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

Lucky Cynic · April 2012

So yeah, I am going to be needing to send in my camera and lenses for some focusing issues. My lenses are front focusing by a considerable amount or are back focusing by a considerable amount and I'd rather have pros fix it than dial in the maximum amount of focus correction in my camera.

Also, fucking Pentax went ahead and told retailers to put prices back up to MSRP for the time being. They dropped prices on cameras, but a lot of their glass is just inaccessible right now.

CommunistCow · April 2012

Drez wrote: »

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.

Also take a gander at the Lumpro 160 from MPEX. It is $160. It won't offer you all the nice TTL features but honestly I've never really used those. I go all manual with my flashes and it isn't hard to learn. I have the predecessor which is the LP120 and it is pretty darn good for the price but it was about 1 stop under powered compared to a 580ex. The LP160 fixed this problem and now has the same power as a 580ex.

Prospicience wrote: »

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?

LP-120 and SB-24 into umbrellas to the back right and back left of the model aimed towards his head for rim light. AB800 with softbox as the main directly in front of the model about 1 stop under the back lights.

Beltaine · April 2012

So wait, they discontinued the K-r?

I don't have enough cash saved up yet, dammit.

Lucky Cynic · April 2012

Beltaine wrote: »

So wait, they discontinued the K-r?

I don't have enough cash saved up yet, dammit.

Yeah, the K-r lived its little 1.25 year life span and normally they announce the next model before doing so, but there are rumors of the next amateur Pentax DSLR going to be announced soon. From some blurry teaser shots, it looks to be called the K-z.

There is also the K-01 which is a mirrorless camera but with the K-5 (D7000's) sensor and a full Pentax K-mount which was recently released. I know it looks funny, but DXO rated its sensor as pretty fucking baller.

If I were you, I'd keep saving and sit tight, The K-5 will see a replacement this year, and so will the K-r. Pretty opportune time to be eyeing Pentax, btw. They've got some things (plural) behind the curtains.

EDIT: Oh hey! Actually you can get it still from Walmart in any fucking color you want for $599. Not too shabby.

http://www.walmart.com/ip/Your-Choice-Pentax-K-r-12.4MP-DSLR-Camera-Bundle-w-18-55mm-Lens-3-LCD-and-HD-Video-Value-Bundle/20512027?findingMethod=rr#rr

Uncle_Balsamic · April 2012

Was bored and took some photos of an old motherboard.
Criticism wanted.

CommunistCow · April 2012

Uncle_Balsamic when I think of technology I think new, clean, sleak, etc. Even if this is an old mother board I don't think the average person would know that so I think most of the images would look a bit better if you cleaned all the dust off of it first. If you are going to try and represent old decaying technology you would probably have to be more literal and find some electronics from the 70s/80s.

My favorite is the first image, I think the straight black and white works well. The colored images are a little too 'flat' for me. Maybe if you tried to mix the red with some regular strobe color temperature you would get some more pop or contrast. Still, I think it was a pretty good attempt at trying to shoot a common-ish object in an uncommon way.

Uncle_Balsamic · April 2012

Cheers, man.

Drez · April 2012

I kind of like how the last photo looks like a cityscape.

Drez · April 2012

@CommunistCow: Thanks for the flash suggestion. I went with the 580 EX II for a few reasons:

1) I "needed" a new flash for Thursday evening's event, and the LumPro wasn't available anywhere I looked in NYC, including J&R and B&H Photo/Video.
2) I do plan on eventually upgrading to a 7d or whatever.
3) I'm impulsive.

But I do appreciate the advice. The 580 EX II seems like a hell of a flash. I need to get more exposure (hyuk, hyuk) in using it.

Uncle_Balsamic · April 2012

Can have some advice on a few more photos; the second one especially.
Is there a way to make that image a bit more interesting? I've just left it uncropped - I don't consider what's here a 'final' image.

Lucky Cynic · April 2012

Something I worked up. I think I may want to hit up different statues and make them look more human than they appear. Not so much going after that illusive uncanny valley, but enough so that it makes people take a second look. I hate that border more and more though. Watermark is a bit harsh, but eh, its early in the morning and I didn't notice Camera Raw switched things to 8bit and not 16, so the whole thing needs to be redone anyways.

Uncle_Balsamic · April 2012

Criticism?

shrouded · April 2012

Hello, photo thread. It's been a long time.

