PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[larkspur]

OK, here's everything it comes with.

Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.

This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?

Here is a site to look at that may help you decide:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/" /

I doubt the jc penny or the other off-brands with get you professional quality images. Having owned off brand lenses I would not recommend them. They never match the quality of the name brands.

 

[neutrino]

Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.

larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(

 

[larkspur]

Thats a cool shot. What is being done to the diamond? I see the little flecks coming off in nice detail.

 

[turbo]

Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.

larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(

It may help to reduce the aperture on shots like this to get the depth of field a little larger so that more of the flower is in focus. This will increase the exposure time, so flying bees will be blurred. I like to catch them when they're working, so blur won't be as much of a problem.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/thistle_bee.jpg

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Thats a cool shot. What is being done to the diamond? I see the little flecks coming off in nice detail.

Yeah, it's dirty. That's my fiance's engagement ring, with one of the prongs of the ring that holds the stone. You can see how the soft metal crushes and deforms against the perfectly angular and hard geometry of the diamond... Maybe I'll try editing out the dust/scratches.

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.

larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(

In manual mode, it's best to increase the f/stop (reduce aperture size) to get a greater depth of field as turbo mentioned. For that reason, I prefer manual as opposed to autofocus. I still have to get around to using my new DSLR.

 

[binzing]

I was really just going to pick it up for some fun (and maybe profit by selling individual parts) My Evolt E-500 does just fine, and the lens I want to get next will be at least $500.

 

[turbo]

neutrino, with my camera, you can half-way depress the shutter button to set the autofocus, then re-frame your shot while holding the button, then fully depress to get the shot. I tend to use autofocus a lot more than I thought I would for that feature alone.

 

[binzing]

Yeah, my camera does that too, its nice, except when the AF is trying to focus on the wrong thing.

 

[~christina~]

It is a bit on the pricey side, but the image quality is great over all of its focal length range, and I have noticed that a lot of nature photographers are using this lens instead of (or along with) primes. Critters tend to move around, and since they aren't posing for you (most of the time) you often need to be able to change focal length on the fly. The built-in image stabilization (with 2 modes available) and very fast auto-focus capabilities make this a very versatile lens in fast-changing situations. I've got another 30D that pretty much stays mounted to a 28-135mm zoom, so two cameras can cover a LOT of ground. When I was shooting film, I used to tote 3-4 Olympus bodies, all with prime lenses.

Hm..I like those expensive prime lens' but I don't think I'd be willing to shell out the money for them, especially since I could use it for something else. The 2 lens' I have now don't have stabalization but the one I want does have it (70-300).

 

[~christina~]

I went to a park along the Kennebec river looking for raptors one day last summer, but the only interesting character I found was this fellow.

It's a either a groundhog or a marmot..but I'm leaning toward groundhog.

 

[larkspur]

Playing with my light tent. Here are a few shots:

The other one is posted in the still life thread.

 

[larkspur]

Photo shopped Tulips:

 

[binzing]

That'd be a groundhog.
Nice shots Larkspur.

 

[neutrino]

It may help to reduce the aperture on shots like this to get the depth of field a little larger so that more of the flower is in focus. This will increase the exposure time, so flying bees will be blurred. I like to catch them when they're working, so blur won't be as much of a problem.

http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/thistle_bee.jpg

In manual mode, it's best to increase the f/stop (reduce aperture size) to get a greater depth of field as turbo mentioned. For that reason, I prefer manual as opposed to autofocus. I still have to get around to using my new DSLR.

neutrino, with my camera, you can half-way depress the shutter button to set the autofocus, then re-frame your shot while holding the button, then fully depress to get the shot. I tend to use autofocus a lot more than I thought I would for that feature alone.

Thanks, guys. I guess I took the macro+larger aperture=shallower DOF too seriously.(all were taken at F2.7) Next time, I'll reduce the aperture size and use the AF. :)

 

[neutrino]

Here's another shot from the same batch as the previous photo. (please wear a pair of sunglasses before viewing the flower. )

Crop and unsharp mask. Does any of you think the background stuff on top is distracting?

