As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
We're funding a new Acquisitions Incorporated series on Kickstarter right now! Check it out at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/acquisitions-incorporated-the-series-2
Can't stop the [PHOTO]
CommunistCow
Abstract MetalThingyRegistered User regular
Abstract MetalThingyRegistered User regular
Welcome to the bi-decade photo thread wherein we discuss many things which include but are not limited to new gear, vintage gear, technique, post processing, over processing, under processing, chemical processing, and how awesome everyone else is but ourselves.
Even though we talk so much about gear it honestly isn't the most important thing in photography. You could get really amazing photos with the just about any brand's base DSLR and with many old types of film cameras. The most important thing is your creativity. So practice, experiment, and step outside of your comfort zone.
So post your photos, critique other people's photos, and have a merry time.
I realized the original post from the old thread was still relevant so here it is:
And here are some random photos of mine because we couldn't start a photo thread without photos.
Biden 5 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
liv desert6 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
globe1 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
Even though we talk so much about gear it honestly isn't the most important thing in photography. You could get really amazing photos with the just about any brand's base DSLR and with many old types of film cameras. The most important thing is your creativity. So practice, experiment, and step outside of your comfort zone.
So post your photos, critique other people's photos, and have a merry time.
I realized the original post from the old thread was still relevant so here it is:
In this thread, we post photos!
All photos are welcome, though most people post with the intention of receiving criticism so that they can become better photographers. Please do not spoiler your photos as that defeats the purpose of the thread.
For photography newbies:
What type of camera should I buy?
This can't be answered the same for every person. There's little difference in the photo quality between most major brands (Canon, Nikon, etc) so it comes down to price and personal preference. Make sure your camera lets you control settings like shutter speed, aperture, and ISO and preferably lets you capture images in RAW format. Other than that, get a bit of hands on time and see how the camera feels to you. Also remember that if you're buying an SLR, camera bodies come and go but lenses usually last while. For this reason it might be worth it to buy a cheaper body and spend a bit extra on some lenses.
Speaking of lenses, which ones should I buy?
Most kit lenses are a good starting place, though you'll begin to find them more limited once you're more comfortable with your camera. A good entry level prime lens for Canon cameras is this little guy. Other than that, you'll probably want to pick up a telezoom lens with a macro feature. This should get you set for a long while.
How do I become awesome at arting?
The best advice I can give is: keep taking pictures. That being said, don't just randomly point your camera at something and hit the shutter button. Stop for a moment to think about why you're taking this picture. What are you trying to show people? Is the current lighting/angle/etc going to help you show that? If so, proceed. If not, adjust your settings or body to capture it another way.
Resources/Tools:
Lightroom - Awesome software for managing your photo collection and editing RAW files.
LR Mogrify - Unfortunately Lightroom doesn't have a border option so use this tool. It also does watermarks and the like.
Canon Firmware Update - Unofficial firmware update that allows more options one some Canon cameras.
Strobist - Fantastic source on getting into off camera lighting. Don't be put off by initial complexities. It'll come.
And here are some random photos of mine because we couldn't start a photo thread without photos.
Biden 5 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
liv desert6 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
globe1 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
CommunistCow on
+5
Posts
Personal photo I took from a listing I did a shoot for today.
My Portfolio Site
So!
Uh, dude, it's 2014 and I'm reading this on my smart glasses. Why should I shoot film?
There isn't really a convincing answer to this. Film can be slow, inconvenient, limiting, complicated, and potentially more expensive than owning a car. On the other hand the results can be absolutely worth all the effort, achieving a look you'll never be able to achieve with digital, as well as producing an end result with more latitude for processing / correction than a RAW file. And it doesn't have to be expensive -- if you're happy buying a 35mm P+S, stocking up on bulk B+W, and learning to process at home, it'll take you a long time to exceed the cost of a new DSLR.
Probably the best way to answer this question is to keep reading this post, looking at examples on Flickr, and deciding if you think all the effort and learning would be worth it. I absolutely think film is a better medium than digital, simply because each type of film will change your camera, and there is so much more thought that needs to go into a shot (especially when each shutter click is costing you real money). The slow process and greater choice appeals to me.
Okay, I'm on eBay and film cameras are going from $50 to $500,000! What the hell
First, I wouldn't use eBay. KEH, Adorama and B&H are good sites for buying used gear online -- or you could luck out at a local op-shop, garage sale or market. The three sites I've mentioned, though, would be good for a beginner, as they grade their gear fairly conservatively (KEH in particular) so you can buy with confidence knowing you won't get a dud. With eBay, even if they have a hundred shots of gear that looks in perfect condition, you have only the seller's assurance that everything works inside.
Second, there are different types of film cameras.
