Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day - March 2010
- Thread starter Designer Dale
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a great picture, both for composition and colour. Where is it taken?
![](http://www.flickr.com/photos/davennikki/4477480963/" title="2010-03-28 at 15-42-41 by Dave Gregory, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4477480963_bc7a7de69b_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="2010-03-28 at 15-42-41" />)
Nothing wrong with film cameras, although I'm pretty much digital these days. I sitll have my good 'ole eos1n. I gave my faithful eos630 to a young lady that I knew who wanted to get into photography. I don't think she uses it all, digital is all the rage now and the young'ins are too impatient to use film imho.
Keep the FE - it's a fantastic camera. I was saddened to hear that Fuji discontinued Velvia, but it's now been revived I believe (although a different formula to the original velvia). I have fond memories of velvia, kodachrome 25 too.
Myself, I'll eventually get my hands on a Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder. Probably next year sometime (Canon EOS Mark IV takes precedence for me). I'm not really a people/street photographer, so not sure how much the Bessa will work for me, but hey, it's worth trying. I'm also considering a Toyo 8x10 view camera, these can be hand for pretty good prices on the 2nd hand market (keh.com has a good stock of them from time to time). I've never worked with a view camera before, but I'm definitely interested.
Like you, I believe that it's right to get the image right, in camera. PP can only do so much. I do love photoshop to bits, it's far more powerful than the old chemical darkroom was to be honest, but it's a tool. Nothing more, and nothing less. Being primarily a nature photographer, I tend not to tinker too much with my images - colour balance (sorry but Canon's AWB sucks and when I'm out in the field and using flash, manually setting WB just gets in the way), some slight adjustments to contrast, some slight adjustments to hue/saturation, and of course, some sharpening, since digital images are soft straight out of the camera (especially when shooting RAW). Oh, and dust spot cleaning (spot heal tool, clone tool) - when shooting macro, dust bunnies are a given. Currently, my Mark IIn really needs a sensor clean - shooting at 1:1 means 3-400 dust spots, taking me around half an hour for dust spot removal alone on EACH and EVERY image.
I also agree about getting the image right in camera and knowing it. With close to 40k shots macro experience, I tend to get things right first go, most of the time. I see a lot of other macro shooters who tend to spray and hope. I guess, each to their own.
Dave
I understand where you're coming from and partially agree. Sadly, digital appeals to the masses who are impatient. Waiting for the right moment, or the right light, or learning about your subject(s) are just not something most photographers are interested in doing today. I remember going to a local V8 supercar race meet in July 2007 - in reality, the first time I'd done a motorsport event in anger, so to speak. I had one guy with a Nikon D300 doing a spray and hope, and from what I saw on the LCD monitor, they didn't look too good lol. I took my time, picked my shots and came away with several shots that were very good, especially for a beginner at the genre. Taking the time to know the track, and the drivers/cars allowed me to position myself in some good spots too. Planning is an important part of photography, but few do it.
Dave
Actually, a lot of press photographers, wedding photographers shoot JPG only. They *know* what they're doing, so they usually nail the shots and can trust the JPG output. RAWs take a fair bit of work - basic sharpening in the RAW development software (I use DPP and C1 Pro v5, depending on my mood), exporting to TIFF (16 bit), processing images (dust spots, WB adjustment, some sharpening), etc and that all takes time. Since I'm an amateur, I can take all the time that I want working on an image, it's not like my income is dependant on speediness. If I was a working pro, I certainly wouldn't be shooting in the same method.
Most dedicated film photographers of the past developed their own negatives/reversals/prints, especialy with b/w where the tolerances are more forgiving. Your normal "every day" shooter, where quality wasn't of a concern a a general rule used the 24 hour labs etc. Not much you can do about P&S photographers!
Dave
Dale,
There's nothing wrong with a hand held like meter, I still use my Sekonic 308B II unit, especially if I'm doing portraits. There's nothing out of date about this. Onboard camera meters ONLY make use of reflective metering techniques, and this is resultant on the camera's brains working out average grey (18%). A good dedicated light meter can be set to measure incidental light, and that's far more accurate.
