I'm on a cropped sensor if I'm not mistaken... I have a Nikon D90.
[Reply]

I had a canon 10-22mm that I absolutely loved before I switched ot the full frame 5D. I would take a close look at one of these guys:
(sorry, not up on current lenses so I can't make a specific recommendation)

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=28&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=28&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=37&page=1
[Reply]

I adjusted the levels in PS and looked at boosting the contrast but it wasn't authentic. I'm all for moderately tweaking an image but in this case, realism was the overriding factor. Anyways, this was from the JPEG file- I haven't done any work from the RAW file yet. BTW thanks for the critique. :-)
[Reply]

Thank you.

A couple more just for fun.

Image

Image



-Roland.
[Reply]

Say What!? I disagree. What people do in Photoshop these days (besides the crazy chit) is comparative to what you did in the dark room back in the days of film.
[Reply]

No argument there, none at all! But film does have a different "feel" to it. Don't get me wrong, I love my photoshop and will never give up digital, but its just not the same as film.

Bear in mind when I say "not the same as film" its like saying a Domican cigar is not the same as a Cuban. They'll never be the same, but fortunately there's some damned fine Domican cigars that many would argue are better than many Cubans (of course a matter of opinion that we don't want to discuss in this thread!!!!!!!!) but I think you get the idea. "Not film" does not equal "bad", just unmistakeably different in many cases.
[Reply]

So you don't think that 'feel' is more related to the direction 'art' is headed these days? I have seen some EPIC digital photos printed out that I think still had that 'feel'

And IMHO a photo is not a photo till its printed.
[Reply]

Image

Image

A couple of shots from the rock wall by the river
[Reply]

mmmm, now that indeed takes the conversation in an interesting direction :-)

I suppose if you want to break an image down to its bare, simplistic elements, there are only four components to the 'look' of an image.
1) the composition of the image
2) the medium it is captured with.
3) the processing applied to it.
4) the medium it is displayed on.
I specifically used "displayed on" as my verb of choice. What is printing? A glossy color print? A B&W double weight fiber? canvas? pixels:-)?
It's all art, so then I would expand your definition to say that your vision of the photo is not complete unless it is displayed on a specific printed medium.

Different types of photos show milder or more pronounced telltale signs of the equipment they are produced on. With enough processing, anything can be made to look like anything else (Anyone seen the movie Avatar lately?). The point being if I take 100 random scenes and pictures from a film camera and 100 random pictures and scenes from a digital camera and handed them to you in 2 stacks, could you tell me which stack was digital and which stack was film if the stacks were fresh-from-the-camera un processed? I believe the answer is often "yes" to that question.

Sure, you can process the images from a digital camera to look like film... sorta, kinda, maybe.... but some are easier to do that with than others.... and crap, I'm rambling... lets try a simple summary: If you're art direction is to mimic film with digital, you can do it, but it can take work, lots of it, because you're starting with a product that most definitely is not film, the uncut image from a digital is very different than film.

I know a guy that painted our hallway at home. It's drywall.... but he's such an awesome painter that it looks like wood, even when you're a foot away.
If a digital photo needs to look like film, it can... but it sure didnt start out looking that way.

Really, i'm not sure if that made any sense... this has been a welcome diversion to what has been one of the hardest days in a long time for me, but i'm pretty fried at this point and don't know if that will have any sense when I read it again in the morning.....

(hope that doesn't sound too adversarial, just having a little friendly banter on the subject :-))
[Reply]

Your right media does make a difference. My fav is canvas, I have printed for several clients on canvas and they have been by far my favorite. But I did print on brushed aluminum once and that was pretty sweet too :-)
[Reply]

Brushed aluminum.... now that sounds like a very interesting print! Did any of the texture show through into the image?
[Reply]

Yes it was sweet, this is not the print but an example

Image
[Reply]

I personally see the differences between film and digital.
I am not referring to 35 mm. I am referring to medium format, 6X6 or 6X7.
The shots of the church and the bride were done on film.
While photoshop allows some amazing things that back in my days was done in the lab, to me, the differences are stark.
That is not to say one is better than the other. I like them both as times change. However, I am old school. In my days, the picture was created in the camera. I used various expensive filters to create my effects and I had to know what I was doing to get the proper exposure, as I didn't have the opportunity to see the final product until after it returned from the lab. I am not saying that was a better way at all as I would rather have it as it is today but certainly the art was emphasized in a different part of the photo job, on the front end. We had no automation for our cameras either. All manual. That is what was done with those wedding shots.
[Reply]

So I am trying to understand the difference between "full" sensors and "Cropped" sensors.
And basically from what I understand now a "full" sensor is (as I read) 24mm x 36mm where as a "cropped" sensor is actually smaller. If you compare the two they may both have 12 million pixels but the "cropped" sensor will have them crammed on a smaller space. The full sensor seemed to be at an advantage in most cases with the exception of a "zoom" factor that a cropped lens gives a particular lens.

this is the article I read Full Frame Sensor vs Crop Sensor

Any comments or suggestions on understanding the difference?



Here's a recent pic of a beer I had for Breakfast!
Image
[Reply]

Definitely disagree on that point, to an extent.....
Cropped frames make wide angle harder, while telephoto easier.
Because the image is coming from the center of the lens area, "soft" lenses on the outside can suddenly appear sharper.
Due to pixel density, full sensors tend to have less noise than comparable cropped sensors in the same generation.
I switched from cropped to full and could not be happier.
[Reply]

Posted these in the NC purchases but figured I'd better put them here too...

Image
This shot is unaltered off the camera shot at 0.60 seconds freehand [took 8 tries but I got it :-)]

Image
This one I added a little exposure to it through RAW editing in PS original was just a little dark
[Reply]

Picture of the property line of our cabin in Murphy, NC.

Image

And a Blue Spruce that was relocated to our front yard.

Image
[Reply]

This weekend, I plan to head out for some sunset and/or sunrise pictures over a local lake. Let's see what some real glass on this sensor can really do (in my ridiculously amateur hands)....
[Reply]

A couple more from my adventures. A sunset to start (obligatory).

Image

And the saddest thing in the world! The last muffin all alone. :-)

Image
[Reply]

These are very cool. I really like how the green plant snuck in there at the top.

Contrast of the green (life) and the ice (withering/death) Is a fun concept. Sure I over think things but the main point is I like it. :-)
[Reply]