Photography Thread - Page 190 - Cigar Asylum Cigar Forum

Not to fan flames but as a way of combining pertinent data, when I tried to PM her and apologize for being such a Bradley,
her account info stated she has opted not to accept PMs. That was when I decided that I was just going to keep my Ado
business to myself for the most part. I called them Ado for years to keep that kind of thing from being a problem. The one
time I didn't, look out. I feel badly that y'all had to deal with it, and I also tried to apologize to her for getting ganged up
on here. It really IS a different sort of place than she is used to advocating in. But don't think I didn't ask her to help me
figure out how to get this Canon 5D replaced. Like I said it cuts both ways. And I DID notice how it did not get overly-
moderated. If she was not in the business of keeping her cool, it might have gone another way, I am sure. As for the
vendor issue, I think she is more of a paid advocate or Ombudsman kind of position, I do not REALLY classify her as a
vendor. And its over, I think a lot of people understand now how to avoid it in the future. I do. I have apologized to
everyone involved several times. After re-reading that, I DO NOT think I properly apologized to everyone here. That was
an oversight. I was mortified when it happened, embarrassed still, but mostly sorry to turn a thread that was full of
pics and slaps on the back and turn it into the People's Court. You guys deserve better and I am sorry.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by MrClean:
I read the same thing about ink usage. A lot of the info said it depends on what type of paper you're using, how often you print and a few other factors. Most of the 'pro' reviewers seemed to think it was in line with other quality printers as far as ink usage. The Pro-1 is better, but it's also $400 more and by 'better' I think it's because it has much larger ink tanks and you get a better price per ml. The Pro-10 has 14ml cartridges which works out to less than a $1 per ml. Which is less than half the cost of our HP Photostylus printer.

haha, Jeff you got lost in the shuffle. I was torn on those printers. In the end I could not calculate my way through
where the deal was. Pay way more for the privilege of using bigger and more expensive ink tanks? I have a feeling
that Canon has this calculated down to the last dollar and its about the same. The only likely difference is if you are
a environmentalist and you don't like replacing ink tanks made of plastic all the time. Personally I would love hoses
and 5 gallon buckets of ink. Then I would be satisfied. But one area where I AM REALLY SATISFIED IS ADORAMA!
No I am kidding, one area I am really satisfied in is the quality of the prints. When I bought my Pixma 6520, it was
listed as an office printer. They did not even take the glaring opportunity to work the word photo in there.
But it works well. I BET yours works BETTER, more types of ink usually combine for the better product.
But my printer was $139 and the ink is $40 for 4 tanks and one large text-type vat-o-ink that runs out slower
and costs a bit more. And still I holler. But I am glad we worked our way out of the era of the "all in one cartridge"
Talk about rape.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by pnoon:
That was my reaction as well. I decided not to intervene unless Brad or others had an issue with it.

FWIW - Members cannot register as vendors. The ToE establish that.
FWIW II - I did PM Helen and it went unanswered.

P (Ever Vigilant) Noon

:-)

:-)
[Reply]

Brad our HP home/office printer has 6 colors and costs $45 for the value pack. So $7.50 per color for 3.5 - 4ml of ink. The Pixma tanks are 14ml and cost $13-$15, not to mention it's pigment based ink. To me, it's worth it. I've printed just a handful of 8x10's and from what I've heard start up and print head alignment uses a 'significant' amount of ink, but all tanks still show full on the printer status. It'll be interesting to run through a few tanks and see just how many prints I can get.
[Reply]

I cant remember exactly what I was shooting in but it was either Shutter priority or Professional. I've played around with nearly every setting and i'm still getting noise.. I'm going to have to play around in full daylight and see if i come across the same problem.

My original intent for the lenses I got weren't for dark room pictures. I just happened to bring my camera to this show to see if I could grab any halfway decent pictures and the girls on the team really liked the good pics I grabbed. I think there's a good shot that if i can get some of them to chip in a bit the next two shows I'll rent some superfast glass (70-200 f/2.8) and get a chance to play around with some really nice stuff and grab some great pictures in the mean time. Then again if I do that I'll find myself wanting a $2000+ lens

:-)

P.S. I think i'll be grabbing that 200 f/4 lens with my next paycheck to play around a bit :-)

Originally Posted by OLS:
If you ask me, just based on the info you are giving me, you must be shooting in AUTO.
When you say "decently-lit", that tells me that it is still dark in terms of the way cameras SEE, and especially
through a lens like the two extras you got, which I believe are both f/4-5.6 max aperture lenses.

