or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 253

post #3781 of 4192


Stopped by the Philadelphia flower show over the weekend. Beautiful subjects, tough light.
post #3782 of 4192

Im still using film, Im such an old fart but I just think its still better quality. I did buy a digital SLR, a Canon EOS 550D with a decent lens but I have to say I think my 15 year old Nikon still beats it in terms of quality. I do some graphics work from time to time and have to take photos even thought im definitely not a pro.

Quick question for you people who seem to actually know what you're doing: how much can you generally blow up a photo? Ive got a photo i need to enlarge about 27%, is that too much? It looks ok on my screen but my printer (print24) said it might not be very good quality when printed... 

post #3783 of 4192
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonathanEm View Post

Im still using film, Im such an old fart but I just think its still better quality. I did buy a digital SLR, a Canon EOS 550D with a decent lens but I have to say I think my 15 year old Nikon still beats it in terms of quality. I do some graphics work from time to time and have to take photos even thought im definitely not a pro.


Quick question for you people who seem to actually know what you're doing: how much can you generally blow up a photo? Ive got a photo i need to enlarge about 27%, is that too much? It looks ok on my screen but my printer (print24) said it might not be very good quality when printed... 

This gets tricky. If the output file is say 300 or 600 dpi and you use a good algorithm to resize it then it should be OK. If it's a low res image ie 96dpi then things probably won't go so well.

And I'm a very happy camper. I got a box from B&H and it's full of Ektar, SFX, HP5 and Delta film. Fun fun fun.
post #3784 of 4192
post #3785 of 4192
Lunch IC?

I guess it looks like I'm going to end up developing my black and white film myself. There really isn't any place that's close and what they want to develop it is basically highway robbery. While I'm at it I think I'll get a halfway decent negative scanner too.
post #3786 of 4192
close, dinner. It was at my wife's birthday party.

this one is for the mag i work on, just lifestyle food photos


Edited by il ciclista - 3/16/13 at 7:13pm
post #3787 of 4192
OMG! I just bought a NEX-6! 90% sure it will be too much camera for me. shog[1].gif

What kind of lens are you using there IC? I think I read that you have a NEX-6 too?! icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #3788 of 4192
I just have the kit lens and some adapter manual focus lenses. I mainly use the kit and 50mm 1.4 cannon lens
post #3789 of 4192
My brother's weimaraner this morning
8566928990_2ff4a20cfd_b.jpg
post #3790 of 4192
I take it you're using ambient light from windows and interior lights for the food shots IC? It looks like I'll be interviewing a new chef at one of the local restaurants and I'm sure food pics are going to be part of that.
post #3791 of 4192
Yes, just use natural light and white reflector. I've used strobes before but didn't like the results.
post #3792 of 4192
Quote:
Originally Posted by il ciclista View Post

Yes, just use natural light and white reflector. I've used strobes before but didn't like the results.

Same here, gets harsh and not natural looking. I've done it with a three quartz lights and that seemed to work OK. They get hot and dragging them around sucks. I'll have to remember to bring my reflector out to even out the light. I would much rather do a shot that keeps some level of the restaurant's ambiance intact.
post #3793 of 4192
Agreed, I didn't use it for the pasta shot because I liked it the way it was, but it does make quite a difference.
post #3794 of 4192
Some new toys off eBay ...

Minolta MD 35-70 non-macro version, said to be relabeled by Leica for their own system:



A quick shot, which is massively cropped down because the minimum focusing distance is 1 meter. I'll try to get out this weekend to take some real shots:



And then an anamorphic lens, intended for video, but I've shot some stills just to test out its sharpness and distortion. It's very good, but a giant PITA to focus because you have to focus both lenses, and the thing likes certain lenses more than others. I tested it on the Helios, a Canon EF 200/2.8, Tamron 135/2.5, and the Canon FD 50/1.8. I have to expand images shot with it horizontally by 1.5x.

In this picture, the taking lens is the 50, which it seems to like, but vignettes at 1.8, so I have to close it down some. Any wider lens will always vignette. The knob in front of the lens all the way to the left is how you focus it. It is a projection lens.



Just for laughs, the 200/2.8:



From the 200/2.8, uncropped straight out of the camera:


Full size

Unsqueezed in Photoshop, some minor dodging & burning and sharpening in LR:


Full size

This is a pretty harsh test because of the contrast between the dark hill and the blown-out sky, which makes the chromatic aberration worse, and I wasn't too sure of my focus, and the out-of-focus look for the anamorphic lens can also cause artifacts similar to CA.
post #3795 of 4192
Besides lenses Leica and Minolta worked on several cameras as well.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Post your photography skills! (self-gloss)