Any photographers in the house?

Nice Groan! I wish I had a macro lens.

groan wrote:

I love the result. It's my new background :)

Neat! I'm aware of focus stacking, but have never tried it. Now I want to.

Ranger Rick wrote:
groan wrote:

I love the result. It's my new background :)

Neat! I'm aware of focus stacking, but have never tried it. Now I want to. :)

I know, right?
I've been a photographer, both hobby and pro for over 25 years and I've NEVER heard of stacking!
Well, i'd heard of the concept of blending images, but not this way.
Now it's all I want to do. Just too cool.
I'll post the 5 images I used so you can see what it did. it's very neat.

I wonder if CS6 does a better job...Downloading and installing the beta tonight.
http://gizmodo.com/5895424/photoshop...
link at the bottom of the article by JESUS

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Nice Groan! I wish I had a macro lens.

If you shoot Nikon and not full-frame this lens is an amazing deal.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/60m...

at my local shop where I bought it I paid $459.
For the equivalent lens in today's measurements it would be a 90MM 2.8 Micro. The closest is a 105 and that would cost you $900.

The difference is my lens was made during a time before DSLRs. It's held up to todays standards due to the workmanship and quality optics (it's nikon, 'nuff said) so they never discontinued it. With the 1.6x conversion from 35mm to DSLR sized sensor it works out to about 90MM.

Anyways, this lens makes an amazing portrait lens too.
One of my faves is this little girls eyes. Just mesmerizing.

IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-J4MIJtZWuD4/T0OtMev1zBI/AAAAAAAAFDI/tFUk9gc1OXs/w802-h361-k/anyaeyes.jpg)

I cant wait to get my umbrellas. Going to love taking pics of her and those EYES!

I took these two at the beach yesterday. I'm not sure how I feel about them. On some level, I like them quite a bit, but I can't help but feel like there's something missing or not-quite-there with them.

IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-r4FGeUn81NQ/T26RzQF9-QI/AAAAAAAALtM/VVBUg7e2Xr0/s640/IMG_6820.jpg)

IMAGE(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-lsA5g1KfhmE/T26R0r3KStI/AAAAAAAALtU/R9ra7gZXQK4/s640/IMG_6803.jpg)

I think they're both awesome. You know what i think is more awesome? Them both together!

I mean, just look at the way they're displayed on this page. They were meant to be together! I hope you don't mind me visualising this and messing a bit with your photos. I'll take them down if you prefer.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7014875297_48a5af1dd8_z.jpg)
Sheazy 1

I realise that the blurring of the two at the seam is pretty crap but i only spent about a minute on it. With further messing around and with larger pictures I'm sure you could make it almost seamless... (not an original picture, to be sure, but an artistic work nonetheless!)

I also imagined the rocks as on a canvas - one of those "split" pictures you sometimes see.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7228/6868765050_96d3931efc_z.jpg)
Sheazy 2

Nice, Sheazy! Is that Haystack Rock? It's been awhile since I've been there.

Duoae wrote:

I think they're both awesome. You know what i think is more awesome? Them both together!

I mean, just look at the way they're displayed on this page. They were meant to be together! I hope you don't mind me visualising this and messing a bit with your photos. I'll take them down if you prefer.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7014875297_48a5af1dd8_z.jpg)
Sheazy 1

I realise that the blurring of the two at the seam is pretty crap but i only spent about a minute on it. With further messing around and with larger pictures I'm sure you could make it almost seamless... (not an original picture, to be sure, but an artistic work nonetheless!)

I also imagined the rocks as on a canvas - one of those "split" pictures you sometimes see.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7228/6868765050_96d3931efc_z.jpg)
Sheazy 2

Both really good, Duoae. I made the same mistake, and now that I see it done properly, its perfect.

The second one really lets the individual rock formations stand alone (pun intended) and opens them up to the viewer's analysis.

Duoae wrote:

I think they're both awesome. You know what i think is more awesome? Them both together!

I mean, just look at the way they're displayed on this page. They were meant to be together! I hope you don't mind me visualising this and messing a bit with your photos. I'll take them down if you prefer.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7271/7014875297_48a5af1dd8_z.jpg)
Sheazy 1

I realise that the blurring of the two at the seam is pretty crap but i only spent about a minute on it. With further messing around and with larger pictures I'm sure you could make it almost seamless... (not an original picture, to be sure, but an artistic work nonetheless!)

