Photography Thread

[stever750]

Tbh I couldn't really care less what camera is used, some of my fave shots are my phone. The only important feature of the hardware is that it allows you to obtain the image that you are trying to make. Photography can sometimes turn into a bit of a nerdy gear fest! 

[B33fy]

At the end of the day we do what work for us as individuals, I’m happy with the path I took and it works for me. My post was about my experience and the pro’s and cons as I see them, if Geof or others get affirmation from it  or are dismissive of the points made  that’s fine also.

 

I dont get aggressive in my posts or feel the need to repeat myself because I don’t feel I’m being heard, nor am I of the view that my way is the only way because “I am an expert”. 

 

If I can’t share a viewpoint with out getting an arrogant, self opinionated, aggressive repetitive response in return then I’m outa here.. don’t want to be part of this with yet another thread spoilt by one for the many.

 

 

[mrcrow]

1 hour ago, stever750 said:

North East? Surely it should be like burqua? Lol 

ooooh!! PC please

[mrcrow]

1 hour ago, fabdavrav said:

Nice bit of blurry background to get the attention on the insect...f/2.7 at 1/500sec....(low ISO, & not stating as is a giveaway to camera)..now play "which camera this was taken on"..& BTW this has been reduced down to 1000 pixels across for web...

 thats really sharp this end

[mrcrow]

28 minutes ago, B33fy said:

At the end of the day we do what work for us as individuals, I’m happy with the path I took and it works for me. My post was about my experience and the pro’s and cons as I see them, if Geof or others get affirmation from it  or are dismissive of the points made  that’s fine also.

 

I dont get aggressive in my posts or feel the need to repeat myself because I don’t feel I’m being heard, nor am I of the view that my way is the only way because “I am an expert”. 

 

If I can’t share a viewpoint with out getting an arrogant, self opinionated, aggressive repetitive response in return then I’m outa here.. don’t want to be part of this with yet another thread spoilt by one for the many.

 

 

bulls eye..and for me i retract anything i may have intimated to cause a bad or poor feeling

i am no expert hence my faux pas with the term "crop"

so i am withdrawing in future on any reference to that again

apologies...i am here to learn...and support my skoda comrades

cheers

geof

[fabdavrav]

4 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

 thats really sharp this end

 

it is & that's the image reduced "not cropped" down to 1000pixels wide

 

That was taken on the Oly TG4 with a 16MP 1:2.3 sensor at 100ISO....so that image in unreduced form is the same MP as your camera...

 

If I took that picture with your camera & looked at both at 100% or got printed out at max res (approx. 18x12inch for that sensor around 254 dpi)..then your camera at similar setting for FL & Dof would show less lens flaws & remain sharper than mine. (no dark shadows in image so these problems with dark noise with small sensors not an issue here)

 

However a lot of stock photography etc is web based, magazines etc so you do not require such crispness as you will have to throw most away to reduce the file down...as shown in the above picture...

[mrcrow]

F1 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

and now for something completely different.. my attempt at bokeh

i am still struggling to get that intimate feel of sharpness...i think i am getting too close so that the autofocus is telling me ok but focussing on a point not quite near enough...those stamens

i see there is a control on the manual focus to set the focus cross hairs...just in front or just behind...on the G5

and i assume this is some kind of compensation

i will try again with a tripod...this shot was at the large end of the zoom hand held at iso 200 f5.6 1/2000 very slight breeze.

cheers

geof

[mrcrow]

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

 

it is & that's the image reduced "not cropped" down to 1000pixels wide

 

That was taken on the Oly TG4 with a 16MP 1:2.3 sensor at 100ISO....so that image in unreduced form is the same MP as your camera...

 

If I took that picture with your camera & looked at both at 100% or got printed out at max res (approx. 18x12inch for that sensor around 254 dpi)..then your camera at similar setting for FL & Dof would show less lens flaws & remain sharper than mine. (no dark shadows in image so these problems with dark noise with small sensors not an issue here)

 

However a lot of stock photography etc is web based, magazines etc so you do not require such crispness as you will have to throw most away to reduce the file down...as shown in the above picture...

see my post above. old chap..happy for your comments and advice

[fabdavrav]

7 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

F1 by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

and now for something completely different.. my attempt at bokeh

i am still struggling to get that intimate feel of sharpness...i think i am getting too close so that the autofocus is telling me ok but focussing on a point not quite near enough...those stamens

i see there is a control on the manual focus to set the focus cross hairs...just in front or just behind...on the G5

and i assume this is some kind of compensation

i will try again with a tripod...this shot was at the large end of the zoom hand held at iso 200 f5.6 1/2000 very slight breeze.

cheers

geof

 

 

I would suggest try the old fixed center focus & place center on the part you want to be sharp & half press & hold shutter...then move camera to re-compose the picture & fully press the shutter....otherwise auto tracking etc can be confused in slight winds....or manually move on screen focus point to area you want the camera to focus on..ie compose, then move the focus point on the screen with the buttons/pad...

