StarDestroyer.Net BBS

A couple of photos taken with the Zeiss-Ikon 515-2. Quick edits.



Pride Manufacturing



Amity

This camera has its drawbacks, but has distinct advantages as well. I like 6x9, and its triplet lens looks good both unsharp and at critical focus, where it is not tack-sharp but pleasantly clear.

Taken on a crappy digital camera.

Simplicius wrote:Amity

Was that shot taken at low light, or is it an effect? If it's a night shot, then I have to say that's very impressive for a folder. I would have thought they'd be awful in low light. Even the reflection is pristine.

Forrest Gump's running shoes



Yeah. Stormtroopers patrolling the streets.

Bubba Gump Shrimp or a museum?

Distillery district, done in duotone for the old fashioned look.
According to various sources, it's the largest collection of Victorian era industrial buildings in North America.

Bounty wrote:Was that shot taken at low light, or is it an effect? If it's a night shot, then I have to say that's very impressive for a folder. I would have thought they'd be awful in low light. Even the reflection is pristine.

Taken in the middle of the night with lighting from some street lamps. Exposure time was three seconds, which is why all the ripples on the water are invisible. I just set the camera right down on the float and only touched the shutter release.

Simplicius wrote:

Bounty wrote:Was that shot taken at low light, or is it an effect? If it's a night shot, then I have to say that's very impressive for a folder. I would have thought they'd be awful in low light. Even the reflection is pristine.

Taken in the middle of the night with lighting from some street lamps. Exposure time was three seconds, which is why all the ripples on the water are invisible. I just set the camera right down on the float and only touched the shutter release.

Nice. It's a lovely effect.

Bounty wrote:

Simplicius wrote:

Bounty wrote:Was that shot taken at low light, or is it an effect? If it's a night shot, then I have to say that's very impressive for a folder. I would have thought they'd be awful in low light. Even the reflection is pristine.

Taken in the middle of the night with lighting from some street lamps. Exposure time was three seconds, which is why all the ripples on the water are invisible. I just set the camera right down on the float and only touched the shutter release.

Nice. It's a lovely effect.

Nice. Is it a large format camera more or less prone to camera shake? Did you use the mirror lock up?

IMG_0061-1

IMG_0051

IMG_0077

Is it a large format camera more or less prone to camera shake? Did you use the mirror lock up?

A 515 is medium format, and why would it have mirror lockup? Not every camera is an SLR, you know.

Had a Canon 50mm 1.2L out on hire for the past week, and finally managed to produce some pictures over the last few days. The depth-of-field is very narrow to say the least when you're wide open, and a couple of the photos I took ended up ruined by having the focus point slightly too far back or forward (and I focused it manually in Live View mode for virtually all the shots I did at f/1.2, so I can't blame the AF system), but I still got some decent ones. Here's a few from inside the York Minster:





The next one shows just how narrow the DoF really is - the extreme left and the right fifth or so of the stone are both slightly off-focus, even though the rest of it is in focus.

Manual focusing at 1.2? You poor sod
(The last green shot of the stone is nice, would have maybe benefited from being a bit lower, so as to get a better background)

The lighter side of intergalactic bounty hunting Busted

DaveJB wrote:Candles

This is beautiful. Absolutely beautiful. The light, the colours... I didn't think it was possible to make a good photo of those small candles (Offer candles? Don't know what you call offerkaarsen in English) but this is great.

IMG_0123

IMG_0101

IMG_0094


Pictures of the beach.

I had an idea for a theme, but it went down the drain due to losing my cellphone and spending the next hour searching for it.

The cats in my life.

That second picture is fantastic - close, well composed, great DOF and colours. (Prime lens?)

I'm too poor to afford anything but the kit lens right now.

RRoan wrote:I'm too poor to afford anything but the kit lens right now.

Don't let Death's gear obsession get to you. Lens quality is hardly relevant at this point.

Since you are stepping up to a DSLR (and, I assume, to a more involved approach to photography), take the opportunity to become familiar with your shooting preferences. Pay close attention, as you go, to what you tend to take photos of most often and at what focal lengths. This should guide any future lens purchases, so you don't waste your money on capabilities you don't need.