You would not describe OUTSIDE as decently lit, you'd say it was sunny or shady. Indoors, decently lit sounds
like a room with some lamps on. To a camera, this is not decently lit unless you have a f/1.8 or faster on the camera.
A 1.8 lens lets in OVER 4 TIMES more light wide open than a f/4 lens. Bearing in mind too that the f/4 lens never really
looks that good wide open, so it might as well be a 5.6 lens if you are looking for a sharp photo. SO outside at the zoo,
in the park, etc, where there is rarely a lack of light, these lenses and cameras shine. They struggle as soon as
they come indoors. I take it that your 50mm f/1.8 does not give you the shot you need at the ballet gig? SO you are
likely shooting the 55-200 at this thing? When you are zoomed in to the stage, likely 200mm setting, the 'brain'
in the camera get's awfully upset at the lack of light it is getting out of the lens at 200mm. So even if it SNIFFS
low light, it sloshes ISO out of a bucket into a shot glass. It over-reacts because it CAN. Auto ISO is like the
US govt. It can get all the money it needs to fix problems without thinking about them or fixing the underlying rot
simply by throwing money at the issue. If it works for the people, what the hell, its the people's money anyway.

And just like the US govt approach is wasteful, so is the autoISO setting, and for that matter, the AUTO green
camera setting. It could care less what it takes from you to give you what it thinks you want. And it's masters
back at NIKON want you to get a well-exposed photo in any condition, and the most effective way to give it to
you is with ISO, crank up the gain and the masses won't complain. So while I believe you when you say that no one
on the web seems to know what is causing it, I KNOW what is causing it, lol.

When I got my first NIKON, I bought two or three of the cheapest lenses I could find that fit my needs.
We both have the same lenses, lol. And I use em all, make no mistake. But when I go to a club to shoot
Vanessa or the Midtown Violets, I KNOW not to even pack em. The only good they will do me in a bar is as
ammo when I run out of beer bottles to throw. They certainly won't get a SHOT. Indoors, the fast 50 can
save you. But it will always be 50mm (75mm on your D7000). I doubt that's enough to reach the stage.
Your decision to make is how much is it worth to you to be able to shoot these events? A 55-200mm 4-5.6 lens
is not going to get it. You can get a shot, which is what a kid will want, but to be proud of the result as a photographer,
you will not be satisfied until you get some faster lenses, or rather, a faster lens for that job. Here is a FINE LENS
for your camera and for that need.

http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20634298.html
This lens is f/4 at 200mm. Which means that it is gathering 4 times more light than your 55-200 at 200mm.
And in case you didn't catch it, it costs less, too. This lens is magnificent when used properly, and yes,
it IS MANUAL everything.

It is easy to spend 2-300 bucks on the wrong lenses when you really need to take that money and spend it
on one lens. Or two. Its like Cuban cigars. My cigar budget bought twice as much once I realized that the
best was usually cheaper. It took courage to make it work, I had to order something I shouldn't to get
the benefits I wanted. Same with Manual Focus lenses. It takes more work, but if you want to do the job right
AND SAVE MONEY, sometimes you have to compromise. That 200mm lens I linked you to costs half as much as
a new Nikkor lens that performs half as well or less.

I REALLY would like to see you at 180mm f/2.8 ED for two more times as much light. But as you will see,
that comes at a price.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._f_2_8_ed.html

Ouch. But I think I got mine for $180, so it pays to look. But make sure someone doesn't try to say its a ED
model but it DOESN'T say ED on the side of the lens. LOTS of people on Ebay have those kinds of deals up now.
Without the ED glass, you're better off with the 200 f/4. FOUR TIMES more light coming in than your 55-200 zoomed in.