I was browsing and wanted to second CommunistCow's recommendation of ProDPI a few pages back. Their services a reasonable, their customer service is great, and the couple of times I used I was very happy with the end result. I have their output hanging on my walls right now.

I suppose if I'm going to post I should reintroduce myself again. I've been shooting a few years, and have worked my way through all the major cliches (cemeteries, trains, and a trip to Yellowstore). I'm trying to make myself shoot more often between work and infant twins. My biggest challenge at the moment is being less technical: I need to be better at building rapport and interacting with subjects instead of being a gearhead. I've hit a few workshops, and rented studio space a few times to do portraits and boudoir sittings for friends to develop those skills. Composition, of course, has been and continues to be a challenge too.

This is a shot of a captive subject, one of my twins from last weekend.

Spoiler:

CommunistCow · April 2012

Drez wrote: »

@CommunistCow: Thanks for the flash suggestion. I went with the 580 EX II for a few reasons:

1) I "needed" a new flash for Thursday evening's event, and the LumPro wasn't available anywhere I looked in NYC, including J&R and B&H Photo/Video.
2) I do plan on eventually upgrading to a 7d or whatever.
3) I'm impulsive.

But I do appreciate the advice. The 580 EX II seems like a hell of a flash. I need to get more exposure (hyuk, hyuk) in using it.

Oh, sorry. I should have mentioned that the Lumpro is manufactured for MPEX and I think it is only sold online through them and in their one store in Ohio. It was basically crowd source designed by the Strobist community to meet all the lighting demands they had at a reasonable price.

@Uncle_Balsamic
I really like those two shots. They both have amazing texture and great contrast. My only two problems I see are really just nitpicks. The top one loses sharpness at the top of the frame. The bottom image has the background go from a perfect white at the top to a little bit of a cream color at the bottom. I think I would prefer that if you are going to have part of the background at pure white you should have it all at pure white. I would say that if you want to do a gradient just make sure that pure white is not a part of it.

The book photo is not all that interesting IMO. The only think that slightly catches my eye is the "1843" and that takes up so little of the frame.

Uncle_Balsamic · April 2012

@CommunistCow Cheers, man. That's really useful.

CommunistCow · April 2012

So I finally got around to shooting again. Almost everything here was shot with two ab800s at 1/4 power aimed at the background with just the standard 7" reflector and one ab800 at 1/4? power in a soft box at camera left.

Liv 1 by jeff25rs, on Flickr

Liv 8 by jeff25rs, on Flickr

Messing with some white space. What do you guys think?

Liv 5 white space by jeff25rs, on Flickr

Liv 6 by jeff25rs, on Flickr

Also I've been messing around in PS and trying to learn how to cut people out and composite them onto a background. This is the best I've gotten thus far but I'm still not really pleased with it. With this image I figured she looked /kinda/ like a witch so I tried to go with that and stick her on a very dramatic background and make her pop out of it a bit without being too unrealistic.

EggyToast · April 2012

The most important thing to do with putting people into backgrounds is making sure the lighting matches. In this case, you're lighting the model predominantly from the left, but the light in the background is coming from the right. That makes her stand out unnaturally. Flip the background and you'll probably like it more.

CommunistCow · April 2012

Ah good call. I was also considering using a very slight lens blur with a mask gradient on the background. Any idea if that might help or hurt?

EggyToast · April 2012

You could give it a shot. I think you're going for a slightly unnatural look from your description, so having her be so close and clear would normally mean the background would have less detail, notably in the mountains, but having the difference makes her pop more. That's a little bit closer to artistic choice. Still, it probably wouldn't hurt to give a very slight blur to the mountains, as their detail detracts somewhat where it hits her hair (as they're the same shade in b&w).

muninn · April 2012

I really like the first and third shot, even though no. 3 is soft around the eyes. The pose of the model in photo 2 looks very forced and unnatural, looks like she is showing off her armpit. And number four is not very flattering to the model, if you are going for the glamour look.
As for the composite, I would also note that it looks like the background photo was shot from above while the model was shot slightly up, adding to the cognitive dissonance.

Gafoto · April 2012

For me, the weird thing with that transposed background is the soft light on the model when it should be very harsh for those conditions. Bonneville looks very bright there!

I just ordered an S100 to replace my Rebel XTi. Seems counter-intuitive but I decided to move to something much more packable. I think I realized I'm a long ways away from needing a professional camera so getting something that will just be easier to take snapshots with is a better option. In the meantime, enjoy this photo I took a while ago but just now uploaded:

CommunistCow · April 2012

Any better?

