SDN Photo-a-Day (Rules updates - read the OP)

[Bounty]

@Bounty - nice shot. Since when do you have a macro lense though?

I don't. You can fudge the same thing with manual controls, a tripod and patience. Gear isn't everything.

Why a tripod? And who needs manual controls

With a single low-light bulb and no flash you need six seconds of steady exposure, hence the tripod and self-timer.

Manual controls are just more fun. I did cheat and use the digital's light metering.

[J]

Hothouses are always a headache light wise, even light, but weak and nothing "pops out". Might I recomend using the flash next time? It sometimes helps.

It's a rainforest, it's supposed to be misty & foggy with nothing "popping out". Plus I deliberately shot it with a slight soft-focus effect and lower contrast to make the more distant objects fade into the mist faster.

[Simplicius]

rainforest

The mist effect is very strong, but the photo itself is hurt by the resultant flatness. The lighting is so even and so much of the image is submerged in fog that there's nothing to grab the eye except the extreme foreground, which is empty and looks off-kilter. It makes for a good backdrop, but really wants a subject and more thoughtful composition to make a good picture.

Mmmm...is the building supposed to be yellowish-green or are you having issues with your colour settings again? Generally, one does not see that colour of sunlight and it looks unnatural to me.

It's meant to be golden-brownish, this was during the sunset and the stone building was practically honey coloured from the sunlight. It's meant to be this way, thanks for paying attention though!

I didn't notice any green cast to the light, but the stone seems to be slightly olive-colored which might account for it. That said, other than noting the importance of shooting at times other than noon +/- 3 hours because the light is much better then, I didn't find anything of interest in these three photos. Unless it's at thumbnail resolution, you might as well post the bell-tower shot as well.

Second cloud shot is overexposed at the top and the clouds lack the necessary visual impact. I think it would look better if the clouds were lit from below - i.e. shot at sunrise or sunset - because an overcast sky with the sun above it is backlit, which means that the cloud details are low-contrast or invisible. First cloud shot is boring and careless. Cloudscapes are easier to do as part of a landscape than as isolated sky, but quite frankly I don't think you have what it takes to make them successfully, in terms of tools (CPL for color or orange/red filter for B&W are necessities, I would say) and in terms of ability to judge lighting and composition.

Bird photo is not terrible but you've got three bad corners of four and the flock is just too far away to help you out. Shooting into the sun hasn't done you a single favor yet; why do you keep on with it?

Since when do you have a macro lense though?

What's the deal with this? You gave me the same line about an ultrawide earlier in the thread, as if macro lenses and ultrawides are some sort of expensive rarity that only the photographic crème de la crème have the privilege to be allowed to use. You seem to have a weird relationship with gear, as if you've got ego tied up in what you have rather than what you can do with it. This makes little sense, since photographers with less and simpler equipment than yours have made photos that put yours to shame, and I am sure that they were too busy honing their skill with what they had to make remarks about anyone who seemed to have better gear than they did. Your posting history is littered with that kind of thing: the remarks to Bounty and me; you buy a new prime and almost immediately complain that it's "cheap" without really evaluating its capabilities and whether or not it suits your style of photography; the constant "curse my lack of/crappy [gear or feature]!" complaints (now including CPLs - just buy one. You can get a 52mm CPL for US$20 or less through Amazon, for crying out loud. Shit doesn't always have to be so pro.) Here's my advice: stop caring. If you are interested in photography, spend your time cultivating skills, themes, and styles instead of fiddling with gear. When you are thinking about buying a new tool - because that's what a camera or any other piece of gear is; just a tool - see that it fits in with your style of photography and gives you a capability that you need but don't already have. You take a lot of photos of clouds, and big skies. Well, a CPL will help you with that much more than a 50mm prime ever will. Concentrate on your art, or be chained to dillettantery and mediocrity forever.

