The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.

[grawk]

fredmiranda.com

[Iron_Dreamer]

Yep, without question, it is my first option for selling camera stuff. The $25/year seller fee is a lot less than you'd lose on one eBay transaction.

[MexicanDragon]

Some pix from 4ngiefest in Atlanta (a yearly BMW gathering, this year at Stone Mountain Park).

**BRENT**

[MexicanDragon]

**BRENT**

[MexicanDragon]

And to end it, for Matt...

It's Friday, Friday!

**BRENT**

[Jon L]

When one must take that lone walk in the night..

IMG_9583 by drjlo1, on Flickr

[aerius]

I can't remember where this one's from, probably a greenhouse somewhere.

[Salt Peanuts]

Anyone here uses/used a Lensbaby system? It seems like a fun tool and was wondering if it was more gimmick than substance (as I see them come up fairly often on used market).

[jinp6301]

I've used the cheapest lensbay for a little while. Its fun but I don't see myself using it often.

[Jon L]

IMG_9641 by drjlo1, on Flickr

[aerius]

Nice! How the heck did you get that close to the spider?

Picked up another camera a few days ago, since I like my Olympus Pen-FT a lot I decided to grab its full frame relative. It doesn't quite have the Leica-like solidness of the Pen-FT but it still has a feeling of quality to it. Super easy to use, twiddle the dials to centre the needle in the viewfinder display and that's all there is to it, easier than the index number system in the Pen. Can't wait till my rolls of Velvia 50 get here.

[Currawong]

Been a while since I had a look through this thread.

VPI: I really like your building shots. Nice compositions there.

What about the Tokina 11-16mm F2.8. That aperture really helps with indoors and sunset/dusk shots. Darn thing is super sharp even wide open at F2.8.

I'll have to make note of this, as well as of Dan's 28-300 suggestion. I only have a 35 1:2D and the 18-200mm for shooting at the moment. I need to work out what actual range I use with it most though. Probably a 16 or 17 to 70 or so would suit me best for outdoors.

The latest addition to my arsenal of Nikon DSLRs - the D7000 - to make it a trifecta. Pic taken with the Lumix LX5, which I also picked up. (Somehow I overlooked the fact it has a lens cap, which will probably get annoying. But oh well.) Now to get a new medium-range zoom lens and a polarizing filter....

I just picked up the D7000 and have been slowly digesting the manual, it having replace my D80. Prior to that, I had wanted a D300S after seeing what my friend had achieved with his on his travels around Japan. The D7000 is spot-on for me, as long as I make sure I don't forget any of the important settings, which I tended to do with the D80. The first thing I did was to go mad shooting cherry blossoms before the rains kick in and wash them all away.

[forbigger]

after so much confusion, finally settled with fixed 85mm f1.8. Gotta say its a winner lens for the price. now every friggin picture have these creamy thin DOF. even at higher aperture. love it. worth every penny. setting my eyes now on tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for landscape. anyone here using it ?

[grawk]

I'd say if it has a thin DOF at higher apertures there's something wrong.

[forbigger]

ok, it has wide dof even at higher apertures. sorry, still getting used to all the terminology......way complicated than headphones sans technical aspects

[Knuckledragger]

What do (both of) you mean by "higher aperture"? Higher number? That's a smaller aperture. Larger aperture? That's a lower number. This is why most photographers say "bigger" and "smaller" when referring to aperture.

Depth of field math gets very complicated very quickly. Aperture value is important when determining it, as are focal length and magnification are, but not in the way one might expect. I do not claim to fully grasp the math behind it, but I know how to apply it to what I'm trying to do. There was a series of excellent articles on the subject at The Online Photographer a number of years ago:

Depth-of-Field Hell

Depth of Field Hell—The Sequel

Depth of Field Hell: The Coda

They are well worth one's time to read. From the above:

Here's the real skinny. At close working distances, depth of field is nearly independent of focal length. In fact here's a handy approximate equation for depth of field that depends solely on circle of confusion ©, aperture (f), and on-film (or sensor) magnification (M):

DoF (on either side of the subject) = c*f*(M+1)/(M*M)

[forbigger]

that would mean that i still got a creamy background (forget about dof terminology) even at higher number of aperture or smaller aperture.......doh

[Knuckledragger]

You know what I haven't done in ages? Post any bloody photos in this thread. First a quick story.

