Totally Off Topic

Wandering Sagebrush":3c2yliyr said:
OK, I am off the lectern now....
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the great information, Steve. I went from all the old SLR equipment to the wonderful new pocket digitals (with a lot of years in between). I think I need to find a good beginning book or internet primer on moving into more serious (albeit very amateur) digital photography. If any of you know of one, I'll watch for your post. Reading will keep me busy while I save up some money for what is looking like a good-sized expenditure!
 
Ananda":1fblllhc said:
Wandering Sagebrush":1fblllhc said:
OK, I am off the lectern now....
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the great information, Steve. I went from all the old SLR equipment to the wonderful new pocket digitals (with a lot of years in between). I think I need to find a good beginning book or internet primer on moving into more serious (albeit very amateur) digital photography. If any of you know of one, I'll watch for your post. Reading will keep me busy while I save up some money for what is looking like a good-sized expenditure!
Click to expand...

When I bought my first DSLR (a Nikon D80), I purchased a Blue Crane DVD tutorial for that camera. I also did the same for my first D300. If there is one available for the camera you buy, I highly recommend the tutorials. Good tips on photography in general, and the target camera specifically. I think it is critical to know your camera to a high degree!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When you know your camera, you can make changes on the fly (without your eye leaving the finder(sometimes)) to accommodate changing conditions in light or subject.

A camera store will be able to direct you to an appropriate DVD. There are lots of books available and they are OK, but I do not learn as easily from them. If you try and learn your camera from the supplied owners manual, the analogy is it's like learning to drive a car from an automobile owners manual.

A Nikon D300s (D300 is not made now) is about $1500 - $1600 for the body, and if you get the kit lens (typically a Nikkor 18-200mm VR) they will together go for about $2100-2200. A Nikkor 80-400mm f4.0-5.6 VR lens for wildlife will go for around $1600 new. I started with this lens, but quickly realized I needed more from it. I went to a Nikkor 200-400mm f4.0 VR lens. It has a bigger aperture, and focuses much more quickly. This is a professional quality lens, versus an enthusiast level lens. They are in the $6000 range now.

Canon makes fine cameras, and their 50D and 7D are equivalent to the Nikons that I have. Their lenses are usually a bit less expensive than the Nikkors. If I were to start all over, I might choose Canon. But... I know Nikon, and have an investment that goes back a few years...

Feel free to call if I can answer any questions.

Kind Regards,

Steve
 
Kathleen,

I must agree with that youngster down in tropical TX (Jim) -- you don't need great equipment to make great pictures. In my case I need all the help I can get, so good camera, good lens and pray -- although I've been wasting film for a lot of years my eyeballs ain't what they usta be. But if you want to do the beautiful telephoto bit like Steve, good glass is a must. My camera shelf reads like a photo store - Nikon S, S2, F, Ftn, F2AS, FE2, F4, F100, Mamiya 6, etc, and a sack full of glass to go with 'em. The old F2AS can take a picture that would be difficult to duplicate with the D700, but the D700 does it much easier. So this ain't C-Dory stuff and off topic for sure, but there are a whole bunch of CD skippers and mates who are avid photographers.

Steve,

Great shots!

Dusty
 
Kathleen, et all:

I need to take my blinders off a bit. I completely agree with what both Jim and Dusty have said about the equipment. You do not need to spend huge sums on camera gear unless you're thinking of becoming a professional, or you just like to spend money. Like Dusty, I find that I need gear that will make the job easier for me. I am posting a couple of links to Flickr for people that are shooting what I would call "prosumer" cameras. In one case, a Nikon D90, and the other a Canon Rebel. These folks are getting some very high quality images. They have the eye and the heart to make it happen...

This is a link to Arman Werth's photo stream. He is quite talented and shoots the Canon Digital Rebel.

Here is a link to Delpninusorca's (Brian) photo stream. He is also quite talented and shoots a Nikon D90.

Apologies if I was going overboard...
 
Hindsight kicks in, Steve,

Guess I'd get D90 if I had a choice now - although it can't handle the big glass like the D700. Wow, the detail in both of those Flicker's is great. Thanks a million.

Dusty
 
Sawdust":13vn6uvj said:
Hindsight kicks in, Steve,

Guess I'd get D90 if I had a choice now - although it can't handle the big glass like the D700. Wow, the detail in both of those Flicker's is great. Thanks a million.

Dusty
Click to expand...

Dusty,

The two reasons I went with the D300s when I sold my D80 were the lens interchangeability (I love my AI S lenses), and the burst rate. Maybe a third reason with the 51 point autofocus.

