 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
Sun went away. :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2016 09:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
>
> Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
> Sun went away. :-(
I did manage to shoot some leaves though... which I think look far
better for the Sun.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0002.jpg' (187 KB)
Download 'dsc_0004.jpg' (173 KB)
Download 'dsc_0024.jpg' (232 KB)
Download 'dsc_0039.jpg' (256 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0002.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0004.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0024.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0039.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2016 09:33 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I did manage to shoot some leaves though... which I think look far
> better for the Sun.
At one point, I tried putting the camera into aperture-priority mode. I
failed to notice that it was set to ISO-6400 though, so everything came
out horribly over-exposed. A tiny few of the pictures look "more sunny"
this way... but most of them were just ruined.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0077.jpg' (251 KB)
Download 'dsc_0078.jpg' (225 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0077.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0078.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2016 09:33 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> I did manage to shoot some leaves though... which I think look far
> better for the Sun.
Some of the leaves were still wet... which looks kinda cool.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0092.jpg' (229 KB)
Download 'dsc_0245.jpg' (281 KB)
Download 'dsc_0249.jpg' (240 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0092.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0245.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0249.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I still really like lichen.
I managed to find a twig that had been snapped off a tree. This allowed
me to take arbitrary close-ups, without having to crawl on the floor.
(And arrange nice lighting, etc.)
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0020.jpg' (237 KB)
Download 'dsc_0023.jpg' (219 KB)
Download 'dsc_0192.jpg' (225 KB)
Download 'dsc_0195.jpg' (217 KB)
Download 'dsc_0204.jpg' (242 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0020.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0023.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0192.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0195.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0204.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
A thousand people a day probably walk over this wooden bridge, oblivious
to the alien microcosm literally beneath their feet.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0168.jpg' (427 KB)
Download 'dsc_0170.jpg' (319 KB)
Download 'dsc_0173.jpg' (499 KB)
Download 'dsc_0175.jpg' (479 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0168.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0170.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0173.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0175.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
COME PLAY MAH GAME, I'LL TEST YAH! >8-]]
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0254.jpg' (187 KB)
Download 'dsc_0253.jpg' (157 KB)
Download 'dsc_0255.jpg' (175 KB)
Download 'dsc_0258.jpg' (299 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0254.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0253.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0255.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0258.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/02/2016 09:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
>
> Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
> Sun went away. :-(
Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
angle, it still looks moody as hell...
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'dsc_0231.jpg' (325 KB)
Download 'dsc_0236.jpg' (344 KB)
Download 'dsc_0242.jpg' (202 KB)
Download 'dsc_0244.jpg' (238 KB)
Preview of image 'dsc_0231.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0236.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0242.jpg'
Preview of image 'dsc_0244.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-2-2016 22:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> A thousand people a day probably walk over this wooden bridge, oblivious
> to the alien microcosm literally beneath their feet.
That's a typically human trait. ;-)
btw, I love your photographs.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17-2-2016 22:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 17/02/2016 09:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
>>
>> Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
>> Sun went away. :-(
>
> Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
> angle, it still looks moody as hell...
>
These are the most difficult set-ups in photography though, and it is
visibly winter, so no real surprise for the mood. It is a real challenge
to balance between the brightness of sky and water and the deep shadows
around.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/2016 08:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-2-2016 22:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
>> angle, it still looks moody as hell...
>
> These are the most difficult set-ups in photography though, and it is
> visibly winter, so no real surprise for the mood. It is a real challenge
> to balance between the brightness of sky and water and the deep shadows
> around.
You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
I'm quite happy with how these came out though, even if it does make the
day look *way* darker than it actually was. :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/02/2016 08:12 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-2-2016 22:41, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> A thousand people a day probably walk over this wooden bridge, oblivious
>> to the alien microcosm literally beneath their feet.
>
> That's a typically human trait. ;-)
>
> btw, I love your photographs.
Thanks!
"I photograph moss" makes me sound like the most boring human alive. But
I just can't get over how intricate its structure is. Plus it seems to
be the most interesting thing around to actually photograph.
Now, laying on the floor in my trench coat, pointing a camera at the
floor, while surrounded by scenic vistas of the lake all around... yeah,
I get some strange looks. :-S Still, several people seem to *like* these
pictures, so...
Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-2-2016 20:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> "I photograph moss" makes me sound like the most boring human alive. But
> I just can't get over how intricate its structure is. Plus it seems to
> be the most interesting thing around to actually photograph.