 

also you need to expose more to the right as they say....too much darkness....top left petal is the watch point for highlights & you can over expose a bit more before you lose it....say 0.7stop....do you have the histogram setting view screen turned on in the camera screen??

 

otherwise good backlighting & no flash..very good...

Edited 4 October, 2018 by fabdavrav

[fabdavrav]

38 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

 thats really sharp this end

 

This is a cropped version of the previous image.

 

Now this is same size as the above..so 1000pixels wide....however this is 1000pixels of the original sensor image (which was 4608x3072 pixels)..so what you see here is one pixel of this picture equals one pixel on your display screen....so pixel peeping at 100%....this is where you see the fact the TG4 camera only has 3 elements & the limitations in the design...

 

this is where more pixels on the sensor & better lens quality play out.....better lens quality like your camera which will produce the same sized image as this as 16MP ..but yours would be sharper & less halo effects....

 

more pixels say in a 42MP full frame would mean that at 1000pixels across the cropped image would be of a smaller section of the original image ( & smaller section of this so zoomed in more).....or if you just cropped the original image to make what you see in this image the crop from the 42MP camera would be way sharper as more pixels across the image...

 

you just have to get your head around the tech aspects & not worry too much about bigger pixel count...16MP is fine...just means you have to get closer if you want to print out a max res...eg fill the frame with the object..as not so much MP room to crop down in photoshop....

Edited 4 October, 2018 by fabdavrav

[mrcrow]

33 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

I would suggest try the old fixed center focus & place center on the part you want to be sharp & half press & hold shutter...then move camera to re-compose the picture & fully press the shutter....otherwise auto tracking etc can be confused in slight winds....or manually move on screen focus point to area you want the camera to focus on..ie compose, then move the focus point on the screen with the buttons/pad...

 

also you need to expose more to the right as they say....too much darkness....top left petal is the watch point for highlights & you can over expose a bit more before you lose it....say 0.7stop....

F1-R by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

well!!

that is something i have never tried..moving the histogram....dohhh...and i thought i knew what it was... just an indication

brilliant!!..+1.08 to the right...pulled everything with it

the focus thing i normally do but will try to perfect it...

cheers

geof

[mrcrow]

15 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

This is a cropped version of the previous image.

 

Now this is same size as the above..so 1000pixels wide....however this is 1000pixels of the original sensor image (which was 4608x3072 pixels)..so what you see here is one pixel of this picture equals one pixel on your display screen....so pixel peeping at 100%....this is where you see the fact the TG4 camera only has 3 elements & the limitations in the design...

 

this is where more pixels on the sensor & better lens quality play out.....better lens quality like your camera which will produce the same sized image as this as 16MP ..but yours would be sharper & less halo effects....

 

more pixels say in a 42MP full frame would mean that at 1000pixels across the cropped image would be of a smaller section of the original image ( & smaller section of this so zoomed in more).....or if you just cropped the original image to make what you see in this image the crop from the 42MP camera would be way sharper as more pixels across the image...

 

you just have to get your head around the tech aspects & not worry too much about bigger pixel count...16MP is fine...just means you have to get closer if you want to print out a max res...eg fill the frame with the object..as not so much MP room to crop down in photoshop....

that seems softer old chap...what do you say...on the eyes anyway..

cheers

geof

[fabdavrav]

7 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

F1-R by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

well!!

that is something i have never tried..moving the histogram....dohhh...and i thought i knew what it was... just an indication

brilliant!!..+1.08 to the right...pulled everything with it

the focus thing i normally do but will try to perfect it...

cheers

geof

 

no problems....see much better..just go easy on it..you don't want to blow the detail in the highlights too much.....personally i'd take it back just a bit as you have lost a smidge of colour intensity in the yellow on the petals...

[mrcrow]

4 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

no problems....see much better..just go easy on it..you don't want to blow the detail in the highlights too much.....personally i'd take it back just a bit as you have lost a smidge of colour intensity in the yellow on the petals...

ACE!!

[fabdavrav]

14 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

that seems softer old chap...what do you say...on the eyes anyway..

cheers

geof

 

it has that retro "soft focus" effect built in all the time....haha...

 

This was to show how cropping & image size etc & quality are perceived for most photography.....& how big you print out at & "zoom in" to see the limitations on a smaller sensor with a basic lens...that image to fit my photo grade 24" computer screen looks tack sharp as the screen has less pixels than the original file size...

 

 

[mrcrow]

1 minute ago, fabdavrav said:

 

it has that retro "soft focus" effect built in all the time....haha...

 

This was to show how cropping & image size etc & quality are perceived for most photography.....& how big you print out at & "zoom in" to see the limitations on a smaller sensor with a basic lens...that image to fit my photo grade 24" computer screen looks tack sharp as the screen has less pixels than the original file size...

 

 

good point...my own stuff on this old dell latitude D530 looks a lot better when downloaded from flikr onto my ipad air

i was astounded how goooood my stuff was...

