I rock my 200mm to compensate for the [PHOTO]

Lucky Cynic

Jake! wrote: »

Surely its only a matter of time before display tech gets so cheap, and high fidelity that print is replaced entirely, even for decorative hanging.

Actually monitors and TVs are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to prints. They operate with transmissive light which is shown directly into the eyes and can be tiring. Also, transmissive light has a hard time dealing with angles and color consistency, so if 'digital prints' were to be say, 24x36, the corners and sides of the image will appear different until you tilt your head or whatever to correct that angle. IPS displays fix this to a point, but it is still an issue.

Oh, then there is the whole color gamut thing. Pigments can reach higher chroma/saturation levels than monitors.

Prints themselves operate with reflective light, which is what human eyes have evolved to see- light that bounces off of surfaces. Ambient light will pass through the dye or pigment on a print, through to the white core and bounce back through the inks again for the eyes to see. It can be tricky to hone this craft, but this is why some fine oil paintings, like masterfully done streams appear to flow. The light flowing through the medium is altered and because we keep our eyes moving and cannot stand totally perfectly still, an illusion takes form.

Regardless, all really high and lofty romance up ins. I can easily tweak my workflow for my shots to end up on a website rather than a print- I just feel that holding something in your hands reminds you that this is a craft. It's an art, but it is also a technical and scientific craft wherein a product is being manufactured.

@CommunistCow I honestly have no idea what type of photography I'd like to pursue. Probably not a good thing- I know. I may still have my head up in the clouds, but I'd like to be a fine art photographer. I'll probably be working events for a while, which isn't exactly my strong suit given my dickish personality, but c'est la vie.

MKR

I don't think anyone is telling you it's wrong to prefer self-printing and prints in general. We can appreciate the technical stuff behind it. We just see and appreciate the value in the mass market opened to our work through digital mediums.

EggyToast

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

I still don't feel like an image is finished unless I have printed it, mounted it to some board and added it to my growing collection.

Olay, but realize that this is for you. I feel that an image is finished when I post it to my Flickr account. Lots of photographers are happy to send out their edited and finished digital photos to a generic printer to get it back and hang (or give to friends) and they judge printers based on their accuracy, so they're happy using something like Mpix. Other people feel that it's finished as soon as they press the button.

I think the statement is that you're talking a lot about exact printers and ink, much like how film people talk about Velvia or how hardware geeks talk about a particular lens. That's cool, there's nothing wrong with that, but there's also a large body of photographers that care more about what you're actually shooting, rather than how you're shooting it. In other words, once they see a picture is appealing, then they want to know how it's done, rather than the other way around.

Due to the cost of the hobby, a lot of photographers are, in my opinion, more interested in results before putting money down. At least I know that's true for me. I get excited about lenses and bodies and prints, but I don't put money down until I have a particular purpose/goal that I can experience directly. For you, that's something you're seeing in the printing process, and while you criticize photos in tubes, you immediately refuse professional printers that professional photographers are using -- who focus on color reproduction, paper quality, and always ship flat.

I personally see Lightroom as equivalent to work done in the darkroom. Once I'm done with that, getting it onto paper is something I'm happy leaving to professionals.

Virum

John by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Ross by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Ross by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Dusty by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Dusty by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Adam by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr


Marion by NITSCHKE+REESE, on Flickr

CommunistCow

Virum I rather like 1,4, and 5. I think my only complaint is that in 5 the guy's chin doesn't have a lot of separation with his neck. I kind of wonder what it would look like if you removed the underneath bounce card or used a smaller one. You might get a little more shadow under the chin which would give you some separation, but you would also lose some light under the eyes and that beautiful catch light. Hrm....

chirpie

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

Jake! wrote: »

Surely its only a matter of time before display tech gets so cheap, and high fidelity that print is replaced entirely, even for decorative hanging.

Actually monitors and TVs are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to prints. They operate with transmissive light which is shown directly into the eyes and can be tiring. Also, transmissive light has a hard time dealing with angles and color consistency, so if 'digital prints' were to be say, 24x36, the corners and sides of the image will appear different until you tilt your head or whatever to correct that angle. IPS displays fix this to a point, but it is still an issue.

Oh, then there is the whole color gamut thing. Pigments can reach higher chroma/saturation levels than monitors.

Uh? Really? Which printing color space/gamut is higher than sRGB? I was always taught RGB had a larger gamut than print, not visa versa.

http://jura.wi.mit.edu/bio/graphics/photoshop/colman.php

As far as I'm concerned the average misalignment (out of registration) of a web press is abysmal and negates any inherent advantages compared to even a semi-decent monitor. But maybe a kodak proof is what you had in mind every time.

I was staring at an all white cover with a stark figure on it that was printed on 100# text gloss today, and all I could see looking at it were the images printed on the other side of it. Lousy bleed through. A shame the client didn't want to drop a few more thousand dollars on it to up the paper stock. As nostalgic as I am towards print (It's where I started in design) I'm not married to it, and it's got a ton of it's own flaws.