I also imagined the rocks as on a canvas - one of those "split" pictures you sometimes see.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7228/6868765050_96d3931efc_z.jpg)
Sheazy 2

That's awesome! And it seems so obvious, now that you point it out. Thanks man, I may have to use your idea and turn these into a print for my office

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Nice, Sheazy! Is that Haystack Rock? It's been awhile since I've been there.

Yeah, my wife and I took her parents to Cannon Beach yesterday. Despite blue skies and awesome weather in Portland, it was a cool, grey day there. You know, normal for the coast. Still had a great time though!

Sunny days have been really far between in Portland this year. Yesterday provided a rare weekend opportunity.

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7095/6909158678_b261e83699.jpg)
DSC_2354 by swiggers_ERI, on Flickr

I really like that mushroom: the vanes are really nice.

I had forgotten about this thread but I just finished a "rest" holiday from work where i took a tonne of photos. The best are on my flickr (there are "duplicates" though) but I'll post a couple here for your enjoyment/criticism.

IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5465/6911484208_9a2d4246ac_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5329/7057531351_d70556e60c_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7138/6911430384_3c5353110a_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5197/6911412288_a6746a099e_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5336/6911394084_fff658e561_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5160/7057475677_21d5418342_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7135/7057454631_7918e768e9_z.jpg)

IMAGE(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7186/6911308206_e7c0088cc3_z.jpg)

Oh yeah... My main thought: "Macro... I need to move on from you. You're just SO tempting!!"

Quick question to the group: Have any of you dabbled with underwater photography or have any experience with 'tough' cameras? I'm heading on vacation in a few weeks and quite a lot of the itinerary includes things like water, ocean, waterfalls, aquatic critters, that kind of thing. Stuff that I would really like to capture on camera.
After a bit of research there is a plastic case/enclosure for my camera... available from an ebay vendor in China that may or may not work as advertised and may or may not radically affect picture quality... or for just a little bit more I could get a 'waterproof' snap-shot camera with mediocre picture quality and questionable water-proof-ness... or for a lot more I can get a mid-grade 'tough' camera... or I could buy a plastic bag for one of my little snapshot cameras, hope for the best, and treat it like a disposable.

My DSLR is definitely coming along for the main trip, but I'm afraid that carrying it on the excursions will prevent me from taking full advantage if I have to worry about leaving it with the locals or trusting that I won't be subjected to electronics-destroying-elements along the way so I'm torn on the best way to approach capturing the experiences (and exploring underwater angles) and maintaining peace of mind. Any advice?

Rezzy wrote:

Quick question to the group: Have any of you dabbled with underwater photography or have any experience with 'tough' cameras? I'm heading on vacation in a few weeks and quite a lot of the itinerary includes things like water, ocean, waterfalls, aquatic critters, that kind of thing. Stuff that I would really like to capture on camera.
After a bit of research there is a plastic case/enclosure for my camera... available from an ebay vendor in China that may or may not work as advertised and may or may not radically affect picture quality... or for just a little bit more I could get a 'waterproof' snap-shot camera with mediocre picture quality and questionable water-proof-ness... or for a lot more I can get a mid-grade 'tough' camera... or I could buy a plastic bag for one of my little snapshot cameras, hope for the best, and treat it like a disposable.

My DSLR is definitely coming along for the main trip, but I'm afraid that carrying it on the excursions will prevent me from taking full advantage if I have to worry about leaving it with the locals or trusting that I won't be subjected to electronics-destroying-elements along the way so I'm torn on the best way to approach capturing the experiences (and exploring underwater angles) and maintaining peace of mind. Any advice?

Are you diving (scuba or free) or just going to try taking pictures in tide pools or something?

I have not done any DSLR underwater photography, but I do know a few things about the physics of light involved from my experience scuba diving. The main issue is with the flash. Obviously, you need a flash because the color disappears as you go deeper.

Red - 15ft
orange - 25ft
Yellow - 35-45ft
Green - 70-75ft

You need a flash that will be out to the side because of the way the light reflects on particles in the water. If it's close to the lens, all those particles are reflecting light right back at you. If it's off to the side, the light reflects off at an angle that's not right back at the lens but still illuminates the subject. This is what happens with the little point and shoot cameras that I've used just for fun when diving. The pictures really don't turn out and it's not worth it in my opinion.

I had looked into DSLR underwater housings way back when and they are very expensive. If you are only going to do it a few times, I would look into renting some gear. If you enjoy it, you might buy something later to save you money in the long run.

