Photography

[elapid]

Great photos everyone!
Great stuff elapid.

I don't touch my camera for almost a year, at least to do try and do something interesting with it, lol.

Here are some I took over the last two years. Most of the photos have some post processing, since my camera sucks bricks. Besides, I think like Joel Tjintjelaar... I'm only satisfied when I turn a picture, be it a point and shoot or a rather long exposure, to what I had in mind. I am to photography like a sunday bike rider is to cycling. I am a complete nab that knows much of theoretical stuff, but unfortunanetly can't apply it very often.

Didn't place the emoticons so I could post the 4 images. *stickouttongue* comes here.

Anyway, I just play with silverefex in LightRoom, no photoshop retouching or anything like that.

Great photos as well - really like your first water droplets. Nice!

 

[elapid]

I posted a photo of Uluru with a rainbow a while ago (see above). I recently started going through all my photos from that trip. For landscape photos, I will sometimes take 3 or 5 photos of the same image with the camera mounted on a tripod at +1, 0, -1 stops (3 photos) or +2, +1, 0, -1 and -2 stops (5 photos) and then combine these images in a high dynamic range (HDR) photo (with either HDR Efex Pro 2 or less commonly Photomatix Pro). This is one of my HDR photos of the same image above:

 

[elapid]

I rarely use Photoshop, but I did for this photo where I took a series of 7 overlapping vertical photos from the swimming rock of my fiancé's family cottage in Algonquin Park and then stitched them together in Photoshop to create a panoramic.

 

[BigMac]

I rarely use Photoshop, but I did for this photo where I took a series of 7 overlapping vertical photos from the swimming rock of my fiancé's family cottage in Algonquin Park and then stitched them together in Photoshop to create a panoramic.

Brilliant, this is how a proper panorama is done.

I've always wanted to visit Canada, simply because of the untouched wilderness, the colours, the pines, the lakes...

I'd love to see more landscape shots from you if you have them or if you're willing to post. I understand if you don't because of copyright, etc..

Cheers.

 

[broken chain]

florida

 

[broken chain]

florida

[/IMG]

 

[Richysticky]

Some nice pics here, enjoyed looking thru this thread,
havent touched a camera for a year or so .... but here are a couple of my faves



20130530_PUTS_0251_IJFR by rpic - rich webber, on Flickr




20130530_PUTS2_0239_IJFR by rpic - rich webber, on Flickr


JX4P0882 copy by rpic - rich webber, on Flickr

 

[ChrisE]

I took this yesterday on the way back from Baton Rouge. There is about a 20 mile long bridge between BR and Lafayette, over the Atchafalaya Basin. I'm looking west here. The waterway between the bridges was dug to enable barges to drive pilings and construct the bridge.

This was taken with a polarizing filter, 10-24 Nikkor, f/20, 1/50 secs, ISO-200 @14mm with my D3200. It's probably not as sharp as I hoped because I didn't use a tripod and this lens is not VR. I probably should have gone to ISO-400 or 800. Minimal sharpening and toning in Photoshop, other than that it is basically as I took it. Enjoy.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[ChewbaccaD]

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I took this yesterday on the way back from Baton Rouge. There is about a 20 mile long bridge between BR and Lafayette, over the Atchafalaya Basin. I'm looking west here. The waterway between the bridges was dug to enable barges to drive pilings and construct the bridge.

This was taken with a polarizing filter, 10-24 Nikkor, f/20, 1/50 secs, ISO-200 @14mm with my D3200. It's probably not as sharp as I hoped because I didn't use a tripod and this lens is not VR. I probably should have gone to ISO-400 or 800. Minimal sharpening and toning in Photoshop, other than that it is basically as I took it. Enjoy.

Nice picture. Do you use a sky filter? I'd love to go to the 3200 because it is so light and takes great pictures, but because I have 20 years of Nikon lenses, most of which don't work with that camera, I'm limited. I think I'm going to get a D7100 next though. Light, great features (Ken Rockwell calls it one of the best cameras Nikon has ever made), and can take any Nikon lens.

