robert100
-
Posts
221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by robert100
-
-
to Glen S.
The greener of the two lizards in your photo looks to me to be a European Wall Lizard. But the one which
looks somewhat browner above and greener below looks interestingly like it could be a "cross breed" of a Wall
Lizard and a Northern Alligator Lizard. The Wall Lizard is the "newer arrival" of the two on Vcr Island, in fact it
is a species the Royal BC Museum will take sighting reports of, and it maintains a sighting-reports map on
them on behalf of the DoE.
They pursue the same diet as the Alligator Lizard but they are filling what is definitely going to be an
ever expanding role on the island because they will adapt to habitat which includes dense human development,
which has begun driving the Alligator Lizard out. because they do not. They need/want spaces remote from
human habitation, a rapidly disappearing commodity here.
If you click on my name it takes you to my photonet page where, although i removed a lot of images when
Imagepro was taken down, I still have a few photo samples. If you look in the "lizards snakes and stuff" folio
there are a couple of photos of a European Wall Lizard I spotted and photographed earlier this summer in the
newer development area going up on Triangle Mountain in Colwood, high up on the hill above the former
gravel-pit. The one in my photos has in fact been identified as a male.
The incredible wisdom of nature operating at its finest. It somehow found a way to have the European Wall
Lizard show up at this juncture in time and space to fill a predatory void being created by man driving out the
Alligator LIzard. Gotta love it.
-
.....no photo to post this week (mechanical failure in hand-of-man station wagon redirected my time away from
cameras to shopping for a decent 4x4). We celebrated the "official" day of thanksgiving in Canada a while back,
but like the rest of you, no matter whether it's up here on the rocky side of the mountain on the Island, or looking
out the window at the sunrise across a mile of flat nothingness back at farm on the prairies, every morning of
every day I wake up surrounded by wilderness and the critters who tough-out its challenges is my thanksgiving.
Thanks to you all for openly sharing your works. Every image we see teaches us something.
-
i advertised the honda wagon for sale because it has a starter problem. In that he strolled through the yard and
had a close look at it I was thinking of askin' him if he'd brought cash, but from here it didn't even look like he
had a pocket to carry it in. So i just let him wander around and kick the tires<div></div>
-
the question was "how much does facial expression .....(etc) ......."portrait".
regardless of how much you enjoy cartoons, the answer to the question which was asked, is "there doesn't
even need to BE a facial expression in a "portrait".
And despite people on photonet throwing dead cats at each other, and the approach i used in my initial
response, in which i deliberately sought out and used a "back of the head no face" image from photonets own
data base, this "no face needed in a portrait" is not just a photo.net concept. It is also a "working
professional's concept", and despite the explosion all over that page which came from one of the photonet
"experts". I was totally well aware of that when I posted my response, deliberately limiting it to a photonet
example at the time.
The PPOC and PPOA both, among their annual awards, have an award which goes to the "portrait
photographer of the year". There is no requirement for the images entered, by working professional portrait
photographers who are members of those associations, in the "portrait" category, to include a face. Thus,
also, no need for a facial "expression" of any nature. Cartooned or otherwise.
Although your information is "interesting", it isn't needed in order to answer the original question.
If indeed the original poster had asked a question along the lines of "how much does facial expression have an impact on you in a portrait in which the person's face is the prominent feature....?" That would be a totally different question. And one to which your answer would provide interesting insight.
Don't ask how far it is to Texas if you're headed for Oklahoma.
And if you think the need for accurately asking specific questions is "nit picky", remind me never to hire you to write software or design a web page/
-
like i said................"not if you ask the "experts" at photo net"
-
Th reason for asking “your” definition of portrait, is that the definition you apply will seem to answer your
question automatically.
This, is the definition according to the encyclopedia:
A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face
and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the
person.
Based on that definition, the answer to your question is “it is the predominant thing”.
However, if you go to the photo,net gallery page and do a search using the portrait as the “tag”, among many
images pulled up, you'll find this one:
http://www.photo.net/photo/17901872
And, as you can't see a facial expression when all you're looking at is the back of a head, it would seem that
according to photonet, the answer to your question would be “it's irrelevant”
The Photonet definition of portrait seems to disagree with the encyclopedia's definition. Guess it depends on
who you believe. The experts at the encyclopedia, or the experts at photonet.
-
You've asked an interesting question. Define "portrait".
