PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[GeorginaS]

I am totally, totally in love.

 

[_Mayday_]

Thanks Mayday

Yes these are taken at the zoo. These shots weren't taken in the summer though, since the new camera was a Christmas present

Well I am sure they are out all year in the zoo

In the wild they are virtually impossible to find in the summer. Suprisingly Snow Leopards don't actually like snow so in the winter they are down in the valleys making it slightly easier to locate. Alot of the photos you see on Google don't quite give you that 'in the wild' feeling but your photos could easily be mistaken for being in the wild. There was recently a documentary on them, if you want you can have a little peek at it, but the whole movie isn't up on the internet. I can't say I have found any great information on snow leopards on the internet, they have the basics but I was given a talk by one of the film crew who helped produce the video below and that really gave you an ide aon how rare and species these animals are.

This video gives you an idea of both the terrain and how beautiful these animals are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR3cUnCdJk&feature=related"

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

 

[turbo]

turbo-1 I like that shot more actually, the wood grain works so nicely. I'm having trouble with my focus, I can change it an make it work but only short range. The focus in your shot is great, but how did you manage it?

You have to keep an eye on the aperture of the lens for one thing. The more "open" the aperture, the shallower the depth of field for any given lens. If you have enough light to stop down the aperture and still have an acceptably short shutter speed (or use a tripod and a release) you can have much of your image in focus.

At an extreme, using a pinhole aperture ( I still have one kicking around for my long-gone Olympus 35mm system) keeps almost everything in reasonable focus, though every edge is a bit soft with a warm glow. A tripod and a cable release are a must with such a tiny aperture, but it made for some interesting shots, especially with trees on a breezy day, or maybe a calm day in the woods with an active little brook as the subject.

 

[_Mayday_]

I think that is what my still life photography a needs. I am restricted without a stand so I might consider actually buying one. Thanks for the feedback.

 

[turbo]

Here is a punched-up version of the nervous squirrels. I nudged the brightness and contrast up just a bit and applied a little sharpening. I also cloned out the wood screw visible in the original.

 

[~christina~]

I am totally, totally in love.

I'm glad you like it. The angle of the shot is what I like abut this pic the best.

Well I am sure they are out all year in the zoo

In the wild they are virtually impossible to find in the summer. Suprisingly Snow Leopards don't actually like snow so in the winter they are down in the valleys making it slightly easier to locate. Alot of the photos you see on Google don't quite give you that 'in the wild' feeling but your photos could easily be mistaken for being in the wild. There was recently a documentary on them, if you want you can have a little peek at it, but the whole movie isn't up on the internet. I can't say I have found any great information on snow leopards on the internet, they have the basics but I was given a talk by one of the film crew who helped produce the video below and that really gave you an ide aon how rare and species these animals are.

This video gives you an idea of both the terrain and how beautiful these animals are. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR3cUnCdJk&feature=related"

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]

Yes they are outdoors year round but I never really focused on them until now.

I've seen a video on nature on wild snow leopards but I don't remember this part so it must be a different video. I like this one since it's close up compared with the other one.
They are facinating creatures but the problem of finding them in the wild is those rocky slopes and also getting close enough to take a picture of it full frame. People who take pics of animals in the wild most of the time have a really long lens (I've seen 800mm lens') and I think that's the only way you would get a close up picture of a wild snow leopard.

That's a really nice pic you took. I like the colors of the flowers. Unfortunately I don't have a macro lens =(.The opinion of where the focus "should be" is arbitrary and all depends on the person. The flower is the forget me not flower if I'm not incorrect.

I think that is what my still life photography a needs. I am restricted without a stand so I might consider actually buying one. Thanks for the feedback.

I'm curious as to know what camera are you using. I do fine without a stand but then again maybe my camera is light enough (Nikon D40X) for me to use without having camera shake. I hear that a lot of SLR's are quite big. (I can carry mine on my neck all day without getting neck strain)

 

[_Mayday_]

~Christina~

Thank you for all the feedback. I am using a FujiFilmFinePix S5600 exactly how I got it. The focus on the blue flowers (No idea what they are called) seems to be a little behind the actual flowers themselves, but I only noticed that when I made th eimage bigger.