 

[turbo]

That one is nice. The diagonal border adds a bit of a dynamic to the shot, the DOF is just about perfect, with the fly and the sexual organs of the blossom in good focus. The proportions of the shot are pleasing to me. (border delineates upper 1/3rd, blossom occupies bottom 2/3rds, fly is almost dead center of the shot, yet off-centered with respect to the blossom)

 

[larkspur]

Here's another shot from the same batch as the previous photo. (please wear a pair of sunglasses before viewing the flower. )

Crop and unsharp mask. Does any of you think the background stuff on top is distracting?

It seems the detail in the petals have been lost somewhat. Needs a tiny bit of yellow in the reds(selective color).
[edit] I like this shot much better than the other. Nice job! [/edit]

 

[turbo]

To add to larkspur's comments - I tried to to concentrate on composition, focus, DOF - the mechanics of getting the shot. If you have some post-processing software like Photoshop or The Gimp you may be able to improve the range of colors in the petals and increase the sharpness of the veins by playing with color curves or other adjustments or filters.

Edit: I am NOT good at post-processing, nor do I have the patience for tweaking over and over again, so I really can't be helpful in advising you how to get more detail out of the petals. OK I'm hooked on photography, but I'm a pretty lazy Photoshopper.

 

[vincentm]

I'll post some when i get home :)

 

[Astronuc]

Here's another shot from the same batch as the previous photo. (please wear a pair of sunglasses before viewing the flower. )

Crop and unsharp mask. Does any of you think the background stuff on top is distracting?

Very nice again!

I'd crop the top third just above the top petal.

Try darkening the background. I'm not as adept or skilfull as larkspur, but it would be interesting to darken the background, as if the flower was on a dark table.

 

[larkspur]

Nice shots Larkspur.

Thanks binzing!

 

[Astronuc]

Playing with my light tent. Here are a few shots:

The other one is posted in the still life thread.

WOW! Those are really super images.

 

[larkspur]

WOW! Those are really super images.

Thanks Astro!

 

[vincentm]

Christmas Table setting taken at home with 6 megapixel Sanyo camera i picked up at Wal-mart.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9209/sany0197ou4.th.jpg

 

[Astronuc]

Christmas Table setting taken at home with 6 megapixel Sanyo camera i picked up at Wal-mart.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9209/sany0197ou4.th.jpg

Nice pic vincent. It evokes a warm feeling.

 

[neutrino]

It seems the detail in the petals have been lost somewhat. Needs a tiny bit of yellow in the reds(selective color).

If you have some post-processing software like Photoshop or The Gimp you may be able to improve the range of colors in the petals and increase the sharpness of the veins by playing with color curves or other adjustments or filters.

I'd try, but I won't know where to stop.

Edit: I am NOT good at post-processing, nor do I have the patience for tweaking over and over again... OK I'm hooked on photography, but I'm a pretty lazy Photoshopper.

That sounds like a description of me. Especially the part in bold.

As you say, the "tweaking over and over again" part really bugs me.

Very nice again!

I'd crop the top third just above the top petal.

Try darkening the background. I'm not as adept or skilfull as larkspur, but it would be interesting to darken the background, as if the flower was on a dark table.

Thanks, Astro. That's a nice idea about darkening the background! Doesn't it have something to do with layers and stuff? (I haven't ventured beyond the very basic techniques of post-processing.)

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks, Astro. That's a nice idea about darkening the background! Doesn't it have something to do with layers and stuff? (I haven't ventured beyond the very basic techniques of post-processing.)

Yeah, I believe it has to do with layers, but I am not proficient at editing pictures. I defer to larkspur as to the technique.

Take the plunge! I was thinking about how larkspur takes flowers and places them against dark backgrounds.

 

[larkspur]

Yeah, I believe it has to do with layers, but I am not proficient at editing pictures. I defer to larkspur as to the technique.

Take the plunge! I was thinking about how larkspur takes flowers and places them against dark backgrounds.

The way I do that is to put a sheet of black felt behind it when I take the shot... Don't know how to do it with photoShop yet. That would be a question for one of those forums I listed in an earlier post.
The selective color is an easy one but I need PS in front of me(I'm at work now) to step by step it.