Applied the lens blur with the depth mask, flipped the background, and removed that annoying thing in the foreground. Try as I might I couldn't make the hair sticking up into the sky blend in any better. I think the only thing I think I could do to fix that is make sure she is on a light background.

mr_mich · April 2012

So I'm not sure if you guys remember my qualms with my old Nikon D50, but here goes...

The internal flash doesn't work. It goes off, but photos are always underexposed, so I have to set aperture accordingly to compensate for the fact that I only have ambient light. Nikon's told me to screw off, and at this point the D50's really showing its age.

Awhile back, I picked up a couple lenses from someone at work. I paid $100 for the pair, both a Nikkor 70-300 G-series and a 28-80 G-series. It was a good, cheap way to pick up reasonable glass and give me more focal length options, but without manual focus they're not really that valuable. I also have the 18-55 DX kit lens it came with.

I would really like to start making videos for a website I work for, as well as not hate taking stills with my camera, which really is no good beyond ISO800.

One solution is to buy an external flash and use that, but it's overkill for the minor photography I do (painted miniatures, occasional family gatherings) and doesn't answer my need for video.

Another solution is to buy a new Nikon and sell the D50 body. This would allow me to ~~still use my noob lenses I think~~, but I don't think the D50 body is worth very much on its own, especially with a busted flash. EDIT: I just read that there's no motors in bodies anymore on cameras, so apparently my AF-G lenses are pretty much useless on a new camera.

The other solution is for me to sell off all the Nikon stuff, because I've really only got $100 in extra lenses invested, and I feel like I'm more likely to sell it as a kit to someone on Craig's List if they feel like they're getting a decent deal on lenses. Then I could theoretically get something like a T3i, which has really grabbed my attention now that they're getting ready to roll out the next generation and they're going to be marked down a lot (whilst still being a huge upgrade from a D50).

Any thoughts?

Weretaco · April 2012

I was planning on waiting for a t4i announcement but thanks to B&H having the t3i (body only) for $624 I placed the order today

Now to get everything together for a CL sale of my rebel XS + kit lens + 70-300mm + filters + bag.

Mr Obersmith · April 2012

So I hibernated for the winter apparently (outside of niece photos) but I went down to DC over the weekend and got some good shots.

This is a sculpture in one of the Smithsonian sculpture gardens. I'm curious if anyone has suggestions on interesting ways to process it.

115 by Obersmith, on Flickr

040 by Obersmith, on Flickr

050 by Obersmith, on Flickr

RenDuH · April 2012

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

Something I worked up. I think I may want to hit up different statues and make them look more human than they appear. Not so much going after that illusive uncanny valley, but enough so that it makes people take a second look. I hate that border more and more though. Watermark is a bit harsh, but eh, its early in the morning and I didn't notice Camera Raw switched things to 8bit and not 16, so the whole thing needs to be redone anyways.

To be completely honest (and not trying to be mean!), I love the shot, but my first thought was "/facepalm - Kolia Photography", as though you were trying to make fun of it. I don't know if that would be the general population's first thought, but just wanted to let you know that at the very least, that was mine. I know you said that you didn't really plan on making the watermark so harsh, so maybe making it a bit less so would make it so that that wasn't my first impression..? heh.

Beltaine · April 2012

Damn my broke ass for not having a real camera. This young mockingbird was in a shrub in front of my house yesterday evening. He apparently wasn't confident enough to fly, so he just froze. My phone was about 6 inches away from him in this shot. I could not get my phone to not fucking blow out the lighting, so this is the best I got.

CommunistCow · April 2012

mr_mich wrote: »

So I'm not sure if you guys remember my qualms with my old Nikon D50, but here goes...

The internal flash doesn't work. It goes off, but photos are always underexposed, so I have to set aperture accordingly to compensate for the fact that I only have ambient light. Nikon's told me to screw off, and at this point the D50's really showing its age.

Awhile back, I picked up a couple lenses from someone at work. I paid $100 for the pair, both a Nikkor 70-300 G-series and a 28-80 G-series. It was a good, cheap way to pick up reasonable glass and give me more focal length options, but without manual focus they're not really that valuable. I also have the 18-55 DX kit lens it came with.

I would really like to start making videos for a website I work for, as well as not hate taking stills with my camera, which really is no good beyond ISO800.

