The TPU Darkroom - Digital SLR and Photography Club

[Jetster]

A lot of these photos, unless they are screen captures can be downloaded and you can check the Metadata. It tells you everything about the camera

 

[Ferrum Master]

Processing RAW files isn't doctoring. All digital cameras use computational data to create a jpeg. A jpeg image lacks the information contained in a RAW file, so it's better to shoot RAW to then pull out the detail the jpeg has removed.

As for ISO speeds etc, just ask. This isn't a pro thread, though advanced skillsets (i.e. grunt) are welcome.

The most post-processing I'll normally do is adjust HDR as a camera doesn't see what our eyes do. Colour shifting is 'touching up' but is normally done for artistic reasons.

You missed the part talking about review sites... I am not talking about here.

A lot of these photos, unless they are screen captures can be downloaded and you can check the Metadata. It tells you everything about the camera

Most don't have them.

 

[Jetster]

Most don't have them.

Everyone I checked did, including yours. Mine don't because i don't upload the photo. It's a capture of the image.
Just a thought

 

[Ferrum Master]

Everyone I checked did, including yours. Mine don't because i don't upload the photo. It's a capture of the image.
Just a thought

You and tabascosauz also.

Well the devil is in the details. If you are simply lazy or do not care, let it be.

 

[tabascosauz]

You and tabascosauz also.

Well the devil is in the details. If you are simply lazy or do not care, let it be.

That's a lot of critiquing and not a lot of sharing. Care to share with us some of your works, in the spirit of the club?

 

[Ferrum Master]

That's a lot of critiquing and not a lot of sharing. Care to share with us some of your works, in the spirit of the club?

I just checked some last one randomly having the metadata. Yours didn't also, I just reacted to the claim and immediately found it incorrect on my first check.

 

[the54thvoid]

I don't think sharing those things helps. I've learned from places and reviews about 'how' and 'when' to use them (ISO, aperture, shutter speed).

Just seeing a picture with the settings listed doesn't explain the conditions that required the specific settings. They have to be learned, often the hard way, as I've found out.

In general, sweeping vista landscapes tend to favour f8-f16 aperture. Shutter speed not important and cam be used to adjust light. ISO is best low as it reduces grain from the picture.

Fast movement requires a good lens/camera combo. A sensitive AF system is essential for birds and sport.

Soft blurry backgrounds require low f-numbers, usually associated with higher lens costs. But, telephoto lenses tend to blur distance quite well.

Composition is the hardest thing. Actually trying to make a picture look interesting. I'm finding that the hardest thing. Got a long way to go.

 

[tabascosauz]

I just checked some last one randomly having the metadata. Yours didn't also, I just reacted to the claim and immediately found it incorrect on my first check.

I had a little ot rant but said I was happy to provide details, which I literally did right above it. Still "lazy"?

Which is why I asked if you had a photo to share that all of us can enjoy, this is the photo thread after all. Don't want to see this one devolve into pointlessness like the tech purchase thread

 

[Ferrum Master]

I don't think sharing those things helps. I've learned from places and reviews about 'how' and 'when' to use them (ISO, aperture, shutter speed).

Just seeing a picture with the settings listed doesn't explain the conditions that required the specific settings. They have to be learned, often the hard way, as I've found out.

In general, sweeping vista landscapes tend to favour f8-f16 aperture. Shutter speed not important and cam be used to adjust light. ISO is best low as it reduces grain from the picture.

Fast movement requires a good lens/camera combo. A sensitive AF system is essential for birds and sport.

Soft blurry backgrounds require low f-numbers, usually associated with higher lens costs. But, telephoto lenses tend to blur distance quite well.

Composition is the hardest thing. Actually trying to make a picture look interesting. I'm finding that the hardest thing. Got a long way to go.

Yes, at least chat about the topic.

We are generating data for others to see. The performance under shitty conditions and ISO noise curve of the camera is often what is desired to see. Especially if you are thinking into investing into one. You look and consider every thing you have. Those things are not cheap, thus I like to treat it more seriously too. So the content of casual photos is useful. I mentioned professional review sites, but those are way too idealistic and often hide some real usage flaws and struggle. Exactly those you just stated.

The technique composition is just matter of luck often, sometimes you miss so much because you have to react fast or some dude just walks into your shot... focusing is also important. With more recent tech like Eye AF even for animals it becomes much more easy, seeing a misfire kinda leaves you thoughts what's wrong really for the entire camera system that usually costs 2K+$. As I said we are on Tech forum, so I like to analyze it a lot from that aspect. Where else then? We have a ton of options where to dump our results, but not the process.

The point and shoot and show your content is for Instagram and Flickr etc... here we share also the info and know how in my opinion.

 

[Chomiq]

So @Ferrum Master maybe instead of complaining about lack of "tech details" in general why not simply ask "Hey @tabascosauz what settings did you use for this photo?" or maybe "Hey @the54thvoid how did you manage to catch the bird in flight so well? Which tracking mode did you use?". That way you're not forcing everyone to post tech details each time and instead you address the specific effect you actually want to replicate on your end.

