[Cankin]

 

 

 

 

[Planar_head]

Some photos from a local car show I attended.
All shot with the kit lens shopped down to f8.

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

 
 
I've seen some amazing portraits with selective DOF effects.  I used 24mm above, but I may pick up a 90 mm tilt-shift lens eventually for that kind of work.

I like that you are using skill+equipment over post-processing it to look like you made a photo that you really did not.  How do you like the lens just as a regular 24mm focal point lens?  It's a lot of money, but I think if the lens can serve as a multi-purpose and give exceptional IQ be it straight on or using the tilt-shift-etc. aspects of it, then it's a tremendous value.  Nice photo and you should do some work with industrial/architecture/etc. things that have lots of curving as the tilt/shift can really do some dynamic stuff with these types of scenarios.
 
Cheers!

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

 
Interesting effect, and certainly very different from either of mine; it looks as though the camera is pointing pretty much straight up.
 
 
Pretty - I like it.
 
 
No, I don't mind; good catch on the boat, I hadn't even noticed it (the other one is actually a light house, but you can't tell in the small size - I ended up removing it anyway). I also like the bush trimmed from the sky.
 
Based on the input from this thread, here's my revised edition of the image:
 

I re-color balanced the green vegetation, trimmed the bush, removed the boat and the light house, altered the levels a bit, balanced the brightness between the two sides and darkened some of the water and rocks.
 
I think this is a definite improvement over the original; the focus of the image is much clearer now. I notice that you added an orange tinge to the sunset light and I played around with that, but I think I prefer it the way it is.
 

 
I don't think any version of this photo looks realistic to me on a whole.  Not to say it is bad looking, which it is definitely not.  I'd be more interested in how it looks on different papers than how it is looking on the screen.  Have you tried printing it on different papers?  You may find that what you end up with as a print in your hand far exceeds or uhhhh, under-whelms your expectations of what you see on the screen.  I have seen plenty of photos on screen that looked a ton better or worse on paper...and different papers used, etc. etc.  Then I have seen some that pretty much look about the same as what I saw on the screen.  If you are only altering this particular shot for web use only, that's a different story as we won't have to worry about printing, papers to try with the printing process, machines to run your files through to output the best possible print and so on)
 
This all said, do you see any differences like I have when you compare what you see on the monitor to what you see in the print in your hand?
 
I love the third bunny shot, btw...too cute!

 

[Exediron]

Quote:

I don't think any version of this photo looks realistic to me on a whole.  Not to say it is bad looking, which it is definitely not.  I'd be more interested in how it looks on different papers than how it is looking on the screen.  Have you tried printing it on different papers?  You may find that what you end up with as a print in your hand far exceeds or uhhhh, under-whelms your expectations of what you see on the screen.  I have seen plenty of photos on screen that looked a ton better or worse on paper...and different papers used, etc. etc.  Then I have seen some that pretty much look about the same as what I saw on the screen.  If you are only altering this particular shot for web use only, that's a different story as we won't have to worry about printing, papers to try with the printing process, machines to run your files through to output the best possible print and so on)
 
This all said, do you see any differences like I have when you compare what you see on the monitor to what you see in the print in your hand?
 
I love the third bunny shot, btw...too cute!

 
I originally typed up a nice long reply to this, but then I clicked on the little '[Official] Japanese + Other Asian Anime/Manga/Music Discussion Lounge' link and destroyed it all

 
Anyway, here's it from memory:
 
---------------------------------------------------------
 
(Re: Bunny) Thanks!

 
As for the sunset/storm picture, I'm afraid it's true. I realized a while ago that I value feeling more than realism, so that's the direction I go in. It's a preference sort of thing, and that just happens to be mine.
 
I haven't actually printed that particular photograph at all as of yet, but when I do I expect I'll use a Supergloss or Pearl paper (I prefer Fuji papers personally); it possesses bold colors and doesn't have too much shadow detail, so I think it would benefit more from the metallic paper than the Supergloss treatment. I certainly agree that there exists a major gap between what you see on your screen and what you see on a good print; the first time I ever had my work printed with professional quality I was blown away by the results. I have all of my prints done by West Coast Imaging/Aspen Creek, and the quality is absolutely stunning; exhibition quality prints really are worth it for bringing out the best in one's work.
 
