The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[falkon]

[falkon]

[Dreadhead]

Cool stuff. I'm not sure if I like or hate HDR imaging.

[falkon]

it's both. I tend to hate it more than like it though. Only the top one is HDR btw.

[Iron_Dreamer]

I get the idea that there is a black cloud over Washington these days, but I can't say I find it an attractive picture outside of that analogy.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Here's one from my trip last week. Sunrise at 12,000ft in California's White Mountains:

[mikeymad]

Nice Peter

[mikeymad]

After looking at Peter's lovely image.. I just had to rant... not about that, but about crap.

People of the world - please stop using Instagram to post your fucking pictures to the rest of us... "fast, beautiful and fun" ... take a shitty photo with your phone.. make it look 'way shittier' with E-Z filters and post it to the world, thinking you are hip... just stop - they look like crap.. It was fun the first time, and then we were over it.

end rant...

btw - great Saturn V engine image.

[Knuckledragger]

I gotta admit, I was completely unaware of horsemanning.

[Dreadhead]

it's both. I tend to hate it more than like it though. Only the top one is HDR btw.

I figured

[shellylh]

Haven't decided on the Macro lens yet unfortunately. There are so many pro/cons about each lens. I am leaning towards the Nikon 60mm right now but might change my mind by tomorrow. Mostly I am worried about the build of third party lenses (especially the Tamron).

However, my question today is about tripods. I would like to get one but really don't know where to start. I know that you can buy crappy ones cheap and can pay a lot of money for a good/light ones. What kind of budget should I be looking at to get some decent (I don't have any super heavy big zoom lenses) and would like it to be light enough that I don't end up leaving it at home. Since I am only 5'2" I suppose I should probably take that into account. I assume it is better to get separate legs and head? Are there certain brands that are known to be better quality, or ones that are "overpriced", or ones that I should avoid?

[Jon L]

I didn't realize Sony 50mm F/1.8 OSS E-mount NEX Lens was shipping already, but at $299 with autofocus, seems like a great alternative to all the manual lens/adapter ways.. Some of the sample images on the web look promising.

http://www.adorama.com/ISO5018E.html

Edited September 2, 2011 by Jon L

[Salt Peanuts]

Anyone here have experience with any of the monitor calibration pucks/software and recommend one or the other? After receiving some prints recently, I've noticed that colors (and brightness) are not reflecting what I'm seeing on my screen. FWIW, I'm working with 2011 15" MBP w/ hi-res screen. I wish I was using an decent external monitor, but I've neither funds nor space for one right now (and space is why I'm using a laptop to begin with).

Edited September 3, 2011 by Salt Peanuts

[falkon]

I have Feisol legs and they are good for the money.

The best heads for the money are definitely the ones from photoclam.

Sadly, you're never going to get the results you really want on a TN monitor, which your MBP has. You shouldn't invest in calibration because good ones can get pricey. Just save up for an external and live with what you have. You can also try adjust the color of your monitor to match the digital photos with the prints but if done incorrectly, this can have very negative results.

Edit: One other option is to buy a 2001fp. It's one of the first IPS monitors and I can personally confirm that to this day, there isn't a panel today that looks significantly better. It can be had on ebay for 100 or 150

Edited September 3, 2011 by falkon

[Knuckledragger]

Anyone here have experience with any of the monitor calibration pucks/software and recommend one or the other? After receiving some prints recently, I've noticed that colors (and brightness) are not reflecting what I'm seeing on my screen. FWIW, I'm working with 2011 15" MBP w/ hi-res screen. I wish I was using an decent external monitor, but I've neither funds nor space for one right now (and space is why I'm using a laptop to begin with).

Yes. In short, get a Spyder, and don't get one of the cheaper ones. The Spyder3Express only does gamma 2.2, not 1.8. That makes it effectively useless. IIRC, the Spyder3Pro and the Spyder3Elite use the same (better) hardware, while the Express uses something inferior. When I investigated the price difference between the Pro and the Elite, it was far less than the upgrade price from the Datacolor website (which is the only way to get it. Beards and Hats has the Pro for $130 and the Elite for $180. As of this writing they aren't taking orders because...

[Cankin]

Yes. In short, get a Spyder, and don't get one of the cheaper ones. The Spyder3Express only does gamma 2.2, not 1.8. That makes it effectively useless. .

Why would it be useless??

[Knuckledragger]

Gamma 2.2 is fine if one is working on broadcast television media ...maybe. For anything photography-related, especially pre-press (which is what Salty is effectively doing) then being able to properly see low level detail is not just handy, it is essential. There's a reason Eizo's ColorEdge monitors are capable of displaying gamma 1 point fricken 0.