Lastly, if you are diving, objects get distorted when you use a traditional mask. Everything is blown up a bit. I actually have one of these masks where you where contacts to correct and everything will look normal proportionally when you are underwater. I haven't actually got a chance to use it because I haven't dived in a few years, but I plan to remedy that this summer.

tuffalobuffalo wrote:

Are you diving (scuba or free) or just going to try taking pictures in tide pools or something?

No Scuba or diving, but definitely some shallows/ tide-pools/ beach-side surf/ hotel-pool/ water-level type shots.
If it's a basic seal on my DSLR then mostly so I can take better shots like this:
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-up9WVKjNjoY/T4nEYmuS3ZI/AAAAAAAAEiE/Om8iHQGrtx4/s800/Detail%2520Lost%2520in%2520Resize.JPG)
Without having to worry about this:
IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9sFRffooA38/T4nEY04cSII/AAAAAAAAEiI/wzcIURA8lRU/s800/OhNo.JPG)
I don't want my lack of bravery to influence the kinds of angles I try to shoot.

EDIT: Oh and thanks for that info! Definitely good to know since snorkeling is kind of on a side-bar list of options.

Gotcha, Rezzy. I guess that means most of the info I posted isn't too applicable. I don't really have any advice on a tuff-case type thing. Hopefully someone here has tried something. That would be fun to get something waterproof so you could do the half in/half out of water thing or stuff like that.

At least, if you go snorkeling sometime in the future, you will know why it's nearly impossible to get good photos with a waterproof point and shoot where the flash is right by the lens.

Edit: I was curious what the cheapest entry point could be for underwater photography. Looks like at the bare minimum, if you were going to try underwater photography, you would want to go with something like this for $500.

IMAGE(http://www.sealife-cameras.com/sites/sealife/files/products/sealife-mini-ii-elite-underwater-camera-set-1.jpg)

According to their gallery you can get some okay images and videos.

Rezzy wrote:

Quick question to the group: Have any of you dabbled with underwater photography or have any experience with 'tough' cameras? I'm heading on vacation in a few weeks and quite a lot of the itinerary includes things like water, ocean, waterfalls, aquatic critters, that kind of thing. Stuff that I would really like to capture on camera.

The waterproof point and shoots work okay if you're shooting only a few feet below the surface and in the waves. But they've got all the downsides of small sensors.

groan wrote:

IMAGE(http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/people-photography/6661d1334844901t-my-favorite-subject-marcuspetrie1.jpg)

Click for (really) big.
A shot of my son whilst out walking.
I added the gradient on the left. Not sure now if I like it. Originally it was put in to remove some focus from the trees in teh back. I needed a wider aperture to blur those out.
I was shooting macro that day and had my aperture at f16 most of the time. Missed adjusting it on this shot.

FYI It is not letting me see the image... something about having to sign in.

IMAGE(http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/people-photography/6661d1334844901t-my-favorite-subject-marcuspetrie1.jpg)

Click for (really) big.
A shot of my son whilst out walking.
I added the gradient on the left. Not sure now if I like it. Originally it was put in to remove some focus from the trees in teh back. I needed a wider aperture to blur those out.
I was shooting macro that day and had my aperture at f16 most of the time. Missed adjusting it on this shot.

Oh hell, I'll fix it.,. sec
Should work now

I think the picture is fine but you might want to think about the "rule of thirds" that's been mentioned in the thread a few times. Obviously, the rule of thirds is only a guideline and there are many fantastic pictures that don't follow it but possibly this picture would benefit from more "empty" space on the left or top.

I also think that possibly the gradient is too distracting from the actual subject of the picture. Handsome young man though and the lighting on him is good - actually, now i've written that I know what I dislike about the gradient. It's going against what my mind is telling me should be there based on the direction of the lighting in the rest of the shot.

Actually, thinking about it a little bit, i take back that first paragraph. I think the composition is good and the lighting and subject are good but the gradient detracts from the picture.

Duoae wrote:

Actually, thinking about it a little bit, i take back that first paragraph. I think the composition is good and the lighting and subject are good but the gradient detracts from the picture.

I agree with this. For a close-up shot, I think it's close to perfect in terms of framing.

The gradient is fine where it's placed but I think it could be more subtle.

Duoae wrote:

I think the picture is fine but you might want to think about the "rule of thirds" that's been mentioned in the thread a few times. Obviously, the rule of thirds is only a guideline and there are many fantastic pictures that don't follow it but possibly this picture would benefit from more "empty" space on the left or top.

