Official BeyondUnreal Photography Thread

[Bi()ha2arD]

Catte

[aCRaSSiCauDa]

Originally Posted by Bi()ha2arD

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/53927931/IMG_9973.jpg

Catte

Amazing shot!

[Vaskadar]

Heh, cool.

[OO7MIKE]

Originally Posted by IronMonkey

Envy!

Like dodgy left-hand focus points or an oil slick on the sensor?

I was really quite tempted by the idea of an upgrade to the D600 (as Nikon no doubt intended - it's full frame D7000) but the ongoing tales of woe put me off the idea.

I was tempted to have a D600 back up but then I read that that the AF is basically the same as a D7000 with some improvements. After speaking with a fellow photographer who also does low light work he basically wrote it off. Works great when you have light but the AF hunts way too much when it gets a little dark. That just wouldn't work for me considering most of what I do is at ISO 1600-6400+.

The D800 is tempting but but I would have to exclusively use it in sunlight or with studio strobes.

Well I was able to do my first shoot with the D3s and I have to say that the performance is very similar to a D700. Some things that really stand out:

1. AF is the same but when things get super dark and I have to push it to ISO 8000.. the AF still locks on really well.
2. ISO performance is excellent. ISO 6400 really does look just like ISO 3200 on the D700.
3. I am blown away by the files. You can recover highlights and keep a lot of shadow details much better than the D700. The files are a pleasure to work with in ACR.
4. Dynamic range and color sensitivity is a bump up from the D700. The colors are just beautiful at High ISO settings.
5. The camera isnt as heavy as you think, in fact the D700 with grip feels heavier.
6. Battery life is stellar. I did two shoots last week laster 5 hours total using VR2 and blew through 6k photos and I now officially have 1 bar of battery life left. I'm confident these will last through a wedding easy.

I still have a D700 and I havent touched it since getting the D3s. I like the D3s so much I might try and get a second one or I may just pick up a D800. Not sure right now. I love my D700 and its a worthy back up camera

[IronMonkey]

Originally Posted by OO7MIKE

I was tempted to have a D600 back up but then I read that that the AF is basically the same as a D7000 with some improvements. After speaking with a fellow photographer who also does low light work he basically wrote it off. Works great when you have light but the AF hunts way too much when it gets a little dark. That just wouldn't work for me considering most of what I do is at ISO 1600-6400+.

Speaking as the owner of a genuine D7000 focus module who does a lot of work in the ISO1600+ area, the low light sensitivity is not actually that bad (as in, I really haven't experienced any issues at all - perhaps there is a problem with very low light but certainly not with even modestly lit indoor scenes). The D600 version is (afaik) rather more sensitive and should offer better low light performance.

The real issue for the D600 (and one of the other reasons that put me off) is that the autofocus module is sized for a DX sensor and that means the focus-capable zone is quite a small portion of the field of view on a FX sensor. Sucks if you use 3D tracking a lot (I do).

[DRT-Maverick]

I'm shooting with a Pentax K20D.

I've been wanting to get into portraiture for awhile but never really had a good lens setup for it. I finally got a 50mm F1.4 lens so I can achieve that beautiful boca background.



I also like Balloons.



Here's a good shot.

[BillyBadAss]

Originally Posted by DRT-Maverick

I'm shooting with a Pentax K20D.

I've been wanting to get into portraiture for awhile but never really had a good lens setup for it. I finally got a 50mm F1.4 lens so I can achieve that beautiful boca background.

The last two shots I like, but if you don't mind I would like to give you a tip on the first shot. You have her face on the 0 latitude line so her face is just right of the center of the shot. This makes it kind of boring composition wise. I would of also got closer so she fills the shot more. She's a cute girl, so get up in that ****.

[DRT-Maverick]

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated. Also is there any really good portraiture book I can look into? I'm shooting a wedding in a couple months and I've got people who will help me practice, I just need to learn how to pose people.

[Twisted Metal]

Anyone know why programs such as photoshop and windows photo viewer make images look so dull and lifeless, while opening the same image in Paint or Firefox (and I presume other web browsers) makes the image so much more vibrant? Do they interpret colors differently or what? It's kind of annoying that there's no consistency. How do I know if people are seeing the dull version or the vibrant version of my photos? There's a huge difference! All depends on the program they are using to view the photo I guess...

[shadow_dragon]

Shot this last week.
There are two fussy bits in the middle'ish moving downwards.
One is andromeda, the other is a comet. (Panstarrs)

A still shot:

Originally Posted by Twisted Metal

Anyone know why programs such as photoshop and windows photo viewer make images look so dull and lifeless, while opening the same image in Paint or Firefox (and I presume other web browsers) makes the image so much more vibrant? Do they interpret colors differently or what? It's kind of annoying that there's no consistency. How do I know if people are seeing the dull version or the vibrant version of my photos? There's a huge difference! All depends on the program they are using to view the photo I guess...

