[eric343]

Took a few digital photos at a very cool park in Seattle... what do you guys think?

http://www.audiogeek.net/gallery/nature/

 

[ricola_pak]

what camera/settings did u use?

pretty beautiful.

 

[Stephonovich]

That's some nice stuff there. Looks a bit rich for unaltered digital, though... was it Photoshopped?

C'mon, no shame in it. However, if that's untouched, I take my hat off to you, sir. Heck, even if it isn't, I do. Nice stuff.

I just got a roll of Fuji Superia 100 a few days ago that I plan on taking some shots at the Ponca State Park with. Supposed to be the most saturated print film available. I don't have a slide adaptor for the scanner, or even a decent scanner, so prints it is for me. Otherwise I'd be using Velvia 50.

And yes, I do have a digicam, or rather, my mom does, but I take it over. Olympus C-4040. I guess you'd call it Prosumer. 4.1MP is nothing to sneeze at, and it takes pretty decent pictures, but not being a SLR really hampers it. Plus, no RAW output. Awesome for previewing what a picture might look like, though. Set everything identical to my film camera (Canon EOS Rebel 2K w/ 28-80mm, 75-300mm, 80B, haze, and Circular Polarizer), and snap away. I can usually get a pretty good feel of how it's going to look that way.

(-:Stephonovich

 

[eric343]

I use a Nikon Coolpix 990 set for maximum quality (JPEG output). It's not a "professional" camera, but it is capable of some amazing photographs once you get familiar with it.

There was no digital alteration in any photographs save DSCN4257 (the one with the red fire hydrant), where I increased the brightness and contrast as the picture was originally a bit dark for my tastes.

 

[Stephonovich]

Most excellent, dude. I myself am never satisfied with our digicam's results, so I always Photoshop. Then, I'm of the mindset that nothing is ever perfect, something can always be done to better it. I mean, when you can do things like take an overexposed picture and an underexposed one, combine them, and get a picture with more dynamic range than is physically possible, that's just freaking awesome. I figure, as long as you don't try to pretend it's all original, what's wrong with boosting saturation to past-Velvia levels, or adding flash where there was none? In theory, you could do all this in a darkroom with lots of time, so why not speed just speed it up? What's holy and good about chemicals and lights that's not about a mouse?

(-:Stephonovich

 

[eric343]

Yeah... though chemicals and lights are just cool.

Seriously, I think it's best to try to take a good picture the first time 'round rather than rely on post-processing. And to do that, for me the best way is to take as many pictures on the digital camera as possible, in as many different situations as possible. (also -- read the manual.) For example, when you look at the image titles (DSCNXXXX), realize that the 4 digit number is continuous (doesn't get reset at each upload), and started at 0001... we've taken quite a few photos with this camera.

What camera are you using?

I am of the opinion that camera quality is quite a bit more important than with film... whereas the colors and resolution are determined a lot by the lens and film with "normal" photography, the sharpness and colors are determined by the camera's built-in lens and CCD (unless we're talking SLR digital). Better, I think, to go with an older, lower-megapixel (mine is only 3.34) camera that was a top-notch camera than a newer one that's just mediocre. Because megapixels definitely aren't everything.

 

[Stephonovich]

Yes, I agree, one should make the best effort possible to get a good shot. Growing up with only film cameras has taught me that much.

For film, I'm using a Canon EOS Rebel 2000, with a 28-80mm and 75-300mm lens, an 80B blue filter, haze filters, and a Circular Polarizer. For digital, Olympus C-4040 Zoom. It's got a 3x optical zoom, I think equivalent is 35-105mm, or something like that. As for the CCD, I have no idea. It does have a 1.8f lens, however. The newer, C-4000 only has a 2.8f, which is one reason I thought the older one would be better. Now, looking back, methinks the C-5050 (same camera, except 5MP) would have been better, as it can use xD storage. SmartMedia just sucks

(-:Stephonovich

 

[ipodstudio]

Actually, on some cameras, especially Nikons which I use myself, you MUST post process to get the right results. Nikon, for example, does not generally employ very much in camera sharpening. Instead they leave that up to the photographer, who will then sharpen and unsharp mask according to taste. Canon pics will normally look sharper straight out of the camera as they believe more in in-camera sharpening.

As a compact I use a Nikon 5400. Up until a short while back I used Nikons' D1X DSLR. That was a fantastic performer if you could use it, but it's big, big, big, especially with 5 lenses, flash etc... along for the ride

 

[eric343]

Quote:

Originally posted by ipodstudio Actually, on some cameras, especially Nikons which I use myself, you MUST post process to get the right results. Nikon, for example, does not generally employ very much in camera sharpening. Instead they leave that up to the photographer, who will then sharpen and unsharp mask according to taste. Canon pics will normally look sharper straight out of the camera as they believe more in in-camera sharpening.

