Any photographers in the house?

Pages

Pro or amateur, it matters not. I don't think we have a thread to discuss various elements of photography like we do with Firearms or crafts. Please feel free to link your work and join up the GWJ Flickr group.

What equipment do you use?
Any tips you can offer?
Resources for learning.
Your methodology not just for taking the shot, but also post processing, organizing, backup, distribution, etc.

I use a Samsung L73 that I was given as a gift and when I can I borrow my mom's Cannon EOS 20D when I can.

I use Picasa for cataloging, tagging, managing, and post processing, which really just means clicking on the "I have no idea what I am doing button" called I'm feeling lucky. Then with a Picasa plugin, I upload them to Flickr.

Here is my Flickr page.

Don't forget to post your picture to Flickr's Your Best Shot 2009.

I'm more or less working as a freelance photographer besides my studies, which doesn't amount to much at the moment. This year it basically ended up being a few weddings during the summer.
I also regularly take part in local exhibitions, only been group shows so far though.

My equipment for professional work:

Canon EOS 5D
24-70mm/2.8L
17-40mm/4L
50mm/1.4
85mm/1.8
70-200 IS/4L

and for personal stuff I use an analog rangefinder at the moment, and when I shoot B&W film I usually develop it myself
Voigtländer Bessa R3A
Nokton 35mm/1.2 (oh how I love that lens)
Nokton 50mm/1.5

also got a MF camera (Rollei SL66) but it doesn't get much use lately, same with my Holga or my Lomo.

Not sure if I can share any good tips concerning my digital workflow, I've been using Adobe Lightroom for post processing lately (hardly ever need to open Photoshop), but also still manually create the folder structures how I want them.
I wish I could afford a drobo for backups, for now I create manual backups on a mirrored external drive

I got an online portfolio at http://www.dhermes.com and, of course, I'm also on flickr

I use a Canon EOS 450D, supplemented by my wife's Ixus 950IS at times. Flickr for posting pictures and Picasa for cataloguing them. My Flickr photostream.

I used to take a ton of pictures but then figured out that I can take a lot nicer pictures if I pretend I'm still shooting on film - consider each subject, compose, take a second to think about your camera settings, wait for the right moment, then shoot.

I like to print out pictures to photo paper. I use a Canon PIXMA somethingorother for bigger sizes and a portable Canon 4x6 photo printer for printing on the go (at parties, usually).

I'm still shooting with the kit zoom lens, but would love to change to a short-range prime. The lenses are so expensive, though, that I'm still exploring whether I'm shooting enough to justify it. (At the moment, no.)

I use a Casio EX-V8 point-and-shoot.

On the plus side, it is easy to throw in my pocket and therefore is almost always on me. This makes it easy to take more spontaneous photos (especially like the ones I take at the dog park, which is a good chunk of my photostream).

The downside is that it's not a high-end camera. Not even close, really. The quality is okay for well lit photographs, but in lower-light situations, it's woefully inadequate.

I'm starting to set aside some money for an eventual camera purchase, but since we purchased our house earlier this year that's been getting dibs on almost all spare income.

I use photoshop for any post-processing - most of the time, this involves minor contrast adjustments and tweaking color saturation, but I do sometimes get a little more hands-on when there's a photo I think has potential.

My organization is (for now) keeping the originals and processed files in rententively-organized folders on a backup drive.

[Edit: to add smattering of my shots from the dog park]
IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2342/2233450952_a2808b79f0_s.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2132/2537429225_b2343ecf9d_s.jpg) IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3660121754_ce46b309b1_s.jpg)

Sony A350 here, it's a great digital SLR. But my absolute favorite camera is still an old Yashica with Carl Zeiss Planar 1.2/50mm. That lens is totally wonderful, sooner or later I'll have to buy it for the Sony as well (those Zeisses are damned expensive).

I used to develop my films, but don't have time and space for that, so I'm relying mostly on Ilford XP2 Super films, which are B&W but can be developed in a normal color lab. They don't have grain though.

We have photography in the family, my grandmother was the first woman in my country to actually study photography. She started as an apprentice putting photo emulsion on glass panes that then became the negatives. We still have some of them at home, the technology sure got a long way since then.

