April 23, 2014, 08:20:20 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - pinnaclephotography

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7
31
Starscape at Samuel H. Boardman State Scenic Corridor

32
Well, Nikon is trying to sell it's equipment, so it is hardly an unbiased source of information.  I agree with those who posted before; the photographer is (almost always) more important than the gear he is using.  On the other hand, I have certainly encountered situations where my gear was insufficient for the task at hand.

For kicks, here are a few old point and shoot shots I took, 4 years ago:

Mount Cannon and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


wild wool factories by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

35
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 27, 2011, 09:45:36 PM »
50 mph (~80 km/h) winds at St. Mary Lake, Glacier National Park

Furious Mary [explore 09/25/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

36
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: September 27, 2011, 09:42:37 PM »
50 mph (~80 km/h) winds at St. Mary Lake, Glacier National Park

Furious Mary [explore 09/25/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

37
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 10, 2011, 09:36:11 PM »
Another point-n-shoot shot from Glacier National Park:

Heavy Runner Mountain by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

38
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: September 10, 2011, 09:34:29 PM »
Another point-n-shoot shot from Glacier National Park:

Heavy Runner Mountain by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

39
Landscape / Re: Post Your Best Landscapes
« on: September 03, 2011, 03:23:19 PM »
Perhaps its a hold over from my film days, but doesn't anyone just shoot a great photo without a bunch of photoshop or HDR. Please don't get me wrong, I completely appreciate the talent of you who know the intricacies of Photoshop and Silver EFX Pro and the like. But what happened to the simplicity of composing a great image and exposing it correctly?


Here are a couple shots, straight out of camera (not landscape, sorry).  Sometimes, but usually all too rarely, the light is perfect for work straight out of the camera.  Most of the time, this is with low contrast light on cloudy days.

SOOC by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Clara by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr


In most cases, the light is not terribly conclusive to optimal output straight out of the camera.  Digital sensors have a nasty habit of blowing out highlights instead of a smooth transition to white like film.  Most films were more forgiving in terms of exposure, and depending on what result one wanted, you could select a film with curves/contrast pattern/grain structure that most closely resembles the final desired output.  Most professionals who did their own darkroom work often burned or dodged sections of their photos as required.  Likewise, taking a roll of film to a lab also involved processing, much of which was sub-ideal, but processing none the less.

What I'm getting at is that processing has been around for a long, long time; it is not a new phenomenon.  The techniques of processing have just become more accessible and easier to use.  Admittedly, post processing is often abused, but I don't think that should tarnish the overall practicality of its use.

Silver EFX Pro is fantastic.  If DSLRs had customizable firmware where one could input a certain film grain and rendering pattern, that would be very nice (depends on how well implemented and how long it would slow down camera operation).  DLSRs simply do an awful job replicating the old film grain styles and rendering.  If one has to use software to get the equivalent, so be it.  I really would rather not drag a medium format camera around everywhere with a half dozen film types and have to switch off from one shot to the next, depending on what I wanted.  Silver EFX Pro is a incredible time saver.  I can take point-n-shoot shots and make them look like lovely medium/large format shots (not ideal, but the only camera I had at the time was a point-n-shoot).

Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

reflections by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

into the storm by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr



40
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 03, 2011, 01:24:15 PM »


http://www.facebook.com/KurtStevensPhotography

Thoughts?


Like it.

Photo: Nicely done; shows enough of everything to describe exactly what the occasion is.


Finishing: Blacks are black, whites are white. Good tonality without it seeming flat. My eye keeps getting drawn to the post on the left and, if it was me, I'd have cropped it out. That's just my personal view though.

I wish I had the stones to do weddings!  :(


Like the post before stated, great tones.

What I think could use a little work is the relative placement of the bride and groom.  I feel that in the shot as it currently is, there is either too little or too much bride.  By this I mean that shooting a little to the left would have given the shot a bit of mystery by only showing the bride's hand (this variant would probably benefit from a crop or shooting closer to the subjects too).  What is left unseen can often lend an image greater impact.

Otherwise, having the bride and groom rotate 20 degrees clockwise (the background comp is good as it is) to see most of the brides face would also make for a stronger image.

Anyway, it is still a great shot, but shooting a little different could of made it more effective in my opinion.

42
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 01, 2011, 06:14:03 PM »

44
Canon General / Re: Post a cool B/W!
« on: September 01, 2011, 05:16:20 PM »

45
Canon General / Re: Rumor Logic on Canon's Next New System
« on: September 01, 2011, 12:35:16 AM »
The comparison does cast the S90 in a rather favorable light.  But speaking of light, in this demonstration, the author had adequately bright light to use the S90 at base ISO.  Moving past ISO-200 on point-n-shoots is a dangerous game (I rarely went past the base ISO-80 with my Powershot S3 IS), where the rendered detail rapidly approaches blaaaagghhh.

While it is probably a reasonable statement to say the most people buying a entry level DSLRs will keep on using the kit lens and will often upgrade the camera (again) instead of just buying a better lens, it would have been nice if the author had provided an example with better performing lens than the kit for comparison purposes.  In terms of optical characteristics, kit lenses really are not much better than those found in "premium" point-n-shoots, otherwise, we would see the XSi/45D pulling way ahead.  All the article really tells us is that at base ISO, a good point-n-shoot can be competitive with a DSLR hampered with a less than stellar lens.  I would argue that this test should be considered DSLR independent as whether you have a camera with 6, 10, or 18 megapixels, all sensors will be held back by the kit lens.  There are lens limitations and sensor limitations and in this comparison, the kit lens is the bottleneck.  Poor testing methodology like this is where tons of disinformation can spring from.

For example, take the same shot, with everything at F/8 for all combinations below.
S90 @ ~55mm equivalent
XSi/450D + kit lens @ 35mm
XSi/450D + 35L

This would be much more objective, as you would not be artificially hampering the XSi/450D by restricting the comparison to a kit lens, which fails to demonstrate the potential of a larger sensor, which was the purpose of the article.  Also, I think he should have also compared the two cameras with the same scene, but at ISO-800.

But really, the article does show that under favorable conditions, point-n-shoots have significantly narrowed the gap in the last few years.  I guess I'd like to finish off with an example to show that even an old point and shoot like my Powershot S3 IS can produce great results too.

Mt. Oberlin and Bird Woman Falls [explore 08/29/11] by posthumus_cake (www.pinnaclephotography.net), on Flickr

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 7