Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Posts for: fotohouse
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4
Jan 18, 2014 22:11:49   #
Thank you Glen.

It is glycerin on a CD with light at an angle to create the prism effect. I will be posting more from the set.
 
Jan 18, 2014 21:54:05   #
Okay here is my first pic posted here. I have been doing some work practicing with abstract photography.


Jan 18, 2014 21:49:37   #
planepics wrote:
Actually, I got the adapter for FD lenses to my a77 and have occasionally played with it to see what kinds of pics the old lenses will take. If I hadn't tossed it, I'll try to find a pic I took with my Canon 50 f/1.8 on the Sony. It was a really bad picture of a beer can on my messy coffee table, but the resolution seemed to be good...actually it was with my old a330. I don't know if I've tried it on the 77 yet. Where in northern IL?
\

The thing about using the NEX is the adapter does not have a lens element in it to make it a teleconverter since the lens needs to be moved out from the sensor plane any way for proper focusing. Using it on the A77 or any other DSLR will require the adapter to also be a teleconverter since moving the lens out without it would be like adding a macro tube.
Jan 18, 2014 21:44:24   #
planepics wrote:
Actually, I got the adapter for FD lenses to my a77 and have occasionally played with it to see what kinds of pics the old lenses will take. If I hadn't tossed it, I'll try to find a pic I took with my Canon 50 f/1.8 on the Sony. It was a really bad picture of a beer can on my messy coffee table, but the resolution seemed to be good...actually it was with my old a330. I don't know if I've tried it on the 77 yet. Where in northern IL?


The DeKalb area, we use to go to St. Louis a lot when we lived in Rolla. The Butterfly House was my wife's favorite photo op.
Jan 18, 2014 17:32:28   #
planepics wrote:
Is there any way to convert a film camera to digital? I have an AE-1 Program and 3 manual lenses.


No way to convert a film to digital. But, you can get a Canon to Sony e-mount adapter and use the lenses on the NEX series cameras in manual focus, good for stills, macro, and micro work. You also get the focus peeking feature to help with MF on the NEX cameras.

I am thinking of getting a Minolta MD to E-mount adapter and trying out some of the old Minolta glass that I used to use on my X700.
Jan 16, 2014 13:23:47   #
BigDaddy wrote:
I think a lot of folks think your not a real photographer unless you shoot raw, and they have the t-shirts to prove it. I've not yet seen a t-shirt proclaiming "I Shoot Jpeg"


Don't judge all who wear the I SHOOT RAW shirts as a collective group. I wear one since as an early adopter of KM and Sony cameras I came to realize the jpeg processing sucked to be polite. I leaned to process raw so I could get the quality out of the equipment that it was capable of and Sony programmers were not capable of at the time. I started wearing the shirt as many in my camera club group felt that only a "real" photographer could consistently get SOOC images that were any good so I was labeled as a Post Process expert but a lacking photographer. Funny how they tried to turn the coin around.

Now that they have evolved to using lightroom and CS many of those same people are now shooting raw. I myself have never cared how another photographer gets their image as long as it is theirs. If they can get a great image with an instamatic more power to them. I will shoot the way that I do (raw) and post process the way that I do even though in my latest camera (A77) Sony has finally gotten to the point that he SOOC jpegs are pretty good and any changes I make probably would only be noticed by me since I know what they are.
 
Jan 16, 2014 13:11:39   #
[quote=FredB]Almost. The raw image is just that - raw. No attention is paid to the WB, contrast, saturation, or any other setting on your camera. Those settings affect ONLY the JPEG image. As such, they will be taken into effect for the JPEG thumbnail that you see when you peer at your LCD after the shot, or open the raw file in Windows Explorer or such. The raw data IS dependent on absolutes such as ISO and exposure settings, however.

Not necessarily true on all cameras, I know on my KM7D I could correct the WB to an extent PP on RAW images but I did get better results making sure it was right from the start. Now that could be due to the camera being better at determining correct WB with custom settings and White/Black/Grey cards than the PP software and the WB info was just a sidecar file attached to the raw file that the software used to adjust the image in the raw editor.
Jan 15, 2014 19:34:47   #
Raw vs. Jpeg

Raw is the unedited image as taken with the settings you have set in your camera prior to taking the picture; WB, Exposure, etc.

Jpeg is the edited image as taken with the in-camera adjustments made; WB, Exposure, Sharpening, Noise Reduction, Contrast, etc. and then compressed and converted to 8 bit.

I like to think of it as baking a cake:

With Raw all of the ingredients are provided separately and you have to mix and bake it. You have the ability to add another egg or more sugar if you think you need it.

With Jpeg the cake mix is already mixed together in unknown quantities, you can't un-mix it and make changes so you are stuck trusting the maker of the mix.