 

[mewmewmew13]

Chewie…Joshua Tree??
I have climbed there…wild place of beauty..

all of the photos here are amazing! nice work guys

 

[ChrisE]

Nice picture. Do you use a sky filter? I'd love to go to the 3200 because it is so light and takes great pictures, but because I have 20 years of Nikon lenses, most of which don't work with that camera, I'm limited. I think I'm going to get a D7100 next though. Light, great features (Ken Rockwell calls it one of the best cameras Nikon has ever made), and can take any Nikon lens.

I'm not a Rockwell fan. There are many other sources of information out there, and I usually don't pay attention to what he is babbling about. His website is full of contradictions and BS IMO and his reviews are not very deep.

With your lenses, you may want to just shell out a little more and get a 610 because those FF lenses are what is expensive in the whole kit, and you are already there. That's probably what I would do in your position, depending on what lenses you have. FF is bigger as well as you note. Rockwell had an orgasm about the 610 as well, but maybe you should do some more checking.

I am sure you could probably sell your lenses as well for more than you think and get a good set of DX lenses with the 7100. Who knows what the future holds as well, with the mirrorless craze starting to take hold.

I like my 3200 for the reasons you state, and the PQ is as good as the 7100 for my use. Actually, I plan to buy a 7100 very soon because of the extra features I want that the 3200 does not have. For one thing I want bracketting instead of having to adjust shutter speed. This HDR stuff has my attention, and I will buy Photomatix soon. Check out some youtube videos on this, and Photomatix has some videos on their website.

I am waiting to see if they go on sale just before the 7200 comes out supposedly this summer, but May 1 is my line in the sand. If no sale before then, I buy it anyway. I'm going to Europe in June for two weeks, so I want to have it for a little bit before I leave. I was at the shop in Houston today and was checking out a 7100, and the 70-300 zoom. That is the last lens I need and I am done. I've also got a 16-85 that I love, along with the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 that came with the 3200 kit. My daughter wants my 3200 and those lenses, but who knows. If she backs out I may give it to my sister, or just keep it.

I don't know what a 'sky filter' is. I just used a polarizing filter. I don't use other filters other than a grad because it is so easy to use magenta or whatever in Photoshop. I usually take in RAW pix I know I will want to work on, and those adjustments are usually enough. That bridge pic was taken in RAW.

The more I look at that picture the more I don't like it. I was actually standing on a boat ramp, walking down it just tooling with the filter as I walked. I cropped out the ramp. By the time I got to the bottom, and adjusted a few things, the clouds had moved in. This is the only picture I had with any blue sky in it with the filter. You can tell I am not centered due to where the bridged leave the picture on either side, and it is not too sharp for the reason I wrote above. I drive to BR weekly, so I will take a tripod next time and it will be better.

Here is a picture I took with the 16-85 before I changed lenses to the 10-24 with the filter. It is completely unedited. I didn't have a 67mm polarizer for that lens, which I took care of today. Big difference this filter makes. You can also see how much sharper this picture is. The 16=85 lens has VR, and this is at the same ISO though I am at f/16 and 125 and it is zoomed in some.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Chewie…Joshua Tree??
I have climbed there…wild place of beauty..

all of the photos here are amazing! nice work guys

Yea, Joshua Tree and Grand Canyon...and some guy in Las Vegas who was walking up and down the strip talking to all the ladies in his best Gambino accent.

I loved Joshua Tree. It completed my 6 Corners National Park (Biscayne, Acadia, Olympic, Joshua Tree, USS Arizona, and Denali).

 

[mewmewmew13]

Yea, Joshua Tree and Grand Canyon...and some guy in Las Vegas who was walking up and down the strip talking to all the ladies in his best Gambino accent.

