigger the event and the camera so that I capture exactly what I want.

For capturing animals I think you are on the right track with a motion sensor trigger to create the contact closure. I have not used them so I don't know how to rig them. But I have seen camera systems that hunters set up in the woods and they are motion sensor based.

I like the hummigbird shot. I was actually thinking of doing something similar with high speed video for part of my daughter's science project.

[Unfiltered]

well... now I know why my wedding/engagement photos are costing me so much...

Partly. You're really paying for the man's skill more than anything. (But you know that. ;))

Plus quality print costs aren't very cheap.

[Unfiltered]

I'd also like to know if there are any decent wireless RF remote shutter release systems. I've got Nikon's IR remote which works well indoors or in the shade, but if there's any kind of sun on the camera-mounted sensor at all, it doesn't work if the remote is beyond three feet from the thing.

Dot Line Corp makes 3 different models:

Canon 3-Pin (5D, 10D, 20D, 30D, and the 40D (I think) (http://dotlinecorp.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_19&products_id=5894&zenid=d438a1514f6d2f7195bd855812de432e)

Canon EOS (Rebel, XT, XTI) (http://dotlinecorp.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_19&products_id=5895&zenid=d438a1514f6d2f7195bd855812de432e)

Nikon 10 Pin (D100, D200, D2X, etc.) (http://dotlinecorp.net/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=3_19&products_id=5896&zenid=d438a1514f6d2f7195bd855812de432e)

They street for around $100 and work up to 100 feet away. I heard about them on the Photoshop User TV podcast, and I think Scott Kelby put it on his Gadget Gift Guide for 2007.

BTW, there are some FANTASTIC podcasts and videocasts out there on Photoshop and photography. You guys should check them out.

[FBJ]

The 14-24 f/2.8 was my Christmas present. I can tell you it is heavy and the front element is gnarly... but it's sharp as a tack. It would be a lot of fun on a camera with a full size sensor.

You lucky swine...

I played around with one last night at Hooper. I was really impressed with it's angle-of-view, even on my D200. The only thing I noticed was a little bit of enlargement of subjects in the ends of the viewfinder. No distortion, and lines remained laser-straight, but there does seem to be a little size-distortion of subjects in the last 1/8 of the viewfinder's right and left side.

At any rate, I was so impressed by this lens that I think I'll probably pick one up before too long instead of waiting until I buy the D3 body.

I still need to find the 24-70 f/2.8 to take a look at. From what I hear, it's an even better lens, but I don't think it would fill the niche I need filled right now with the DX-sensored D200, so I'll probably wait until I get the D3 to get that one.

D3
16mm fisheye
14-24 f/2.8
24-70 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8 VR

That right there is a professional rig.

[VF]

That lens is not cheap!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00009R6X0?ie=UTF8&tag=letsgokingsco-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B00009R6X0

That's not the lens you want, this (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800557508-USE/Canon__Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html) is the one! ;)

http://gnunes.net/blog/uploaded_images/330669082vx-790322.jpg

Only $99,000, what a bargain! (I am actually amazed that it is in stock, I thought these where special order only, as in you order it, and they build one for you)

-EDIT-

Ahh, it is in the used department, talk about buyer's remorse.

[rinkrat]

I might get rid of the Canon L f4 70-200 and upgrade to the 70-200 L IS f2.8. If anyone wants my barely used "L" class zoom for a decent price, let me know.

[FBJ]

http://www.eng.buffalo.edu/~kfisher2/index_files/bazooka.jpg

[rinkrat]

LOFL that is what I feel like sometimes.

[VF]

I might get rid of the Canon L f4 70-200 and upgrade to the 70-200 L IS f2.8. If anyone wants my barely used "L" class zoom for a decent price, let me know.

Oooo, am I ever tempted by this one, but after dropping a lot of money on lighting, and both wife and I getting laid off soon due to strike, I will have to pass.

[VF]

Nice, we got "Photo" added to the forum title! Well done guys :)

[FBJ]

Heh...Bout damned time! Maybe it was the threatening-looking bazooka?

[Unfiltered]

Nice, we got "Photo" added to the forum title! Well done guys :)

It helps when the webmaster frequents the forum and this thread. :) Thanks, RR!


Heh...Bout damned time! Maybe it was the threatening-looking bazooka?

LOL!

[Deuce]

Alright guys, I just joined the ranks. I just bought a Canon 40D from Butterfly Photo. I will be posting here often trying to get some help. Im a complete tool when it comes to photography so be gentle.

[FBJ]

WTG Deuce!

You've got some good Canonites on here that are really knowledgeable about the equipment that can help you, whereas we Nikonians will only be able to sit back and critique your images. Our favorite saying is, "It would have been a better picture had it been shot with a Nikon."

;)

[Deuce]

WTG Deuce!

You've got some good Canonites on here that are really knowledgeable about the equipment that can help you, whereas we Nikonians will only be able to sit back and critique your images. Our favorite saying is, "It would have been a better picture had it been shot with a Nikon."

;)


Nice, I look forward to hearing from EVERYONE. :chums:

[BleedingPurple]

With Deuce taking the lead, I think I'm ready to take the plunge into the world of DSLR as well. I've wanted to get into photography for a long time and I've taken thousands of pictures with my Canon SD600 but I think it's finally time to take it up a notch. I have no training whatsoever and I'm a true beginner but I love shooting so I'll probably take up some classes at school.

I've handled a few cameras and I need to handle a few more to get a feel but after a lot of reading, it seems that 2 good cameras to start with are the Nikon D40X and the Canon Rebel XTI. Does that sound about right? I obviously don't want to go for the best camera when just starting out but I also don't want to end up spending money on something that will be outdated or won't last more than a couple years.

