News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Photography, photos you took, photos you are in, photos you like, the lot!

Started by Tank, June 07, 2011, 07:46:01 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

McQ

Quote from: MariaEvri on June 11, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
here is a shot form the natural history museum in london
edit:
hoops forgot the link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/poseidon_simons/5820990174/in/photostream

Nice HDR. Plus, it led to your photostream on Flickr, where you have some other amazing pics. Nice!
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Stevil

Quote from: McQ on June 11, 2011, 03:39:17 PM
And Stevil, your photos are remarkable. Your compositions are excellent, your subjects are interesting, and they all look well done. Don't sell yourself short.
Thanks alot McQ

I'm finding this thread very inspirational, AD's out of this world night shots, Tank's amazing portraits and close ups, MariaEvri's spectacular HDRs.

Your sports photos look so professional, you must have a very expesive camera and lens, taking zoomed, actions shots with such precise stop motion, your lens must be really fast, the colour is fantastic too.

Please people, more photos!

OldGit


Tank

Quote from: OldGit on June 12, 2011, 09:52:29 AM
My grandson, aged nearly 4:



and a bit younger:



Ok, how the hell did you do the top one! And did he actually get to 4!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

OldGit

Little monkey jumped off the plastic car - about 10 times, so I've got a whole load of similar shots.  And that was 3 weeks ago: he's not 4 yet, but he's fine so far.

Tank

Quote from: Stevil on June 11, 2011, 09:30:53 AM




This is a lovely picture that has fooled the camera with the 'Wedding Photographer's Dilemma', where the groom is in a black suit and the bride in a white dress. In the case of the pelican the detail of the white feathers has disappeared. If you look in the reflection of the neck and breast plumage you can see the feather detail. This is a technical issue with the camera. All cameras have a sensitivity called 'dynamic range' (DR) this is either a function of the film or the digital sensor. It has a value expressed as a number, say 4, for arguments sake. The shades in an image also have a dynamic range. For the pelican lets say it is 6. If the range of the image (6) is greater than that of the camera (4), the camera can not record the whole of the image range. Part of the recorded image will be outside the range of the camera, it will be under and/or over exposed. Film used to be more tolerant of being over exposed digital sensors are more tolerant to being under exposed.

But the fact remains that if the DR of the camera (4) is less than the DR of the image (6) an automatic exposure system is going to get something wrong. This is where the tog has to take control and choose to expose for the highlights (bright areas) or lowlights (shadows). The wedding tog always exposes for the highlights so the brides dress shows details. Dark shadows are much less noticeable than blown highlights and in post processing it is easier to recover lost shadow detail than lost highlight detail; from a digital sensor.

When buying a cheap point an shoot digital camera one of the things you don't get is a top quality sensor and that means poor DR and high levels of image 'noise' (coloured specs in dark shadow areas). Photography equipment is very much a case of 'you get what you pay for' and if a deal looks too good to be true it usually is! However if the tog understand the limitations of their kit they can compensate appropriately.

I managed to keep most of the highlight detail on this swan by underexposing the image slightly.

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

McQ

Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2011, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on June 11, 2011, 09:30:53 AM


This is a lovely picture that has fooled the camera with the 'Wedding Photographer's Dilemma', where the groom is in a black suit and the bride in a white dress. In the case of the pelican the detail of the white feathers has disappeared. If you look in the reflection of the neck and breast plumage you can see the feather detail. This is a technical issue with the camera. All cameras have a sensitivity called 'dynamic range' (DR) this is either a function of the film or the digital sensor. It has a value expressed as a number, say 4, for arguments sake. The shades in an image also have a dynamic range. For the pelican lets say it is 6. If the range of the image (6) is greater than that of the camera (4), the camera can not record the whole of the image range. Part of the recorded image will be outside the range of the camera, it will be under and/or over exposed. Film used to be more tolerant of being over exposed digital sensors are more tolerant to being under exposed.

But the fact remains that if the DR of the camera (4) is less than the DR of the image (6) an automatic exposure system is going to get something wrong. This is where the tog has to take control and choose to expose for the highlights (bright areas) or lowlights (shadows). The wedding tog always exposes for the highlights so the brides dress shows details. Dark shadows are much less noticeable than blown highlights and in post processing it is easier to recover lost shadow detail than lost highlight detail; from a digital sensor.

When buying a cheap point an shoot digital camera one of the things you don't get is a top quality sensor and that means poor DR and high levels of image 'noise' (coloured specs in dark shadow areas). Photography equipment is very much a case of 'you get what you pay for' and if a deal looks too good to be true it usually is! However if the tog understand the limitations of their kit they can compensate appropriately.

I managed to keep most of the highlight detail on this swan by underexposing the image slightly.


Right on. Good description, explanation, and advice. The good news is that even Point and Shoot cameras are getting better, and companies are putting higher end CMOS sensors in them, which can handle DR more accurately.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to take better photos do all he or she can to do as much manually as possible. It's vital to learn how cameras work (it's really not that complex, I promise!), how light works within a camera, and how to make basic adjustments based on 1) Film Speed (aka ISO) 2) Aperture and 3) Shutter Speed.
The relationship amongst those three things is the basic meat and potatoes of photography.

