What photography means to me

[ideasguy]

Which brings me to a REAL big problem I have in my Master Database.
Putting a description to the colour of each plant.

Have you noticed that many websites avoid stating the colour of a plant?
The reason being, I suppose, you are looking at an image (but not always!) and you dont need a description!

Nice touch up job, Eric 

[Eric Hardy]

Colour, like the flavour of wine, is almost impossible to describe accurately 

Our bible does try 



Eric H

[Lyn and Malcolm]

Colour on monitor displays can be quite different too, they should be calibrated, I dont.

Malcolm

[ideasguy]

The monitors are very good nowadays. If the image looks like the plant Ive photographed, I'm happy with my image file.
Laurie has a topic somewhere n this forum where he explained how to calibrate.

Hey Eric. Thats the good book I use, and those spectacles look remarkably like mine!

[Kathy & Laurie]

A great selection of photos you've posted up to now Eric.

Very good composition and detail.  Well done!

The monitors are very good nowadays. If the image looks like the plant Ive photographed, I'm happy with my image file.
Laurie has a topic somewhere n this forum where he explained how to calibrate.

This is the topic link where Monitor Calibration was discussed if anyone is interested.

Laurie.

[Eric Hardy]

Colour on monitor displays can be quite different too, they should be calibrated, I dont.

So I understand, Malcolm. I don't calibrate mine either. I am happy with my monitor as it is so I daren't fiddle in case I can't get it back again

Hey Eric. Thats the good book I use, and those spectacles look remarkably like mine!

I was pretty certain that you would have the bible George 

Thank you for your kind comments Laurie and also for the link to your explanation of Monitor calibration. You probably read what I said to Malcolm about not wanting to fiddle. Being keen on photography I made certain that my computer has a decent monitor and bought a Sony x-black LCD which is excellent. The screen on my laptop is a decent one too. I have had pictures up on both of them at the same time and I don't detect any colour variation so I take that as a good sign.

Reading your post on monitor calibration I noticed you mentioning to George the use of Shadows/Highlights in Adobe Elements. That is a very useful tool which I use a lot on church interiors. It is very difficult to get both the windows and interior properly exposed because of the glare so I deliberately underexpose the interior so that the windows are correctly exposed and I lighten the interior with this tool. It is useful on white flowers too although I didn't need use it on my recent posts.

Eric H

[Kathy & Laurie]

I agree completely Eric about not fiddling with your monitor settings unnecessarily.

It's when you detect a significant change of colour of an object you've photographed compared to how your monitor shows it - then a bit of calibration would be required.

As I mentioned in that article, I'm still using a CRT monitor which is quite a few years old now.  It hasn't got to the stage where much calibration is needed yet though, as it's still giving accurate colour rendition.

I don't believe in updated my technology to the latest versions just for the sake of it either.  As long as it's performing correctly for me I'm happy with it.

When my CRT monitor eventually fails then I'll get one of the LCD models.  Better quality and much smaller footprint on your desktop.

Laurie.

[Eric Hardy]

I remember, ages ago,  Laurie saying ?boys and their toys?, but never mind ? here goes  .

In October I succumbed and bought a Canon 40D body (second hand) to supplement my Canon 450D. Of course my existing lenses were compatible. It was at a price I couldn?t resist. I bought it from a chap who has bought himself a Nikon D700 (full frame). It cost him a packet. Why he changed I don't know because he can't use his Canon lenses on it. I don't know why he had the Canon really. He has only taken 6000 shots in the time he has had it. It is in mint condition. I excused my self indulgence because it was around the time of my birthday.


Canon 40D

Then of course the lens lust returns  so Anthea allowed me to treat myself to a new lens as a (very early) Christmas present. I got the Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM. It is a good performer.



I have been very pleased with results so far. On my two last church crawls I have had this lens on the 40D and my Tokina 12?24mm on the 450D and that has been all I needed. No lens changing.

Here are one or two examples. All are taken hand held and Aperture Priority

 I know there are a few Nikon enthusiasts among you so here is my daughter-in-law, Tabitha on Boxing Day: -


1/100 sec; f4; ISO 100; 105mm focal length; Exposure bias ?1/3 EV
 
And of course I couldn?t resist taking lots of my great grandson Zack so here a couple of samples: -


1/800 sec; f4; ISO 500; 40mm focal length; Exposure bias  0 EV


1/132 sec; f4; ISO 100; 40mm focal length; Exposure bias ?1/3 EV

And one or two from a recent trip to Oxford: -

Lincoln College Library

1/25 sec; f6.3; ISO 400; 55mm focal length; Exposure bias ?1/3 EV. This demonstates the effectiveness of IS (image stabilisation)


1/25 sec; f6.3; ISO 1600; 35mm focal length; Exposure bias ?1/3 EV.

And finally an exterior shot of the Clarendon Building (taken to avoid showing the traffic below)

1/400 sec; f7.1; ISO 200; 80mm focal length; Exposure bias ?1/3 EV.

And here is a 100% crop

[Kathy & Laurie]

Eric, you must have been reading my mind.

I was only looking at this topic yesterday evening as I've been thinking about purchasing a Canon DSLR.  I knew you had one, plus a couple of other members on the Forum, so I was just checking which one you had.

Just saw you do this posting today with a new Canon camera you've added to your photographic arsenal. 

You're making me envious. 

As you know I use a Nikon D60 DSLR and have generally been very pleased with the results.  However, the area I'm not very impressed with is it's landscape capabilities.  Sometimes they're not very sharp and other times there's some slight distortion of perspective for the part of the scene closest to the camera.  I've read some good reviews about the Canon range of DSLRs which has prompted me to head away from Nikon this time around. 

