Photography Thread

[GWN]

Originally Posted by OLS

Ahh, another D200 user. I love mine. YES its OLD, but only in dog years. And man do I love being able to
strap on an $60, old, heavy, optically juicy lens on it and shoot away with full metering functions. Great
camera.

Nice pics, too, I ALMOST bought one of those 7000s this morning surfing the used market, but in terms
of point and shoots, I guess I am gonna keep my ten year old model. I wish I was the kind of guy that actually
needed the 'slip it into a pocket' ability my brain seems to think I need to complement my DSLRs, but if that day
arrives and I need a pocket cam, I doubt I will be fussing about my little ELPH's lack of this or that. I am just
happy it still WORKS, lol.

I've been thrilled with the P7000's performance, especially after firmware upgrade.
Bought it to travel with as I didn't want to lug around a full bag of gear and it's been great for that and more. Pretty much same guts as D7000 and many of same features, albeit it requires a little more fiddling with submenus. Even does CLS if you have a couple of recent Nikon flashes.
Briefly looked at specs of P7100 and appears to me the main upgrade was the flip-out screen. Better to save some bux and buy the 7000.

[shark]

Originally Posted by emopunker2004

This one was shot through the window and mesh screen in my in-laws back door! Focus was on the eagles face and I used f/4 so the screen wouldn't show up. Wish I coulda used like f8 or f9


IMG_2316 by emopunker2004, on Flickr

Ahhh yessss, that's what I needed to do to help with my dilemma at the zoo. If you look closely at the tiger pic, you can see the distortion from the fencing. That's the problem with most zoos that I've been to as far as photography is concerned. naturally you don't want animals getting out, or people getting into the pens, so whatcha gonna do?

[OLS]

I was looking at that bokeh, that was some distracting stuff. What lens was that, not the 18-55, was it?
You have been quiet about what lenses you have picked up. I guess its its all a matter of distance, how far
to the fence from the focus point, how far you are from the focus point, what lens you have mounted.
But that is the same bokeh I get with my 70-300mm G lens, scary distracting. God I hate saying bokeh.
Freaking word of the year. Hell, I hate talking about OOF areas, you should go back and read my posts from
right before Justin goaded me into a DSLR (lol). I was spouting stuff like "that concept is over-rated." What a di(k.
I always think I am right about everything. Its hard being me.

I know that with your D90, you can DEFINITELY get into some of the higher ISO numbers which should free up
both a smaller aperture and a good, fast shutter speed, if you are having trouble at wide open apertures. Your
camera will take it. Not sure about the relation between tighter apertures and better rendering of out of focus
areas, but I would imagine there is SOME correlation. Check the EXIF data on pics you do not like and you can
see what you were doing when it happened. That should give you a good basis for correcting it, or at least
experimenting towards correcting it. You can see it easily enough, although pitifully incomplete, by just right-
clicking on the pic in Windows explorer and selecting Properties.

I wish I had just gotten a $45 zoom membership. I figured it would all to soon be too hot to shoot there, and I
blew it off for now, thinking SURELY I would be free of Memphis at the end of summer. But I am at exactly $45
spent at the zoo to this point, so regardless of if I ever went again, I am at the same dollar amount.

[emopunker2004]

Originally Posted by shark

Ahhh yessss, that's what I needed to do to help with my dilemma at the zoo. If you look closely at the tiger pic, you can see the distortion from the fencing. That's the problem with most zoos that I've been to as far as photography is concerned. naturally you don't want animals getting out, or people getting into the pens, so whatcha gonna do?

Best way to cure that. Shoot at the widest f-stop possible, as close to the fence as possible and the longest focal length possible. If the animal is far away from the fence that will help a great deal too.

[OLS]

While I am here, I think this is a cool, but sick, pic. This was my money hole right before DSLRs.
My mom used to have a LARGE stainless steel frying pan and lid from Revere Ware when I was a kid, still does.
It is REALLY nice cookware, or it used to be before they sold out and started skimping on materials.
But if you know what stamps to look for on the bottom, you can get the old stuff. This is where I stopped
after I had what I thought was enough Revere Ware. I still need the huge frying pan, the one in this pic is
a VERY late one, with a totally different composition than the one I want, made in the 40s-50s. I saw the
pic on my desktop and thought I'd pop it in here...IT IS a photo, lol.