I use both but primarily I Shoot RAW. There are times where I trust the scene or I want quick output and will shoot Jpeg but since I use Lightroom 5 editing in Raw or jpeg is the EXACT SAME WORK FLOW. With Raw I get the benefit of more initial information to work with and more latitude for corrections if a shot was off or the lighting was tricky.

The cost for shooting Raw is larger files but with memory as cheep as it is today and computers as powerful as they are it has not been a problem.

The file type used is a really stupid way to judge others as photographers, I prefer to use the final output. Shoot Raw, Shoot Jpeg, makes no matter to me your art is YOUR art.
Jan 15, 2014 18:47:32   #
wj cody wrote:
if we are speaking of af lenses, then the first generation minolta af lenses have some wonderful items. in addition to the above, the 70-300 constant f4 lens is highly sought after. also the first generation af wide angles, as much the same as their legendary mf wides.


I believe you are thinking of the 70-210 f4. It is often referred to as the Beer Can due to it physical size being similar. For a budget lens it can produce some very nice images and I had one until I upgraded to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I have since upgraded again to the Minolta 80-200 G f2.8.

The Tamron was better than the beercan and the G series lens has a little bit better build quality and better colors than the Tamron. Only problem with the beercan was some CA and it was slow to focus, both workable but not optimal.

Now nearly ALL of the prime Minolta Legacy AF lenses are very good performers still today.
Jan 13, 2014 18:39:10   #
There are several good Minolta lenses out there provided you can get them with light use as it is almost impossible to get them repaired due to lack of parts available.

Most generally any "G" lens and that does include the 85mm f1.4. Also notables are the 80-200 f2.8 G (white lens) the 28-70 2.8 G. The 50mm f1.4 is also a very good lens as is the 100mm 2.8 macro.

I think those are the "most sought" of the Minolta lenses.
Jan 13, 2014 13:19:34   #
Here is my attempt with LR5

I did the following:
WB
Temp +8
Tint NC

Exposure -.50
Contrast +32

Highlights NC
Shadows -44
Whites +6
Blacks -4

Clarity +20
Vibrance +12
Saturation +12

HSL
Red Saturation -53

Detail

Sharpening 88
Radius 1.8

Noise Reduction
Luminance 29
Color 45


 
Jan 12, 2014 20:51:46   #
I tend to agree with what others have said here. The motion blur looks to me to be from camera movement.

I say this due to looking at the ground, at some point it should be sharp since it is not moving (thus no motion blur) and at some distance the focus should be spot on, either just in front of or just behind the subject. Since there is no point at which it is sharp and in focus that only leaves 2 options. 1) camera shake or 2) a very soft lens.
Jan 12, 2014 20:05:05   #
dragon64 wrote:
I started out with an inexpensive used 35mm SLR film camera with excellent glass (Zeiss). The quality of the glass offset the less SLR and my pictures were nearly always great. This situation has always infused in me the need for really good glass when purchasing a new camera. The quality or your images can be just the booster you need to help you make the decision to move up to the next level of camera gear and to maintain a high quality level of your lenses.


I completely agree, I have always purchased the "7" series camera bodies from Minolta-Sony but mostly for the features they offer over entry level bodies. But for someone new my advice is always to go with entry level bodies and the best glass they can afford. The investment is in the glass NOT the bodies as they get replaced every few years where the glass can last for decades. With this in mind once you buy top glass, the next body can be a step up as your skills increase until you have the highest level body that fits your needs, skill, and style.
Jan 12, 2014 19:30:29   #
After reading all of the post here I will offer this:

In regards to your friend and his guitar, you can't make music on a crap instrument that does not stay in tune. However not all can make music on the best of instruments (something I decided after several years of trying)

The same can be said of photography to a point. There are just some shots that you can not get with a camera phone. Period. But a Hasseblad does not automatically make you a photographer either. I started with "kit" lenses as I learned the basics, then moved on to good 3rd party fast glass, I have since traded it in for "G" series glass (the Minolta/Sony equivalent for Canon "L" series.)

Did the "G" series glass make me a better photographer? NO, it did however add to the "feel" of the photographs. By that I mean they are sharper with a smoother bokeh and more pleasant color reproductions. Are the images better? YES, but they were good to start with from an exposure/composition/artistic viewpoint.

The most important question is what do you intend to shoot? and with what camera? If you have a stellar high ISO producer you can get away with slower glass to a point if you are shooting wildlife/action that requires a faster shutter or long lenses. But will a f2.8 500 or greater out perform a super zoom? EVERY PIC by virtually every Shooter.
Jan 12, 2014 19:01:08   #
Hello all,

My name is John, I reside in the Northern Illinois area and have been a Minolta-Sony shooter since 1983. I drift in and out with the hobby as I have several (hobbies) and there is only so many hours in a day/week/year. I have done some freelance work in the past with very good results and satisfied customers who used my services repeatedly but I have decided that I prefer to shoot for the love not the dollar. I will post some pics in the future to display my style.

I will also post my flickr link once I check the rules about posting links.

Fotohouse
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.