The Big Photography Thread

[KenElevenShadows]

If someone is looking through a phone to look at photos, it really doesn't matter so much anyway because the resolution most people post at is going to be more than adequate for a phone. And really, most people are now looking at photos posted on the internet over the phone.

[KenElevenShadows]

Skogafoss In The Mist (2016-06-22 12:43)

 

Skógafoss is one of the biggest waterfalls in the country with a width of 25 meters (82 feet) and a drop of 60 m (200 ft). Due to the amount of spray the waterfall consistently produces, a single or double rainbow is normally visible on sunny days. This was not one of those sunny days. The mist, however, lends a beautiful mystery to the image, especially in this 2 second long exposure.

 

According to legend, the first Viking settler in the area, Þrasi Þórólfsson, buried a treasure in a cave behind the waterfall. The story also says that the chest was found years later, but they could not grasp the chest, only getting the ring from the side of the chest. This ring was given to a local church, which in turn gave it to a museum. However, I did find the treasure, and I should be handing in my resignation to work shortly.

 

[Lindaru]

However, I did find the treasure, and I should be handing in my resignation to work shortly.

 

 

Gorgeous water falls! I can feel the mist/spray just looking at this.

 

Looks like the falls are made out of silk.

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

Thanks. I quite literally could feel the mist and spray!!

 

I often, although not always, like silky waterfalls, this due to the long exposure, of course. I take most waterfall photos with shorter exposures to capture the intensity and power and force, and sometimes will go with this. But there was something about the mood and ethereal quality with the mist, the ghostly people moving, and mist that made me go with the longer exposure here.

[Theo Verelst]

Well, I feel that all that resolution on phones that use 2560x1440 pixels is great to look at! For films, like ripped parts of Bluray it doesn't completely get the same motion quality of a good graphics card, but for photo's it's great to have many pixels, even if it isn't the full 16 or 20 + megapixels from some originals, those small images all look terribly artificial to me.

 

I recall working a bit with a (bit famous) Japanese artis many years ago who was working with early High Defnition Screen + computer that was made to drive it and allow her to draw on it: I thought was great, because all the art at the time that was digital was relatively small JPGs and that sucked IMO. Maybe I was used to realistic computer graphics too much, probably for a lot of people art on the web was new and fun, regardless the quality.

 

T.V.

[KenElevenShadows]

It's the SIZE of the phone's screen, not the resolution. It's much easier to make something look good on a phone screen than it is on a large computer monitor, in my opinion.

[Theo Verelst]

I can see the pixels on a phone if I don't keep it half a meter away, so for me it's also pixels. With some phones you can adjust the screen response type on such as for "photo". But for desktop screens you might also have that option. The Oled screens are unique for phones, almost. They have large contrast and probably nicer colors.

 

Theo

[KenElevenShadows]

It's pixels, sure, but which is easier to make a great impression on, a super large high-res screen or a really tiny high-res screen?

 

And we're not even discussing a really nice large print, which completely smokes a monitor of any kind.

 

People are getting way too used to looking at this tiny little screen and thinking that they are experiencing a photo, in my opinion.

 

As always, your mileage may vary.

[Synthoid]

As always, your mileage may vary.

 

 

http://images.fastcompany.com/upload/new-epa-sticker-gas.jpg

[MurMan]

Mobile devices have changed our perception of audio and video media. And not for the better.

 

In addition to the quality of the media, the attention span of the mobile device user has been reduced to the point where the difference between OK quality and great quality is imperceptible.

[Lindaru]

If I am gone from my P.C., I will note things on the tablet or the phone and then wait to get home to really view or listen to them.

 

If I want to live my life looking at thumb nails, I will look at the ones on the ends of my hands.

 

Just my two and a half cents.

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

 

While walking this hallway, I was struck by the red writing and red bench and the way the light from outside was falling across it all. The interior of an abandoned herring factory in Djúpavík, Westfjords, Iceland. At the time it was built, 1935, this was the most enormous concrete building in iceland and one of the largest in Europe, and built in just one year. Herring oil was crucial for general health, and was taken as a supplement. But also, herring oil was used by the Germans to manufacture glycerin, the main ingredient in nitroglycerine, used in the creation of explosives, especially during WWII.

