Official Photography Thread

[swampfrog]

It's been decades since I used one and my guess is they are a lot better now. Back in my day they were okay, but suffered from serious degradation around the edges of the shot. If she is serious about the photography you should pop for the real deal.

They are much better now. I would only pop for the real deal if athletics or birds are a major part of enjoying the hobby. Even then, you will end up getting the extenders anyway, so buy them first. Rent a longer lens before buying one.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Swampfrog, you have an incredible talent. I don't comment much, but I love these photos.

[swampfrog]

Swampfrog, you have an incredible talent. I don't comment much, but I love these photos.

Thank you. "Incredible talent" is reaching, but I can look back over the past few years and see improvement. It continues to be a satisfying hobby.

[Northwestcoug]

Those are some really nice eagle pics,SF.

[mtnbiker]

How do you pull out the details like that, especially of the underwing which would typically be all shadows? And without overdoing the white plumage?

More from the refuge on Saturday. The eagles were out--but not quite close enough for great shots. Still coveting an at least 400mm f/4 lens... Practicing flight images.

[swampfrog]

I think this one is my favorite of that grouping.

That's the closest it came to me, so I was able to get the most detail. The other shots were more interesting, and would be better if I had a longer lens or the two eagles had decided to engage one another closer to my car. I really envy those that can afford to drop 5-10K on the longer lenses. Maybe someday.

[swampfrog]

How do you pull out the details like that, especially of the underwing which would typically be all shadows? And without overdoing the white plumage?

There's really a lot of things that go into answering that question. Some of which I haven't mastered yet. First, don't shoot birds (or most anything else) in the sun, you will get exactly the result you describe. Digital sensors (and film) have less dynamic range than the eye, so they cannot resolve really high contrast. The choice will be made between black shadow areas or detail-less white areas. Sometimes this is easier to think about by looking at any scene and thinking, "When I expose for the brightest parts of the scene, even slight shadows will be emphasized more than what my eye perceives."

When you can't use HDR techniques, which is true for most moving subjects, then you expose for the whites you want to keep. There are various techniques for this, most digital cameras are capable of showing a histogram of the data captured in the image. Reading a histogram will tell you how close you are to losing detail in the white areas. Some cameras also provide a "clipping" indicator on images, where parts of the image which have been overexposed blink. With moving subjects, if you want to freeze the motion, high shutter speeds (1/1000 or faster) are required. This will mean using relatively high ISO values. I think most of these are between ISO 1250 and 1600.

Note on the eagle images, there is no detail in the sky. It was cloudy and there was detail to be captured but I deliberately sacrificed all detail in the clouds to get as much detail in the darker areas of the eagle as possible. I typically use a technique taught by Arthur Morris, in a cloudy situation, point your camera at the cloudy sky. Set your exposure at about 3 stops more light than that. If the subject has white areas, 3 stops will be too much light, if the bird has black areas, 3 stops might not be enough. If it has both (and bald eagles are close enough), then you go with what works for the whites. Depending on the cloud cover, this may vary from time to time, so reset as needed.

Note what that means for these eagle pictures. If I had just told the camera to figure out what the best settings were to expose, I would have had a nice image of clouds with a black silhouette of an eagle. I had to know that what I wanted was correct exposure of the eagle, not the whole scene. The camera can't know that, so the operator has to take greater control of the exposure.

Shoot at something close to the tonality that you will be capturing and review for "blinkies" and look at the histogram. Add or subtract light as needed. Usually, this can get you to the right exposure for the scene relatively quickly. Always capture as close to overexposing as possible (exposing to the right, or ETTR). It's very easy to darken a scene if it is brighter than reality, but lightening up a dark scene is more problematic.

Capture using RAW if the camera supports it. This allows greater latitude when editing the image.

Once I brought the Eagle shots into Lightroom, I raised the shadows to bring some detail into the dark areas. In this case Lightroom is aptly named, it's very good at adjusting the light of any given part of an image. You can make light areas darker and dark areas lighter. How much adjustment depends on the actual data in the original, if the area is too dark, there isn't enough information to maintain the detail in the dark areas as it is lightened, and it will start to look blotchy or posterized. This also occurs when compression is applied when producing a final image.