35mm film cameras are the most common and well-known. They're also, generally, the cheapest and most convenient. @bsjezz would know more about 35mm cameras than I do, but the basic gist is that they're fairly similar to modern DSLR and rangefinder cameras (with good reason, as most modern cameras are aping old film camera's designs). The companies will be familiar -- big names are Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon and Minolta. Also, Leica, if you're going through a mid-life crisis.
Current "full-frame" DSLR cameras are so named because their sensor size matches the dimensions of 35mm film. While modern full-frame sensors can easily trounce the resolving power of 35mm film, the other elements of an image -- depth of field, for instance -- will behave similarly between the two formats. If you're shooting with a compact camera and long for the bokeh of full-frame, but can't justify dropping a few grand on a full-frame DSLR, a 35mm film camera with appropriately fast lens will get you the results you want for much less. (The highly-regarded combination of a Pentax ME and 50mm / f2 lens will run you $70 for 'excellent' grade -- less if you're happy chancing a bargain model).
Medium Format film cameras use '120' film, which can be shot in a number of sizes. 'Medium Format' refers to the size -- depending on your camera, you'll be shooting negatives anywhere from 6 x 4.5cm to 6 x 12cm. 6x6 is the most common format and what I'll be considering the standard size here. On a single roll of 120 film, shooting 6x6 will yield 12 shots -- so don't get trigger-happy.
The advantages of medium format vs 35mm are the same as the advantages between a full-frame DSLR and a crop sensor. As the size of the negative increases, so too does detail and resolution, while depth of field gets reduced and the grain becomes much less noticeable. Similarly, medium format cameras need longer focal lengths to produce the same field-of-view as 35mm cameras -- in order to get the same shot as a 50mm full-frame camera, you'd need an 80mm medium format lens. Likewise, you'll need smaller apertures (i.e. bigger numbers) to achieve the same depth-of-field as the smaller format -- the popular Hasselblad 80/2.8 would produce shallower DOF, wide-open, than a 50/1.8 on 35mm.
Medium format cameras come in a few different varieties. There are modular systems such as the Hasselblad 500C/M, where the body, lens and film back are all interchangeable; TLR (twin-lens reflex) cameras such as the Rolleiflex, which have two fixed lens (one for the film, and one for your peepers); or rangefinders such as the Fuji GW690, the 'Texas Leica'. Other companies include Mamiya, Pentax and Bronica.
As expected, medium format cameras cost a bit more than 35mm cameras. I've heard of people getting great deals on gear, but I'd budget anywhere from $500 to $1000 to get a full system together.
There are a few digital MF cameras, but the sensor size is still smaller than a 6x6 negative, and $$$$$$$$
Large Format film begins at 4"x5" and goes up from there. These are the cameras you probably wouldn't think still exist, with bellows and lens boards and focusing hoods. I can expand on this if anyone cares but I'm slowly developing my own LF system so you'd be better off finding someone with more experience.
Hey, it turns out my dad has a whole drawer full of rangefinders. What now? Reckon there's another drawer full of old film?
A bunch of places still sell new film, and even with Kodak selling off its film business and film stocks generally drying up, there's no reason to be concerned about availability. You can order new film at the three websites I linked earlier, or have a look around locally for any labs still operating.
There are three types of film: Black and white, colour negative (C-41) and slide (E6).
Black and white film shouldn't need too much explanation. It's generally the cheapest film to buy and the easiest to home-develop, which are strong reasons for using this film instead of just shooting colour and converting in PS. It does provide a unique look, though, which Photoshop alone can't replicate -- in part because B&W film's unique chemistry is better able to capture detail and tones than colour film or digital sensors. Popular B&W films are Kodak's T-Max and pretty much anything by Ilford.
Colour negative film creates a reversed image on an orange base, which these days you'd scan into your computer and colour-correct in Photoshop. These films can also be developed at home, but the process is a bit more demanding, and lab development works out well as it's a set process. The advantages of colour negative film are in its latitude, accurate colour rendition, and ease of scanning. When I say 'latitude', I mean the number of stops you can expose a film for -- and colour negative film can take wildly different exposures and still create a useable image. Underexpose, overexpose, s'all good. (Here's a quick example I found on Flickr.) I look to Kodak for my C-41 -- Portra 160 is unbeatable for skintones and accurate colours, Portra 400 adds two stops and allegedly has stronger latitude, and Ektar 100 has slightly less latitude but more saturated colours and the finest grain. There are also some B&W films that use C-41 chemistry, which I know @bsjezz uses.
