Random Thread of Photography

[4theCYcle]

Thank you, that is very helpful. I'm going to dive into searching later this week and may shoot you some questions. I have a buddy who is photographer in LA who told me he has old cameras he hasn't used in a while and would be willing to sell them to me at a fair price. Unfortunately he is in the Azores for 16 days straight (side note: I'd never heard of these islands before and every single picture he posts is unbelievable. Seems like a photographers heaven lol) and its hard to hold a legit convo haha. Going to look at what he has when he gets back on Friday.

But again, thanks for all this info. Always great to get some perspective from people using different kinds.

Right, which to each is their own. I'm sure some are biased towards their brands and each have their quirks or nuances that make them preferred or less preferred over others. I think it's what everyone starts out on, or who influenced their purchase early on. I, for whatever reason, just went nikon after reading as much as I could. The mirrorless craze back then wasn't as apparent as it is now. So if I ever do get a new camera, not sure what direction I'd lean.

I'd be curious as to what he uses and what he has for extras. Some of those guys have so many cameras it's crazy, while I just try to maintain one nice one lol. What's his name if you don't mind me asking? Or just PM me, I always like looking at other people's work in different countries.

 

[srjclone]

Right, which to each is their own. I'm sure some are biased towards their brands and each have their quirks or nuances that make them preferred or less preferred over others. I think it's what everyone starts out on, or who influenced their purchase early on. I, for whatever reason, just went nikon after reading as much as I could. The mirrorless craze back then wasn't as apparent as it is now. So if I ever do get a new camera, not sure what direction I'd lean.

I'd be curious as to what he uses and what he has for extras. Some of those guys have so many cameras it's crazy, while I just try to maintain one nice one lol. What's his name if you don't mind me asking? Or just PM me, I always like looking at other people's work in different countries.

I was out at his place over memorial day and he had probably 5 cameras he "didn't use regularly" He definitely had his favorites. For work he mostly does shooting of models, but for his own photography (more artistic) he had his camera that he loved. I'd be lying if I said I wasn't under the influence most of that weekend and remembered which was which lol. Ill PM you his link here shortly.

 

[wesley_w]

clonedude, If I were to have only one lens I think I would go with either a 24-70 zoom OR a 70-200 zoom. Depending on what you like to shoot. The 70-200 makes great portraits and you can separate the background easier than the wider angle.
Another thing is, and I hate to recommend to someone on how to spend their hard earned money so make sure you research this and don't take my word for it, but tamron makes good lenses and for a long time I used a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and I used it alot and got great stuff from it. I eventually got a canon 16-35 but the tamron was really good and sharp.
Another thing that can save is to get an f4 vs f2.8. If you can get away with it that will save money. Just a couple ideas for you but do your research and get what will suit you best.

 

[RunninMan]

I never got around to posting my photos from my annual hiking trip to Colorado. Camp Hale near Leadville and Mount Missouri between Buena Vista and Leadville. Such a beautiful area. I was toying with under-exposing a few of them but I think I need a little more practice.

 

[BuffettClone]

That 6th one looks like a Bob Ross painting when he decides to throw a happy little shack right in the middle at the end of the show.

 

[srjclone]

I never got around to posting my photos from my annual hiking trip to Colorado. Camp Hale near Leadville and Mount Missouri between Buena Vista and Leadville. Such a beautiful area. I was toying with under-exposing a few of them but I think I need a little more practice.

How long was the hike up to get these two photos? Awesome shots

 

[RunninMan]

How long was the hike up to get these two photos? Awesome shots

Round trip was about 10.5 miles and 4500' of elevation gain. It took us about 3.5 hours to summit and 4 to get down, but we took lots of scenery breaks on the way down so it could be done faster. This was my 6th 14'er and I'd say the most technical because of snow crossings and a few places with loose rock at the edges of cliffs. It was totally worth it though!

https://www.14ers.com/route.php?route=miss1&peak=Missouri+Mountain

 

[Cyclones_R_GR8]

Took a ride up to Devils tower this weekend. If you want the Milky Way in the background you would need to be on the other side. Maybe another day.

 

[jackrabbit]

First time trying to post pictures on here. Hopefully these of Devil's Tower are viewable.

 

[jackrabbit]

Took a ride up to Devils tower this weekend. If you want the Milky Way in the background you would need to be on the other side. Maybe another day.
View attachment 66092 View attachment 66093 View attachment 66094 View attachment 66101

What type of camera settings do you use to get a picture of the milky way? F-Stop small or large? Exposure time? Other settings?

 

[4theCYcle]

What type of camera settings do you use to get a picture of the milky way? F-Stop small or large? Exposure time? Other settings?

I'll normally go f2.8 because it's the lowest on my lens. I'd prefer a f1.4, but I gravitate to zoom lenses not primes for my many uses. But it would help to let as much light in as possible.

I usually use the rule of 300 when calculating exposure. focal length/300 = shutter speed. ISO I'll do anywhere from 1600 to 3200. I know some people stack photos to reduce noise and then blend the foreground and shoot that at a different aperture/settings. I'll post a couple pics following this post. I'm not great at astrophotography, but it is fun to learn and get better. One day I'll get a tracker and produce better shots.

 

[4theCYcle]

 

[Cyclones_R_GR8]

View attachment 67316 View attachment 67315

Those are some real nice photos

 

[4theCYcle]

Those are some real nice photos

Thanks! Always room for improve though, as I don't have a PC lens, so pointing upwards was a little bit of a mistake. Or I could use the warp tool and fix that shed, it's leaning a bit.

 

[Cyclones_R_GR8]

What type of camera settings do you use to get a picture of the milky way? F-Stop small or large? Exposure time? Other settings?

I am really new to this so what I have done is use either my 10 or 18 lens. Using a Canon 80D that translates to 17 or 28 due to the cropped sensor.
I'll set my ISO to 3200 and use an exposure of 30 seconds. Longer than 30 seconds will get you a little star movement with the 18 but you really don't notice it unless you really look at it closely. Now this also needs to be done with little to no moon.
With a full moon (or close to it) using those setting would end up being washed out.

 

[4theCYcle]

So normally people seem to post landscape in here, thought I’d post some of my portrait work that I’ve done the past couple of months:

 

[4theCYcle]

Full moon:

 

[4theCYcle]

 

[BoxsterCy]

Some ramblings on scanning/printing/screen displaying vintage photos:

(1) Experimenting around with old family photo scans, mostly 75-100 years old. Went to local photo shop and was printing and trying to match old sizes. IMHO, these old photos look best at something approximately their original size. The pre-war and WWII era ones I have include a lot of 2.5" x 3.75" and 2.75" x 4.5" etc. Hard to match up to current print papers from print providers. Trying to work around their limited options to size which was basically auto crop, full frame or add border. I'd like a custom option where I could place and size the print on a selected paper I could trim to size. Thinking that might be an option to much considering how the peeps around me were struggling to even get prints without staff help. I might have to just work backwards using their paper sizes and make a file with a canvas size to match with image size within of what I want. Maybe set up a template and gang up a number of smaller images together.

(2) Another thing is color or gray scale printing. Some of the photos have aged to warmer grays, not quite sepia but they have that "look". Question is whether to go with what was likely the cool grays of the original or the warmer grays they aged to. Opinions? I've been scanning in color and than converting to grayscale if I want but wondering if I should just be scanning two copies, one color and one grayscale.

(3) Also been messing around with screen display size especially as it relates to Facebook. More of an issue with the old small size photos. Everything looks good at the newsfeed size but clicking/opening sometimes screen enlarges too much when clicked on. Experimented around some trying to find a happy balance between what something looks like on a 13" - 15" laptop versus a workstation 25" monitor (stuff on smaller i-pads or phones I just figure be small enough to be okay). Ended up with 700x400 +/- with 72dpi set to kinda control this on 4x6 1925 flood photos I scanned and put onto a small town FB page. They were sorta crap resolution to start with but interesting history stuff. With 2x3 stuff might have to go even smaller.

/end scanning stream of consciousness

 

[BoxsterCy]

Saturday photography morning rambling #2.

Old film cameras. Thought about this when in at National Camera and saw some old Brownie Six-20 box cameras. Just like my mother had that I took my first picture with in 1959. They were selling mint examples these as decorative pieces at $10 a throw.

Anyway, this reminded me of all of my old 35mm cameras and drawer full of lenses. CWW#2's Nikon and her lenses and my three Minolta's and even more lenses. I know they are worthless but asked at National Camera if they were somehow recyclable or something. Nope. Still hate just throwing them in the trash. Will at least save the filters although most are too small for today lenses. The Rokkor 58mm, all metal with quality glass, does make a good paperweight.

In a minor decluttering effort this morning I cleaned out a basket file full of camera stuff. And, damn, if the old Olympus 35mm, a snapshot Minolta and the Minolta SLR X-700 didn't still have film in them, 6, 4 and 4 exposures respectively. Wonder what's on them? Tempted to shoot the rest of the roll and develop. Also found 7 rolls of unexposed film. The 2 AAA's in the Olympus where totally corroded and been dripping vinegar on the contacts to see if I can clean it enough to rewind, it's all electronic so manual rewind isn't an option. Of course, if this was 1972 at Birch Hall I could go use the RCA darkroom and open it up and rewind the roll by hand.