Photography Thread

[dave]

Originally Posted by HelenOster

I'm sorry you feel that way; our policy is always to respond publically to posts in an open forum.

Thanks, Helen. You've done that.

Do you smoke cigars? If no, would you like to? If also no, could we please have our forum back?

[stearns]

Originally Posted by dave

Thanks, Helen. You've done that.

Do you smoke cigars? If no, would you like to? If also no, could we please have our forum back?

Amen brotha!

Now, in another attempt to change this thread back to the CA photography thread and away from the Adorama customer service thread, here's one of my favorite pictures

[Steve]

Originally Posted by HelenOster

I'm sorry you feel that way; our policy is always to respond publically to posts in an open forum. When we mess up, we believe it's important to acknowledge that in public, and to show that we will always do everything possible to put right our mistakes - and learn from them.

Again, this would have been better served as a pm, not in a forum that you neither participate in nor respect.

You have been a "member" (or I should say, you joined) 4 days ago and have a total of 6 posts, all in this thread. You have not posted an into, made a cigar themed post, or taken part in any community related activities. All of your posts so far have been to either promote or defend (for lack of a better word) your business, which is again, not cigar related.

It would seem that your one and only reason for coming to this place has been to promote your business. I believe that if you had taken the time to read the "stickies" in the new member area, you would see that there are certain areas for businesses to do this. Again, I can appreciate your tenacity in wanting to track down an unhappy customer, but once you did, I think it would have been better to contact him in private. And once the customer has made it clear that the transaction has been cleared up to his satisfaction, it would probably be better to sit back, fire up a nice cigar, and get to know our community instead of continuing to pop in and out of the thread, continuing to market and promote your product.

Originally Posted by dave

Thanks, Helen. You've done that.

Do you smoke cigars? If no, would you like to? If also no, could we please have our forum back?

Well said.

And now, not one of my best pics, but back on topic



Taken on a small trout stream, next to a friends cabin in N.C. on our anniversary shortly before Holly discovered her last lump. Brings back a lot of great memories, even if it was taken with a CoolPix

[shark]

I see what you're saying, Brad. I cannot swallow that ridiculously high price tag for a brand new D-800 BODY. Just the BODY is pushing three GRAND? Is it really that good? I have no specific loyalty to camera brands either. Whatever gives me the best bang for the buck.

[shark]

Oh yeah, getting back on track:

[OLS]

I want to make sure everyone knows that even though ALL your points are valid, especially the one wherein this is a cigar forum,
the reason this occurred in the first place is that I seem to always write 100 words where 5 will do, and when I feel like something
is not right, I say something. In the modern world we live in, technology has allowed this kind of pro-active customer service to
flourish, and your own gubmint is watching everything you say as well. So the fact that all this occurred the way it did is just
something we have to accept, and if we choose, ignore, ban, moderate, whatever works best. One other issue is the fact that
these pro-active customer service web searchers often do not realize that the asylum is NOT your average internet forum.
It is wholly financed and moderated by a benevolent group of cigar lovers who control everything that goes on and do expect
strict adherence to the rules. So my fellow forum members have very valid points, even though on the surface HelenOster may
not quite believe they are doing anything but ganging up on her. They're not, at least not in the way they do on forums
run like Lord of the Flies.

Almost all camera-serious people here have dealt with Adorama, and I have never heard a truly disparaging comment
against them here. No one denies how hard you try to serve your customers with excellent prices and fair policies.
For the record, a private message would have been the best way forward on this. So while I agree that we need to move
on and get back to plain old photography, I needed to say I agree with all sides. The technology involved in finding Adorama
posts on the internet to weigh in on cannot be viewed solely as stalking, because for every person that feels stalked, there
is another who feels like they have been saved from the wilderness by a guardian angel. Where this differs in my view is that
rather than a guardian angel swooping in, I would like the process I was involved in to work in a more efficient manner so
that I do not have to become upset enough to post that I have been let down. I understood the delays involved in
both a holiday and a return from a holiday. But I also know that in customer service, when you get back from a long time
away, you have to be doubly on your game, its the price of taking time off in the modern economy. So all that stuff happened.
I was taken care of and although the overall experience tingled the hairs on the back of my neck, I did not come out the other end
more upset than I went in. If I had sent the lens for a refund from the first, something I considered doing rather than trying to get
a markdown, you would not be hearing any of this. But these lenses are VERY SCARCE used, and not cheap even used.
I thought the only way to keep it and use it was to see if I could get some relief for the condition issue. No one would have
said a word if I had returned it from the outset. Good, fair policies are in place.