As for color differences between the print and my monitor, no; but that's because my monitor is carefully calibrated to agree with the printing process I use. I do certainly see more colors on the prints, and more detail, but there is next to no color shift.
 
In other news, I recently finished the initial build of my new photography website Dylan Lees Photography; any feedback is appreciated, although I can't promise that I'll act on it if it's an issue I can't change or don't agree with.
 
And now here's something from my recent work which is hopefully more realistic (you can view the rest of the new stuff on my website if you feel like it):
 

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

 
I originally typed up a nice long reply to this, but then I clicked on the little '[Official] Japanese + Other Asian Anime/Manga/Music Discussion Lounge' link and destroyed it all

 
Anyway, here's it from memory:
 
---------------------------------------------------------
 
(Re: Bunny) Thanks!

 
As for the sunset/storm picture, I'm afraid it's true. I realized a while ago that I value feeling more than realism, so that's the direction I go in. It's a preference sort of thing, and that just happens to be mine.
 
I haven't actually printed that particular photograph at all as of yet, but when I do I expect I'll use a Supergloss or Pearl paper (I prefer Fuji papers personally); it possesses bold colors and doesn't have too much shadow detail, so I think it would benefit more from the metallic paper than the Supergloss treatment. I certainly agree that there exists a major gap between what you see on your screen and what you see on a good print; the first time I ever had my work printed with professional quality I was blown away by the results. I have all of my prints done by West Coast Imaging/Aspen Creek, and the quality is absolutely stunning; exhibition quality prints really are worth it for bringing out the best in one's work.
 
As for color differences between the print and my monitor, no; but that's because my monitor is carefully calibrated to agree with the printing process I use. I do certainly see more colors on the prints, and more detail, but there is next to no color shift.
 
In other news, I recently finished the initial build of my new photography website Dylan Lees Photography; any feedback is appreciated, although I can't promise that I'll act on it if it's an issue I can't change or don't agree with.
 
And now here's something from my recent work which is hopefully more realistic (you can view the rest of the new stuff on my website if you feel like it):
 

 
Thanks for the write-up.  Good to hear about your experiences sending off your files.  Once you have a good feel for working with the printer and your own work, much the same as working with your own printer if you are up for doing your own printing, you can get truly awesome results!  I don't find a need to print too much so sending it off would work best for me especially if it was to be exhibited/very personal/passed on to someone interested in my work/etc. etc.
 
This image is very nice indeed.  I'm glad you posted it up!
 
Have you ever considered working with an LF setup?  I know it's a total pita, but I think you would be quite shocked to see prints even at 16X20 vs. anything digital.  But this requires 1) Proper exposure (enough that dodge/burn process is perfectly acceptable if you screw up a little), 2) Proper light/wind (lack of that is)/and so on, 3) Drum scan, 4) Send file to printer or you have to have both the file drum scanned and then printed for you.  Even a nice MF setup is wonderful, but to gain a load of control, there's nothing better than LF or one that likes to pretend they made a shot with their tilt/shift/rise/fall/swing/and so on movements))))
 
LF is something that can be very cheap with still superior results, while digital is indeed exceptional, but IMHO, well complimentary of a nice MF/LF setup.  I think of this photo, once again, or even the one with the skies, and you could have easily made either using 6X9 film or LF, by preference, along with a digital cam.  This way you got your feedback with the digital cam, got the film gear for fun, and seems like a lot, but if you aren't exactly on a mega hiking trip, it's more than easily made possible.
 
Clouds?=http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikestacey/6216836882/in/photostream or http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikestacey/6196991849/in/photostream/ and my favorite of this person's work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikestacey/5969777696/in/photostream
 
And more Clouds-Composition)=http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikestacey/5925892818/in/photostream and another of my favorites of this person's work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikestacey/5299725198/in/photostream
 
And if you want a little more "light" as in the photo above, try this one:
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23209605@N00/2786126623/in/photostream
 
 
Lastly, one for Jon L:
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawhead/4512902530/
 
P.S.

One more Cloud photo))=http://www.flickr.com/photos/23209605@N00/2765686526/in/photostream
 
Now time to head to your site!
 