Ah the fickle bastard that is color management,.
I generally set my gear to adobe standards tbh because I don't know better, I also don't calibrate my monitor, I just proof the image on multiple devices instead. You can't trust browsers really and also bear in mind that if the viewer you're using has a dark background you'll perceive the image differently to if it has a pale background, etc.

For your image editing applications I would suggest googling the problem. I honestly don't have any tips I'd rely on too much i'm afraid. I only look into it to ensure stuff I produce for print is going to come out vaguely as i'd expect.

[Rambowjo]

Originally Posted by Twisted Metal

Anyone know why programs such as photoshop and windows photo viewer make images look so dull and lifeless, while opening the same image in Paint or Firefox (and I presume other web browsers) makes the image so much more vibrant? Do they interpret colors differently or what? It's kind of annoying that there's no consistency. How do I know if people are seeing the dull version or the vibrant version of my photos? There's a huge difference! All depends on the program they are using to view the photo I guess...

Try opening your JPEGs in Chrome

[Zxanphorian]

Originally Posted by shadow_dragon

Shot this last week.
There are two fussy bits in the middle'ish moving downwards.
One is andromeda, the other is a comet. (Panstarrs)

A still shot:

Were you able to see the comet with your naked eye? I tried to see it when it was most visible and failed to find it. But it compared to Andromeda (which I know I can see as a fuzzy spot with my eyes without help) gives me a good frame of reference.

[BillyBadAss]

Originally Posted by Twisted Metal

Anyone know why programs such as photoshop and windows photo viewer make images look so dull and lifeless, while opening the same image in Paint or Firefox (and I presume other web browsers) makes the image so much more vibrant? Do they interpret colors differently or what? It's kind of annoying that there's no consistency. How do I know if people are seeing the dull version or the vibrant version of my photos? There's a huge difference! All depends on the program they are using to view the photo I guess...

Embed a color profile in Photoshop.

[shadow_dragon]

Originally Posted by Zxanphorian

Were you able to see the comet with your naked eye? I tried to see it when it was most visible and failed to find it. But it compared to Andromeda (which I know I can see as a fuzzy spot with my eyes without help) gives me a good frame of reference.

No sadly not, it's binoculars only. I only found it by snapping the area of the sky I knew it should be and then reviewing the image on the camera.

I think it's just about still there but it's getting more and more faint.

[OO7MIKE]

I just got off the phone with PCB customer support. They are the folks who make Alien Bee lights. I was needing a replacement screw for a large softbox. They gave it to me for free. Sweet!! Looks like some small replacement parts are free. That is super cool of them. I also purchased another cybersync receiver. It's good to have a few extras.

[Israphel]

Originally Posted by OO7MIKE

I like the D3s so much I might try and get a second one or I may just pick up a D800. Not sure right now. I love my D700 and its a worthy back up camera

I've been using one of these




since November. It actually works great side by side with my D3. They compliment each other really well. Dynamic range is incredible, and the capacity to pull information out of the shadows is astonishing. It's a truly truly amazing camera. I've used it on quite a few jobs already, and shooting in some pretty dark churches or shooting my God daughter running around has given the AF a pretty sound test. I've not had any problems with it yet. If anything, it's marginally better than my D3 at tracking a moving target.
I actually got it more for landscapes as I'm running quite a few workshops this year, and getting more and more requests for large prints, so 12mp was starting to feel a little restrictive.
As for resolution, words don't do it justice. This is a snapshot of my God daughter (taken during a rare occasion when she was sitting still). No processing, taken at f2.8 with the 17-35mm (not the sharpest aperture of not the sharpest lens). In the blow up, you can clearly see me reflected in her eye, a table full of food, and the window and the street behind me.
These have been resized for the web, but seeing the full size images on screen or in print just blows every other digital file I've ever seen out of the water.
It's a beautiful camera Mike, you won't regret getting one.

[OO7MIKE]

Very nice Sir! I knew it was only a matter of time before you got a D800. I am too impressed with how much detail is in the shadows and how well you can recover a underexposed photograph. The D800E is on my list. Three problems for me are cost to upgrade, file sizes (will need to get more 32gig cards and I already have 3) and the strange performance with ISO usage. I'm impressed with how clean the high ISO files are compared to the D700 above ISO 3200 but the colors just start to break down and it has a strange purple cast. The purple cast can be corrected in photoshop but thats a bit more time than I want to spend per photograph. I may have to restrict its usage for daylight and studio work (ISO 100 - 400)

Don't get me wrong, I am looking forward to owning one.

[aCRaSSiCauDa]

Finally some sun for a few days