And who needs manual controls

Oh for Pete's sake, here we go again. "My camera is better 'cause all you suckas only work manual." News flash, Sparky: the only thing that matters is proficiency with whatever tools you use. Are auto-metering and auto exposure handy? Sure - that's why they were introduced in the early 1970s to begin with ans are so commonplace now. But auto-exposure is a luxury, not a necessity - and anyone who thinks otherwise has to answer to the body of great photographs produced before it ever existed. Besides which, the ability to expose manually - in other words, to do more than point and shoot - gives one access to every camera ever manufactured, which in invaluable to the camera enthusiast or merely anyone who wants more choice than the crop of auto-capable cameras produced in the last forty years. Want to shoot large-format? Better learn to expose manually. Want to shoot medium-format without bankrupting yourself? Pick up an older camera, but be forewarned that it will probably require you to expose manually. Want to use an iconic camera that literally beats down 35mm and digital units? See my sig for details - and brush up on that manual exposure.

[Simplicius]

Deliberate double-post.

Maine state bird

I would take the full-size original of this into post-processing. Convert to black and white, to kill the noise. Use curves to bump contrast so the mosquito and tubing are in full silhouette, because you're halfway there already. Crop out the leftmost half of the tubing, and maybe the part at the top where it starts to darken. Trim elsewhere as necessary for balance, but those are the big two. Maybe apply a little sharpening, but only a little - I can't recommend this for certain since I've only seen the small version. Then resize, and save at a high quality so JPEG compression is minimized or eliminated. You will have a rather striking result.

[J]

The mist effect is very strong, but the photo itself is hurt by the resultant flatness. The lighting is so even and so much of the image is submerged in fog that there's nothing to grab the eye except the extreme foreground, which is empty and looks off-kilter. It makes for a good backdrop, but really wants a subject and more thoughtful composition to make a good picture.

Agreed. I liked the mist effect from the fogging nozzles in that particular greenhouse display but I couldn't find a satisfactory angle from which to shoot a picture without falling in the water myself. I don't think the greenhouse staff would like that.

The greenhouse was actually very frustrating for me, there were so many things which looked really amazing in person, but because of angles, accessibility, lighting, distracting backgrounds and other issues I found it almost impossible to frame pictures to my liking. I have some possible ideas for the future so hopefully next time will be better.

[Bounty]

I have the test roll from my new Olympus 35RC back (bought mainly because I'd like a fairly compact 35mm to go; the closest I have is the Zorki but that lacks strap lugs). $30 off eBay, used but in working order. My photographer is helping me find a good supplier for the batteries, as it came with a dead mercury cell that is a bit illegal nowadays.

Anyway, I got a roll of a few subjects I like to shoot as reference images. Most of them are bracketing and focussing tests that are about as exciting as TV test cards, but at least it confirms the lens is as good as new:



Ignore the blown out sky and dull composition, if you will.

The previous owner had dropped the camera quite hard; there's a deep ding in the body and the UV filter's outer thread is bent, but that same filter seems to have protected the lens quite nicely.

Unfortunately I managed to overexpose pretty much every picture. I shot most at f16 and 1/125, thinking it was overcast enough to drown out the light, but evidently it wasn't. Post-processing salvaged many of the photos, like the one above, but I think I really need to work on reading light. I'm going to use the digital for a bit of practice tomorrow.

To give you an idea, this is what I got back and what I managed to make of it:



That said, it's a very comfortable camera to use. It's got a quickwind lever, all camera settings are projected in the viewfinder, focussing is very forgiving and it slips into a pocket easily. I'm itching to get the power back on so I can try the AE mode.

Simplicius: I'll give those edits a try (curves, though... never got the hang of that. What should the curve look like?). The problem I'd been having is that the image you see is a tiny, 1:1 crop of an original where the bug is just a little speck on the image, which doesn't give a lot of leeway to edit.

[aerius]

Question for Bounty. Are you scanning the film from the prints or the negatives? I'm not sure how the photo labs are in your area, but around here they generally tend to screw up the colour & contrast on the prints making the photos look rather washed out or even worse, too green. When I scan the pictures I always have to dial back the green and do some other work to make them look right. Also, the printing process generally doesn't get the full contrast & saturation of the negative, so if possible, try to get a direct scan from the negative and work with that.

[Bounty]

They are scanned from the negatives by the lab. It's a family business (camera shop, lab and event photography) that I've been going to for years and has a very good reputation. Unless their standards are slipping any colour or contrast issues are my doing.

