Official Photography Thread

[swampfrog]

Which body? Sound like a good trip. Pics look good. I'm not always a fan of the vignette, but it does work well in forests and other areas where there aren't natural edges. Looking forward to seeing images from the trip.

[Northwestcoug]

Which body? Sound like a good trip. Pics look good. I'm not always a fan of the vignette, but it does work well in forests and other areas where there aren't natural edges. Looking forward to seeing images from the trip.

Canon 5D. I bought it from my partner’s wife, but then I realized the firmware hadn’t been updated in a while and it isn’t available from Canon anymore. Which means it won’t accept a memory card larger than 8 GB.... So I’m looking to get a used 6D, or possibly a 5D Mark II. I loved taking full advantage of my wide angle lens.

That vignetting wasn’t intentional. Just the way the shot turned out

[swampfrog]

Canon 5D. I bought it from my partner’s wife, but then I realized the firmware hadn’t been updated in a while and it isn’t available from Canon anymore. Which means it won’t accept a memory card larger than 8 GB.... So I’m looking to get a used 6D, or possibly a 5D Mark II. I loved taking full advantage of my wide angle lens.

That vignetting wasn’t intentional. Just the way the shot turned out

Hope you didn't pay a lot for it. That's a 15 year old camera. The 6D is a much better camera. Plenty of links to used options from reputable dealers here:

https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/...-6D-price.html

Not a wildlife camera, but great for portrait/landscape.

[Northwestcoug]

Hope you didn't pay a lot for it. That's a 15 year old camera. The 6D is a much better camera. Plenty of links to used options from reputable dealers here:

https://www.cpricewatch.com/product/...-6D-price.html

Not a wildlife camera, but great for portrait/landscape.

No. My partner is a Nikon person and she thought it was a 5D Mark II. So it was a misunderstanding and they understand it’s not gonna work out.

[swampfrog]

So do the birds ever get tired of people just pointing their cameras at them all of the time. Apparently this one got tired of me the other day.

[tooblue]

I have server space, but not a lot of storage space on it. The great thing about Flickr was I could upload bucket loads of images at hi-res and link them. I will try to share a couple of images from my server and see how it goes (I may need to delete this post and the images after a few weeks). From my trip to Utah in January, before I caught the flu ...

[swampfrog]

Love the tractor. What processing did you do on that? HDR toning?

[tooblue]

Love the tractor. What processing did you do on that? HDR toning?

I use Photoshop for my editing, and I admit I like to edit ...

I develop the RAW image > open it in Photoshop > duplicate the layer to a new document > HDR tone it > duplicate it back into the original file as a new layer on top of the original image > change the layer's blending mode to Soft Light at 35% > duplicate the original layer on top of both layers > go to filter menu ... select other ... select High Pass at 10.0 > change the layer's blending mode to Soft Light at 80%

Here is one of your birds using the same technique ...

swampfrogsbird.jpg

[swampfrog]

I use Photoshop for my editing, and I admit I like to edit ...

I develop the RAW image > open it in Photoshop > duplicate the layer to a new document > HDR tone it > duplicate it back into the original file as a new layer on top of the original image > change the layer's blending mode to Soft Light at 35% > duplicate the original layer on top of both layers > go to filter menu ... select other ... select High Pass at 10.0 > change the layer's blending mode to Soft Light at 80%

Here is one of your birds using the same technique ...

[ATTACH]10113[/ATTACH]

I like it with other subjects, but not with wildlife. Too contrasty. Conditions don't exist where the dark feathers would reach that tone. It is striking though. That reminds me I never finished editing that trip...sigh. The Oregon trip really threw me off, ~25,000 images to mess with from 14 days--a year gone by and I still haven't finished.

I really need to take a crash course in PS some day. I use it sparingly for sharpening and noise reduction. Occasionally for other things. I need a course that will open me up to the different things it can do and then play with them to learn when and where to use them. One thing I'd really like to understand is developing landscape with a horizon where the sky is simply too bright. Develop the image twice, once for the sky and the secondly for the land and then blend them such that the horizon line doesn't end up with some haloing effects.

Though my gut tells me I still wouldn't use it that often, I prefer to spend more time shooting than editing. LightRoom is already a playground with so many things to play with, and PS multiplies that significantly.

Thanks for the workflow steps, I may play with that to see what happens at each step.

[tooblue]

I like it with other subjects, but not with wildlife. Too contrasty. Conditions don't exist where the dark feathers would reach that tone. It is striking though. That reminds me I never finished editing that trip...sigh. The Oregon trip really threw me off, ~25,000 images to mess with from 14 days--a year gone by and I still haven't finished.

I really need to take a crash course in PS some day. I use it sparingly for sharpening and noise reduction. Occasionally for other things. I need a course that will open me up to the different things it can do and then play with them to learn when and where to use them. One thing I'd really like to understand is developing landscape with a horizon where the sky is simply too bright. Develop the image twice, once for the sky and the secondly for the land and then blend them such that the horizon line doesn't end up with some haloing effects.

Though my gut tells me I still wouldn't use it that often, I prefer to spend more time shooting than editing. LightRoom is already a playground with so many things to play with, and PS multiplies that significantly.

Thanks for the workflow steps, I may play with that to see what happens at each step.

I don't like it with wildlife either. It can be great for portraiture, if you don't do the HDR step but rather put a layer between the original and High Pass layer, and then on that layer in-between you gaussian blur it to 3.0 - 4.0, then change the blending mode to Soft Light at 50%

So, the blurred layer softens the original and the High Pass layer on top of both reclaims the detail.

[tooblue]

Pics from a few nights ago at the lakeshore

[swampfrog]

From around the house as we take walks. I'm just carrying the 70-200 with the 2x installed, so 140-400mm. Shooting whatever catches my eye. Since it's spring, flora will likely feature heavily--which is good, I need some more experience with it anyway.

I'm linking at slightly higher resolution that typical. Full screen browser will be the best experience.

[tooblue]

From around the house as we take walks. I'm just carrying the 70-200 with the 2x installed, so 140-400mm. Shooting whatever catches my eye. Since it's spring, flora will likely feature heavily--which is good, I need some more experience with it anyway.

I'm linking at slightly higher resolution that typical. Full screen browser will be the best experience.

Lovely as usual Swamp. I am envious of your lens. Some say that is the only lens a photographer needs, though I can't imagine always lugging that thing around. I guess you would get used to it.

[swampfrog]

Lovely as usual Swamp. I am envious of your lens. Some say that is the only lens a photographer needs, though I can't imagine always lugging that thing around. I guess you would get used to it.

I no longer consider it a burden. I've used a rented a 400mm, 500mm, 600mm, and 100-400mm on different trips now. I was hand holding the 600mm with the 1.4x attached for extended periods on the longest trip. (Not hiking--still travelling by car, but 20 to 30 minute shooting sessions.) Once I got somewhat used to that, going back to the 70-200 feels much less intimidating. I also think I'm better with it after learning to handle the longer lenses. I really, really miss the 600 though, that was just an absolute joy to use.



For a lot of what I like to shoot, I don't need much else. They don't call the 16-35, the 24-70, and the 70-200 the Holy Trinity for nothing! They lack the speed of primes for portraiture, limited macro, and don't cover the ultra wide angle nor super telephoto.

[Copelius]