I've been quite into photography for a little while now. Still trying to figure out where I'm going with it I think. I have many many conflicting photographinc urges, though I'm trying to veer away from making pretty pictures for the sake of making a pretty picture - I don't find that particularly fulfilling, though it is nice to have something to hang in the living room every now and then:)

As far as gear goes, I basically have too much:
Weapon of choice is an Olympus OM2n with 50 or 28mm Zuiko lenses
Rangefinder - Canonet GIII QL17
Pocket - Olympus XA2
Digital - Panasonic FZ50
Instant - Fuji Instax mini 10

Are basically the ones I use. I develop my own black and white. I think I'm going to start using digital alone for colour stuff though, as I find it much easier to deal with colour from a digital RAW file and my scanner can do an okay job with b&w but really starts to struggle with colours (especially transparencies).

Flickr with some of my stuff on it... Do feel free to friend me if you want.

Great idea for a thread by the way. Would be good to get some discussion going on actual photogrpahy as well as gear chat.

I have a Nikon D40 with the two kit lenses - an 18-55mm and 55-200mm. I also use a circular polariser, it can make a world of difference to pictures. It also acts as a UV filter, which is good, and prevents the lens itself from being scratched. I'm quite good at taking pretty pictures, especially of the landscapes here in Ireland. Of course, that is probably more of a tribute to the landscape than to my skills - it's almost impossible to take a bad picture here.

Software wise I use Photoshop for editing. I store my pictures manually, though I should probably start using Picasa or similar.

I recently got back into photography after a 10 year hiatus. I originally learned on a 35mm Vivitar v2000, which is a Pentax K1000 clone. I'm now shooting with a Pentax K100D with the 15-55mm kit lens. Come Spring I'm hoping to add a 50mm f/1.7 or 1.4 and also a 50-200mm.

I've dabbled with Adobe Lightroom, but decided to stick with Picasa's all-in-one solution. I use it to download, store and catalog my photos and upload to my Picasa Web Albums.

I also have a basic Flickr account, but the content is mostly duplicated and I have limited upload bandwidth per month.

Can someone give me some reasons as to why I should shell out $25 for a pro Flickr and make that my primary web photo site instead of the free Picasa, especially I already use its desktop application?

Looking forward to seeing you guys' work.

I love photography but am not very good at it despite 30 years of trying. I like the snapshots I take of my family, but I've come to define good photos as pictures that other people find interesting even if they don't know anyone in the picture (or aren't in the pictures themselves). I don't have any of those. But I still like taking pictures with some 35mm equipment and small portable digital cameras. The physical act of taking a picture gives me a lot more pleasure than the results.

If anyone can give me quick tips on how to take better pictures with my Olympus E-500 DSLR I will love them for it. My pictures still mostly come out looking "point-and-shoot" rather than "semi-professional." My hunch is lighting because the outdoor shots with a lot of sunlight are GREAT, but indoors a low-end Coolpix might as well have taken them. I've read the manual enough to know where the settings are and have adjusted the more basic ones, but haven't gotten deep at all.

I try at photography but I would say that most of my really good shots are more by accident than by planning.

Primary camera - Sony DSC F828
Secondary camera - Sony W80

My flickr stream

My flickr Best Shots entry.

Novocain wrote:

Can someone give me some reasons as to why I should shell out $25 for a pro Flickr and make that my primary web photo site instead of the free Picasa, especially I already use its desktop application?

My reason? Backup. If you have a flickr pro account you can always download your original photo again. That makes it a perfect off-site backup system. Most of the other photo sites resize or otherwise change things and you can't get your original back again.

Yeah, I have backups at home but if a meteor takes out my subdivision or something it's nice to know my photos are safe somewhere.

EpicMK wrote:

If anyone can give me quick tips on how to take better pictures with my Olympus E-500 DSLR I will love them for it. My pictures still mostly come out looking "point-and-shoot" rather than "semi-professional." My hunch is lighting because the outdoor shots with a lot of sunlight are GREAT, but indoors a low-end Coolpix might as well have taken them. I've read the manual enough to know where the settings are and have adjusted the more basic ones, but haven't gotten deep at all.

I'm by no mean an expert, but I would start (if you haven't already) by learning about aperture (f-stops) and shutter speed, and their relationship to each other and to resultant pictures. Exposure/ISO speed is important as well. Low light situations are always tough and you're often limited by your hardware. But since you said you can manage great bright outdoor shots that's already half the battle.

