Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Israphel

Sim senhor, efeitos especial
Sep 26, 2004
1,136
0
0
52
Lisboa,Portugal
Perhaps instead of telling him to use post, you should be telling him to take pictures with correct exposure first. :p

Tricky one...I'm a great believer in there being no such thing as "correct" exposure because it's an artistic choice how much light you decide to let into the scene. Galen Rowell was a big fan of underexposing by a stop or so to bring out the reds, blues and greens
Obviously blocked shadows and burnt highlights aren't desirable, but I don't think Ben's shots suffer from that. Having said that...

das_ben said:
I am very lazy with post-procession
...Mike's right though, some more "pop" would help. I think you could just play around with the Levels and bring the white and black sliders in to where the histogram starts. It's a 5 second job in a decent RAW processor.

OO7MIKE said:
I got a 7d for Christmas....8fps rules!
Lovely camera, and yeah 8 fps rocks. The sounds when my D3 is firing at 9 fps is apocalyptic...just awesome :D
It's a saviour in so many situations, particularly weddings when you've got a much better chance of grabbing the split second smile or glance. Same when the confetti is thrown, firing off 15 plus shots in a couple of seconds means that there's a much better chance of getting the shot where the couple are a) not screwing their eyes up, and b) there's not a blob of confetti covering someones eye/nose/mouth.
Why won't it fire so fast in dark situations though? If it's not an AF thing, what's preventing the camera from shooting at max fps? Could it be the noise reduction on high ISO files slowing it down? Have you tried turning in camera High ISO NR off to see?

Anyway, some old shots from the Amazon a couple of years back. I've linked these before in another thread, but this is probably the best place for them.

Dawn mist just before sunrise
quinta1.jpg


Sunrise across an oxbow lake. Had to do this handheld from a moving canoe, so up-ed the ISO a little to ensure a shutter speed fast enough to maintain sharpness. There's a 2 stop ND grad across the sky to balance it with the reflection in the water.
quinta3.jpg


Long (2 minute) exposure of the Amazon at sunset from the city of Manaus. You can get an idea here of how wide the main river is...and this is still 1500 km before it reaches the ocean.
quinta4.jpg


Typical Amazon riverboats. In a place where there are very few roads, these boats are the lifeblood of communities in the rain forest, bringing in supplies of vital things like kerosene and trading in things like animals and manioc.
quinta6.jpg


Local girl in the Amazon. The one bedroom hut she's in is shared by 3 generations of her family.
quinta7.jpg


Dawn mist rising from the river again...It rained during the night, and as the temperature rises around dawn you see the water evaporating mist rising and obscuring the far bank.
quinta2.jpg


Animal pen made from palm leaves.
quinta10.jpg


Last light of the day on the rainforest.
quinta1.jpg


Every morning, one of these monkeys would come to the balcony of our hut.
quinta8.jpg


This is a freshly caught black piranha. Put some fresh meat on a hook, thrown over the side of the canoe..wait 2 minutes and they start biting. After we'd had a look at his teeth (VERY sharp) we threw it back to the river
quintae.jpg
 
Last edited:

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,022
107
63
Nalicity, NC
Why won't it fire so fast in dark situations though? If it's not an AF thing, what's preventing the camera from shooting at max fps? Could it be the noise reduction on high ISO files slowing it down? Have you tried turning in camera High ISO NR off to see?


High ISO NR has been disabled. I even says in the manual that if things are dark it wont fire at 8fps. So far I have only seen this behavior with the lens cap on. It hasn't become an issue just yet but it is boggling.


Sunrise across an oxbow lake. Had to do this handheld from a moving canoe, so up-ed the ISO a little to ensure a shutter speed fast enough to maintain sharpness. There's a 2 stop ND grad across the sky to balance it with the reflection in the water.
quinta3.jpg

An excellent shot! Very shocking at first glance. I'm not sure why but the blueish/purple shadow tint on the water and sky bugs me... otherwise I think its your strongest shot of the bunch.


Just curious... any idea what a piranha taste like?


Just an update I though you all should know:
If you get a chance, download Lightroom 3 beta. Its a free download. It will let you use it until April 2010 or when the new product has shipped. Thats 4 months of a great program for free. Hell of a trial period! That's enough time to see just how good the next generation noise removal algorithm is. I am very impressed with it. Its a huge leap over ACR 5.6 and it looks much better than Canon's DPP. Normally I prefer ACR over lightroom but given the nature of my work and the quality of the files coming out of LR3.. I'll be using LR3 primarily until the technology trickles down to ACR.