The weekend before last, I ended up in a bit of a sticky situation. I was on site at a rave, having been hired to take photos. I had my now nearly 5 year old EOS 30D, an EF 50mm F/1.4, EF 17-40 F/4L and 580EX speedlite. I use this combination or one similar to it all the time, and I'm well familiar with virtually every aspect of shooting with it. As anyone who has looked at my photos knows, I shoot almost exclusively available light, and generally at lower ISO settings that one might expect. My technique depends on being able to hit proper focus in bad lighting conditions. The AF assist beam produced by 580EX is essential to the way I work. For a variety of reasons none of which are worth explaining, I was rushed out the door to the gig. I had packed my camera bag the night before, and I knew I had the lenses I needed, freshly-charged camera batteries, and empty memory cards. When I got the venue, I discovered what I was lacking: fresh flash batteries. The 580EX chews through AA batteries, 4 at a time. I get longer life out of the batteries than most shooters, as I rarely take flash shots. Unfortunately for me, the batteries in the flash were basically dead on arrival. I usually keep a spare 4-pack in my camera bag, but I must have used them at some point and failed to replace them. I went around and tried to scrounge up a fresh set of 4 AAs. The crew I was working with produced a total of 4 between them, but they were pulled from remote controls and LED flashlights and lacked the juice to drive my flash. I asked another event photographer I know, who does nothing but flash shots. He said he was on his last set himself.

So there I was, with my 30D and its questionable autofocus abilities, without an AF assist beam to bring it line. Worse still, I opted to bring my EF 50mm F/1.4, not my older 50mm F/1.8. I have an original 1987 Mark I 50/1.8. It's optically identical to the current production "nifty fifty" except that it's made out of metal and has a distance window. It's build quality is very similar to the much loved 35mm F/2. I use it over the more expensive and 2/3rds-of-a-stop faster 50mm F/1.4 USM because it has a larger depth of field, and hits focus much more readily. Even when stopped down to F/1.8 or smaller, the 50/1.4 has an annoying tendency to misfocus (usually it backfocues.) Additionally, the 50/1.8 has a hard infinity focus stop. This means if I switch it to manual focus I can hit infinity focus instantly. This is essential for long exposure night photography and can be help indoors as well. The 35mm F/2 does this and I use it all the time (especially now as the AF motor on my poor 35mm is blown.)

Using the 50/1.4 without an AF assist beam, in bad lighting conditions is a combination I would never voluntarily use, yet I was stuck with it. I also had the 17-40L, which is always sharp and virtually always in-focus, but it lets in 1/8th of the light that the 50 does. I only use it for wide shots with a super slow shutter speed. So what did I do? I planned my shots carefully, and took far more "safety" exposures than I normally ever do. I ended up taking in excess of 1500 shots over the 4 1/2 hours I was working. That's 2-3 times as many as normal. I did end up with a bunch of usable shots, but sifting through them has been headache inducing.

Now, a few shots from that night and a couple others:

50mm F/1.4 @ F/2, 1/60th, ISO 800.

DJ HeavyGrinder and the crowd.

50mm F/1.4 @ F/1/4, 1/30th, ISO 800.

DownLink the brostep headliner.

50mm F/1.4 @ F/1.8, 1/40th, ISO 320.

50mm F/1.4 @ F/2, 1/60th, ISO 800.

EF 17-40 F/4L @ 17mm, F/4, 1/8th ISO1600

The lighting and visuals crew at work.

50mm F/1.4 @ F/2, 1/40th, ISO 1250.

That last one is the Atomic Babies, a techno "live PA" act from Brooklyn. They used to bring drum machines and synthesizers with them when they performed. Now they use two MacBook Pros running Ableton Live. Never have I been so sad to see performers using Macs.

All of the above shots are from the night I described at the beginning. I've got a bunch more photos to post, but it's a gorgeous day out and I'd really rather not stare at the computer screen any longer.

