Jump to content
The Klipsch Audio Community
JL Sargent

Show us your great photography thread!

Recommended Posts

On 5/27/2019 at 1:21 PM, Marvel said:

Claude, how it the electronic viewfinder on those? Must be very good to be able to use outside and actually see what you are shooting.

 

Bruce

When photographing twin sibling High School Seniors last year, I noticed that there's a "frozen" time lag in the finder while the RAW and JPG files are written to the card and I was panning. It's quite disconcerting in comparison to the clear and near instant view of a MIRRORED DSLR, which Blackens the view for a fraction of a second as opposed to 2-3 seconds in the Sony. This is why they created the super fast A9 for action. Using a 42 Megapixel camera for speed is not what it was designed to do, but rather give max resolution and sharpness. This camera gives my Sigma/Foveon based cameras a run for their money in the sharpness department, but you can still do High ISO shooting with it. That A series 85 from Sigma is scary sharp at all apertures, even wide open as I have to make a 24x36 inch print to even see all the micro detail. Photoshop retouching is required on all portraits with that lens. LOL.

 

But you can tell when you look in the finder that your are looking at an OLED vs. the pristine clarity of a Pentaprism on a DSLR with mirror. Photography has it's compromises as well as audio, eh?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A view from a park.   Dana Point Harbor off to the right.

IMG_1963.jpg

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A year ago alread? ! Embassy Theatre in Ft Wayne is a fantastic small venue. Tedeschi Trucks Band? Even more impressive than the venue!  Who said cell phone images aren't photos???

34070922_10214272946450349_392563816195424256_n (1).jpg

34178178_10214272919489675_5639657943616978944_n.jpg

34200555_10214272944410298_8007805152880754688_n.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 9:07 AM, polizzio said:

Excellent pic!

 

We had an airshow in my town about 2 months ago.

Only went to one air show years ago, it was great, I would love to go again. 

 

16 hours ago, Dave1290 said:

Who said cell phone images aren't photos???

? Don't know

 

One thing these days almost everybody carries a phone and most take ok-good pictures so cameras are everywhere. If they could take more general pictures instead of pics of themselves. :huh:

 

Concerts are tough lighting no matter what you're using but can be amazing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's one of Jeff Beck with Buddy Guy on Buddy's 80th Birthday, at Meadowbrook Amphitheater, July 30, 2016.  Buddy did his usual crowd walk with wireless transmitter, so he kept playing. I was in the last row an he literally stopped 6 feet away right behind my seat and looked right at me when I did this close up. Camera was a Sony A6000 with a 55-210 Kit lens. I also own a Sony Premium White 70-200 f/4 Pro Lens, but I'm always afraid they won't let me bring that since it looks "too professional. So I had the body and long, small, black kit lens in  a small bag (since it's a variable aperture zoom, it's got a small front element and it doesn't look Professional. Obviously I got away with it, but they tend to frown on big, white lenses and make you take them back to the car.

DSC00770.JPG

DSC00808.JPG

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, now you are Sony guy 😊

 

I was thinking to get me one of these smaller mirrorless  alphas, been thinking to buy the adapter for Nikkor lenses.

But then again, things in photo world are going fast and I am no professional. My old equipment satisfy my needs and unless something radically changes, I will not go for new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Pic @ClaudeJ1  That is almost like getting introduced to a living legend. He noticed you!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, parlophone1 said:

So, now you are Sony guy 😊

 

I was thinking to get me one of these smaller mirrorless  alphas, been thinking to buy the adapter for Nikkor lenses.

But then again, things in photo world are going fast and I am no professional. My old equipment satisfy my needs and unless something radically changes, I will not go for new.

As the first Digital Photographer in Michigan (paid $11,000 for a Kodak 420 with no lens and terrible color and noise in 1995), I have owned over 100 digital cameras from several brands and helped to develop the Foveon X3 sensor. I have been doing digital output since 1986 in the field of Printed Circuit Board Design (4000 PPI Laser Digital Photo plotter on Kodalith film). I have also owned over 50 digital printers.........laser, dye sublimation, inkjet, etc.No reason to abandon mirror DSLR completely as they both have pluses and minuses.

 

ALL digital cameras have had plenty of image quality since the Fuji S2, Nikon D1X, and Canon 10D, and I have large prints to prove my point, but most people, including Pro Photographers would rather Pixel Peep in Photoshop to "prove me wrong" (because it's free and easy) rather than make Big, Expensive Epson Inkjet Prints to prove me right.  I have made some 3 1/2 x 5 FOOT prints from a 3 Megapixel Canon Point and Shoot Camera with Manual Settings, using Studio Flashes that looked terrific in Store Windows. Also, I have made lots of BILLBOARDS around Detroit for one of the Casinos (big budgets). I'm tired of the BS I hear about justifying 100 Megapixel, Medium Format cameras with "Billboards" when all you need is TWO MEGAPIXELS to do it (also for Blue Ray HDTV). All my Billboard images were printed with 2-3 Megapixel JPG or TIFF files!!