I would be very interested to hear your assessment of your latest acquisition in all areas - close-ups, general scenes, portraits and of course, landscapes.

I'm expecting to receive compensation for the accident in October 2010 fairly soon, so I thought I might treat myself.

Another great set of photos too Eric. 

Laurie.

[Eric Hardy]

Hi Laurie,

Serious amateur photographers, in the main, seem to divide themselves into Nikon or Canon people. I am a Canon person. Although two of my children (and families) are serious Nikon users, my eldest is a Canon person, so he will inherit my equipment 

What I would suggest is that you join Flickr, if you are not a member already. You don’t have to put up photos and unless, like me, you want to upload vast quantities, it costs nothing. Even I get my “Pro” membership free because I use BT Yahoo for my broadband.

You can find my Flickr site by Googling “Eric Hardy Flickr”. If you can then make me a contact I will reciprocate by making you a contact and “friend”. That way you will see more of my photos than the general public can see.

If you click on a photo in my photostream it will open up again and you will see noted what camera has been used. If you click on “Actions” you can view different sizes and also view Exif info.

Down the side of the first page of my photostream you will see “Collections” which in turn contain “sets”. “Countryside and seaside” contains a set called “The Chilterns” you will see there are square thumbnails in the right. About the bottom 20 rows have been taken with Canon cameras.

To save time, here is a link http://www.flickr.com/photos/erichardyuk/sets/72057594077093904/

Of course you can explore it more. There are groups that I belong to that you may be interested in : -

http://www.flickr.com/groups/digitalrebelxsi450d/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/40d/

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon24-105/

If you do a lot of browsing it may help you to come to a decision.

Unless you are wanting to do videos, there is not much point in getting the later and more expensive models. They also have a higher pixel count and I read somewhere that they demand higher quality lenses to get the best results.

You mentioned distortion in landscapes. I take my pictures in RAW. A programme called DPP comes with Canon cameras and is a RAW converter. It includes a tool which corrects any distortion from a Canon lens (it doesn’t work with my Tokina lenses).

I hope this helps and I will be interested to know how you get on.

All the best,

Eric

[Eric Hardy]

Laurie, a PS. I don't know if you are aware of the DPReview site: -

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/

[Kathy & Laurie]

Thanks for all that info Eric.  I'll look into Flickr a bit later on when I've got more time. 

I have used that dpreview.com site before I purchased my first Nikon camera and find their reviews to be very detailed, unbiased and extremely helpful.

I haven't been to the site for reviews on Canon cameras as yet, just wanted to get a feel for them through members who use them first.

Laurie.

[Kathy & Laurie]

After much deliberation Eric I've decided to stick with my Nikon.

The problem I mentioned about the distortion on the landscape setting was entirely down to me.  The standard lens on the camera is a 28-55mm and I'd focused down to the minimum 28mm, which of course was giving me a wide-angle effect.  Schoolboy error, I don't know what I'd been thinking about or why I hadn't twigged earlier   

Anyway, that 'issue' now sorted I've invested in a longed-for telephoto lens, and picked up a real bargain on a Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 Vibration Reduction lens.
I haven't had time to put it through its paces yet, but it will suit my needs and I have no doubts of its performance capabilities.

Below is a photo of said lens:



Just wanted to keep you updated there Eric. 

Laurie.

[Eric Hardy]

Well done Laurie. I think Canons and Nikon cameras are both superb so why change once you have chosen the route to take? I have just checked up the customers reviews of your new lens on Amazon. Nine gave the lens a glowing 5 stars, one a good review but 4 stars and one a miserable 1 star. Either he had a dud or was extremely fussy and expecting the performance of a lens 5 times the price 

The problem I mentioned about the distortion on the landscape setting was entirely down to me.  The standard lens on the camera is a 28-55mm and I'd focused down to the minimum 28mm, which of course was giving me a wide-angle effect. 

I don't know whether you take your pictures in RAW. I do and use the software that comes with the Canon Cameras to convert to JPEGs. One useful feature is the software detects what lens you have used and will correct any slight distortion. I don't know whether Nikon have something similar. I believe some Adobe Photoshop programmes have this facilty and most lenses of whatever make are covered.

A lot of my shots are wide angle, of course, because I take a lot of church interiors. My Tokina 12 - 24 mm lens gets a lot of use (about 19 - 38 mm in 35 mm terms) This shows what 12 mm can cover (Gloucester Cathedral, April 2011)


Anyway, in the end it is best to forget what kit you have and just enjoy photography. I am sure you will get a lot of pleasure from your new lens and I look forward to seeing some results.

[Kathy & Laurie]

Thanks for that Eric.

My Nikon does have the capability to shoot in RAW mode, I've just never used it.  I've been satisfied with the results I get shooting in JPEG mode and manually adjusting any settings to suit a particular occasion if it's required.  Having said that though, I predominantly use the auto settings for the majority of my photo shoots and I am happy with the results I get.

Previously being a freelance photographer, I don't do commission work anymore, so I don't need the discerning results that my clients expected.  When you're being paid for your work then that demands absolute perfection.
Still, the camera can do only so much and I know the majority of professional photographers use post-production techniques with software such as PhotoShop to finalise their digital photos.
Some people say it's cheating, especially when you do glamour or fashion photography (which I used to do), but as long as you don't overdo the 'tweaking' then the results are more complimentary than beautifying your model out of all recognition.
After all, your model could have had a nasty spot or blemish that hasn't quite healed over and makeup couldn't fully disguise.  Then they appreciate the photographers sensitivity in using their skills to do what they couldn't on the day of the shoot.

Nowadays I just shoot for my own pleasure (not that it wasn't a pleasure before though  ), but I'm not getting paid for my work and I don't have that extra pressure that went with it.

Laurie.