 

[Ferrum Master]

So @Ferrum Master maybe instead of complaining about lack of "tech details" in general why not simply ask "Hey @tabascosauz what settings did you use for this photo?" or maybe "Hey @the54thvoid how did you manage to catch the bird in flight so well? Which tracking mode did you use?". That way you're not forcing everyone to post tech details each time and instead you address the specific effect you actually want to replicate on your end.

I just thinking for those lookers, who actually are not even members on TPU and peek into these threads.

I usually do ask, you can check that looking few pages back.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm going to LQ a lot of the posts above. It's to remove the text, not to dismiss the content. This thread is 127 pages and it's been photo centric. A lot of people post their pics with love. Others like to look. I don't think the majority want it devolving into a 'discussion'.

Just read the OP. @Ferrum Master is technically correct. Settings ought to be used and discussion is allowed, as per OP.

 

[grunt_408]

A fake flower half submerged in a bowl of water , a spring from a ballpoint pen being held in place by a third hand tool that is submerged. Milk in the water to stop the shiny third hand tool from showing under the surface. A needle was used to place droplets on the spring. Focused on the refracted flower inside the droplets and this is the result.
Canon 5D Mark IV
Tamron 90mm
1/200 F13 ISO250
1 Bare flash used to light the fake flower background.

Also a video of my liquid art that i made haha...

 

[the54thvoid]

A fake flower half submerged in a bowl of water , a spring from a ballpoint pen being held in place by a third hand tool that is submerged. Milk in the water to stop the shiny third hand tool from showing under the surface. A needle was used to place droplets on the spring. Focused on the refracted flower inside the droplets and this is the result.
Canon 5D Mark IV
Tamron 90mm
1/200 F13 ISO250
1 Bare flash used to light the fake flower background.

View attachment 212376


Also a video of my liquid art that i made haha...

You didn't give us enough information. Was it full fat milk or skinny...

Seriously though, nice work. Gonna make a thread just for you.

 

[Ferrum Master]

You didn't give us enough information. Was it full fat milk or skinny...

Seriously though, nice work. Gonna make a thread just for you.

Escalate ir more... ask if it was vegan friendly

As for the picture. There is a lesson again. The bokeh forms a hexagonal form due to the blade design and pretty closed aperture. It is a matter of taste tho, but also a characteristic of a specific lens, if you wish something like that.

 

[Valantar]

Hey, let's not forget the mineral content of the water, or the exact composition of the air (which does affect its refractive index, after all).

All joking aside, I find basic techinical details useful, but the photography world does (much like the PC hobbyist world, though in different ways) tend to devolve into gear and tech-speak circle jerks far too much of the time. Specs are a tiny part of what makes a photo good after all - technique across the entire process, from spotting/choosing a subject, framing/arranging the scene, shooting, and whatever is done in post all has a huge effect. (And no, post-processing isn't "cheating" or "fake", it's a crucial and omnipresent aspect of photography - after all, even with film you were introducing variation with the choice of film and the processing technique, so taking some control over that step is just another way of refining technique.)

I got some half-decent shots when I visited Öland (island off the east coast of Sweden) this summer. (Very beautiful in places, but only go there in summer if you have a high tolerance for tourist traps and hordes of families everywhere.)

Everything is shot on my Pentax K-70. Lenses:
Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR (K-70 kit lens, extremely versatile and good for what it is)
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE (excellent compact fast AF telephoto)
Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) (wide-angle that I got with my first DSLR back in ... 2008? Love that the K-70 still supports its archaic screw-drive AF)
Long exposures taken with an ND1000 filter, can't remember the brand and can't check since I'm not at home. Focal lengths below converted to 35mm equivalent.

Long exposures are manual, otherwise either shutter or aperture priority mode depending on the subject. Everything is processed in Lightroom.

42mm, 1/1000s, ISO 100, f/4
The wreck of the schooner Swiks, which sank off the coast of Öland in 1926. Really wish I had brought my ND filter and tripod here :/

15mm, 30s, ISO 800, f/10
Byrums raukar or Byrum's sea stacks, North-Western Öland

36mm, 30s, ISO 100, f/13
Same area as above

450mm, 1/500s ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped

450mm, 1/500s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
I call this one 'center-weighted'. Matches the exposure method

450mm, 1/400s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
Grey seals (IIRC) and great cormorants, southern Öland

450mm, 1/800s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
Caspian Tern

450mm, 1/320s, ISO 1600, f/6.3, cropped

450mm, 1/320s, ISO 1600, f/6.3
Sadly I have no idea what birds these are.

 

[grunt_408]

Hey, let's not forget the mineral content of the water, or the exact composition of the air (which does affect its refractive index, after all).

All joking aside, I find basic techinical details useful, but the photography world does (much like the PC hobbyist world, though in different ways) tend to devolve into gear and tech-speak circle jerks far too much of the time. Specs are a tiny part of what makes a photo good after all - technique across the entire process, from spotting/choosing a subject, framing/arranging the scene, shooting, and whatever is done in post all has a huge effect. (And no, post-processing isn't "cheating" or "fake", it's a crucial and omnipresent aspect of photography - after all, even with film you were introducing variation with the choice of film and the processing technique, so taking some control over that step is just another way of refining technique.)