[Cankin]

I thought everyone is using 2.2 now. sRGB, AdobeRGB, the whole internet and even OSX switched to 2.2 since 10.6

[Knuckledragger]

It's not that simple. From wackypedia: "The sRGB color space standard used with most cameras, PCs, and printers does not use a simple power-law nonlinearity as above, but a decoding gamma value near 2.2 over much of its range." Both the sRGB and Adobe gamuts are huge. Very few, if any monitors are capable of displaying them in their entirety. Even the aforementioned Eizos "only" reproduce 98% of Adobe RGB, and that is a pretty impressive achievement. It is perfectly possible to make an image look good under gamma 1.8 or 2.2, but in general most images will look better when viewed on a properly calibrated monitor tuned to 1.8. OSX does now default to gamma 2.2, but it is possible switch the it back to 1.8 and that's just what most photographers do. As I said before, gamma 1.8 is essential when doing image preparation for printing, especially if doing one's own color separation from RGB to CMYK.

[Cankin]

I'm sticking with 2.2 since most current resources suggest that and I don't have a printer, let alone custome printer profile. lol

"During the calibration of your display, you will need to choose gamma and white point settings. The correct choice depends on how you are most likely to use your images. The best rule of thumb is this:

Unless you have a color management expert instructing you otherwise, select a 2.2 gamma and a D65 white point.

Because Windows PCs use 2.2 gamma, images edited in the traditional Mac 1.8 gamma will appear incorrectly to most viewers on the Internet—this of course means that your Mac friends need to switch their displays to 2.2 gamma when perusing your 2.2-savvy work. Mac-using photographer Gary Ballard maintains a handy demonstration of this phenomenon here.

Labs and Internet-based services using the RA-4 wet process, such as in a Fuji Frontier minilab, almost universally expect you to use a 2.2 gamma in the sRGB IEC1966-2.1 color space. That's true for services such as Pictage, Smugmug, and Shutterfly."

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2026

[HDen]

I have the i1Display2, it works nicely, but I've read that it doesn't work that well with some monitors, before buying any calibration device, research and make sure that you have a good monitor and that whatever calibration device you're buying works properly with it.

[shellylh]

Tripod update. Been researching legs today. I ordered a the Gitzo 2531 from amazon ($590 - $50 rebate which is $100 less than B&H) after doing a bit of research and finding Thom Hogan's article on tripods. However, I can still send it back or possibly cancel it before it is shipped. It is a little on the "large side" in the sense that it is 3lbs and 25.6" when folded (certainly wouldn't be taking with me on a plane/trip). I am wondering if I shouldn't just get the Gitzo traveler 1541t or Feisol CT-3441 traveler tripod (which is slightly larger than the Gitzo traveler) and just use this for travel and for now and get a more sturdy non-traveler tripod in the future when I have heavier lenses. Any thoughts?

[falkon]

I don't have any problems with the CT-3441 for traveling but then again, I'm not doing Thom Hogan things. If you plan on doing macro most of the time though, I'm not sure a ball head is your best option. I dunno.. I'm not a macro shooter.

[shellylh]

I would just be getting the Feisol 1331S legs (not the combo). I am going to cancel the Gitzo 2531 for now and think about things a little more.

[Iron_Dreamer]

Tripod update. Been researching legs today. I ordered a the Gitzo 2531 from amazon ($590 - $50 rebate which is $100 less than B&H) after doing a bit of research and finding Thom Hogan's article on tripods. However, I can still send it back or possibly cancel it before it is shipped. It is a little on the "large side" in the sense that it is 3lbs and 25.6" when folded (certainly wouldn't be taking with me on a plane/trip). I am wondering if I shouldn't just get the Gitzo traveler 1541t or Feisol CT-3441 traveler tripod (which is slightly larger than the Gitzo traveler) and just use this for travel and for now and get a more sturdy non-traveler tripod in the future when I have heavier lenses. Any thoughts?

I would skip the larger Gitzo for now. Hogan's advice is good, but veers toward the overkill side for anyone not using mega-buck, mega-telephoto lenses. A tripod is only useful if you have it with you, and the larger Gitzo will be 4.5-5lbs with a good head attached, which is quite a bit for bringing along casually. I'd much rather have a smaller, slightly less theoretically stable tripod, that is actually with me and ready to use, than a bigger, heavier one that didn't make the journey.

Until you get up to some seriously heavy gear, or do a lot of shooting in extremely windy conditions, I wouldn't be too worried about needing the biggest, toughest tripod out there. I've done plenty of very long exposures with a gripped D700+14-24 (about 5 pounds of camera+lens) on a pretty small Induro, and a few even on nothing but a Joby Gorillapod Focus+Ballhead X.

If you want a nice ballhead, check out the Photoclam series at reallybigcameras.com. I have a PC40 as my main head, and it is excellent (having used some other brands which were less so). The knobs are positioned such that Traveler style tripods can fold up properly with the head on. A PC36 should probably serve you well.