Official Photography Thread

[swampfrog]

Would you like to try your hand at this one? It was a really strange, boiling cloud formation, more dramatic than my cell phone could capture.

Do you have a higher resolution copy? The original was 1024 x 576. That's relatively small for most phones.

This may be overdone for some, but I like it.

CloudScera1.jpg

[mtnbiker]

Thanks - that's much better. I sent you a link to the full-size image in a pm.

[wuapinmon]

A friend took this this morning in NOLA....not an amazing photo, but the Mardi Gras Indian's outfit sure was the prettiest.

[swampfrog]

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.

I just ran into this today as I follow the blog daily.

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2017/...-focal-length/

...but the 300 f/2.8 lenses — at least the Canon ones — can produce superbly sharp images when coupled with a Canon doubler like the EF 2X III Teleconverter. While the Nikon 1.4X and 1.7X TCEs produce sharp images, you have to look far and wide to find a Nikon shooter who is enamored with the TCE 20 …

So at least one data point that the Nikon 2x might not be up to the same level as the Canon equivalent. Reviews I scanned at the main camera retailers seem to reflect people being generally satisfied with the purchase. Arthur Morris receives some compensation if people purchase through his links at some of those retailers and has been shooting (and promoting) mostly Canon for a long time, so not completely unbiased.

[Katy Lied]

Canon has been creeping up on Nikon for a while now, I dont doubt it will surpass Nikon soon.

[Katy Lied]

A friend took this this morning in NOLA....not an amazing photo, but the Mardi Gras Indian's outfit sure was the prettiest.

The cropping of this photo is genius. The manhole balances out the top heavy headdress, and the patterns in the manhole echo the round patterns in the drums (?) the guy is wearing. If you cropped out the street, it would be a much different photo.

[swampfrog]

Canon has been creeping up on Nikon for a while now, I dont doubt it will surpass Nikon soon.

When it comes to the big glass (super telephoto class) lenses, I'm pretty sure Canon is the leader, both in quality (covering a a lot of different aspects of 'quality') and market share. But as I've heard from many, all of the big glass from either are way sharper than most of the photographers using them (including myself). Most of the places I follow lean Canon, so the quality side may be a misconception. Professional market share for sporting events has been historically Canon (since the late 80's), where Nikon has been gaining ground in more recent years. Canon has still be claiming a majority of their equipment has been used at the major events (Olympics, Super Bowl, etc.) and I haven't seen anyone claiming differently.

[creekster]

When it comes to the big glass (super telephoto class) lenses, I'm pretty sure Canon is the leader, both in quality (covering a a lot of different aspects of 'quality') and market share. But as I've heard from many, all of the big glass from either are way sharper than most of the photographers using them (including myself). Most of the places I follow lean Canon, so the quality side may be a misconception. Professional market share for sporting events has been historically Canon (since the late 80's), where Nikon has been gaining ground in more recent years. Canon has still be claiming a majority of their equipment has been used at the major events (Olympics, Super Bowl, etc.) and I haven't seen anyone claiming differently.

The Nikon vs. Canon debate amuses me, tbh. I started in photography in the early 70s. At first it was canon, and then went to nikon for most pro applications and later canon clawed back into it and it has gone back and forth since then. I long ago decided it didn't matter to me much becasue I am a lousy photographer so either of them is better than me.

[swampfrog]

The Nikon vs. Canon debate amuses me, tbh. I started in photography in the early 70s. At first it was canon, and then went to nikon for most pro applications and later canon clawed back into it and it has gone back and forth since then. I long ago decided it didn't matter to me much becasue I am a lousy photographer so either of them is better than me.

I'm indifferent (mostly). I shoot Canon because I was gifted some gear. I'm not likely completely immune to ownership effect and related biases. I consistently read that the quality of the Canon big whites surpasses the Nikon offerings, but I have no real experience with Nikon gear. The whole debate carried out on the web is an interesting look into marketing and psychology. The same can be said for debates about cars, trucks, phones, and probably a myriad of other examples.

[clackamascoug]

I had a Pentax K-1000 on my mission. It only had the one lens.

[swampfrog]

Trying some processing alternatives for some shots from a local hike. Feedback welcome.

1. Softening effects with a bit darker exposure:



2. Added some glow to the greenery, normally my images with moss come out duller than I remember, these two were attempts to recover some of that:





3. Same scene as the previous shot, just a little wider, but then processed to reduce exposure and alter the color scheme to create a mood. (Orange tints in the highlights and purple tints in the shadows.)

[wuapinmon]

I took this today. It's not perfect, but I wish I knew what I was doing and had a better camera, because this could've been stellar.

[swampfrog]

I took this today. It's not perfect, but I wish I knew what I was doing and had a better camera, because this could've been stellar.

In this case the picture is about more than the bird. So don't put the bird in the center of the picture. It's one of the first rules of composition (which is an area where one can never learn enough). In this case it's about color and texture, the bird adds interest, as does the vegetation. Better if the bird is perfectly parallel to the sensor, so while watching a swimming duck, try to wait until they are swimming parallel, if possible, next best is slightly towards your direction. Usually a bird moving away from you, even slightly, detracts from the overall image. If the duck is swimming left to right, try to keep more open space on the right side, so the bird is moving into open space.

It is completely natural to aim the center of the image directly at the main part of the subject. However, it doesn't usually make for a pleasing image, when shooting people, don't point the center of your camera at their head. For subjects that are relatively small in the frame, one option is to place them near one of the corners.

This image (posted previously) is not about birds, but they do add to the scene. The desired effect is to have a viewer's eyes wander about the scene, catch the birds to hold their attention a little longer perhaps to find other details that were missed on first pass. Because the bird is facing toward the majority of the image, the viewer's eye is redirected back into the scene. Hopefully they then find there are a few more birds behind the tree line, and a wing of Canadian geese in the upper left corner:

[wuapinmon]

Indeed. I'm usually trying to take diagnostic shots, so when a chance to take a more artistic one arises, I still focus on the bird. I need to change that up.

[wuapinmon]

https://imgur.com/gallery/VaNUD If you know this bird, it's about half the size of your hand.