I loved Joshua Tree. It completed my 6 Corners National Park (Biscayne, Acadia, Olympic, Joshua Tree, USS Arizona, and Denali).

love the Vegas boss..

I used to have a friend that was a ranger at JT..we would go visit him and camp and climb..ah, those were the days..

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I'm not a Rockwell fan. There are many other sources of information out there, and I usually don't pay attention to what he is babbling about. His website is full of contradictions and BS IMO and his reviews are not very deep.

With your lenses, you may want to just shell out a little more and get a 610 because those FF lenses are what is expensive in the whole kit, and you are already there. That's probably what I would do in your position, depending on what lenses you have. FF is bigger as well as you note. Rockwell had an orgasm about the 610 as well, but maybe you should do some more checking.

I am sure you could probably sell your lenses as well for more than you think and get a good set of DX lenses with the 7100. Who knows what the future holds as well, with the mirrorless craze starting to take hold.

I like my 3200 for the reasons you state, and the PQ is as good as the 7100 for my use. Actually, I plan to buy a 7100 very soon because of the extra features I want that the 3200 does not have. For one thing I want bracketting instead of having to adjust shutter speed. This HDR stuff has my attention, and I will buy Photomatix soon. Check out some youtube videos on this, and Photomatix has some videos on their website.

I am waiting to see if they go on sale just before the 7200 comes out supposedly this summer, but May 1 is my line in the sand. If no sale before then, I buy it anyway. I'm going to Europe in June for two weeks, so I want to have it for a little bit before I leave. I was at the shop in Houston today and was checking out a 7100, and the 70-300 zoom. That is the last lens I need and I am done. I've also got a 16-85 that I love, along with the 18-55 kit lens and the 55-200 that came with the 3200 kit. My daughter wants my 3200 and those lenses, but who knows. If she backs out I may give it to my sister, or just keep it.

I don't know what a 'sky filter' is. I just used a polarizing filter. I don't use other filters other than a grad because it is so easy to use magenta or whatever in Photoshop. I usually take in RAW pix I know I will want to work on, and those adjustments are usually enough. That bridge pic was taken in RAW.

The more I look at that picture the more I don't like it. I was actually standing on a boat ramp, walking down it just tooling with the filter as I walked. I cropped out the ramp. By the time I got to the bottom, and adjusted a few things, the clouds had moved in. This is the only picture I had with any blue sky in it with the filter. You can tell I am not centered due to where the bridged leave the picture on either side, and it is not too sharp for the reason I wrote above. I drive to BR weekly, so I will take a tripod next time and it will be better.

Here is a picture I took with the 16-85 before I changed lenses to the 10-24 with the filter. It is completely unedited. I didn't have a 67mm polarizer for that lens, which I took care of today. Big difference this filter makes. You can also see how much sharper this picture is. The 16=85 lens has VR, and this is at the same ISO though I am at f/16 and 125 and it is zoomed in some.

Sky filter just blues the sky a little. All those pictures I have are with a sky filter, and it really makes the sky darker blue.

I use Rockwell to see what I can get by with cheaply. He loves that 18-55VR plastic lens, and I think I'm going to buy one based on other reviews I have read of it.

Any idea of what the specs on the 7200 will be? The reason I don't want to go for the 610 is because I will throw out my 12-24 because it's FX...though going back to full-frame does have it's benefits. I'm shooting with an old D200 now, which is a tank. That camera has served me well for 10 years, and the pictures still look good. The biggest thing is the low light noise. I took some good shots of the Milky Way in Joshua Tree, but the noise really messes them up in the end. I know the 7000 series and the 600 series both have great high ISO noise reduction, so that is a real draw for me.

The big thing is that I want to get rid of the weight. That hulking 200 and lenses are a hiking nightmare. I didn't even take them into the Canyon last week. I used a little point and shoot Panasonic my wife uses. Takes crap pictures, but weighs nothing. That 3200 is super light and so are the lenses...if it weren't for the bracketing thing, I'd likely sell everything and buy one. But, like you, I like some of the advanced features of the 7000 series.