The camera itself, doesn't really make a quality image, it's still the photographer. I have very fond memories of my first SLR - a Russian Zenit 12xp with a 52mm Helios f2 lens. Wonderful camera, if clunky and lacking in features. I still have it (well, my dad does, as I donated it to him).
Dale, you may also find this site of great interest:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
It took me probably Six months to get used to RAW, and develop a workflow that I was comfortable with. I'm still learning new things about Photoshop CS2 every day. The main thing is to enjoy your photography
The xsi is a great little camera too.
Dave
What a subtle, but lovely image. Very nice lighting and composition. Good zone of focus/sharpness, but a slight colour cast (very slight).
Dave
Keep the FE - it's a fantastic camera. I was saddened to hear that Fuji discontinued Velvia, but it's now been revived I believe (although a different formula to the original velvia). I have fond memories of velvia, kodachrome 25 too.
Myself, I'll eventually get my hands on a Voigtlander Bessa rangefinder. Probably next year sometime (Canon EOS Mark IV takes precedence for me). I'm not really a people/street photographer, so not sure how much the Bessa will work for me, but hey, it's worth trying. I'm also considering a Toyo 8x10 view camera, these can be hand for pretty good prices on the 2nd hand market (keh.com has a good stock of them from time to time). I've never worked with a view camera before, but I'm definitely interested.
Like you, I believe that it's right to get the image right, in camera. PP can only do so much. I do love photoshop to bits, it's far more powerful than the old chemical darkroom was to be honest, but it's a tool. Nothing more, and nothing less. Being primarily a nature photographer, I tend not to tinker too much with my images - colour balance (sorry but Canon's AWB sucks and when I'm out in the field and using flash, manually setting WB just gets in the way), some slight adjustments to contrast, some slight adjustments to hue/saturation, and of course, some sharpening, since digital images are soft straight out of the camera (especially when shooting RAW). Oh, and dust spot cleaning (spot heal tool, clone tool) - when shooting macro, dust bunnies are a given. Currently, my Mark IIn really needs a sensor clean - shooting at 1:1 means 3-400 dust spots, taking me around half an hour for dust spot removal alone on EACH and EVERY image.
I also agree about getting the image right in camera and knowing it. With close to 40k shots macro experience, I tend to get things right first go, most of the time. I see a lot of other macro shooters who tend to spray and hope. I guess, each to their own.
Dave
Me too. I used a Nikon FE for, oh, about 20 years. Two FEs, in fact: one chrome body for Velvia (fine-grained transparency film), and a black body for black & white. I should have put them on eBay while they still had some smidgin of value; now they're just paperweights.
I think it's vital to give full attention at the moment the shutter is pressed. Always has been, IMO, and always will be. I don't shoot a lot of pix in the hope that I'll get lucky and one will be OK. Every time I press the shutter, I think I've got 'the shot' (I even have this fantasy that I'm using a 10x8in view camera, and every exposure counts). The reality is rather different, of course... and I get a lot of 'nearly' pix...
I want to get it right in the camera. I honestly don't think you can 'rescue' a poor pic with any software yet available.
I understand where you're coming from and partially agree. Sadly, digital appeals to the masses who are impatient. Waiting for the right moment, or the right light, or learning about your subject(s) are just not something most photographers are interested in doing today. I remember going to a local V8 supercar race meet in July 2007 - in reality, the first time I'd done a motorsport event in anger, so to speak. I had one guy with a Nikon D300 doing a spray and hope, and from what I saw on the LCD monitor, they didn't look too good lol. I took my time, picked my shots and came away with several shots that were very good, especially for a beginner at the genre. Taking the time to know the track, and the drivers/cars allowed me to position myself in some good spots too. Planning is an important part of photography, but few do it.
