Posts for: mossgate
Feb 6, 2014 14:57:26 #
lukan wrote:
I'm curious as to how we all carry, move around, and transport our cameras, lenses, flashes, storage cards, filters, batteries, etc. I use a Filson field duffel, small, with three partitions and two external pockets. It's not padded, so I'm considering something else but don't know what. Bag (if so, what kind) or backpack (which I'm NOT partial to)?
Okay....first of all I'm not here to sell anything but I thought I'd throw this out there for anyone who is new to photography and would like to find a pack/camera bag of some sort that is conservative on space and relatively light on one's anatomy. I don't know how many people are familiar with sling bags but I personally am on my feet for a constant four hour stretch photographing...no rest....and have found this particular sling style, at least, very comfortable....not a strain on my back whatsoever. You do have to keep in mind that the larger your load the larger the stress on your anatomy, so you have to be conservative if you aren't really super physically fit. I've seen slings that are no more than a bag with straps sort of how purses are arranged. There are sling designs, however, that are designed to not put downward stress on the shoulder that the strap is resting on. So.....just as another input on this subject.....check out this youtube video. It actually shows the person wearing the sling and not just showing you how many compartments it has. I actually bought mine at a local camera shop to ensure that what I was buying was going to be COMFORTABLE. It's hard to judge that on the internet. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_S6LmVMrCw
Feb 6, 2014 14:30:41 #
I came across this interesting tripod attachment for a backpacks.....made for smaller tripods. If you don't want to carry a tripod separately.....some come with their own shoulder strapped bag.....this looks like an interesting solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhJv6VHzZjQ
Feb 5, 2014 21:59:28 #
lukan wrote:
I'm curious as to how we all carry, move around, and transport our cameras, lenses, flashes, storage cards, filters, batteries, etc. I use a Filson field duffel, small, with three partitions and two external pockets. It's not padded, so I'm considering something else but don't know what. Bag (if so, what kind) or backpack (which I'm NOT partial to)?
Hi Lukan,
I recently purchased a Tamrac sling style (one strap over neck and shoulder) camera bag. You can wear it in front for easy access or slide it to the back. It holds my Olympus camera, three lenses, batteries, SD cards, a couple of filters....only a tiny flash would fit in with all these other things. I weighed the bag with all these things in it and it weighed 5 pounds. I am buying collapsible rubber lens hoods so I can pack them in too because the hard ones don't fit in my model of sling bag but Tamrac also makes larger models. Sling bags work better for me because they don't bother my back.
You can see the Tamrac model I have here http://www.amazon.com/Tamrac-Velocity-Compact-Sling-Pack/dp/B00BPZD5L0/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1391654797&sr=8-9&keywords=tamrac+sling+camera+bag but there are lots of other sizes and shapes.
Feb 5, 2014 12:27:52 #
LLucas wrote:
Thanks for clarifying.
According to the thread here, RAW is best for photos that will be tweaked. Jpeg is fine for snapshots. That's what I got out of this. Thanks for the beautiful examples, especially the evening time-lapsed scene. I will continue shooting RAW since PP is my favorite part of the process.
According to the thread here, RAW is best for photos that will be tweaked. Jpeg is fine for snapshots. That's what I got out of this. Thanks for the beautiful examples, especially the evening time-lapsed scene. I will continue shooting RAW since PP is my favorite part of the process.
I have read a few times on this forum that JPEG is the choice for snapshots. Well, those who are experienced photographers, who know a good shot when they see it and understand the technical aspects of photography....not that difficult....can take some amazingly wonderful "snapshots". The more you practice the better you get and a jpeg is not a second rate file type. You can just do more adjusting with raw because it holds more info. If you have the photo right to begin with then you don't have to worry about post processing. The issue then comes down to how to archive it to preserve all the info if you use the jpeg many times over. Do a search for my question on archiving the image as a tiff. http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-182143-1.html
Feb 5, 2014 12:23:25 #
Feb 5, 2014 12:07:19 #
missletoe wrote:
Why shoot in JPG and raw? If you can convert raw to JPG in PP why take up the space on your memory card?
If the replies here on this thread are not enough, do a search for jpeg and raw on this forum site and see the endless list of topic headings on this subject. I recently added a question regarding tiff files, too. Opinions vary.
Jpeg quality is improving with modern cameras but they don't always capture the image as well as could be done if corrected using a raw file and some post processing. My own camera does a pretty great job with jpegs so I don't find a lot of times yet when I need to do anything to adjust them with the exception of a small dodge or burn in Photoshop.
Feb 5, 2014 11:56:27 #
SpeedyWilson wrote:
I could care less what anybody thinks about the camera I use, as long as it works for me and I'm satisfied with the results. My cameras are not at the bottom of the barrel ... they're not even in the barrel.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Feb 4, 2014 19:48:08 #
Ellen101 wrote:
Hi
Ellen here.
I always take my camera with me. It's a staple like my purse and keys. I charge the battery at night. I keep a tripod in my car. I estimate I can take up to 300 photos a week, of course I delete the ones I feel are not good.
I work on the ones I love in the computer at night. It is an artistic enjoyable thing for me.
I am now concentrating on landscapes and portraits of people.
I love photography. How about all of you?
Ellen here.