[swampfrog]

Yeah, I fear that might be the case. In addition to the cost, there's also the problem of packing around that much glass, but we'll see. Gone are the days when a dozen roses would have sufficed....

BTW, swampfrog, this is the extender I'm giving her, subject to further input, if any...

EDIT: Didn't see your response until I posted this. Makes sense. I'll give her what I have but with your advice, she may exchange for the 1.4. Thanks.

Just buy them both...might as well get it over with. I shoot the 2x a lot more than the 1.4x, more often I want the reach rather than the speed. But if your main goal with the puffins is to catch them in flight, go with the 1.4x or rent a longer lens--puffins are fast (and I'm jealous--never had the chance other than those in captivity--need someone to carry your luggage around?). I do use the 2x for sports in decent light and it would be fine for other large mammals. I don't know the Nikon big lenses very well, but the later released Canons show very little focus performance decreases with the 1.4x. Some people claim image degradation, and it is true if you look close enough, but I haven't found it to be significant at all. The eagle head shot earlier in the thread (at the zoo) was made with the 2x attached.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Just buy them both...might as well get it over with. I shoot the 2x a lot more than the 1.4x, more often I want the reach rather than the speed. But if your main goal with the puffins is to catch them in flight, go with the 1.4x or rent a longer lens--puffins are fast (and I'm jealous--never had the chance other than those in captivity--need someone to carry your luggage around?). I do use the 2x for sports in decent light and it would be fine for other large mammals. I don't know the Nikon big lenses very well, but the later released Canons show very little focus performance decreases with the 1.4x. Some people claim image degradation, and it is true if you look close enough, but I haven't found it to be significant at all. The eagle head shots earlier in the thread (at the zoo) were all made with the 2x attached.

Well, as a matter of fact... But I'll be driving us breakneck speeds the backroads of Ireland (on the left, if I remember) and you'd be in mortal danger. There are 2-3 places where we're supposed to see puffins, including near the Cliffs of Moher, but my highest hopes are for Skellig Michael (the place where Luke Skywalker has been hiding and received his old light saber). The place looks fantastic but weather may keep us away; if we get there, there are supposedly hundreds of puffins, not to mention a 1500 year-old monastery. We hope we get there as some great photo ops await.

[Katy Lied]

Incredible talent is right.

[swampfrog]

Well, as a matter of fact... But I'll be driving us breakneck speeds the backroads of Ireland (on the left, if I remember) and you'd be in mortal danger. There are 2-3 places where we're supposed to see puffins, including near the Cliffs of Moher, but my highest hopes are for Skellig Michael (the place where Luke Skywalker has been hiding and received his old light saber). The place looks fantastic but weather may keep us away; if we get there, there are supposedly hundreds of puffins, not to mention a 1500 year-old monastery. We hope we get there as some great photo ops await.

Thanks, that's exactly what my life needs right now, a little more jealousy.

[Eddie]

There's really a lot of things that go into answering that question. Some of which I haven't mastered yet. First, don't shoot birds (or most anything else) in the sun, you will get exactly the result you describe. Digital sensors (and film) have less dynamic range than the eye, so they cannot resolve really high contrast. The choice will be made between black shadow areas or detail-less white areas. Sometimes this is easier to think about by looking at any scene and thinking, "When I expose for the brightest parts of the scene, even slight shadows will be emphasized more than what my eye perceives."

When you can't use HDR techniques, which is true for most moving subjects, then you expose for the whites you want to keep. There are various techniques for this, most digital cameras are capable of showing a histogram of the data captured in the image. Reading a histogram will tell you how close you are to losing detail in the white areas. Some cameras also provide a "clipping" indicator on images, where parts of the image which have been overexposed blink. With moving subjects, if you want to freeze the motion, high shutter speeds (1/1000 or faster) are required. This will mean using relatively high ISO values. I think most of these are between ISO 1250 and 1600.