Dave
Thankfully... there are still folks like you with your old school convictions. I share your philosophy at the heart of things, but I'm afraid we're a dying breed. I guess that's my issue with technology. I'm a tech lover, always looking to adopt new things and discover things I could never have done before, at least on a personal budget. Many creative opportunities are now available because of technology, and that I certainly do get. But... the integrity of the image is what will forever be called into question--if not now, certainly very soon. Technology moves so fast, that what may not even seem possible today will be here tomorrow. Just look at the demos for PS CS5, and the 2 minutes it takes to literally take a photograph, or several photographs, and create something good enough to be used in advertisements. The camera no longer has to even capture what is eventually the final product. So... no more need for a decisive moment. The sun isn't right, plug it in. Missed the critical moment in a rapid fire sports sequence-- just have the software analyze the frames before and after, and through constantly improving algorithms, simply "create" it by sampling and modeling the subjects. This is already here. When technology becomes refined enough, and good enough to fool anyone's naked eye, and cheap enough for virtually anyone to use without much skill required... what will govern it's use? Anything? Probably it will be impossible to regulate, so what will happen is all photography will simply be called into question almost out of habit. You make a beautiful photo the old fashioned way, wait for the light and the decisive moment... and while it's beautiful, most people will in the future likely think it was simply concocted. That's what I'm concerned about. Maybe in the end it really doesn't matter.
PS: Love the bell shot. It got a chuckle out of me on this rainy, stormy day here.
Actually, a lot of press photographers, wedding photographers shoot JPG only. They *know* what they're doing, so they usually nail the shots and can trust the JPG output. RAWs take a fair bit of work - basic sharpening in the RAW development software (I use DPP and C1 Pro v5, depending on my mood), exporting to TIFF (16 bit), processing images (dust spots, WB adjustment, some sharpening), etc and that all takes time. Since I'm an amateur, I can take all the time that I want working on an image, it's not like my income is dependant on speediness. If I was a working pro, I certainly wouldn't be shooting in the same method.
Most dedicated film photographers of the past developed their own negatives/reversals/prints, especialy with b/w where the tolerances are more forgiving. Your normal "every day" shooter, where quality wasn't of a concern a a general rule used the 24 hour labs etc. Not much you can do about P&S photographers!
Dave
Dale,
There's nothing wrong with a hand held like meter, I still use my Sekonic 308B II unit, especially if I'm doing portraits. There's nothing out of date about this. Onboard camera meters ONLY make use of reflective metering techniques, and this is resultant on the camera's brains working out average grey (18%). A good dedicated light meter can be set to measure incidental light, and that's far more accurate.
The camera itself, doesn't really make a quality image, it's still the photographer. I have very fond memories of my first SLR - a Russian Zenit 12xp with a 52mm Helios f2 lens. Wonderful camera, if clunky and lacking in features. I still have it (well, my dad does, as I donated it to him).
Dale, you may also find this site of great interest:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm
It took me probably Six months to get used to RAW, and develop a workflow that I was comfortable with. I'm still learning new things about Photoshop CS2 every day. The main thing is to enjoy your photography
The xsi is a great little camera too. Dave
Thanks. While I was shooting film I relied on a hand-held light meter and darkroom techniques that are way out of date. I got my XSi in September '09 and switched to RAW in October. I do all my post in CS3. Six months. imN00B...
Part of the barrier I have to overcome relates to the posts regarding how technically advanced cameras have become. My camera is entry level for dslr. It's not complicated, but I still have a hard time trusting it to make decisions that used to be all up to me.
Sooo I'll continue talking about things I don't yet understand. You point me in the right direction. And then I'll will you all my camera gear...
FrankieT: Thanks for the note on the histogram. It made everything I have been told about exposing to the right make sense. +1 for you
Dale
Pink Chrysanthemum
What a subtle, but lovely image. Very nice lighting and composition. Good zone of focus/sharpness, but a slight colour cast (very slight).