An overwhelming consensus around here seems to be that you should spend money on the glass, not necessarily the camera. That being said, is it smart to buy a kit that comes with the body and the lens or is it better to just go for the body so that you can buy a nice lens right off the bat?

For example, I found this on Amazon: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi 2 lens Zoom Kit -Includes Canon 18-55mm + Canon 75-300mm (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Digital-Rebel-18-55mm-75-300mm/dp/B000KK1ZRC/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1199235669&sr=1-9) Are these lenses even worth their weight?

Note: I have to buy through Amazon or Wolf online because I'm redeeming a bonus through work that has to be used for gift cards and they are the only 2 camera retailers that I have access to.

Any advice would be awesome. Thanks!

[FBJ]

Pass on the D40x and get the D80 instead. More features and available accessories.

[VF]

You are right that the body is a cost and glass is an investment, and the choice of which brand to go with should be made mainly on the glass that they offer.

If you do choose to go with Canon, deciding if the body and lens kit is good enough depends heavily on what you want to do with the lens and what are you expecting from it. There is no question that the $1000 17-55 f/2.8 will give you better results, and can take pictures in lower light where the 18-55 simply can't, but is it worth the extra $900? If you have to get the shot in low light, sharp edge to edge with no chromatic aberrations, and you will be using it frequently, the extra cost starts to make sense. If however you just want a little more quality and a shallower depth of field than your point and shoot, and you are only whipping it out every once in a while, then spending that much on a lens doesn't make that much sense. That is not to say that your only choices are a $70 kit lens and the $1000 (or so) 17-55mm, there is a LOT in between, I was just using the 17-55 as an example.

If you are worried about accumulating things that you wont use in the future, then I would recommend not going with the body / lens kit, but rather buy the specific lens and body that you want. I would suggest buying the body that you want, one cheap (but good) lens, like the EF 50mm f/1.8 ($70) then rent a few to see what you like. You can even rent bodies if you are unsure of the one you want. That way you can try everything out before you lay out your hard earned cash.

The one thing that takes a bit of the sting out of buying expensive lenses is that they don't really depreciate that much, so you can always resell them on the used market without much loss.

[rinkrat]

Excuse me while I endulge. ;)

I went over by the Aquarium and was intrigued by the lighthouse while trying out the new polarizer.

Canon 30D 17-55 IS
Click on the thumb to view pic.

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_1_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5855&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_2_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5856&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_3_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5857&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_4_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5858&c=178)

http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_5_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5859&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_6_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5860&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_7_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5861&c=178) http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/files/1/lighthouse_8_thumb.jpg (http://www.letsgokings.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5862&c=178)

[BleedingPurple]

Excuse me while I endulge. ;)

I went over by the Aquarium and was intrigued by the lighthouse while trying out the new polarizer.

Canon 30D 17-55 IS
Click on the thumb to view pic.

Very nice, RR. I'm impressed.

[FBJ]

Nice job, Mike! Good stuff!

The only thing about polarizers is the tendency for us to "over-polarize" the image. The unnaturally blue skies always scream "POLARIZER FILTER!!!" to me.

[BleedingPurple]

You are right that the body is a cost and glass is an investment, and the choice of which brand to go with should be made mainly on the glass that they offer.

If you do choose to go with Canon, deciding if the body and lens kit is good enough depends heavily on what you want to do with the lens and what are you expecting from it. There is no question that the $1000 17-55 f/2.8 will give you better results, and can take pictures in lower light where the 18-55 simply can't, but is it worth the extra $900? If you have to get the shot in low light, sharp edge to edge with no chromatic aberrations, and you will be using it frequently, the extra cost starts to make sense. If however you just want a little more quality and a shallower depth of field than your point and shoot, and you are only whipping it out every once in a while, then spending that much on a lens doesn't make that much sense. That is not to say that your only choices are a $70 kit lens and the $1000 (or so) 17-55mm, there is a LOT in between, I was just using the 17-55 as an example.

If you are worried about accumulating things that you wont use in the future, then I would recommend not going with the body / lens kit, but rather buy the specific lens and body that you want. I would suggest buying the body that you want, one cheap (but good) lens, like the EF 50mm f/1.8 ($70) then rent a few to see what you like. You can even rent bodies if you are unsure of the one you want. That way you can try everything out before you lay out your hard earned cash.

The one thing that takes a bit of the sting out of buying expensive lenses is that they don't really depreciate that much, so you can always resell them on the used market without much loss.

Thanks for the advice, ValleyFan. I'm leaning towards the Rebel XTI.

I plan on using the camera for vacations, portraits, etc... I love going fishing in the Sierra's so that would be a large portion of where I'd be shooting. I also live in Thousand Oaks so the Santa Monica's are in my back yard.

Would something like this be a wise investment or would it be overkill for a beginner?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=s9_asin_title_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1B7M4ZBZSPNV9V0VCDS6&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240301&pf_rd_i=507846)


In addition, What other equipment should be purchased for a beginner starting out in the DSLR world? What are those hidden costs that I'll find out about real quick if I don't buy them to start out?

[VF]

Thanks for the advice, ValleyFan. I'm leaning towards the Rebel XTI.

I plan on using the camera for vacations, portraits, etc... I love going fishing in the Sierra's so that would be a large portion of where I'd be shooting. I also live in Thousand Oaks so the Santa Monica's are in my back yard.

Would something like this be a wise investment or would it be overkill for a beginner?