Slide film creates a colour positive, which can then be viewed on a lightbox or through a projector for the best possible image. Slide film is considered the closest to shooting digital -- you lose the latitude of colour negative, and also the dynamic range suffers, so photos that try to encompass a bright sky and a dark foreground won't work out as nicely as with C-41. That said, Fuji's Velvia line in particular is well-loved for its saturated colours, which you couldn't achieve with colour negatives. You can, allegedly, develop E6 film at home, but it's more commonly lab-developed -- if you can find somewhere near you that still develops it. This might be a mail-order job for some people.
ha ha, "quick"
There's heaps I didn't even touch on but a) I don't want to scare people off with too much information, b) I'm by no means an expert and already feel awkward about trying to sound like one, and c) Google is, like, right there. If you're curious about getting started, hopefully there's at least something you can latch onto here for a quick google, or ask in the thread because god knows I'm not the only one still shooting film in here.
In general -- personally I think the Fuji X-T1 is one of the most exciting new mirrorless cameras out there, and they have an outstanding lens lineup and a known history of supporting older cameras through good firmware updates. It's a crop sensor body, but it doesn't have the anti-aliasing filter (which is one of the A7R's advantages over the cheaper A7), so it's able to resolve more detail. The downside is that there's little competition for lenses, they still lack a few good focal lengths and specialty lenses for macro / telephoto work, and the lenses you invest in won't do you any good if you ever upgrade to a full-frame system. I used the X-E1 for a while, and paired with the 35/1.4 (50mm equiv) it produced some excellent shots and had a great "feel" to it. The X-T1 is supposed to have much better AF and a near-flawless EVF, which were two of my biggest problems with the kit.
Otherwise there are the micro four-thirds cameras, which have been around forever now, but I think they're beginning to take the piss with their pricing.
This is roughly where my mind was headed, but it's good to hear confirmation. I think I'll stick to saving for the Canon SL1 and a prime. My main thing is size, and it's about as big as my last P&S, which was perfect aside from the fact that it was a P&S (inadequate sensor + lens).
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
On the other hand, if you're happy with the existing lens choices from the mirrorless canon/nikon/etc, they'll probably catch up given a few years. I've got m43 bodies because I came via 43 bodies because I started off with OM film bodies, and so kept on brand rather than restarting at any point. As far as I know, m43 and sony are pretty much equivalent otherwise (except if you want to do video where the panasonics win out); it looks like the canon/nikon bodies are catching up for size so it's just lens dimensions where m43 still wins out.
Shot this outside in harsh light, so in post I pumped up the saturation to nuclear levels. Background is just some light blue tissue paper I had left over from wrapping a birthday gift. My wife has a few more subjects growing on the back porch I plan to shoot, but I'll bring them inside and use the flash for controlled lighting and less wind.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
@muninn, your lamp shot feels like it's in keeping with the new style you're exploring, so that's good. The subject feels a little rough and dirty, which is how the shot feels.
@Beltaine, the colors are nuclear, but you sort of make it work with the blue background. I like the fact that you intentionally put the tissue paper behind the flower. One area of my photography that needs improvement is nurturing the impulse to arrange a photo rather than just capturing a moment.
And I cannot allow my first post in the new thread to pass without including photos. No one goes on the trip I did without including Antelope Canyon. As the Marines say, these are my photos of the Canyon. There are many like them, but these ones are mine:
There are many times when I'm climbing that I wish I had a "real" camera. This was definitely one of those times:
Meanwhile, I'm still without a scanner, so I've finally taken the plunge on two things that have been a long time coming:
Ilford HP5+ 4x5 sheet film, shot with a Chamonix with a 210mm lens, and then developed using a Rodinal 1:100 semi-stand for 1hr. All worked out pretty well, I think! Very nice to go from unexposed film to finished negative in just over an hour. Now I just need to get a proper loupe for focusing...
@electricmeat really dig those shots, great comp and values going on.
@djmitchella welcome! Always good to have new faces around here. Those first three photos are pretty incredible, love the mood in the first one, would really like to plop down in that photo and have a mysterious picnic.
My Portfolio Site
Thanks to all for kind words re: Antelope Canyon. For a little background, different companies run packs of tourists through the place continuously during the day. The entire Canyon is only a couple of city blocks long, so you don't spend much more than forty-five minutes (tops) in the Canyon. We booked our visit to the Canyon too late to get on one of the "photographic" tours. The key difference between a regular and photo tours is that photo tours allow the use of tripods. If the regular tours did, the Canyon would get too clogged with photographers taking a few minutes per shot. My advance research suggested that the ideal approach was a 3-5 second exposure at ISO 400-ish with the aperture around F11. Knowing that I couldn't use a tripod, I decided to take bracketed photos instead (+/- 1 stop).
