|
pico23
Jan 8, 2008, 6:16 AM
Post #226 of 366
(18674 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
I hate the way RC.com resizes the photos, but anyway this is my fight/check collection from the last few weeks. What a sport, god bless Canada for having the balls to come up with something this violent yet beautiful, it's like Jenifer Garner in alias, hot but deadly.
Oh, and unlike other sports, the refs/linesman get in on the action. 4th one from the bottom shows that. Just like the wild west, even the law gets down and dirty.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Jan 8, 2008, 6:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Jan 11, 2008, 5:01 PM
Post #227 of 366
(18631 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
piton wrote: you take some excellent photos cloudbreak!
indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Jan 11, 2008, 5:16 PM
Post #228 of 366
(18624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Thanks much guys!
jgloporto wrote: piton wrote: you take some excellent photos cloudbreak! indeed. |
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Jan 15, 2008, 4:27 AM
Post #231 of 366
(18550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
More random stuff from the last couple months...
Shooting inside the glass is cool, but kinda sketchy - I took a glancing blow to the head from a flying stick that night! But, better my head then my Mark III, as i will heal!
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 15, 2008, 9:51 AM
Post #232 of 366
(18536 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
wish I could shoot inside the glass...we don't even have portholes...by mid season it gets hard to find 6 inches of scratch free glass.
i don't envy you though, even with ISO6400 (and probably 2.8 or faster) it looks like you are struggling for light, and the lighting looks awful overall.
Good light makes things easy, I'm a little worried about the Broom County Arena in Binghamton for the AHL all-star game in 2 weeks. Only been there for a concert but it looked old and dim. Should be interesting.
Oh, might as well post a few shots from this weekend.
(This post was edited by pico23 on Feb 19, 2008, 8:53 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
King-0f-Clever
Jan 15, 2008, 12:49 PM
Post #233 of 366
(18516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2007
Posts: 50
|
Pico what are you using to create your boarders?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 16, 2008, 9:57 AM
Post #234 of 366
(18443 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
King-0f-Clever wrote: Pico what are you using to create your boarders?
It's just a photoshop action. it does borders and batch sharpening, but I really no longer use it for sharpening unless I'm stressed for time and just want to upload.
I'll track down the name of it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 30, 2008, 7:59 AM
Post #235 of 366
(18273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
From the AHL All-Star Game...
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Mar 6, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #236 of 366
(18083 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Wife to be, shooting her former sport (gymnastics)
Just more random stuff:
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Mar 6, 2008, 6:32 PM
Post #237 of 366
(18075 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Nice Wes! Snoots on the off camera flash at the climbing gym?
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Mar 6, 2008, 6:42 PM
Post #238 of 366
(18072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Thanks much! Nope, no modifiers at all, just played with the power and zoom settings. It is an easy place to shoot - they have a nice observation tower right behind the climbing, so east to move around, and to change the flash position. Also, had an on camera flash, but didn't do as well with using it for fill as I could have...
|
|
|
|
|
mewood7
Mar 6, 2008, 7:11 PM
Post #239 of 366
(18065 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2007
Posts: 12
|
Interesting...scrolling through the page, wasting time in between my classes and all of a sudden! Kentucky basketball...and a friend of mine: Zach Roberts. Haha, nice photgraphy. Great to run across people from lexington!
p.s. fabulous timing with the gymnastics shots!
|
|
|
|
|
chanceboarder
Mar 6, 2008, 7:27 PM
Post #240 of 366
(18057 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2003
Posts: 1348
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Mar 8, 2008, 4:10 PM
Post #241 of 366
(18025 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Wes, I see that you shot the gymnastics pix at ISO 1600. The noise looks minimal. Did you apply some noise reduction? If so, what did you use?
Thanks,
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Mar 8, 2008, 8:41 PM
Post #242 of 366
(18011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
ISO 1600 is really clean on both my Mark III and 5d, as is 3200. Haven't had to break out the ISO 6400 yet, but just playing around, it looks totally useable. The mark III has about a full stop better ISO on the 5d once you are over 800 though. Aperture has some built in NR, and I used that on those, though you can really only see a little bit of difference, even at 100% on a 23 inch ACD. So, I doubt you would see much difference, esp. on web sized images.