I don't think at all that is overkill, it is a fantastic lens. The one thing that concerns me is that you might find it a little long on a 1.6 crop body if you are interested in shooting a lot of landscapes. On a 1.6 crop body, the effective focal length of the 28-135 becomes 44-216mm, which becomes a fantastic portraiture length and telephoto, but is not going to be super wide. If you have a chance to test it out or rent it first, I might do that. If you find that it is a bit to long, you might look at the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L, a bit more expensive, but a killer lens, especially for landscape work. You should probably go down to a camera store with a compact flash card, and ask them to shoot a couple of frames with the lenses you are interested in, then take the card home at look at the image. Who knows, the 18-55 might be exactly what you are looking for (the IS version is pretty different than the kit lens version, very oddly and confusingly there are like 5 different versions of this lens). There is also a handy site over at the-digital-picure (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=410&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396) which you can directly compare two lenses (select the two you want then roll over the image to compare)



In addition, What other equipment should be purchased for a beginner starting out in the DSLR world? What are those hidden costs that I'll find out about real quick if I don't buy them to start out?

You are probably going to want right of the bat extra batteries (which you can get cheap but good knock offs from places like SterlingTek (http://sterlingtek.com/)), memory cards, tripod, a bag to carry it all in. Then you need to think about how you are going to process your images. If you are shooting low volume, the software that comes with the camera isn't bad, but if you plan on shooting a lot, you might need to look into something like Lightroom by Adobe. That also means that you are going to need a computer which has storage space, so that might mean an extra hard drive (or two to have one to back up on). If you want to get into heavy photo editing, you might need then to look at something like Photoshop.

[VF]

Excuse me while I endulge. ;)

I went over by the Aquarium and was intrigued by the lighthouse while trying out the new polarizer.

Canon 30D 17-55 IS
Click on the thumb to view pic.


Hey.....links don't work anymore, I haven't had a chance to look at them yet :(

Speaking of polarizers (kinda), I am reading this amazing book called "Light: Science and Magic (http://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199425948&sr=8-3)" which among many other things has some really interesting uses for polarizers, including product and copy photography. I have been reading it and like every other page it has been "Oooh, that is interesting" Very good read, I highly recommend it.

[Unfiltered]

Thanks for the advice, ValleyFan. I'm leaning towards the Rebel XTI.

I plan on using the camera for vacations, portraits, etc... I love going fishing in the Sierra's so that would be a large portion of where I'd be shooting. I also live in Thousand Oaks so the Santa Monica's are in my back yard.

Would something like this be a wise investment or would it be overkill for a beginner?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00006I53S/ref=s9_asin_title_1?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=1B7M4ZBZSPNV9V0VCDS6&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240301&pf_rd_i=507846)


In addition, What other equipment should be purchased for a beginner starting out in the DSLR world? What are those hidden costs that I'll find out about real quick if I don't buy them to start out?

It's pretty decent glass for the price especially if you can get it bundled. Call around a bit to some of the authorized dealers. You may find the 135mm bundled with the XTi.

[BleedingPurple]

It's pretty decent glass for the price especially if you can get it bundled. Call around a bit to some of the authorized dealers. You may find the 135mm bundled with the XTi.

Unfortunately, I have to go through Wolf or Amazon because it's a gift card bonus through work and I'm limited to a couple of different camera retailers. If you happen to run across anything, please let me know. I tend to research things to death when I'm making this big of a purchase so it will probably still be a little while before I purchase the camera.


I don't think at all that is overkill, it is a fantastic lens. The one thing that concerns me is that you might find it a little long on a 1.6 crop body if you are interested in shooting a lot of landscapes. On a 1.6 crop body, the effective focal length of the 28-135 becomes 44-216mm, which becomes a fantastic portraiture length and telephoto, but is not going to be super wide. If you have a chance to test it out or rent it first, I might do that. If you find that it is a bit to long, you might look at the EF 17-40mm f/4.0L, a bit more expensive, but a killer lens, especially for landscape work. You should probably go down to a camera store with a compact flash card, and ask them to shoot a couple of frames with the lenses you are interested in, then take the card home at look at the image. Who knows, the 18-55 might be exactly what you are looking for (the IS version is pretty different than the kit lens version, very oddly and confusingly there are like 5 different versions of this lens). There is also a handy site over at the-digital-picure (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?FLI=0&API=0&Lens=410&Camera=396&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&LensComp=100&CameraComp=396) which you can directly compare two lenses (select the two you want then roll over the image to compare)




You are probably going to want right of the bat extra batteries (which you can get cheap but good knock offs from places like SterlingTek (http://sterlingtek.com/)), memory cards, tripod, a bag to carry it all in. Then you need to think about how you are going to process your images. If you are shooting low volume, the software that comes with the camera isn't bad, but if you plan on shooting a lot, you might need to look into something like Lightroom by Adobe. That also means that you are going to need a computer which has storage space, so that might mean an extra hard drive (or two to have one to back up on). If you want to get into heavy photo editing, you might need then to look at something like Photoshop.

Thank you so much for all of the information. That site is pretty cool. I think I'll go to my local hooper and pick their brains a bit and take your advice on the compact flash card. Having them shoot a frames is a really good idea.

[VF]

So I know I have in the past said that the cheap knock off ebay wireless flash triggers are great and you should get them instead of the much more expensive Pocket Wizards, I now have to retract that endorsement. I have been processing my pics from the winter break, and almost all the shots taken with the cheapo wireless triggers are now showing RF interference at the top 1/8th or so of frame (depending on shutter speed). Some people say that replacing the battery will help, as a low bat in the transmitter will exacerbate the noise, but it makes them completely unreliable in my opinion. So, if you are in the market for wireless triggers, you get what you pay for. Don't buy the cheapies because you are just going to have to buy the expensive ones later.

