Pix from Infected Mushroom (srika's club pics thread)
#41
Photography Nerd
I'm trying to find a better tips site that I read a few months ago, but I'm not having much luck.
I've seen some of Paul Ward's work before and I know he's posted some tips somewhere. Here's his site:
http://www.paulwardphotography.com/g...17586eb4ad8145
Edit: Google to the rescue: http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/thread/132671.aspx
I've seen some of Paul Ward's work before and I know he's posted some tips somewhere. Here's his site:
http://www.paulwardphotography.com/g...17586eb4ad8145
Edit: Google to the rescue: http://community.dcmag.co.uk/forums/thread/132671.aspx
#42
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Re: noise:
these are 2 (crops) of the original untouched pictures..
these are 2 (crops) of the original untouched pictures..
#43
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
You want to get a flash regardless of which body you go for. Clubs are very hard to shoot in due to the low (and changing) light conditions. I was never a fan of flash photography until I got a dedicated unit. It gives you so much more flexibility than an in-camera flash.
You might want to look a fast wide prime when you want to shoot with available light.
Check out this page for some tips & tricks: http://blog.rl-digital.com/wordpress...b-photography/
You might want to look a fast wide prime when you want to shoot with available light.
Check out this page for some tips & tricks: http://blog.rl-digital.com/wordpress...b-photography/
thx 4 the links.
#45
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by einsatz
After seeing those originals, I can't belive there are more NR artifacts in the other pics you posted!
I picked 2 of the worst cases. Many of them did not have that much noise - but still looked better after running Noise Ninja.
#47
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
but you can see the noise.
#48
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by srika
but you can see the noise.
FWIW, stage performances were what orginally got me interested in photograpy. I worked in a theater and some of the lighting effects were pretty cool, but difficult to capture without the right equipment. One pro-ish photographer hooked me up with some 1600 film and she would shoot it at 3200. It worked great for small photos, but don't think they would have enlarged too well.
One of these days I'll make the investment in a DSLR. Probably should have before getting married
#49
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
alright alright.. youre pulling my leg.
http://srika.com/img/pic1_ab.jpg
http://srika.com/img/pic2_ab.jpg
http://srika.com/img/pic1_ab.jpg
http://srika.com/img/pic2_ab.jpg
#50
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
well damn, I think I just need to LEARN HOW TO USE my D70! duh.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d70.htm
I prefer the D70 to everything else digital, including the bigger and slower-syncing $4,500 D2X and $1,500 Canon 20D. The D70 has many image quality and ease-of-use improvements over the professional $4,000 D1H I used to lug around, not just in resolution, but also in highlight performance and much better color.
TRICK: you can shoot at ISO 3,200 and ISO 6,400 by setting the D70 to ISO 1,600 and -1 or -2 exposure compensation and then either 1.) shooting in RAW and opening the files at +1 or +2 exposure, or 2.) just shoot in JPG mode and use Photoshop's Levels or Curves command to lighten them!
1/500 sync speed, superior to Nikon D2H, D100, Canon 20D, 10D, 1Ds and 1D-Mk II and every other consumer DSLR. Read why sync speed is so important here. This is a critically important spec and a key reason I would buy the D70 over the more expensive D100, D2H, Canon 1Ds ($8,000), 10D, 20D or Digital Rebel.
#51
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by srika
Originally Posted by Ken Rockwell
TRICK: you can shoot at ISO 3,200 and ISO 6,400 by setting the D70 to ISO 1,600 and -1 or -2 exposure compensation and then either 1.) shooting in RAW and opening the files at +1 or +2 exposure, or 2.) just shoot in JPG mode and use Photoshop's Levels or Curves command to lighten them!
A little tweak here and there is not a big deal, but a full stop (or two!) at the highest ISO is going to be really ugly.
