PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[Andy Resnick]

I like the little sunglare spot in #5- it's dead center, was that intentional?

 

[Andre]

Thanks Andy, yes it was intentional, I moved around to get the bokeh of the tree in the back ground in the most favorite position for maximum contrast, while keeping an eye of the sunglare in the fresh rain drops.

A few more

The tree last year:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9730332545/photos/935820

 

[Topher925]

Nothing compared to what you guys have posted but these are some shots from last nights stargazing session. First one is a low mag shot of the Pleiades and Jupiter coming up over the horizon. Second is just a close up of the Pleiades.

I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?

 

[Andy Resnick]

I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?

Those images are extremely reasonable!

I can't comment about the various camera bodies, but in general you want a lens with the largest aperture (low f/#) you can afford: for example the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a very reasonable lens, while the f/1.2 is more expensive and the Leica f/0.95 version is outta sight.

Larger apertures let you use both shorter acquisition times and lower ISO settings-short acquisition times are important with longer focal lengths. Even a 2s exposure using my 85mm is long enough to show star trails, and I'm forced to use < 1/10s with my 400mm.

 

[Andre]

I'm really starting to outgrow my FZ-40. The short exposure times and lack of removable lens is really starting to limit what I can do. Any recommendations on a DSLR that works well in low light conditions that doesn't cost a fortune?

You may want to do some comparisons here:

http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/cameras

I would consider the Canon 600D, the Nikon D5100 and the Sony SLT A55

Here live size crops of a studio test comparing ISO 3200 shots (jpg):

Todays selection of some 250+ frames for the photo challenge bottled water

 

[Andre]

Fun with glass nuggets

 

[Topher925]

You may want to do some comparisons here:

I would consider the Canon 600D, the Nikon D5100 and the Sony SLT A55

Here live size crops of a studio test comparing ISO 3200 shots (jpg):

Todays selection of some 250+ frames for the photo challenge bottled water

I really like the Nikon D5100, but it doesn't have as many software options as the Canon 600D. They both seem to have good and reasonably priced lenses. I won't be buying one until after I pass my qualifiers this fall, so are there any new models coming to market soon? I don't want to have buyers remorse 2 months after I buy a camera.

 

[Andre]

Well the Sony SLT A65 has absolutely amazing specs but a detailed review is not yet available. Discussions mention disappointing hi ISO performance sometimes, which may be biased, but with the fixed translucent mirror technology there will be loss of light to the sensor and the relative small size of the individual pixels increases noise problems.

No known announcements of new Canons and Nikons, which is a bit overdue for Canon, especially the high end models (EOS1D and 5D) but they were affected by the Fukushima disaster. But if you wait for a newer model, chances are that you keep waiting forever.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Optics is awesome. Being an experimental scientist means playing = learning:

[PLAIN]http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/109/lampm.jpg

 

[Andre]

Nice Andy, Camera obscura?

Some glass fragments about 2-3mm in size, with the flash behind it.

 

[drizzle]

Wow, fabulous Andre. Love it.

 

[Andre]

Thanks, drizzle, http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/IMG_yellow.JPG is the original if you like to add it to your wallpaper collection, or maybe make a big print of it.

Notice that I cropped the lower right corner and then mirrored it vertically to get the composition I liked the best.

 

[I_am_learning]

My eye. :) (Selfshot)

 

[Andy Resnick]

Nice Andy, Camera obscura?

Good guess, but no... I'll give you partial credit, tho :). No post-processing, either.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Here's one I took last night, called "it's starting to feel a lot like christmas":

[PLAIN]http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/9467/dsc05552m.jpg

becasue a 1:1 crop shows:

[PLAIN]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/9839/dsc05551z.jpg

 

[Andre]

Good guess, but no... I'll give you partial credit, tho :). No post-processing, either.

Maybe then:

http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/bokeh-Kit/

 

[Andy Resnick]

Maybe then:

http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/bokeh-Kit/

Ha! I don't have the kit, but that's the method. Longer focal length lenses use larger patterns- the photos above, using my 85mm, require patterns about 1" across (the front element is about 3" diameter), while my 24mm needs patterns smaller than 1/3"- too small for me to fabricate- I just print a design on paper and cut it out with a knife (under a microscope).

 

[Andre]

I tested a new optical device today, the crystal sphere.

[PLAIN]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/22026080/crystal-bulb.jpg

This picture is intended as example in a photo challenge I'm going to host in DPReview next month. The title is "Still life: Raw and Product" and here we see quartz stones of which crystal spheres are made.

 

[NileQueen]

Ohhhhhhh I see there is quartz in my future...well coversands are quartz too.

So is that a quartz crystal ball or a glass one?