ISO 12800 on my 7d looks virtually free of color noise. The new algorithm keeps things looking quite sharp. Only fine grain is left, and it looks quite pleasing to me. I know it will look really nice as a print.

Give it a shot! it may just turn your highest ISO settings into something usable.
 
Last edited:

Soulwax

Amberlamps
Jul 8, 2009
120
0
0
30
Belgium
This one wasn't supposed to be pretty, I was experimenting with extreme ISO/shutterspeed/aperture settings(F 4.0, 20", ISO 1600)
I took this shot 5 minutes ago. The moon was pretty bright though, when it dissapeared behind the clouds all of my shots had this ugly red tint to them.
[SCREENSHOT]http://i45.tinypic.com/23qzdkk.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

I'm not really happy with the lighting in this one, but I still like it:
[SCREENSHOT]http://i49.tinypic.com/280ia8i.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]
 
Last edited:

Thrash123

Obey Leash Laws
Jul 19, 1999
4,777
0
36
40
Nowhere to be found.
www.classicwfl.com
Thanks for the tip on Lightroom Mike. I'm about to pick up Photoshop CS4 once my contact comes through on that (one of the guys I work with on the film I'm doing a score for can get me Adobe software cheap), but until then I could use something new (currently using a crappy ass plugin in Photoshop 6).
 

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,022
107
63
Nalicity, NC
The following is a test i did on my 7d. Lightroom 3 beta noise removal is just fantastic!

7d ISO 12800 RAW | Processed with Photoshop ACR 5.6
7dISO12800Raw.jpg


7d ISO 12800 RAW | Processed with Lightroom 3 Beta
7dISO12800RawLR3b.jpg


7d ISO 12800 RAW | Processed with Photoshop ACR 5.6
7dISO12800RAW_test2.jpg


7d ISO 12800 RAW | Processed with Lightroom 3 Beta
7dISO12800RAW_LR3b_test2.jpg


Huge Improvement!
 

Israphel

Sim senhor, efeitos especial
Sep 26, 2004
1,136
0
0
52
Lisboa,Portugal
Dude, those are all beautiful!
edit: Could you please somehow provide me with a wallpaper sized (1680x1050 or bigger) version of the first shot (train) and the waterfall shot? Would really apreciate it!

Cheers, glad you like them.

A chunk of my income comes through image sales, so I'm not going to put larger versions of my photos on the internet...even with a watermark.
However, if you send me email me (my address is on my site, which is in my sig) then I'll send you a 1680x1050 version.

Cursed_Soul said:
amazing shots israphel

Thanks a lot :) It's an amazing place to be honest, and at sunrise it's pretty hard to take a bad photo.

igNiTion said:
Gorgeous shots Israphel! What were you in the Amazon for?
Thanks loads. My wife is Brazilian and we often go over there at Christmas. Her brother lives in Manaus, a city right in the middle of the Amazon...seriously, it's got rainforest for over 1000 miles in every direction. We flew there to visit him, then took a couple of boats upriver to stay at a lodge for 5 days. It was an amazing trip :D

OO7MIKE said:
An excellent shot! Very shocking at first glance. I'm not sure why but the blueish/purple shadow tint on the water and sky bugs me... otherwise I think its your strongest shot of the bunch.

Just curious... any idea what a piranha taste like?

Dunno about the tint, I'd never noticed it before you mentioned it to be honest. It's not from the grad filter, because that only covers the sky, and the tint is in the water as well. WB was set to Cloudy, so I'd have to put it down to the crazy colours that were in the sky that morning. I go out shooting a lot at sunrise and sunset, I've seen a lot of incredible skies, but this is far and away the most amazing sunrise I've ever seen. I was in a canoe with 5 other people, and for some reason, we were all whispering. After I got that shot, I put the camera down and just sat with my wife and enjoyed the moment....an amazing morning.