>
> Now, laying on the floor in my trench coat, pointing a camera at the
> floor, while surrounded by scenic vistas of the lake all around... yeah,
> I get some strange looks. :-S Still, several people seem to *like* these
> pictures, so...
>
> Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
> fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
You're hooked. No doubt about it.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18-2-2016 20:08, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 08:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 17-2-2016 22:46, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Still, if you point your camera at the sky, or at the water at the right
>>> angle, it still looks moody as hell...
>>
>> These are the most difficult set-ups in photography though, and it is
>> visibly winter, so no real surprise for the mood. It is a real challenge
>> to balance between the brightness of sky and water and the deep shadows
>> around.
>
> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
> real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
> go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
> dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
Ahhh... I remember the days when I had to use an analog light meter...
and only know long afterwards what the results would be... ;-)
>
> I'm quite happy with how these came out though, even if it does make the
> day look *way* darker than it actually was. :-)
Absolutely.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 8:13 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>> real world). But you cannot have both. Make it brighter and the sparkles
>> go away. It's not a problem with the camera, it's just the limited
>> dynamic range of a computer screen, I guess...
>
> Ahhh... I remember the days when I had to use an analog light meter...
> and only know long afterwards what the results would be... ;-)
Was that an extinction meter? :-P
I had one of those when I started photography. Light meters were for
professionals.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
> I had one of those when I started photography
It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2016 9:51, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>
>> I had one of those when I started photography
>
>
> It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
>
> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
>
>
Oh no! I am not as ancient as that! It looked more like this:
http://lavidaleica.com/content/introduction-light-meters
I still must have it somewhere, covered in dust...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 9:16 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-2-2016 9:51, Stephen wrote:
>> On 2/19/2016 8:49 AM, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>> I had one of those when I started photography
>>
>>
>> It was like the Logaphot extinction meter shown here.
>>
>> http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Light_meter
>>
>>
> Oh no! I am not as ancient as that! It looked more like this:
>
> http://lavidaleica.com/content/introduction-light-meters
>
> I still must have it somewhere, covered in dust...
>
Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>
The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
(was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
...and I still have this one from my father:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
> real world). But you cannot have both.
Take multiple exposures, merge them into a single HDR image, then do
suitable tonemapping to see both the brightly lit scenery and bright
sparkles together.
Or you can get one of those "sparkly light" filters that make even weak
lights sparkle.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>
>
> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
> one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
It also had an "interesting" arrangement where the "flash" was a clear
plastic box with 6 strips of magnesium ribbon in it. Once you've taken
six shots, you cannot use the flash again. Ever. And it wasn't exactly a
"cheap" flash either.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2016 03:30 PM, scott wrote:
>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>> real world). But you cannot have both.
>
> Take multiple exposures, merge them into a single HDR image, then do
> suitable tonemapping to see both the brightly lit scenery and bright
> sparkles together.
To my untrained eyes, it appears that the only way to make the light
spots look light is to make everything else dark. Not even talking about
the limitations of the camera; the monitor only goes up to 255, 255,
255. It cannot go any brighter. The only way to make stuff look bright
seems to be to make everything else dark. (But you're welcome to try...)
> Or you can get one of those "sparkly light" filters that make even weak
> lights sparkle.
Yeah, I wonder if they still make those...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 6:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 19/02/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>
>>
>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>> one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>
> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
>
> It also had an "interesting" arrangement where the "flash" was a clear
> plastic box with 6 strips of magnesium ribbon in it. Once you've taken
> six shots, you cannot use the flash again. Ever. And it wasn't exactly a
> "cheap" flash either.
Tee hee. I remember when they were hi tech. :)
Before that flashes were single bulbs you put into a metal reflector.
Dr John, I believe. Remembers the flash power era.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19-2-2016 20:20, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 6:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 19/02/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>>> one of those. My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>>
>> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
>>
>> It also had an "interesting" arrangement where the "flash" was a clear
>> plastic box with 6 strips of magnesium ribbon in it. Once you've taken
>> six shots, you cannot use the flash again. Ever. And it wasn't exactly a
>> "cheap" flash either.
>
>
> Tee hee. I remember when they were hi tech. :)
>
> Before that flashes were single bulbs you put into a metal reflector.
>
> Dr John, I believe. Remembers the flash power era.