 

I also think Cell Phones should ONLY be using 2 Megapixels instead of 12 Megapixels, which is way overkill resolution and way too NOISY, but that is beyond the scope of this text.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claude... this was with a 5MP Canon Powershot, that I got in 2005. This is the original pic, in Nanchang, CN in 2007.

 

pottery.jpg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wisconsin state capital using a high res medium format camera, but then downsized to a 2 megapixel image ;)

6083373D-086D-4206-8CE5-EC7D05B03593.jpeg

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Marvel said:

Claude... this was with a 5MP Canon Powershot, that I got in 2005. This is the original pic, in Nanchang, CN in 2007.

 

 

Even as Technical Editor of Rangefinder and Professional Photographer Magazines, I had a hard time convincing photographers that anything over 5 Megapixels was overkill. Then I met David Pogue, Tech. Editor of the New York Times, talking about the same thing in front of 1,000 Photographers at Photo Plus. He said he got about 78 Nasty Emails when he proved that on a 16x24" print (posting 3 of them on a window in NYC and asking people walking by if they could tell them apart........One was 16 Mpx resized DOWN to 8, then 5 (throwing away pixels), then interpolated back up. Not ONE person out of 50 could tell them apart. All printed by a Pro Lab, of course.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Pinball_pw said:

Wisconsin state capital using a high res medium format camera, but then downsized to a 2 megapixel image ;)

 

Nice shot.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for fun, here is the center, different image, not a crop of the first one. 

4712C8DF-5222-4989-8E4C-F3F1B25922E7.jpeg

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it time to stop carrying a Domke bag full of Nikkor glass and bodies when your right shoulder is 2" lower than your left shoulder?  Asking for a friend.  😂

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claude, what would you say are the most improvements comparing the first usable generations of digital cameras and today's cameras? Of course except the count of pixels.

Is it dynamic range, focusing...or something else?

 

For example, in DSLRs I find very usable to be able to fine-adjust focus of a particular lens, which is a negative design issue with all SLR cameras and probably one of important reasons for designing mirrorless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, parlophone1 said:

Claude, what would you say are the most improvements comparing the first usable generations of digital cameras and today's cameras? Of course except the count of pixels.

Is it dynamic range, focusing...or something else?

 

For example, in DSLRs I find very usable to be able to fine-adjust focus of a particular lens, which is a negative design issue with all SLR cameras and probably one of important reasons for designing mirrorless.

NOT having a separate optical path for focusing, like all mirrored cameras results in inhferently more accurate focus (unless you use live focus, which has been available since the Canon 40d). Dynamically speaking, the most significant improvement I have seen (a compelling one) is the full time EYE FOCUS feature of the Sony A6400, which will compel me to upgrade soon (I sold my A6000 Kit). You will appreciate this if you become an f/1.4 -f/2 shooter!!

 

4K video is too much, IMHO, since regular HD is just fine for 99% of the video out there. Unless of course you want a 30 frame per second motor drive, whereby, you can pull out some 8.3 Megapixel stills out of it!! LOL.

 

But speaking strictly still photographs, most of the features on modern cameras of any kind are BS to old fashioned tripod users (I shot 4x5 and 8x10, and 20x24" bellows cameras too). I happen to like the FOCUS PEAKING of the Mirrorless cameras because you can adapt old manual focus lenses, which have their own unique appeal. The best inkjet printer can only give you, at best,  a 7 stop dynamic range with visual discernment of the tones. And all a camera does is record the light that results in those colors with reasonable sharpness. All a camera can do, manually or automatically, is determine REFLECTVE exposure values that are WRONG most of the time (I use the superior INCIDENT meters), and allow you to change focal lengths, shutter speed, and aperture, while firing on not firing a Xenon discharge from a capacitor, making the huge number on confusing features a FASTER way to arrive at those very basic values. Regardless of manual or automatic exposures, the in-camera JPG features are a real time save if you don't like to process out RAW files. Just remember that NO camera can fix bad lighting!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Pinball_pw said:

Just for fun, here is the center, different image, not a crop of the first one. 

 

Rotated +45 degrees, that would make a very fine diamond angle, square framed wall print! It's hip to be square, but not necessarily Orthogonal!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ClaudeJ1 said:

Just remember that NO camera can fix bad lighting!!

 

This is it really, isn't it. I've found if you start with awesome lighting, the rest of it just falls into place.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, JL Sargent said:

 

This is it really, isn't it. I've found if you start with awesome lighting, the rest of it just falls into place.

 

AND good glass, it is more important than extreme amounts of megapixels.

 

Part of a phones problem, and probably the size of the sensor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JL Sargent said:

 

This is it really, isn't it. I've found if you start with awesome lighting, the rest of it just falls into place.

 

Well as a "Lighting Guy" sponsored by Westcott and Paul C. Buff, I was opening speaker at WPPI in LasVegas, 2008, to 1,000 photographers in a huge room. I think THEY understood how photography IS all about lighting. The camera simply records what you LIGHT, and nothing more, which is why I avoid shooting anything anyone can do with an iPhone, which means off Camera Flash most of the time. Here's my cover shot for a book, for which, I was asked to contribute images and text. BTW, the "high key" cover was shot on an actual GRAY background!!

9781608952755_p0_v3_s550x406.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...