Gotta admit, the Pentax Q is a fickle friend. When things click, they really click, but noise can quickly start to be an issue at ISO800 and above it seems. Dynamic range is impressive and you can pull impressive amounts of detail, but splotchy patterns and unfixable noise begins to appear. Mind you, this is done with NO ASSISTANCE from the camera, so everything is turned off. I'll keep shooting for a few more days and start turning on the camera's processes and see what comes up, but I love how tiny it is and how it just beckons to be played with.
Creamy bokeh. This was at f1.9 at ISO 125. Pretty impressive.
Maybe it is the processing/jpg compression, but that image looks like it has a slightly amount of noise in the blurred parts of the image.
On another note, I'm guessing f/1.9 on those pentax lenses is the same as f/1.9 on a 35mm/DSLR lens and doesn't have some sort of weird ratio due to its size. Correct?
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Gotta admit, the Pentax Q is a fickle friend. When things click, they really click, but noise can quickly start to be an issue at ISO800 and above it seems. Dynamic range is impressive and you can pull impressive amounts of detail, but splotchy patterns and unfixable noise begins to appear. Mind you, this is done with NO ASSISTANCE from the camera, so everything is turned off. I'll keep shooting for a few more days and start turning on the camera's processes and see what comes up, but I love how tiny it is and how it just beckons to be played with.
Image goes snip
Creamy bokeh. This was at f1.9 at ISO 125. Pretty impressive.
I dunno, it looks a bit nervous. The far background is ok enough, but everyone close to the focus point that is OoF is really distracting. Also blown highlights everywhere, but that's not the point of this.
I also dislike when you can see patterns this easy in the OoF highlights.
Holy hell, is this an upgrade from my D50! The screen is gorgeous, the viewfinder/additional focus points are awesome, and the image quality is great. The movie mode is awesome, although that's a whole new game for me to learn.
Gotta admit, the Pentax Q is a fickle friend. When things click, they really click, but noise can quickly start to be an issue at ISO800 and above it seems. Dynamic range is impressive and you can pull impressive amounts of detail, but splotchy patterns and unfixable noise begins to appear. Mind you, this is done with NO ASSISTANCE from the camera, so everything is turned off. I'll keep shooting for a few more days and start turning on the camera's processes and see what comes up, but I love how tiny it is and how it just beckons to be played with.
Image goes snip
Creamy bokeh. This was at f1.9 at ISO 125. Pretty impressive.
I dunno, it looks a bit nervous. The far background is ok enough, but everyone close to the focus point that is OoF is really distracting. Also blown highlights everywhere, but that's not the point of this.
I also dislike when you can see patterns this easy in the OoF highlights.
Well, to be fair, I am not being gentle. I'm pushing Camera Raw sliders pretty far...
Sheesh, I've been shooting more with this thing but hardly processing. Also I've found that f1.9 is stupid shallow. I wonder if they will make a macro lens sometime for the Q system. I know there are adapters available.
I do have to bump up noise reduction to clear out the shadows in the higher ISOs, but this little guy is filling me with that sense of wonder when you get a new camera and you're not quite sure how itll work out.
Those are magic Cow. Epic location, light and a perfect model for it.
I really wish those trees/shrubs weren't in the background on the first one though.
I could definitely remove them. I did that for a lot of others in that set. I was trying different methods of removing the crap on the horizon because this was actually shot in a dry pond bed surrounded by trees, houses, and shops. On that specific photo I did a lens blur with a depth map to make the trees/background more blurred in the hopes that it would be less distracting that way.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
What do you think about using speedlights in a studio environment. Obviously the AB800s or any larger flashes will provide much more light but would a pair of flashes and maybe some soft box attachments or some shoot through umbrellas do well for a home studio environment? If need be, could a pair of speedlights provide a nice all white backdrop or would they just not have enough power and spread to do so?
Specifically I am thinking the Pentax 540 FGZ flash which is a beefy fucker and did singe my pants when I accidentally triggered it and it was on my lap, firing at full power... Thoughts?
That depends on what you are shooting. If you are doing product photography a flash should certainly be enough to blast a 3-4' background completely white but if you are shooting a person against a 9 foot seamless you will probably need 2 flashes to get the whole background evenly lit.
