|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.6.217.195
Many users of Cell Phones out there question DSLR / Mirrorless users about WHY.
No question that the cell phone is good and extremely HANDY. Don't leave home without it!
But some things are still best done with a more usual instrument, without even getting into the file size advantage.
Here is a shot to illustrate Depth Of Focus or 'Field'. You can use this property to direct the eye which tends to go to the point of sharpest focus. When you get to the background it is a nearly illegible blur. Called in photographic circles 'Bokeh'....I can'ty even pronounce it right.....!!!
Unfortunately, the best effect (Bokeh) is achieved with the WIDEST aperture lenses. Something like f1.8 down thru f1.2 are the sweet spot. You can, howverer, get terrific results using a MACRO lens which are typically f2.8, but you need to be VERY close, indeed.
This is a file size of about 1 meg. It'd fit on an OLD-SCHOOL hard Floppy! So this size file is within the capability of most modern cell phones.
Too much is never enough
Follow Ups:
I took this, when I first got my camera, with my Nikkor 50mm 1.4. Not great subject matter but nice effect. Excuse me "Bokeh".
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Edits: 07/01/20 07/01/20
Have you calibrated White Balance in your new camera yet? It doesn't appear to be.
No I haven't this is my first digital and I am still figuring it out. I will look into the white balance when I get home.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
This link may be of some help...
Thanks that helps. I checked when I got home and the white balance was set on auto so I changed the setting to suit the light source and it made a big difference I also found out how to change it on the fly through the view finder.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
I don't know your camera white balance menu options, but you should be able to do a Custom White Balance.
This is where you buy a white balance lens cap... just get the big one, like 77mm (should be under $15.00), and just hold it over the lens and point the camera in the direction on the scene you want to take a picture of and press the shutter button while you are in custom balance. The camera will register that as the new custom white balance. It literally only takes a few seconds to do, and it is specific to your light conditions at the time you are working. Much better than auto, which usually isn't quite right.
You can also do a calibration of color balance but you'll need a calibrated monitor to do it.
To me, this is all just normal setting up a digital camera. I have 3 DSLR's, all Nikon. A D500, D700 and a D7000. They have all been color calibrated, focus calibrated and then I always do a custom white balance for the photo at hand.
Each of the camera bodies have the lens I want on them...
For example, the D500 is setup with a TC14 and a 300mm F4 lens. It is my bird and wildlife setup.
The D700 is setup with the 85mm F1.4G for portrait work.
The D7000 has either a normal lens or a small zoom on it for general purpose photography.
If I want to take landscape shots, I use the full frame D700 and switch to my 14-24mm F2.8G lens.
That's how I roll.
Really mixed up link.....throwing in RAW and JPG conversions. Every camera is a little different in this regard.
Best, IMO, bet for straightening out WB is to use LEVELS in Photoshop. Than go to PHOTO FILTER and add a LITTLE cooling or warming.
Few casual photographers go to the trouble of RAW, depending instead on JPG IN-CAMERA. These persons should ALWAYS use the highest resolution / lowest compression settings for this and if asked, use sRGB NOT AdobeRGB.
Some situations are nearly 'impossible'.....Like photographing under 'Warm' fluorescent against a daylight lit window. 2 different color temps. in MOVIE making, they'll use GELS over one or the other to make 'em match.....
If you ALWAYS include something PURE WHITE in a shot, or know how to use Histograms / Levels you should be able to make stuff look right.....
Too much is never enough
I try to get it right in the camera, so I don't have to post process.
I usually always set a custom white balance by using a snap on neutral white lens cap cover and calibrate the sensor in the direction of the scene I want to take a picture of. This works really well.
I got this tip from a pro photographer.
Might work for SOME instances but certainly not for event or athletics.
Workflow is one of the most critical decisions a photographer can make.
Kind of as an aside? I've NEVER seen a photo which could not be improved or made better thru the use of judicious post.....
For flash, as an example, I would once do incident light using a meter. Ok for portraits, less so for groups but not necessarily for landscape. The most common method of Reflected light just has to do in some instances.
Too much is never enough
Point taken. I will crop some photos but I try not to do much else. The Pro was telling me to get the camera working right with white balance, color balance, exposure and so forth..... I really dislike digital photos that are heavily doctored. You can see it in the edges of objects or if someone does an HDR for effect... I think those look awful.
I think getting the photo right at exposure, should be the goal. We shouldn't be totally reliant on post processing for doctoring everything to "taste". Getting white balance right, is easy. Color balance is not hard to do either. With all the menu controls built into the cameras these days, we should use them and get things right.
