kolaczan

<p>As important as camera feel and Canon vs Nikon might be...</p>

<p>Make sure you consider that you are buying an SLR "system" and the lenses you purchase in the future will be much more important than the camera body. Do you have a strong preference in available lenses/flashes/accesories between the two brands? </p>

<p>Aaaand...</p>

<p>having looked at your portfolio (pretty slick), you've probably been at this long enough to have thought about stock photog (heck, maybe you even sell your photos regularly). Take the suggestion for what it is worth then. Good luck with the inspiration.</p>

<p>I went to a photo club meeting and someone did a presentation on stock photography. I had looked into microstock a while back but was really turned off by the fact that I was only going to get paid 25 cents every time someone downloaded one of my photos. Then I realized that it was 25 cents more than I was currently getting.</p>

<p>I looked into it (stock photography) a bit more and realized that it is really a whole other world. I find it challenging to focus on technically perfect "marketable" photos while trying to be a bit creative. The thought of taking a picture of some generic object (pile of coffee beans, a wrench etc.) isn't appealing at first but can be a great way to keep challenging your mind and perfecting your technique.</p>

<p>The field is so broad that it encompasses everything from sweeping landscapes to small isolated objects you can photograph on your tabletop.</p>

<p>Getting in can be a bit of a chore (you generally have to submit a small sample set of photos for review) and maintaining the sight standards required is challenging but it might be just the thing to keep you going on the days you don't feel like harassing your family for portraits (although images with models are very marketable).</p>

<p>There are a bazillion microstock sites out there. Check them out. Heck, just figuring out what each site offers can keep you busy for a week.<br /> this one works well for me so far (just started a few months ago)...<br>

http://submit.shutterstock.com/?ref=512455</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought the tamron verson a few years ago and it is a very very sharp lens. However, by that standard they are both virtually identical.</p>

<p>If I had to do it again (or could) I would pay the extra and get the canon. Why? USM and internal focusing.</p>

<p>The tamron extends ALOT when focusing. This is mostly just annoying but can be a bit of a problem when working up close. With a macro you generally use manual focus but the USM would be nice for the "other uses" for this type of lens (portrait or short TP landscapes).</p>

<p>Either way, you can't go really wrong.</p>

<p>Not really my field (wedding photography), but I can't see why you wouldn't get the 24-70 over the 50. You might appreciate the wide angle (maybe consider getting something wider even) and a bit more flexibility than the prime.<br>

"until she told me she wanted a "very green amateur photographer" snapping off shots."<br>

Hopefully this was meant as a compliment of some sort.</p>

 

<p>Congrats. The underdog wins again.</p>

<p>Great photo by the way.</p>

<p>If it is something important (big trip or grizzly bear or something) I ruthlessly edit. Even then I don't keep seriously flawed pics unless there is something truly important in them. Hard-disk space is cheap but who wants to have to wase through all the fuzzy photos to get a the ones you really want?</p>

For your "ice figure" images it is crucial to get the entire edge in focus otherwise the eye immediately goes to the blurred areas. If you can get that (certainly not as easy as it sounds) you will have some inside bubbles in focus as well (likely) and you are good to go. Bumping the contrast helps but mostly it is a matter of (besides focus) getting good light.

Depth of field is certainly a big issue with ice crystals. You really have to nail the focus to get it to look right. When you have clusters of flaky crystals it is extremely difficult to get everything focused even at f16. I try to focus in and just get a single plane if possible:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5491591-lg.jpg

 

For "frost on the window" work I zoooom way in and things become a bit abstract:

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5443747-lg.jpg

 

http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/5539446-md.jpg

 

Even with these it is really important to make sure you exactly match the plane of the subject. DOF seems like it is 1/10 of a mm. Check the corners because even being off a bit ruins the effect.

Wow, just Wow.

 

So, have we figured it out yet folks? No? I didn't think so.

 

Sheesh, go take some photos and stop counting fairies on pinheads.

 

Holy Mackerel.

On average, the ratings work. If you look at the best photos of the day/week/month, the first 200 or so are generally better than the rest (of course there are many gems hidden in the lower reaches).

 

That is about all the ratings do for me. Save me a bit of time sorting through every photo posted in order to see the good ones. Maybe give me a bit of an ego boost when I crack the top 100 for a few days.

 

Don't attach too much value to them. It will drive you nuts.

Frank,

 

Screen height does not equal image height.