And now the real challenge begins. Last night my beloved Adorama Canon 5D threw off it's mirror during a shoot.
its a fairly common fault with the model. Another good/bad thing about the internet. Where people advise against
buying a second hand 5D unless it has had it's mirror mechanism replaced. They just come unglued. So as this is
under the Adorama 90 day used warranty, I guess I will end up testing two policies in one order. I hate how it looks,
but for a Nikon shooter with dozens of lenses and dozens of bodies, to go to CANON, even for one fabled camera just
to see what the other half sees....well it seems like I should have known better. If I had stayed in my own camp, none of
this would have happened. I will report on how this second half of Canon-gate goes. No need to have round two.
I am not going to broadcast the play by play here.
----
OOPS, and thanks for your support inmates.

[shade]

Our cat loves to sit out on our porch roof to survey her domain. The other day this fox came trotting by, and took notice. He stopped after seeing the cat, and started licking his chops, then decided to lay down and have a stare down contest.

[shark]

Unless your cat is one of those really big breeds, I'd put my money on the fox.

[CigarGuy88]

Thanks to Brad's camera sale I kinda caught the photography bug. Thanks to delays in funds I wasnt able to pick up one of his cameras but I think it was worth the wait being I grabbed a D7000 with a 50 f/1.8 for a little under $600 all said and done over the past month or so I've grabbed a 55-200, and an 18-55 to round out the kit.

Still pretty much have no idea what the h*ll i'm doing most of the time but I pulled some pretty decent shots IMO at my school's dance show (no thanks to the HORRIBLE lighting on stage).



Anybody got tips on editing that won't give such a grainy final product?

[nutcracker]

The top pick is excellent!

[CigarGuy88]

Here's another one of my favorites

[CigarGuy88]

The one thing that was odd was the top shot was at ISO 1600 and the pic still had tons of noise.. I ran it through Neat Image and it got significantly better in the noise department but almost too soft in my mind...

[OLS]

Out of your three shots, two are fine for the conditions you were in and one has too much grain to suit me.
You can try to fix noisy shots, and if you HAD to have the shot you might keep it or like it, but I know I never get over it, haha.
You can sometimes miracle a pic into visibility with Photoshop, but it will never suit you in terms of quality, so the best thing to
do is avoid noise and especially over-exposure. Over exposure is like leaving money on the table, in that you are wasting shutter
speed or aperture leeway and getting a crappy result you can't use. I say this like I shoot a lot of good pics, I don't. I get 10-15
crappy shots to every one people might see.

Removing grain is a trade-off every time. If you got the grain through letting the camera run the show completely on Auto,
you might find you can get better results through making all the decisions for yourself. Manual is fun, I love it. Read in
you paper manual or in a pdf you can get online about how to use manual mode, which features a little light meter
in the bottom of the viewfinder. You just manipulate the shutter speed or aperture or even ISO to move the needle
into the zone of proper exposure. Use the LCD to tell yourself if you are where you want to be.

On your camera you have two advantages. You can set your AUTO ISO to have a ceiling over which it will not allow
itself to go. That will keep you out of unwittingly taking maxxed out ISO shots and therein create ugly grain. You also
have a camera that will allow you to meter perfectly with old manual focus lenses through the menu item
"Non-CPU lens data." (AI and AIS lenses only). With a few months of research I whittled my choices down to a few
choice lenses for which I was willing to pay a premium. So far the results have been as expected, inline with the praise
they have gotten over the years. As far as what I use for the situation YOU were in, I have a 105mm f/2.5 lens,
a 200mm f/4 lens, and a 180mm f/2.8 ED. All of em were a little more than I wanted to pay, but these are very sweet
lenses that can hang in the conditions you were shooting in. You just have to work the aperture and the focus.
It doesn't take long to get good with it.