[Lindaru]

Mood provoking for sure, Ken.

 

 

So would this be a red herring factory?

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

It very well may be.

[KenElevenShadows]

 

I Wish Sigur Ros Was Here (2016-06-18 02:20)

 

Inside a fish oil tank, where we sang rounds to the beautiful echo of the fish oil tank, where thousands and thousands of liters of herring oil were stored, the coils below heating the oil. We had not been the only ones to notice the beautiful reverb inside. Sigur Ros played a concert inside this some years back. Djupavik, Iceland. Nikon D610/14-24mm f/2.8, 94s f/11 ISO 100.

[MurMan]

I don't know if the phone display drivers can have more than 8 bits per color!

If you want to learn about display technology in exhaustive detail, check out the Display Technologies website.

 

State-of-the-art phone displays, such as the Samsung OLEDs use 8-bits per color.

[MurMan]

I am thinking about getting a lot more serious about photography and purchasing an enthusiast level DSLR. I'd like some opinions here about my decision process.

 

First, my photo background. In the 1970's, I shot with a Pentax 35mm and a Bronica 6x6. Did all my own processing including some color. Shooting totally manual on the Bronica was always an adventure. Most of my equipment was destroyed in a flood while I was out of the country. I had to focus on career and family, so I never replaced it.

 

Today, I've got the compact camera department covered perfectly with the Sony RX100 Mk III. For my next camera, I'm going big and don't mind the weight and bulk of a DSLR.

 

I'm approaching this from the point of view of buying a system, not a camera. I've spent a lot of time looking at lenses and accessories. To get what I want, I'll have to go used and need a large and vibrant used market.

 

The first big decision: full-frame sensor or APS-C. I'm leaning toward full-frame because it gives me a few extra f-stops and the lens selection is better.

 

Next: Nikon vs Canon. For some reason, Nikon just appeals to me more. Subjective, I know. Canon might be better for video, but I will be shooting stills.

 

Camera: I'm looking at the D610 or D750. They both look excellent and have been out a few years. I'll need to go used to keep in budget, so the selection might be determined by what I run across. I'll probably use eBay for the market price, but buy on CL so that I can make test shots before I buy. I'm prepared to wait for the right deal.

 

Lens: The wide availability of Nikon lenses is a big plus. But, I've been reading about the AFS Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5/5.6. It looks like this one (expensive) lens would cover nearly everything I want to shoot. That would be an unexpected bonus. That with a prime portrait lens might be all I need.

 

Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Murray

[KenElevenShadows]

I shoot Nikon, and am not familiar with Canon, but Canon makes great systems of lens and cameras as well. There are others that you could look into that tend to be more innovative than either Nikon or Canon, including Fuji and Sony. One of the upsides is that they have really advanced mirrorless cameras, which are much lighter. A disadvantage is that, in general, they don't tend to focus as quickly or accurately as DSLRs, especially high-end ones, although that too is becoming a thing of the past. With each passing generation, the focus on these are becoming quick.

 

Another concern of Fuji or Sony's mirrorless systems is that they have less lens to choose from.

 

If you need low light capability, in my opinion, Nikon full frame is the way to go. If you are going for something that requires quick focus and responsiveness, I think Nikon or Canon would do fine. A lot of sports photographers use Canon, so there's clearly something to whatever they're making. If you are shooting gig/concert photography, which requires both quick focus and low light/high ISO capability, I'm not sure, I would probably lean toward NIkon, but clearly, lots of people are getting it done with Canon. If you are doing landscape and not much else, I would strongly consider a Fuji or Sony instead of a larger DSLR. For fashion or anything else that requires tons of details and pixels but still within the realm of DSLRs and not medium or large format, I would have a look at something like the Nikon D810. Do bear in mind that these are all my opinions, and have not been formed by scientific analysis, direct comparison, or anything else. Just my impressions on cameras in general.

 

I own the Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 and absolutely love it. I don't like that it changes aperture as I extend the lens, obviously, but all in all, for the money, it is a great lens, and one that I brought with me to Iceland because I could use it in a variety of situations.