[OLS]

Justin is certainly right, WIDE apertures, I mis-spoke. Of course, zoomed way in makes for
a pretty high aperture number, even wide open, usually about 5.6. Still enough to get it done
with the right lens. So I guess the higher ISOs would give you mostly the higher shutter speeds
needed to keep your subjects crisp, even zoomed way in. And at the zoo in broad daylight, you
might be able to get it done at base ISO. When i started back in Photography, I tended to listen
too much to Ken R*ckwell, mostly his preaching that on these Nikons, you should stay in auto-ISO.
I was reading his reviews to help me choose the best used, cheap camera, and I just got too into
letting him tell me stuff. GREAT RESOURCE, and a great guy to give it all up for free, basically. But
he is also a freak show that deals in a lot of hyperbole. But for auto ISO, I am now not on board with him.
I have found that while that is SAFE, its rarely best FOR ME. I like to only bump ISO when I just can't get a
decent shutter speed. Other than that, I end up getting noise when my 'smart' camera tries to give me a happy
medium on all the settings, which I don't necessarily want. I have taken to using Aperture priority almost exclusively,
trying to make sure that at a minimum, I get the depth of field I am looking for. I used to be so excited to
start shooting, that I rarely concentrated on what the 'smart' camera was choosing for me. And I still
forget to pay attention sometimes.

[emopunker2004]

Brad that's the benefit of more expensive lenses with a wide aperture across the whole focus range. Like my 70-200 f4 L

[shark]

Originally Posted by OLS

I was looking at that bokeh, that was some distracting stuff. What lens was that, not the 18-55, was it?
You have been quiet about what lenses you have picked up. I guess its its all a matter of distance, how far
to the fence from the focus point, how far you are from the focus point, what lens you have mounted.
But that is the same bokeh I get with my 70-300mm G lens, scary distracting. God I hate saying bokeh.
Freaking word of the year. Hell, I hate talking about OOF areas, you should go back and read my posts from
right before Justin goaded me into a DSLR (lol). I was spouting stuff like "that concept is over-rated." What a di(k.
I always think I am right about everything. Its hard being me.

I know that with your D90, you can DEFINITELY get into some of the higher ISO numbers which should free up
both a smaller aperture and a good, fast shutter speed, if you are having trouble at wide open apertures. Your
camera will take it. Not sure about the relation between tighter apertures and better rendering of out of focus
areas, but I would imagine there is SOME correlation. Check the EXIF data on pics you do not like and you can
see what you were doing when it happened. That should give you a good basis for correcting it, or at least
experimenting towards correcting it. You can see it easily enough, although pitifully incomplete, by just right-
clicking on the pic in Windows explorer and selecting Properties.

I wish I had just gotten a $45 zoom membership. I figured it would all to soon be too hot to shoot there, and I
blew it off for now, thinking SURELY I would be free of Memphis at the end of summer. But I am at exactly $45
spent at the zoo to this point, so regardless of if I ever went again, I am at the same dollar amount.

That was my 70-210, f5.6 1/1000 sec.

[shark]

And I noticed too with long exposures, say 1 second or longer, at higher ISO's, I get a lot of I guess dead pixels in the image. They look like multicolored stars, and all are in the same spot from frame to frame.

[OLS]

Originally Posted by shark

And I noticed too with long exposures, say 1 second or longer, at higher ISO's, I get a lot of I guess dead pixels in the image. They look like multicolored stars, and all are in the same spot from frame to frame.

Yeah, those sensors in the Nikons do that in certain conditions....high heat, longer exposures,
I have yet to document all the times it tends to happen. That's how I got my 2nd D200 for $150.
"DEAD PIXELS ON SENSOR" I couldn't order it fast enough. Now the joke would have been on me
if there had been a ton of em, and at all times. But I was pretty sure I knew what I was gonna get.
The D200 is the worst I have seen, but you won't see it much on the D90. But since I process files pretty
easily through Photoshop, I can take care of them on the most important files in about 15 secs per shot.
If I don't plan on printing them I usually blow em off. You can go to the menu and use both Long Exposure
Noise Reduction and High ISO Noise Reduction and see how you like what that does. It targets em pretty
well, but I don't use it since I fix em myself. i'd rather not have a copomputer fix my pixels, though I ought
to test it to see how much other problems it does or does not cause.

[OLS]

I have switched to mostly old manual focus fixed lenses for zoo stuff. The out of focus rendering on my 'new' 180mm 2.8 ED
is PERFECT. Of course, I have to be johnny on the spot with the focus, which is REALLY a long throw. It seems like 360
degrees of rotation, although i bet it is less. I miss some stuff when I shoot with it. But the shots look perfect.
I will admit it was a more expensive choice than my usual $40-$60 used lenses, but WHAT A LENS! As close to the
perfect lens as I have found, as is the 105mm 2.5. That one was $99, which was distasteful enough, but the 180 2.8
was even worse. I think it set me back $150, and it was only in 'very good' condition, but once I shot with it, I could
have cared less about the price.
Plus of course there is NO 70mm end, lol. But I always carry two cameras at the zoo. Hell...everywhere. So I always
mount at least one auto focus zoom lens on my second body. I carry a nice little holster that I picked up used at Ado.
for 20 bucks it was a great buy. This little sucker is SUPER USEFUL and perfectly sized. it hangs there and holds my
spare really tightly, securely and in a small 'footprint'. if you can get one used at B&H or Ado, I certainly recommend it.

