Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

[Ramseus]

what Epp suggests doing will prevent you from being able to access kenrockwell.com (took me a second to get it). Don't do it man, Ken Rockwell's just a goof who has this website just for fun and click his links to help support him and his growing family and [joke that isn't funny and you won't realise it's supposed to be a joke].

also 18% grey (right? isn't that what everyone uses?)

 

[hansvonaxion]

Sorry, I rounded up.

Man, senility has set in.

 

[Olie]

Today I decided to have a go at setting up an incar camera setup.

Version 1:

Gave a nice angle.... but was way too flimsy, plus it sagged and caused all the shots to cut off my head.


So i decided to simplify:
Version 2.2 with added Ballast weight to stop it toppling over every time i touched the accelerator.

Sample shots:

Seemed to work ok, more ballast would be better so I can slow the shutter down a bit more, It looks like it may work facing out the window as well.

 

[nomix]

Bah, I'm too lazy to use spot when I'm out for a walk. Weird, this was with my 35/1.8 too...

Learn to use spot, or I'll smack you over the mouth.

also 18% grey (right? isn't that what everyone uses?)

Spot sees the world as 18 % grey, yeah. So a sky should be overexposed by 1-1,5 EV. You can use grass to meter, as the spot sees the world in shades of black, grey and white, and the green grass works as 18 % grey.

You can also overexpose a white person's face with one stop overexposure.

 

[Top Geek]

(I don't know what this means; "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" to your hosts file)

Your hosts file is like a "local DNS service" (DNS = domain name service, it's what tells your computer what IP address to download a website from when you enter www.website.com into your browser). 127.0.0.1 is a "local loop" IP address that always points to your own computer. So, by entering "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" into your hosts file, it means that anytime you would try to access kennyboy's website, it would stall and never load the site.

But there's a difference between being wrong due to the subject not equating to 20% grey and being wrong when shooting a 20% grey card in daylight with the camera WB set to daylight.

Indeed. Also, isn't 18% gray?

 

[hansvonaxion]

Your hosts file is like a "local DNS service" (DNS = domain name service, it's what tells your computer what IP address to download a website from when you enter www.website.com into your browser). 127.0.0.1 is a "local loop" IP address that always points to your own computer. So, by entering "127.0.0.1 kenrockwell.com" into your hosts file, it means that anytime you would try to access kennyboy's website, it would stall and never load the site.

Got it.

Indeed. Also, isn't 18% gray?

Apparently it's 12%, I guess that's why my meter appeared out!

So were we talking about the TTL meter being out or shooting in EV mode and having to adjust for high/low key scene??At first I thought the former, but after realising he said 2+2/3 of a stop I guess it was the latter? If it is the latter then it has nothing to do with the camera's/meter's inaccuracy, more a lack of understanding as to how it works. I could suggest reading up on the zone system but I think just trying manual mode + ambient light readings (or reflected 12% grey) would be easier.

 

[Chambers]

Kennyboy's been to B&H (video)

I feel the anguish of that B&H guy when he utters the words "insight" and "visit every day".

great video .

he looks like he wants to get slapped in the face.

 

[Redliner]

Do you guys have insurance for your equipment?
As I am thinking of buying a DSLR, I made a little research about it...

 

[nomix]

Low end equipment is so cheap that it makes very little sense to insure it.

 

[Ramseus]

From watching Antiques Roadshow I've learned that anything worth more than a grand should be insured...

 

[LeVeL]

I've always maintained that a good shooter will get much better shots with "cheap" gear than a less experienced one with the best gear in the business. But just how far can you go with "cheap" gear? I'm by no means hitting the limits of my 350D but I'm beginning to notice that I'm just not getting the same quality (not even close really) than photogs with better cameras and lenses (well yeah, makes sense). High-iso performance is the most noticeable, as mine starts getting noisy at 800. So is it just me that sucks at taking pictures or do I, in fact, just need better gear? Again, I realize that a) I'm no pro, and b) gear doesn't automatically make you good. I just keep having more and more days when I'll come back with a few hundred shots and not really like any of them... didn't used to be like that when I first got my dslr. Or I'm just venting... / short rant

 

[Redliner]

Low end equipment is so cheap that it makes very little sense to insure it.

(Using local currencies)
Canon 500D: R$2,000.
Insurance for a year: R$257

It seems like a good deal to me...

 

[Top Geek]

Low end equipment is so cheap that it makes very little sense to insure it.

I have my gear insured as a floater/rider on the house insurance. $50 per year is well worth it for $1500 of gear.