 

[~christina~]

~Christina~

Thank you for all the feedback. I am using a FujiFilmFinePix S5600 exactly how I got it. The focus on the blue flowers (No idea what they are called) seems to be a little behind the actual flowers themselves, but I only noticed that when I made th eimage bigger.

Your quite welcome.
Aha...so that's the cam your using. I used to use a Fujifinepix S5700 before I got my other cam. I was satisfied using it but after I invested and got a SLR I was amazed by the quality difference.

 

[~christina~]

Here is a punched-up version of the nervous squirrels. I nudged the brightness and contrast up just a bit and applied a little sharpening. I also cloned out the wood screw visible in the original.

I like it much better lightened up.

 

[turbo]

I like it much better lightened up.

Thanks, ~christina~, I like it better too. I've got a Canon 30D and a 100-400mm L-series zoom, and I tend to use it like a point-and-shoot camera at times. I really should pay attention to post-processing a bit more. As I revisited this thread, I noticed that the image didn't seem as punchy on my present monitor as it had before, so tweaked it a bit. I'm never sure if something looks good to me on this monitor will come across well with others using different video cards and monitors, especially some high-quality CRTs. A couple of years back, I was involved in the production of high-quality auction catalogs, and everybody in post-production, graphics, etc was using CRTs instead of LCDs.

 

[turbo]

Here's a lone buttercup catching a bit of sun.

 

[Astronuc]

I hear that a lot of SLR's are quite big. (I can carry mine on my neck all day without getting neck strain)

Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.

I think Celestron (telescope maker) sold large aperture lenses for cameras. The were essentially reflecting telecsopes converted to camera lenses. When I was studying space physics, I had access to a couple of 14'' reflectors. They were great for observing Jupiter and Saturn, various galactic features like nebulae, and other galaxies.

 

[turbo]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

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

 

[Astronuc]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

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

Very nice!

 

[~christina~]

Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.

I think Celestron (telescope maker) sold large aperture lenses for cameras. The were essentially reflecting telecsopes converted to camera lenses. When I was studying space physics, I had access to a couple of 14'' reflectors. They were great for observing Jupiter and Saturn, various galactic features like nebulae, and other galaxies.

Yes I've seen a 800mm lens for canon and it's HUGE!
but then again that person using it uses it for wildlife photography.

This other site, has another guy using a Canon 350D (Digital Rebel XT) mounted on a telescope and his pictures are amazing.

Thanks, ~christina~, I like it better too. I've got a Canon 30D and a 100-400mm L-series zoom, and I tend to use it like a point-and-shoot camera at times. I really should pay attention to post-processing a bit more. As I revisited this thread, I noticed that the image didn't seem as punchy on my present monitor as it had before, so tweaked it a bit. I'm never sure if something looks good to me on this monitor will come across well with others using different video cards and monitors, especially some high-quality CRTs. A couple of years back, I was involved in the production of high-quality auction catalogs, and everybody in post-production, graphics, etc was using CRTs instead of LCDs.

I have the same problem with my monitor and a lot of people on my art site say my pictures are a bit on the dark side. It makes fixing my pictures a challenge.

That's one expensive lens you have. The results of your pictures say a lot about the quality though. I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S lens for my Nikon D40X. I'm not quite satisfied with the zoom of the 55-200mm lens that I have.

 

[larkspur]

I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.

Cool!

 

[turbo]

That's one expensive lens you have. The results of your pictures say a lot about the quality though. I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S lens for my Nikon D40X. I'm not quite satisfied with the zoom of the 55-200mm lens that I have.

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.

 

[Andre]

Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy.

I think the lightest/smallest (and very affordable) DSLR currently is the Olympus E410, which nevertheless gets a highly recommended from the experts.