I always take my camera with me. It's a staple like my purse and keys. I charge the battery at night. I keep a tripod in my car. I estimate I can take up to 300 photos a week, of course I delete the ones I feel are not good.
I work on the ones I love in the computer at night. It is an artistic enjoyable thing for me.
I am now concentrating on landscapes and portraits of people.
I love photography. How about all of you?
When in an interesting place I shoot hundreds of images and keep maybe 30%. If the photo makes me laugh or I realize I have improved on my shooting in some way, or I just see something beautiful in an image I keep it around. I really am more interested in the memory or the story or the simple beauty of it and not particularly interested in perfection, although a WOW moment is always nice.
Feb 4, 2014 16:22:16 #
lighthouse wrote:
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2012/10/22/a-different-type-of-light-painting-tutorial-use-handheld-flash-during-long-exposures/
Nice link on light painting. :thumbup:
Feb 3, 2014 20:05:08 #
mcveed wrote:
" Which brings me back to my question......Do... (show quote)
Thank you so much. I bookmarked the calculator and will set up my own props to document this for myself. Getting DOF right is like an artist painting, controlling what is to stand out. It can be such a dreamy effect as in Denise Ippolito's bird photos. Someone mentioned her on this forum somewhere. I get it right about half the time right now but would like to know better what I'm doing. Thanks again.
Feb 2, 2014 19:25:59 #
rpavich wrote:
No...
There is a plane of acceptable focus where things are sharp...and then from that plane, then gradually go more out of focus each direction (forward and back)
Check this link out for info:
http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm
There is a plane of acceptable focus where things are sharp...and then from that plane, then gradually go more out of focus each direction (forward and back)
Check this link out for info:
http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm
I think confusion is mounting for some of us. I looked at the film-and-video site and wish the person had done a better job with the image samples. I will do the test myself hopefully tomorrow using better props for better clarity. This is what she said : "I did not keep my focal lengths perfectly scientific for a point; regardless of the focal length, if my iris remains the same and my subject remains the same size in the frame, my depth of field remains the same, no ifs ands or buts." Which brings me back to my question......Does the area that goes out of focus in the background get "fuzzier" the farther back the background goes? Seems like it should. Here is my zoo image again. If there were more large rocks maybe 10 feet behind the animal in the right corner (if the photo were framed differently) would the rocks be more out of focus than that animal?
The top of this photo looks more out of focus than soil just behind the rocks. So maybe I have already answered my own question but will clarify it all for the sake of accuracy.
Feb 2, 2014 17:47:53 #
rpavich wrote:
No...
There is a plane of acceptable focus where things are sharp...and then from that plane, then gradually go more out of focus each direction (forward and back)
Check this link out for info:
http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm
There is a plane of acceptable focus where things are sharp...and then from that plane, then gradually go more out of focus each direction (forward and back)
Check this link out for info:
http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm
Seems to me that you are correct. I can prove it myself now that I will be paying attention to it more. Will even look over my own photos so far with more awareness. Seems like the image I posted looked a little bit more "fuzzy" at the top than the rocks and nose of the other animal. Didn't want to attribute it to a lens problem. Which is why I asked B. Gomberg the question. Because from the statement it did not indicate any shift in degree of out of focus with distance behind the subject. Just looking for clarification. Maybe he will reply. But I can verify the truth myself now that I know what to look for. Glad you brought the issue up.
Feb 2, 2014 17:05:26 #
Bill gomberg wrote:
Nay . D.O.F. is controlled soley by aperture and suject to sensor distance .
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, because I am trying to figure this out. If depth of field is solely controlled by aperture and subject to sensor distance would not everything behind what is the sharp, in focus subject be evenly out of focus to one degree and not to varying degrees of out of focus based on how far away the background gets?
Feb 2, 2014 15:03:08 #
Thombar wrote:
One of the things I like about photography and this group is the fact that I'm always exposed to and learning new techniques and equipment. :thumbup:
First of all, I love your avatar. Ditto.
I'm just throwing this out here for whatever it is worth. Now I, too, am thinking more about bokah (out of focus areas).
Been so far removed from film days and got so lazy with point and shoot photography......that I am reteaching myself about the technical aspects of photography, which is why I purchased my new micro 4/3 sensor camera.
The following photo (sorry about the huge watermarks but such is life.....) was taken at the Phoenix Zoo a few days ago......no snow here. ;) I was looking down into the enclosure at this very cute critter....maybe 15-20 feet or so away from my camera. Shot at 1/200 second @ f/8.0 at 56 mm ( lens: Panasonic Vario MEGA O.I.S. f 4-5.6 45-200 mm ) at ISO 250. Without the rocks and nose of another animal in photo (still somewhat out of focus), the background would look plenty out of focus.....not super bokah I know. So distance of background to what is in focus plays an important roll. Background simplicity helps sometimes, too.
Feb 2, 2014 13:12:51 #
rpavich wrote:
Bored, waiting for Violet to go outside after brea... (show quote)
Mixing reading with experimentation is the only way to really learn. I agree with you. I came to that conclusion early on as I have been out shooting a lot to see what does what and noticed how distance plays into the equation with my f/4-5.6 45-200mm lens. Been taking notes so I know what to do the next time I am looking for a certain type of shot. I always worry that what I write might be taken in the wrong way or whether it sounds dumb or not. But been lucky so far. Only one truely nasty response out of so many helpful ones.