[Jon L]

I use it over the more expensive and 2/3rds-of-a-stop faster 50mm F/1.4 USM because it has a larger depth of field, and hits focus much more readily.

I have canon 50 f1.4 and had 50 f1.8 mkII, as well as 35 f2. Are you saying 50 f1.8 has "larger depth of field" than 50 f1.4 even if both are set at f1.8? never tried comparing DOF with both at same aperture myself. I do agree about shooting with 50 f1.4 in darkness, an adventure..

I really don't like flashes, but I went to a couple of events over this weekend (wedding, kid's bithday), and I think I need to pick up a good flash, hopefully cheaper than Canon flashes yet won't screw up the whole E-TTL thing.

--------------------------------------

By the way, does anyone have any strange problems when using Photoshop with Camera Raw vs. other programs (Canon DPP in my case)?

Here's a RAW conversion using Photoshop/Camera Raw 6.3, which looks very yellowish to me.

IMG_9913Adobe by drjlo2, on Flickr

Same shot Raw conversion with Canon Digital Photo Professional, which looks same as viewing the RAW file with camera's own LCD.

IMG_9913 by drjlo2, on Flickr

Looks like Camera Raw program defaults "Camera Profile" setting to "Adobe Standard," which gives that yellow hue. I can fix the issue by manually setting this setting in Camera RAW to choices like "Camera Portrait" or "Camera Stadard," but it doesn't have settings for custom settings I have made in my camera, so how do you get Camera Raw program to recognize what the camera was actually set to, automatically?

[Iron_Dreamer]

You don't. Camera specific settings are the domain of manufacturer 's software only.

At any rate, most of those settings are only crude approximations of what you can do in software like ACR, and are really only there to accommodate JPEG shooters who don't have the time/desire/whatever to edit their own raw files.

What I've traditionally done is use the most conservative camera profile in ACR, which is Camera Neutral for Nikon models, at least, and then apply my own tweaks. This ensures that the general color profile matches the manufacturer's, but allows me to control how much contrast and saturation I bake into the shot.

BTW the WB looks overly warm and green tinted in the shot posted.

[aerius]

I have canon 50 f1.4 and had 50 f1.8 mkII, as well as 35 f2. Are you saying 50 f1.8 has "larger depth of field" than 50 f1.4 even if both are set at f1.8? never tried comparing DOF with both at same aperture myself.

Assuming that both 50mm lenses are set at the same aperture on the same camera, they'll have an identical depth of field. The f1.4 has a shallower depth of field than the f1.8 but only when it's opened up all the way, or at least to something larger than f1.8. If they're both sitting at f2 or f1.8, DoF will be identical.

[screaming oranges]

You guys have some mad photo skills!

I took the photo below with an old Konica Minolta Z3 that I wasn't using at home, so I gave it to my family in Nicaragua. Such wonderful colors in this lil bird...

I know it's not a professional looking photo, but I look forward to reading this thread from beginning to end to get ideas of what you guys do.

Edited April 13, 2011 by screaming oranges

[Salt Peanuts]

I can't confirm since I can't use the program, but apparently, the Continental Airline Miles for Merchandise program has 5DII w/ 24-105 f/4 for $2790.65 + 100 miles (S/H $50). If anyone can use the program, this is a fantastic deal since the 5DII body alone costs $2699 now.

[agile_one]

Pretty birdie, Alex. Was that from FL or Nicaragua?

[screaming oranges]

Pretty birdie, Alex. Was that from FL or Nicaragua?

It's my cousins' pet in Nicaragua. This is one of two parrots they have in their backyard (wings are clipped, so they can't fly away).

They say people's names, laugh, cough, cry like babies, know a couple of phrases, and the latest (and funniest) addition to their repertoire is that they imitate the screeching sound of cars breaking on the road (there's a "highway" close by).

I spoke to them this week via Skype, and they bought three more younger parrots (not quite newborn but you can tell they are very young still) for... get this... $2 each. Yep. two bucks a pop. Those things are expensive here in the states!

Edited April 19, 2011 by screaming oranges