#52
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I'm not expecting that info to be 100% applicable to me, I was just happy to read about the "new" possibilities. And that article is obviously dated.
it's funny what you think of when you are falling asleep/waking up. I just had the startling revelation last night about looking up D70 settings on google, and I came up with this great article. lol. I don't think I have any inkling about getting a new camera now, at all. I want to learn how to use this one - because apparently it does have potential!
it's funny what you think of when you are falling asleep/waking up. I just had the startling revelation last night about looking up D70 settings on google, and I came up with this great article. lol. I don't think I have any inkling about getting a new camera now, at all. I want to learn how to use this one - because apparently it does have potential!
#53
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by srika
I'm not expecting that info to be 100% applicable to me, I was just happy to read about the "new" possibilities. And that article is obviously dated.
it's funny what you think of when you are falling asleep/waking up. I just had the startling revelation last night about looking up D70 settings on google, and I came up with this great article. lol. I don't think I have any inkling about getting a new camera now, at all. I want to learn how to use this one - because apparently it does have potential!
it's funny what you think of when you are falling asleep/waking up. I just had the startling revelation last night about looking up D70 settings on google, and I came up with this great article. lol. I don't think I have any inkling about getting a new camera now, at all. I want to learn how to use this one - because apparently it does have potential!
#54
is learning to moonwalk i
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
It certainly makes sense to explore the limits of your gear before changing anything.
I was at Best Buy today during lunch and the guy working the camera section seemed to have more than half a clue. Not that it was a fantastic deal, but a guy was looking at the 30D and the BB guy said he could sell it for 1299 (200 off). Never even heard of Best Buy negotiating. This opens new doors - at least on large purchases.
#55
The Creator
Originally Posted by srika
Ok. I have to say though after reading your input on the matter and reading more about it at various sites, I think the choice for me is Canon. So I think I will be making efforts to get probably a 5D. I would love to be able to take pics even close to the ones at this site - LOVE these pics. The color on them is amazing - I wonder what kind of post-processing went into them, if any. I think the 5D would get close?
Here are some highlights from the above site:
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C8696
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9747
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9799
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9293
that's club photography!
Some details (from the first pic): 1D Mark II, shutter 1/32 sec, F/2.8, exposure 1/30 sec, ISO 3200 ( )...
Here are some highlights from the above site:
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C8696
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9747
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9799
http://johnnymonsoon.com/gallery/lscaugust/A8C9293
that's club photography!
Some details (from the first pic): 1D Mark II, shutter 1/32 sec, F/2.8, exposure 1/30 sec, ISO 3200 ( )...
Every single one of those photos passed through Photoshop and not a single one of them is even all that great.
The "color" is nothing to be envious of. 2-clicks in Photoshop and you can make the colors in your photos pop too. Here's two quick side-by-side examples that took less than a few seconds and no skill using your low-res web shots. Imagine what you could do with your RAW's and some effort...
Doesn't take much if thats the look you're going for. 90% of what's wrong with your photos can be corrected in post-processing. If you work on your framing/composition you really don't have anything at all to envy in comparison to the "dream shots" you posted.
... oh... and don't think post processing is some evil deed. Most of the "good" photographers here on AcuraZine spend ungodly amounts of time working on their photos. Shit, didn't Dan Martin say he goes through a 66-step post-sharpening process?
#56
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
ugh. why you gotta make my (original) shots look so bad. :P
#58
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by soopa
... oh... and don't think post processing is some evil deed. Most of the "good" photographers here on AcuraZine spend ungodly amounts of time working on their photos.
Shit, didn't Dan Martin say he goes through a 66-step post-sharpening process?
Well, not for every shot, but I'll certainly go through many steps for a print. I've automated those steps with an action, so if anyone would like a copy I can email it to them. I turn off in-camera sharpening, so all of my shots need to be sharpened in some way to counteract the camera's anti-aliasing filter. Usually a simple USM 200/0.3/0 will be enough for a shot that will be displayed on a monitor.
#59
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
I have this preconceived notion that post-processing = bad. Apparently I need to get rid of that.