As for LR3, I've just moved away from LR....it's really disappointing with Nikon cameras. It's Nikon's fault really, because they are a lot more secretive about the NEF (Nikon RAW files) algorithms than the likes of Canon, Sony etc and don't share them with 3rd party producers like Adobe. Because of this, Nikon's proprietary software, Capture NX2 does a much better job of RAW conversion of Nikon files than anything I've seen from Adobe or Apple (I spent a while using Aperture). The colours are 10 times better, Nikon RAW files look pretty flat and dull in LR and always require a bit of Levels work to make them pop.
Convert the files in NX2 and the files require a lot less work in my experience, and it saves a lot of post time. I do much prefer the intuitive interface of LR, but at the same time, NX2 is much better for local fixes and uses the U-Point technology from Nik software's Viveza.
Basically, for someone shooting Nikon, they're not going to be seeing the best of their files if they're not using NX2...which I guess is Nikon's way of selling more software.
 

Bi()ha2arD

Toxic!
Jun 29, 2009
2,808
0
0
Germany
phobos.qml.net
Cheers, glad you like them.

A chunk of my income comes through image sales, so I'm not going to put larger versions of my photos on the internet...even with a watermark.
However, if you send me email me (my address is on my site, which is in my sig) then I'll send you a 1680x1050 version.

mail sent. I promise I won't upload them anywhere :)
 

das_ben

Concerned.
Feb 11, 2000
5,878
0
0
Teutonia
Some photos I took back in November.

[SCREENSHOT]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2532/4227741367_6c55e078d1_b.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

A question of love.

[SCREENSHOT]http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/4228506528_029705c23a_b.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]

Cloudy with a chance of product placement.

[SCREENSHOT]http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4228507882_41a821b30d_b.jpg[/SCREENSHOT]
 
Last edited:

Twisted Metal

Anfractuous Aluminum
Jul 28, 2001
7,122
3
38
39
Long Island, NY
So after months of research I finally settled on the Panasonic GH1. Yeah the color accuracy isn't up there with a good Canon, but it still produces some damn fine photos. And it's a trade off when you look at the video this thing is capable of producing. Continuous autofocus and more of a film look compared to the 7d.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laXM-h69aZE

I'm going to the zoo on Sunday and I reaaaallly wanted to bring it out but temps will be below freezing and we will probably be walking in and out of heated buildings. I don't want condensation forming on my new $1300 toy. So the Canon point and shoot it is!

Pics to come when the weather is decent!
 

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,022
107
63
Nalicity, NC
So after months of research I finally settled on the Panasonic GH1.

The Micro Four Thirds format has some serious advantages!

One being that you have access to a vast amount of forgotten lenses on the market. The kings of yesteryears that hold up quite well. Why have they been forgotten? Because they have been deemed obsolete by autofocus lenses.

I HIGHLY recommend you snag yourself a FD-MFT or MFT/CAN adaptor. Its runs around $200.. but its a good investment because it gives you full access to all of Canons FL/FD lenses.

I have seriously been considering getting a micro 4/3 camera so I can enjoy these fine lenses at a mere fraction of the Auto focus version.

Here is a quick breakdown. MF = Manual Focus price. AF = Autofocus price

50 F1.2 MF:$200 - AF:$1200
50 F1.4 MF:$60 - AF:$320
50 F1.8 MF:$15 - AF:$90
85 F1.2 MF:$570 - AF:$1600
135 F2.0 MF:$250 - AF:$1000
400 F2.8 MF:$1000 - AF:$4000
600 F4.5 MF:$850 - AF:$4500

Keep in mind that because of the 2x crop factor your 400mm lens is now a 800mm lens and it will be using the sharpest part of the lens. The center. You should also know that F2.0 on a 2x crop doesn't feel the same as on a full frame camera. The depth of field will be slightly larger than advertised because of the crop factor.

I think it is also worth mentioning that these FD/FL lenses are not the same as the newer AF lenses although the 85 and 135 lenses are almost identical in image quality. Newer lenses are coated and treated differently than their older counterparts. Another advantage is these lenses where manufactured using materials which are no longer being used. Since then manufacturers have struggled to find alternatives which produce equal results and on the cheap.

You can of course invest in other lenses from other formats. I find the FD lenses to be more of a steal. These lenses do not work on any other camera other than the old Canon's, which nobody uses anymore. Here is a link to what you can do:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09091101novoflex.asp
 

IronMonkey

Moi?
Apr 23, 2005
1,746
0
36
62
Scotland
www.margrave.myzen.co.uk
Another advantage is these lenses were manufactured using materials which were toxic.