Beyond that, Pirate Bob's early link to basic composition was really good. And I'd just look at a whole lot of photographs, Flickr makes this easy, click on the photos you like, click on the properties and imitate their settings and composition.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3660121754_ce46b309b1.jpg)

Did he eat a bottle of ketchup just before the photo?

Seriously though, cool shot!

From my experience, digital cameras HATE indoor or low lighting. I had a Minolta 9000 SLR through high school and college, and loved taking pictures with it. I've dealt with several digital cameras since. Regardless of the settings, I can't seem to get a really good indoor pic out of them without the flash turned on unless I put them on a tripod. Digitally I don't have anything approaching a professional camera like the film camera I used to have, but every digital I've had forces me to choose between two things in low light situations: Artifacts or blurring. I don't mind taking dark photos as long as they're clear enough to enhance. The CCDs currently in most digital cameras seem to be more limited in their ability to provide that, though the technology is constantly being improved.

I've always been into photography, and during my short stint in college I took a photo class. From then I got really into it for a while. I don't currently have a D-SLR or anything real fancy, but my Canon S80 takes some really great pics when you mess with the settings correctly. I just dug out Photoshop Elements and installed it on my PC.
I'm in the market for a good photo printer. I have an 8X10 obsession. At my old house I had my entire hallway lined with 8x10 shots I'd made. Now I just have a few hanging around the house. Any one have suggestions for a good photo printer that wont break the bank (unit and ink)? I don't care how quickly it prints as much as I care about the quality of the job.

A close friend of mine is a professional photographer. He has some good advice on his blog: http://matthewjonasphoto.wordpress.com/

Novocain wrote:

Can someone give me some reasons as to why I should shell out $25 for a pro Flickr and make that my primary web photo site instead of the free Picasa, especially I already use its desktop application?

I just got a Pro Flickr account for the first time because they give you unlimited storage and bandwidth, while premium picasa gives you finite storage and unlimited bandwidth. While Picasa web album is far better in my opinion, Flickr scales better in cost.

MeatMan wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:

IMAGE(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3329/3660121754_ce46b309b1_m.jpg)

Did he eat a bottle of ketchup just before the photo?

Seriously though, cool shot!

Thanks! Taking photos at the dog park has been a constant source of enjoyment for me, and it's fun to be able to share 'em.

No ketchup was harmed in the making of that photo (no small puppies or anything else, either). Cookie's mouth is just naturally freaky-looking

LouZiffer wrote:

From my experience, digital cameras HATE indoor or low lighting. I had a Minolta 9000 SLR through high school and college, and loved taking pictures with it. I've dealt with several digital cameras since. Regardless of the settings, I can't seem to get a really good indoor pic out of them without the flash turned on unless I put them on a tripod.

Point-and-shoot digitals are notoriously bad at low-light stuff. Generally speaking - larger sensor size = better low light, hence why DSLR's do a lot better. Modern sensors have improved a lot as well. My D90 does low light stuff a world better than my D70 before it (even without noise reduction)

Image stabilization is great and all, but it's really only effective at reducing blur from camera shake. It may allow you to shoot in lower light with a slower shutter speed, but then you run up against the subject moving and blurring due to the longer exposure.

Low light if subjects are moving: Wide open aperture, high ISO, and fast shutter. Having a really fast lens is a must - f2.8 or below. the 50mm primes are great for this. You'll have to content with a very shallow depth of field though.

Some other techniques are to play with slow sync (allows camera to shoot with slow shutter and flash) or rear curtain flash (flash at the end of the shot, not beginning). More info

The old rule, pre-image stabilization, was that 1/focal length was as slow a shutter speed as you wanted (ie, for a 50mm lens, 1/50s was the 'minimum' safe shutter speed). Stable posture and some breathing techniques could halve that and IS lenses can halve that again. I've generally found that for party pictures, a stable 1/30s will generally get clear enough faces with the occasional blurred arm.

Novocain wrote:

And I'd just look at a whole lot of photographs, Flickr makes this easy, click on the photos you like, click on the properties and imitate their settings and composition.

