David Hoyle

A rare snow day on Vancouver Is.

I have a new camera and lense and I have been trying to see how to make it capture an image I see with one I closed to eliminate the two eye 3D effect.

I find for closeup scenes( 3 dishes with seashells) and close up that I can find a focal length and f-stop( maybe F4-F5.6) .The background is a window with blinds closed and the outside light is low due to cloud cover. What I notice is the out of focus transition is very different. With my eye the focus area with details is round in shape. The camera sees a rectangle. As my eye image goes out of focus if I keep the center area focused I seem to be able to match the immediate area with the f-stops mentioned. However at those f-stops the blinds about 5 feet away are way more out of focus and lacking detail in the camera than compared to my eye. So it seems not possible to match the rate(?) of out of focus as the eye seems non-linear?

Also if i have the light level low then the above f-stop seems good for the immediate out of focus area. At higher light levels the lense needs stopping down, I believe this is mimicing the pupil of the eye closing.

However, I did note a gap in your already extensive collection of lenses.........like the inexpensive kit lenses for APS-C are 18-55mm,

Actually I do have a Nikon 16-80 f2.8-4, but it is a lense I just don't like. The images just seem different somehow. I have checked the resolution vs the 18-35 and they are close at apt. smaller then about f4.5 but somehow I just don't like it.

I think I over think it. And was just wondering if other people had the same issue.

The 50-100 is on the camera today so I will take it for a ride soon...

You guys are right they are sigma f1.8s

Yes it is by pedal bike so load carrying is limited.

I think I usually don't have planned shooting so that is why I hesitate for which lense I chose. And it always seems when I take a short focal length , that day the best bird chances appear. :)

I recently retired and have been going for bike rides everyday that weather permits. Where I live I go through a small town center then parks and a country side also often visiting some provincial parks. I always take my camera and look for something to photograph.

On the days for when I think there will be wildlife the lense of choice is easy. Take the long lense.

When just causal then I need to decide, the 10-24,18-35, the 50-100, the 150 macro or the do it all 18-300 (all on a APC sensor.)

So my question is that when you go out is there a planned subject matter or do you look for a specific lense that day?

I visited the nearby river estuary and was in turned visited.

There is a lot of good information about film resolution. Some of the easiest reading is here:

8×10 film vs IQ4 150mp Comparing 8x10 to a 150MP Phaseone and Nikon D850

Big Camera Comparison 2011 comparison but information about various sized film. 120 Tmax rated from 50Mp to 152 Mp

So it does appear film has a fairly high resolution, much more than 16Mp. But digital is much easier, faster and cheaper in the long run.

I see the most contrast in G and I. With G having slightly more. I based this by first checking the focus of the hair on the left side of the hat rim of each image. Then looking at the contrast in the bond on the hat at the right edge and the contrast in the wood base for the dog carving. The wood base seems to show the most difference in contrast between the images.Whether this is correct to be termed "microcontrast" or just better resolution I am not sure.

Ohhhh my

This is what is called a real issue. The idea that we move around in our environment and once in a while find a situation( actually we want to explore and find these situations) we want to capture to convey a message/meaning/feeling.... and then move on with out the technology getting in the way.... Whether the capturing is for us personally or for sharing is also not needed to be stated. Is it something subliminal or artistic, a political statement or just a personal feeling at that exact moment and it is the involvement primal/secondary to the capturing.

And as you state sometimes the capturing is primal and then the captured moment becomes secondary to even developing the end image....

Well what is it we are doing?

Myself I find often just need the excuse for going out to find something very beautiful or exciting to look at and the act of going through to find the best angle best lighting and framing is important and draws me to taking a picture not for the picture but the exercise of finding/seeing it in its best 'light" that is important. This make the subject even more personal and I feel myself even more drawn to the object with a feeling or better understanding and attachment. I have taken many hundred images and then not looked at them for weeks because I am afraid I did not capture what I saw.

It is not the camera but the process that is important and in the rare chance for me and my limited photo capabilities that I do capture the 'moment" I am pushed forward to find the next instance.

I came from the film only era and for 10s of years worked with it relying on outside labs for proper processing. The digital age has freed us from that error prone issue/consistency and I find the digital domain much happier. In the last few years the cameras are much more accurate at reflecting what I see before I click the shutter and with minimal processing. this alone , minimal processing, makes it far more enjoyable. I want to point/shoot and see what I saw!

Looking at the image on the camera , impossible, too small, too limited for color scale... too limited. I rarely look except to make sure the framing is good and the main area is not truncated. Then move on to the next visual stimulus!

So fast so moving forward. So exciting ....

The barebones camera. Just ignore the back. Camera companies sell to the market. most people are not interested in the art. They buy technology (gadgets) .

Trust me I am a "Technology Manager".

Lets go find something to take a picture of.....

I want to give a wholehearted "huzza!" to Fred's general position regarding print versus screen, and a further +1 to the idea of the media being integral to the art. The medium by which an piece of art is presented, whether granite or marble, acrylic on paper or oil on canvas, palette knife or brush.....

 

 

Yes I agree that the medium is part of the art. For many people though using a digital display may be acceptable or preferred.

 

This is similar to the audiophiles that go to great lengths including building the perfect sound rooms to create "their" preferred environment.

 

So maybe not a substitute for printing but a companion for it?

Why are we still printing images?

Screens are now rather relatively inexpensive for high resolution. Why not just sell the digital image so one can display them on a thin screen hung on the wall? a well adjusted screen could display the image very well. maybe have some proprietary s/w that only allows the image displayed on a screen with the proper decryption.

The question is

how does the Ai get to the place where the 'moment" happens?

looking for the Ai on the hiking trail.....

I recently had a brain fart where I broke the battery door off my D7500.

Fortunately the following week I was near the Nikon service center in Mississauga , Ontario.

I stopped by and a service person came out to help me. I expected to leave the camera for the day. The service girl went in the back to see if they had a door. She came back with 2. Showed me how to replace it and then handed me the second new door. I asked how much and she said. Free.

Thanks so much for the great support!

Flowers slightly off the beach. testing a new (used) lense