[OLS]

This is the 180mm 2.8 ED AIs manual focus lens....



As is this one, I THINK.....



The only caveat with it is that you REALLY need a D200, D300, or D700 or newer to
get ALL the metering choices you would get with a modern lens. But you can hook it up
to any modern Nikon and use the LCD screen and adjustments to get what you want.
Takes a little longer that way, but once you bolt on a 105 2.5 or one of the other super-
classics from the old Nikkors, it does tend to make you smile. I only suggest it in a situation
where you can't stomach paying for one of the modern FAST Nikkors that essentially give you
similar or even better optics, fast-ness, and of course, autofocus. I have found some GEMS
in that Ado used rack.

[OLS]

not the worst lens, but why take this one over the 180...
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20401645.html

Unbelievable lens. 2nd best buy I have made since I started messing with this stuff.
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20568548.html

here is the real deal....this one is NON ED, which might be OK, but for only $5 more,
EVEN with it being only a "good" lens, I would take the ED version ALL DAY long.
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20535707.html

The ED version, in Good condition
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20551374.html

In every case, to me it is a better deal than going for the modern, "please give me
your $500 now, thank you" lenses Nikon is selling now, although I am sure they are
really great lenses and certainly fast. I like fast as much as the next guy, but I just
can't stomach the price. Manual focus is a bit of a pain in the butt when you find
yourself in a autofocus situation, but the quality of the lens, coupled with the price,
just too hard to say no....for me. And all these lenses are fast.

[MarkinAZ]

My plumeria opened its first bloom today. I'm excited because I've been nursing this sucker for a couple of years and she finally produced blooms for me...

[OLS]

I am kind of like that....I seem to find a new plant every time I go to the Smokies area, and I have been growing
them here, sadly in much lower, hotter conditions. But my backyard, with it's tall fence, tree cover and the pond
and waterfalls, seems to provide JUST enough cooling and moisture in the air to keep them at the edge of happy.
And the winters are much less harsh for them. I love plants. I am not a hobbyist, but I do enjoy trying to expand
the growing zone a bit to see if I can pull it off. Same with St. Augustine grass. It doesn't belong up here, it is a
gulf coast type of turf, but dang that stuff loves it here in West TN. it feels like a carpet when it gets nice and
lush and you put a nice medium length cut on it. I need to photograph my latest pickup from Banner Elk, NC. it is
very photogenic, and it has put up some tails that could be flowers or seed heads....we will see.

[MrClean]

Beautiful plumeria Mark, and I love the softness of the photos too.

[s15driftking]

Iphone pics

[MarkinAZ]

Originally Posted by OLS

I am kind of like that....I seem to find a new plant every time I go to the Smokies area, and I have been growing
them here, sadly in much lower, hotter conditions.

My problem with this plumeria has been during the winter months, I've neglected to get my arse in gear and move it inside away from the frost/freeze. Its a hardy plant and has withstood the freeze, but loses its leaves and it has to start all over again. Who knows, maybe that's what it needed was just a couple of good freezes

Originally Posted by MrClean

Beautiful plumeria Mark, and I love the softness of the photos too.

Thank you Jeff!

[OLS]

WOW, I read the wiki article on it and that sucker is no picnic to grow well.
And yes, it does seem that certain genus drop their leaves annually, so you probably
have one of the ones that does that. There are severall cool facts in there, the one
about the sphinx moths was very cool....it's heavy scent attracts the sphinx moth,
looking for nectar, but the flowers produce no nectar, so it frustrates the poor idiot moth, lol.

[OLS]

Fluckr has sent me a head-scratcher of a email about being respectful to other users
and that my images may be inappropriate and possibly reportable to authorities. Since
I have no offensive or illegal images that I could detect, I decided to act on my previously
stated opinion on the 'new Fluckr' and GTFO of there. It has become a giant clone of
a bad idea, it is unwieldy, obnoxious and slow, and I do not want to be associated with it.
I have to apologize for the hideous, large white blocks of "we're sorry, this FLuckr image no
longer exists" that people will have to see associated with any images I posted here from Fluckr.
While I do not urge anyone else to take such drastic action, the surprise, vague and unsubstantiated
email this morning left a bad taste in my mouth and that finally capped it for me. Its a real shame
considering how great it used to be to me.