I got some half-decent shots when I visited Öland (island off the east coast of Sweden) this summer. (Very beautiful in places, but only go there in summer if you have a high tolerance for tourist traps and hordes of families everywhere.)

Everything is shot on my Pentax K-70. Lenses:
Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR (K-70 kit lens, extremely versatile and good for what it is)
HD Pentax-DA 55-300mm F4.5-6.3 ED PLM WR RE (excellent compact fast AF telephoto)
Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II LD Aspherical (IF) (wide-angle that I got with my first DSLR back in ... 2008? Love that the K-70 still supports its archaic screw-drive AF)
Long exposures taken with an ND1000 filter, can't remember the brand and can't check since I'm not at home. Focal lengths below converted to 35mm equivalent.

Long exposures are manual, otherwise either shutter or aperture priority mode depending on the subject. Everything is processed in Lightroom.

42mm, 1/1000s, ISO 100, f/4
The wreck of the schooner Swiks, which sank off the coast of Öland in 1926. Really wish I had brought my ND filter and tripod here :/

15mm, 30s, ISO 800, f/10
Byrums raukar or Byrum's sea stacks, North-Western Öland

36mm, 30s, ISO 100, f/13
Same area as above

450mm, 1/500s ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped

450mm, 1/500s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
I call this one 'center-weighted'. Matches the exposure method

450mm, 1/400s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
Grey seals (IIRC) and great cormorants, southern Öland

450mm, 1/800s, ISO 100, f/6.3, cropped
Caspian Tern

450mm, 1/320s, ISO 1600, f/6.3, cropped

450mm, 1/320s, ISO 1600, f/6.3
Sadly I have no idea what birds these are.

Lovely shots

 

[Ferrum Master]

I will post my whining. Sorry... I have to.

I asked to scan my slides at one of the best local places. Scanner is Noritsu 3xxx series. Standart scan. Tif file 3089*2048 ~ uncompressed 18.1MB size.

Well... it turned out crap. Why? Human factor + device limitations. Yes, even for 35mm film.

Basically, I got dust on my scans, the film got scratched afterwards. The contrast is weaker, highlights are overblown and... the resolution is way less it should be. Also very aggressive sharpening. I can do a quick compare as those are positives, just look with your bare eyes at the film putting some light source beneath.

I guess later this week I will have to reassemble my macro scanning rig... do some deserved justice on that slide film.

Damn, you have to everything by yourself... always... as usual...

Example.

I shot on Sigma ART 50mm F1.4 DG HSM, wide open on Minolta Maxxum a7 loaded with Fuji VELVIA 100.

 

[the54thvoid]

Trip to Inverary last weekend.

All pics on EOS R

St Conan's Kirk (or some place in Skyrim)
1/30 sec. f/8 24 mm ISO100

Spider and flowers in the Kirk
1/13 sec. f/7.1 105 mm ISO 100

Early morning in Inverary
1/6 sec. f/13 24 mm ISO 160

 

[Chomiq]

Just a quick photo that I grabbed with my phone when I was going out to get some groceries. Everything on auto. Added contrast in post to boost the shadows. Nothing special but I came to conclusion that I tend to have a tendency to look for lines and shadows when I actually do take a photo once a year.

 

[grunt_408]

Flower Canon 5D Mark IV , 1/160 , F18 , ISO 250 , Tamron 90mm a single flash used.

UVIVF Flower Canon 5D Mark IV , 1/160 F18 ISO 20000 , Tamron 90mm. 2 UV flash units used

 

[the54thvoid]

This would be more @grunt_408's territory but it's on a regular 35mm lens with living insects.

Two bee, or not two bee.... (and a hoverfly)

EOS R, 35mm, f10 1/80s, ISO 500

 

[grunt_408]

This would be more @grunt_408's territory but it's on a regular 35mm lens with living insects.

Two bee, or not two bee.... (and a hoverfly)

EOS R, 35mm, f10 1/80s, ISO 500

View attachment 216353

How awesome a threesome!!

 

[Nuckles56]

Canon 6D Mk II 100mm macro (non image stabilized), f9, 1/100s, ISO 5000 shot freehand on this escapee grevillia

Canon 6D Mk II 100mm macro (non image stabilized), f10, 1/160s, ISO 5000 shot freehand. Hardenbergia or the happy wanderer as it's commonly known, which is one of my favorites of the Australian spring flowers

Canon 6D Mk II 100mm macro (non image stabilized), f10, 1/200s, ISO 800 shot freehand. One of the early, white wattles which are much nicer (IMO) than the common yellow ones

 

[the54thvoid]

Much sadness. Went a trip to the Galloway Forest Park. On a wee trek down the Glen, I saw a 'thing' hanging from some discarded fishing twine in a tree.

Got out the 300mm for a closer look...

Long dead. Must have flown into the hook and got caught.

Same area as these pics - a small river gorge fed by a (now dammed) loch.

35mm, f/13, 1/2 sec (no ND filter required), ISO 100

24mm, f/13. 1/60 sec, ISO 100 (post processed for HDR)