Poo.

[FBJ]

Wow. Pocket Wizards for teh win.

I don't have a use for a flash trigger right now. What I want is a better remote shutter release than the IR one I have right now. It does okay inside, but outdoors it sucks.

I'd also like to figure out a way to trigger a camera's shutter with a motion sensor.

[VF]

Wow. Pocket Wizards for teh win.

I don't have a use for a flash trigger right now. What I want is a better remote shutter release than the IR one I have right now. It does okay inside, but outdoors it sucks.

I'd also like to figure out a way to trigger a camera's shutter with a motion sensor.

For motion sensor, I haven't tried it or seen it, but have you looked at the Zigview R (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/440312-REG/Zigview_SCV100R_Zigview_R_Digital_Angle_Finder.htm l)? (A little write up of it here (http://www.planetphotoshop.com/zigview-r.html)) It looks like you would need this cable (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/440380-REG/Zigview_RC06_RC06_Electronic_Release_Cable.html) with it as well, and once you have that cable, you should be able to use any of the flash / shutter radio triggers to trigger the shutter remotely.

[FBJ]

That, right there, is a killer little accessory! I might need to get me one and try it out!

Thanks for pointing me to it, Sam!

[DeaderFan]

I'd also like to figure out a way to trigger a camera's shutter with a motion sensor.

You know hunters use trail cameras to document habits of deer. You can buy them through Cabellas or Bass Pro shops or on Ebay. They are usually self contained units though with a cheap digitial camera inside. Maybe you could get a cheap one and adapt it to your D200?

They also have some "home brew" trail camera kits which you could try, but you have to have some electronics know-how to put them together. A quick search of the internet found this little kit: http://www.snapshotsniper.com/Board.htm which might work for you. You would also probably need the Nikon MC-22 cable I mentioned in an earlier post. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/37720-REG/Nikon_4652_MC_22_Motor_Remote_Cord.html)

[DeaderFan]

Following up on my previous post... this thing looks even cooler if you have the cash:

http://www.bmumford.com/photo/camctlr.html

You can get cables for most cameras and they make a variety of sensors for triggering, from motion to laser to sound.

They even have a hummingbird example caught with their motion sensor : http://www.bmumford.com/photo/creatures/index.html

[VF]

Wow, that thing is pretty cool!

Man, some of those time lapses that they have on the site are amazing! The water drop and the fire are my favorites.

[FBJ]

Wow. Killer. Wish I had the money!

That hummingbird pic is the exact thing I wanted to try and get.

[FBJ]

More messin' 'round with HDR:

http://gcalvin.com/files/HolyCrapMessyOfficeHDR.jpg

My messy-as-hell office is probably not the best of subjects for HDR, I know. Just playin' around with photomatix, really.

Here's the median exposure:

http://gcalvin.com/files/HolyCrapMessyOfficeMedian.jpg

I really need to clean my office up...

[BleedingPurple]

Bad A**!

http://www.bmumford.com/photo/creatures/coming.jpg

[rinkrat]

Anyone tried a Canon EF L 70-200 2.8 IS?

[Unfiltered]

Bad A**!

http://www.bmumford.com/photo/creatures/coming.jpg

Truly inspiring stuff!

Boy, BP, I bet all of these gear goodies is making your head spin being new to DSLRs. :)

[Unfiltered]

More messin' 'round with HDR:

http://gcalvin.com/files/HolyCrapMessyOfficeHDR.jpg

My messy-as-hell office is probably not the best of subjects for HDR, I know. Just playin' around with photomatix, really.

Here's the median exposure:

http://gcalvin.com/files/HolyCrapMessyOfficeMedian.jpg

I really need to clean my office up...

STEINBERGER IN DA' HOUSE!

I heard it's a major trial and error thing, FBJ. It'll come. I'm glad you're doing it so you can give the rest of us hints when we stop slacking. :)

[BleedingPurple]

Truly inspiring stuff! Boy, your head must spinning right now, BP! LOL!

LOL, seriously! I wanna be able to do THAT!

[Unfiltered]

LOL, seriously! I wanna be able to do THAT!

You and me both.

One could get some tasty shots with that device.

[FBJ]

LOL, seriously! I wanna be able to do THAT!

All you gotta do is shell out $600 some-odd bones for the box and the sensors to get cool shots like that! :P

I'm thinking, though, that the ZigviewR that ValleyFan linked to is the way to go for me, though. Less than half the money and does the same thing reliably, from what I hear. I might pop for one of those before the month is out.

[FBJ]

STEINBERGER IN DA' HOUSE!

I heard it's a major trial and error thing, FBJ. It'll come. I'm glad you're doing it so you can give the rest of us hints when we stop slacking. :)

Werd! That little Steinberger cost me all of $50 and a bottle of Gentleman Jack, but it is seriously the coolest little guitar.

That HDR of my office was the first HDR image that I've had come out half-way decent. I didn't think it would, either. Photomatix is very easy to use compared to qtpfsgui (I don't have Photoshop CS3, so I can't compare), so I might grab a license for that bit of software and really go at it. It'll be a hell of a lot easier now that I have a good tripod.

BTW, can anyone looking at that picture give me an accurate count of the number of expensive hobbies I have? I can't seem to come up with the same figure twice.

[FBJ]

Anyone tried a Canon EF L 70-200 2.8 IS?