As you can see, there are many opinions on which way you should go. Many ways to do macro. It is really a large field.

Longer lenses give you more working distances (this should not be considered too lightly. it is surprising how close you have to get to critters to get 1:1).

A 90mm (Tamron) or 100mm (Canon) macro lens will serve you very well. I got the Tamron. If I had to do it again I'd get the Canon (Internal focusing is more than just "nice" it really helps when working close). Either of these lenses will blow you away with their ability to capture detail (If you do your (substantial) part).

Other options will be cheaper (but likely less convenient/flexible) but I'd say that these lenses are a great place to start.

"shouldn't we being recording life as we see it?"

 

I'm not sure how this would work exactly. Unusual angles, the unseen and the unfamiliar are all very interesting (to many people). I'd rather not stare at pictures of the street in front of someones house or their carpet or their car... Frankly, I can see normal all the time. I look at art as something which stretches me away from normal just a bit.

 

Should movies only be about normal people doing normal things in normal places? How boring would that be? And what is normal by the way?

As mentioned above, the blue is likely coming from the "shadow" areas being lit by the blue of the sky.

 

One of the best ways to avoid this is to shoot on overcast days if you can. Of course, if you are including the sky in your shot it will likely add a dreary tone to everything. But the snow will be white. I've found that desaturating the blue can help, as long as there aren't any other blue elements (the sky for example) in the image.

 

All in all I doubt that filters will help much.

Look for some version of a "Draganizer" action.

It is a bit of a trick to learn to tweak (I haven't done a very good job of mastering it or anything) but I think it results in the look you are after.

Another key field mark of the fake butterfly is the very "feathery" wings. Almost bird-like.

I've taken a pretty large number of photos in which there was some element that I swear I didn't see when I tripped the shutter.

 

So the camera captured something I didn't see. It was not the image I had in my head when I decided to take the photo.

 

Now of course, I didn't see what was actually there (not all of it) but this is how the brain works.

 

If you remove a small element from the frame it is hardly unethical. There are purists out there who consider image manipulation of any sort to be some sort of sin. Even moving a blade of grass so that it doesn't enter the photo frame is forbidden. I suspect they sit around and just bitterly look at photos to figure out how they have been corrupted while fawning over their precious untainted pictures.

 

And of course, this isn't new with digital. Everyone knows the arguments about film types that saturate (or totally remove) colours or filters that do similar tweaks. And then there is always Ansel Adams.

 

If you wish to be ethical then follow your heart and do things in moderation. If you want to cover your butt then disclose what you've done.

Give them as gifts. Fill up other people's walls.

Then you can still view them on a wall when you visit.

$27 a roll adds up pretty fast.

 

Presumably you have a computer as you scan already. If you shot Canon or Nikon, I'd say that you have the glass to use with digital. You might need something a little wider as your widest lenses will be cropped (1.5) by the sensor. So, switching over really will cost you the new body and some memory cards (and a wide lens maybe).

 

Stop shooting for a month or two then put the money you've saved into your new gear (ok, that's a bit simplistic)

 

Oh and by the way, ISO200 and 400 in many DSLRs is pretty darn good. You'll only be limited to 100 when you need the very best (always right?)

 

I love looking at slides and have often considered throwing a roll into my film body.

 

I just can't justify the cost.

Shouldn't be much of a surprise that you are getting a shadow. 17mm is pretty wide, your lens is pretty big and your flash is pretty close to your camera body. Really, what do you expect?

 

Back up or try an external flash,

"If you have a new wizz bang digital you may have some serious concerns with the operation of the camera at such temps."

 

Oh pulease.

 

As mentioned previously, keep your batteries warm and bring extras. Condensation is a concern so DON'T keep your camera in your jacket (even the humidity from your eye can fog the viewfinder of ANY camera). It will be fine the first time you use it (as it is warmer than the air) but when it has cooled off and you put it back into a warm humid environment it will fog badly. Again, this isn't anything peculiar to digital it is just physics.

Wireless flash? or freakishly good (bad) timing.

 

Was the effect intentional? That might help pick one of the above.

Enjoy! and be sure to post the results.

I always thought that the "digitally integrated" technology was just sales hype. However, I've got a Tamron telephoto that produces alot of purple fringing with bright subjects on my digital camera where it didn't with film (it is not DI). It could just need a recalibration or something but if I had the choice between DI and non-DI I'd probably spring for the DI.

 

Either way, it is a great lens. You'll be happy with it.<div></div>