Odds and Ends Vintage Photos IX
08-10-2014, 03:59 PM
#841
I bought a lightly used Nikon P7700 camera with an auxiliary flash on Friday for an exceptionally good price. After two day’s of cramming the contents of the owner’s manual and physically fumbling with it, I’m now ready to do some night photography in the Denver area. Good or bad, I’ll post my results tomorrow. You've been warned!!
Quasimodo
Quasimodo
I went out today with the thought of checking out frames to possibly display a few of my recent pics. The options are over whelming. My camera is not full frame so some size pics display better in odd sizes vs the typical sizes. I try to keep that in mind when taking pics but don't always manage. I made some notes before I left, and still made no decisions.
I came home and am back to square one as the size frame I was thinking of for one pic will work with the print, but it's still too small for the area. I don't have enough decent stuff to create a grouping either. 
I need a bigger framing budget and some creativity beyond getting the occasional decent shot.
08-10-2014, 04:52 PM
#842
Registered User
Lainey,
Think about how expensive the learning curve was about 25 years ago. Back then you had to pay for film and developing for every shot. Ordinary amateur photographers were considered good if they got 4-6 "keepers" on a 24-exposure roll.
Someone once said of the film era that "Kodak made their reputation capturing people's memories; they made their money capturing their mistakes."
Think about how expensive the learning curve was about 25 years ago. Back then you had to pay for film and developing for every shot. Ordinary amateur photographers were considered good if they got 4-6 "keepers" on a 24-exposure roll.
Someone once said of the film era that "Kodak made their reputation capturing people's memories; they made their money capturing their mistakes."
08-10-2014, 05:00 PM
#843
Lainey,
Think about how expensive the learning curve was about 25 years ago. Back then you had to pay for film and developing for every shot. Ordinary amateur photographers were considered good if they got 4-6 "keepers" on a 24-exposure roll.
Someone once said of the film era that "Kodak made their reputation capturing people's memories; they made their money capturing their mistakes."
Think about how expensive the learning curve was about 25 years ago. Back then you had to pay for film and developing for every shot. Ordinary amateur photographers were considered good if they got 4-6 "keepers" on a 24-exposure roll.
Someone once said of the film era that "Kodak made their reputation capturing people's memories; they made their money capturing their mistakes."
08-10-2014, 10:10 PM
#844
Registered User
Below are a few JPEGS of Denver. A weeks worth of photography was accomplished in a single night.
This is my first attempt at night photography and I’ve learned a lot. In the future I will use an ISO of 80-100 in an attempt to eliminate noise and distortion. I also need to preview the photo sites WELL beforehand AND carry a flashlight (I didn’t know the camera’s controls as well as I thought).
I used my “mule” to travel around the city at night. The camera captured the overhead electrical lines and awkward obstacles better than I did! Here ‘ya go…
The “Mule”
Downtown skyline, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 70 mm FL (focal length)
Sports Authority Field looking south, ISO 400, f8, 8 sec exposure, ~ 50 mm FL
The Denver Civic Center Pavilion, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28 mm FL
Denver’s Historic Gas and Light Building (my grandfather was the building’s engineer for 35 years) ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28mm FL
Colorado’s State Capital Building built in 1895. ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28mm FL
[
Denver’s Speer Blvd Viaduct into the metro center. ISO 400, f8, 8 sec exposure, ~ 50 mm FL
Denver’s 16[sup]th[/sup] Street Mall, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28 mm FL
This is my first attempt at night photography and I’ve learned a lot. In the future I will use an ISO of 80-100 in an attempt to eliminate noise and distortion. I also need to preview the photo sites WELL beforehand AND carry a flashlight (I didn’t know the camera’s controls as well as I thought).
I used my “mule” to travel around the city at night. The camera captured the overhead electrical lines and awkward obstacles better than I did! Here ‘ya go…
The “Mule”
Downtown skyline, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 70 mm FL (focal length)
Sports Authority Field looking south, ISO 400, f8, 8 sec exposure, ~ 50 mm FL
The Denver Civic Center Pavilion, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28 mm FL
Denver’s Historic Gas and Light Building (my grandfather was the building’s engineer for 35 years) ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28mm FL
Colorado’s State Capital Building built in 1895. ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28mm FL
[ Denver’s Speer Blvd Viaduct into the metro center. ISO 400, f8, 8 sec exposure, ~ 50 mm FL
Denver’s 16[sup]th[/sup] Street Mall, ISO 400, f8, ¼ sec exposure, ~ 28 mm FL
08-11-2014, 05:04 AM
#845
Gary, I don't have the eye of a pro, so would not notice flaws others may, but I declare your photos as "good stuff." Very cool!