 

I shot this with that lens:

 

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

If I were purchasing a Nikon full frame right now, I would probably go with the D750, in part because not only is it a really great camera, but it also has an articulating frame. I do a lot of night photography, and like to set up my camera in low positions sometimes, and an articulating screen would be HUGE for me. My D610 does not have one. I do really enjoy using the D610, though, but at the time I purchased it, the D750 had not been released yet.

[MurMan]

Thanks for the comments, Ken. Fully understand that they're your opinions.

 

I hadn't thought about the lack of the articulating screen on the D610. I sometimes like to shoot from the waist or ground perspective, so this is important. Darn, I always end up with the more expensive choice ...

 

I did look at the Fuji X-T1, but didn't like the lens situation.

 

Fashion is the last thing I would shoot and can't see needing more pixels. I am looking for versatility and good low-light performance. Outdoor twilight is my fav shooting condition.

 

I do know this about myself: I shoot what interests me and my interests can change over the years. Having the ability to get some special lens or accessory in the future is important.

 

I'll keep researching, but you've confirmed that I might be on the right track. Thanks.

[xKnuckles]

Good luck with your purchase Murray. Always good to hear of another keyboard playing photographer. I won't attempt to add anything to what Ken said as I only know about a millionth of what he does. Reading what he wrote though - and looking at that incredible waterfall photo! - made me feel like I should sell my camera (which he also recommended) and get a Nikon one also! You are quite a salesman, Ken!!

 

I hope we get to see some pictures from your new camera when you get it, Murray.

[MurMan]

I hope we get to see some pictures from your new camera when you get it, Murray.

Thanks for the encouragement, Anne. But just like keyboards, getting good results from a camera takes skill and practice. You might have a long wait before I start posting shots that approach those I see here. Plus, there's a real shortage of puffins in San Diego, so my subjects will be dull and colorless ... Maybe I'll post my first few as iPhone 3 shots ...

 

I just ran across the 28-300mm lens at a good price that I was thinking about from a local guy that's selling his complete D750 kit. The D750 has been sold, but I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on the lens since it is harder to find.

[KenElevenShadows]

Good luck with your purchase Murray. Always good to hear of another keyboard playing photographer. I won't attempt to add anything to what Ken said as I only know about a millionth of what he does. Reading what he wrote though - and looking at that incredible waterfall photo! - made me feel like I should sell my camera (which he also recommended) and get a Nikon one also! You are quite a salesman, Ken!!

 

Do you realize how many thousands of dollars I've cost people?

 

And I just posted this time-lapse camera, the Zeitdice, on my FB page. More toys!!

 

As you can probably tell, I'm really not a Nikon homer. But since I know them, I can mention what's pretty great with them. But Canon has great glass too.

[KenElevenShadows]

Thanks for the comments, Ken. Fully understand that they're your opinions.

 

I hadn't thought about the lack of the articulating screen on the D610. I sometimes like to shoot from the waist or ground perspective, so this is important. Darn, I always end up with the more expensive choice ...

 

I did look at the Fuji X-T1, but didn't like the lens situation.

 

Fashion is the last thing I would shoot and can't see needing more pixels. I am looking for versatility and good low-light performance. Outdoor twilight is my fav shooting condition.

 

I do know this about myself: I shoot what interests me and my interests can change over the years. Having the ability to get some special lens or accessory in the future is important.

 

I'll keep researching, but you've confirmed that I might be on the right track. Thanks.

 

Cool, glad it helped! We look forward to seeing what sort of images you come up with! Sounds like you are really open to getting images in a variety of areas.

 

I forgot...if you are doing night photography/low light stuff, Canon's Live View function completely smokes Nikon. Nikon needs to get their act together in this area. Especially when it comes to focusing on stars to get your focus at night. Nikon's Live View is utterly useless, in my opinion. This is probably why in part the Canons are considerably more favored for creating videos. Probably other reasons as well, I don't know.

[KenElevenShadows]

I hope we get to see some pictures from your new camera when you get it, Murray.