[fabdavrav]

56 minutes ago, mrcrow said:

good point...my own stuff on this old dell latitude D530 looks a lot better when downloaded from flikr onto my ipad air

i was astounded how goooood my stuff was...

 

When I got this photo monitor (Dell ultrasharp 24inch)  my old digital stuff taken with a smaller sensor (old Fuji) than the TG4 looks very good..so good I kept the stuff...Blown to A3 size its fine...any bigger forget it...

 

Personally if you are into photography a decent monitor is more important than more lenses etc....no point taking photos to sell/microstock/home print/etc if you can't see them properly IMHO...

 

This new camera I have, has, like many other cameras, mases of in camera image processing for after the shot is taken...basically a mini version of photoshop & editing etc...so that people can edit in the camera, then Bluetooth the image to their smart phone & then upload to the web...

 

& it shows when people do this as they have not seen the image on a decent sized screen....& I thought 6x4inch prints were the smallest acceptable viewing for a photo..now it seems the smaller camera view screen is fine!!...

 

About 2/3 the features on this camera I will never use....but its there as it uses the cpu's & processing power (for image taking) when they are not taking images.....

[Xavier]

Butterfly from a few years back.

D3s, 105mm Macro, 1/400, f/7.1

[Xavier]

Slightly larger beast, keeping our garden lawn in check (and eating all the flowers too!)

 

D3s, 200mm f/2.0, 1/1600, f/2.0

[Xavier]

Oh and whilst on the subject technicalities such as crop / not crop / what is a crop, I also only ever shoot in RAW format. It just allows you to recover so much information which is otherwise lost in JPEG. Not just over/under-exposed photos, but also far finer control on white balance, etc.

 

Yes, with large pixel count, you end up with large files - around 50MB is frequent from my D800. But I can always bin the stuff I don't want to keep and even once I'm happy, output to a high quality JPEG and ditch the NEF file as I know I won't want to retouch it again.

 

Storage nowadays is cheap

[fabdavrav]

3 hours ago, Xavier said:

Oh and whilst on the subject technicalities such as crop / not crop / what is a crop, I also only ever shoot in RAW format. It just allows you to recover so much information which is otherwise lost in JPEG. Not just over/under-exposed photos, but also far finer control on white balance, etc.

 

Yes, with large pixel count, you end up with large files - around 50MB is frequent from my D800. But I can always bin the stuff I don't want to keep and even once I'm happy, output to a high quality JPEG and ditch the NEF file as I know I won't want to retouch it again.

 

Storage nowadays is cheap

 

 

I still shoot JPEG...…….

 

my cameras Oly have very good WB...the Fuji I had was pants by comparison…

 

..I either leave in auto WB or set white balance to suit conditions....yes I have had to very rarely alter it in tricky conditions, but the "correct colour cast" function in photoshop works well.....as for under/over exposure..again in PS the level function is very good & so is the lighten shadow/darken highlights function...but then again I have never had to alter an image by more than 2stops in PS...usually its 0.3-0.7 stop as I try to get the exposure bang on in the field...& thus will take a few shots framed the same...if required for tricky conditions...

 

Mind you when I start working on a picture I immediately open it & then "save as" & save as a PSD file...so I have the original JPEG which is untouched....& then I mess around with the PSD which is way bigger file size...Then when finished I "save as" again & thus create a copy...& most microstock site prefer you to upload JPEG & they then create a TIFF from the JPEG you upload...

 

both my TG4 & the OMD EM1 can shoot RAW, but TBH I haven't found the need (so far) for the extra "twiddling" capabilities....so prefer the faster transfer & indexing of the smaller JPEG...

[mrcrow]

SV by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

stormy days in valletta...malta..2016

 

cant find the color version...lost it in the pix.ie crash a few years ago

Edited 5 October, 2018 by mrcrow

[fabdavrav]

2 hours ago, mrcrow said:

SV by mrcrow_uk, on Flickr

 

stormy days in valletta...malta..2016

 

cant find the color version...lost it in the pix.ie crash a few years ago

 

 

Personal opinion….

 

..I would have burnt/over exposed/lightened the buildings a bit more...you've lost the cars/walls etc center bottom edge....& that would then bring the image balance back up as the sky looks lighter than it should be compared to the darkness of the buildings...,,or darken the sky...in fact a bit of both would do it...

[stever750]

17 minutes ago, fabdavrav said:

 

 

Personal opinion….

 

..I would have burnt/over exposed/lightened the buildings a bit more...you've lost the cars/walls etc center bottom edge....& that would then bring the image balance back up as the sky looks lighter than it should be compared to the darkness of the buildings...,,or darken the sky...in fact a bit of both would do it...

I wouldn't because it was taken to reflect the mood / emotional intent of the photographer, and secondly the golden rule of cc is only give it when invited? 

 

I like it, great shot and mood, well done! 

[fabdavrav]

8 minutes ago, stever750 said:

, and secondly the golden rule of cc is only give it when invited? 

 

 

Posting pictures on the web & not expecting comments …….what a novel idea....