I've always maintained that a good shooter will get much better shots with "cheap" gear than a less experienced one with the best gear in the business. But just how far can you go with "cheap" gear? I'm by no means hitting the limits of my 350D but I'm beginning to notice that I'm just not getting the same quality (not even close really) than photogs with better cameras and lenses (well yeah, makes sense). High-iso performance is the most noticeable, as mine starts getting noisy at 800.

Well, I'm not going to say "Your Camera Doesn't Matter" ( ), but how are you defining "quality"? I'll admit that, sometimes, you do want to have that smooth, clean appearance, but noiseless photos aren't really that important.

 

[Clockwerk]

^ I have the same as epp_b, I have a rider on my renter's insurance for both my camera gear and my bikes.

 

[Ramseus]

Get noise ninja (or neat image or whatever) and watch that high ISO noise melt away! Obviously you lose a little detail, because some detail will be all in the noise, but it's not too much loss most of the time. The camera profiles for noise ninja apply enough unsharp masking to make up for the little bit of lost detail (although with a bit of sharpening artifcating, stupidly high contrast edges and junk, so I made duplicate profiles for myself without unsharp masking)

What Epp said, how do you define quality? You can take great shots with a point and shoot, but you'll never have paper thin DOF, ultra ultra wide angle, (not crap) super duper telephoto, or anywhere near good low light performance. Higher end dSLR bodies AF better and have better high ISO performance and give you more control over little things. With the same composition versus crop bodies, full frame produces sharper images because it provides more lines per height or something. Better lenses perform better and faster lenses are faster. Unless you're not happy with what you've done with fast moving things, low light, angle of view, or just want better image quality (nothing wrong with that)... I dunno, you're skill's just not progressed to where you want it to be by the sounds of it.

about insurance, I just googled photo equipment insurance, first (only) article I read said that most insurance will cover you for theft but not mysterious disappearance. Meaning: you leave your gear in your car, window gets smashed and gear gets stolen, you're covered (also if you get mugged or held up) - leave your gear beside you on a park bench, gear goes missing (you doze off and someone comes along and takes it, or something else where you have no evidence and didn't actually witness it) you're not covered. That's what the article said.

 

[Redliner]

about insurance, I just googled photo equipment insurance, first (only) article I read said that most insurance will cover you for theft but not mysterious disappearance. Meaning: you leave your gear in your car, window gets smashed and gear gets stolen, you're covered (also if you get mugged or held up) - leave your gear beside you on a park bench, gear goes missing (you doze off and someone comes along and takes it, or something else where you have no evidence and didn't actually witness it) you're not covered. That's what the article said.

That?s how it is here. If the person stealing it had to break or destroy something to get it, it?s "qualified theft" and therefore covered. If you leave it seating in a desk or something and it gets stolen, you?re fucked.

 

[nomix]

I've always maintained that a good shooter will get much better shots with "cheap" gear than a less experienced one with the best gear in the business. But just how far can you go with "cheap" gear? I'm by no means hitting the limits of my 350D but I'm beginning to notice that I'm just not getting the same quality (not even close really) than photogs with better cameras and lenses (well yeah, makes sense). High-iso performance is the most noticeable, as mine starts getting noisy at 800. So is it just me that sucks at taking pictures or do I, in fact, just need better gear? Again, I realize that a) I'm no pro, and b) gear doesn't automatically make you good. I just keep having more and more days when I'll come back with a few hundred shots and not really like any of them... didn't used to be like that when I first got my dslr. Or I'm just venting... / short rant

A mate of mine was once looking for a quick prime, he had the cash, he wanted it, but he tought he had to desvere it first. It doesn't really work that way. If you take photos in dark places, you need high ISO performance, you need a fast prime.

You have the money? Go for it.

(Using local currencies)
Canon 500D: R$2,000.
Insurance for a year: R$257

It seems like a good deal to me...

Well, I suppose the chances of getting your gear stolen might be more probable (even if the chance of breaking your gear is very unlikely).

What I suggest is that you get yourself a plastic bag from a supermarket. the correspondent of NRK, Norwegian national broadcaster, in South America uses that trick when he's carrying loads of camera gear.

But in that context, with the chance of it being stolen, the ods even out more.

I'm afraid I was thinking a little too Norwegian, and over here, camera insurance is generally avoided because of the fact that most people won't ever need it.