Having said all of that... That Boxer dog portrait photo with the 85mm f1.4G lens is about as far as I go. Cropped and I ran it through Dxo Film Pack and converted it to one of the famous B&W films. Can't remember if it was a Kodak or an Ilford film but it gave the dog portrait a nice complimentary film grain and contrasty definition.
We obviously have different MO's. Which is fine.
Meters are based NOT on 'white' or 'color' but rather on 18% Grey.
If you REALLY want to go nuts, meter a grey card. I have 'em in my Kodak DataGuides from decades ago. It's called 'substitute metering'....
Adjusting color temp should NOT create 'edge artifacts' which IMO are generally caused by OVER sharpening. You must sharpen based on the intent of final use. When making BIG prints from small files, do it in STEPS. Keep in mind that Photoshop has a couple algorithms for this purpose.
When changing IMAGE SIZE the dialogue box will ask WHICH of 5 choices to use. One is 'best for enlargements, while another is 'best for reduction'. The other 3 have proper uses, too.
But EXPERIMENT. I once made a 24"x36" full-frame print from an 8meg file. I was also using 'premium' Canon L series glass, so that helps. I enlarged in 6 or 8 steps. I still ended with 300dpi and very good detail....
Your DOG Portrait is terrific. The Film Pack would be one of MY investments, too. No question that film grain is VERY different from Digital Noise....The noise seems to be part and parcel to using very High ISO values. Your digital sensor will be BEST at some low value, maybe 100 or so. But a couple stops won't HURT enough to be a deal breaker. My Nikon, has in-camera noise reduction and produces FINE images at ISO 3200 using street lights as the sole source. Night shot included from the local car 'show' up in Escondido. Canceled for THIS summer....it was aweekly event
You remind me of my brother. HE was always an 'as taken' guy no matter WHAT I did to demonstrate changes (not necessarily improvements) which could be done in the digital domain. He DID experiment a little. I dont' know if he ever reached a conclusion before his passing. I know that one of my photography profs.....a very successful commercial photographer claimed he could Improve images even years later as he learned more. I concur.
For the photo I include? In 'Levels' I chose to use the GREY pointer and told the program THIS is grey. The car was Grey Primer! Worked the charm. You can even see how WHITE the Big Whitewalls really are. The rest of the color is messed up from a variety of light sources of various color temps.
One OTHER thing? Calibrate your MONITOR. Go back and ask your 'pro' about THAT little item.
Cost no object will require a Spyder and software....but CAN be done by eye using online color chips and most importantly Grey Scale.
Too much is never enough
Ha! I have 18% grey cards.... That's what I first started using and then found the white balance lens cap covers, which work well too.
Yep! if you're really serious, getting the monitors calibrated is a must. I have one tv that I use in my HT system that is calibrated... used a bunch of pucks on it and had a gizmo that drove different colors and then adjusted the tv settings to true it in. It's a big ol' high end SONY unit. Movies look great!
The grey low ride car looks great... the green lighting in the background is an interesting effect from the other light sources. In this case, the subject is so strong, that the off color lighting in the background doesn't hurt the shot. In fact, it sort of compliments it.
I mentioned elsewhere, I use three Nikons... D500, D700 & D7000. the 500 always has the TC14ii and 300mm f4 glass on it. That's my birding/wildlife rig.
The D700 always has the 85mm F1.4G on it. If I happen to be doing landscape, I put the 14-24mm F2.8G on it. The 700 is my only full frame.
The D7000 is a switch hitter. Right now it's got a 70-200mm on it.
Before I picked up the D500, I had the TC14 and 300mm F4 glass on the D7000. I took this shot of the Moon, on a tripod, using a remote control. IIRC, all I did was run it through Film Pack and picked a good looking B&W film for the shot....
Must NOT confuse exposure with White Balance.
Over the years, I've used several different SPOT meters. Nikon Matrix Metering. Center Weighted Averaging (nice, general system) and various systems weighted to the focusing point.
NONE are perfect. If you are out in snow, they'll tend to UNDER expose. Yourr sensor only has so wide a dynamic range.
If you get the exposure right, the white balance is EASY to correct in about 30 seconds. My preference is for 'cooler'. so I may add a LITTLE cooling filter.....I use 'Photo Filter' dialogue. But you can do it ala carte and using Layers.
