Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

epp_b said:
Why do you do it? No seriously, why?

I feel like I've been struggling so much lately and, perhaps, it's because I have no actual goals. "For fun" just doesn't seem to be a good enough reason or motivator for me any more.
Click to expand...

I think you have been shooting for a lot longer than I have, I haven't even had my camera for a year yet at this point.

Everytime I do a shoot I feel like I'm learning something, refining my techniques and composure, and plus shooting gorgeous cars for free is just an added bonus.

One thing I have been lacking is that ALL i am shooting is cars, nothing else. A lot of my non-auto friends are getting bored of seeing my amazing car shots, I've been utterly not motivated to shoot anything abstract.
 
epp_b said:
Why do you do it? No seriously, why?

I feel like I've been struggling so much lately and, perhaps, it's because I have no actual goals. "For fun" just doesn't seem to be a good enough reason or motivator for me any more.
Click to expand...

There's two sollutions. Get a new lens, the fun-factor of working with new gear is always great.

Then there's going out, setting yourself challenges. Right. This weekend, you'll go to the home of your granny or parents, and you'll hang around for ages and ages till they forget you're there. Then you start taking photographs of their day. Post it, and I'll give you some feedback. It's actually a lot harder than it sounds.

If you're really tough, you could of course go knocking on doors and asking strangers to if you can hang around for a couple of hours, and photograph them. That's both scary and hard, but far from impossible.
 
Dont take it too seriously... if you dont feel like motivated, take a break. Normally it will come back after a while.
 
For once, a random thought from my side. As I was finishing up an article I've been writing about the Olympus 300mm f/2.8, I was in the bizniz of comparing sensor densities, and one thing struck me.

The Nikon DX sensor has a surface area of 372 square milimeters, the FX sensor has a surface area of 864 square milimeters. If we do some maths, that means that we get a factor of density of 16 on the DX Nikon D40 with 6mp, while the FX Nikon D3 with it's 12 mp has a factor of density of 14. So the D40 has more pixles pushed together per square milimeter, but not by much.

Now, imagine if Nikon had the wizzard-wee-idea of making a 6mp DX camera with today's sensor tech and put it into a D300 body ...
 
What does cooling have to do with low light photography?
 
The Nikon DX sensor has a surface area of 372 square milimeters, the FX sensor has a surface area of 864 square milimeters. If we do some maths, that means that we get a factor of density of 16 on the DX Nikon D40 with 6mp, while the FX Nikon D3 with it's 12 mp has a factor of density of 14. So the D40 has more pixles pushed together per square milimeter, but not by much.
Click to expand...
We Nikonites have known that for a long time ;)

It's why D3 and D700 love having 12mp.
 
jayjaya29 said:
The sensors generate a lot of heat during the image capture process and puts a limit on ultra fast rapid shooting.
Click to expand...

I didn?t knew that.
 
jayjaya29 said:
The sensors generate a lot of heat during the image capture process and puts a limit on ultra fast rapid shooting.
Click to expand...

It's simpler than that. Heat in general = noise for the sensor. That's why observatories cool their sensors with liquid nitrogen and the like, so they can minimize noise and crank the sensitivity way up to capture faint stars.
 
chaos386 said:
It's simpler than that. Heat in general = noise for the sensor. That's why observatories cool their sensors with liquid nitrogen and the like, so they can minimize noise and crank the sensitivity way up to capture faint stars.
Click to expand...

True that, completely forgot about thermal noise! Doh my analytic chem prof would kill me.
 
It's also why you get long exposure noise. Sensor is exposed to light for long time, sensor gets warm, bob's your uncle.
 
Damn, I just learned a lot in a couple of posts.
Thanks guys!
 
When I was calibrating my monitor today I just realised how terrible the monitor itself was. As I calibrated I can move the screen (which displays different light and dark tones) around, I noticed that at both the top and the bottom of the screen the brightness is somewhat different. This on top of getting from prints back that are far too dark has got me considering a new monitor.

I have no idea which one to get, to be honest anything would be better than this awful Dell one I got for free. I want it to be "Full HD" and not an annoying shiny black Samsung. Any ideas?
 
Dell 2408WFP (S-PVA) or U2410 (H-IPS). Whatever you do, don't get anything with a TN panel (i.e. anything that lists a viewing angle of 160 or 170 degrees).

EDIT: if you want to double-check what kind of panel a 24" monitor has, you can check LCD24.
 
Last edited:
After doing a bit of research it seems this H-IPS technology is a must have if you want colour accuracy, unfortunately it's extremely expensive. From what I've read from reviewers and customer reviews I'm inclined to get the HP LP2475w, it looks great so long as you've got the equipment to calibrated it all. It's a damn shame about the price though (? 427.13 is the cheapest price through pricerunner).

This is a hell of a lot of money to spend on anything let alone a screen however if I look at it another way I would be looking at it a hell of a lot. Does screen technology change as fast as other technology such as PC components? I don't know what I'd do to myself if I spent all that money to find out that 2 years later there's something that's at least twice as good.
 
i will wait for Organic Led screens... thats my 3 cents.
 
Dr_Q said:
After doing a bit of research it seems this H-IPS technology is a must have if you want colour accuracy, unfortunately it's extremely expensive. From what I've read from reviewers and customer reviews I'm inclined to get the HP LP2475w, it looks great so long as you've got the equipment to calibrated it all. It's a damn shame about the price though (? 427.13 is the cheapest price through pricerunner).

This is a hell of a lot of money to spend on anything let alone a screen however if I look at it another way I would be looking at it a hell of a lot. Does screen technology change as fast as other technology such as PC components? I don't know what I'd do to myself if I spent all that money to find out that 2 years later there's something that's at least twice as good.
Click to expand...

?427.13 seems like a pretty decent price, since all the monitors in the ?150-200 range are going to be TN panels, which are horrible.

And don't worry, monitor technology doesn't advance nearly as fast as other computer components. Part of this is that while programs require ever increasing processing power and storage space as time goes on, images and color don't, so a screen that's good today will still be good tomorrow, even if it doesn't have all the latest whiz-bang features. :)

sifu said:
i will wait for Organic Led screens... thats my 3 cents.
Click to expand...

You're going to be waiting for a long time, my friend...
 
Already seen some demo versions (12") of it and wont buy another LCD anymore :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top