 

[turbo]

Christmas Table setting taken at home with 6 megapixel Sanyo camera i picked up at Wal-mart.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9209/sany0197ou4.th.jpg

That's an interesting perspective and DOF. It works for me.

 

[vincentm]

Nice pic vincent. It evokes a warm feeling.

Thanks man, I'm debating on whether to by a more expensive camera, i don't do much photography, but the more i play with taking pictures the more i can see myself purchasing something higher end.

That's an interesting perspective and DOF. It works for me.

Yea, i was bored, i also have a black and white version, i'll post it when i get home.

 

[larkspur]

The way I do that is to put a sheet of black felt behind it when I take the shot... Don't know how to do it with photoShop yet. That would be a question for one of those forums I listed in an earlier post.
The selective color is an easy one but I need PS in front of me(I'm at work now) to step by step it.

In PS -----Edit, Adjustments, Selective color, Yellow---lighten, Red add yellow.

 

[larkspur]

Christmas Table setting taken at home with 6 megapixel Sanyo camera i picked up at Wal-mart.

http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9209/sany0197ou4.th.jpg

An interesting idea an nice colors. Would be neat to do a close up of those red shoes using aperture priority wide open(lower f number).

Take lots of photos with your point and shoot before deciding on a digital SLR because once you take the plunge you will find so many more must have add ons. I have sunk lots of $$ on add'l lenses, filters, flash modules, light tent, lights...the list goes on...

 

[binzing]

Goddam dial-up. I'd love to post some of my best, but yeah.

 

[slider142]

Here's another shot from the same batch as the previous photo. (please wear a pair of sunglasses before viewing the flower. )

Crop and unsharp mask. Does any of you think the background stuff on top is distracting?

As to darkening the background in this shot, its all layers and selection. Your flower is definitely in a different color range to the background, so use a color selection method to select most of the flower (I found the Magic Wand with a tolerance of 112 to be fine), then switch to QuickMask mode and paint in the green parts near the pistil and erase the little part of the background that is in range (use soft edges). You could also use standard selection tools with "additive selection" turned on. Switch back out when you're done to get back your selection, then go to Layer > New > Layer via Copy. On the Layers palette, switch to the Background layer and go to Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Hue/Saturation and adjust the saturation/lightness sliders until you get the darkened effect you want. Since this is a layer, the original background image is still untouched and you can keep changing the properties however you want. (If you notice glaring errors in your flower layer, you can further refine your edges by Ctrl+clicking on that layer to "select visible" then either using Select>Modify>Feather..., feathering the edge by 3 or more pixels then Select > Inverse and deleting the feathered inverse, or by manual correction using any of the selection tools (although QuickMask does a very good job of making sure your edges are not unrealistically sharp since you can use soft brushes and erasers and you are able to see your soft selection before committing to it).

 

[larkspur]

L]

Here is a photo I took a bit earlier, I am having so much trouble with my focus, I keep getting it slightly wrong, the flowers themselves may not look spectacular but I wanted a simple shot of the flower and the rain drops.

http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/1827/flower10in4.jpg

[/URL]

Please tell me a little about your method for this photo. Was the camera set on Program, Aperture priority, Shutter priority etc? I have found that for still life a tripod is a must use for pin sharp focus. Also, use the shutter delay option(self timer) or shutter release cable so no hands are on the camera when the the shot is taken. Play around with the manual focus and see if you can get more reliable results. When shooting with a wide aperture get the camera as close to the subject as possible to get the best background blur. I love the colors Fuji cameras are able to produce.

 

[larkspur]

Here's one from Sunday last.

I just increased the contrast a little bit and used unsharp mask. I didn't crop the picture, since I couldn't get the nice portrait dimensions with just the flower.

And yeah, the focus is a bit away from the centre of the flower. :(

This is a nice shot but you are right it would be better if the whole flower were in focus for this angle. What f stop was used?

 

[larkspur]

Goddam dial-up. I'd love to post some of my best, but yeah.

If you ever get them uploaded I would love to see them!

 

[neutrino]

In PS -----Edit, Adjustments, Selective color, Yellow---lighten, Red add yellow.