Your white 'lens cap' is NOT the same as 18% grey metering. You may have in effect turned your camera into an incident meter by so doing? If you expose to pure white, you will be UNDER exposing. The camera ASSUMES an 18% average scene brightness....
Too much is never enough
it's not "pure white". It is the equivalent to a gray card.
Still turns your camera into an incident meter....which ain't bad.....
If of reference quality? You could use it as a 'start' point to calibrate your system. Including the Monitor and perhaps even th printer... Printers are always a PIA since they use CMYK not RGB system. I got lucky ONCE. I hated the results from the Epson drivers. No matter what I did, the prints were dark. No matter WHAT I let 'manage' the color. Photoshop or the printer. I got some GuttenPrint drivers and it was a Miracle. Printer output matched the montitor perfectly. Whcih in turn matched what I got from my budget printer...when I attached THEIR profile to the prints.
Too much is never enough
Dave,
GuttenPrint drivers will substitute for Epson's proprietary drivers?
do you have to 'force' them or ... ?
regards,
Its been years. but I do NOT remember anything fancy or difficult. I'd have had to call a 12 year old if it were.
Print quality JUMPED to near-perfect.......Epson? Not For Me.....
I THINK there is a compaible Printer List......I'd start there....
Too much is never enough
thank you mon frère
regards,
Here 'da List:
I don't know what 'experimental' means in real terms....Will your printer simply Explode? I'd do some futher reading....If I were still interested in high quality ($$$$) home printing. Heck, even a printer which'll do 11X is probably 800$ or more....I would NOT trust a cheap printer or any made by HP under critical conditions.....
Too much is never enough
and they go right around my model ... rats & drats
same with 'in-store' ink cartridges ... lock o' the draw I guess
regards,
I was looking at the unit cost + ink cost ... the best image prints from HO style printers have been Canon ... the most expensive ink has been Canon
hey, appreciate your time looking into this so I didn't have to
regards,
I have a couple gray cards for exposure, and a Kodak color strip for color assessment. But for those times when I don't have a gray card handy, I just find a likely surface which will do in a pinch, such as concrete in the shade or weathered blacktop or whatever.
Haven't used my Sekonic digital meter (which can measure incident light and reflected light) in years.
Somewherer I read to use the PALM of your hand as a substitute for a grey card.
Than factor in a 2-stop or 3-stop correction? Your palm should be fairly constant....I hope.
I was in a European art museum. Down in a lower level, they were photographing art. And had enough strobe for Yankee Stadium. But included with EACH photo? A color chip and a black to white in 7 or 8 step grey scale. Together, you can get an exact match for printing art books or for the records or insurance.....
Too much is never enough
Send me a large version of the file and give me 5 minutes in photoshop.......
Lens DOES produce nice bokeh.....
Too much is never enough
Leica folks say it's the Leica M-Summicron 35mm version IV. I've got a well worn version III, almost as good and maybe 60% of the price.
Alas, no scans handy.
Ain't that the truth?
Someone here remarked about a Nikkor 85 1.4 being tops. No question that it IS quite good. But for 1/3 the $$$? The 1.8 fits my wallet a bunch better with about 90% to 95% the ultimate performance.
Seems that while each lens has a sweet spot of settings, that lens LINES also have such spots......
The Canon 50mm f1.8 is maybe 125$. And don't leave home without it. For the $$$ it is tough to beat. And nearly disposible.....
Too much is never enough
Canon 50/1.8 - what a great lens. My daughter uses it a LOT on her DSLR.
I have the original, the type 1 chrome in Leica thread mount. Heavy but stupid good for b&w (single coating), and I like the 'vintage' look it gives in color. Who needs a 'cron for 5-10x the price?
thought I had a scan here on my work computer but I can't find it. Ugh.
I had the FD mount version for Pre EOS cameras and used it a LOT.
Later I bought the f1.4 version, same mount, for an A-1, the bigger brother to the insanely popular AE-1
Too much is never enough
Nah! I said the Nikon 85mm f1.4 was "one of the better ones" at bokeh.
The best one I know of for portraits and softening backgrounds is the 135mm f2 DC. This one is near the top of the heap.
Somewhere I read that one of the Zeise lenses is the 'king' in this category. I dont' know what the mount was. Didn't Canon make a 'soft focus' lens in the old FD mount?
In any event? the 1.4 Nikkor IS quite good. I just couldn't go the $$$ and am waiting for the new Zoom to actually start getting into peoples hands. I have no idea if/when Nikon will get around to f1.2 or f1.4 glass in the new 'S' or 'Z' mount. Its gonna be a while. I haven't looked, but in years past I had a 135 f2.8, a common enough lens, which I simply couldn't take off my camera!