Thanks for the encouragement, Anne. But just like keyboards, getting good results from a camera takes skill and practice. You might have a long wait before I start posting shots that approach those I see here. Plus, there's a real shortage of puffins in San Diego, so my subjects will be dull and colorless ... Maybe I'll post my first few as iPhone 3 shots ...

 

I just ran across the 28-300mm lens at a good price that I was thinking about from a local guy that's selling his complete D750 kit. The D750 has been sold, but I'm thinking about pulling the trigger on the lens since it is harder to find.

 

Look at Nikon Rumors once in a while to find great deals on grey market D750s, such as this one, which I think passed already:

 

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/04/19/deal-of-the-day-nikon-d750-for-1299-grey-market.aspx/

[MurMan]

Look at Nikon Rumors once in a while to find great deals on grey market D750s, ...

That brings up a great question. I've read on Ken Rockwell's website that grey market Nikons will not be serviced by Nikon US and that the cameras aren't eligible for firmware updates. (Not that a 3-year old camera is likely to get new firmware.)

 

For this reason, I thought it would be better to buy used US gear than grey market. What's your opinion?

 

edit: I stand corrected on the firmware updates. I see that the latest is less than a year old and that the distortion control data was updated last month. That's encouraging.

 

I also see that Nikon will service some grey market DSLRs, but I didn't see the D750 in the list.

[Theo Verelst]

The deal with lenses and modern imaging chips is a bit different than in the past. Some of the differences in cameras are simply a software matter, others are a matter of the capabilities and limitations of the imaging chip, the lens and light path characteristics , and the interfacing and compute power of the digital electronics in the camera. Bringing that all back to properties that archaic cameras had isn't necessarily needed, because the way the photo making was done mechanically and by the evolving developing technology doesn't necessarily map to the way a digital cam and the digital photos work for most people.

 

The main part of the hard science underlying that field is like in other areas of technology partly trivial and boring in character (fine with some people) or exceedingly complex and driven by technology more than photographers, as it turns out. It's the latter part, which probably is mostly driven by (ultra-) high definition video and film production, where the interesting technology may lead to real interesting knowledge increase of the people participating in it.

 

Unless you count the progress in miniaturization, and bring along knowledge about "tricks" if you will that transfer well from the long existing analog domain of cameras to the new cameras, which could be summed up as: if you can't compute what a lens really does, image processing sucks. Isn't it ?

 

T.

 

[KenElevenShadows]

Look at Nikon Rumors once in a while to find great deals on grey market D750s, ...

That brings up a great question. I've read on Ken Rockwell's website that grey market Nikons will not be serviced by Nikon US and that the cameras aren't eligible for firmware updates. (Not that a 3-year old camera is likely to get new firmware.)

 

For this reason, I thought it would be better to buy used US gear than grey market. What's your opinion?

 

edit: I stand corrected on the firmware updates. I see that the latest is less than a year old and that the distortion control data was updated last month. That's encouraging.

 

I also see that Nikon will service some grey market DSLRs, but I didn't see the D750 in the list.

 

You do have to be very careful what you look at, as you've seen.

[KenElevenShadows]

 

Unless you count the progress in miniaturization, and bring along knowledge about "tricks" if you will that transfer well from the long existing analog domain of cameras to the new cameras, which could be summed up as: if you can't compute what a lens really does, image processing sucks. Isn't it ?

 

 

Lens is always the most important chain in the camera, in my opinion.

 

But processing can really alter an image, taking a good image and making it great. I think people seriously underestimate how much processing people did with film.

 

Some time, perhaps people who think that HDR is new should Google to see when the first HDR photo was made.

[Theo Verelst]

I wasn't joking altogether, and Ken is right: lenses and their proper use are complicated computers! It should be possible to compute accurately what any lens does, and some of what all lenses do should be invertible, but what should be possible mathematically in software isn't much worked on at the moment to my knowledge, and so in a way lenses are important even though deep or scientific software should be able to take over a lot of what a lens does for good pictures, maybe it isn't what photographers want. The same with some of those fun applets that can make a 3 dimensional model from a photographed object seen from some angles: some of them can do interesting things, which proves that's possible, but most suck.

 

T.