 

[ChrisE]

Sky filter just blues the sky a little. All those pictures I have are with a sky filter, and it really makes the sky darker blue.

I use Rockwell to see what I can get by with cheaply. He loves that 18-55VR plastic lens, and I think I'm going to buy one based on other reviews I have read of it.

Any idea of what the specs on the 7200 will be? The reason I don't want to go for the 610 is because I will throw out my 12-24 because it's FX...though going back to full-frame does have it's benefits. I'm shooting with an old D200 now, which is a tank. That camera has served me well for 10 years, and the pictures still look good. The biggest thing is the low light noise. I took some good shots of the Milky Way in Joshua Tree, but the noise really messes them up in the end. I know the 7000 series and the 600 series both have great high ISO noise reduction, so that is a real draw for me.

The big thing is that I want to get rid of the weight. That hulking 200 and lenses are a hiking nightmare. I didn't even take them into the Canyon last week. I used a little point and shoot Panasonic my wife uses. Takes crap pictures, but weighs nothing. That 3200 is super light and so are the lenses...if it weren't for the bracketing thing, I'd likely sell everything and buy one. But, like you, I like some of the advanced features of the 7000 series.

I heard the 7200 will have more memory for buffering....I believe I have read that the 7100 overloads when doing a lot of bursting in RAW. I have also read the video features of the 7100 are not up to the competition and will be improved, but I don't care about that since I don't do video. The sensor and thus PQ is supposed to be the same. The supposed 7200 upgrades are not something I care about. There are some rumor articles on the web so give them a search.

Yes, the 18-55 is OK but mine is collecting dust now that I have the 16-85, which he did not recommend BTW. He recommended the 18-1xx over it in some comparison article, though the picture quality is not as good and it doesn't go as wide. This contradicts his preaching about going as wide as possible, along with PQ. He is a clown.

The 12-24 is DX (you wrote FX). That is a cool lens. Yeah, I would not like to get rid of that $1200 lens either.

That 'sky' filter must be a cooling filter. I assume it is over the full lens, not graduated? So, you are getting some of it on things other than the sky? That one pic you took makes it look graduated, since the blue sky is not as deep the closer you get to the land. I am not up on filters so I don't know what is possible.....

Like I wrote you can do this in Photoshop, and select the parts of the pic you want to filter. The Elements programs are pretty cheap, and more than enough for what I want to do. I've got Elements 12. I don't do much more after I tool with them in RAW. The more pix I take and get into a lot of dynamic range issues (like the grand canyon, which is a nightmare with all the shadows), I will use Photomatix.

The 3200 is very light especially with that plastic lens, but it doesn't bracket and you have to go into the menu to change most things. The 7100 is a lot heavier in comparison, but probably feels like a feather to you. I looked at a 5300 today as well, but I didn't like the menu setup and it only brackets 3 exposures, not 5 like the 7100. Plus it just had one shutter/aperture exposure. It is light as hell, but I do not recall if it required lenses with AF motor internal like the 3200. That 70-300 on the 7100 day felt like a brick compared to what I am used to.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I heard the 7200 will have more memory for buffering....I believe I have read that the 7100 overloads when doing a lot of bursting in RAW. I have also read the video features of the 7100 are not up to the competition and will be improved, but I don't care about that since I don't do video. The sensor and thus PQ is supposed to be the same. The supposed 7200 upgrades are not something I care about. There are some rumor articles on the web so give them a search.

Yes, the 18-55 is OK but mine is collecting dust now that I have the 16-85, which he did not recommend BTW. He recommended the 18-1xx over it in some comparison article, though the picture quality is not as good and it doesn't go as wide. This contradicts his preaching about going as wide as possible, along with PQ. He is a clown.

The 12-24 is DX (you wrote FX). That is a cool lens. Yeah, I would not like to get rid of that $1200 lens either.