I also think that possibly the gradient is too distracting from the actual subject of the picture. Handsome young man though and the lighting on him is good - actually, now i've written that I know what I dislike about the gradient. It's going against what my mind is telling me should be there based on the direction of the lighting in the rest of the shot.

Actually, thinking about it a little bit, i take back that first paragraph. I think the composition is good and the lighting and subject are good but the gradient detracts from the picture.

Thanks, I am a huge purveyor and breaker of the rule of thirds. I follow it religiously and also break it to pieces sometimes to add edge to a photo.
I thought due to the tightness of this shot that the rule did not apply. I set him slightly off-center to counter my hate for centered images, though on occasion I am guilty of it in my macro work.
I agree with you about the gradient and will be removing it. it adds far too much weight to the left side of the image.
The picture was taken tight and I lost the top space. In retrospect I should have backed p a bit to get that in.
The lighting was an off-camera flash with diffuser. I like the fill it provided with allowing the sunlight on his cheek and adds to the naturalness of scene.

LouZiffer wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Actually, thinking about it a little bit, i take back that first paragraph. I think the composition is good and the lighting and subject are good but the gradient detracts from the picture.

I agree with this. For a close-up shot, I think it's close to perfect in terms of framing.

The gradient is fine where it's placed but I think it could be more subtle.

When i was placing it I thought the placement was right, but it is definatlely too dark. I'll try again and lighten it up a tad.
Lightroom is fantastic for these things. If you have a chance to use it, do so. it's awesmazing.

Funkenpants wrote:

The waterproof point and shoots work okay if you're shooting only a few feet below the surface and in the waves. But they've got all the downsides of small sensors.

Yeah, that's what I was afraid of.
tuffalo, that rig looks very interesting and I've bookmarked that seller. Thanks for the flash info! I generally try to avoid using flash whenever possible, but I don't think I'll be able to keep to that if I get bitten by the aqua-photography bug.
So I did my research, flipped through several point-and-shoot type 'tough' cameras, and after sifting through pages and pages of horror stories of vacations ruined by malfunctioning seals or poorly implemented features I came to the decision of limiting my exposure to this experiment.
Just placed an order for a Panasonic Lumix TS20. A relatively new entry to this field and priced just a notch or two above impulse. I have low expectations and a 2 year Square-Trade accident policy that includes damage caused by immersion. So now the ball is in your court... Impress me, Panasonic, and I'll sing praises of your glory to the heavens. Fail me and it's just another case of a big company not understanding that their budget items should be a hook to upgrade and not 'you get what you pay for.'

So, it was record store day today. I was taking a phone shot today to quickly send to a friend and noticed this crazy reflection thing going on with black vinyl. I tried taking a few shots with my DSLR, but nothing turned out quite right. I can't help but feel like there is an amazing shot somewhere doing this type of thing.

Mobile photo:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/mezP3.jpg)

DSLR photos:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/NvJdX.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/C7eH0.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/A5QNU.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/yKUcm.jpg)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/5XBwZ.jpg)

Any thoughts/ideas would be appreciated. All the images I shot were unedited.

Looking at it there's two ways you could do this - depending on the lens you have attached.

The first thing is the reason your mobile picture "turned out better" was because (and my terminology is not 100% because I'm a self-taught amateur and i'm sure someone else here can correct me) the focus of its lens is always to infinity. i.e. the focal range/point of the camera is very large so both the near and far things were in perspective (in this instance, the far thing was the "fake deep detail" in the reflection).
So, to replicate this on a DSLR you either need a lens with a very large focal range OR you need to have it set to infinity.

I guess to make it a little clearer - you have two focal ranges in the reflection pic: 2 metres to your vinyl and 8 metres to your window. Your cheaper camera will focus on everything but your more expensive camera lens is (probably) designed to focus on a smaller range.

Secondly, you could still use a lens with a smaller focal range but focus instead (manually) on the contents of the reflection instead of the foreground of the physical items in front of you.

Make sure you set your aperature to f22. This will give you the greatest focal depth. Also the wider the angle of your lens the greater your depth of focus will be.
If you hyave a 50MM lens, set it to 22 or 32 (if you have it) and take a shot. Try focusing on the reflection, and on the vinyl and in between.

It does look like there is an awesome shot in there somewhere. Good eye.

IMAGE(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8003/7107460011_1c1281ac4b.jpg)
Gym rope to the sky by swiggers_ERI, on Flickr

At a gymnastics meet for my daughter and had flashbacks from this sword of Damocles from my youth.

Nice shot! The lighting and leading lines are very pleasing.