#60
The Creator
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Post processing is a fact of life. If you shoot RAW, you have no choice but to post-process since the file you captured is meaningless until you put it through a converter. All of the pros do it and it's not something that's new to digital either. You can take a roll of film to 3 different labs and you'll get 3 different prints back.
#61
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by srika
I have this preconceived notion that post-processing = bad. Apparently I need to get rid of that.
A good chef will always taste their food and season accordingly. They'd be crazy to just assume that all the ingredients they use will taste the same every time they prepare the dish. Likewise, a photographer who is preping a photo for print or screen publication will want to tweak their image so it best represents their work.
Ansel Adams is known for capturing fantastic landscapes, but arguably, he's better known for his revolutionary darkroom and printing techniques. If he were alive today, I'm sure he would love Photoshop.
#62
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dan Martin
Definitely. I don't hide the fact that I do post processing. Photoshop is not a dirty word.
A good chef will always taste their food and season accordingly. They'd be crazy to just assume that all the ingredients they use will taste the same every time they prepare the dish. Likewise, a photographer who is preping a photo for print or screen publication will want to tweak their image so it best represents their work.
Ansel Adams is known for capturing fantastic landscapes, but arguably, he's better known for his revolutionary darkroom and printing techniques. If he were alive today, I'm sure he would love Photoshop.
A good chef will always taste their food and season accordingly. They'd be crazy to just assume that all the ingredients they use will taste the same every time they prepare the dish. Likewise, a photographer who is preping a photo for print or screen publication will want to tweak their image so it best represents their work.
Ansel Adams is known for capturing fantastic landscapes, but arguably, he's better known for his revolutionary darkroom and printing techniques. If he were alive today, I'm sure he would love Photoshop.
#63
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stogie1020
I am totaly ignant with respect to photography so indulge me... What is "noise" in a picture? Maybe a pic with alot of it and the same pic with none? Thanks.
Various software programs can be used to reduce the noise in your images.
#64
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Ive made a few changes for tonight's session - Blank & Jones @ Vision. The most important being, changing the color saturation to "Enhanced" and also the color type to "IIIa". These were Ken Rockwell's suggestions for getting brighter, warmer, more vibrant colors from the D70. I have also been reading up on the D80, and he claims it has much more vibrant and warmer colors than the D70, he says its wholly different and more akin to the D200.
I will probably use this thread as a repository for my "Club/Event Pictures" progress and learning, instead of creating new threads for every event.
I will probably use this thread as a repository for my "Club/Event Pictures" progress and learning, instead of creating new threads for every event.
#65
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Originally Posted by waTSX
I didn't see your quetsion answered, so here goes: noise is to digital photography what grain is to film photography. Shooting at higher ISO's introduces a fine grain into the image, especially in the shadow areas. The same is true for film. It's one of the tradeoffs for being able to select faster shutter speeds in low-light conditions.
Various software programs can be used to reduce the noise in your images.
Various software programs can be used to reduce the noise in your images.
Thanks. Makes sense. Are certian brands of camera/sensors more prone to niose at hgher ISO? I am thinking about the new Canon Rebel Xti.
#66
Team Owner
Originally Posted by stogie1020
Thanks. Makes sense. Are certian brands of camera/sensors more prone to niose at hgher ISO? I am thinking about the new Canon Rebel Xti.
In the DSLR world, only Canon has full-frame sensors; Nikon (and others like Sony, Pentax, etc.) use APS-C. The Rebel Xti uses an APS-C sensor.
In practical terms, they all are capable of taking excellent pictures, and all can be used to take atrocious pictures - that depends on the photographer. Noise IMO is really only important if you predominantly take pictures in very low light with a lot of shadows - which requires the use of ISO 1000+.
I would make my evaluation based on (1) the ergonomics of the camera and (2) the lenses that are available for my own photographic needs. My personal preference is the Nikon ergonomics by far - but Canon has a much more extensive range of lenses (especially in long glass) and they are much more readily available.
