mart_e

<blockquote>

<p>Mart, hang around the TRP and chatter about ratings sometime. You'd think there was something more at stake than just mutual backrubs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>lol - true enough.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Starvy - I wasn't aware that photography was a competition - but congratulations on your 'win' yesterday.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Using HDR via 3rd party software (like Photomatix - or PS HDR tools) gives you a bit more freedom to blend more than one image. Doing it by hand with layers / masks can take a real long time to get right - and still leave you with a false looking image.</p>

<p>HDR is the same as many other tools - it can be done subtly to the point of not showing, or can be overdone and garish. I find that most tend towards being too garish.</p>

<p>It should be noted that most errors and over-use is actually in the tone mapping process - this is the process that compacts a HDR image back to 'standard' bit depth, rather than a true HDR image that could be as high as 32bit per channel.</p>

<p>The multiple exposure setting on the D300 wont accomplish the same thing as HDR - AFAIK it simply allows you to overlay consecutive shots - it wont increase the dynamic range of the image.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Calumet rent the D700 body out at £90 per day (excl. VAT and damage waiver) - not sure if anyone does it cheaper.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>I'm a frequent flier here in Europe - generally domestic between Ireland / England - but also to central Europe.</p>

<p>I would estimate that I get frisked about 1 time in 3 at the X-ray machines - nothing too serious, generally a pat down. I'm 42, white, average build and generally in smart / casual clothes (just in case you think appearance matters).</p>

<p>Only had to demonstrate camera was functioning the once - although I've had gear swabbed for explosive residue probably 1 time every 5 flights on average.</p>

<p>As other have said, I would recommend checking the hand baggage allowance fairly carefully (both size and weight). In these days of budget airlines, they look for any excuse to charge extra, and if they can demonstrate that hand baggage is too big, they will take it away for storage on the hold - and charge for the pleasure.</p>

<p>Good luck on you trip.<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>The brochures I have indicate the equipment used for each shot. If Nikon or any other manufacturer were shown to have used different equipment, that would be a serious breach in trading standards here in the UK so it is highly unlikely that larger format cameras were used.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Thanks, lots of interesting analysis :)</p>

<p>Found a second biggest weakness I think - to add to composition, and probably linked - I think I snatch at photos. That is, not giving enough forethought to each shot, of planning the image fully in my head before lifting the camera to my eye.</p>

<p>The two are definitely linked, I think I need to both slow down, and apply more rigid structure to composition, of lines, focal point, colours, texture and balance before even raising the camera.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>.. and how are you going about improving it ?</p>

<p>For me, my weakest area is probably composition. That's not to say other areas don't also need improving, just that composition is consistently something that I find lacking in my photos.</p>

<p>I've got myself a few books, including the excellent 'The photographers eye: composition and design in digital photography' by Michael Freeman. I have found that this improved my critical eye in assessing my own work, but that I still need something to have an impact on me in those moments before firing the shutter rather than later on.</p>

<p>I'm therefore looking to sketch more (I used to do a lot of drawing when younger, but not so much now) - to try and 'interact' with a scene a bit more directly, and to look at lines, perspective, shapes, contours etc. Not sure where it will take me, but it is certainly making me look at things a bit differently, especially in the structure of an image.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Tried it with my 105mm VR - the VR seems to activate as soon as you go into Liveview mode, and lasts until you come out of it.</p>

<p>If in doubt, put your ear against the lens when you activate and deactivate Liveview with VR switched on, you can hear the VR working away.</p>

<p>I suspect that it could be quite a drain on the battery though, especially for any prolonged use.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Don't know - try it and see ?</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Just to put a slight counter argument to those suggesting a tripod and based on my somewhat limited experience of bird shots. It is not always practical to use a tripod - and even where one is used, it only solves part of the sharpness equation.</p>

<p>I have found that birds tend to fidget (maybe I need some stalking training) - and I normally concentrate on getting fast shutter speeds, normally by increasing ISO (I shoot with D90 and try to limit it to 800 max) and compromise with the aperture. I did try a tripod, but for the birds I was shooting, I was still getting the blur caused by their movement. Obviously there are times where a tripod is totally indispensible of course.</p>

<p>I do tend to use a monopod to gain that bit of stability, for me it doesn't limit my movement too much, and allows me the speed to shift direction quickly without the disturbing my prey too much.</p>

<p>I don't see too much wrong with your shot sharpness wise at the size shown.</p>

<p>Good luck,<br /> Martin</p>

<p>The shot below was shot handheld on D90, 300mm AF-S f4 and TC-14. 1/800 @ f5.6 + ISO500 (f4 @ 300mm):</p>

<p><img src="http://www.martin-ellis.com/finch_01.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="418" /></p>

<p>These aren't meant to be overly-critical, just some personal views.</p>

<p>The header cuts off on smaller monitors - and is not centred in the same way as the main bulk - so as the browser is reduced, the banner and main window centres become misaligned.</p>