After ample comparising, I'm contemplating to start going to think replacing the excellent economical FZ-8 and purchase the 410's slightly bigger brother the E510 with the new 70-300 mm zoomlens (140-600mm eq 35mm) of course,

 

[turbo]

Andre, try them out in the store first, if you can. One reason that I like the Canon EOS 30D so well is that it has a large well-formed grip with a rubberized surface. I cannot imagine using a long zoom on a DSLR without such a grip. A camera that is compact and light and feels great with a normal lens mounted may feel clumsy with a longer, heavier zoom lens.

 

[Andre]

Excellent point, Turbo, thanks for the advise. But I guess a co-user will have to say something about the total weight.

 

[turbo]

Excellent point, Turbo, thanks for the advise. But I guess a co-user will have to say something about the total weight.

Perhaps the co-user can be content with that nice compact Panasonic? My wife is now the principle user of my (formerly) Olympus 3040 Zoom, and I get to keep the 30Ds and lenses to myself. I've got the 18-55 kit lens (if I need a wide field), the 28-135mm zoom and the 100-400mm, so two cameras can cover a LOT of territory, and they're really not too much to carry if you plan well beforehand and have an adequately-sized pack. Back in the bad old film days, I got used to carrying 3 OM-1s and an OM-4, all fitted with primes, because zoom lenses really stunk optically in the '80s.

 

[turbo]

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.

 

[lisab]

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.

Oh look! It's a beaver-like mammal!

http://www.beaverlikemammals.com/

 

[turbo]

Who knew there was such a site! I could inundate them with BLM photos and use up all their bandwidth. This picture is extremely compressed to meet size guidelines for the thread.

 

[larkspur]

What are you all going to photograph for the still life contest? I bought some tulips today but may try some fruit, or a beer in a frosty mug...or mushrooms...or lots of M&Ms. I have not decided.

 

[turbo]

What are you all going to photograph for the still life contest? I bought some tulips today but may try some fruit, or a beer in a frosty mug...or mushrooms...or lots of M&Ms. I have not decided.

I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.

 

[larkspur]

I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.

Come on Turbo! Find something colorful or pretty or unusual, set it on a white sheet, get a desk lamp,put something over it to diffuse the light and snap away. Don't forget the tripod and shutter release cord or delayed shutter. How about a colorful bowl of your pepper relish? or a martini glass with your salsa in it? light some incense behind it so it looks like it is smokin'.

 

[turbo]

Come on Turbo! Find something colorful or pretty or unusual, set it on a white sheet, get a desk lamp,put something over it to diffuse the light and snap away. Don't forget the tripod and shutter release cord or delayed shutter. How about a colorful bowl of your pepper relish? or a martini glass with your salsa in it? light some incense behind it so it looks like it is smokin'.

Do you work in advertising as an art-director, etc? You're much more creative than I am, and that probably makes a difference in your photography. Your shots seem well-planned and composed, while I'm more of the "get 'er done" school.

 

[binzing]

Even though I've gone digital (I have an Olympus E-500) I saw an ad that I'd like some input on. There was a Minolta XD 11 (also known in EU as the XD 7 or the XD in Japan) with multiple lenses, for $300. What do you guys think.

 

[larkspur]

Even though I've gone digital (I have an Olympus E-500) I saw an ad that I'd like some input on. There was a Minolta XD 11 (also known in EU as the XD 7 or the XD in Japan) with multiple lenses, for $300. What do you guys think.

I have a Minolta X370. It is a manual focus film as is the XD11. The manager at the local Wolf camera store said Minolta has gone out of business. That may make a difference in your choice. If I were to buy a film camera I would go with Nikon or Canon brand. That way, if you were to purchase the same brand DSLR in the future you could always use those lenses on the DSLR.
My suggestion would be for you to decide what you want to photograph. If it is wildlife then go with Canon 30D or 40D or higher up. It has a faster auto focus and the L quality lenses are superb. If you are interested in portrait or still life then the Fuji pro series is excellent.

Go to photosig.com and view the photos by camera and see which results you would like to achieve.