Note on the eagle images, there is no detail in the sky. It was cloudy and there was detail to be captured but I deliberately sacrificed all detail in the clouds to get as much detail in the darker areas of the eagle as possible. I typically use a technique taught by Arthur Morris, in a cloudy situation, point your camera at the cloudy sky. Set your exposure at about 3 stops more light than that. If the subject has white areas, 3 stops will be too much light, if the bird has black areas, 3 stops might not be enough. If it has both (and bald eagles are close enough), then you go with what works for the whites. Depending on the cloud cover, this may vary from time to time, so reset as needed.

Note what that means for these eagle pictures. If I had just told the camera to figure out what the best settings were to expose, I would have had a nice image of clouds with a black silhouette of an eagle. I had to know that what I wanted was correct exposure of the eagle, not the whole scene. The camera can't know that, so the operator has to take greater control of the exposure.

Shoot at something close to the tonality that you will be capturing and review for "blinkies" and look at the histogram. Add or subtract light as needed. Usually, this can get you to the right exposure for the scene relatively quickly. Always capture as close to overexposing as possible (exposing to the right, or ETTR). It's very easy to darken a scene if it is brighter than reality, but lightening up a dark scene is more problematic.

Capture using RAW if the camera supports it. This allows greater latitude when editing the image.

Once I brought the Eagle shots into Lightroom, I raised the shadows to bring some detail into the dark areas. In this case Lightroom is aptly named, it's very good at adjusting the light of any given part of an image. You can make light areas darker and dark areas lighter. How much adjustment depends on the actual data in the original, if the area is too dark, there isn't enough information to maintain the detail in the dark areas as it is lightened, and it will start to look blotchy or posterized. This also occurs when compression is applied when producing a final image.

I can't even begin to describe how much i would love to follow you around some day and have you show me how to make my camera do even a quarter of what it is probably capable of. Seriously.

[swampfrog]

I can't even begin to describe how much i would love to follow you around some day and have you show me how to make my camera do even a quarter of what it is probably capable of. Seriously.

Art posted this way back in this thread:

http://camerasim.com/apps/original-camerasim/web//

Playing with that simulator can teach someone just about everything they need to know. It has background versus foreground, motion, distance, focal length, lighting, etc. Cameras can be complicated, but ignoring zoom/focusing (which are really the lens anyway, even though with autofocus the camera tells the lens what adjustments to make) for now, almost all other camera features control only 3 settings. Aperture, Shutter Speed, and ISO. Getting familiar with what changing those 3 things does is where to start.

It's an interesting change in the market of photography in the last decade or two, it used to be photographers could make decent money selling images, that is no longer true except in the cases of portrait and event photography--but even that is affected by the "mommy photographers". Why spend hundreds on a photo-shoot when you can spend that much and buy a camera perfectly capable of delivering high quality shots? As with many other markets, many photographers make money selling services now, training, online tutorials, photo tours, etc. Teaching others how to use the ridiculously good equipment that is available for very reasonable prices.

I've never taken a class or course in photography, everything is readily available on the internet. Tons and tons of free content where you can virtually follow a professional photographer and learn from them. Some people of course learn better/quicker by having someone walk through things. You can probably find a "rent-a-trainer" photographer just about anywhere.

If you want to take seven free lessons from Art Morris, try this:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/galle...t_morris.shtml

That being said, anyone ever in the Portland, OR general area is free to contact me. I'm a hobbiest, I don't do this professionally, I have a ton still to learn, so it's fun to just go out play.

[swampfrog]

I meant to do this before--and not in anyway trying disparage the original. It just reminded me how much of modern digital photography is learning editing techniques. Many times when people question why they can't take photos like that, they can, it's the wrong question. The right question is how do I edit my photos to look like that?

EagleEdited2.jpg

[Copelius]

I meant to do this before--and not in anyway trying disparage the original. It just reminded me how much of modern digital photography is learning editing techniques. Many times when people question why they can't take photos like that, they can, it's the wrong question. The right question is how do I edit my photos to look like that?

[ATTACH]7732[/ATTACH]

I actually had edited it, but I am still learning as one can tell.