Posts: nikonbrain | Ugly Hedgehog

(Main Photography Discussion)

DSLRs

ScottWardwell wrote:

Oh com'on Paul. Do you think that about yourself looking into a mirror every morning?

If you were a fish you would be flopping on the shore , you took that Hook Line And sinker .

(Main Photography Discussion)

DSLRs

burkphoto wrote:

Try following action with a TLR, using the waist-level finder. That's old and STUPID.

It is funny you said that , it brought back memories before digital when I was an apprentice and shot for a photojournalist turned wedding photographer . I needed a medium format camera for weddings and bought a used C330 TLR but realized I needed the prism finder with meter . I could not get used to left and right without it . This became evident when shooting BMX bikes on the track with the wide lens . I did it for quite awhile yes it was hard but I adapted till I got a Nikon F36 with motor drive . The analogy you used brought back those times The images from then were amazing . 2 1/4 square...

(Main Photography Discussion)

DSLRs

Architect1776 wrote:

Please name the Nikon DSLR from 1969?
I find that very curious.

Actually the Nikon f SLR came out in 1959 The first f mount camera . Nikkormats and F36 were used in the Vietnam war .I still own a F36 with motor drive made in 1969 . Of coarse you said DSLR

(Main Photography Discussion)

DSLRs

CHG_CANON wrote:

If you want to be the creative type, to be an artist, you have to be willing to buy a mirrorless camera.

I was going to respond ,but considering the source I realized it is Just bait .

(Main Photography Discussion)

DSLRs

Architect1776 wrote:

Why do those people who have a choice in a system that still has DSLRs and mirrorless still purchase technologically antiquated and some discontinued DSLRs that came out years ago that will soon not be supported.
They have the option of buying far more technologically advanced cameras for the same money that will still receive service.
Just curious what is the driving force to spend money on old obsolete cameras?

Because some of us are not graced with unlimited funds it took took me 2 years of playing Santa Claus to buy my Nikon D810 another year to buy my 14mm- 24mm f2.8 ED Nikkor I now enjoy the added income of printing for others . I bought my 200mm-500mm Nikon f5.6 because of those sales would I rather have a 500 or 600mm f4 of coarse I would , I will never be able to buy that lens any time soon . I would love a Nikon Z9 or a Canon R5 so I will settle for a used D850 or a refurbished Z7ii with an adapter . I saved $3800.00 to buy a new Canon pro 4000 printer from printing for others just to keep a cash flow to substitute my small social security . I have to work for others to afford what I have . And now I am trying to keep My 2000 Isuzu Trooper running it only has 75,000 miles on it , but stil looks good . Some of us can only dream of the latest Camera and Lens and use what we can afford .

(Main Photography Discussion)

DIY no-glare glass

SueScott wrote:

Recently we tried buying no glare glass at Lowes and of course, they didn't have any. So, Chuck came up with the idea of spraying a regular piece of glass with matte finish spray polyurethane and it worked like a champ and probably saved a bit of money as well.

I would be careful as most lacquers polyurethanes will eventually peel off it can't get a bite . There is a product DuPont 222S Mid-Coat Adhesion Promoter it will keep the clearcoat on .

(Main Photography Discussion)

slide transparency's

Jim Bianco wrote:

I decided to digitize all my slides about 8,000 of... (show quote)

I thought the same at one time so about 8 years ago I bought a medium format 645 N with a 75mm F2.8 and a 45mm landscape lens . I even bought a Epson V700 with SilverFast software . Boy was I surprised when I found I could not open the shadows like on My digital camera because of the lack of Dynamic range in film it's called latitude the shadows are just mud unless you used light modifiers . You expose for highlights it color reversal film just like digital but that is where it ends . Exposure exposure , exposure is way more important in film than digital . Todays digital Cameras are way beter at it than film . That is not saying a Master Like Clyde Butcher and Ansel
Adams can't make amazing images on film with large format cameras and a whole lot of knowledge . I bow to all Film Photographers they do fantastic Images where knowledge is is king along with experience . Anyone can pickup a digital camera and take an image ,but not just anyone can use film and be successful .