My Nikon 990 has internal menu options for how much sharpening to apply...

 

[ipodstudio]

Quote:

Originally posted by eric343 My Nikon 990 has internal menu options for how much sharpening to apply...

Yes, they all do, but if you use them they tend to over sharpen and thus add an artificial or manipulated feel to the image that isn't terribly natural and isn't either what I'm actually seing with my eyes. By switching off the in-camera sharpening and using PS or Nikon Capture 3 to gain the sharpening effect you want, you have far more control over the finished product, allowing you to form a much more natural rendition of the original object/scene.

 

[terrymx]

they are beautiful close up shots, very rich with colors and ...serenity feelings. i enjoy any photo about nature. the number 21 with the tree by the edge of the slope and the lake from behind is my fav.

 

[AdamP88]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephonovich Yes, I agree, one should make the best effort possible to get a good shot. Growing up with only film cameras has taught me that much. For film, I'm using a Canon EOS Rebel 2000, with a 28-80mm and 75-300mm lens, an 80B blue filter, haze filters, and a Circular Polarizer. For digital, Olympus C-4040 Zoom. It's got a 3x optical zoom, I think equivalent is 35-105mm, or something like that. As for the CCD, I have no idea. It does have a 1.8f lens, however. The newer, C-4000 only has a 2.8f, which is one reason I thought the older one would be better. Now, looking back, methinks the C-5050 (same camera, except 5MP) would have been better, as it can use xD storage. SmartMedia just sucks (-:Stephonovich

You owe it to yourself to get some better lenses for the Rebel (I've got the 2000 as well).

I'd recommend the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (NOT 4-5.6!), it's so much better than the 28-80 - better built, much faster focusing, and noticeably better picture quality. You can get it for a little over $200, too. Also, do yourself a huge favor and pick up the 50mm f/1.8. It's cheap ($70) and extremely sharp. Plus the big aperture comes in quite handy. I'd also recommend Fuji Reala 100 for a good high-saturation print film if you're looking around - and Kodak High-Definition is pretty good stuff, too (though you should really give Velvia a try - it's great stuff - I'm hooked on it!).

As far as digital goes, I'm saving up for either the digital rebel or the 10D. And if you want saturation that's close to what film can do, you need to post-process in photoshop or some editing program (there are actually a few photoshop plugins that pretty successfully simulate the Velvia look). The way I look at it the shot straight out of the camera is somewhat like a negative - purely what the camera sees (if you shoot in RAW mode, that is), and digital post-processing is akin to darkroom developing - you have a lot of leeway in what you can get out of an image depending on how you develop it.

 

[pank2002]

Nice pics! I like the shore picture a lot, its cool.

I have a Canon PS s45, but unfortuantly I don't use it very oftend anymore. When I lived in the US I used it like every day, now I only use it at special occation...

 

[ipodstudio]

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamP88 Also, do yourself a huge favor and pick up the 50mm f/1.8. It's cheap ($70) and extremely sharp. Plus the big aperture comes in quite handy.

It's funny: Nikon have the almost identical AF 50mm f1.8, which is also dirt cheap (about $70 as well) and is tack sharp. Most Nikon pros I know keep one in their bag and many prefer it over the 4 times as expensive AF 50 f1.4...go figure...

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally posted by ipodstudio It's funny: Nikon have the almost identical AF 50mm f1.8, which is also dirt cheap (about $70 as well) and is tack sharp. Most Nikon pros I know keep one in their bag and many prefer it over the 4 times as expensive AF 50 f1.4...go figure...

It's much easier to make a sharp lens with a slow aperature. I have a leica rig, and I use the 50 mm f/2 summicron, many consider it the sharpest consumer lens made -- it is certainly noticeable compared to any of my other lenses. Slides just look more 3 dimensional and colors are more...well, real. I think voigtlander made a 3.5 heliar special edition awhile back that was supposed to be even sharper...However, there is definitely something to be said for super fast lenses. I think my favorite lens might be the Canon FD 85 mm f/1.2L...you can completely isolate out your subject, shoot by the light of a candle, and since it is a floating element design, its performance wide open is as good as it is stopped down. I think I will add digital to my arsenal when full frame sensors in the 10 megapixel range are available in a compact leica M mount and less than 5000 dollars. I think it will be about 5 years. Until then the focal length multiplication factors and the gargantuan size of modern pro DSLR's is just too daunting. Excuse my curmudgeon-ness. It's just that I find people shy away from me when I point my admittedly intimidating Canon T90 with 85 mm lens (it is a 72 mm filter size with a large hood), and the T90 is still half the size of the D1s, EOS 1V or the D1X, D2H etc...those things are bigger than a hasselblad!
Eric -- keep up the good work. Photography is a really rewarding hobby -- I wish I got into it in earnest at your age.