We visited the Canyon at 2:00pm and the light was already pretty dim in the center. At the edges of the Canyon, I was getting shots at approximately 600/1200/2400 ISO. In the center, the ISO jumped up to an average of 20,000 across all three shots. As a result, many of the photos I took in the center of the Canyon aren't useable due to amount of Luminance and Color correction I need to do to make them presentable. They're way too plastic. Still, I'll end up with 6-8 good shots at reasonable ISO's (1600 and below).
Shooting the Grand Canyon is considerably different since it's huge and you're in a relatively unconfined space. Antelope Canyon is a slot canyon which makes the lighting a lot trickier. I've taken a handful of photos in slot canyons here in Utah and they're always a challenge. Here's a picture I shot a couple years ago in Spooky Gulch which, for a large proportion, is just large enough for a person to fit through. Pretty sure I had two tripod legs in the sand and the other perched against the wall.
@Beatrix that's a fine picture! Next step is to change your focus to have the foreground blossoms sharp and the background as blurry as you can get it. Gotta love the bokeh!
Here is some of my filth:
@Gafoto I really like your canyon shot. Its spooky.
Edit: and here is some instant film:
As a picture it is a failure, I would agree. But I find the technique promising, and with a different subject matter, it could be interesting. Before I messed with the contrast in post, the limited tonal range reminded me of polaroid portraits of Minoru Torahida by Yasumoto Ebisu. And I am in general interested in distressed look etc.
I have been working with new equipment and techniques lately, so I will be posting stuff that isn't necessarily good, but that I find exciting, or is work in progress.
Criticism is always welcome.
Edit:
And here is a picture. Negative met the limits of the resolving power of my scanner.
And here's a new one from me:
Watchers of North Broulee by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Zen by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Point of Capture by jeremy-o, on Flickr
The Painted Bird by jeremy-o, on Flickr
some more from that roll here, and i'll probably do some black and whites tomorrow
I'm also not sure what to do with my expired chemicals. Thinking I'll call the council and ask.
Also, finally picked up a scanner this morning. Once I get out of this nightmare shift at work I'll get right to my 25+ rolls...
@bsjezz I really like the colors of the first one, and adore the second photo (zen), although I would like a bit more contrast. It would make a nice print.
@Baron Dirigible I always thought that you could flush it down the drain, unless you use huge amounts of the stuff.
What kind of a scanner did you get? 25 rolls will take a looooooong time nonetheless.
I took out my pocket rocket (olympus stylus epic) on a walk in the city the other day, and tried semi stand development in rodinal. I must say that I really like the combo. Rodinal really helps with the camera's less than amazing lens when it comes to sharpness.
I got the internet-approved Epson V700, along with an after-market holder from betterscanning.com. It's fucking gigantic and I think my other half is going to kill me once she sees what I've done to the lounge-room table!
I'm not really fond of taking photos in the city. For some reason I just feel so self conscious walking around with my camera, or even worse hauling my tripod around. I'm trying to get over it since there are some very nice views that are just a few minutes walk from where I live.
I used a polarizing filter for these. I gotta say, one of my favorite things to photograph is the sky with a good filter on the lens so I can burn my eyes off shooting right into the sun :P
This is from forever ago. Maybe 3-4 years? I have a habit of taking a bunch of photos, saving them on my computer, then never looking at them until years later to finally edit and post. This actually was a throwaway at first, but then later I decided to just crop to the cloud portion. Highlights are blown to hell but... oh well. Lesson learned.
and from an air show-
I've been taking quite a few photos for myself in between shoots for work, but just transferred laptops yesterday and apparently the photos didn't transfer over correctly. Here's a couple from yesterday though:
My Portfolio Site
I really like that second photo you posted, Hitting the Peak. I want to do more landscape work but composition still sort of escapes me.
so far, just some ektar from toward the start of the trip, all around harajuku. not planning to keep to a strict order, but I'll probably be skipping forward and then back as I lose interest in scanning temples / mountains / snow monkeys.
Harajuku Bench by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Prada by rstop bstop, on Flickr
Sake Barrels, Meiji Jingu by rstop bstop, on Flickr
To The Sea by jeremy-o, on Flickr
Sandbar by jeremy-o, on Flickr
@muninn "zen" is probably my favourite too from the recent ones i've developed, and i tried playing with it a little more but the grain's really heavy and started to look ugly with too much contrast adjustment. i'm sure there's more i could do with it than that but i'm lazy.
I think I like yours better. Gory details?
d800, 85mm 1.8 @1.8 iso2000 1/200
Also, there seems to be a definite yellow cast to your scans.
And yeah, I saw the exif but didn't realise it was a digital shot -- figured it was just you using your D800 as a scanner again, rather than the awesome camera it is.
As for color correction, I can't help you. I kinda gave up on color correcting film negatives long time ago. Because its hard.