A non-covid topic (gasp!) - Photography

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I have always had Cannon SLR cameras over the years. and never had a problem with getting the “shot”. I would upgrade every four or so years when I was big into photography.

Specially using more economical Tamron lenses.

I am guessing the new gear you bought was new and had better and more economical manufacturing practices that makes high end gear more easily obtainable. It’s the same for the cannon line. Like comparing a droid phone from 2015 to the most current Apple phone of today.

Side note. My dad was big into photography growing up. When both my parents passed. I didn’t really give a rats ass about landscape photos. And pictures of the animals and flowers. I cared about the family photos which modern cellphones are great for. It changed my view of photography.

a reply to: neutronflux

I am guessing the new gear you bought was new and had better and more economical manufacturing practices that makes high end gear more easily obtainable. It’s the same for the cannon line. Like comparing a droid phone from 2015 to the most current Apple phone of today.

Heh, well, not exactly! Most of my Canon gear was usually less than 3 years old, and I purchased it when it was still next-gen. Like you, I don't use all Canon glass, but I typically opt for Sigma over Tamron, but it's more expensive. My issue was not shooting with obsolete gear, it was about not being able to get the shot I saw in my mind's eye. I guess you'd have to understand that concept in order to appreciate the statement. As I noted earlier, I was able to get very close, but I'm a stickler for things like picture clarity, so I'm not satisfied if a photo has been constructed well, but I can zoom in (higher than any print will ever go) and see a bunch of grain, or the focus sharpness fall off, or there's some CA, etc.

I contemplated giving up dedicated camera digital photography for a phone instead. They do take some pictures which will rival DSLR's, but only under certain conditions. And then there's all the conditions were a cell phone falls flat on its face. Situations like glare, or moving subjects in low light, or controlling DOF and a million other things. I even posted a thread on it not too long ago (i.e. my 'dilemma'). Someone here on ATS commented about how they'd never give up their dedicated digital camera because of all the control it permits. That comment soaked in, so I broke out my big Canon DSLR and started putting it through every photo torture test I could think of. At each step along the way I compared the results to a similar shot on my cell phone. Well, that poster here was absolutely correct. I have WAY more control over photographing the environment (including people, places and things) with a camera than I ever will with a cell phone. There was no contest.

Sure, if all you desire to do is take candid snapshots of people so you can share with friends, or on social media, then a phone works fine. However, if you want to take wall hangers, and photos that you can blow up into large format, you're going to need a dedicated camera, a cell phone just won't cut it. Don't get me wrong, a cell phone will indeed work, but only under very controlled circumstances. I would even argue that a cell phone does better in low light than a camera will do...for those who don't really know how to take a fully manual shot where you, not the camera, are controlling every variable, including what (and how much) gets through the lens to the sensor.

BTW...Canon is spelled with only one "n". The other spelling is what you do with your camera when you're so frustrated with it that you can't stand it anymore...you fire it out of a "cannon"! LOL! (J/K).

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

If you happy, that is great. However…



Shrugs…. Seven years ago?

Anyway decent landscapes only takes a good landscape, patience for the right light, a normal lens (probably wide angle and a small F-stop for depth of field), and a tripod.

A large f-stop can compensate for much.

Viky Garden – Award Winning Pinhole Photography

fe29.com...

Creating landscapes with a pinhole camera

www.ephotozine.com...

For my wildlife photography, I loved my canon 100-400 mm lens (Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Lens)

My cellphone is really great at everything, except wildlife photography/sports.

Not sure you understand modem photography.

On film. Lots of the best photos were on large film format. Not 35 mm.

Why Shoot Large Format Film

Large format photography has its pros and cons compared to smaller format photography (120 and 35mm, etc.). The most obvious advantage of large format is that it produces a larger negative, which typically come in sheets from 4×5, 5×7, and 8×10 inches. Compare this to the image area of a 35mm film frame (24x36mm) and it’s clear that large format is, well, large. This increased negative size means that large format photography is capable of capturing far greater detail than smaller formats. A 4×5 camera, for example, makes a negative that’s 14 times the size of 35mm. That’s a lot of detail. This increased real estate means that prints and enlargements made from a large format negative will exhibit much finer grain compared to identically sized prints made from a smaller negative.

casualphotophile.com...

Even today for digital, larger is better.

Going from canon to Nikon did you got to a true 35mm sensor?

Canon's 1Ds/5D and Nikon D3 series are the most common full frame sensors. Canon cameras such as the Rebel/60D/7D all have a 1.6X crop factor, whereas mainstream Nikon SLR cameras have a 1.5X crop factor. The above chart excludes the 1.3X crop factor, which is used in Canon's 1D series cameras.

www.cambridgeincolour.com...