I don't have as many Nikon bodies as you, just a FG and a FM2n, but still have a bunch of the old glass. That stuff is soooooo good! With the 600mm, I get a bit of chromatic aberration with strong backlight, but then these lenses were not designed for digital sensors. Here's a link to an in flight monochrome shot that I got with the big lens. Considering it was manual focus (like the old days), I was pretty pleased with the results. Be sure to go to the large image on black background. It just jumps right out of the screen.

Redtail

Maybe we should get together for a shoot and boat talk. After all, you're the guy that convinced me to consider a CDory.
 
Wandering Sagebrush":3elbqs3r said:
Byrdman... shall we ask Mike and Bill for another forum? I enjoyed the "Fun with Photoshop" thread that was going for a while. Or, should we start a group on Flickr for CDory/CBrat photo art? It's free, and wouldn't drive the Brats out of disk space.
Click to expand...

We've plenty of disk space these days, and bandwidth to spare for the images. While we've an 800 pixel max in place by default, we could allow larger on an as-needed, as-requested basis.

I'm not at all opposed to a forum here for C-Brat photography. If there's interest, I'll be glad to set it up.
 
Da Nag":3w3e30h8 said:
We've plenty of disk space these days, and bandwidth to spare for the images. While we've an 800 pixel max in place by default, we could allow larger on an as-needed, as-requested basis.

I'm not at all opposed to a forum here for C-Brat photography. If there's interest, I'll be glad to set it up.
Click to expand...

Bill, I would be in favor of having a forum for CBrat art. My recommendation is that it would be like "That's Life", and only viewable by members. I suspect that a number of the images will be fairly large, although we can always link them. The photos I am posting on Flickr are typically 240 pixels per inch, so a full size image would be in the neighborhood of 4300x2900 pixels. I've never tried going down to something in the 72ppi range, but that would probably still show OK. I do not think that allowing video in the library would be a good idea, but perhaps OK if linked in from another site.

If others are interested, then let's go for it.

Here's one that a fellow CBrat liked.... Kokanee Aqua.


3288157348_b8faa65471.jpg
 
I'd certainly be interested! Small file size should be okay because most of us look at small screens and they look great. Easy to downsize... When I was doing drum-scan show stuff at 16x20+ the file size in digital would blow us out of the water. No need for that!! A word from our pro in tropical TX would be welcome here!!

IMO C-Dory and camera make a great combo and appropriate for our site. :thup :thup
Dusty
 
The pro in me still comes out... I spent most of my career protecting/explaining copyright. Thus, I've never put any sizable images on the internet. I realize most here have little problem with images being "snagged"... some even consider it a compliment. Because of that, I'd recommend not putting up images larger than 72 dpi, and perhaps 600 or so pixel width. That keeps the image small enough to load quick, but still allow decent detail and an adequate image size on a computer screen. And if someone were to try to "snag" it, it wouldn't reproduce well... intentionally.

I mentioned before that when I have the time, I enjoy browsing the albums here. LOTS of images to view. Some might consider many of them snapshots, but they are glimpses into the passion we all share.

A photo art album would be an interesting idea. "Art" is kinda like beauty - it's in the eye of the beholder. Having been a member of professional photographers associations and a couple artists guilds, the general public seems to not understand photography as art. I had work in several galleries (photo art, as opposed to the people and product photography I did for a living) before we retired. Canvas/giclee prints from 5x7 to 24x30. This was before the various filters in Photoshop that allow people to make a couple clicks and call it "art." There are some very talented photographers in our ranks here. And the views from the water make for some perspectives that our land lubber friends don't often get the opportunity to see.

Another option would be a thread to provide links to various web albums that already exist. No duplication of effort and more photographer control of size and access.

Heck, this thread may make some of us get our cameras out more often. :D

Best wishes,
Jim B.
 
After reading Jim's comment about images being snagged, I started worrying about having someone grab some of my photos. I do hope to start selling through a stock agency. Here's a photo that I downsized to 72ppi and a height of 600 pixels. I am curious to know how you perceive the quality versus any of the others that I have embedded in this thread. This is an uncropped, full size photo.

Please send your comments back via PM so that we don't drive everyone crazy.

Thanks,

Steve

4299065928_ee2cd12700_o.jpg
 
NewMoon":2wkgsr50 said:
Steve, is there any particular reason why you use Flickr rather than Picasa?

I've been playing with both.
Click to expand...