-
re the sunset thing, don't be too surprised if the majority of those magnifico sunrise sunset images we see
posted everywhere don't have the enhancements done by playing with the "color curves" tools, especially not
the one in dpp. I started to start lookiing at approaches to them when I was back at the farm in "big sky"
country in 2010 and 11 where stunning sunsets and sunrises are a daily thing. I never "carried through with
my studies" and actually tried hands-on with it (I've got a few thousand sunrise/set images on file and the
"learn how" is still on my "to do" list, but the real work of harvest-time photos etc always got in the way). But,
what appeared to me to be the approach which was producing the best results, was an approach using
"gradient mapping" in photoshop (and my elements6 has the tool in it). I watched a couple of you-tube videos
on it, I recall one which was a wedding photo in which a gradient-map sky had been produced and put in the
background. I spent five minutes one night playing with it but never really got my hands/brain to the point they
understood how it works, and i've not had it as "number one" on the project list to get back to. Pop into you
tube, do a search of "sunsets sunrises gradient mapping" and see what you find in the way of instruction.
The farm in Ab is an amazing contrast to the specific locale I am in here on the Island, where I'm tucked deep
into stands of 70 foot tall cedars and below the rim of the mountain. Here, I seldom even get to see the sun,
period. At the farm, with an 8 foot high 12 foot wide window facing east across a half mile of nothingness, the
mornings you notice aren't the ones with spectacular sunrises, those are the "norm". The ones you notice are
actually the days when they don't happen. Same thing with sunsets. At the farm you can see it go down "at the
regional hour of the sunset". Up here on the mountain on the island, the sun is high enough above the tress i
finally get to see it around 1130 hours, and it disappears from my site-line, leaving me in deep blue shadow by
roughly 1530 hours in mid afternoon these days, even though it doesn't actually "set" for four hours after that.
I have zero view from here at my rv studio-trailer of either the sunrise, or sunset. I have almost wrap-around
glass, and an almost 360 degree view of a cold blue wall of cedars and leafless maples. It's like being on a
totally different planet.
re the Flikr thing. I haven't set up an acct yet because i haven't even ever set up a yahoo account and name.
But my understanding, if I read correctly, is that although they display all images as jpegs, I could actually
upload full sized tif files (which saves me the steps of downsizing to pint-sized, and the conversion step.
Yes/no ?
-
incidentally, this is a side note to the topic, but it's something I've also gained from this thread. With the killing of
the website stuff and some comments by others like yourself, which got me paying attention to the fact you and
they post images to "flikr", i've looked at "flickr", which I had not before. And now see why people use it instead
of pnet. It's because you get away from this diddly-playing around at having to chop images down to miniscule
before loading them, over there you can actually load a whole big image. After all the random chop-chop-chop i was doing to get that little birdie up on here, and the frustration of it, I also appreciate the lead to "over there".
-
you wanna have some fun ? Last summer I took a "red" pair of pvc gloves and photographed them (with a
40D) to do some monitor-tests with. I was looking at buying a new monitor, and was not seeing anything in the
stores which impressed me even a bit. I've been quite comfortable visually with what I get on my Toshiba
laptop, but i've had it for years and am "accustomed" to what it shows me. (and the second monitor I had was
a Samsung, which despite its reputation, I was never happy with).
Nothing I saw in the stores seemed similar. I had taken a handful of random photo files, loaded em to a flash
drive and carried em with me as a look-see, and nothing looked good. So, finally, I took the pair of red gloves,
photo'd em, then brought them in and sat them right here beside my laptop while I processed the photos, to
make sure I was getting the photos to give me an exact color match, to make sure i was comfortable with the
color it was giving me on the Toshiba, and then go from there.
Do you know, that sitting right here, with the gloves physically beside me, I was totally unable, using dpp with
the raw, and then adobe elements with tifs, to actually get a "true" color match on either of my monitors. Not
the Toshiba laptop, and especially not on the "high reputation" Samsung (which was theoretically, "perfectly
calibrated"). I was not able, no matter what i did, able to reproduce "on screen", the exact color of the gloves I
had physically sitting next to me on my table.
The one thing I did find, in a month of not-happily checking out monitors........was that despite the 'brand
names| on the front bezels.....99 percent of the stuff out there are using a color processor chip which comes
out of the same manufacturing plant.......and thusly.....none of them are any better than any other.