 

[Andre]

Should be crystal, at least the shop that sells them tells that These spheres are made by first crushing natural quartz into fine pieces, then it's melted, removing most of the impurities. then it's poured into molds and finished / polished etc in traditional crystal ball methods.

But I had no chance to check it.

 

[Andy Resnick]

A great article today about photographing/filming food commercials:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/business/in-food-commercials-flying-doughnuts-and-big-budgets.html

 

[Topher925]

I'm very excited here. I just got my brand new Pentax K-5 in the mail today and oh boy do I like it. Still learning how to use it but I absolutely love the build quality and low light performance. Below is a picture taken with the 18-55mm kit lens in a very poorly lit room (F4.0, ISO3200, F/25 i think). The image resizing really doesn't do the pic justice.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I don't go for 'camera pr0n', but I'll make an exception for this:

[PLAIN]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/8355/dsc1376r.jpg

A colleague in the art department (www.markslankard.com) graciously lent me one of his view cameras to work with. We are doing a 'lecture exchange' next semester, he's going to talk to my Physics II class about photography and I'm going to talk to his Photo II class about imaging. The view camera gives complete control over the location and orientation of the plane of best focus, and I asked to borrow it because I'm having trouble getting a clean shot of this:

[PLAIN]http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9868/dsc1354zk.jpg

It's a vinyl record that is lit with grazing incidence- when the angles are just right, those colors pop out. For some reason, the area ion the left (closest to the lamp) is always fuzzy- it doesn't matter what I do. I'm hoping some time with the view camera will give me a better sense of how to control the plane of focus.

 

[Kinase]

My brother skiing in CO.

 

[Andy Resnick]

That's really excellent! Did you use any filters/polarizers to get the sky so dark?

 

[Borek]

Andre's dragonfly reminded me of a picture I took in Spring, during some training exercise over Zalew Zegrzyński.

 

[Andy Resnick]

I found my next lens:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=110776273456+

Christmas is coming up... hint, hint!

 

[Andre]

Hmmm with some panorama stitches you can do what that lens does.

My http://regality.hubpages.com/hub/Canon-EF-1200mm-f56-L-USM-Lens-review is a lot more modest.

Afraid, I'd need an adaptor for this one

 

[Andy Resnick]

This weekend I tried taking photos of fire and smoke: two objects that are fairly common this time of year, but are also vary unusual in that they do not have two essential visual elements (in the traditional sense): shape and form. I didn't want to work with (say) a candle flame or incense stick- those have been done to death. Go big or go home!

I approached these subjects from the scientific perspective, based on my exposure to them back at NASA- both are multicomponent fluid flows. Fire is a chemically reacting multicomponent system with strong thermal gradients, while smoke (soot) has electrostatic interactions. When imaging fluid flow, shutter speed is the dominant consideration- and for inspiration, you may want to check out Physics of Fluids "Gallery of fluid motion" for some really excellent examples:

http://pof.aip.org/gallery_of_fluid_motion

Of the two, fire was much easier to photograph. First, work with a long lens- I used my 85mm f/1.4, but a 100mm macro may be even better. Second, manual focus only, and you probably want to work in shutter priority mode or total manual mode if your camera likes to think. I noticed that no matter how fast I set my shutter, the image improved, so I worked at 1/8000 s (the fastest I could go) exposures only. Since fire is luminous, I could get away with this. However, I also had to use the lens wide open in order to get sufficient light, so the depth of field is small. In any case, here's a few examples:

[PLAIN]http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/7376/dsc2085.png

[PLAIN]http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/2789/dsc2078.png

[PLAIN]http://img545.imageshack.us/img545/2218/dsc2084.png

I like the textures- the flame fronts appear as a flexible sheet, and it's totally invisible to the eye.

Fire is the easier to photograph because it doesn't move. That is, the fire is changing, but the location of the fire doesn't move. Smoke, by contrast, was much harder to photograph since each 'puff' stuck around for only a few seconds. Creating laminar flow conditions is essential, and the other essential part is to light from the side. I got reasonable results at 1/1250s exposures, but again I had to work at f/1.4 and ISO 1600 to get enough light on the sensor. This led to the main trick- I left the lens as close focus (2 feet) and constantly moved around in order to get anything of interest in focus.

[PLAIN]http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6522/dsc2181.png

[PLAIN]http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/7668/dsc2018.png

[PLAIN]http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5620/dsc2221.png

I think I could get better images by going with a short focal length lens to increase the depth of field- the smoke tendrils/sheets are fairly large and move in all three dimensions.

 

[Andre]

That's a good fire Andy,

Edit: I'd wondered what I could do to reduce that noise in the last frame.

Apparantly something with fire here too:

This is what you might see, if you're very lucky, when waiting for the sunrise and you happen to look the other way. But you have to realize that you have to drive back down into the valley to capture it in a more dramatic setting.