Indoors like this you have to find a way to shoot close to the focal length in shutter speed, 200mm zoomed in you
need to be hitting that in shutter speed to keep blur in check. Try shooting in "S" mode and set your shutter speed high
enough to stop motion a bit without wasting it. Another thing that improves the more you shoot is the creeping feeling
that your camera is allowing way too high a shutter speed for conditions. When you think something is wrong, it usually is.
I was shooting in a bar last night and I was getting 800 shutter speed and thought WTH? Its dark as hell in here.
I had the ISO cranked up to HI-2 or something that looks like complete crap.

The reason I mention the manual focus lenses is that this seems to be the only way a cheap guy like me can BUY SPEED.
You can't shoot photos that impress you indoors like that with a slow lens. You have to be able to get down to 2.8 or 4 to
give yourself any kind of chance indoors like that. But fast MODERN lenses are WAY too expensive for me.

The 55-200, even if you have VR, is kinda stingy under adverse light conditions, butif you use extreme shot discipline,
you can get good shots. The 18-55 is a good lens to make sure you have SOMETHING wide, and its very sharp.
Its just slow. Indoors you will need the flash with both of those DX lenses. Both of them are SO SLOW as to be almost useless
indoors. But they still work very well and do their job. Before you buy another DX lens though, take a look at one of the 4-5 big
camera companies online that sell used gear and see of you can't pick up either a great classic portrait lens or a classic long lens
for theater or sports. If that's what you SHOOT. The only time I EVER use any of those DX lenses is when I want lightness and
worry-free focusing. When I want a special look, I use old lenses.

If I had any advice it would be to do some shopping around and read some reviews of some CLASSIC Nikkor
oldies where the SPEED you really need is a LOT cheaper. You just have to work harder to use them, but it seems like that
knob turning is why I shoot to begin with. And My blind butt has nerve using manual focus lenses, but the rewards are high.

Now that all the best modern Nikons have 'non-CPU lens data' ability, the prices are not as cheap as they used
to be when I got mine, but there are some awesome lenses out there that will work fine with your camera.

[CigarGuy88]

The one thing I always get antsy with on the manual focus end is simply having to focus All of these shots were not planned and based on the 4000 photos I took with maybe 5-7% of them being decent I think that would shrink to <1% especially with such a quick moving scene in front of me. I guess it comes down to changing technique.

I've noticed in even decently lit situations if I zoom in while editing I still have a noisy photo. I did a bit of searching and it seems that nobody knows exactly what causes it

[OLS]

That is a head-scratcher with such an advanced camera. The D7000 is capable of relatively noise-free images through
at least 1600 ISO and not really bad at all through 3200 ISO. Your ratio of good to crap is not unheard of in that situation.
If you ever feel like you have time to experiment in that environment, you can switch to center-weighted or spot metering
and see how the camera evaluates the scene in that mode. You have this all-black background and these fairly light
subjects, it might give you a little more room to breathe. You are stopping motion fairly well, so you must have a decent
enough shutter speed, but there is some blur so I am guessing that your speed was around 1/80th or 1/100th.
Photobucket hides the EXIF data so I can't tell. I would say that next time a good strategy would be to use AUTO ISO in
menus (page 103 in the manual http://cdn-10.nikon-cdn.com/pdf/manu...2/D7000_EN.pdf)
you can set a max ISO sensitivity the camera will automatically select, as well as a minimum shutter speed to reach before
it decides to intervene and adjust the ISO. This is what I suggest when in the green AUTO mode.

