5711

<p>comming home after a week or so i wound up lying on couch with a cold one and my laptop checking what my friends had been up to. who cares, right. <br> so anyway..scrolling down this sheer endless list of bs on facebook i found something that might be relevant <br> fireworks explained by joe mc nally<br> http://blog.joemcnally.com/2014/07/01/well-you-know-4th-of-july-and-summers-over-2/</p> <p>well i guess you guys do have bigger fireworks over there.<br> i couldn't stop down that much :)</p> <p>good luck<br> and yeah..i had been thinking of you!</p> <p>haha<br> jk<br> cheers mate</p> <p> </p>

<p>comming home after a week or so i wound up lying on couch with a cold one and my laptop checking what my friends had been up to. who cares, right. <br> so anyway..scrolling down this sheer endless list of bs on facebook i found something that might be relevant <br> fireworks explained by joe mc nally<br> http://blog.joemcnally.com/2014/07/01/well-you-know-4th-of-july-and-summers-over-2/</p> <p>well i guess you guys do have bigger fireworks over there.<br> i couldn't stop down that much :)</p> <p>good luck<br> and yeah..i had been thinking of you!</p> <p>haha<br> jk<br> cheers mate</p> <p> </p>

<p>i know..i had a sigma 24-70 2.8 or something for my f100 long ago.<br /> besides being big and heavy the art series has some outstanding lenses in it.<br /> however the history may be.</p> <p>24-35 f2.0</p> <p>what!<br /> WHAAAT<br /> WHY !!</p> <p>it is not that easy to make a living from photography..well..how would i know...i am not too long doing it..switched from painting to professional photography not too long ago.<br /> however that may be..i would not put my money there..i mean..whats the freakin point..</p> <p>1 1.4 (2) 2.8 5.6 11<br />seriously..<br /> whaaat</p> <p>if they came up with a 16-35 2.8 i would have been buying as i have to admit..i hate the nikon options.<br /> f4...lowlight photography..on a d4s..yeah..14.24..bulbous monster vs riot cops..</p> <p>maybe i had just bad luck and now am really pissed about this 20-35 and <br> hate on sigma for no good reasons.<br> after all..there is people out there buying leica and ferrari..<br> <br /> who knows what it is good for..not for me..anyways, i quitting my bitching and go take photos.<br /> laters <br /> :)</p> <p> </p>

<p>totally useless.<br> 14-24<br> 16-35<br> 17-35<br> 24-70<br> 24 tse<br> 24 1.4</p> <p>f2 vs f2.8<br> filter...yeah right..bigger is better..i get it.</p> <p>24-35...what now...<br> why would anyone buy this...seriously..<br> after reading all this i could not find one argument why i would even consider buying something like this.<br> EVER</p> <p> </p>

<p>@ John<br /> i totally love the landscape stuff you post.<br /> i must go there...planning it since three years..screwing it up since three years...bloody hell..<br /> those photos are awesome!<br /> from your homepage:</p> <blockquote> <p>" It seems timely and necessary to both celebrate and record the remarkable beauty we have left, and to learn to see its fragility. "</p> </blockquote> <p>that is true. i wish i could afford that. i'll find a way..whatever.<br /> i gues you know of him, just posting it for those who do not and might be curious.<br> <br /> http://www.photo.net/photographer-interviews/peter-essick/</p>

<p>i agree.<br> the 24-70 brought my use of primes like 28,35 and 50 down to almost zero</p>

<p>i reported this issue to nikon.<br> i had a forum post here aswell.</p> <p>i cannot find the reply of the technician as he wrote me perosnally not from the nikon adress.</p> <p>every camera does have a different exposure system</p> <p>check the exif files.<br> you will see the iso is something like..lets say 105 instead of 100 and so on.<br> the nikon guys told me that is perfectly normal.</p> <p>however it is annyoing if you are photographing with..as i did..a d3 alongside a d3 and get two different exposures.<br> this also effects high iso.<br> doesnt do anything, really.<br> it, well, as far as ive been told, is working as intented.</p>

<p>long exposures do take quite a bit of experience to come out like you want them to be.<br /> ive done quite alot of nighttime longexposures and i would suggest you try this:</p> <p>get a tripod<br /> get a cable release.<br /> <br />different lenses, preferably wideangle.<br /> a single shot of a firework is boring, could be shot anywhere,anytime. show the area, transmit a feeling, generate a sense of place and time. i know people like those..i dont..personal opinion.</p> <p>the native iso of the d3x is 100.<br /> iso 100 at night will give you very long exposures, can be a problem.<br /> a d3x will get very noise after 800.</p> <p>set the camera to M, choose the biggest aperture you have, say 2.8.</p> <p>judging the time of a..lets say city scape with fireworks..that is a tricky thing.<br /> lots of black (sky, houses whatever) and light...histogram all to the left and right, extreme corners are fun.<br /> depending on your image, the amount of light will vary, and thereby reducing your shutterspeed.<br /> i almost always start with 15 seconds. (depending on the scene)<br /> if this was the country side..so almost everything is black, id start with iso 400 and 30seconds.<br /> try to nail the exposure for the lights in your scenery...get an ambient exposure that feels and looks about right.</p> <p>now you wait for the first firework.<br /> take a photo. adjust time.<br /> practice this, maybe with cars moving along roads towards a city.<br /> classic photos, good training.</p> <p>fireworks against the nightsky..well<br /> thats like photographing a concert.<br /> go practice there.<br /> put the camera on your tripod. no need to handheld screw up all your photos.<br /> a monopod would be great, tripod works too. way more steady than handheld nightsky firework shots with a 70-200 :)<br /> go to an iso setting that doesnt produce awefull amounts of grain.<br /> d3x, lets say iso 800.<br /> A<br /> f2.8<br /> focus set to infinity...duh<br /> <br /> underexpose for all the black in the sky.<br /> depending on the intensity of the fireworks, i would suggest -0.7 to -3 EV<br /> this should, idealy give you a shutterspeed from 1/30-1/250th of a second.<br /> in other words, expose for the light.<br /> want some motion, fine, less underexpose the photo.<br /> easy as that.<br /> easy to learn, hard to master.<br /> practice even more as the above mentioned tripod method and do not get frustrated.<br /> nightshooting takes a lot of practice and a d3x is a tricky camera to use for such a thing.</p> <p>best of luck<br /> enjoy</p> <p>edit:<br /> shoot raw only.<br /> do not use noise reduction and d lightning in camera as this does not effect raw files</p>