Fixed. :)

All of the shots in this thread are great and so to pick some out seems invidious but I love Israphel's shots. Especially, the way that you manage to get rich distinct colours and yet make the shot look as though the colour space was defined by limited palette.
 

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,022
107
63
Nalicity, NC
Haha, By toxic I mean that the lenses where made using lead. Lead and Glass work very well together. This is a material that has been banned in many countries. One of the last lenses created using this process was the legendary 50mm F1.0 and the 200mm F1.8. These are two lenses that have been long discontinued and sell for more than the original retail price.
 

Twisted Metal

Anfractuous Aluminum
Jul 28, 2001
7,122
3
38
39
Long Island, NY
Thanks 007MIKE I'll look into that adaptor. Never knew there was such a huge diff in price between AF and MF lenses.

Do you guys put protective films on your LCD screens? I was thinking about getting something because I would die if this shiny new screen got scratched. Luckily it's a swivel screen so it's not exposed when not in use, but it still worries me.

What about protective filters for the lens? Necessary?

Oh and what's the best way to clean a lens without damaging it?
 
Lens Pen. (You MUST buy one) $10

0075066800161_P255045_500X500.jpg


They do make protective add-ons (atleast for my canon) that screw on to the end of the lens. Usually it's in a filter form like a Polarized or Ultraviolet (which are the 2 I have). I use my Ultraviolet one as a lens protector mostly. Sunpack makes cheap lens filters/covers. However, I don't know how your camera handles these in particular.

And you can pick up those LCD plastic sticky covers for cheap also. I don't have one, but they don't hurt either.

You could probably spend less than $40 and get all 3 things.
 
Last edited:
Depends. I run around in the forest quite a bit trying to find decent pictures (which I obviously fail at) and you always run into thick bushes and trees and stuff. If you don't keep your camera in a bag, and just around your neck or in hand, then it could easily get hit by something.

However if you're just mucking about the city and taking pictures in the open, then yeah, you probably don't need one.
 

Rambowjo

Das Protoss
Aug 3, 2005
5,073
5
38
32
Tapeland
I got a Canon EOS 1000D in the mail today, so I'm probably gonna start posting a little bit in this thread every now and then. I'm really enjoying the thing so far :)
 

OO7MIKE

Mr. Sexy
May 2, 2000
5,022
107
63
Nalicity, NC
Do you guys put protective films on your LCD screens? I was thinking about getting something because I would die if this shiny new screen got scratched. Luckily it's a swivel screen so it's not exposed when not in use, but it still worries me.

I do not use a screen protector. I've never seen any scratches on any of the cameras I have owned. I broke my XTI LCD screen earlier this year and even know it was in many pieces I still didn't see any scratches. A screen protector might have saved it from the blunt force so I don't want to tell you its not a good idea.

Because of my experience I found out how to manually repair cameras. Its so freaking easy I almost felt like opening up a shop. LCD replacement for XTI was $60. Backlight and circuit board was $15. LCD replacement plastic screen was $4. Bottom line: A scratch is not the end of the world. Damaged electronics doesn't mean it is useless. Its just like repairing a PC or a car. You do it one part at a time.


What about protective filters for the lens? Necessary?

Having at least a UV filter on your lens used to be the norm when film was at its prime. All digital cameras have a UV filter built on the sensor so there is no need. If you know your clumsy or you often work around clumsy people you should probably invest in one. Harsh working conditions which was previously mentioned, is another reason.

I would compare having a UV 0 filter with having a condom. Good to have, just in case. Filters will degrade the quality of your images. (albeit very slightly and may not be noticeable to the untrained eye) They are after all cheap pieces of glass. There are some that are sold out there that use higher quality glass but they tend to run about $100+. That sort of defeats the reason for having the filter..to protect your lens.

Most people would rather have a broken filter than a broken front lens element.

I do not use any filters as I am very careful with my things. I do not work in harsh or dangerous conditions. I always want maximum quality with my stuff. One of these days it may bite me in the ass.


Oh and what's the best way to clean a lens without damaging it?

I like the micro fiber cloths that feel like suede. Instead of being really slippery like silk sheets and smearing grease, grit, or dust all around.. they actually grip and hold onto dirt and wipe everything clean and quickly.

Purchase the stuff made for eye glasses. You may have to go to a local optical shop to find one. Don't settle for the crappy gimmicky stuff marketed for camera lenses. Most of that stuff is crap.