<p>The header appears too big IMO too - it forces horizontal scrolling on the page, when it isn't necessary. The whole site seems to take up a considerable amount of space, but doesn't really use it that effectively. The gallery headers for eg. along with the main header take up most of the display, with the first of the thumnails appearing at the bottom of the screen.</p>

<p>I would agree regarding the main section too - iframes with scrolling IMO don't work too well, they can lead to slightly confused displays, that get a bit difficult to navigate around - especially when accessibility is considered. Having said that, the use could be simplified - I think it would just mean using less thumbnails.</p>

<p>The navigation is a bit linear too. Once your are in a gallery and viewing an image, going back to a different gallery becomes a bit of a memory test in back-tracking. It's a personal opinion, but my preference is to have a link to the various galleries always visible, both as an aide-memoire to show what services/galleries/subjects are available, and to allow a 1-click link.</p>

<p>Good luck<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Not sure if I'm missing something that has already been noted, but checking the EXIF data fort he first few images.</p>

<p>(EDITED: sorry realised Peter had already pointed this out in his first reply.)</p>

<p>The D300 shot with the 70-300 - had in-camera sharpening set to Hard (+2) and saturation set to +2.</p>

<p>The comparative D90 shot - was Sharpening 0, Saturation 0.</p>

<p>Hardly suprising the D300 looks more saturated and sharper.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>We're looking to add a credit card purchasing facility to a website that we are currently in the process of establishing.</p>

<p>The site will be selling prints and cards of photos and artwork (Amongst other things) - with each image having a number of options (post card, card, 3 or 4 print options) - we would like the facility to select an image, then choose an option for the format and size, with a tiered price structure that allows discounts for multiple purchases.</p>

<p>We have so far looked at Worldpay and Paypal for incorporating their typical 'Website payments standard' - which seems to allow for a 'buynow' option to allow a cart to be stocked before processing the checkout payment on the paypal site.</p>

<p>It looks to be a rather protracted process (not the setting up, the process of actually buying once on the site) - and we are now wondering whether there are any 'off-the-shelf' payment system setups that may be available (either to purchase, or under license) that would allow for a more polished and user friendly buying experience.</p>

<p>Anyone know of any such systems, or can recommend samples on other sites ?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Martin</p>

<p>Thanks Jen,<br />Saw your site - looks very good, much easier to navigate than a lot of other 'flash' sites.</p>

<p>I have tried setting up a template using a similar approach to your own (via iframe to provide a window on the flash gallery). It seems to offer a reasonable compromise to allow a website structure to implement CSS/DIVs to organise contact and restrict the flash gallerys to particular and specific parts of the site.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Thanks, some interesting points.</p>

<p>I certainly take the point that use of flash and scripts can inhibit functionality on those browsers where it has been disabled / not installed. It's why I try to use scripts only for elements of 'added value' and not essential information. ie on the main page, a slideshow would be placed over a static image - no scripts, then no slideshow, but likewise nothing is lost in terms of overall design / presentation (I suppose you could argue - what's the point of the slideshow then).</p>

<p>You can use CSS and apDivs to add a degree of depth, but it still doesn't compare to the level of 'flash' that a flash site can offer.</p>

<p>As more and more people access content via mobile phones, iphones and ipads - the % of flash able browsers will I guess diminish ? - particularly whilst apple's share increases.</p>

<p>I think my biggest complaint about flash, is that it 'gets in the way' it adds a layer between me and either information or images - both physically (in data downloads) and navigationally. It can however look good, and help to deliver impact in the initial impressions.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>I am in the process of putting together a couple of sites for myself (photography/art and architecture).</p>

<p>It's been some time since I have dabbled with website design / setup. I am familiar with working with DIV, layers, and some javascripts (for slideshow and switching visibility of DIV layers) and can code to a reasonable level with css etc.. The sites I have done previously look a little dated. A lot of that is to do with font styles and the overall layout which I could address in any new design work.</p>

<p>I have been looking around at other photo sites for inspiration, and there seems to be a profusion of flash slideshows and galleries with lots of widgets. I personally find a lot of these layouts to be at best confusing, and often guilty of preventing easy access to the main critical pieces of information etc. although a lot of that is probably just me, and there are certainly a lot of great flash sites out there.</p>

<p>I suppose I tend to be put off by flash, and would therefore prefer to avoid it, and I also enjoy getting into the nuts and bolts of the web construction process and would rather not use flash / website templates etc.</p>

<p>Are any of these sensible reasons to either avoid Flash - or to really go for it ? would I be limiting myself in not going for a flash site ?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Martin</p>

<p>As Jim mentioned - polarizing filters do not add a consistent effect.</p>

<p>They are most effective when the light is reflected at 90 degrees from source to lens - and least effective when reflections are at 0 or 180 degrees.</p>

<p>Their effect therefore varies depending on the lens / situation. ie for wide (and particularly ultra-wide) lenses where you are seeing a huge portion of the sky / water etc. the effect of the polariser will vary from strong to minimal within the same frame - as the angle of reflected light changes.</p>