[Reply]

Steve, I've rented a handful of lenses in the last couple of years. I bought the 24-105mm but specifically stayed away from the 70-200 f2.8, cause I'd definitely be wanting one of those :-).
The last one I rented was the 50mm 1.2, it is an amazing prime.
[Reply]

I used to have an 80-200 f2.8 lens and a 50 1.4, and they was awesome! Most of what I shot was available light and I shot primarily on chrome, so a fast lens was mandatory. If you think cigars are a slippery slope, fast lens' are a cliff! I still regret the day I sold my 600 f4...
[Reply]

That to me is the only thing that matters Steve (Cigar Guy)...when the people in the pics like the pics.
They do not SEE noise. They see themselves. That's why I say kids are never the issue, only self-critique.
And as you pointed out, the pics are GOOD. There is nothing about them that is below this or that standard.
Experimentation and bonding with your gear takes weeks or months. You'll get it figured out soon enough.
Everytime I have ever showed someone a pic that was of them or something they were interested in,
me being me, I have to say something about the image noise if it is in there, and people invariably say
"Why do you say that? You are always cutting yourself down. This is great, man." So you can take
what you will from that, lol.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by MrClean:
It'll be interesting to run through a few tanks and see just how many prints I can get.

8x10s are like clowns coming out of a car, they just keep coming. You will be able to do 40+ on a set of
tanks, likely many more, not knowing the difference in your tanks and mine. One thing I like to do and I am
probably overly-paranoid, is to get ALL MY ducks in a row so that the moment I turn the printer ON, I like
to be able to click PRINT in photoshop....If you give my Pixma 10 seconds after turn on, it goes into this long,
gymnastic sequence of alignment and who knows what else it is doing. But I see dollar signs, lol.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by CigarGuy88:
I just happened to bring my camera to this show to see if I could grab any halfway decent pictures and the girls on the team really liked the good pics I grabbed.

This is what I did over Mardi Gras...I realized that I had not packed any of my fast AND long lenses, so I thought
"Well, this has to work" (55-200) and I cranked up the ISO and REALLY concentrated on my technique in being steady, used
lamp posts and such to steady myself and took a LOT of reasonably good shots. But I thought there was NO WAY
I was going to be able to shoot LONG shots at night in the French Quarter with that max aperture of 5.6. But I did.
Somehow, lol. The best thing to do with any lens, no matter the speed or quality, is to PUSH IT, make it do
things you think it can't do, find it's weak spots, exploit it's strong points. Get to know it well before you
write it off, because oftentimes we blame the gear for our bad technique, lol. ESPECIALLY with the move up
in resolution. I was a genius at 12 megapixels.....turns out at 24 megapixels, I am truly a MOOK. Still working
everyday, haha.
[Reply]

I'm just so anal with anything that I care about that if the picture doesnt look crystal clear I nitpick everything and need to know why it wasn't.

:-)
[Reply]

Originally Posted by CigarGuy88:
I'm just so anal with anything that I care about that if the picture doesnt look crystal clear I nitpick everything and need to know why it wasn't. :-)

Me too.
[Reply]

Well that's good, because it makes what I clumsily tried to do to address it seem less know-it-all-y,
although I am sure no less insulting, lol. I have/had no idea what level of photographic knowledge you
possess, whether or not you were rolling your eyes at me and thinking "DUH", or whether or not anything I said
helped you track down the grain-fairy. I would really like to see some improvement or resolution to your issue
so that we can get past the possibility that you bought a grainy camera cheap, lol. Grain basically comes from
just one place and that is off-the-chip signal gain noise. Underexposure and subsequent image manipulation can also
cause it, or as it is euphemistically known today, "shadow reclamation". I think. I also think I might have made it up.

Ron was REALLY upset before he got his D90. His D100 was not giving him the images he was looking for,
and I have not heard a peep out of him since he picked up his D90. SO I imagine he feels what you will feel
once you work this out. And he posts some of the sharpest pics in this thread, so I KNOW he is jazzed.