>
>
I do too :-)
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2016 06:52 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Just FYI, *my* first camera said Fisher Price on it...
Actually, something bothers me about this...
The camera was obviously a film camera. You had to manually twist a knob
to wind the film to the next exposure after every shot. I'm pretty
damned sure it only had one shutter speed, and yet I don't remember ever
taking over-exposed or under-exposed pictures with it. (Bearing in mind
we're talking about a 7 year old child here.)
Similarly, I can't *imagine* that digital auto-focus technology existed
at that time (or if it did, that they would actually put it in a child's
toy), and yet I don't recall ever taking a photo that was out of focus.
Why is that?
How is it that 30+ years ago they could make a camera that's always in
focus and correctly exposed, but today with the latest computer
technology and 30 years of R&D into lens design, they can't replicate
this feat?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/20/2016 8:11 AM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> How is it that 30+ years ago they could make a camera that's always in
> focus and correctly exposed, but today with the latest computer
> technology and 30 years of R&D into lens design, they can't replicate
> this feat?
Congratulations Andrew.
You have reached that age when the past was a “golden age”.
I had a box camera that only had a “sunny” or “cloudy” setting. And
true, in my mind. They were always in focus.
Strangely, I only kept it as part of my hoard. I only ever used it once.
And I had a bellows type that had “mountains” for distance and “head and
shoulders” icons.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>
>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>
>
> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
> one of those.
It was a good first camera. The default lens was adequate.
> My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>
I ruined a camera thinking poly bags would be waterproof. I recognise
yours or the type. My school camera club had a few.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg
A Voigtländer. Drool! :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 20-2-2016 10:47, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/19/2016 12:29 PM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 19-2-2016 11:55, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> Mine is long gone. I was still at school and found it in a junk shop or
>>> a jumble sale. By the time I could afford a SLR, light meters were
>>> incorporated into the camera. A Zenit-E If I remember.
>>>
>>
>> The famous Soviet camera! Yes, I know them from reputation; never owned
>> one of those.
>
> It was a good first camera. The default lens was adequate.
>
>
>
>> My first "real" cameras were first a Voigtländer Vitoret
>> (was ruined by salt water) and then a Miranda.
>>
>
> I ruined a camera thinking poly bags would be waterproof. I recognise
> yours or the type. My school camera club had a few.
>
>
>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JKRUK_20090116_FOTOAPARAT_VOIGTLANDER_IMG_7557.jpg
>
>
> A Voigtländer. Drool! :-)
>
Yes sir! :-)
I forgot my ancient box camera...
--
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016/02/17 11:46 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 17/02/2016 09:26 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On Sunday morning, there was some actual sunshine!
>>
>> Excitedly I ran outside and started shooting everything... and then the
>> Sun went away. :-(
>
I like DSC0078
And the water scenes
--
________________________________________
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/02/2016 08:07 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 18-2-2016 20:10, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Next up: either a macro lens, or just a more powerful zoom. Or maybe a
>> fast prime. AAARGH!! >_<
>
> You're hooked. No doubt about it.
It's true. :-(
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 21/02/2016 07:04 AM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> I like DSC0078
Ah, one of the ones I accidentally over-exposed. Yeah, most of them were
just ruined, but a few of them just look really sunny, which is kind of
appealing.
> And the water scenes
Yeah, even on this grey day, they came out quite well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> You can re-balance it in post. But it turns out you can either have all
>>> the scenery brightly lit (as it actually appears in the real world), or
>>> you can have bright sparkles on the water (as it actually appears in the
>>> real world). But you cannot have both.
>>
>> Take multiple exposures, merge them into a single HDR image, then do
>> suitable tonemapping to see both the brightly lit scenery and bright
>> sparkles together.
>
> To my untrained eyes, it appears that the only way to make the light
> spots look light is to make everything else dark.
I think one of the tricks with HDR type tonemapping is that you can keep
the local contrast correct all over the image (which makes bright things
look bright) but the "exposure" can vary across the image. This photo is
a bit extreme, but you get the idea that the sun still looks bright and
the "shade" areas don't look black:
http://11718-presscdn-0-16.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/hdr-76.jpg
>> Or you can get one of those "sparkly light" filters that make even weak
>> lights sparkle.
>
> Yeah, I wonder if they still make those...
I got one a couple of years back for my camera, and it seems they also
use them on pretty much any TV show recorded in a studio.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