<p>You may therefore find that you still need to resort to PP to correct/alter an image that you shot with a polarizer to get some consistency across a frame, or across a number of shots taken from different positions / view relative to light source.</p>

<p>Not sure whether it is just me, but the effect of a polariser seems less with digital than with film - maybe that's just me comparing rich Velvia skies on film with the digital counterpart.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>Congrats.</p>

<p>I would agree with Matt - post some pics. I have the 12-24 and love it - would really like to see some images taken with the 10-24.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone (post 1995) who has never owned nor shot film says filters are not effective because you can add effects post-shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Filters aren't about adding PP fixes - and I think the comment about those only experienced in digital is a bit disingenuous. Plenty of magazines aimed purely at the new digital photographer routinely summarise the benefits of different filters - particularly the polarizer - to capture a shot for which there is no PP fix (ie how do you recover detail in reflection highlights, use of ND to extend exposure times etc.)</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have had the 300mm f4 AF-S for about 3 months - and love it. I couldn't push my budget to any of the f2.8s, as much as I would have loved to.</p>

<p>The lens has fantastic IQ IMO, although it has all the limitations that Shun has already mentioned. The AF is relatively slow, but I find it workable, even for bird shots. It can hunt periodically in lower light - and it can be frustrating, but heck that's why its so much cheaper than the f2.8 version. Using the focusing limiter helps (3m-infinity or full range).</p>

<p>The f4 restriction also has a significant impact. Maybe it's the particular light conditions I have shot in thus far, but I often find that I need to push the ISO to 400-600 to get Shutter speeds to 1/500 to 1/1000 (further when the TC14 is fitted - normally to ISO800). I am shooting in Ireland, where the overall EV in any given conditions can be a touch lower than the standard tables suggest.</p>

<p>The collar on the lens is indeed the weakest component - although Bjorn's tip of placing an object in the space below the mount to jam it and dampen any vibrations works very well, just need to experiment and find something that fits well. That's a work around, but is significantly cheaper than buying a specialised Kirk collar.</p>

<p>Given the restrictions above, I still find this to be a fantastic lens, and I love shooting with it. For me the cost (new) was totally worth it (I use it on a D90).</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not an accountant, but $2K seems like a capital expenditure that should be depreciated rather than an expense to be deducted.<br>

But I'm not an accountant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That would be the case here in UK - you can't offset it entirely as you would an expense, it is a capital cost, and at best you could set 40% of it's value in the first year, and 25% of the remaining in each following year. If it is a cost from outside of your business, ie something you are bringing into it, it would only be 25% in first and subsequent years.</p>

<p>That is UK though - and I'm not an accountant :) - I suspect that principals are similar in US ?</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>I've been looking into this recently too regarding setting up an architectural photography business. I'm also an architect, so I can see both sides.</p>

<p>We have been inundated with prospective photographers recently, and it is a reason I'm taking stock on whether to plunge into architectural photography.</p>

<p>The single most important aspect for architects appointing a photographer is word of mouth and recommendation from other architects. Previous work and credits in recognised journals is also important. None of that helps with someone starting out.</p>

<p>One thing that I have been considering is tying up with web-designers to offer photography linked in with web-site hosting for architectural firms as a starting point. Many practices will maybe go for pro-photographers for flagship buildings, but will not pay for that services for smaller less glamourous projects where there will probalby still be a need for record photos and for use on websites. Most often these are done in-house and are very easy to compete with / better.</p>

<p>In the UK it's certainly not the best time to target the architectural profession, redundancies are still at record highs - and it looks like the industry will shrink further in 2010 and 2011. Practices are seeking to slash costs, not increase expenditure.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>All I can say is, I shoot with a D90, and am extremely happy with it. I bought it in August last year and plan to keep on using it for a couple of years yet (at least). I stuck with my D70 until it really started to limit me (only in some ways - the pixel count, ISO performance and rear display).</p>

<p>Just one note - the price on the D90 went up after I bought it (twice actually) and after a recent drop in price is now back at the price I bought it at. That was due entirely to the Yen/£ exchange rates but is an indicator that camera prices don't always go one way.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>I went with the SB-600 - and now want/need to supplement that with the SB900 to get greater control from the command flash. Not sure on any other flashes that would be as suitable as the SB600, it ticked the right boxes for me at the time, although it is more limited than the SB900 for controlling other flashes.</p>

<p>There are 2 great first stops to understanding flash photography:</p>

<p><strong>Strobists.blogspots - Lighting 101</strong> - for off camera flash photography (principles are similar for using flash on camera, but better results can be gained from getting it off) - there is all sorts of great information on their site >> <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html">http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html</a></p>

<p>The other is a book that is pretty essential to understanding flash photography <strong>Light: Science and Magic</strong> - it's set out very well, and covers essentials and advanced (at least for me - it seemed advanced) techniques and methods, and explains how light works and interacts with a subject and it's surroundings