And…. Many photos were enhanced in lab

Many award winning photographers had their own unique lab techniques like how some of the best electric guitarist modify their guitars for a certain sound. Only with photos for a certain style.

Lastly. I had a friend that had a wedding a few years ago. And have talked with a few wedding photographers. You just cannot take a digital photo and call it good. It’s now about drones, cinematic production with drone footage, and the post protection of photos to correct ever blemish and lightning.

On average, a wedding photographer can spend upwards of 3 hours in post-production for every hour spent at the wedding taking images.

Now, some may take longer, some may take shorter, but 3:1 is an average within the wedding industry.


That means, for example, if your wedding photographer will be at the wedding for 8 hours, then you can expect them to roughly work 24 hours on the wedding images.

What types of editing does a photographer do?

When it comes to editing, many will take the raw image and change the coloring, lighting, and or saturation. This is a process that simply takes time and for some, it can be a challenge.

Many photographers will use something called a LUT or Look Up Table.

www.weddingphotographyandfilms.com...

To get my “look” I was mindful of the white balance, usually over exposed my photos one or two bumps on the camera controls over what the controls wanted (one or two f stops?) usually controlled my ISO and aperture and let the camera select shutter speed. Just made sure my shutter speed was faster than 60th of a second. And often used the cloudy day setting for light metering instead of white balance.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Oh. And filters were fun to play with too…

Cokin Graduated ND Filter Kit P Series, with Filter Holder & Graduated ND Filters (121L, 121M, 121S)
www.adorama.com... gKX2vD_BwE&utm_source=adl-gbase-p

Love my Nikon D750. Considered venerable now by digital standards, but the thing takes awesome photos and I have some good lenses. Used to use Sony before moving to Nikon. Never shot canon, but I know many who use them and love them. They are all good, but it’s that undefinable connection which matters.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Did it work?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Any advice?

a reply to: neutronflux

Let me tell you sometihng! If you continue to suggest I don't know anything about photography, as you've done in your last several posts, I am going to stop responding to you. I'm not going to debate my photography experience against someone on the internet who can't even spell the names of major manufacturers correctly.

So, just stop with the statements like..."Not sure you understand modem photography."

It only diminishes your opinion, especially when you are arguing in favor of cell phones over dedicated cameras for great photography. Maybe stick to the 'Earth being Flat' argument...you're better at it.

Have a nice evening.

a reply to: Dalamax

It's pretty small, I can't really see anything, honestly. Doesn't seem to enlarge or zoom either.

Sorry, I can't really say more than that.

Some people just don’t understand skill and a sense of precision.

That poster is a gronk.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I put it in my upload, but I can’t do anything when I click on the image.

a reply to: ARM1968

Agreed, I have no axe to grind with Canon at all! I still love them. Goodness knows, I've invested enough in Canon gear.

My only point was, I just really like this new Nikon...and it kind of speaks to me in a way my Canon's are not able to. That's all.

I have no intentions of getting rid of my Canon stuff, but going forward my mirrorless gear will all be Nikon (at least that's how I feel right now). Maybe in the future it might be Fujifilm, or Lumix...or even Leica (if I can afford it), but time will tell. Just needed to break the Canon chain, for now.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Then what settings, lenses, filtering, and post protection couldn’t you master to get that “look” when people win awards with simple pin hole cameras?

How are the controls different between the two cameras, and what settings, light metering, and functions are you using now to get that look?

Shrugs.

a reply to: neutronflux

**Click**

Have a nice day.

ETA - SMH

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

So. Basically you found a camera that does all the work for you. Got it. And doesn’t allow you to develop your own style and allow for your own personal touch to photography through your own skills. You just go with Nikon factory settings. Sort of like when my kid though they were awesome at first shooter then were very disappointed at their skills when they played laser tag with the local kids.

Did it work this time?

a reply to: Dalamax

a reply to: Dalamax

Much better!

If you were on another boat, and took a picture in low light like that, of fireworks, the fact you could take a picture at all is pretty amazing!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Screenshots from hand held video from an iPhone 8 two years old, while minding a squirmy kid, lens not regularly cleaned, and compressed to a gif.

The motion is stopped well with little blurring.

And it represents the look I wanted. Captured the lighting and contrast. With clues of movement.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Screenshot from same camera compressed to a gif. Hand held iPhone 8, photo taken on the fly. Just using burst and hoping it coincided with a lighting flash.

Storms are way cool.

a reply to: neutronflux

a reply to: Dalamax

I do miss using my SLR. Wide angle lens with large F stop for greater depth of field, and setting the shutter open for 30 seconds at a time on a tripod. Used the lighting like a flash.