Funny, but lots of divisiions in photography. From the ultra Tele guys looking for birds to macro to the guys who care a lot about bokeh.
Than you have wedding guys. I did that for a while and used my macro for 'the ring shot' as well as close ups of the cake and flowers / table arrangements.
Too much is never enough
DoF describes the part of the photo that is IN focus. Narrow DoF means, of course, just a slice of the image is in focus, like your thistle blossom. Wide DoF means a lot of the scene, or the entire scene, is in focus. A lot of landscape guys are obsessed by having everything foreground to background in focus - like Ansel Adams and the f64 group. (I'm not sure how f64 on those large format cameras translates to modern DSLR or crop sensor digital cams.) As you've mentioned, I think, small apertures like f22 can cause diffraction from the light entering through a small opening. That leads to softness in the image.
On the other end, a wide opening ( like apertures 1.8 and larger), gives that narrow DoF and can have nice background blur - bokeh - but most lenses, wide open, are also often too soft on the image or show other flaws, like chromatic aberration o r vignetting. The solution is usually 'spend more money on better glass'. Even a lens that doesn't open wide can produce nice bokeh. It helps if the subject is separated from the background, so the background is some distance behind the subject. I have some f4 lenses that do a nice job with background blur, example below. The pipevine swallowtail butterfly and the foreground flowers are pretty sharp, but the background is pretty creamy. That was a Olympus 300mm lens, wide open at f4.
Bokeh isn't the same as DoF. Some lenses are prized for having beautiful bokeh, since there is such a thing as ugly bokeh. It's the so-called quality of the blur that's important. Smooth, silky bokeh is what's desired, as opposed to jaggy or busy. There are a lot of photo websites featuring beautiful bokeh. I'll link one, below.
Excellent shot.
The take away? Lenses are 'best' in the sweet spot of mid-apertures....as a general rule. At least for technical measures. Though still useable at the extremes IF necessary.
And zooms, while you didn't mention it, have significant (usually) Pincushion Distortion at ONE end of the zoom range and Barrel Distortion at the other. Somewhere in the middle, it's gonna make some fairly straight lines.....
Too much is never enough
A great crested flycatcher.
Edits: 07/01/20
Nice!
I always seem to get the ass-end of the bird too. ;-)
Here's one of my classic bird ass shots....
Some birds have pretty pink bottoms.
This Cooper's Hawk has his eye on that pink bottom...
nt
Bird photographers are a thing apart. Coopers Hawk, eh? I'm told that's the pair living on the slope in back of my casa. I even caught him having lunch one day......munching down on some rabbit, I hope.
Here is a gull shot from La Jolla. Just a little too much focus on background. Again, with the 85mm Nikkor f1.8 G. For the 430$? I can't think of plan 'B'.
Too much is never enough
Coastal birds, eh?I caught this Kestrel a few years ago with my D7000, 300mm F4 TC-14ii
Here's an Osprey landing... same camera setup as above.
Edits: 07/02/20 07/02/20
always having used Depth of Field, but most of my photographic days were in film. According to Wikipedia it's derived from "Boke", the Japanese word for blur, which makes sense.
Nice shot.
I took this in City Park with my new Fujifilm X-PRO2 and vintage Nikkor 35mm-200mm macro lens. I had to convert it to jpeg because my soft ware won't accept raw files. Bokeh didn't hear about it until a few weeks ago, I prefer depth of field.
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Edits: 06/30/20 06/30/20
You may prefer depth...but this shot does have a nicely blurred background.....
I havet' seen a Nikkor 200mm macro is quite a while. A real vintage lens!I'm waiting until next year for the butterfly room at the San Diego Zoo or the Wild Animal Park.....one ot the other. Great opportunity for close up fans.
I think Fuji recently announced they are quitting the camera business.....I didn't hear about a possible merger with Pentax, Panasonic, Olympus or 'other'....which would have been a good move.
Too much is never enough
Edits: 06/30/20
nt
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
Right you are. But still and all? I would have hoped for some kind of merger, like Konica and Minolta did a couple decades ago....Than SONY came along and bought the whole thing!
Still more 'shakeout' coming in the camera industry. Even the Big Three of Canon / Sony / Nikon are not in the 'best' of shape....
Too much is never enough
Fujifilm should be safe, I hope, because they are big in the medical imaging field.