I played with one that a photographer for the CSUN paper was using during this soccer match (http://gcalvin.com/gallery/v/CSUNSoccer/). At the time, I was using my 70-200 F/2.8 VR Nikkor so there was some definite side-by-side comparison. I thought the Nikon focused faster (and so did he), but all-in-all both lenses were pretty darned equal. Good stuff.

[VF]

Anyone tried a Canon EF L 70-200 2.8 IS?

Kick ass lens. There is a reason it is the workhorse of the Canon lineup. Very similar to f/4.0 in sharpness and contrast, but an f/2.8.

[Unfiltered]

BTW, can anyone looking at that picture give me an accurate count of the number of expensive hobbies I have? I can't seem to come up with the same figure twice.

I'll try, but it sounds low. (If you're asking and can't come up with the same number twice.)

Guitar collecting/playing, autographed/game used baseballs, old school video games (NES), bobbleheads, and keeping Dell afloat. (;))
Sooo, 4? Well, that doesn't sound right.

[FBJ]

Scale model aircraft, antique camera collecting, hockey memorabilia, music memorabilia, etc etc etc...

I really need to gather a bunch of this crap up and put it on eBay.

Hah @ "keeping Dell afloat." That rig is paid off as of next month!!

[FBJ]

Bad news for me, guys. My wife left me. Said she didn't think there was any room left in my life for her. Can't for the life of me see why she'd feel that way...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/ReRod/photography%20funnies/95dostarttogetattachedtoyourfavorit.jpg







(no, she didn't actually leave me...)

[FBJ]

Bad A**!

http://www.bmumford.com/photo/creatures/coming.jpg

Guys. Hate to tell you this, but I figured out how this image was really captured:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v322/ReRod/photography%20funnies/991dowhatyoucansinceyousometimesspe.jpg

[FBJ]

Hey would any of youz guyz that has teh camerz be interested in doing a little LGK DSLR THREAD fun-photo project? I was thinking like every month we could declare something new and interesting to be our photographic subjects. You know, something different to get our learning curves to start on the upward climb again? The subject could be a color or a shape or something else even more creative than that and our eyes could sort of be our guides to show each other the different creative possibilities. You know, "green," or "old/young," or "circles," or "hands," or something simple like that?

We could throw out ideas and then decide in the last week of the month what the following month's subject or exercise would be. Rules could be set like:

1) The "subject" has to be accessible to everyone,
2) The project can't require the use of special equipment or techniques, though you can use what you've got in your gear collection or bag of tricks,
3) Participants have to submit a minimum of 24 of your best captures,
4) Participants have to be open to other participant's constructive criticism, technical, and artistic advice,

I could create a private group on flickr.com where everyone can upload their images for everyone else to see and comment on.

What do you all think? I think it'd be a great way to develop our photographer's eye and hone our technical skills a bit and maybe provide some good pictures for our portfolios! 24 good captures could be gotten in just a couple of days of carrying your camera around with you! I'm open to to discussion of ideas for ground rules and subject matter!

[Unfiltered]

Hey would any of youz guyz that has teh camerz be interested in doing a little LGK DSLR THREAD fun-photo project? I was thinking like every month we could declare something new and interesting to be our photographic subjects. You know, something different to get our learning curves to start on the upward climb again? The subject could be a color or a shape or something else even more creative than that and our eyes could sort of be our guides to show each other the different creative possibilities. You know, "green," or "old/young," or "circles," or "hands," or something simple like that?

We could throw out ideas and then decide in the last week of the month what the following month's subject or exercise would be. Rules could be set like:

1) The "subject" has to be accessible to everyone,
2) The project can't require the use of special equipment or techniques, though you can use what you've got in your gear collection or bag of tricks,
3) Participants have to submit a minimum of 24 of your best captures,
4) Participants have to be open to other participant's constructive criticism, technical, and artistic advice,

I could create a private group on flickr.com where everyone can upload their images for everyone else to see and comment on.

What do you all think? I think it'd be a great way to develop our photographer's eye and hone our technical skills a bit and maybe provide some good pictures for our portfolios! 24 good captures could be gotten in just a couple of days of carrying your camera around with you! I'm open to to discussion of ideas for ground rules and subject matter!

That sounds like a rocking idea!

[BleedingPurple]

That's just not fair, Glenn! I only have a P&S! I need to get me a DSLR. (You'll be happy to know that after reading a bunch, I'm now leaning towards a D80)

P.S. Great idea by the way.

Can outsiders (thouse without cameras) observe and judge?

[FBJ]

That's just not fair, Glenn! I only have a P&S! I need to get me a DSLR. (You'll be happy to know that after reading a bunch, I'm now leaning towards a D80)

P.S. Great idea by the way.

Can outsiders (thouse without cameras) observe and judge?

If we do it, I don't see why PNS'ers should have to sit on the sidelines.

[FBJ]

That sounds like a rocking idea!

So do you have any ideas on potential subject material or ground rules?

[BleedingPurple]

If we do it, I don't see why PNS'ers should have to sit on the sidelines.


Good point!

[FBJ]

Great sunrise this morning! Decided to get in some quick HDR practice as my daughter was getting ready for school.

Here are the three exposures:
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/Min.jpg
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/Median.jpg
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/Max.jpg

And here's the tonemapped HDR image:
http://gcalvin.com/files/HDR/tonemapped.jpg

The mistake I made was accidentally leaving the camera in a a high-ISO setting I'd previously used. I was in such a hurry to set up the tripod that I forgot to check it.

