quidam
in Preparation for Body Join
Posts: 118 
|
Post by quidam on Jun 17, 2014 11:44:53 GMT 1
Mostly modern, but when there's occasion of course steam to. And word modern doesn't describe the state of railways in Poland - which is great for photographs, but sadly not so good for average passenger... That's the problem - when one is young and have all the time for shooting, than there's not enough money to afford proper equipment. And later on it's just the other way around  Right now I'm thinking about buying back some old manual SLR and shooting some velvia. I know, those colors aren't quite natural, but so beautiful! |
|
Linie 9
in service - 1 year
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by Linie 9 on Mar 14, 2015 23:32:31 GMT 1
I do not want to diminish results of other fine photographers here - but simply Linie 9 is the grand-master  . Really!? May be because I do not use CaNikon stuff...  I use good equipment that works and my feeling tells me what to do. May be the experience (and feedback here) steers the feeling in the fine tuning... |
|
s543
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,959
|
Post by s543 on Mar 15, 2015 0:01:05 GMT 1
I do believe that the equipment is of smaller influence - the more important part is the eye+hand
|
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 16, 2015 4:32:07 GMT 1
May be because I do not use CaNikon stuff... Hah. What's wrong with Canon and Nikon? Most professional photographers I've seen use Canon (5D series), followed by Nikon, and some Sony. I have personally not seen anything else yet. What's your equipment and model? |
|
Linie 9
in service - 1 year
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by Linie 9 on Mar 16, 2015 13:02:22 GMT 1
I'm not a pro I use a Pentax body K5IIs and will get the upcoming full frame camera later this year. Lenses are "Star" and FA ltd.'s by Pentax and 2 Sigmas (fish eye and Bigma II) and some more. |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Mar 16, 2015 19:36:10 GMT 1
I'm not a pro Sorry Linie 9. For the exceptional quality of the pictures you bring us, you are a pro in my books! I can't wait to see what you do with the new upcoming full frame camera. |
|
Linie 9
in service - 1 year
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by Linie 9 on Mar 16, 2015 20:06:55 GMT 1
Thank you Baroque, I'm pleased  The full frame sensor will push the picture file size from 16 to 36 MegaPixel and reduce the noise a lot. More space around with all lenses: the crop factor shrinks from 1.55 down to 1 that is: none. |
|
Linie 9
in service - 1 year
Posts: 2,761
|
Post by Linie 9 on Jun 1, 2015 20:13:42 GMT 1
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Jul 25, 2015 12:49:19 GMT 1
Still learning the basics. I always assumed that lowest sensitivity is best for good light conditions and that higher ISO leads to more grain. It does, but as they say, you can always denoise a picture. Deblurring, however, is far more challenging It took me a while to be comfortable with higher ISO, but the thing is that you need an appropriate lens anyway to get your object to fill most of the frame. If you have to crop a lot, the image quality will decrease. So if you have your object on 80-90% of your frame already, you can denoise easily and then reduce the picture's size so that 8-9 pixels turn into one and most of the noise is gone. The thing with denoising is that no matter how good your program, you always lose a bit of your image detail. The texture looks a little less lively, little details are lost. That's less of a problem with airplanes where surfaces are smooth most of the time and most "noise" really is just noise. With nature photography, it's different. What you can do is you can denoise your picture and overlay it with the original and "cut out" the parts you don't want denoised. I'll be so bold as to plug my own photos for these examples: :origin()/pre12/1844/th/pre/f/2015/204/c/f/july_18th__common_fly_by_taliesin_neonblack-d92gttz.jpg) :origin()/pre12/9ea2/th/pre/f/2015/203/5/4/july_10th__black_tailed_skimmer_by_taliesin_neonblack-d92bzhx.jpg) Both objects are far too detailed for a denoise, but if you were so inclined, you could denoise the background and keep the original insect. For me, that's too much work and fiddling to be honest, but it's what a lot of people do with their airplane photos, too, so they can edit the sky in a different way than the airplane, for example. Either way, I've come to think of noise as "the character" of photos.. not unlike wrinkles on a face |
|
Baroque
in service - 2 years
Posts: 3,991
|
Post by Baroque on Jul 27, 2015 1:18:17 GMT 1
If you have to crop a lot, the image quality will decrease. So if you have your object on 80-90% of your frame already, you can denoise easily and then reduce the picture's size so that 8-9 pixels turn into one and most of the noise is gone. I never thought of using higher ISO this way. Thanks! Blur is frequently an issue in some of my zoomed in shots. I've tried this technique for some of my (horrible looking  ) HDR images I've been working on. It gets a bit tedious though. As an aside, you seem to know your arthropods as well as your planes!  |
|
) HDR images I've been working on. It gets a bit tedious though. 