What I really wanted, was to find a combination tv/monitor I could be happy with having run 'backgound slide
shows" here while I was painting at my easel, so I could have a series of reference photos just running in the
background I cold glance over at . I found, by testing and then digging, that one of the very expensive high-
end tv/monitors i looked at (over a thousand bucks), had exactly the same color processing chip in it, as a
$248 dollar "store brand named" 29 inch unit. Not impressive.
In all my hunts, only one monitor, and only one size and model within the overall brand, actually seemed to be
good at what it claimed to do. It was a 21 inch Asus. But sit it side by side with the 19 inch of the same brand,
and the 23 inch of the same brand....and the one, lone, 21 incher, seemed "accurate".
Another thing to remember, is that not everyone can actually see the variances in color. IE, in painting with
oils or acrylics, to have pigments which give you a full workable range so you can mix clean non-muddy
colors, you need a "bluish red" and a "yellowish red", and a "yellowish blue" and a "reddish blue", and a
"bluish yellow" and a "reddish yellow". (because of the nature of painting and all the supports etc, this gives
you a broader working capacity than just primaries). And it can take months.......months............to get new
students to even be able to "see" the difference between a "blue-red" and a "yellow-red" for example. It's a
"learned" ability. The learning curve, time, is different in different people, some learn quickly, and some in
fact, never do. They never acquire the ability to see the difference. (and there can be physical reasons for
that, just because everyone has rods and cones doesn't mean they all are the same quality rods and cones)
We aren't machines. In humans, color is a perception. And it is a perception with major psychological
implications, not just differences in the 'physical properties of the wavelength'. Wanna read a good book ?
See if you can find an old copy of "The Luscher Color Test", the pocketbook version. The full lab-test thingy is
done with over a hundred color swatches, the pocket book shows you and discusses something like a dozen
or so. Just enough to get across a rudimentary and "basic understanding".
The successful artists I know, use the knowledge of the psychological impact of colors in their paintings every
time they pick up a brush.
-
.....recovering from a forest fire two years prior. Although the knowledge it was a result of the clumsiness of man
and not a fire initiated by nature in its own cycles perhaps makes the happiness of the sunrise a figment of my
own imagination, yes, it's always alright, the earth may take time to do it, but it eventually always covers our
-
David. You do realize what you are looking at here, right ? You're giving me advice on what you would do to
"make correct" an image which is not worth even working on. It was not intended to even be "taken" as an
image worth working on to do anything "public" with. This is a photograph I 'snapped off' of a one to one and a
half inch long bird simply because it was what happened to jump out of the bushes when i was out walking
around with my camera set at iso4000 and plus one ev in order to test whether going ettr would give me more
useable iso range.
This is a one inch bird, from 18 feet away, photographed with a four hundred dollar lens (which also has dust
inside it). There is nothing.............absolutely nothing........about this photograph which could ever be done
which would make it a 'useable' photograph, it's not a "good" photograph.
As our discussion on this thread was about trying to get useable higher iso's by getting above the noise, this
photograph does show me, that I will be able to get that. I applied chromatic noise reduction, and found,
happily, i was able to kill the floor noise.
I then took one (and now two) of the 18 meg image of the bird at iso4000 and plus one eve, took a cropping
out of it which is a "miniscule" portion of the overall image, to bring the little birdie up where it could be seen,
so people can see the chromatic noise is low........and......made the mistake of putting it up here.
The cropping I took out of the original photograph was not taken as even a "decent composition". I just laid the
cropping tool on the image, took a "two second wave of the lines to take a rough and sloppy" chunk of it which
had the bird in it......then I took that, converted it to a jpeg....and downsized it to a 'loadable' size. When I did
that, I actually found I was "over the size limit". So......I took the image and chopped another chunk off the left
side of it......checked it again.....and it was still over the size limit.........so I chopped another chunk off
it.....with no "design" in mind.....I was just lopping chunks off it left and right to try to get down to the "size
limit".....so I could post it here to show one thing....and one thing only: That yes, this will indeed....when I find
an image worth taking and doing something with.....allow me to use higher iso than I had been using.
You are giving me instruction on how to 'improve the overall look', of an image which does not have even the
initial basic merit to justify doing anything with. And was never intended to.
The chromatic noise level this shows is workable, That's the intent of showing it here. The "detail" in the
feathers, for example, is not 'workable'. It's not there. This is a jpeg, at medium quality, of one-fiftieth of the
original image. Nothing about it, could be be turned into a "usable" image. Look at the chromatic noise (the
absence of it) in the bird's body.. That's all this was posted here to show.