That 'sky' filter must be a cooling filter. I assume it is over the full lens, not graduated? So, you are getting some of it on things other than the sky? That one pic you took makes it look graduated, since the blue sky is not as deep the closer you get to the land. I am not up on filters so I don't know what is possible.....

Like I wrote you can do this in Photoshop, and select the parts of the pic you want to filter. The Elements programs are pretty cheap, and more than enough for what I want to do. I've got Elements 12. I don't do much more after I tool with them in RAW. The more pix I take and get into a lot of dynamic range issues (like the grand canyon, which is a nightmare with all the shadows), I will use Photomatix.

The 3200 is very light especially with that plastic lens, but it doesn't bracket and you have to go into the menu to change most things. The 7100 is a lot heavier in comparison, but probably feels like a feather to you. I looked at a 5300 today as well, but I didn't like the menu setup and it only brackets 3 exposures, not 5 like the 7100. Plus it just had one shutter/aperture exposure. It is light as hell, but I do not recall if it required lenses with AF motor internal like the 3200. That 70-300 on the 7100 day felt like a brick compared to what I am used to.

I meant the 610 is FX...poor sentence structure.

 

[ChrisE]

I meant the 610 is FX...poor sentence structure.

Yeah, but I thought since you had older lenses they were all FX. Anyway, later. Off to watch the UFC.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I heard the 7200 will have more memory for buffering....I believe I have read that the 7100 overloads when doing a lot of bursting in RAW. I have also read the video features of the 7100 are not up to the competition and will be improved, but I don't care about that since I don't do video. The sensor and thus PQ is supposed to be the same. The supposed 7200 upgrades are not something I care about. There are some rumor articles on the web so give them a search.

Yes, the 18-55 is OK but mine is collecting dust now that I have the 16-85, which he did not recommend BTW. He recommended the 18-1xx over it in some comparison article, though the picture quality is not as good and it doesn't go as wide. This contradicts his preaching about going as wide as possible, along with PQ. He is a clown.

The 12-24 is DX (you wrote FX). That is a cool lens. Yeah, I would not like to get rid of that $1200 lens either.

That 'sky' filter must be a cooling filter. I assume it is over the full lens, not graduated? So, you are getting some of it on things other than the sky? That one pic you took makes it look graduated, since the blue sky is not as deep the closer you get to the land. I am not up on filters so I don't know what is possible.....

Like I wrote you can do this in Photoshop, and select the parts of the pic you want to filter. The Elements programs are pretty cheap, and more than enough for what I want to do. I've got Elements 12. I don't do much more after I tool with them in RAW. The more pix I take and get into a lot of dynamic range issues (like the grand canyon, which is a nightmare with all the shadows), I will use Photomatix.

The 3200 is very light especially with that plastic lens, but it doesn't bracket and you have to go into the menu to change most things. The 7100 is a lot heavier in comparison, but probably feels like a feather to you. I looked at a 5300 today as well, but I didn't like the menu setup and it only brackets 3 exposures, not 5 like the 7100. Plus it just had one shutter/aperture exposure. It is light as hell, but I do not recall if it required lenses with AF motor internal like the 3200. That 70-300 on the 7100 day felt like a brick compared to what I am used to.

Yea, if I remember correctly, the 5000 series cameras are 7000 series without the drive motor and a little more of the features in the menu rather than dials or buttons. I'd love one of those for he price point but again with the lens thing. I want to check out the new 18-140 lens. I like my small f-stops, but 3.5 with VR will work really well on almost anything, and I always have my 50 1.8 G for low light or bokeh portraits.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Yeah, but I thought since you had older lenses they were all FX. Anyway, later. Off to watch the UFC.

All except that 12-24...which is on about 90% of the time...

Enjoy the fight. I'm watching boxing...old school...

 

[Afrank]

How did I only just now find out about this thread!
A few pictures I've taken.

 

[achenk01]

beautiful scenery, paris miss u

 

[rhubroma]

 

[rhubroma]