As to darkening the background in this shot, its all layers and selection. Your flower is definitely in a different color range to the background, so use a color selection method to select most of the flower (I found the Magic Wand with a tolerance of 112 to be fine), then switch to QuickMask mode and paint in the green parts near the pistil and erase the little part of the background that is in range (use soft edges). You could also use standard selection tools with "additive selection" turned on. Switch back out when you're done to get back your selection, then go to Layer > New > Layer via Copy. On the Layers palette, switch to the Background layer and go to Layer > New Adjustment Layer > Hue/Saturation and adjust the saturation/lightness sliders until you get the darkened effect you want. Since this is a layer, the original background image is still untouched and you can keep changing the properties however you want. (If you notice glaring errors in your flower layer, you can further refine your edges by Ctrl+clicking on that layer to "select visible" then either using Select>Modify>Feather..., feathering the edge by 3 or more pixels then Select > Inverse and deleting the feathered inverse, or by manual correction using any of the selection tools (although QuickMask does a very good job of making sure your edges are not unrealistically sharp since you can use soft brushes and erasers and you are able to see your soft selection before committing to it).

Thank you very much. Now I've just got to translate those instructions to the GIMP. :)

This is a nice shot but you are right it would be better if the whole flower were in focus for this angle. What f stop was used?

F3.2

 

[larkspur]

Thank you very much. Now I've just got to translate those instructions to the GIMP. :)



F3.2

http://www.mydamnchannel.com/Big_Fat_Brain/You_Suck_at_Photoshop/YouSuckatPhotoshop1_398.aspx"

 

[larkspur]

Photo shoot

Aspen was somewhat cooperative in the modified light tent this afternoon.

 

[Andre]

I shot this at a zoo the other day:

Could be more crisp but it was 432 mm SLR equivalent, available light, 100 asa f5.6 1/60 sec. Try that without stabilisation.

 

[~christina~]

I shot this at a zoo the other day:

Could be more crisp but it was 432 mm SLR equivalent, available light, 100 asa f5.6 1/60 sec. Try that without stabilisation.

funny hair do's...but seriously I've done photography with 1/10th shutterspeed so 1/60'th is nothing... I just lean on the glass and hope it doesn't break XD

 

[larkspur]

I shot this at a zoo the other day:

Could be more crisp but it was 432 mm SLR equivalent, available light, 100 asa f5.6 1/60 sec. Try that without stabilisation.

Cool looking monkeys Andre. Thanks for sharing.

 

[hypatia]

I love the monkeys! But someone does need to talk to the hairdressers. A little lipstick wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Andre]

funny hair do's...but seriously I've done photography with 1/10th shutterspeed so 1/60'th is nothing... I just lean on the glass and hope it doesn't break XD

Right, but the problem is the focal length. With the old SLR the rule of thumb was that shutter speed should be at least equal to the inverse of the focal length. So 50mm lens = 1/60 sec. 135mm lens is 1/125 shutter speed. 400mm lens is 1/500th sec. Actually it's the magnification that increases the blur. So indeed push the lens against the glass and hopefor the best.

 

[~christina~]

Right, but the problem is the focal length. With the old SLR the rule of thumb was that shutter speed should be at least equal to the inverse of the focal length. So 50mm lens = 1/60 sec. 135mm lens is 1/125 shutter speed. 400mm lens is 1/500th sec. Actually it's the magnification that increases the blur. So indeed push the lens against the glass and hopefor the best.

It's quite difficult to push the lens on the glass with a zoom lens since the lens tends to have lens creep thus the focus becomes off.

yeah and I broke that rule so many times I can't count...I was using a 55mm lens at 1/10 and even less for the moon shots I took (eclipse) [most of the time you do need to though indoors at the zoo]
and my lens' don't have image stabilization but the 300mm lens that I'm eyeing has it so It should be better.

 

[lisab]

Aspen was somewhat cooperative in the modified light tent this afternoon.

Love that...it's a magical shot!

 

[Andre]

It's quite difficult to push the lens on the glass with a zoom lens since the lens tends to have lens creep thus the focus becomes off.

Actually I screwed a large tube around the lens, that is directly and ridgidly connected to the housing, not to the moving parts. It is used to screw on filters, conversion lenses and solar caps. You can push that against the window without harm.

See here

 

[larkspur]

Love that...it's a magical shot!

Thanks lisab!