What I hope for you is that you end up finding a chunk of olde-tyme glass that gives you the ability to see in
the dark and comes in a lot cheaper than the alternative. You don't have to spend too much time looking at
2.8 lenses to grasp the economics. Pricey AND weighty. I know one thing I am guilty of is relating things that have
worked for me as the greatest things since sliced bread. Ask Ron what he thinks of my suggestion to buy a D100.
But while I would love to have a set of professional autofocus lenses, I don't make enough money on my shooting
to ever go that route. So I do tend to go on and on about the benefits of these old lenses. Canon digital folks can't even
use THEIR old MF lenses without an adapter for THEIR OWN BRAND. Nikon-ers are lucky, all we have to do is twist and click.

One thing I know I will never hear from someone who picks up a 200mm f/4 on my advice and that is "YOU A-HOLE!
You screwed me out of $60 with your crazy scheme."
[Reply]

Wow, I see that today, 'that camera place" has Canon 5Ds in three different condition grades up. ($499-$579)
Again, if I had to do it ALL OVER, I think I would skip Canon, I angered the gods by straying to the other
side, even a little. But now that Canon will reinforce your mirror free of charge, and after what I saw come OUT of
this little full frame a55-kicker, (I mean, other than the mirror, lol) I'd be hard pressed not to do it again.
If a person had NO affiliation with a brand yet, wow, its awfully tempting. But I like Nikon, I like the whole
legacy lens deal. But that 5D classic is a hell of a pitcher-takin' muchine.
[Reply]

Steve, have you looked through the manual and the camera's menus to find the high iso noise reduction as well as the long exposure NR? That helps quite a bit. If you shoot longer exposures with a tripod, there's also a setting where the mirror locks in the up position, then the shutter opens a couple of seconds later. This prevents any mini vibration from blurring the shot.
[Reply]

I dont have any major problems with blurring, I was just trying to freeze the action. This is a perfect example, look at her hand coming across and its a blur because the shutter speed wasn't high enough. Everything else is perfect
Image

I rarely have issues running low shutter speed being my hands are fairly steady and if they aren't I find a way to anchor myself to steady my arms/hands. I'm just trying to narrow down the problem so if it isnt a camera problem and its settings or whatever I won't have to send it off to Nikon and pay for nothing to get fixed
[Reply]

Steve, to me that is a great pic for the available lighting. I'm certainly no expert, but to me that is very acceptable, the focus and clarity on her face is great.
[Reply]

Out of all of the pictures I took that is probably my favorite. Might be slightly bias being she's one of my best friends at school but her face conveys so much emotion in the picture. It gets me every time!
[Reply]

As you know, you are sort of hamstrung by the conditions. Its a thin line between an acceptable
photo and a blur when you are under indoor lights. The flash is likely OUT, so you are left with
cranking up the ISO, really. I imagine your aperture was wide open or close to it. Your only option
then is to let in more light, so we are back to a faster lens.

HOWEVER, there is one other choice. You can let the camera meter and tell you what
to use for settings and you can turn to manual and bump the shutter speed up one
more notch. It will result in a darker photo, but if you have photoshop, lightroom, any of the
popular editing programs, you can fix that. it might lead to a bit of grain itself, but when
I absolutely HAVE to have one more notch of shutter speed, I am not above doing the work
later and getting the shot NOW.
[Reply]

I will say another thing about that blur to add to what Jeff said. The pic is GOOD. The blurred hand is NOT bad.
To me it evokes the feeling of motion in a shot with no real motion defined in itself. If you stop the action completely,
there may not be enough dynamism in the photo to show that she wasn't just Shao Lin ninja poppin. When people
see the photo, there is a 90% chance they are drawn to the face or other body parts based on particular preferences.
The HAND is only really relevant when people start to pick a photo apart for critical purposes. There is a GOOD chance
that the photo would be LESS effective if caught in perfect frozen action. All that said, I KNOW why people in your position
focus on the hand....its because you think we will and you may hope to deflect that. I do it all the time. People say
"wow, nice shot" and immediately I launch into "well, yeah, but..." Human nature. I have read the banter of enough
pros over the past two years to know, to most of them, if the eyes are in perfect focus, they don't seem to care about
much else, lol.
[Reply]