If you end up in the "S" mode and set a shutter speed minimum of say 1/150th or 1/200th, intent on stopping motion,
then the camera will select it's own aperture setting, which in this light will likely be wide open. You can use the ISO to help
yourself crawl out of the wide open apertures which tend towards softness. Which is not bad in ballet shots, BUT it also
makes your depth of field a relative knife slice. Hard to get everyone in focus that way. The reason I suggest manual in this
environment is so you can nail down everything that has to be nailed down, then work your "luxury variables" to suit the
situation. If you want to stop motion, there is no way around a 'high' shutter speed. With that given, your next concern
in your head should be how much of this lovely stopped motion do you want to have in focus? That will determine your f/stop,
and once you look at your light meter in the VF, THAT will make your last decision for you, how much ISO to dial in to get that
meter pegged to the middle, or in my own shooting, a touch on the dark side of the meter. (keep in mind that if you have not
changed the setting in the menu to reverse it, the meter will seem backwards to you, the further the needle moves to the right,
the darker the exposure.) Once you get the general exposure set in a joint like this theater space, it will stay pretty much
the same from your vantage point. If you've dialed in too much ISO and grain is appearing, decide whether or not
you HAVE to stop motion or not and back off the shutter speed, or decide if you can live with a shallower depth of field and
dial in a lower F number with the front aperture control wheel. its fun and easy once you get good enough with your camera
that you can do these things on the fly without feeling like you are missing the show.

[OLS]

Originally Posted by CigarGuy88

I've noticed in even decently lit situations if I zoom in while editing I still have a noisy photo. I did a bit of searching and it seems that nobody knows exactly what causes it

If you ask me, just based on the info you are giving me, you must be shooting in AUTO.
When you say "decently-lit", that tells me that it is still dark in terms of the way cameras SEE, and especially
through a lens like the two extras you got, which I believe are both f/4-5.6 max aperture lenses.

You would not describe OUTSIDE as decently lit, you'd say it was sunny or shady. Indoors, decently lit sounds
like a room with some lamps on. To a camera, this is not decently lit unless you have a f/1.8 or faster on the camera.
A 1.8 lens lets in OVER 4 TIMES more light wide open than a f/4 lens. Bearing in mind too that the f/4 lens never really
looks that good wide open, so it might as well be a 5.6 lens if you are looking for a sharp photo. SO outside at the zoo,
in the park, etc, where there is rarely a lack of light, these lenses and cameras shine. They struggle as soon as
they come indoors. I take it that your 50mm f/1.8 does not give you the shot you need at the ballet gig? SO you are
likely shooting the 55-200 at this thing? When you are zoomed in to the stage, likely 200mm setting, the 'brain'
in the camera get's awfully upset at the lack of light it is getting out of the lens at 200mm. So even if it SNIFFS
low light, it sloshes ISO out of a bucket into a shot glass. It over-reacts because it CAN. Auto ISO is like the
US govt. It can get all the money it needs to fix problems without thinking about them or fixing the underlying rot
simply by throwing money at the issue. If it works for the people, what the hell, its the people's money anyway.

And just like the US govt approach is wasteful, so is the autoISO setting, and for that matter, the AUTO green
camera setting. It could care less what it takes from you to give you what it thinks you want. And it's masters
back at NIKON want you to get a well-exposed photo in any condition, and the most effective way to give it to
you is with ISO, crank up the gain and the masses won't complain. So while I believe you when you say that no one
on the web seems to know what is causing it, I KNOW what is causing it, lol.

When I got my first NIKON, I bought two or three of the cheapest lenses I could find that fit my needs.
We both have the same lenses, lol. And I use em all, make no mistake. But when I go to a club to shoot
Vanessa or the Midtown Violets, I KNOW not to even pack em. The only good they will do me in a bar is as
ammo when I run out of beer bottles to throw. They certainly won't get a SHOT. Indoors, the fast 50 can
save you. But it will always be 50mm (75mm on your D7000). I doubt that's enough to reach the stage.
Your decision to make is how much is it worth to you to be able to shoot these events? A 55-200mm 4-5.6 lens
is not going to get it. You can get a shot, which is what a kid will want, but to be proud of the result as a photographer,
you will not be satisfied until you get some faster lenses, or rather, a faster lens for that job. Here is a FINE LENS
for your camera and for that need.

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20634298.html
This lens is f/4 at 200mm. Which means that it is gathering 4 times more light than your 55-200 at 200mm.
And in case you didn't catch it, it costs less, too. This lens is magnificent when used properly, and yes,
it IS MANUAL everything.