[aerius]

Sounds good. My favourite photolab was much the same way, then the owner retired & sold the business. I've been unable to find a place that makes good prints at a reasonable price, there's a place that makes good ones but it costs nearly $20 for a roll of 24. Ugh.

[Simplicius]

I'll give those edits a try (curves, though... never got the hang of that. What should the curve look like?). The problem I'd been having is that the image you see is a tiny, 1:1 crop of an original where the bug is just a little speck on the image, which doesn't give a lot of leeway to edit.

I just whipped this out quickly on my laptop so it's not the best ever, but you get the idea:



You can think of curves in two ways. One way considers brightness. Any point along the horizontal axis (input tone, darkest-lightest L-R) is a tone that is mapped on to the vertical axis (output tones, darkest-lightest bottom-top), which is why no edits gives a straight diagonal. Move any point on the curve up and the whole curve (and thus the image) is lightened in tone; move it down and the curve is darkened. The other way is to consider contrast. The steeper the curve between any two points, the greater the contrast between those two tones in the final image (because you are altering the curve in a way that darkens the darker tone, and lightens the brighter one.) Shallower curves decrease contrast. The two shapes of contrast curves are the S-curve, which is high contrast, and the inverted S-curve, which is the reverse and is low-contrast.

Basic tutorial, CambridgeInColor

If that's a 1:1 crop then I guess there isn't anything I can do about sharpness, but I think it's still decent. The cobwebs between the ridges of the tube are annoying, but I wasn't about to try and clone them out.

My photographer is helping me find a good supplier for the batteries, as it came with a dead mercury cell that is a bit illegal nowadays.

My brother has a Canonet 28 that was designed for the same type of battery as your Olympus. We just popped down to Radio Shack and picked up a silver oxide 625 battery to use in place. The voltage is a little higher, but as long as you are using negative film it shouldn't be a problem because of the exposure latitude. He put a roll through it last month and the results looked pretty good to me.

[Bounty]

My brother has a Canonet 28 that was designed for the same type of battery as your Olympus. We just popped down to Radio Shack and picked up a silver oxide 625 battery to use in place. The voltage is a little higher, but as long as you are using negative film it shouldn't be a problem because of the exposure latitude. He put a roll through it last month and the results looked pretty good to me.

We don't have Radio Shack, and the hardware store ony carried alkalines. My options are zinc-air - which would run at $15 for a battery with a three-week functional life - and the silver-oxide ones he's trying to find now.

The higher voltage can be compensated for by fudging the ISO value. The problem will be fitting the battery, apparently some of them need homemade spacers.

Thanks for the curves explanation. Are you using Photoshop?

[aerius]

I'll give those edits a try (curves, though... never got the hang of that. What should the curve look like?). The problem I'd been having is that the image you see is a tiny, 1:1 crop of an original where the bug is just a little speck on the image, which doesn't give a lot of leeway to edit.

One thing which can help in some cases is a special enlargement program such as Alien Skin Blow-up for Photoshop. With your ant picture it should work quite well since there's not much subtle shading or texture, it's mostly pure light & dark with sharp edges. So you can blow it up and crop it without making it look like an obvious edit.

[aerius]

Shooting into the sun hasn't done you a single favor yet; why do you keep on with it?

I went through a phase of that too, I took the picture below which turned out rather well and then I kept doing it for a while, but without much success. That was more than 10 years ago though.

[Bounty]

While trying and failing to shoot a sunset - it ended up setting behind a wall - I did manage to salvage this:



I kinda like the effect.

[aerius]

I still haven't figured out a good way of photographing vacuum tubes.
Maybe someone will have some ideas & hints.

[Simplicius]

I still haven't figured out a good way of photographing vacuum tubes.
Maybe someone will have some ideas & hints.

What you need most are even lighting & a plain background, and for that I'd build some kind of studio setup.



This is a home-built rig someone posted on /p/, and he got very good results with it. The only material I can't identify is what he used for the background, but you could use heavy paper in white or a suitable color and it would probably work just fine. I think the sidelight might be best for the glass, so that the highlights aren't front and center and - with a dark 'studio' - reflections are controlled. Other than that, just make sure the tube is clean of dust before you make the photo.