Thank you for your input. Always appreciated.
-
you may find the time-line compression in that a tad confusing....I came to the island in the 80's after selling my
half the photo studio operation, but for the first few years here I still had my Linhoff 4x5 view camera. The
experience with the Nikon 2 meg pocket-jobby and not getting bracketed prints was the first digital i bought,
which was maybe 2003 or so....
-
yup, it had just flitted up out of deep shadow to a grass/twig which was in a direct sun-ray, which at this time
of year at that spot up here on the mountain is coming across at a very low angle just barely peeking through
cedars at the horizon. 1/1000 of a second.
Don't forget, i really have not done anything with these images to make them "showable", I have not taken them over
into elements and done any of the detailed work I do to "publish" an image, it's just hit with the basic stuff in
dpp and a crop pulled out which i could toss on here by downsizing it. As far as "what else to do with it",
frankly I wouldn't even take this cropping over into elements to work with, i'd crop it totally differently.
here's another one, in this one it had shifted it's angle, taking the glaring sun highlight off its head and chest.
This one thus gives it a far more "balanced" on the bird itself of dark-and-lites of exposure and gives more
detail to work with. Of the two images, if I were to take them further, this would be the one I'd take to do it with.
This one was the same iso4000, 1/1000 second. and i bumped the av to f11.
As far as "bring up the dark shadows", that in fact is one major "fault" with the whole new garbage of the
"matrix metering" systems all the camera mfrs keep trying to get people to use, is that the whole theory behind
it is you should be able to "see into" every shadow area, and no bright areas should get "clipped".
That is a garbage approach to exposure. It totally defies the way your eye works. When you walk outside on a
sunlit day, there are going to be areas of dark shadow you can't see into. And there are going to be areas so
bright you can't look into them. That's the way the "real world" works. It's the way your eye works. This "mish-
mash" of everything being "seeable-into" is a fairy tale. And it is B-o-r-i-n-g. To have visual "impact" an image
needs - absolutely needs - the full range from deep deep darks, to bright bright brights.
In addition to being a photographer I'm also an artist, I work in acrylics. I've been teaching art classes for
years. I teach "the elements and principles of design". And it is the first friggin challenge every art teacher
speaks of having to try and get students to do.....is to lay down an area of rich, deep, deep, dark, and get a
full range of contrast into their work. It is students number one universal sin" they're afraid to actually squeeze
out a huge dollop of that expensive professional grade pigment and "do something with it. They almost all, start
out painting wishy-washy middle-toned boring junk.
You wanna have an interesting experience ? When i first came out to this island back in the late 80's, I had
sold my partnership in the photo studio back in Alberta. Where I had been very accustomed to having a full 20
inch processor in our very own in-house lab, which thusly, when I "bracketed" an exposure, gave me
"bracketed" prints to look at and judge where to go from. So, suddenly here I am, on this island with "no" lab
of my own. I bought a little Nikon 2 meg point and shoot. Took it to the beach, and to get used to it, ran off a
bunch of images on which I specifically took 3 exposures of every image....bracketed.......at '0', and plus one,
and minus one.
Took em to the dealer where I'd bought the camera, handed the card over to their lab and ordered a set of 4/6
prints. I go back and pick em up the next day. take em all out of the envelope to have a look at which exposure
setting gives the best results.............and I'm looking at an envelope of images in which all three of every
"bracketed" image............looks E-x-act-ly......Identically exposed. I went to the manager of the camera
department and said "this camera's exposure meter doesn't work". She looked at the images I was showing
her, and said "oh yah, the meter works fine.............but you had screwed up two of every three
exposures.....half of em were underexposed and half of were over-exposed.......so our technician who runs
the machine hits the "auto adjust" button, and she corrected them all for you. It's what we do for all the
amateur soccer-moms.
Do you know that I could not even get that "technician" to understand "why" i had deliberately "bracketed"
every image. She had no idea why anyone would even do that.
Do you know what I had to do in order to get "bracketed" prints ? I had to take the images, download them,
resize them, and create a "layered" image of them in which I put a one-quarter inch wide "border" around
each image, of pure, solid, black. Their "auto exposure adjust button" couldn't screw with that, I "forced" it to
give me bracketed prints.