(Main Photography Discussion)

I Need Special Rubber Bands

jerryc41 wrote:

My Rode mic (2011) is held in place with a bunch o... (show quote)

a box of different size O_Rings from harbour Frieght should do the trick .https://www.harborfreight.com/180-piece-viton-o-ring-kit-67525.html

(Main Photography Discussion)

DPI changes

Lukabulla wrote:

Hi Everyone .
I recently had to do a Reset on my D300s after it was playing up.
Now back to Normal except that before all my shots were at 240dpi
Now seems to be random .. sometimes 240 other times 100 ..

Seems to be no setting for this in the menu ..

Although 100 is ok for my needs mostly
But would be nice to have 240 as it was before reset .

Any clues
Thanks

I believe you may be confusing DPI with PPI if you use photoshop ACR Adobe Camera Raw You chose the PPI Pixels Per Inch you work in you set that in ACR by clicking on on the little string of data at the bottom of the work space in ACR (Adobe RGB(1998) -16Bit-7360 x 4912 36.2 MP -300 ppi ) click on it twice it opens up the dialog for the settings , this link from Adobe is why I do it ...as my intent is always to print large with the most detail possible .https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/enhance.html

(Main Photography Discussion)

Help with equipment check for Florida Gulf sunsets

bobfitz wrote:

Hello all, br We are headed for the west coast of... (show quote)

I am here in Florida You also should have a split soft Neutral Density filter to tame the sun . If you bracket your sunsets that need will fade If you do HDR imaging . Haida makes nice systems for this up to 150mm x 170mm filters and magnetic holders . I use a 14mm_24mm f2.8 Nikkor and use the 150 series filter holder that is made for my lens .

(Main Photography Discussion)

Nikon Raw Shooters - MUST READ

CHG_CANON wrote:

When you process Noise, what are you doing? Which ... (show quote)

Spot on I do not understand why so many here do not simply shoot in raw if they want or tiff or jpeg for that matter , Process in Photoshop or Lightroom for $9.99 a month and quit trying all these free alternatives to circumvent using a tried and true process and create more work for themselves . Lightroom's Develop mode or Photoshop's ACR if that is as far as you go or get into layers and masks it is complete and upgrades constantly . Hell content aware alone is worth the monthly fee . I am retired and and not rich by any means . I print daily large images I have yet to shoot an image that I can't get rid of noise created from shooting under exposed by up to 1 stop or more and recover the detail and still print 5 feet wide with no noise and Tack sharp. If using a Pro line Canon or Nikon camera noise is so under control and minimal even by underexposing to preserve highlights the noise is manageable if you know what you are doing . I also Shoot on a Nikon D810 but stay at base ISO on landscapes I use Auto ISO for birding and manual mode . So I see all kinds of noise it is part of the process .So to all those fumbling along with free or cheap alternatives get used to noise . listen to CHG_CANON and get Lightroom or Photoshop and learn to use it .For plugins the Nik suite , On 1 for resizing and sharpening and noise , Topaz for noise , special effects Redfield , Silver effects in Nik for black and White , Nik Color effects pro for all other effects . Learn to leverage noise against sharpening for your images Start with Noise reduction techniques by Steve Perry from Back County photography .

(Main Photography Discussion)

How Many Megapixels Are Enough

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

How many of us print 4 ft prints

People that sell them in Galleries do , I sold 3 in the past 4 months myself . I delivered 1 yesterday to a fellow photographer it is the second one in 2 months for him . He is working on a full size Eagle with wings spread head on expected to be 78 " wide . To be printed by Me next week . I just printed a 6 foot B+W panorama to hang in a gallery in 2 weeks , I do expect it to sell . Another friend I shoot with has a friend buying a 65 " B+W panorama of his we will be printing on a Silk like substrate used for exhibitions in museums it holds fine detail better than canvas it is already sold .

(Main Photography Discussion)

Post processing use...

Rongnongno wrote:

I am getting a bit tired of folks stating that &qu... (show quote)

Amen !!!! Example One image before ACR second in progress Just out of ACR using My camera Profile .Image still needs a ton of work as it part of a panorama to be stitched There is a lot of dust on sensor in the sky that needs to be edited out .