With the DR problem that Tank illustrated, people can learn to adjust by learning how to use (if your camera has it) Exposure Compensation. It's tricky at first, but once learned, your number of great shots goes up significantly, and shots like those swans are better, like Tank's. He manually adjust for those areas of white which otherwise would have been totally blown out and unusable.

I'm liking this thread more and more, as talking photography is fun for me.

And Stevil, yes I do have good equipment, but believe me, I can still take a crappy photo with it. A good photographer can take great photos with primitive equipment, but it does help to have the good stuff on hand! Since I am a pro sports photog in my second job (nights and weekends) I got equipment that allows me to shoot in low light conditions without a flash and at some distance away. I use a Nikon D3S body, coupled with some very fast lenses (by fast, meaning the aperture can open up very wide to allow a lot of light in a really short period of time). The Pole Vaulter photos were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens. Great sports lens.

Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Tank

McQ, all those of those pictures are just sweet as a nut. Highly aspirational!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2011, 02:59:49 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2011, 12:38:07 PM
Quote from: Stevil on June 11, 2011, 09:30:53 AM


This is a lovely picture that has fooled the camera with the 'Wedding Photographer's Dilemma', where the groom is in a black suit and the bride in a white dress. In the case of the pelican the detail of the white feathers has disappeared. If you look in the reflection of the neck and breast plumage you can see the feather detail. This is a technical issue with the camera. All cameras have a sensitivity called 'dynamic range' (DR) this is either a function of the film or the digital sensor. It has a value expressed as a number, say 4, for arguments sake. The shades in an image also have a dynamic range. For the pelican lets say it is 6. If the range of the image (6) is greater than that of the camera (4), the camera can not record the whole of the image range. Part of the recorded image will be outside the range of the camera, it will be under and/or over exposed. Film used to be more tolerant of being over exposed digital sensors are more tolerant to being under exposed.

But the fact remains that if the DR of the camera (4) is less than the DR of the image (6) an automatic exposure system is going to get something wrong. This is where the tog has to take control and choose to expose for the highlights (bright areas) or lowlights (shadows). The wedding tog always exposes for the highlights so the brides dress shows details. Dark shadows are much less noticeable than blown highlights and in post processing it is easier to recover lost shadow detail than lost highlight detail; from a digital sensor.

When buying a cheap point an shoot digital camera one of the things you don't get is a top quality sensor and that means poor DR and high levels of image 'noise' (coloured specs in dark shadow areas). Photography equipment is very much a case of 'you get what you pay for' and if a deal looks too good to be true it usually is! However if the tog understand the limitations of their kit they can compensate appropriately.

I managed to keep most of the highlight detail on this swan by underexposing the image slightly.


Right on. Good description, explanation, and advice. The good news is that even Point and Shoot cameras are getting better, and companies are putting higher end CMOS sensors in them, which can handle DR more accurately.

I would suggest that anyone wanting to take better photos do all he or she can to do as much manually as possible. It's vital to learn how cameras work (it's really not that complex, I promise!), how light works within a camera, and how to make basic adjustments based on 1) Film Speed (aka ISO) 2) Aperture and 3) Shutter Speed.
The relationship amongst those three things is the basic meat and potatoes of photography.

With the DR problem that Tank illustrated, people can learn to adjust by learning how to use (if your camera has it) Exposure Compensation. It's tricky at first, but once learned, your number of great shots goes up significantly, and shots like those swans are better, like Tank's. He manually adjust for those areas of white which otherwise would have been totally blown out and unusable.

I'm liking this thread more and more, as talking photography is fun for me.

And Stevil, yes I do have good equipment, but believe me, I can still take a crappy photo with it. A good photographer can take great photos with primitive equipment, but it does help to have the good stuff on hand! Since I am a pro sports photog in my second job (nights and weekends) I got equipment that allows me to shoot in low light conditions without a flash and at some distance away. I use a Nikon D3S body, coupled with some very fast lenses (by fast, meaning the aperture can open up very wide to allow a lot of light in a really short period of time). The Pole Vaulter photos were taken with a 300mm f/2.8 Nikkor lens. Great sports lens.


I'd just like to endorse McQs observation about the quality/type equipment available to a person. Consider myself and Shakespeare if you gave us both a pen and paper and then a sophisticated computer, word processor and printer. Who would produce the best work? Well it would be Shakespeare wouldn't it. It's the person, not the equipment, that determines the quality of the output.

Now with photography there is an equipment issue. Some types of photography are only possible (or are achieved more easily) with particular camera/lens combinations. But the most important component of a photographic system is the brain between the ears of the tog! And what that brain can achieve is honed, improved and refined with practice. One can't learn how to take photographs without practice and digital photography has improved that situation no end. Film used to be my main expense. Now I can take 2,000+ photos on a £15 memory card, and I can bin all the crap ones! I used to spend £200 a month on printing and developing services.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

Squirrel!                                                                                   
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

McQ

Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2011, 07:49:14 PM
Squirrel!                                                                                   

That's extremely amusing!
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Tank

Quote from: McQ on June 12, 2011, 08:01:03 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 12, 2011, 07:49:14 PM
Squirrel!                                                                                   

That's extremely amusing!

Can you tell I'm bored  ;D

Bloody Grand Prix has been stopped for an hour now!
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Tank

If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.