There are two major flaws in the "normal everyday" approach to photography. One is this garbage of trying to
get "matrix see into everything metering". Your eye doesn't work that way in real life, you can't see into
shadow and into brightness "both at the same time". Your eye adjusts its "aperture" to the one you're looking
into, it can't do both at the same time. And the other fault, is DOF. A landscape image which is "all in focus"
foreground to background, is "un-natural" to your eye. Your eye has an incredibly shallow Depth of Field. You
can focus visually on one thing, and one thing only, at a time. Our approach to photography today is in total,
total, contradiction to the way we see things in person.
That is in fact the "magic" of the "artist" side of my profession. Is that artists, the good ones. learn and
understand and apply, all the principles and elements of design..........hard and soft edges.....light vs
dark....the color wheel, color complements etc. In photography, we have slowly been getting further and
further away from those, leading to "everything in mid tone everything in focus mish-mash junk". And that, is a
true shame.
I'd do a lot more work to this image to make it "publishable", but the two things I would not touch, are the deep
darks and the bright highs, Those are elements of the design, And they belong in this image. They are "the
reality" of what was there. They are what will give the final image "iimpact". They are the "art" in it.
-
having to resize images to these puny jpegs makes them useless as a true reference for anyone, because
even if the raw once worked looks magnifico, once you downsize it this much and convert to a peg, it looks
like a watercolor anyway. But what the heck, i've puuled a crop out of one of the wren images and downsized
it to put it up here for a different reason than the noise. This turns out to be a superb "gain" for me specifically
by going to the higher iso of 4000 which i got by going to the right on this image, It wasn't the higher shutter
speed which was the big gain, it was being able to go to f8 instead of f5.6. This is on a tamron sp70-300, it's a
winter wren, a bird an inch and a half long, photo'd at a distance of about 17 or 18 feet away. I gained two
things. F8 gave me a larger DOF, which gave me more of the little critter in focus than just the front edge of its
eyeball....and....Look "behind" it. The background foliage, is roughly 20 to 22 feet behind the tiny birdie, Look
at the "Bokeh". The aperture of F8 not only gave me more of the bird in focus, it also changed the bokeh of
the "out of focus" background significantly from what i would have looked like at F5.6. The Tamron sp70-300
is very good for its price. In fact I own two of them, one mounted on the 7D, one on a 40D. But what it does
"not have", is decent Bokeh on a moderately-near background when exposed at F5.6. The Bokeh looks
"clunky". Getting to use the smaller aperture by going to the right, also gave me and improved 'out of focus'
-
Tony. Thank you, that is a superbly written explanation. You've experienced precisely what i have in the
couple of test-variables i've managed this week. Yesterday there was a small winter wren, which even though it
had moved out into the sun, i exposed at iso4000 and plus a full one ev. The Image would, with modest
sharpening etc, be 'acceptable'.......... unless pulled up at DPP's 200magnification and 'peeped at".... then you
can see there is chromatic noise still there in the little brown bird even when chromatic noise reduction is
applied at the full "20". But if I pull up about 1/4 of the full original frame as a crop, it is very, very, acceptable.
What I also found, though, is that there simply is a point in the color-temperature of the available light, below
which nothing is going to make a difference. Once the Kelvin temperature drops to a certain point the very 'air'
itself in the shadow of the deep forest is deep blue/purple, and you can't get enough light intensity and quality
to the sensor to give you anything to work with. Unfortunately, in my case, here in the rainforest, that's the
cool-color-temperature air I'm in a lot of the time. Back at the farm on the prairies, or out on the beach here at
the coast, it's not a problem.
The cool Kelvin temp blue-shadow air of the rainforest is, incidentally, why the true specialist "bird
photographers" like Glen Bartley who lives not far from me, in Victoria here on the Island, and who virtually
photograph nothing but birds, don't even spend time trying to get natural lighting to work here. Glen uses a 7D,
but a great deal of time here in the rainforest conditions, he has a canon 600 speedlite and a big beam-
extender hanging off the side of it. (way up high off to the side to avoid steel-eye)
The key I've picked up out of what you've outlined, is exactly what I found. That by boosting the iso, going to a
plus ev, getting a faster shutter speed out of it, gave me the same detail and an image with more workability.
Trying to get Iso6400 usable ? Not in "small" birds. Not at a workable distance for the glass I have at least (300
mm longest), because I have to pull up too tight a crop on a bird which is only two inches long and I'm 18 to
20 feet away. However, iso4000 will be usable. Which is a lot higher than the 1250 I was keeping myself to
before this.
