Camera Freaks, this is your thread!
- Thread starter The Ghost of FM
- Start date
The Ghost of FM said:I've already got a CF card reader that's attached to my computer so I just take the card out of the camera and plug it into the PC's reader.
If anything, I'll probably blow some more money on another lens. Canon has this series of lens out with an image stabilizer built into them that should improve alot of my shots that require longer exposure times...I haven't checked the prices on them yet but I'll bet the cost almost as much as the camera does.
Dangerous hobby!
Cheers!
What you should do is find something other than a stuffed animal to photograph. I'm available to you for one week only,Ghost.
The Ghost of FM
Banned
When the shutter closes for the last time, we're all just stuffed animals of one kind or another.ez_willis said:What you should do is find something other than a stuffed animal to photograph. I'm available to you for one week only,Ghost.
Cheers!
The Ghost of FM
Banned
Pretty quick! I believe its 3 shots per second.drstawl said:
It uses an internal buffer to initially capture the image, then it writes the data to the card.
Again, lightning quick...shutter speed goes up to 1/4000th of a second so I assume the AF has to work close to those parameters? But, I could be wrong...it might be 200 milliseconds according to the specs.
The format is Compact Flash. USB 2.0 output as well.
The battery is rated for 600 shots no flash, 400 shots with half flash.
It's a sweet little camera!
Now, I just have to figure out how to use the damn thing!
Cheers!
aaroncomp
1-20-2009
The Canon line of digitals are nice. My father's a photographer and he currently uses the 5D. Before that, the 10D. Most of his lenses are Canon L glass. The results very seldom have me or him thinking film would have been better. Especially when you consider Photoshop and getting the shots into it. Kinda like the A/D chain analogy in audio - digital gets there in one shot (no scanning, etc.). If you're serious, always use a tripod. Obviously, you won't use one if you're shooting unpredictable action, etc. Also, learn your Histogram! It's one of the strongest features of digital.
mshilarious
Banned
Dogman said:
. . . are not realistic
The sky is a normal shade of blue on the negative. Well, OK, a normal shade of orange on the negative The Ghost of FM
Banned
What is this "histogram" thing?aaroncomp said:
Is it something that's built into the camera or is it a feature found only in Photoshop?
I don't have Photoshop nor do I want to get it and have even more to learn!
Cheers!
aaroncomp
1-20-2009
The Ghost of FM said:What is this "histogram" thing?
Is it something that's built into the camera or is it a feature found only in Photoshop?
I don't have Photoshop nor do I want to get it and have even more to learn!
Cheers!
No, the histogram is the graph-looking thing that you can have pop after after each shot. You can also review it later, on camera or off. Google for a good explanation. In brief, it shows you a spectrum of captured visual information from shadows (far left) to highlights (far right). The higher the peaks, the more predominance that light/darkness has. For me, it has eliminated the need for a external spot meter, or equations. Take a shot at the aperature, shutter, ISO you think you need and then immediately look at the historgram. From it, you can know if you are over or underexposing your shot. What you are looking for varies with the shot you are capturing (i.e. you're not striving for the same historgram with every shot). For example, if you're shooting something that has alot of darker tones in the majority of the frame, the bulk of your histogram should be to the left (dark tones). If it's something with more highlights, it should be greater on the right (light tones). Also, you should strive to avoid blown highlights and shadows - on the histogram you will have lines that are either all the way to the left (blown shadow) or right (blown highlight). Essentially, in digital, you've told the camera that all of this information is BLACK (blown shadow) or WHITE (blown highlight) with no shades in between. There will be cases where you either can't avoid some blown aspects, or it just doesn't affect the capture - let your eye decide. I know this can be overwhelming at first. Feel free to ask more questions about this.
mshilarious
Banned
whyseye said:
That was done on an LS-30, which I sold last year. I still need to buy a newer scanner, because somehow after five years of owning the LS-30, I didn't even manage to get 10% of my images transferred
I should add that image is not really that grainy, that's a very highly compressed jpg.
Didn't want to dis the LS-30, it did really nice 9 megapixel scans
mshilarious
Banned
Here's a example (although not the greatest scan on my part, I screwed up the blackpoint), this is a condensed version of a 2400 x 2400 image:
mshilarious
Banned
And here is actual size detail:
mshilarious
Banned
whyseye said:Hard for me to tell grain from scanning pattern from compression artifact from....
Without breaking out the slide, I'm pretty sure that's film grain. Lemme see if I have anything I know was on K25 . . .
The Ghost of FM
Banned
The Ghost of FM
Banned
That's a really great shot!mshilarious said:
Where was it taken?
What do you mean, you screwed up the "black point"?
mshilarious
Banned
mshilarious said:
Nah, afraid I don't. That was a big problem for me back when I got the scanner, I just had a small crap CRT, so I generally didn't save full res files. Thus now when I get a new scanner, I'll have to rescan everything so it looks nice on my 1600x1200 LCD
So I'll just post this because it's a kickass shot--not technically great, but a good story. This is at the Great Falls of the Potomac, a bit north of DC. I was setting up a landscape shot one morning, I think it was 1993, when suddenly these kayakers appeared above the falls. The falls are actually a series of rapids (Class V), this particular chute was commonly thought to be suicidal before about 1989 when some brave pros ran it. But in 1993 I didn't know that, as far as I knew nobody had ever run the falls and lived to tell the tale. Even so, these guys would have been among the first dozen or two to attempt, from what I could learn.
The moral is I was clearly unprepared for the shot, with my camera on a tripod with a wide angle lens, but I was also crazed with adrenaline because I was pretty sure the guy was gonna die. Somehow I got the camera off the tripod, switched lenses, and got the shot.
After he did that 20 foot drop, about 4 or 5 other guys did too, then they paddled around the rapids, up and down at will, like it was a clear still lake. Totally amazing. Kayakers go to the falls every day, they put in below the rapids and try to paddle up the rapids in vein, most not even lasting 30 seconds before they retreat downstream.
I'll never forget this day:
mshilarious
Banned
The Ghost of FM said:
Jefferson Memorial, Wash DC.
Black point is the part of the scan that's black. The scanner is 30 bit, but the image saved is only 24 bit, so you gonna shed contrast somewhere (kinda like dynamic range in audio). So you tell the scanning software what black is (and white), and it compresses the dynamic range as necessary.
This is a tough image because of the sun. I didn't want the sun's rays washed out, so I would have set white point right on the sun. Then I needed to set black point on a brighter part of the shadow on the column, but like I said above I just couldn't see that kind of detail on the monitor I had back then, so I missed and hit a dark part of the shadow, so now the shadow looks really grainy.
mshilarious
Banned
The Ghost of FM said:Thanks for all the cool info so far!
I am enjoying all the photos you guys and gals are throwing up here!
I'll torture you guys with a self portrait that I converted to black & white and shrunk to fit the size restrictions here.
Cheers!
That's better than the Moses avatar pic! You gotta go with it!!!