Cheers!

 

[Exediron]

That's some very nice stuff you linked to. My favorites were 'Stream of light, stream of water' and 'Untitled' (the first cloud image you linked). I really wish I could provoke my Nikkor lenses into sunstars like that, but they all have aspherical elements and rounded diaphragms, so I'm lucky if the sun doesn't look like a blotch of white. My Tokina does sunstars, but it's a rather specialized lens.
 
I am thinking of getting a second camera for landscape work; up until fairly recently I've done almost exclusively wildlife and theater photography, and the reach of the DX camera is more important for that; however, for landscape resolution is much more important. Although I may branch out down the road, I'm not thinking of going to physical film just yet. I think for a landscape camera I'll probably get a Nikon D800; it's no large format, but at 36 MP it has more resolution than some medium format digital cameras, and without the new-car price tags.

 

[Audioexcels]

Quote:

That's some very nice stuff you linked to. My favorites were 'Stream of light, stream of water' and 'Untitled' (the first cloud image you linked). I really wish I could provoke my Nikkor lenses into sunstars like that, but they all have aspherical elements and rounded diaphragms, so I'm lucky if the sun doesn't look like a blotch of white. My Tokina does sunstars, but it's a rather specialized lens.
 
I am thinking of getting a second camera for landscape work; up until fairly recently I've done almost exclusively wildlife and theater photography, and the reach of the DX camera is more important for that; however, for landscape resolution is much more important. Although I may branch out down the road, I'm not thinking of going to physical film just yet. I think for a landscape camera I'll probably get a Nikon D800; it's no large format, but at 36 MP it has more resolution than some medium format digital cameras, and without the new-car price tags.

 
Yeah, for the type of work you have been doing, there's really no point but to shoot with digital, especially when higher ISO becomes a concern.  The Nikons are really incredible with what they can do at higher ISOs.  I remember when Canon began producing DSLRs, along with other companies, but could not be matched, even remotely matched, by anyone else in the ISO department.  Nikon was at one point really going downhill along with the other companies as Canon was dominating everything.  Nikon finally figured it out and now has had for a good while now, those excellent sensors with very nice colors that get to play with high ISO.  Nikon also has an excellent on board metering system.
 
I think the D800 is more than enough for landscape work.  You can always do multiple shots and stitch in static enough scenarios for larger prints.  I'm just a single shot type so multiple anything to tally up the resolution has never been part of my work, though it is an easy trick when you have static enough subject matter to utilize.  The D800 is quite a revolutionary camera where we get superior results, but only a $3K price tag vs. what used to be an 8K price tag for a lot less pixels on a FF sensor.  It is a very wise choice especially considering you have a DX based system already, so you would have a lot of equipment to carry right over to the new body.

 

[Austin Morrow]

Had to take a few "Street Photography" shots for Dig 2. Here are some of the shots.
 

 

 

[lostid]

Have not touched my camera for months and almost forgot how to take pictures. LOL.
 
Finally got off my ass and went down to the beach for a sunset shot. Sky tonight was clean with almost no clouds.
 
 

(Click the pic to see the full size)

 

[Lorspeaker]

tat must be part of heaven......

 

 

[lostid]

Quote:

tat must be part of heaven......

 

Hehe, not sure the heaven but people call it paradise.

 

[Redcarmoose]

Quote:

Have not touched my camera for months and almost forgot how to take pictures. LOL.
 
Finally got off my ass and went down to the beach for a sunset shot. Sky tonight was clean with almost no clouds.
 
 
 
(Click the pic to see the full size)

Great!

 

[Exediron]

Some nice stuff on this page. I like your waterfall image Cankin, and the coastline is pretty nice too lostid.
 
A couple of random images I've been working on today for relaxation before I go to bed:
 

  

 
Now that I've got a photography website set up, I'm probably mostly going to be posting things too experimental to put up on it. Although I kinda like the tree one.

 

[Meelis]

Old 35mm point and shoot photos.
 
 
Full size http://static3.nagi.ee/i/p/826/62/20665649f836fc_o.jpg
 

 
 
Full size http://static3.nagi.ee/i/p/826/62/206656512fc269_o.jpg