And all of it, is really also dependent on the "kind" of photograph, the "subject material" of the photograph. IE,
bird photographs have to be really "clean".....'animal' photos have to be really 'clean'.......but a photograph of a
fence post or a farm combine or a heavy duty excavator, can have a lot more 'noise' in them without it really
affecting the way people perceive its quality.
But in addition to the little tests I've run as you have, I've also been flipping back through thousands and
thousands of my files the last few nights, just pulling up random images for a look-see. And it's true. All of the
ones which are the "cleanest" are the ones which were exposed at least a tad "to the right". Which, in fact, I
was doing in all those instances, to gain visibility into the shadow areas. What I have not been doing, is doing
that to "all" of my exposures. I also virtually never use any metering system other than pure "Spot" metering on
the precise point I'm also focusing on, because if it is what i want in focus, it is also what i want with the most
workable exposure. I quite often, when photographing landscape type features or botanicals, where I have a
static subject and the time to do it, use the dead center spot meter, center it and meter and focus on the
highlite area I want to be the most readable, then hit the 'exposure lock' button on the back of the camera,
recompose, and expose.
Your original posting certainly opened things up to a lot of input from people who have given us some good,
usable, advice. Thanks for opening it all up.
-
Andy. Galen Rowell is one of those people I wish I'd had the opportunity to meet in person. He wrote a number
of truly superb 'techinical' books on photography, but the key to the man was his "eye", he truly loved
everything in the natural world and he "lived it". He was "the truth". He wasn't one of those so-called "wildlife
photographers" photographing trained animals romping around like trained seals at some fenced in refuge,
when he submitted a photograph of a tent in the middle of nowhere at minus 45 degrees ass deep in snow, he
was out there sleeping in that tent in those conditions. His landscape photography, his American mountain
landscapes, his Tibetan mountain landscapes, etc, are the iconic images which burned themselves into the
cortex of thousands who have sought out the spots he stood in and tried to duplicate his images.
And it's funny, because I mentioned to David Stephens that if I were going to do landscape work I wouldn't
pack a 7D or mk11 or a 5D, I'd go with a one-inch mirrorless (the new Nkon maybe) for portability, and Rowell
was one of the "leaders" in showing that small, light, efficiently portable gear was viable for landscapes. He
primarily used rangefinders because there were good, small ones, on the market. I can't recall which image it
was, but one of the Tibetan ones, or Iceland or somewhere, was taken on a camera he was carrying in his
shorts pocket on his morning 10 km run from his base-camp.
There is also one tragic story which resulted from his photography. The iconic thousand-year-old pine high in
the Rockies which, after its location being disclosed by photographs, was killed by senseless "biologists" who
in their moronic quest for "analytical data" bored a hole through it to take "age samples"....thus killing it in the
process. (sometimes maybe, we should take the photo, but bury it rather show it to the world)
The intriguing part of this whole thread, and David Stephen's contributions, particularly as he now has added a
7Dii to his arsenal, is that in my playing around for the past few days, it has allowed/prompted me to re-
analyze the entire scope of my photography, and I'm reasonably satisfied that I won't be rushing out to get
one of the new ones right away. (which is good, because my car conked yesterday, and my camera-gear
budget is being diverted to going to look at a 4x this afternoon....so I'll need to be satisfied with my cameras
for a bit longer anyway).
But ya, two people I definetly wish I'd had the chance to meet, naturalist/photographer Galen Rowell, and
naturalist/author R.D.Lawrence (among his books are "The Ghost Walker" (cougar), and "Where the Water
Lillies Grow"). They lived it, and breathed it all, to the bottom of their inner beings.
I virtually grew up in a tent and a canoe (and a small boat), fishing and hiking the remoteness of Northern
Alberta. And the greatest joy I experience with photography, is that it doesn't matter if I'm back around the
farm in Ab or here on the Island on the west coast, packin a camera "gets me outside and into it, and makes
me really, really, pay attention to it all."
I own a 7D for one reason and one reason only. The buffer which can handle a burst of 22 raw, and writes it
off in a hurry. Other than that, although it's a nice rig it's also heavy as a pail of concrete on a hike, and it
sounds like a thunderstorm goin' off at 8fps.. If I could get myself so I actually enjoyed looking through an EVF
and was after landscapes ala Galen Rowell, one of the new one inch mirrorless jobbies could be really
interesting.