One solution is to buy an external flash and use that, but it's overkill for the minor photography I do (painted miniatures, occasional family gatherings) and doesn't answer my need for video.

Another solution is to buy a new Nikon and sell the D50 body. This would allow me to ~~still use my noob lenses I think~~, but I don't think the D50 body is worth very much on its own, especially with a busted flash. EDIT: I just read that there's no motors in bodies anymore on cameras, so apparently my AF-G lenses are pretty much useless on a new camera.

The other solution is for me to sell off all the Nikon stuff, because I've really only got $100 in extra lenses invested, and I feel like I'm more likely to sell it as a kit to someone on Craig's List if they feel like they're getting a decent deal on lenses. Then I could theoretically get something like a T3i, which has really grabbed my attention now that they're getting ready to roll out the next generation and they're going to be marked down a lot (whilst still being a huge upgrade from a D50).

Any thoughts?

Since no one is respond I would suggest just going and checking out dpreview or snapsort. From what you have stated as your intended use you could probably go with something cheaper than the T3i and still be happy.

mr_mich · April 2012

CommunistCow wrote: »

mr_mich wrote: »

So I'm not sure if you guys remember my qualms with my old Nikon D50, but here goes...

The internal flash doesn't work. It goes off, but photos are always underexposed, so I have to set aperture accordingly to compensate for the fact that I only have ambient light. Nikon's told me to screw off, and at this point the D50's really showing its age.

Awhile back, I picked up a couple lenses from someone at work. I paid $100 for the pair, both a Nikkor 70-300 G-series and a 28-80 G-series. It was a good, cheap way to pick up reasonable glass and give me more focal length options, but without manual focus they're not really that valuable. I also have the 18-55 DX kit lens it came with.

I would really like to start making videos for a website I work for, as well as not hate taking stills with my camera, which really is no good beyond ISO800.

One solution is to buy an external flash and use that, but it's overkill for the minor photography I do (painted miniatures, occasional family gatherings) and doesn't answer my need for video.

Another solution is to buy a new Nikon and sell the D50 body. This would allow me to ~~still use my noob lenses I think~~, but I don't think the D50 body is worth very much on its own, especially with a busted flash. EDIT: I just read that there's no motors in bodies anymore on cameras, so apparently my AF-G lenses are pretty much useless on a new camera.

The other solution is for me to sell off all the Nikon stuff, because I've really only got $100 in extra lenses invested, and I feel like I'm more likely to sell it as a kit to someone on Craig's List if they feel like they're getting a decent deal on lenses. Then I could theoretically get something like a T3i, which has really grabbed my attention now that they're getting ready to roll out the next generation and they're going to be marked down a lot (whilst still being a huge upgrade from a D50).

Any thoughts?

Since no one is respond I would suggest just going and checking out dpreview or snapsort. From what you have stated as your intended use you could probably go with something cheaper than the T3i and still be happy.

Thanks for the response!

Snapsort's a really cool website, it turns out. I was a little turned off by its suggestion of the D5100 because of how this experience with my D50 has soured me on Nikon. I'm willing to accept that I may be overreacting a bit though.

A D3100 or T2i would probably fit the bill for me, to be honest. I just wasn't sure if it was going to be a silly move for me to sell my current D50 body just for the sake of finally being able to do some videos and use built-in flash again.

Antihippy · April 2012

So I made a little DIY studio with some foamboard, paper, $6 lamps and alot of glue. Would love some tips on what else I could do with it and expanding it. Within reason, of course.

Also a LED torch with a ghetto diffuser made from wire and tracing paper.

Some food photography to test things out. Would love some critique on it.

Aldo · April 2012

The point of food photography is that you see the food. These half-dark shots with big shadows do not make it look appetizing at all. The first one is the only semi-decent one on account of it looking edible.

mr_mich · April 2012

How much should I be hoping to get for my kit?

Nikon D50 with flash issue
18-55 AF-S kit lens
70-300G AF Nikkor lens
28-80G AF Nikkor lens
2GB SD card
Filters/hoods/kodak bag

I've got it listed for $425 and someone's offering me $300. Seems silly low, but I know my asking price is a bit high.