 

[LeVeL]

Get noise ninja (or neat image or whatever) and watch that high ISO noise melt away! Obviously you lose a little detail, because some detail will be all in the noise, but it's not too much loss most of the time. The camera profiles for noise ninja apply enough unsharp masking to make up for the little bit of lost detail (although with a bit of sharpening artifcating, stupidly high contrast edges and junk, so I made duplicate profiles for myself without unsharp masking)

I'll look into that, thanks.

What Epp said, how do you define quality? You can take great shots with a point and shoot, but you'll never have paper thin DOF, ultra ultra wide angle, (not crap) super duper telephoto, or anywhere near good low light performance. Higher end dSLR bodies AF better and have better high ISO performance and give you more control over little things. With the same composition versus crop bodies, full frame produces sharper images because it provides more lines per height or something. Better lenses perform better and faster lenses are faster. Unless you're not happy with what you've done with fast moving things, low light, angle of view, or just want better image quality (nothing wrong with that)... I dunno, you're skill's just not progressed to where you want it to be by the sounds of it.

I know what areas I need work on so I guess what I'm looking for here is image quality.... and yes, a faster, sharper lens...


Ok, example that I found on flickr:

Sharp, great detail - beautiful shot. Composition and lighting are obviously not gear-related.


latest from 360photog:

You can make out every little detail of the car! The colors are great....




Yes, I'm having trouble putting this into words :lol: Basically, is image quality all down to gear and how big of a role does skill play, specifically in the quality. Maybe shooting RAW will cure my "issues" Maybe the only way is to get $2k worth of L lenses. Maybe I just need a good smack upside the head, get my act together, and simply take better pics.



edit:

A mate of mine was once looking for a quick prime, he had the cash, he wanted it, but he tought he had to desvere it first. It doesn't really work that way. If you take photos in dark places, you need high ISO performance, you need a fast prime.

Bingo! Right on the money! That's the issue I'm having - am I not 100% happy with my shots because I simply need better glass, or is it more because my abilities with a camera need work? That's the question I'm struggling to answer.

 

[Top Geek]

You can take great shots with a point and shoot, but you'll never have paper thin DOF

I've seen "nice" shots from P&S cameras, but never one that I would define as "great". Noise doesn't matter that much most of the time, but there is a point at which it becomes unlivable. P&S cameras give you blotchy, crappily-compressed JPEGs that look awful, even at low ISOs.

That?s how it is here. If the person stealing it had to break or destroy something to get it, it?s "qualified theft" and therefore covered. If you leave it seating in a desk or something and it gets stolen, you?re fucked

As I recall, mine covers accidental damage or loss as well.

Ok, example that I found on flickr:

Hmmm... this is the closest thing I could find of mine that is similar to that (a part of a car that is also wet )

https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/08/31/Seasoned_Vette.jpg


Model - NIKON D40
ExposureTime - 1/320 seconds
FNumber - 8.00
ExposureProgram - Aperture priority
ISOSpeedRatings - 200
ExposureBiasValue - -1.33
FocalLength - 200.00 mm
Image Quality - FINE
White Balance - CLOUDY


The D40 is pretty much on par with the 350D.

Here's a 100% crop of original, unprocessed image:
https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/08/31/crop1.jpg

...and a 100% crop of processed image: (it looks a bit different because of some distortion correction)
https://pic.armedcats.net/e/ep/epp_b/2009/08/31/crop2.jpg

latest from 360photog:

Really? That looks surprisingly underdone for the 360. Despite that, the details you see so vividly in the car are down to the lighting. Judging by where the sun is and how the car is lit, I'd say he had at least two off-camera strobes.

Yes, I'm having trouble putting this into words Basically, is image quality all down to gear and how big of a role does skill play, specifically in the quality. Maybe shooting RAW will cure my "issues" Maybe the only way is to get $2k worth of L lenses. Maybe I just need a good smack upside the head, get my act together, and simply take better pics.

...

That's the issue I'm having - am I not 100% happy with my shots because I simply need better glass, or is it more because my abilities with a camera need work? That's the question I'm struggling to answer.

Post some photos and explain why you're unhappy with them, we'll be able to help you better that way.

 

[sifu]

A mate of mine was once looking for a quick prime, he had the cash, he wanted it, but he tought he had to desvere it first. It doesn't really work that way. If you take photos in dark places, you need high ISO performance, you need a fast prime.

You have the money? Go for it.

I did that and got myself a 18 euro m42 55mm 1.7 auto chinon

And for LeVeL, post processing can do wonders.. I personally dont do pp so much because i mainly suck at it, but i know shooters which do photography with 300d+kit lens and have stunning results because of pp...

But still on the other hand you might want to check DoNs pictures, 350d and 200m 2.8 prime does wonders