-
Peter Meade. LOL. You mean to tell me that all the firefighters in my unit with the long curly eyelashes
don't have a Y chromosome ? Gawd, I knew there was somethin' different about 'em. Especially my own
Fire Chief, the one who wears the white brain bucket with "Chief Dunlop" on the side. "Her" first name,
is Stephanie. Go figger.
(this isn't a photo of her, this is one of the newer FF'trs, all the photos i have of the Chef which I have
quickly at hand were taken on Nikon gear).
A lot of the camera work I've done in conjunction with the Fire Departments is on behalf ot the Justice
Institute of BC, which in addition to overseeing Firefighter Training and Fire Investigations, also is a
Police Academy. One of our female firefighters from MVFD in fact just graduated this month from the Police
Academy side of things. The sidearm she'll be packing around won't be "air soft".
They still all make me glad I was......"...".....(you know)<div></div>
-
Muscular dudes outfitted in Mountain "hard wear", fighter pilots munchin' home-made soups, and a kid
wearin' a spectacular camo head-rig which makes me wish I could find a reason to wear one. All really
Cool Stuff, the kinda stuff that makes ya glad you were born with a penis don't it.
-
i won't be on here long enought to write the explanation for it and give you the math, but if you do a search you'll
find it, the topic to search is "Hyperfocal Distance", it will explain to you the mathematical calculation which will
let you know how far away from your camera's focal plane to focus to achieve "everything half that distance
from you, to infinity, in focus". (in the "old days", lenses had the scale right on them). And yes, you'll want to use
an aperture of more like f32 or f45 if you have it (or 22 or whatever you have on that lens), and when you do the
math, your 50 mil lens on that camera is "mathematically" an equivalent of an 80 mm lens (which is not exactly
wide angle) if the math formula you find on the web is based on "35mm camera math", which it "likely" will be.
The dof you are trying to achieve is not done by "guesswork", it's determinable by pure simple mathematics.
-
-
-
incidentally, David, your post substantiates what i had said, it doesn't refute it. I didn't say ettr wasn't as
important for landscape, what I said was that the higher iso's weren't, because when working landscapes
you have other ways to achieve the ettr, ie, using the pod and slower speeds, allows you to achieve ettr but
do so, at iso's of 100 and 200.
...and please.....after you decide the 7dii is "wasted" on landscapes.....i'll swap you for a t3i which is
content to sit still on a pod for hours on end looking at landscapes, and i'll take the 7dii off yer hands and
let it "run free and wild" like a good strong active horse......
maybe someday, canon will also realize putting "video" software in a 10fps camera "wastes"" its 10 fps
capacity. Lower the price by 500 bucks, leave the video out of it, build it as a "camera", and then let people
spend the other 500 bucks to buy an actual video camera from you which is designed for that purpose..
-
yup,yer gonna have a challenge alrighty, that narrower FOV of the smaller sensor drove me nuts for a
long time because my head just refused to wrap itself around not being able to see everything my brain
thought a 24mm "should"let me see. And to compound that, the 24 was just a number i had to work to
get my brain used to when i finally started doing some 35 mil work. Before I finally started packing a 35
mil around, the majority of my work was a Mamiya RB67 and a Linhoff 4x5 view camera.....and the so-
called "normal" focal length on those, are "longer"...... and "even-more-longer".
Printing 60 inch is magic, isn't it. The reason we used RB67's as our portrait camera systems was that
our objective for a "family/group" portrait assignment, was to sell what we called a "sofa" portrait, which
was a 42 by 60, custom laminated on canvas. The only company in western Canada at the time (early
80's) which could produce them for us was a custom lab in Calgary.The initial print was done as usual
on photo paper, then the emulsion layers were "peeled off" the backing paper and mounted on canvas.
Impressive as h. (and good money)
As a "matter of interest" I'm sure you'll have fun playing at it, As a matter of "practicality", I can't wrap
my head around an aspc lanscape camera/
removal of images
in PhotoNet Site Help
Posted
I have posted several images over the last few months to the Monday in Nature Forum, to the Canon EOS Thursday Forum,
and a few recently to a forum in a discussion with David Stephens concerning "noise in Canon 7D images".
I would like to know how I get those images which I posted, permanently removed from those Photo.net records.
Thank you.