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for sharing!
08-11-2014, 05:05 AM
#846
Registered User
Other gary--
If you're using a tripod for night shooting, there's no need to increase ISO. Even at 400, you shouldn't see any noise with most modern cameras.
To check the sweet spot of your camera for night shooting, try a few things- Take the same picture, over and over, and change one setting at a time. I prefer Aperture priority, so I'd start at F4, and worth through the middle F8/9/11 and up to F16 or 22. You should notice the exposure times increase accordingly, from 1/4 s, to 1/2, then 1, 2, 4 even 8 or 10 seconds. I just realized that some of the shots are 8 second exposures already. So they could increase to 15, 30 or even 60 seconds.
Comparing the pictures will give you an idea if the camera is suited for one range over another. You can then start to use that information to take pictures with Shutter priority or even in manual mode to get a desired effect.
For post processing night shots, I tend to increase the 'black' levels a bit which removes some extra noise and can help bring out the brighter colors in the picture.
If you're using a tripod for night shooting, there's no need to increase ISO. Even at 400, you shouldn't see any noise with most modern cameras.
To check the sweet spot of your camera for night shooting, try a few things- Take the same picture, over and over, and change one setting at a time. I prefer Aperture priority, so I'd start at F4, and worth through the middle F8/9/11 and up to F16 or 22. You should notice the exposure times increase accordingly, from 1/4 s, to 1/2, then 1, 2, 4 even 8 or 10 seconds. I just realized that some of the shots are 8 second exposures already. So they could increase to 15, 30 or even 60 seconds.
Comparing the pictures will give you an idea if the camera is suited for one range over another. You can then start to use that information to take pictures with Shutter priority or even in manual mode to get a desired effect.
For post processing night shots, I tend to increase the 'black' levels a bit which removes some extra noise and can help bring out the brighter colors in the picture.
08-11-2014, 05:12 AM
#848
Registered User
Originally Posted by Lainey' timestamp='1407463106' post='23277895
[quote name='RMurphy' timestamp='1407462111' post='23277879']
[quote name='Lainey' timestamp='1406949228' post='23270040']
Here's my own cool stuff photo. Happy Anniversary to my
Thirty years married on Monday. As you can see, we haven't changed a bit!!!
I am pleased to report that the dress still fit! Yes, I knew I saved it for a reason.
[quote name='Lainey' timestamp='1406949228' post='23270040']
Here's my own cool stuff photo. Happy Anniversary to my
Thirty years married on Monday. As you can see, we haven't changed a bit!!!
I am pleased to report that the dress still fit! Yes, I knew I saved it for a reason.BTW, I think I may have filled the dress a bit differently, than 30 years ago, gravity and all, but it did fit which pleased me. I'm not sure why I left it in the closet all these years, but it didn't seem right to toss it. Glad I didn't. Wonder if it will still fit in 10 more years........
[/quote]
Most professional photographers have few specialties. They use their waking hours perusing and perfecting those photographic skills. Those professionals shoot hundreds (maybe thousands) of shots just to produce a few noteworthy photos. In the past, I’ve known of those that have chosen a subject, arranged it, and then have mapped the direction of the sunrise, sunset, sweet photographic lighting conditions (normally low level) and bracketed each shot in order to produce outstanding results. It’s time consuming and possibly taking days/weeks to achieve. They’re also experts in their post processing and camera skills (i.e. selecting ISO numbers, aperture, shutter speeds, depth of field, color balance, RAW controls, etc.).
You’re good now but you’ll get better with a devotion of great fervor. That’s what it takes. Jeez, I only wish I was committed enough to be amongst them.
gary
[/quote]
Other gary again,
I think it depends on the results you want to achieve and the level of commitment you want to put in - just like any other hobby, profession or anything else in life.
There are trips where I am absolutely in the wrong place at the wrong time and my shots show it. There are times when I'm accidentally at the right place at the right time, and then there are times I make sure I'm at the right place at the right time (or the best time under the situation I'm in). Understanding your subject and skills and post-processing skills can absolutely differentiate between different photographers.
There are absolutely people that I think go overboard, but I wouldn't be surprised that they think we're overboard being 'in a car club?' To each his own.