Lucky Cynic

With transmissive light, not being in the prime viewing area can deteriorate color accuracy. If you have a huge iMac and fill the screen with a neon green, the center of the screen which is directly in front of you will be more accurate than the corners. Also, its harsher on the eyes. With reflective light that prints use, the light penetrates through the ink to the white core of the paper and bounces back. Especially well printed images can seem like they glow, because, well... they are! Prints can also display higher chroma and saturation without losing details like current LCD/LED tech can. This is being worked on though.

Speaking of high chroma, I worked up this guy on a whim. I'm pretty happy about it so I'm sharing.

chirpie

-grumble-

chirpie

Damn it Penny Arcade, I hate the way deleting posts are handled around here. ^_^;

chirpie

Right, but these are limitations of the displays, not the color space techs themselves. (Although I guess I belated printing due to the limitations of it's output device as it were as well.) And in a way, gamut is the device. It's just tricky when you have issues like what you've pointed out with the device having other issues like the brightness falling off in the corners. (I don't see that anymore on the 27 inch display I'm using now, but I see it a lot on the older ones.) But I understand what you're getting at.

BTW, primo pooch shot. ^_^

CommunistCow

Interesting saturated colors on that, but I don't like the out of focus dog being in front of the guys face. He is holding out this dog like "here look how cute he is" and the thing is out of focus. I would prefer both of them in focus, but barring that I think the dog should be in focus rather than the guy's obscured face.

Lucky Cynic

That was an incredibly tough shot to take. It's at 1/30 @ 2.8 @ ISO 1600. There really just wasn't a lot of light. I did try though and had shots like that but they really were not successful. This one is the most.

Weretaco

Moving awake babies are a pain to take shots of. (These were printed 4x6 for a baby shower for a friend of mine)

Tam

If I may intrude for a second, I am in the process of buying a Nikon D50 from a lady on Craigslist. The camera is for my uncle. How should I test it out to make sure everything is in tip top shape?

wonderpug

Are you getting lenses too, or just the body?

Tam

The lens that came with the body and also the battery pack and charger

CommunistCow

Tam wrote: »

If I may intrude for a second, I am in the process of buying a Nikon D50 from a lady on Craigslist. The camera is for my uncle. How should I test it out to make sure everything is in tip top shape?

Take some pictures make sure the lens auto focuses, the flash works. Google around and see if there is a way to figure out how many frames (shutter actuations) have been taken with the camera. Most shutters are made to handle 80-100k. So if they are selling it with 60k shutter actuations on it then that'll probably be fine. If it is at 90k I would find a different one. Just be aware that on most cameras I think you can reset this count but I doubt a private seller would think about doing that.

DHS Odium

Used a macro attachment on my lens to take a few pics this weekend:

Lucky Cynic

I really dig that first shot and the flare on the last one is a nice element too. I would have to say the DOF is really, really narrow which is nice for some objects, but I'd hate to say, is just a hair too thin on those center shots. Other than that, looks like you got yourself quite a nice set up. Look forward to seeing more.

Weretaco

Can someone please tell Canon to announce the t4i already?

My Rebel XS needs an upgrade (anything above ISO400 is so bad) and I'm hoping to pick up a t3i or 60D if prices drop. Otherwise pay for the t4i if it's a big enough upgrade over the t3i/60D

The longer they wait the more I keep thinking about going micro 4/3s and ordering the Olympus OMD EM5 (I travel a lot so going smaller wouldn't be a bad thing for me)

Lucky Cynic

I'm going to be getting the Pentax Q when it comes time for me to get my travel camera. It's too cute and the lenses are actually pretty fast.



If you are waiting for a new rebel to be released in order for a price drop, eh, I am not such a huge fan of those. Why not just score the T4i body only when it is announced?

Weretaco

I'll be looking body only for sure.

The question is whether the t4i is a big enough upgrade over the t3i. If not I'll rejoice in t3i lowered pricing Also, you never know if 60D pricing will also drop.

The Olympus OMD EM5 also looks like it has promising low light (higher ISO) results but to switch to that is a pretty big swap from canon slr setup to m43s.

chidona

This weekend was a weekend of vertical crops.


DSC01906.jpg by chidona, on Flickr


DSC01834.jpg by chidona, on Flickr


DSC01807.jpg by chidona, on Flickr


DSC01845.jpg by chidona, on Flickr


DSC01895.jpg by chidona, on Flickr

I've also learnt my lesson on blown-out skies. In my defence, it's so rarely sunny here that I haven't had much practice with anything other than overcast skies.

CommunistCow

DHS Odium: Those macro shots have too narrow of a DOF for the subject matter. 80-90% of the frame is out of focus and the part that is in focus is no different from a subject standpoint. If you did something like this with a drop of water on a leaf in focus it would be a little different. Even when taking pictures of people's faces with shallow DOF you want to have something that draws the viewers attention in focus such as the model's eyes. If you had the focus on any other point of the face it would look funny.