(Download)

(Main Photography Discussion)

How Many Megapixels Are Enough

MrBob wrote:

That is all well and good but it might be mentioned that if the lens is not up to the job you might as well shoot through a coke bottle. Megapixels are great, but you have to resolve the image to get the detail.

That should be a known fact if you are printing these size of prints on a regular basis I use a 14- 24 f2.8 Nikkor My boss used a 35mm 2.8 Pentax auto focus . He also uses a Canon 17mm tilt shit , and so does My friend Mike on a Canon R5 . It goes without saying when printing and selling Images over 4 feet wide . with practice you soon know what is needed. My boss also used a A7 R mII

(Main Photography Discussion)

How Many Megapixels Are Enough

Hip Coyote wrote:

Here is my understanding. This can be a quagmire and could open a can of worms...we shall see when the first snark hits. This has been a road hoed many times on this site.

Here is my basic understanding:

First, there is science about what is actually needed. There are charts avail which highlight the image size vs. viewing distance of the photograph. There is also the pixels per inch that are printed! (Take a look at this article: https://fstoppers.com/originals/how-many-megapixels-do-you-need-print-billboard-220239). The human eye can only see so much resolution. According to fstoppers that equation is: 2/(viewing distance in inches x 0.000291) giving one pixels per inch resolution. According to this article, at 2500 yards, one pixel printed out could be 16 inches square! And still look smooth, good resolution to the human eye. The same calculation goes for photos in your house.

That is why there are billboards made with smart phone photos because the photo is viewed from 2500 feet, 25 inches. Get up close and you would see large dots of ink. At the Reagan Library there is a portrait of Reagan done in jelly beans...far away it looks like a portrait until the viewer gets a little closer. Same with mosaics. So viewing distance is important. For instance you would not put a 24x36 inch photo in a small hallway...as people passed, they would see the pixilation, dots, on the shot because they would be viewing it from about 1 foot away. Smaller prints viewed closer up need greater resolution...not less. So it is counter intuitive, but bigger prints actually do not need higher resolution when viewed from proper distances. This is why ardent pixel peepers are never going to be satisfied.

Second, higher resolution is helpful for those who need to crop a lot..it is a fact. I use m43 gear, so cropping is a challenge. How many times on this site have we seen people asking for help on their grainy pics only to learn that it was a crop of a crop of a crop?

Third...AI is somewhat changing all this...in my case, using a lower resolution sensor, I can upsize a shot using LR's enhance feature, and do pretty decent cropping. Is it in the 40mp range of quality? No, but good enough for me.

Fourth...IMO, there are graphics and lens quality issues as well. Nothing beats high quality lenses...one can have high mp and yet if a low quality lens is hung on the camera, all is lost.

To me, MP are like horsepower in a car. It makes for great press, but there is a lot more to a car than horsepower. I once read where a car engineer was talking about some Mustang they developed with less HP than the Shelbys...he said the hp had to match all the components, such as suspension, tires, transmission, etc...and the lower HP engine actually made for a better, if not faster (due to being able to control, shift, etc.) car. The entire system has to be configured to work well together.

This is a long Sunday morning way of saying, "I think I am right but let's see what others day...BurkePhoto?)

Here is my understanding. This can be a quagmire ... (show quote)

Viewing distance be damned Working in a Art Gallery of Large Format printing up to and including 7 feet tall and close to 10 feet wide . When people walked it the gallery they walked up to it and put their nose 1 foot from it amazed that they could see every stone as far as they could see into the image ... Why because it was shot on a 645D at the time 40 megapixels from multiple stitched images from a Gigapan . The more the pixels the more detail was captured . Not one person that came into the gallery stood more than 3 feet away on any image . So many stood so close to the large print of the grand canyon they would lose their balance we had to put up a rope barrier to keep them from standing so close . This work was not mine but My boss . It just the nature of the people to get close . The following image was shot at the Gallery .That is my boss in the photo .This from a cheap cell phone and does not do the image justice It is also from Facebook .

(Download)