Bounty, I found a lot of 1.5V silver-oxides on Amazon.de that could be sized to fit with a little rubber o-ring. Exell makes a S625PX that fits; that's probably what your friend is looking for since it's specifically meant to replace the mercury 625s and isn't in wide commercial use. My brother's home for the weekend but he didn't bring his camera so I have no way of knowing what battery he got for it until I can get back to the store and see. Sorry I can't be of more help.

The voltage difference will only affect your metering by ~one stop, so while you could spoof the meter with your ISO setting it's not strictly necessary because negative film can handle +/- one stop well. If you shot slides then spoofing would be a necessity.

I don't own Photoshop, so I just use Paint.net even though it's passable at best. My image-manipulation skills are so low that I wouldn't be able to get any greater benefit from a top-notch program compared to a little simple one like I use now.

[Bounty]

Don't diss PDN; for anything below really fancy editing work I've found it works great and it has a really easy to use interface (it sure beats Gimp's hunting for menu windows!). If there was a Linux version I'd use it in a heartbeat.

The voltage difference will only affect your metering by ~one stop, so while you could spoof the meter with your ISO setting it's not strictly necessary because negative film can handle +/- one stop well. If you shot slides then spoofing would be a necessity.

There is a zinc-air battery that's been specifically refitted for use in cameras, but I'm waiting for the price of silvers first. Z/A batteries have terrible lifespans and I'd rather have a brick-and-mortar source than having to order online every time.

Fudging the ISO setting is easy enough, even if it's not necessary.

[Bounty]

Cautionary tale, part II: it was drab, grey, raining and there's nothing to shoot in the city anyway. So I didn't take a camera.

Ten minutes later it was a perfect sunny day and various spontaneous folk dance demonstrations broke out.





Telephone shots. I'm kicking myself.

[Simplicius]

There is a zinc-air battery that's been specifically refitted for use in cameras, but I'm waiting for the price of silvers first. Z/A batteries have terrible lifespans and I'd rather have a brick-and-mortar source than having to order online every time.

Fudging the ISO setting is easy enough, even if it's not necessary.

I don't know whether prices will be radically different in Belgium, but from what I've seen the Wein cells and the (specialized) silver-oxides come about about the same: $4-$5. Considering the working life of a silver oxide compared with a zinc-air, the latter is definitely the least cost-effective of the two. The common 386/SR43 silver oxide cell is much cheaper because watches and calculators use them. You can use a rubber O-ring for size and compensate for the voltage, you can one-time-buy an MR9 adaptor that sizes the battery to fit and steps it down to 1.35V, or you can build your own step-down diode (though links to instructions online tend to be defunct.)

[Bounty]

The problem with Wein cells is that shipping bumps up the per-battery price to $12. I'm still waiting for the s-o price quote from my photographer but unless it's substantially more than €10 I'm holding out for those.

As a temporary solution I'm going to use Rick Oleson's instructions to make a spacer out of electric wire and see how that works. If I end up using the RC more often I might buy the adaptor but until I know if the electronics still work and if they are actually useful I'll stick with the cheap option.

[Simplicius]

At some point it would probably be worth your while to look for a good price on a used CdS meter and only power your cameras if they have some auto feature that you particularly want or need. It would solve your battery supply problems and free you from caring about the accuracy of old meters.

[Bounty]

Thanks for the tip, but the only camera I have with an electric meter is the RC. All the others are selenium cells.

But you're right, a light meter might come in handy. The problem is price; for the cost of a decent, fairly new meter I can shoot and develop a good twenty rolls. I hardly ever use the meters anyway, even the ones I'm sure are correct. I should, judging by my latest pics, but I've found that with sunny 16 I'm usually within a stop of what my digital recommends.

[Simplicius]

Just a few shots to keep the thread up there. These date back to January.



Crossbills. For once birdlike skittishness was overcome by birdlike gluttony and I was able to get within a very comfortable distance to shoot. Not good wildlife photography - still not close enough - but better than just about anything else in more than a decade of trying.



Tried my hand at a bit of seasonal minimalism.



This is an establishing shot of a rather famous piece of New England architecture. My other photos through and around it are en route to development. It turned out to look worse in color than it did In black and white, so I made the switch.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Three shots from the convention:
IMG_1324

Show-58

IMG_2122

[J]

I'm sick of flowers so I went with leaves.