Weretaco

CC: I have forgotten about stuff like that too many times when i've had the chance to shoot at like F1.8

Look at photo later and dammit, too much out of focus. One example would be my baby shot above, a bit more DOF would keep the whole baby in focus instead of the out of focus parts on the hands and such.

Weretaco

In happy news a friend of mine in the US ordered me up this today. Now I can get that flash off the camera.

http://www.amazon.com/EzFoto-Grouping-Componor-Combined-Off-camera/dp/B005HTR7U0/ref=pd_sim_sbs_p_4

Aldo

An atlas has found its way to me. it has the most beautiful cover:


cover 3 [light reflecting] by helloIamAldo, on Flickr


Cover 2 [imagine finding this in an old book case] by helloIamAldo, on Flickr

CommunistCow

Messing around with some "wrap around lighting" and some processing techniques. What do you guys think?


Ryan by jeff25rs, on Flickr


Tribble by jeff25rs, on Flickr
Yes, yes I know. I took a picture of my dog. :o


Ryan gold hat by jeff25rs, on Flickr

Aldo

ignoring the bloke's ridiculous facial expression, and pink eye: his eyes are kinda shaded in the second picture compared to the first. Like there's a shadow falling over his face.

Prospicience

Yeah, I like the first one best for sure - Lighting is most prominent. Second one looks good, but a little flat/dark - some post (lightening up the highlights and whatnot) could make it a great one. Basically same thing with the third one.

What's the setup for them?

Shazkar Shadowstorm

hm hm hm

i'm going to japan on wednesday

i could bring my 18-200 lens, which was handy to have in africa, but it is pretty big

i left my 50mm prime at home

then the 18-70 kit lens

but i was thinking i might just borrow my friend's 35mm prime and roll with just that
it might be a good learning experience, and it'd be light...

thoughts?

EggyToast

I'm definitely a fair-weather shooter. I barely touch my camera in the winter. Thankfully, it's finally warming up.

Drez

So, I have a Rebel XSi. I'm trying to decide if I should invest in the 580 EXII flash or not. $500 is pricey, but people say it's the best.

I'm just using the -erp!- stock flash right now. Any thoughts?

Prospicience

That's definitely a hell of a flash. I don't think the wireless trigger works for the XSi, but if you're planning on getting a 7D or newer canon at some point it'll be more than worth it for the wireless capabilities.

Beltaine

I found a Canon AV-1 in my parents' attic this weekend. Along with 28mm, 50mm, and 150mm prime lenses, and a Speedlite flash.

Changed the battery and everything seems to be working.

Not sure if film photography is really worth messing with while I'm still learning, though.

shwaip

Drez wrote: »

So, I have a Rebel XSi. I'm trying to decide if I should invest in the 580 EXII flash or not. $500 is pricey, but people say it's the best.

I'm just using the -erp!- stock flash right now. Any thoughts?

The first flash I bought was the 430 EX II. It was nice to have a more powerful hotshoe flash and I bought an off-camera ETTL cord to use with it. When I wanted to have multiple flashes, then I picked up the 580 EXII because it can control the 430 EX II.

Drez

shwaip wrote: »

Drez wrote: »

So, I have a Rebel XSi. I'm trying to decide if I should invest in the 580 EXII flash or not. $500 is pricey, but people say it's the best.

I'm just using the -erp!- stock flash right now. Any thoughts?

The first flash I bought was the 430 EX II. It was nice to have a more powerful hotshoe flash and I bought an off-camera ETTL cord to use with it. When I wanted to have multiple flashes, then I picked up the 580 EXII because it can control the 430 EX II.

Cool, thanks.

Feels kind of...decadent...spending $500 bucks on a flash this week. But I guess it's a valid investment. I shoot an event every month and I'm tired of using the shitty stock flash where photos come out kind of shittily. Also, I'll probably be doing a few more photoshoots this year so the flash won't exactly go unused.

Olorin

@eggytoast: those are some beautiful shots. I wish I could manage something half as good.

I thought I'd share some pictures I took during a recent trip to florida. Any C&C appreciated.

Molybdenum

The green fringing on the bird+gator shot is pretty annoying- is there any way to reduce taht by dialing down the vibrance?

I love how the reflections isolate the bird on 3.

The rodent shot is pretty cool, but the mess of stuff in the foreground is very distracting. I don't know if a tighter crop would fix it since the clover is super busy no matter what, but having less of it in frame might help.

Olorin

Molybdenum wrote: »

The green fringing on the bird+gator shot is pretty annoying- is there any way to reduce taht by dialing down the vibrance?

I love how the reflections isolate the bird on 3.

The rodent shot is pretty cool, but the mess of stuff in the foreground is very distracting. I don't know if a tighter crop would fix it since the clover is super busy no matter what, but having less of it in frame might help.

I assume you mean the fringing around the egret standing behind the gator (I didn't really notice it anywhere else...let me know if I'm not seeing something)? I tried tweaking a few things and got this(below). I don't feel like it's much of an improvement though.