Official Photography Thread

[Katy Lied]

Ken Rockwell likee: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

I have the wide angle 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. Absolute nirvana.

[Katy Lied]

So I started working on a new project, transposing old and new pictures. It actually taught me about different formats and perspectives more than anything else. I found out that my digital camera suffers from a tiny format and sensor, which compresses the picture and really distorts the perspective of the picture.

I never would have found out that my camera produces so much distortion, because all the other digital cameras do as well. You have to compare photos with the lovely old pictures taken 100 years ago. (Or, a modern camera with a large sensor/negative/format.)

U Utah, 1917

Notice how this building wing appears tall. The stone columns overwhelm the people, and the size of the building feels spacious and gracious. Especiall the two men on the right, they comfortably fit in the notch of the building with room to spare.


See how the same wing feels small and cramped. The notch to the right doesnt feel like it could accommodate two men very comfortably at all. The picture feels stretched out to the right and left, and the columns no longer convey a spacious tall feeling. The old photo above was taken with a large format camera, and the perspective is lovely.

The modern photo doesn't have any people in it to compare, so here is another shot:

U Utah, 1925

Same building, longer shot. I suspect that this photo was distorted in the printing, but you can still feel the lovely perspective of this large format negative. The windows of the building are tall and lean, and the people on the steps are dwarfed by the column footings.


In this shot the building feels like it's been stretched widthwise, and the windows appear short and squat.

Last, the smaller the format, the more distortions like keystones creep in. U Utah, 1901:

(By the way, this photographer cleverly hid the fact that the building is set on an angle by having the first row cover the slope of the ground)


The keystone effect makes you dizzy when you look at the top of the photo.

[Scott R Nelson]

[Image 1]
Notice how this building wing appears tall. The stone columns overwhelm the people, and the size of the building feels spacious and gracious. Especially the two men on the right, they comfortably fit in the notch of the building with room to spare.

[Image 2]
See how the same wing feels small and cramped. The notch to the right doesn't feel like it could accommodate two men very comfortably at all. The picture feels stretched out to the right and left, and the columns no longer convey a spacious tall feeling. The old photo above was taken with a large format camera, and the perspective is lovely.

I think you may find that if you move back a bit to take your photo, you can achieve the same perspective as the old one, or at least something closer to the original.

[creekster]

I think you may find that if you move back a bit to take your photo, you can achieve the same perspective as the old one, or at least something closer to the original.

That was my thought as well. It is hard to compare shots and differences in perspectives without knowing the effective focal length, the lens/format combination, the precise location of shooting, etc. Of course, I would defer to the camera pros around here.

[Scott R Nelson]

the precise location of shooting

That's the trick.

A few years ago I took the first photo below. Then recently I wanted to try to get the same thing with a different motorcycle and realized that it was nearly impossible to get the exact position of the motorcycle the same as well as shooting from the same distance - even when I had a print of the first photo in my hand to compare against. The best I could do was to get the same general effect.

Getting the same perspective is quite tricky if you don't know where the original photo was shot from.

[RobinFinderson]

Wow, it has been a long time since I have picked up the camera, but I thought I would shoot some of Little Robin, tonight, as he was practicing the guitar. All shot in low light as the sun was setting, so the lens is wide open and there is a very shallow depth of field. I would have liked a bit more focus, but I wasn't going to set up a flash. Cheers!















That is Faith in the lost shot. These are also the first photos I've taken of our new apartment.

[Katy Lied]

I really like the third-to-the-last one. The light on the line of his cheek extending down and then dissapating into his neck is precious. I might reduce the highlights from the window because his face has plenty of light on it, but appears dark to the viewer only in contrast to the bright window.

You probably shot this raw. What white balance did you use? I normally select the white bal that gives me the biggest range of color, even if I have to sacrifice non-realistic flesh tones, but here I really like your muted palette of color. I think it contributes to the mood.

You probably already know that with kids and animals, if the eyes are in focus, it doesn't matter if anything else is in focus. This really helps me with very shallow DoF, like when shooting in low light.

Here are two photos I've post processed to give them an otherworldly air.

Yakima Farmhouse


Garden Cherub

[RobinFinderson]

I really like the third-to-the-last one. The light on the line of his cheek extending down and then dissapating into his neck is precious. I might reduce the highlights from the window because his face has plenty of light on it, but appears dark to the viewer only in contrast to the bright window.

You probably shot this raw. What white balance did you use? I normally select the white bal that gives me the biggest range of color, even if I have to sacrifice non-realistic flesh tones, but here I really like your muted palette of color. I think it contributes to the mood.

You probably already know that with kids and animals, if the eyes are in focus, it doesn't matter if anything else is in focus. This really helps me with very shallow DoF, like when shooting in low light.

Here are two photos I've post processed to give them an otherworldly air.

Yakima Farmhouse

Kind of Andrew Wyeth:



Nice choice on the skyline.

I ended up liking some of the B&W's better than the original color shots. With the low light, these shots were more about contrast than color, so BW was probably the best fit from the beginning. There isn't much I can do about the intensity of the window, because the highlights were blown, but I don't mind it.:

[filsdepac]

Fleet week in SF, best time of the year in the city. I had never been to a blue angels show before last year, but seeing them roar around the city really excited me. Our apartment building is right in line with two large apartment complexes right on the water that they use as a reference point. So, they would make several passes right above our heads. Also, before the show, a huge United plane flew quite low around alcatraz, it was almost eerie since it had a 911 feel to it.



The approach:


The flyover:


Continuing on...note the two buildings I spoke of:


Tight formation:


Hanging out on the roof, this one is just to make PAC regret not coming.

[RobinFinderson]

Fleet week in SF, best time of the year in the city. I had never been to a blue angels show before last year, but seeing them roar around the city really excited me. Our apartment building is right in line with two large apartment complexes right on the water that they use as a reference point. So, they would make several passes right above our heads. Also, before the show, a huge United plane flew quite low around alcatraz, it was almost eerie since it had a 911 feel to it.



The approach:


The flyover:


Continuing on...note the two buildings I spoke of:


Tight formation:


Hanging out on the roof, this one is just to make PAC regret not coming.

The photos are showing up for me. Are the visible to anyone else?

[filsdepac]

The photos are showing up for me. Are the visible to anyone else?

Probably because I had the album as private. Should be visible now...

[cougjunkie]

Probably because I had the album as private. Should be visible now...

Still not showing up for me either.

[FN Phat]

Great pics, fils.

[Scott R Nelson]

The photos are showing up for me. Are the visible to anyone else?

I didn't see any photos being displayed, but when I went to double-check they finally showed up for me. Who knows why they don't show up right away.

I really wanted to run over to San Francisco on Saturday to watch all of the activities, but had to work most of the day. I've gone to it before. It's easy enough to find parking if you go early enough, but it seems to take about two hours (literally) to get out of San Francisco when it's over. That is one occasion when it's much easier to get around on two wheels than on four. I think riding BART into the city then getting around on a bicycle is fastest overall.

Next best is probably doing something else for two or three hours before attempting to get out of there.

The last time I attended in San Francisco was when they were having the Red Bull Air Races before the Blue Angles. This photo is from that:

[filsdepac]

Still not showing up for me either.

Not sure then, they're in my public CUF album, so you can see them there if they're still not showing up.