With a low enough aperture and a high enough power on a single flash you could probably light a whole 9' seamless but if you are lighting from one side you will probably get one side so bright it starts bleeding into the subject. So if you could figure out a way to have the light aimed from directly above or below the subject at a background. That will put the light fall off around the edges and that will be easier to deal with.
So long story short is that its easier with two lights but it is still doable with a single light and planning around it.
Edit: even with an ab800 I wouldn't want to try and use a single light from the side to light a background if I was going for even light.
CommunistCow on
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Pretty good stuff. I think the bottom shot could use more light on her face. The tilted look works reasonably well with this shoot but just don't over do it. (I had a phase of shooting everything tilted and it took me a while to get out of it.)
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Photos from my vacation to the outer banks in North Carolina
On the first shot, I really like the contrasting vegetation between the two sides, but I'd think about maybe cloning out the two bigger pieces of brush (one at the edge of the frame and the other at the vanishing point) on the left side to emphasize it.
I'm trying to mess around with a bunch of portrait stuff. Learning as I go. Criticism on the post would be swell.
Self portrait. Pretend the top of the window isn't intersecting my head. s1 by mechanicalmatt, on Flickr
Messing around with some different b/w conversion techniques. And reminding myself not to shoot portraits wide open from this angle. p2 by mechanicalmatt, on Flickr
In the first one the background is a 1 stop or so brighter than your face. This can work out if the background is completely lacking distraction such as solid white. Also the way the light is coming from the sides and maybe slightly behind you is putting a little bit of an odd shadow on your left eye. If you are going to do bright side lighting you still want to have at least some modest fill in the front.
I'm kinda meh about the second shot and I think it could also use some more brightness in the face.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Thanks! I'm finding that I don't really like shooting people. They're generally ugly. Flowers, animals, landscapes, and the like, though, I find more aesthetically pleasing. Maybe not as immediately artistic as some photography, but I like the challenge of making otherwise "boring" subjects interesting in some way.
Lizard: I would suggest that you either stop using HDR or spend a lot of time learning how to do it /perfectly/ so you don't have the weird haloing and odd saturation of colors.
IMO the best kind of HDR is the kind that doesn't even look HDRed. Check out this guy's work for some examples: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.shtml
If you want to continue shooting these industrial type locations you might want to try doing some B&W and see if that helps cut down on the cluttered look.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
I'm not sure if he's doing HDR specifically, but yeah, the colors are oversaturated and the pictures are underexposed. I can replicate this "not exactly HDR" look in Lightroom by messing with the highlights too far -- increase the Fill and up the Blacks and you get this weirdly oversaturated dark look like that.
Its not just that there is some pretty bad haloing in the first picture near the edge of the building. Similarly in the night picture with the crane you can see some bad haloing around the middle reflection in the water and around the light from the top of the building on the left. Those are usual artifacts of Photomatix and other HDR programs. It certainly could be done with some bad masking work but I doubt that's what caused it.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Yeah, I'm guessing it just happened with editing. Although if you use photomatix right, you can get really good HDR without any haloing - it's what I used/use for real estate photography and never get any haloing.
Yeah, I'm guessing it just happened with editing. Although if you use photomatix right, you can get really good HDR without any haloing - it's what I used/use for real estate photography and never get any haloing.
I've messed around with photomatix and I've found it really really easy to go overboard with the tone mapping. It seems like at least with that program you have to make super subtle adjustments to prevent things from looking too fake. I've found the Enfuse HDR Lightroom plugin to be much easier to work with.
@Prospicience if you have any recommendations on how to use photomatix well I would love to hear those.
No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
Went to a four hour lighting and portraiture workshop yesterday, portraits aren't really my thing but it was time well spent, learned a lot about the subject and had a good time.
I also got to finger a Leica S2, so that was fun, the detail was amazing.
The first few look tasty! the last two look like they're made with a different setup, which is a shame. The last one could use a bit more light and contrast and the second to last one has that bit of whipped cream in the bottom right corner that looks a bit overblown on my screen and it could also use a bit more light, especially on the cupcakes themselves.
Also, is your signature a picture of the ill-fated Japanese hip-hop producer Nujabi? He's cool, I love his music.
Posts
Creamy bokeh. This was at f1.9 at ISO 125. Pretty impressive.
On another note, I'm guessing f/1.9 on those pentax lenses is the same as f/1.9 on a 35mm/DSLR lens and doesn't have some sort of weird ratio due to its size. Correct?