[BleedingPurple]

Here's one of my favorite pictures I've ever taken. Used my old Pentax Optio 430 for this one.

http://inlinethumb61.webshots.com/3580/1097264184050855533S600x600Q85.jpg (http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1097264184050855533rhnEjJ)

[VF]

I think it is a fantastic idea, with the one hesitation of:



3) Participants have to submit a minimum of 24 of your best captures,


Is that 24 images per "challenge"? That is a lot of frames (as in I don't know if I could make 24 interesting fames of something every week, but perhaps that is part of the challenge)! Or is it 24 gets you into the group?

Also, I wonder if it might get more traffic here if we did perhaps a new "Photo challenge of the week / bi-week / month" thread for each challenge, or would that overload the board? But I do like the idea of the Flickr group. Perhaps a combo of the two, a Flickr group, but have the thread here where we can link the images to try and entice more entrants?

[FBJ]

I think it is a fantastic idea, with the one hesitation of:



Is that 24 images per "challenge"? That is a lot of frames (as in I don't know if I could make 24 interesting fames of something every week, but perhaps that is part of the challenge)! Or is it 24 gets you into the group?

Also, I wonder if it might get more traffic here if we did perhaps a new "Photo challenge of the week / bi-week / month" thread for each challenge, or would that overload the board? But I do like the idea of the Flickr group. Perhaps a combo of the two, a Flickr group, but have the thread here where we can link the images to try and entice more entrants?

I was thinking 24 per month and having the challenge change once a month. If you wanted to change things up more often than once a month, then fewer captures for shorter periods. I do think more frames might make things more challenging, though.

Flickr would be good for hosting, and an invite-only group could be created there where we can all post images. The groups even come with a built-in bbs of sorts, so the challenge could be posted there as well as here. Best images could be put up here, linked from the flickr group so as not to completely wreck LGK's bandwidth.

[VF]

Sounds good. So what is first up? Here is a (very incomplete) list of things I think might be challenging / interesting:

- Since it has been hot here for a while, HDR, although this isn't something that everyone has the software (Photoshop at least) to do, so it might not be a good one for the challenge.
- Metal object
- Glass
- Fluid (liquid in a glass, puddle, water in a pot, smoke, air current)
- Fabric
- Product photo (like trying to shoot something for an advert)
- Lit portrait (can be lit with just lamps if no flash available)
- Available light portrait
- Animal (maybe narrowed down to something like a bird? Most people have birds in their back yard, although the lenses needed might make this out of bounds)

Again, cool idea Glenn!

[FBJ]

Sounds good. So what is first up? Here is a (very incomplete) list of things I think might be challenging / interesting:

- Since it has been hot here for a while, HDR, although this isn't something that everyone has the software (Photoshop at least) to do, so it might not be a good one for the challenge.
- Metal object
- Glass
- Fluid (liquid in a glass, puddle, water in a pot, smoke, air current)
- Fabric
- Product photo (like trying to shoot something for an advert)
- Lit portrait (can be lit with just lamps if no flash available)
- Available light portrait
- Animall (maybe narrowed down to something like a bird? Most people have birds in their back yard, although the lenses needed might make this out of bounds)

Again, cool idea Glenn!

I like the ideas that I highlighted in your quote, Sam. I think that focusing on key-words or phrases that might get people's imaginations going and get them viewing the world with the photographer's eye would be a better way to do it rather than getting into particular methods or genres (like "lit portrait" or "product photography"). Though if individuals want to work on those techniques while taking pictures that fall under the challenge, that should certainly be acceptable.

Some of the key-words I was thinking of:

- Green (or some other color)
- Showing emotion without having any people's faces in the image
- Movement
- Red, White, and Blue
- Candid
- Still life (though that might fall into "technique?")
- Hands (as in go out and try and shoot pictures of people's hands doing interesting things)
- Geometric shapes
- Play/Sport
- Old
- Low
- Reflections
- Signs

First we've got to get an idea of how many people are really interested. I think I'll create the Flickr group and then make a new thread here in the Tech Forum. Give me a day or so.

[Watti]

First we've got to get an idea of how many people are really interested. I think I'll create the Flickr group and then make a new thread here in the Tech Forum. Give me a day or so.

Just another PNS'er here, but a big fan of this thread and I'd love to participate if possible (especially for the constructive criticism element...)

[FBJ]

Alright, it took me a lot less time than I thought to get the Flickr group set up. Now we just need to figure out exactly how many of us are interested in doing this.

So far, I've got:

Me,
ValleyFan
Watti
BleedingPurple
Unfiltered
Blurker
Deuce
Deaderfan

You all create a Flickr account and PM me the screen name. In the mean time, I'm going to PM some of the others in this thread to see if I can drum up anymore interest in this.

If you've got a Flickr account set up already, search for the group LGK Photo Challenge and request an invite. If your screen name on flickr doesn't match your screen name on here, make sure you let me know who you are on LGK.

[rinkrat]

I like the idea except the part about a community Flickr gallery. I think we should just have a thread here that is the topic of the month and everyone hosts their stuff wherever they want and post your best here or link to your gallery, wherever it may be.

Also, instead of a limit of at least 24 pics how about a cap of at most 24 pics? ;)

[FBJ]

Yah I think the idea was partly to be able to post to Flickr so that it hosts the images for free. The other thing is that it gives the opportunity to moderate out any images that don't comply with the guidelines of each challenge as well as keeping the challenge threads to a minimum length by keeping non-participants from commenting or critiquing (i.e. spamming the thread).

We could post the rules of each challenge at the top of a thread here and then if we could get someone to moderate the thread well enough, it could work the way rinkrat suggests it just as easily as it could work on flickr.