For instance, I do almost all of my work on only three lenses: 28mm, 55mm, and 135mm. Sometimes I need 300mm, because I like to go to airshows. Recently I've considered the merits of something wider than 28mm for a few landscapes, but I don't actually need one yet. So with only three possible focal lengths, I can do almost everything I want. Some photographers are satisfied with only one focal length. It all comes down to personal preference, and you should take the time to discover yours before you are bitten by the upgrade bug.

Simplicius wrote:

RRoan wrote:I'm too poor to afford anything but the kit lens right now.

Don't let Death's gear obsession get to you.

Silence heathen! Yoy shall fail at preventing my faith from spreading and gaining new eager zealots to spread my word with fire and zeal!

Lens quality is hardly relevant at this point.

It's Always relevant .

Anyway, a "basic" prime lens is uber cheap (around a hundred bucks for a Canon 50mm "Plastic fantastic"), offers image quality superior to all but the most stupidly expensive zooms, and it's extremely light, perfect for practicing with available light and wide apertures as well as spectacular colours and IQ.
It's excelent as a second lens if you ask me.

For instance, I do almost all of my work on only three lenses: 28mm, 55mm, and 135mm. Sometimes I need 300mm, because I like to go to airshows. Recently I've considered the merits of something wider than 28mm for a few landscapes, but I don't actually need one yet. So with only three possible focal lengths, I can do almost everything I want. Some photographers are satisfied with only one focal length. It all comes down to personal preference, and you should take the time to discover yours before you are bitten by the upgrade bug.

True that, but good zoom upgrades are expensive, and a prime is a very specific tool, for general everyday use Zooms aer just superior unless you know exactly what you want to do (available light shooting for example, people shots in parties, etc'). It'll take more than a year if you ask me, he should keep the kit lens and then later on get a 50mm prime if he feels like it. (or 35mm)

I'm totally with Simplicius: it's not about the gear, it's the photographer that matters. I could have the latest & greatest gee-whiz camera but that's not going to let me take better pictures than my photographer friend. It's not the gear, it's the user. 95% of a good photo is from the person behind the camera, not the camera itself. Know your gear, know its limitations, and learn how to cheat the limitations & work around them.

Will a better camera let me do this? No. Will more megapixels & sharpness make it better? No. It's the vision and knowing how to use it, knowing how to see the picture in your mind and capturing the moment. I can't take pictures like that cause I can't visualize it, and I wouldn't even think of trying such a shot.

Simplicius wrote:Don't let Death's gear obsession get to you. Lens quality is hardly relevant at this point.

Who said I'd want something in the same focal range? A reasonably priced wide-angle lens is what I really want. I can get a sharper lens later.

Simplicius wrote:It all comes down to personal preference, and you should take the time to discover yours before you are bitten by the upgrade bug.

That's definitely true. For example, I should probably find a bag before I worry about a new lens.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:Anyway, a "basic" prime lens is uber cheap (around a hundred bucks for a Canon 50mm "Plastic fantastic"), offers image quality superior to all but the most stupidly expensive zooms, and it's extremely light, perfect for practicing with available light and wide apertures as well as spectacular colours and IQ.

It's excellent as a second lens if you ask me. I've thought about it. And I'd hardly call a hundred dollars cheap when I just spent all my money on a camera.

The Grim Squeaker wrote:It'll take more than a year if you ask me, he should keep the kit lens and then later on get a 50mm prime if he feels like it. (or 35mm)

Who are you calling a he?

I really, really wish I had film for this picture.

Ok, it's been a while, but that's becasue it's hard to find a good connection on the road. It's been about two weeks now and my girlfriend and I are well in to our road trip. I have been snaping pictures like a madman and it's been alot of fun. Here are some that I have picked to post, all in very different places.


This is at the V.L.A. or Very Large Array in western-cenral New Mexico. Very cool place to see in person, if you ever get a chance. The red thing in the front is one of two transports that move the dishes to where they are wanted.


And a little further south in New Mexico is White Sands National Park, where sand dunes of gypsum are formed and cover miles and miles of southern and central New Mexico. This was taken right after sundown as the full moon came up.


A few days later, we were at the Grand Canyon, where we stayed for a couple days. One of the things that really got me was the absence of light pollution. The stars were out in full glory before the moon came up and I managed to take a some of the best starscapes that I have ever been able to take that night. Sadly, this was the day before I dropped my tripod and broke it. So, so sad I did that.