#67
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by svtmike
It has most to do with the size of the sensor. DSLRs generally have two sensor sizes - full frame (the size of a 35mm film frame) or APS-C (about 2/3 the size). The full frame sensors provide better noise performance because pixel-for-pixel on the sensor they receive more light.
In the DSLR world, only Canon has full-frame sensors; Nikon (and others like Sony, Pentax, etc.) use APS-C. The Rebel Xti uses an APS-C sensor.
In practical terms, they all are capable of taking excellent pictures, and all can be used to take atrocious pictures - that depends on the photographer. Noise IMO is really only important if you predominantly take pictures in very low light with a lot of shadows - which requires the use of ISO 1000+.
I would make my evaluation based on (1) the ergonomics of the camera and (2) the lenses that are available for my own photographic needs. My personal preference is the Nikon ergonomics by far - but Canon has a much more extensive range of lenses (especially in long glass) and they are much more readily available.
In the DSLR world, only Canon has full-frame sensors; Nikon (and others like Sony, Pentax, etc.) use APS-C. The Rebel Xti uses an APS-C sensor.
In practical terms, they all are capable of taking excellent pictures, and all can be used to take atrocious pictures - that depends on the photographer. Noise IMO is really only important if you predominantly take pictures in very low light with a lot of shadows - which requires the use of ISO 1000+.
I would make my evaluation based on (1) the ergonomics of the camera and (2) the lenses that are available for my own photographic needs. My personal preference is the Nikon ergonomics by far - but Canon has a much more extensive range of lenses (especially in long glass) and they are much more readily available.
DSLR's from both brands have excellent ergonomics, it just depends on what you prefer.
Originally Posted by stogie1020
Thanks. Makes sense. Are certain brands of camera/sensors more prone to niose at hgher ISO? I am thinking about the new Canon Rebel Xti.
Svtmike makes some good points. Go out and handle some of them and see how they feel to you.
FWIW, the XTi would be a very good choice, IMO.
#69
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Thanks guys. I have had Canon Point And Shoot in the past and have been VERY pleased with the image quality, so I am leaning toward the Xti, but I know that with the older Rebels, people complained about the quality of the "kit" lens.
Many suggested buying body only and getting a better Canon lens or a Sigma. What would be a good general lens to learn the camera and be able to span the range of macro to portraits to landscapes? I understand no lens will do everything, or there wouldn't be 60 in a brand lineup, but a good general lens size to learn photography with?
Many suggested buying body only and getting a better Canon lens or a Sigma. What would be a good general lens to learn the camera and be able to span the range of macro to portraits to landscapes? I understand no lens will do everything, or there wouldn't be 60 in a brand lineup, but a good general lens size to learn photography with?
#70
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^Something like the EF-S 60mm Macro would be a good choice. It's a prime lens, it's fast at f2.8, it gives you 1:1 magnification, and it would be very good for portrait work on a 1.6 camera. At around $350, it's pretty well priced. It just doesn't have the versatility of a zoom, but it's been getting excellent reviews, especially for image quality. It wouldn't be that great for landscapes though. You need to go wider for that.
Or you could just get something like that plus a general walk around zoom lens also, like the EF-S 17-85, or any of the Sigma or Tamron offerings in that focal range.
Or you could just get something like that plus a general walk around zoom lens also, like the EF-S 17-85, or any of the Sigma or Tamron offerings in that focal range.
#71
Needs more Lemon Pledge
Great, thanks.
Now, any especially good books on photography for the novice?
Now, any especially good books on photography for the novice?
#72
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 62
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's literally tons of photography books out there, but if you're truly a novice, you'll want something that explains the basics of exposure and the like. I like "The Joy of Digital Photography" by Jeff Wignall. It not only does a pretty good job of explaining the basics, but it is done in an exuberant fashion that really makes you want to run out and start shooting. It also delves into image editing, and it explains the various types of shooting you may want to try (landscapes, portraits, etc.). It also gives you some project ideas to get started. The book also has enough in it to keep you going beyond the novice stage.