[AutomaticBzooty]

I think it's a cool idea. I'm a total newbie DSLR shooter, though (got a Canon Digital Rebel XT with a 28-135mm lens with rewards points). I like taking shots, though, and could use any critique and education (even very basic, basic stuff) you guys would be up for sharing.

I like RR's idea of doing it all on LGK. I'm not so sure about having so many shots, though....seems like the thread would just get excruciatingly long, and it's harder to critique 24 shots from each photographer than say, 1 or 2.

Are there ground rules? E.g. all manual settings, autofocus or manual focus, etc.?

[rinkrat]

Yeah I think each guy should edit out his best stuff for the thread and if you want to have a Flickr account with a bunch of pics then just add a link to send people there for critique. That way we would have a taste of the best of the best here onsite. If people interrupt, I'll moderate out any surplus static or criticism.

[FBJ]

Sounds good to me. I'll just use the Flickr group for people who need a place to upload all the photographs, then.

One more thing:

Can I get the thread stickied (when I get a chance to make it) so that it doesn't get buried?

[SirJW]

re: subject
Why not let each participant choose a subject on a rotating basis just like a book or wine club?

re: hosting
I think one site for every one is best for one stop shopping and image control will all be the same...

[KernCoKingFan]

Long time lurker to this thread...

Like some others, I don't have a DSLR (Though I want to get one sometime soon - Still debating on which entry level would be best, cost wise, glass wise, etc (Though leaning towards Nikon) - I only have a Canon S2 IS, but would be interested in participating. Have a Photobucket account, but will sign up for Flickr as well (Unless of course it's decided to do it here on LGK, unless you have to be a member of Team LGK?).

As for the subject matter...Like SirJW's idea. But also some of the ones that FBJ and ValleyFan came up with.

Lot's of great photography in this thread btw..

[rinkrat]

It's easy enough for any Joe Blow to set up a free Flickr account so let's let each person determine their own hosting. There's no need for a community account. I'd like to keep any LGK related activities here instead of spreading it out all over the net. It's easy enough to find a spot to host your images these days. Or you could join Team LGK and host them here. (Just a reminder ;) )

[VF]

Pics from east coast:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071216_4642.jpg

Ghost Busters library (actually Columbia Library, also Spiderman Library)
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4686.jpg

Single shot HDR:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4694.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4698.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4702.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4696.jpg

Gameboy which lived through a bombing in Golf War I (at the Nintendo store in NY)
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4705.jpg

And of course the obligatory NYC shot:
http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4709.jpg

[FBJ]

It's easy enough for any Joe Blow to set up a free Flickr account so let's let each person determine their own hosting. There's no need for a community account. I'd like to keep any LGK related activities here instead of spreading it out all over the net. It's easy enough to find a spot to host your images these days. Or you could join Team LGK and host them here. (Just a reminder ;) )

Ahh I get it. Sorry, Mike. Forgot about that.

Okay. Well, I'll come up with the first challenge thread today. Is everyone okay with doing a new one every two weeks with a minimum of 6 captures posted by each participant and a maximum of 12?

Also, I say we should let ValleyFan pick the first challenge theme (if he sees this and gets back to me today). If everyone's okay with that, that is. Maybe we can do something like 'the guy who picked the current challenge selects the guy to choose the next?' Maybe base the decision on which person's images most closely follow the current challenge's theme?

Best-in-thread decided by one person. That person posts the photographer's name and sends that person a PM asking him to decide on the next theme and PM me his decision so I can write up the next challenge's thread. If the new theme isn't chosen within three days, I get to pick it (that way things keep going without stalling).

Cool?

[FBJ]

Sam,

GREAT stuff!

Explain to me what a "single shot HDR" is, though.

[VF]

Ring flash came in. You will have to excuse my mug, as I am the only willing model I have at the moment, and this was during the disaster that was called a hockey game last night:

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20080108_4820.jpg

[FBJ]

You SEXY BITCH, you!

Looks like a head-shot for a stint as Saturday Night Live host...

[VF]

Sam,

GREAT stuff!

Explain to me what a "single shot HDR" is, though.

Thanks!

As for the single shot HDR, in this case it was just one shot, taken in RAW, exposed for the wall. I exported it from Lightroom to Photoshop 3 times, one at -2 stops for the highlights (and you can see where it clips where the florescent tubes all of a sudden just go to white), one at the as shot expose, and one pushed 2 stops for the shadows. I layered them all up in Photoshop with the shadows (the one that was pushed to show the dark areas) at the bottom with no mask, the proper exposure in the middle with a white mask (so the whole layer is showing and now you can't see any of the shadow layer), and the highlights on top with a black mask (so now you can't see it and the as shot exposure layer shows through, you can hold down alt while clicking the new layer mask button to get a black mask). Then I selected the highlights layer mask in the layer dialog, and with a white paintbrush painted the area of the tubes to reveal them, then selected the as shot layer mask, and with a black brush painted the dark shadow areas where I wanted to see more detail.

[FBJ]

Ahh. I sort of guessed that.

[BleedingPurple]

Pics from east coast:



Ghost Busters library (actually Columbia Library, also Spiderman Library)
[IMG]http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4686.jpg

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k35/tuttle5/SamPage_20071224_4698.jpg



My Favorites. Very cool.

[BleedingPurple]

Thanks!