At the professional level, a single shot could be worth thousand, tens of thousands or even more in income. If that were the case, spending time to research when, where and how is the cost of doing business.
08-11-2014, 05:23 AM
#849
Registered User
Originally Posted by skunkworks' timestamp='1407706433' post='23280967
I bought a lightly used Nikon P7700 camera with an auxiliary flash on Friday for an exceptionally good price. After two day’s of cramming the contents of the owner’s manual and physically fumbling with it, I’m now ready to do some night photography in the Denver area. Good or bad, I’ll post my results tomorrow. You've been warned!!
Quasimodo
Quasimodo
I went out today with the thought of checking out frames to possibly display a few of my recent pics. The options are over whelming. My camera is not full frame so some size pics display better in odd sizes vs the typical sizes. I try to keep that in mind when taking pics but don't always manage. I made some notes before I left, and still made no decisions.
I came home and am back to square one as the size frame I was thinking of for one pic will work with the print, but it's still too small for the area. I don't have enough decent stuff to create a grouping either. I need a bigger framing budget and some creativity beyond getting the occasional decent shot.
Lainey - not sure what you're getting at here. If you look at most full frame compared to APS-C sensor cameras, the resolution is usually very close. (The D3 is ~4500 x 2800, the D300 is ~4300 x 2800 - I used these since I have the D300 and the D3 and it came out together years ago, but it's still true today) Not much of an actual difference about 5% on the width. Most cameras today shoot something at or very close to a 4x6 ratio.
Realizing that, you should consider framing your photo, then backing back out a bit. This will give you room to crop the portion you want, with enough extra height or width to account for a new image ratio.
I prefer 8x10 for most things I publish. There are times where it's not possible from the image I took (based on lens, conditions, etc... Coming from a 4x6, it's a considerable change sometimes. Printing/framing a 5x7 isn't nearly as difficult. there are also times I just 'free crop' for the web. Unfortunately, for off the shelf frames, thats bad, unless you do your own matting and frame one size larger.
08-11-2014, 06:10 AM
#850
Registered User
Other gary--
If you're using a tripod for night shooting, there's no need to increase ISO. Even at 400, you shouldn't see any noise with most modern cameras.
To check the sweet spot of your camera for night shooting, try a few things- Take the same picture, over and over, and change one setting at a time. I prefer Aperture priority, so I'd start at F4, and worth through the middle F8/9/11 and up to F16 or 22. You should notice the exposure times increase accordingly, from 1/4 s, to 1/2, then 1, 2, 4 even 8 or 10 seconds. I just realized that some of the shots are 8 second exposures already. So they could increase to 15, 30 or even 60 seconds.
Comparing the pictures will give you an idea if the camera is suited for one range over another. You can then start to use that information to take pictures with Shutter priority or even in manual mode to get a desired effect.
For post processing night shots, I tend to increase the 'black' levels a bit which removes some extra noise and can help bring out the brighter colors in the picture.
If you're using a tripod for night shooting, there's no need to increase ISO. Even at 400, you shouldn't see any noise with most modern cameras.
To check the sweet spot of your camera for night shooting, try a few things- Take the same picture, over and over, and change one setting at a time. I prefer Aperture priority, so I'd start at F4, and worth through the middle F8/9/11 and up to F16 or 22. You should notice the exposure times increase accordingly, from 1/4 s, to 1/2, then 1, 2, 4 even 8 or 10 seconds. I just realized that some of the shots are 8 second exposures already. So they could increase to 15, 30 or even 60 seconds.
Comparing the pictures will give you an idea if the camera is suited for one range over another. You can then start to use that information to take pictures with Shutter priority or even in manual mode to get a desired effect.
For post processing night shots, I tend to increase the 'black' levels a bit which removes some extra noise and can help bring out the brighter colors in the picture.
Just last Friday I purchased my camera, a Nikon P7700, from a CL ad. It’s essentially an upgraded “point and shoot” with only a few bells and whistles. It unfortunately doesn’t have the aperture range (f8 is the smallest) or the sophisticated image correction capabilities that you mentioned.
The night images look a bit stressed when enlarged and don’t display a true black, so I thought a lower ISO could solve that issue. In the future I will bracket up to camera’s limited capabilities and note any changes. It has RAW mode capabilities, and may begin to use that feature when I decide to “bite the bullet” and purchase post processing software.
gary II