I dunno, it looks a bit nervous. The far background is ok enough, but everyone close to the focus point that is OoF is really distracting. Also blown highlights everywhere, but that's not the point of this.
I also dislike when you can see patterns this easy in the OoF highlights.
Holy hell, is this an upgrade from my D50! The screen is gorgeous, the viewfinder/additional focus points are awesome, and the image quality is great. The movie mode is awesome, although that's a whole new game for me to learn.
I can't wait to put this thing through its paces!
Well, to be fair, I am not being gentle. I'm pushing Camera Raw sliders pretty far...
I do have to bump up noise reduction to clear out the shadows in the higher ISOs, but this little guy is filling me with that sense of wonder when you get a new camera and you're not quite sure how itll work out.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
liv desert10 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
liv desert 4 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
liv desert5 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
liv desert2 by jeff25rs, on Flickr
I really wish those trees/shrubs weren't in the background on the first one though.
PSN: Beltaine-77 | Steam: beltane77 | Battle.net BadHaggis#1433
I could definitely remove them. I did that for a lot of others in that set. I was trying different methods of removing the crap on the horizon because this was actually shot in a dry pond bed surrounded by trees, houses, and shops. On that specific photo I did a lens blur with a depth map to make the trees/background more blurred in the hopes that it would be less distracting that way.
What do you think about using speedlights in a studio environment. Obviously the AB800s or any larger flashes will provide much more light but would a pair of flashes and maybe some soft box attachments or some shoot through umbrellas do well for a home studio environment? If need be, could a pair of speedlights provide a nice all white backdrop or would they just not have enough power and spread to do so?
Specifically I am thinking the Pentax 540 FGZ flash which is a beefy fucker and did singe my pants when I accidentally triggered it and it was on my lap, firing at full power... Thoughts?
With a low enough aperture and a high enough power on a single flash you could probably light a whole 9' seamless but if you are lighting from one side you will probably get one side so bright it starts bleeding into the subject. So if you could figure out a way to have the light aimed from directly above or below the subject at a background. That will put the light fall off around the edges and that will be easier to deal with.
So long story short is that its easier with two lights but it is still doable with a single light and planning around it.
Edit: even with an ab800 I wouldn't want to try and use a single light from the side to light a background if I was going for even light.
It's fun, but I really need to get better with MF.
bridge by jeff25rs, on Flickr
sand wood by jeff25rs, on Flickr
flower by jeff25rs, on Flickr
On the first shot, I really like the contrasting vegetation between the two sides, but I'd think about maybe cloning out the two bigger pieces of brush (one at the edge of the frame and the other at the vanishing point) on the left side to emphasize it.
I'm trying to mess around with a bunch of portrait stuff. Learning as I go. Criticism on the post would be swell.
Self portrait. Pretend the top of the window isn't intersecting my head.
s1 by mechanicalmatt, on Flickr
Messing around with some different b/w conversion techniques. And reminding myself not to shoot portraits wide open from this angle.
p2 by mechanicalmatt, on Flickr
I'm kinda meh about the second shot and I think it could also use some more brightness in the face.
High speed camera on a high speed robotic arm creates cool visual effects:
I know. I just want to go there and work for them.
They are cute though.
Like red pandas!
IMO the best kind of HDR is the kind that doesn't even look HDRed. Check out this guy's work for some examples: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/hdr-plea.shtml
If you want to continue shooting these industrial type locations you might want to try doing some B&W and see if that helps cut down on the cluttered look.
Live - MrObersmith
PSN - Obersmith
My Portfolio Site
I've messed around with photomatix and I've found it really really easy to go overboard with the tone mapping. It seems like at least with that program you have to make super subtle adjustments to prevent things from looking too fake. I've found the Enfuse HDR Lightroom plugin to be much easier to work with.
@Prospicience if you have any recommendations on how to use photomatix well I would love to hear those.
I also got to finger a Leica S2, so that was fun, the detail was amazing.
1 7X5 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
2 7X5 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
4 7X5 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
_1010322 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
_1010117 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
_1010265 by Deng Feng Loke, on Flickr
Generally feel that I still need to learn to compose and light a scene better.
Also, is your signature a picture of the ill-fated Japanese hip-hop producer Nujabi? He's cool, I love his music.