It is easy to spend 2-300 bucks on the wrong lenses when you really need to take that money and spend it
on one lens. Or two. Its like Cuban cigars. My cigar budget bought twice as much once I realized that the
best was usually cheaper. It took courage to make it work, I had to order something I shouldn't to get
the benefits I wanted. Same with Manual Focus lenses. It takes more work, but if you want to do the job right
AND SAVE MONEY, sometimes you have to compromise. That 200mm lens I linked you to costs half as much as
a new Nikkor lens that performs half as well or less.

I REALLY would like to see you at 180mm f/2.8 ED for two more times as much light. But as you will see,
that comes at a price.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_2_8_ed.html

Ouch. But I think I got mine for $180, so it pays to look. But make sure someone doesn't try to say its a ED
model but it DOESN'T say ED on the side of the lens. LOTS of people on Ebay have those kinds of deals up now.
Without the ED glass, you're better off with the 200 f/4. FOUR TIMES more light coming in than your 55-200 zoomed in.

[OLS]

Well this week was odd. There is no way to convince me that my Canon experiences this past week or so are not
entirely rooted in me straying from Nikon. I do not think one is better than the other, I started in Nikon and MANY
times avoided dabbling in Canon by dumping my Kart after shopping for fun and price in the Adorama used sections.
In the end I just told myself that it would be a really bad idea to dabble in Canon and end up spending another big
pile of money on another brand of lenses and accessories. Great for Canon and Ado, not so good for me, haha. SO for the
first time in a month or so, I did not have a Canon in the bag. And I hate to say it, but I did not perform that well. There was no
pressure on me, I was not being paid, just helping out a benefit for Tornado relief. But it was rough going.

Here is 80 year old Max Pickard, who walked down to The Green Beetle as a favor to the promoter to fill in for one
of the acts that had to pull out at the last hour. He just played a dozen old good-time, ole tyme songs and had the
crowd eating out of his hands. Gotta love him. I hope I look that good at 80. He looks better than me NOW and
I'm 50.....2

[dave]

Was some 'shilling' part of your settlement with Helen?....

[OLS]

Sorry, I was wrong, you can get this lens cheaper in a grade I still find acceptable.....
http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20629563.html

At that price, its a STEAL!
I cannot recommend this lens more highly to you for what
you are trying to accomplish. I shot Bobby Rush in Memphis
one night almost exclusively with this lens, at least ON STAGE.
If you see a guitar in his hand, it was shot with this lens.

http://olsart.blogspot.com/2014/02/b...-southern.html

Suffice it to say it was MUCH darker in this room than in your
ballet stage. If you learn to work the aperture by hand and
focus by hand, get perfect exposure indications on your light
meter and STILL HATE manual focus, send it to me and I will
buy it from you for $50.

And no, Dave, I don't shill for anyone, and I know you were mostly joking.
But I do know where the best price is, and I try to make sure none of the
people I know from here ever pay more than they have to, no matter who
has the item. And Helen, since you brought her up, just helped me with
the second issue in a row on the same order, my mirror taking a flyer
during a shoot. I brought all that business here by using the wrong word
in a sentence. But again, she helps people while she guards their reputation.
Better that it didn't happen at all, but this was not a debacle in the end.
You see where that second link went, don't you? Not Ado, but B&H. I am fair.

[pnoon]

Originally Posted by Steve

I have to say I feel the same way. While a certain part of me admires the tenacity of tracking someone down, joining a forum that is not specifically a photography forum, and then proceeding to post in that forum in an open thread seems a little creepy and actually, disrespectful. I would think that if the person has delt with their company, then said company would have contact information to privately contact the customer that is having issues with them, or at least possibly send the unhappy customer a private message after tracking them down. I think if I was to stalk an unhappy customer down, I would at least have looked over the forums FAQs and probably even have registered as a vender, as I would not be joining to participate in or add to the community as the forum was intended.

That was my reaction as well. I decided not to intervene unless Brad or others had an issue with it.

FWIW - Members cannot register as vendors. The ToE establish that.
FWIW II - I did PM Helen and it went unanswered.