Here are a few from last night - first on is ISO 3200, rest are 1600.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Mar 8, 2008, 9:20 PM
Post #243 of 366
(18004 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
That ISO 3200 is incredible! Is your Mark III the full frame or aps-c version?
|
|
|
|
|
wes_allen
Mar 8, 2008, 11:20 PM
Post #244 of 366
(17989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2002
Posts: 549
|
Yeah, the newer bodies are really nice with the high ISO, as long as your exposures are pretty good. Noise will really show up in the shadows and in the under exposed parts. Mark III is a aps-h, which is a 1.3 crop factor. The 5D is full frame. I have decided I really like those much more then the 1.6 crop for my style of shooting. Lets me use the 70-200 a lot more, and lets my wider glass act like wide glass. The only place that I miss the aps-c is for wildlife.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 9, 2008, 11:53 PM
Post #245 of 366
(17951 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
The noise issue on underexposure was always there.
It's funny people don't realize just how good the older bodies, even CCD were/are. The D1H still produces images that rival that of the newer bodies for web/news use. Only upon printing big do you notice limitations.
That said, I'm suprised at how few pixels you really do need. I started a smugmug account recently to simplify orders from some of the little league stuff I am shooting, and ordering test prints, of 8x10s with 1300pixels on the long end that look damn good. Believe it or not, if you're only printing to 11x14 (the largest size I offer for the kids sports), you don't need more than a D2H or even D1H. Or parelled the original Canon 1D. Anything over 4MP is over kill, unless you intend to crop the hell out of it. In that case, buy a lower MP used camera, and spend money on better long glass so you don't need to crop.
BTW, my take on this longevity of legacy digital cameras, out of camera noise reduction is superior in the last few years, Nik DFine 2.0 clears the noise based on colors I set which I select with a dropper, I then can tell it how much to reduce each selection, it also maintains detail. RAW converters are better, I only shoot RAW even for sports, and printers are better and now optimized for digital files. EZ-Prints (Smugmug) actually uses 3 different printers. The one for the smaller prints does print best at 300DPI (the fuji frontier which ran for a long time) but the next two (which are used for larger prints) actually use far less DPI. The printer used for the largest prints only needs 80-100dpi. Do the math, that means a clean file from my D1H can print a flawless 20in print and the 10MP cameras can produce 40in prints.
Some recent, and a few older film scans that I just uploaded.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Mar 10, 2008, 2:14 AM
Post #246 of 366
(17941 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Yes, I guess Nikon is the first of the majors to quit upping the megapixel ante. Their top of the line dslr the D3 as well as the d300 has topped out at 12 megapixels, and are getting rave reviews because of low noise.
I have to admit I have been drooling over the D3, would produces low noise even at 6400. But everything I own is Canon. The D3 is pretty heavy though, so I probably would never bring it climbing or even backpacking, so its usage would be very limited for me...low light, fast action. But that being said, I'm very impressed with Wes's DIII pictures at 3200!
(This post was edited by Paul_Y on Mar 10, 2008, 3:10 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 10, 2008, 5:15 AM
Post #248 of 366
(17907 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
Paul_Y wrote: Yes, I guess Nikon is the first of the majors to quit upping the megapixel ante. Their top of the line dslr the D3 as well as the d300 has topped out at 12 megapixels, and are getting rave reviews because of low noise. I have to admit I have been drooling over the D3, would produces low noise even at 6400. But everything I own is Canon. The D3 is pretty heavy though, so I probably would never bring it climbing or even backpacking, so its usage would be very limited for me...low light, fast action. But that being said, I'm very impressed with Wes's DIII pictures at 3200!
Nikon actually has 2 more FF cameras in the works. One to challenge the 1Ds and one the 5D. I expect those to have more pixels to compete with those cameras (or Canons next offering) since they are more aimed at studio and landscape photogs. I've seen a lot of complaints that the MP count at LOW ISO on the D3 isn't good enough for landscape/fine art.
Don't forget the D3 has a crop mode so while it's full frame it actually is more 1DMIII than 1DsMIII.
That said, it is good to see the MP race slow down. While the noise levels with a good exposure on the old cameras were very good at optimal (expose just to not blow out the highlights) the future will hopefully allow ISO1600-3200 to have the same .5stop latitude you get at lower ISO.
Recent film scan from 1998:
(This post was edited by pico23 on Mar 10, 2008, 5:17 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 17, 2008, 3:23 AM
Post #249 of 366
(17642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
A few shots from 1997 via recent film scans.
|
|
|
|
|
stasis
Mar 28, 2008, 1:24 AM
Post #250 of 366
(17453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 11, 2006
Posts: 2
|
Here are a couple recent shots I took with my lens inverted and off camera flash. Little bit cheaper than a macro...
(This post was edited by stasis on Mar 28, 2008, 1:29 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
AR20071129_000903a.JPG