Richard, It's nothing more than happenstance. I got started in Flickr by trying to support a friend who was launching a photography tour/lessons business. After I started looking around, I found a bit of a community of people with like interests. For example, the Ridgefield NWR group that shares photos and information about our favorite wildlife refuge. I've met people from all over the world, like Ishtiaq Ahmed from Pakistan. What a way to learn about and bridge different cultures and religions! In this time of tension between the Islamic world and ours, I find my friendship with Ishtiaq to be especially important.

That said, I think I will check out Picasa...

Hope that helps!
 
NewMoon":1u9lhtjl said:
Thanks Steve,
... Guess I need to save up for that big pro lens - on the other hand, handheld on a moving small boat would it even make a difference?
Click to expand...

Richard, I think you would be surprised on what can be handheld with the new VR or IS lenses. The vibration reduction makes a big difference.

Thanks for the link. It looks like you are having a lot of fun up there!!! Nice photography!
 
Steve: No filters. No pro here and you are 100% correct on the manual's with these cameras. I lost mine in one of the moves... It is more than likely in one of those 50+ boxes of "stuff" unopened in the garage that we just had to have when we moved here about 3 years ago.

So, my camera is the simple Canon Rebel XTi. Lens on the pics was the Canon Ultrasonic (what ever that means) Image Stabilizer, 70-300, with two buttons.... or 3 if you count the AF/MF which I have only hit MF a couple of times by accident. Stabilizer Mode is now set on 2 instead of 1...and without the manual, I have no idea why I picked that...or, it could have been moved and I should be on 1.

When shooting on the go, like the pics were taken, I put it on the little running man icon. It goes fast then I guess. I feel faster when it is set there :mrgreen: No filter, but could have been some "condensation" on/in the lens as it was about 70 degrees in the wheelhouse of the boat and about 34 on the deck of the boat, with a bit of frost under foot. So, as I said, I shot these "on the go", camera slung over the shoulder, fenders flying, feet slipping, sun/fog scene changing fast while underway and the owner of the boat wanting me to hurry up and close the side door to the pilot house. :smiled :thup :teeth :tea We generally keep it open when someone is on the deck just so we can possibly hear them give a shout if they choose a quick bath at some point and want us to circle back and get them.

Ya know, it was just one of those moments that greet us on the water now and then.

A photo album all owners can toss some photos into would be nice, pick the size to protect those who may use some of their photos for a bit of boating funds, limit us to about 15-20 pics each... and let's see some of our pics we do on the go in our boats. I like to watch the new photo added link on the site.

Now, anyone who knows how I can make this camera flash....WHEN I WANT IT TO...even if the little auto gizmo says I do not need one as in to light up the faces of folks and fill in some shadows.....I'd appreciate it. It did not take me long to realize this camera has much more capabilities than I do... and...I will now look for some type of DVD teacher gig.

Byrdman
 
Byrdman":3a9u71yf said:
Steve: ---

Now, anyone who knows how I can make this camera flash....WHEN I WANT IT TO...even if the little auto gizmo says I do not need one as in to light up the faces of folks and fill in some shadows.....I'd appreciate it. It did not take me long to realize this camera has much more capabilities than I do... and...I will now look for some type of DVD teacher gig.

Byrdman
Click to expand...

Pat, my guess is that in the auto modes (running man, etc.), the flash only works if the camera believes it needs flash. I shoot almost exclusively in "Aperture" mode, and with that setting, I control whether or not I want fill flash. You might try that.

There are a couple of reasons that I like Aperture. First, the auto focus camera/lenses require a good amount of light to best focus. Second, I can control depth of field to a high degree. If you notice that soft brown background in my redtail shots (new photo buzzword - called bokeh, pronounced "bo kuh"), that is because I am shooting with a fairly constricted depth of field that blurs out the background. When you go to bigger f stop numbers (smaller aperture), you get more depth of field.

My guess on the numbers is that it is either for an active mode where you're shooting from something moving, or the regular mode where you just want the IS on and not going full tilt on the batteries. It could also be that the focusing distance is divided, meaning that on one of the settings, the lens will not try to focus on the full range. This makes focusing faster for distant objects when the camera doesn't have to figure out that it is greater than 20 feet away.

If you're doing a lot of sunrise/sunset shots, take a peek at the Singh Ray triple gradient ND Filter. It has a neutral gray top, with a darker band in the middle, then clear at the bottom. It's pricey, but they really help even out the exposure so that you do not get blown out highlights or under exposed darker areas. Don't bother with a holder. You can hand hold the 4x6 size and move things around as needed in the frame.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/6 ... verse.html
 
Back
Top