Also useful if you're considering a camera purchase. You can see a page of photos taken by any camera Flickr knows about, even little point-and-shoots like my Casio EX-V8.

That's a feature I'll definitely be using when I have some money set aside for a "real" camera purchase.

I found some nifty resources for those of us who are still learning, like me.

A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop
Tutorials on Depth of Field
Macro Photography

I got both from Gizmodo.

Pirate Bob wrote:

Point-and-shoot digitals are notoriously bad at low-light stuff. Generally speaking - larger sensor size = better low light, hence why DSLR's do a lot better. Modern sensors have improved a lot as well. My D90 does low light stuff a world better than my D70 before it (even without noise reduction)

The Canon 5D Mk II has an excellent low light sensor. Effective to an equivalent ISO of 64,000 (or something equally insane). Among the improvements they made is a really good noise filter.

At $2,659.99, it better damn well be awesome.

Someday in the future I will get a 50 mm f1.4 lens. The f1.2 is far too much at nearly $1,500.

Edwin wrote:

Someday in the future I will get a 50 mm f1.4 lens.

My favorite lens (although I'm a Nikon whore myself). Almost never comes off my camera.

This is my object of lust.

I still haven't made up my mind between Cannon and Nikon. Nikon seems to be easier to get older lenses because they've used the same mount for 40 years, and NASA uses the exclusively to they must be doing right. But most of the cool stuff I see being done is with Canon cameras.

Edwin wrote:

I still haven't made up my mind between Cannon and Nikon. Nikon seems to be easier to get older lenses because they've used the same mount for 40 years, and NASA uses the exclusively to they must be doing right. But most of the cool stuff I see being done is with Canon cameras.

Honestly the best way to settle this is to figure out your price range and which camera from each company fits into that. Then, go down the store and physically pick them up and play around with them. Once the camera is in hand, it'll all make sense. Years ago I was fairly set on getting the Cannon Rebel solely based on the technical specs and hype, but the moment I picked up the D70 and started fiddling with the controls, it just seemed more intuitive to me and felt more comfortable in my hand.

Both brands are perfectly capable of producing astonishing work - the camera is just a tool to the artist behind it.

Edwin wrote:

At $2,659.99, it better damn well be awesome.

Someday in the future I will get a 50 mm f1.4 lens. The f1.2 is far too much at nearly $1,500.

You might give the nifty fifty a look. 50mm f1.8 for <$100. Optics get stellar reviews, build quality not so much. It has been a great intro to fast glass for me.

I think wars have been fought over that choice.

If you go Nikon, be warned that pretty much all old lenses on all the lower end bodies will be manual focus only. They've removed the internal focus motor and moved them into the lenses. You will also have cropping issues using film lenses on a dSLR due to the smaller sensor (unless you go big and get an FX sensor). If you're planning on using old lenses, make sure you know what you're getting into.

Canon is doing marvelous things with high ISO these days, but Nikon is usually not far behind.

Edwin wrote:

I still haven't made up my mind between Cannon and Nikon. Nikon seems to be easier to get older lenses because they've used the same mount for 40 years, and NASA uses the exclusively to they must be doing right. But most of the cool stuff I see being done is with Canon cameras.

It doesn't really matter. They're both good, and you're buying into a lens/accessories system more than the body anyway, and both Canon and Nikon have a good range of lenses with a ready secondary market. Digital bodies are not as effectively disposable as they once were, but chances are you'll be upgrading it to an improved model in a few years. You'll end up spending more on lenses than the body, probably.

I'd say pick whichever system you think is cooler on an emotional level. You're dropping a lot of cash on something, so you may as well be in love with it.

pol wrote:
Edwin wrote:

At $2,659.99, it better damn well be awesome.

Someday in the future I will get a 50 mm f1.4 lens. The f1.2 is far too much at nearly $1,500.

You might give the nifty fifty a look. 50mm f1.8 for <$100. Optics get stellar reviews, build quality not so much. It has been a great intro to fast glass for me.

The 1.4 has a bigger aperture to deal with lower light situation. Yes you lose some depth of field, but I thought 1.8 doesn't really work well for low light?

I read a rather convincing article a while back (and wish I could find it now) that made the case that there was no point in paying for more than 6 megapixels because the limitations of the optics they are generally mated to make the potential resolution unattainable.

Pages