As for the single shot HDR, in this case it was just one shot, taken in RAW, exposed for the wall. I exported it from Lightroom to Photoshop 3 times, one at -2 stops for the highlights (and you can see where it clips where the florescent tubes all of a sudden just go to white), one at the as shot expose, and one pushed 2 stops for the shadows. I layered them all up in Photoshop with the shadows (the one that was pushed to show the dark areas) at the bottom with no mask, the proper exposure in the middle with a white mask (so the whole layer is showing and now you can't see any of the shadow layer), and the highlights on top with a black mask (so now you can't see it and the as shot exposure layer shows through, you can hold down alt while clicking the new layer mask button to get a black mask). Then I selected the highlights layer mask in the layer dialog, and with a white paintbrush painted the area of the tubes to reveal them, then selected the as shot layer mask, and with a black brush painted the dark shadow areas where I wanted to see more detail.

HUH? LOL I've obviously got a lot to learn!

[HeShootsNScores]

so... whats the plan? We just going to post the pics here then? Or should I do the flickr thing....?

[FBJ]

Everyone is going to be responsible for their own hosting. The Challenge thread (which will be posted here later today) will be the only place to showcase the images for the Challenge.

[BleedingPurple]

Everyone is going to be responsible for their own hosting. The Challenge thread (which will be posted here later today) will be the only place to showcase the images for the Challenge.

Sounds good. Question, FBJ... Where is a good site to host a photo so that you can thumbnail it to the thread but then people can view the full-size image if they like?

I tried to send you the full-size image of the lake picture via PM but I think the link only works for me because it's my image. Did the link work for you?

[FBJ]

Yah. It worked.

Any picture-hosting site can be hotlinked to. I use my own web-server, but Flickr accounts can do this if image permissions are set up properly.

[rinkrat]

I will make up a special award for the winners to display in their award thingy over there
















Over here actually





<<------------------<<

[rinkrat]

You might be able to attach a photo directly to the post and it will rendered into a thumbnail and still be viewable as the original.

Edit: Looks like it works.

[FBJ]

Announcement is up!

http://www.letsgokings.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=71043

[BleedingPurple]

You might be able to attach a photo directly to the post and it will rendered into a thumbnail and still be viewable as the original.

Edit: Looks like it works.


That's exactly what I was thinking, RR! I thought there is a limit to the size of our photo that we upload to the Gallery in LGK, no?

Edit:
Test...

Sweet, it worked. (Now if I could only figure out that damn Multi-Quote button!)

[FBJ]

First, HOW YOU DO DAT!?!

Second, can you attach more than one thumbnail to each post?

[BleedingPurple]

First, HOW YOU DO DAT!?!

Second, can you attach more than one thumbnail to each post?


It's actually pretty easy now that I figured it out. Just above the mountain picture icon to attach an image, click the "paperclip" to attach image files by uploading or by hyperlinking.

Yes, you can attach a bunch! I think this could definitely work for those hosting their photos on LGK.

It looks like 1023 X 768 is about the limit that can be uploaded to LGK.

Edit: If my math is right, you can attach about 6 thumbnails with a jpeg thumbnail maxed out at 19.5 KB, you can attach up to 121.6 KB in a post for approximately 6 thumbnails.

It looks like RR has special privledges (obviously) and can upload images to the gallery that are larger than the 350K bytes that all of us are limited to.

[FBJ]

Hooper Camera called! My extension tubes are in!!!

FINALLY I'm gonna get some LENGTH! ;)

I'll post some pics in a bit.

[BleedingPurple]

Hey Glenn, when did you become a Mod? Moving up in the world, eh?

[FBJ]

Hey Glenn, when did you become a Mod? Moving up in the world, eh?

It's only for purposes of the Photgraphy Challenge thread. I won't be doing any other moderating.

[FBJ]

Hooper Camera called! My extension tubes are in!!!

FINALLY I'm gonna get some LENGTH! ;)

I'll post some pics in a bit.

Okay these things are sweet!!

Promaster makes these extension tubes (http://www.promaster.com/products/products.asp?CatID=230&CatSM=&SubCatID=4&CatName=Lenses&SubCatName=Extension%20Tubes&sm=sm2_2304&dir=&page=PROD&product=AFTUBE). There's no optics in them whatsoever, so they're not very expensive (about $150). Three extension tubes to the set, a 12mm, a 20mm, and a 36mm. You can use them in any combination. All they do is move the minimum focus point of the lens closer to the camera.

To minimize motion blur, you take the lens you're using and add its focal length to the length of the tubes you have installed to find the minimum shutter speed you want to meter for. For instance, my 50mm with the 36mm tube between the lens and the camera gives me 86mm of lens. Rounding up to the nearest available shutter speed, I'm looking for a minimum of 1/100th of a second. So I set my camera to Shutter Speed Priority and 1/100th of a second and let the f-stop fall where it may. Typically, you'll need a LOT of light in order to get the f-stop to close down for any appreciable depth-of-field. direct sunlight or strong studio lighting is advisable to get the f-stop to around f/8 to f/11.

Here's the test pics I did. Really shallow DOF because of the indoor lighting and open f-stops, but it'll give you an idea of the amount of magnification available. These are all uncropped images.

Here's the 50mm lens by itself:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/50mm.jpg

Here's the 50mm + the 12mm tube:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/50mm+12mm.jpg

Here's the 50mm + the 20mm tube (not much difference between the 12 and 20mm tubes):
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/50mm+20mm.jpg

Here's the 50mm + the 36mm tube:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/50mm+36mm.jpg

And here's the 50mm lens with all the tubes stacked behind it:
http://gcalvin.com/files/ExtensionTube/50mm+All.jpg

Cool, eh??

Minimum focus distance decreased to about an inch with all the tubes stacked between the camera and the lens!

Images are MUCH sharper when better lighting is available and the camera is mounted on a tripod. I'm going to try and get outside in a little while to get some better examples.