RenDuH · April 2012

@Antihippy - although @Aldo may have been a little harsh in his crit, I have to agree that the photos are a bit too dark. You need some other kind of light source, because the two lamps you used don't seem to be bright enough. Maybe if you have something white--a piece of poster board, for example--above the food and point a bright light upwards at the poster board, you could bounce it onto the food and give it a nice, diffused light. Then all you need is a light pointing directly at the food (either in front of it or slightly to the left or to the right), and it should produce a decent photo without harsh shadows. Good luck!

Antihippy · April 2012

No, that's fair enough, and I appreciate any advice. I was also experimenting around with the setup using cardboard light blockers to see how I'll be able to manipulate shadows with this setup, so that is part of why most of the photos have rather harsh shadows.

Lucky Cynic · April 2012

mr_mich wrote: »

How much should I be hoping to get for my kit?

Nikon D50 with flash issue
18-55 AF-S kit lens
70-300G AF Nikkor lens
28-80G AF Nikkor lens
2GB SD card
Filters/hoods/kodak bag

I've got it listed for $425 and someone's offering me $300. Seems silly low, but I know my asking price is a bit high.

Why are you getting rid of this stuff? Why not just upgrade the body?

mr_mich · April 2012

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

mr_mich wrote: »

How much should I be hoping to get for my kit?

Nikon D50 with flash issue
18-55 AF-S kit lens
70-300G AF Nikkor lens
28-80G AF Nikkor lens
2GB SD card
Filters/hoods/kodak bag

I've got it listed for $425 and someone's offering me $300. Seems silly low, but I know my asking price is a bit high.

Why are you getting rid of this stuff? Why not just upgrade the body?

Because the lenses don't have an AF motor in it, so they won't work with any new/respectable body.

MetroidZoid · April 2012

Went with my friend and goddaughter to the park. Hoped for good pictures. Got ... not the best.

There's another one, but her mom photobomb'd the picture with her cleavage. So that's out.
Also, this child communicating with presumably the devil

And I really like the afternoon light on this, even if it's a really really common subject

Man I'm so jealous though of this guy I'm dating's new Canon. SLR, $900 lens. I'm approaching it like you would a mother bear, hoping to hug one of it's cubs. He's almost annoyingly paranoid about it, but that should pass.

Virum · April 2012

CommunistCow wrote: »

Also take a gander at the Lumpro 160 from MPEX. It is $160. It won't offer you all the nice TTL features but honestly I've never really used those. I go all manual with my flashes and it isn't hard to learn. I have the predecessor which is the LP120 and it is pretty darn good for the price but it was about 1 stop under powered compared to a 580ex. The LP160 fixed this problem and now has the same power as a 580ex.

I don't really care for speedlights, but I have a Vivitar and I bought this one because I wanted a few more steps in the power output. Also disliked Vivtar's sync port. As far as speedlights go - definitely recommend the Lumpro 160. I almost want to buy a second... and that says a lot because I'm more of a monolight kinda guy:

Weapons of Choice #1 by joshuanitschke, on Flickr

Incidentally, both my Vivitar and my Lumopro were used for that picture...

EggyToast · April 2012

mr_mich wrote: »

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

mr_mich wrote: »

How much should I be hoping to get for my kit?

Nikon D50 with flash issue
18-55 AF-S kit lens
70-300G AF Nikkor lens
28-80G AF Nikkor lens
2GB SD card
Filters/hoods/kodak bag

I've got it listed for $425 and someone's offering me $300. Seems silly low, but I know my asking price is a bit high.

Why are you getting rid of this stuff? Why not just upgrade the body?

Because the lenses don't have an AF motor in it, so they won't work with any new/respectable body.

Um, the D70, D80, and D90 all support AF with those lenses.

mr_mich · April 2012

EggyToast wrote: »

mr_mich wrote: »

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

mr_mich wrote: »

How much should I be hoping to get for my kit?

Nikon D50 with flash issue
18-55 AF-S kit lens
70-300G AF Nikkor lens
28-80G AF Nikkor lens
2GB SD card
Filters/hoods/kodak bag

I've got it listed for $425 and someone's offering me $300. Seems silly low, but I know my asking price is a bit high.

Why are you getting rid of this stuff? Why not just upgrade the body?

Because the lenses don't have an AF motor in it, so they won't work with any new/respectable body.

Um, the D70, D80, and D90 all support AF with those lenses.

Between my inexperience buying used camera equipment, and my current predicament with an out-of-warranty Nikon, I'm reluctant to buy any of those models...and from what I can tell none of them are available new?

Penny Arcade

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

Posts