<p><img src="http://41.media.tumblr.com/dd07904b149dbcf58c81da721c4180e4/tumblr_ng2sm3RrN21tipmvdo1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1278" height="1920" /><br /> nikon d3, forgot the other stuff. linked from my tumblr. <a href="http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/">http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/</a></p>

<p>i can remember beeing really annoyed by the difference in exposure between the d3 and d3x due to something like this.<br /> but this was during the day.</p> <p>never had any issues with that at night.</p>

<p>well, thanks...</p> <p>yeah..strictly for that purpose, this is a very versatile lens and i tried to show that.</p> <p>as far as the ambiguous comments go:<br /> give and take..i have learned alot from photos beeing uplaoded here, so i do the same.<br /> may they be of help to somebody.</p> <p> </p>

<p>read the link i posted...</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18028012-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /><br> <img src="http://40.media.tumblr.com/3ba1d92a880b725dfc384d9ffe379dd1/tumblr_nk17bcz3w91tipmvdo1_1280.jpg" alt="" width="1200" height="838" /> <br> the last photo is linked from my tumblr <a href="http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/">http://nwfoto.tumblr.com/</a><br> get the 24-70</p> <p>:)</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17920943-md.jpg" alt="" width="679" height="452" /><br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17979450-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

<p>some of my recent work (last half year) only shot using the 24-70 2.8G.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17994773-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /><br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17981768-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /></p>

<p>my private lens use looks like this:<br /> (private because it is hard to specify for work)<br /> 24-70 2.8 covers 30%<br /> 14-24 2.8 covers 65%<br /> 70-200 2.8 covers 4%<br /> 1% primes, fisheye.</p> <p>over the last half year i did not own a wide angle as i trashed too many.<br /> i used the 24-70 2.8 all the time.<br /> almost exclusivly, private and for work.<br /> i switched to primes when i wanted the look of the shallow dof.<br /> thats it.</p> <p>24-70 2.8 does it all.<br /> get one, you won't regret it.<br /> beware though, it is rather heavy.<br /> the 24-70 outperforms the 28-85 by...uhm..infinity.<br /> it is like two different worlds..</p> <p>get the 24-70</p> <p> </p>

<p>it is a very well explained article and easy to cross reference wether or not it is good.<br /> it is damn good actually.<br /> i do not want to quote or write as if it was my knowledge.<br /> i got a part of it from him and i think he makes a very valid point,<br /> especially intersting to this conversation.<br /> read it.</p> <p><a href="http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/">http://www.wildlifeinpixels.net/blog/sensor-resolution/</a></p> <p>at the end of the article he writes:</p> <blockquote> <ul> <li>Greater sensor resolution enables you to theoretically capture greater levels of detail.</li> </ul> <p>but that extra level of detail is somewhat problematic because:</p> <ul> <li>Diffraction renders it ‘soft’.</li> <li></li> </ul> </blockquote> <p>and that softness i have seen in more than one exhibition. <br /> lots of people seem not to be capable of handling such a camera as the d8x0.<br /> now imagine the disaster with 50...</p>

<p>i have heard theyre even going for 73mp in the next nikon d500x with 37 fps!<br> oh my</p>

<p>stupid sandisk hompage..<br> there are 280mb/s sd cards and 160mb/s cf cards.<br> sony offers 400mb/s xqd and sandisk 515 or something mb/s cfast 2 cards.</p> <p>so it seems to be something like<br> cf2 xqd sd cf</p> <p> </p>

<p>woops..wrong thread..sorry.<br> delteted the entry and left this</p>

<p>i suggest we all buy leica and then argue why leica is better than anything else.</p> <p> </p>

<p>cf cards are faster than sd cards</p> <p>http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/compactflash-charts/benchmarks,170.html <br> http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/sd-cards-2014/benchmarks,168.html</p> <p>xqd > cf > sd</p>

<p>what came to mind is, that people who never used film will probably have a different approach.<br> i get questions about my b&w editing from time to time and i wonder too, how ppl with premade settings<br> see this.<br> lets wait then :)</p>

<p>shooting raw and nik software with lightroom will give you all need.<br /> forget presets.<br /> they suck</p> <p>edit:<br> do not, never ever, use desaturation to get to a b&w photo.<br> try this.<br> set up a szene..studio outdoors, dsnt matter.<br> shoot it on hp5, tmax100,400 and digital.<br> develop film using rodinal and promicrol at stadnard settings.<br> two different outcomes.<br> try to get there using digital.<br> forget premades.<br> really<br> ..please do ..<br> lol</p>

<p>as i am sitting on my private pictures and cannot edit them due to work..meh..i post something a bit older.<br> long exposure during the day<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17981768-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="680" /><br> nikon d3, cropped image<br> 24-70 2.8g<br> f22,<br> iso 100<br> 10 stop nd<br> 3 stop gnd, soft edge<br> circ pol<br> and about 30 seconds..i believe</p>