Link below.
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Homer Simpson
This was done with my Nikon D7000 and my 35mm f1.8G ED lens... slightly back focused but okay.
Edits: 06/30/20
Another good shot....
And with a wide-angle, too boot.
Isn't the '7000 an APS 'C' size sensor?
Too much is never enough
yes, correct!
my Nikon D700 with Nikon 85mm F1.4G AF-S and my dog. I transferred it to B&W for obvious reasons. One of the better lenses for Bokeh and detail.
Terrific shot.
I couldn't afford the 1.4 but DO have the 1.8g lens, a real bargain....
Since I have the Nikon mirrorless, I'm waiting for the 70-200 in the new mount. THAT will be maybe my last lens.....
Too much is never enough
yep! the 1.8 is good but not the same as the 1.4. I have mostly primes and a couple of the good zooms. One of the zooms is the AF-S 14-24mm F2.8G ED. You have to learn how to use that one effectively.
I have not gone mirrorless yet. Still waiting.
Go to the DxO Lens Database and see some measured data for the glass in question.
If the link goes thru correctly, you'll be on the page with both the Nikkor G 1.8 and the 1.4
You'll see that the 1.8 is pretty darn good and bests the 1.4 in a few areas......I'm massivelly impressed .
The new Z (or is is S) mount stuff for the Mirrorless is a littel MORE $$ but also is VERY good performing.
My goal is a 3-lens kit. I'm not interesting in Birding.....but WOULD like a good Macro. I tested the Nikkor 105 f2.8 on my camera (FTZ Adapter) and it was OK. Maybe I'll just be satisfied with some extension rings? For 40$? I don't see the downside for limitied close-up / macro style use.
The kit lens with the Mirrorless, a 24-70 f4 is really fine. Add to that the 70-200 f2.8 (not yet out) and a good prime, and I'm golden.
I carried around EOS 1 stuff for a decade and change and it just got TOO HEAVY. The 100-400 L lens was hardly used but weighted a TON.
Those Z-series bodies from Nikon are quite nice. Just be SURE to update to the latest Firmware, which last I looked was 3.0 and helps autofocus / tracking / eye lock.....
Too much is never enough
link didn't work but here is Rockwell's summary of the 1.8G...
If you intend to use this new lens on one of Nikon's cheaper DSLRs that lacks its own AF motor, get this 85/1.8 G lens.
If you want instant manual-focus override, get this lens or the 85/1.4 AFS-G.
If you want a tougher, more precise-feeling 85mm f/1.8 for the same price or less, get the 85/1.8D.
If you want an 85mm with incredible ability to blur backgrounds and keep the subject ultrasharp, the extraordinary 85/1.4G is even better than this 85mm G.
I give 'Rockwell' an OK. He doesnt' wind my clock and his impressions are not backed up adequately.
My 1.8, for example, does manual focus quite well. I have my camera configured for 'back button' focus, so the shutter button is out of the equation. I can 'fine tune' the focus at will.
For lenses, I'm a fan of measured data. The only problem is one of sample variation. ONE tester, the guys at Lens Rental test 10 samples and give a range of results....and I think averages, too.
That is a VERY time consuming process so the number of lenses tested is limited.
I don't think the 'D' version of any nikon lens would work properly on my Mirrorless. I'll include one more shot....from a surfing competition down in town. A BIG one, at that, with professional LADY surfers from all over.
At the DXO site, the search engine is easy, so you may want to give it a go.
I'm also going to buy their Photolab 3 software and ditch photoshop which on the monthly installment plan is NOT in my future. My copy of CS4 is going away since it won't handle Nikon RAW files from the newer cameras.
Too much is never enough
I thought about posting a few of my pics, but, now, I think I'd be a little embarassed.
Don't be. Post Away. You'll get good support here.
Not like some of the critical photographer sites which can get a little snarky about such things....
Too much is never enough
Can be done - on my Samsung Galaxy S10. Here's 3 shots on my desk using the tele lens at f1.5.
DOF isn't the tightest, but the focusing method is just a slider on the screen.FRONT FOCUS
BACK FOCUS
CENTER FOCUS
Edits: 06/30/20
Not killer, but I get the idea. And actually WORKS. Given the extreme short focal length of the glass, a credible result.
Will my iPhone support this app?
Frankly, I never even LOOKED for camera / photo apps for my phone.
Too much is never enough
I've seen cars in Italy that are smaller than that.
;)
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: