Photography

I plan on buying a nice digital camera soon, and taking some nature pictures in the woods behind my house. Then, I will scan them, put them in Photoshop and Fireworks and touch them up so they look real nice. Maybe I will submit them to an art show if they look good, or maybe I could take pictures for the school newspaper.

I do wish I had the money for a Digital camera; I'll probably get one sometime in April, when I get a PS2.

------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net's Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)


Edited by - Drizzt DoUrden on January 6, 2002 1:38:05 PM

I plan on doing it in the future, once I have more money to spare. I''m interested in taking pictures of places I will be going to.

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
I plan on buying a nice digital camera soon, and taking some nature pictures in the woods behind my house. Then, I will scan them,

---

You're going to scan your digital photos? Interesting.

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
... put them in Photoshop and Fireworks and touch them up so they look real nice.

---

Tell me more about what you mean by touching them up. I may have some advice...

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
Maybe I will submit them to an art show if they look good, or maybe I could take pictures for the school newspaper.

---

Again, I am armed with some facts that you might want to know regarding art photography...

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
I do wish I had the money for a Digital camera; I'll probably get one sometime in April, when I get a PS2.

---

And what kind of specs do you deem necessary?

Edited by - bishop_pass on January 6, 2002 1:41:56 PM

I meant I would plug it into the USB port.

Well, I would like to be able to zoom in and still have good quality photos, but that''s really about it.

I would put glowing outlines around certain things, etc, you know, make people say ''hey, you know that tree isn''t connected to the ground in your photo.'' Make things look ''pretty'' or abnormal.

It would just be something fun to do in my spare time.

------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net''s Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)

What''s your favorite type of photograph, bishop pass?
Pictures of people, nature, objects, etc.

Personally, I like closeups of things in nature, like a leaf in the snow, or a rock in a flowing river.

------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net''s Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
What''s your favorite type of photograph, bishop pass?
Pictures of people, nature, objects, etc.

Personally, I like closeups of things in nature, like a leaf in the snow, or a rock in a flowing river

---

I could (and want to) talk a huge amount about this. I don''t know if I have time now, but maybe later on today. Check back.

Instead of answering what is my favortie type of photograph, I would like to answer what elements in a photograph I strive for, and about the concept of ''seeing''. Nobody is an expert on this. I just hope to relate what I continually learn.

quote:

---

Original post by mtw
I plan on doing it in the future, once I have more money to spare. I''m interested in taking pictures of places I will be going to.

---

Yeah, I usually buy a disposable camera when I go on vacation, but I regret it. Most of the pictures don''t come out anyway, and the other ones look like garbage.

------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net''s Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)

Ok, to begin, (I have a lot more to say about this) one of my favorite types of photographs is a theme that I recently coined a name for: Isolation amongst Desolation. The key element is to create balance, yet at the same time, strike a feeling of isolation with a lone symbol amongst a barren landscape. In my gallery, here is a photo which attempts to achieve that. However, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Isolation amongst Desolation I believe can be portrayed more powerfully with the panoramic format, thus my interest in the Fuji G617 camera. I''ve got more to say about pursuing this theme, but later.

There are countless other themes also. Another one I favor is Figures in a Landscape. More later.

___________________________________

Another example of my Isolation amongst Desolation theme is this wonderful panoramic photograph titled "Splendid Isolation", although I did not take it. It is from this award winning site on the oldest living thing on Earth. Once again, these shots are from the greatest land on Earth, Inyo County. Anyway, the panoramic shot underscores how you can exemplify the Isolation amongst Desolation theme with the panoramic format. All of that empty horizontal space makes the theme work.

Following on that theme, I try to work with those ideas in conjunction with my Figures in a Landscape theme. This picture on my gallery is one of my favorties to date.

___________________________________



Edited by - bishop_pass on January 6, 2002 6:04:23 PM

I just got a nice Olympus 3.2 MP digital camera. I will try to post some pics sometime as I learn more about photography.

--------------------------

Those who dance are considered insane by those who cannot hear the music.

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
Personally, I like closeups of things in nature, like a leaf in the snow, or a rock in a flowing river.

---

That type of imagery can be stimulating, but you should be aware of a few points. Texture is extremely important. Without texture that fascinates, the image will be weak. Also, such imagery should almost always be shot under overcast skies or after sunset. Additionally, the most effective rendition of such subject matter is almost exclusively the domain of large format photography, because of the ability to capture find detail. And lastly, you lose the evocative aspect of depth and majesty that can be accomplished with full landscapes.

Anyway, that''s just my opinion.



___________________________________

Does nobody want to share their images?




Kiva, Pecos, New Mexico



___________________________________

quote:

---

Original post by bishop_pass
Also, such imagery should almost always be shot under overcast skies or after sunset.

---

Thats good because I can''t leave my house when it''s sunny; I''m a vampire. ;0

But seriosly, I guess if I did take pictures in the dark I could put them in my image-editing programs and make it look like it was light out. Some time, if I get a camera I will post some images.

That picture you posted is really cool, it reminds me of a treaure chest in a pirate ship.

------------------------------
Simple DirectMedia Layer:

Main Site - (www.libsdl.org)
Cone3D Tutorials- (cone3D.gamedev.net)
GameDev.net''s Tutorials - (Here)

OpenGL:

Main Site - (www.opengl.org)
NeHe Tutorials - (nehe.gamedev.net)
Online Books - (Red Book) (Blue Book)

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
But seriosly, I guess if I did take pictures in the dark I could put them in my image-editing programs and make it look like it was light out.

---

No, no, and no. It''s not about taking pictures in the dark and editing them so that it looks like it is light out. If you take pictures late at night, you are removing a great deal of color from the image, and creating a nighttime image. Such images should be properly exposed to begin with, and not edited so much in Photoshop. The best reason for taking pictures late at night is to make pictures which depict late at night scenes.

By taking closeups of nature (or macroscopic shots) right before sunrise or just after sunset, you get a nice tonality in the image with less contrast, which is the death of closeups.

Light is a subtle thing, and you must learn how to play it, how to predict it, understand how it translates to two dimensions, understand the mood it evokes, how altitude affects it, how film or CCDs respond to it, and how to meter it effectively.

As I have said on occasion in the past, if you are serious about photography, read Galen Rowell''s book titled Mountain Light: In Search of the Dynamic Landscape. There are other good books too, but this one is a good mix of technique, artistry, adventure, storytelling, and philosophy.

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
Some time, if I get a camera I will post some images.

---

I look forward to it.

quote:

---

Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
That picture you posted is really cool, it reminds me of a treaure chest in a pirate ship.

---

Thank you.

funny this topic should come up, because over the last few days I have decided i would like to get into aviation photography. As you probably know from other topics (Hobbies) i am into aviation in quite a big way. I would love to start taking some pics and doing abit of spotting.

The only problem is I am now at uni and have little money. Ideally i would like a digital camera, as i can then upload the pics very easily. However the requirements for a digi cam are quite high, and it will be expensive. For example i need a camera that supports an optical zoom of the equivelent to 300mm lense. I also need alightning fast shutter, as them large blobs of metal are moving at 150 mph in the air, and i need sharp pics not blurry ones.

Alternatively i could get a normal camera fairly cheap, but then i would need a slide scanner in order to upload them to the net, and that will cost more. I would also need to pay to get the film developed, which will be expensive too. Bearing in mind that to get quality photos i need to be using slide film rather than normal, and i need to get them professionally developed (your local 1hr film processing is it good enough) you can see why this is gonna cost..

Anyone got any tips? Im gonna head into town this weekend and look at second hand camers..

quote:

---

Original post by gavco98
funny this topic should come up, because over the last few days I have decided i would like to get into aviation photography.

---

Well, not all megapixels are created equal. If you go digital, the higher end digital cameras will be better megapixel for megapixel. Consumer grade digital cameras are priced up to about $1000. SLR digital cameras are priced up to about $4500 and have very high frame rates, letting you blow out up to 8 shots in a second. Additonally, using the existing infrastructure of high quality optical lenses such as the Nikon line or Canon line, you can tap into the powerful eye tracking and fast object tracking autofocus of these lenses. Higher end digital backs for medium format and large format bodies are still priced between $10,000 and $20,000.

No doubt the best aviation photography of planes in flight is being done with medium format (6x4.5, 6x6, and 6x7) systems. The enlarged negative / transparency will boost the detail significantly. Unfortunately, a 300mm lens translated to medium format equals about half that, or 150mm. That is because a 300mm projects on to the same area of film, which is about half of medium format. So, to get the equivalent of 300mm in the 35mm film format in medium format, you need to go up to about a 600mm lens. This is expensive.

For still photography of planes on the ground, nothing can compete with a large format camera. The detail can be staggering, fascinating the eye with the finer nuances of rivets, weathered paint, etc.

One solution is to buy a used 35mm system to get good at composition and exposure. Then, rent a medium format system and familiarize yourself with the camera''s controls. When you have done that, again rent that same medium format system for air shows that you might attend.

I assume you read my response to you in the ''Hobbies'' thread. If you didn''t, I am reposting it here. It follows below:
Get a used manual SLR. Do not get a digital camera unless it is at least 4 or 5 megapixels and gives you control of both aperture and shutter speed. Do not get a point and shoot film camera at all. You have zero control and you will regret it. Therefore, get a used manual SLR. (unless you can afford a Nikon N80, N90s, or F100).

If you plan on taking your shots seriously, and want them to look good, shoot Fuji Velvia. Do not go to the drugstore and buy consumer grade film. Go to a professional camera store and buy Fuji Velvia. Almost all professionals doing outdoor photography shoot Fuji Velvia. It gives excellent saturation and fine grain. Fuji Velvia is a slow film, rated ISO 50. This means you shutter speeds will be a little longer.

Get a tripod. Don''t mess around without one. Don''t get a tripod from the local mall video and camera store. They cost about $40 and are crap. Either get a Gitzo or Bogen. Gitzos are very expensive but worth it. Bogens are more reasonably priced, well built, but a little heavier.

When shooting stills of airplanes up close, you''ll need to shoot with a small aperture, like f22. This allows greater depth of field in your image. This is a neccesity. As a result, your exposures will be slow (from 1/30 of a second to a few seconds). The best kind of weather to shoot in is cloudy. Cloudy weather provides even soft lighting with excellent color on the subject. High noon sunshine shots are crap, resulting in bluish and greyish light. Late afternoon light is good because of the warm tones, giving great color. Some of the most coveted aerial shots are a plane against a stormy dark grey sky while the plane is illuminated by late warm afternoon sunlight.

If you don''t understand the relationship between aperture, shutter speed and film speed, get a book and learn it. This is very important.

Click on my banner sig below. I have done some photography, using a 35mm Nikon N8008s, a Mamyia medium format camera, and a 4x5 large format camera.






___________________________________

thanks bishops_pass, that pretty much sums the entire subject up! well done! The only problem with using a non-digital camera is getting the pictures into the computer. I believe that i would need a slide scanner, but how much would this cost?

Also i think your prices for a digital camera are a little off. Most aviation photographers seem to use the Olympus 2100 camera, which has a 10x zoom equivelent to 300mm. this camera retails at around £500 ($700). Perhaps you are refering to more advanced cameras? Anyway thanks for the great response, and ill go into town this weekend and see what i can dig up. BTW anyone know any good second hand camera shops in edinburgh?

G Coates
------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Coates

Co-Founder

http://www.multiplayercentral.co.uk

quote:

---

Original post by gavco98
thanks bishops_pass, that pretty much sums the entire subject up! well done! The only problem with using a non-digital camera is getting the pictures into the computer. I believe that i would need a slide scanner, but how much would this cost?

---

Well, forget about using a consumer grade flatbed scanner even if it has the transparency light in the lid. These scanners don't have a high enough DPI for 35mm scans and they introduce grain into the scan. They are ok for scanning medium format and large format scans for the web, because you can scan at the highest DPI and get an image about 4000 pixels across and then reduce the image size in Photoshop to filter out the grain, giving you a nice 600 pixel image for the web.

There are higher end scanners built just for scanning slides, and these scan at about 4000 DPI, and these are certainly (I would think) good for scanning for the web, and possibly digital printing. Such slide scanners are going to run from about $400 to maybe $800.

Some labs will use a high end industrial grade flatbed scanner and scan your 35mm slides for about $1 a slide. All in all, a pertty good deal. I choose my best slides and go this route. Remember, there is no reason to scan every slide. This scan process produces high quality images about 4000 pixels across (about 12 megapixels). These are quality pixels with no grain introduced into the scan. I would rate these perfect for digital printing.

A higher end process for scanning is the Heidelberg Tango drum scan. This is a $70,000 machine. You will pay a lab about $1 per meg of TIF file that it produces. For any high quality scan with the intent to do production quality digital printing (gallery prints, etc.) you should at least go this route. It is very expensive, but for the few true gallery prints you might do, (or for purposes of publishing a book), this is the way to go.

A very high profile well known lab near me is saying they have an even more expensive scanner that they use for scans. It is a flatbed, but obviously of high industrial quality. They are saying its quality even beats the drum scanner. The price for scanning is about the same.

To give you an example of getting a high end scan and utilizing it, let me explain. Let's say I go out and shoot a landscape with a Fuji 617 panoramic camera. The negative / transparency that I would get from this camera is about 2" x 7" or 6cm x 17cm. There is an incredible amount of detail in this transparency. Let's say I want to make a 20" x 60" gallery gallery print of this using the Lightjet 5000 and Crystal archive Fuji paper. This continuous tone photographic printer prints at 300 DPI. I would pay a lab to do this, because the machine costs about a million, or did. Don't confuse this with the higher DPIs that consumer grade inkjet printers print at. Anyway, at 60" across and 300 DPI, we need 18,000 horizontal pixels and 6,000 vertical pixels for a total 108 million pixels. So. basically we're talking a 108 megapixel image. This translates to about a 300 MB TIF file. So, the scan will cost about $300. In reality, due to a nonlinear price schedule, the scan will cost about $100.

Now, compare that 108 megapixel image to the 4 megapixel images you get out of a consumer grade digital camera. The whole point is to create a large print with detail that draws the viewer in and fascinates their eye with detail. The effect can be dramatic.

Now, about the Lightjet 5000 Crystal archive Fuji print process: This is a printer which reads the digital file, and then uses colored lasers to expose regular photographic paper based on the data in the file. The benefits are a non inkjet print, a 75 year archival lifespan without noticable fade, a continuous tone print with no microdots, and most importantly, incredible saturation. Benefits over standard photographic enlargements are the non loss of saturation as the image is enlarged which occurs due to light being diluted from the transparency, no focusing problems that are encountered with enlarger lenses, and the ability to use the digital darkroom (Photoshop) for tweaking the exposure and cleaning defects in the image.

quote:

---

Original post by gavco98
Also i think your prices for a digital camera are a little off. Most aviation photographers seem to use the Olympus 2100 camera, which has a 10x zoom equivelent to 300mm. this camera retails at around £500 ($700). Perhaps you are refering to more advanced cameras?

---

I am talking about the full gamut of consumer grade digital cameras, which range up to the Olumpus C-4040 4 megapixel camera and the latest Nikon Coolpix 5 megapixel camera. Both these cameras have aperture priotity mode and manual modes, an absolute necessity for quality photoghraphic work. The other really expensive prices for the higher end stuff I mentioned are also true prices.

A further note on lenses
I forgot to mention 'fast' lenses. Let's say you have a 300mm lens. What is its maximum aperture at 300mm? Cheaper lenses (which are good lenses nonetheless) end up with a smaller aperture at full zoom, This usually ends up being somewhere around f5.6. A 'fast' lens has bigger glass, and doesn't reduce the aperture at full zoom. A 'fast' lens will likely let you shoot at f2.8 at 300mm. Now, for landscape work, this really doesn't matter, because you would want to stop the lens down to f22 for depth of field. However, for aerial photography, depth of field isn't an issue, because everything is at infinity. So, we open the aperture all the way up to let in as much light as we can to get the fastest shutter speed we can. Be aware that at f5.6 we are letting 1/8 as much light in as we are at f2.8. This means our shutter speed is going to need to be 8 times as long. This can make a big difference when shooting moving objects, and especially in low light conditions.

___________________________________



EDIT: to update the price for a 300MB scan.

Edited by - bishop_pass on January 10, 2002 1:43:08 AM

gee you sure know your stuff! I think you have convinced me to get a non-digital camera, and just get a lab to scan any good slides i get. Ill head into town on saturday and see if i can find any cheap second hand cameras. Roughly what kind of spec am i looking for?

from what i gather i need the following, if this is wrong please correct me:
-Manual SLR camera
-300mm Lense

what sort of shutter speed am i looking for, or does it not really matter, and what other quilities should a good camera have?


G Coates
------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Coates

Co-Founder

http://www.multiplayercentral.co.uk