It doesn't go quite into depth about exposure theory, but it gives you the nuts and bolts. It's hardbound with lots of nice photos. But really, anyone here, say Dan or Billiam or others, could probably suggest many other books. The web is also a good resource.
It doesn't go quite into depth about exposure theory, but it gives you the nuts and bolts. It's hardbound with lots of nice photos. But really, anyone here, say Dan or Billiam or others, could probably suggest many other books. The web is also a good resource.
#73
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
So I have some good news and some bad news RE: Saturday night. The good news is, the pix had much less noise in them, because I set the ISO lower. I don't even think I have to run the de-noiser on most of the pix - but I might try it anyway to see how it looks. Bad news is, a rather small percentage of the pics came out. Most of them suffer from blurriness. I mean, even the strobes couldn't save em. I still got some good ones, just not as many as last time. This leads me to believe what I read somewhere at some site - "better to have a clear, noisy picture, than a blurry picture with no noise" - at least there are ways you can correct the noisy picture.
Anyway, I will be posting some of them hopefully later on today.
On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.
Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386
Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322
Anyway, I will be posting some of them hopefully later on today.
On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.
Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386
Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322
#74
Safety Car
Originally Posted by srika
So I have some good news and some bad news RE: Saturday night. The good news is, the pix had much less noise in them, because I set the ISO lower. I don't even think I have to run the de-noiser on most of the pix - but I might try it anyway to see how it looks. Bad news is, a rather small percentage of the pics came out. Most of them suffer from blurriness. I mean, even the strobes couldn't save em. I still got some good ones, just not as many as last time. This leads me to believe what I read somewhere at some site - "better to have a clear, noisy picture, than a blurry picture with no noise" - at least there are ways you can correct the noisy picture.
Anyway, I will be posting some of them hopefully later on today.
On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.
Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386
Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322
Anyway, I will be posting some of them hopefully later on today.
On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.
Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386
Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322
I am in the look out for the xti and I have searched a lot of online places.
Your best friend is resellerratings.com
Best price cameras is not a good place to buy, as per resellerratings.
#75
Photography Nerd
Originally Posted by srika
So I have some good news and some bad news RE: Saturday night. The good news is, the pix had much less noise in them, because I set the ISO lower. I don't even think I have to run the de-noiser on most of the pix - but I might try it anyway to see how it looks. Bad news is, a rather small percentage of the pics came out. Most of them suffer from blurriness. I mean, even the strobes couldn't save em. I still got some good ones, just not as many as last time. This leads me to believe what I read somewhere at some site - "better to have a clear, noisy picture, than a blurry picture with no noise" - at least there are ways you can correct the noisy picture.
On another note, anybody know about this site? My senses are telling me "too good to be true"... but I just wanted to run it by you guys. Their prices are a bit ridiculous.
Nikon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312386
Canon
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/display.asp?page=312322
#76
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
^^^ LOL... how do places like this even stay up??? seriously.
if im bored later at work I think I might call em and bother em LOL
if im bored later at work I think I might call em and bother em LOL
#77
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
ooooh.. I think I wont be calling from ANY number!!..... wtf.
My order was cancelled and not long after I receive a call from the fraud unit of my credit card asking if I had charged items to Pakistan International. I had not and my card was subsequently canceled and reissued. I receive a call from a merchant about some colognes I ordered and wanted sent to Viet Nam. The call was to my work number WHICH I HAD ONLY GIVEN TO BESTPRICECAMERAS. Not only are they a scam operation, they will sell your credit card number. DO NOT EVEN THINK OF USING THEM.
#78
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter
Blank & Jones @ Vision
http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/09...kjones_vision/
highlights:
full main club, taken from 4th floor
strobes
no strobes
http://www.delobbo.com/gallery2/v/09...kjones_vision/
highlights:
full main club, taken from 4th floor
strobes
no strobes
#79
Senior Moderator
Thread Starter