Dave
^ I too would like to know where the lighthouse is.
dpastern, multiquote.
yeah, sorry. Most forums don't seem to be really picky about this, to be honest, first time in many years of online forums I've seen a forum so picky. *shrugs* I'll try and use it in the future. Been crook with the flu for the past week, so only really checking the POTD images now, hence lots of catch up post replies...
Anyways, I took this a few weeks ago, 3:1 or thereabouts, breezy afternoon, holding the camera up and trying to frame the shot by looking at the viewfinder from 2' away lol (no live view on my camera). Spotted this female Lynx spider atop a nice looking flower. Took me 3 shots to get it right, pretty good considering. edit: adjustments made to the image for WB (via thresholds and curves layers), slight contrast (for those interested, I duplicate the layer, desaturate and invert it, then apply a gaussian blur of 3%, I then change the layer blend to overlay and the opacity to around 10-20%, and I add a final contrast layer on top, adjusted by eye). The original had a slight colour cast, which is fixed by this process. I typically then sharpen the lightness channel in LAB mode, convert back to RGB mode and then apply some noise reduction to clean the image up.
Dave
Just clicked on the lighthouse. It's title on flickr is "Pigeon Point". And - guess what? - it's Pigeon Point lighthouse in CA, halfway between San Fran and Santa Cruz. Though I originally thought it was the one in Point Arena, I was immediately sure it was one of the lighthouses in northern California.
And a great shot that is, NintendoChick! I have another picture from the same lighthouse. It's been photographed through a car window (we didn't stop at that time), and it has not been post processed.
Awesome - I will be in the area in a few weeks ... will definitely go and shoot some pictures.
I love this! We should have a Dog of the Day thread.
yeah, sorry. Most forums don't seem to be really picky about this, to be honest, first time in many years of online forums I've seen a forum so picky. *shrugs* I'll try and use it in the future. Been crook with the flu for the past week, so only really checking the POTD images now, hence lots of catch up post replies...
<snip>
Dave
Consecutive posting isn't a POTD thing, it's a site-wide rule on Mac Rumors. I don't think MR is as much picky as well moderated. The mods have a wide range of powers at their mouse tips ranging from editing your post for you to removing it all together. I don't know who does Timeout and Banning. There is a closed forum open to mods and admins only where they no doubt are talking about me at this very moment...
I got dinged for consecutive posting in a lens thread and I have this 0 Point Warning thing in my UCP forever.
In regards to your photo, you don't have to your own posts, just your quotes.
The spider pic is interesting but the overall image seems a bit flat. Maybe if the background was a bit greener the little guy would stand out better. Just my view. The focus on the eyes is[B][I][U] absolutely nailed[/U][/I][/B]. Great work.
Dale
Exif:
Lens: EF50mm f/1.8
ISO: 1600
Focal Length: 50mm
Exposure Bias: 0ev
Aperture: f/2.5
Flash: Flash fired, compulsory flash mode
Rust Bucket
3/31/10 2:19pm
ISO 400
18mm
f/5.6
1/200
Since it was an old jeep in an old style garage, I thought I'd try out the sepia.
C&C is welcome.
3/31/10 2:19pm
ISO 400
18mm
f/5.6
1/200
Since it was an old jeep in an old style garage, I thought I'd try out the sepia.
C&C is welcome.
I would agree. The POTD thread for every month usually has some very interesting images regardless of your interests. Some shots are technically better than others. Some shots do more for me than others. But I always walk away from these threads with a smile on my face and a guilty feeling that I didn't specifically mention every image that did something for me. Hopefully people don't feel bad when their specific shot doesn't receive a comment. Doesn't mean people didn't appreciate it, just that sometimes it can be overwhelming to comment on every single image that scored a hit in member's books.
^ Going with the sepia tone works well with the subject you have here. It's still a little dark in the building above the Jeep. Not much detail in the shadows.3/31/10 2:19pm
<iSNIP>
Since it was an old jeep in an old style garage, I thought I'd try out the sepia.
C&C is welcome.
^ And now the April thread will open in a bit. It's the new month in half the world already. Look for us. We are easy to find...And welcome...
Dale