HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

I love your shot of the SBS, Pomai. All my shots of it are boring stuck-in-Pearl-Harbor ones. I like how you focused on the surfers, with the SBS far in the background.

Still, I got the shot!

Exactly! You can't take the shot if: 1) you're not there, 2) you don't have a camera with you.

Compact point-n-shoot cameras are great. A wide range of focal lengths in a small package, without the hassle of changing lenses (28mm-560mm on the Canon SX10). You can also get decent up close macro shots. If your camera can do at least 1 frame per second of continuous shooting (by holding down the button), you can capture many candid moments. My daughter's face goes through 3 different emotions within 5 seconds. When she starts talking, I just hold down the button.

If only I had a DSLR, this shot would be so much less noisy, more vivid and crisp.

Even if you have a DSLR, a PnS makes a great scouting camera. See something mildly interesting during a lunch break stroll? Take a shot. Take a bunch. Experiment with different focal lengths and compositions (the angle you take the shot, which objects you decide to include in the picture, and their location relative to each other). When you get home, most of the pictures will be so-so, but some will be really cool. Later you can go back with your DSLR and try to recapture the scene (hopefully).

But yeah, a DSLR with a decent lense is nice. It's easy to get caught up in the bleeding edge hype, but you can get very good results with an entry level DSLR and affordable lenses. The performnce is more than enough for pictures displayed over the Internet.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

What scares me is that it's run by civilian contractors.

Government workers can be just as incompetent as civilian ones (if that's your concern). In either case, quality still depends on adequate funding and leadership.

The military can be real anal and force civilian contractors to comply with a lot of regulations. I heard at one civilian facility, all vistors must be accompanied by military personnel who carry a flashing red strobe (think police lights), to warn everyone to hide sensitive material.

[AlohaKine]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

WTF is that?! Is it permanent? Couldn't it have been placed in a less obvious place? How much did it cost?

I read X-band is a $900 million dollar project.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

using up all its 12x optical zoom, plus digital (24x total) capability.

Another technique you can try is to skip the digital zoom in the camera and do it on the computer instead, via Cropping. The advantage of this is you can compose the final image exactly how you like it. Want the SBS in the top left corner? Sure. Change your mind and want it in the top right? No problem. Want two versions of the same photo? Why not?

The disadvantage is it takes a little more time. If you prefer to take the shot, live with what you get, and be done with it, then cropping might not be the thing for you. You could save it for the occasional shot, instead of using it all the time.

But for me, I enjoy cropping more than taking the photo itself. You can totally change the feel of a photo by how you crop it. You'll notice charming little details you were unaware of at first. It's like unearthing buried treasure.

All photo software allow you to crop, even the free stuff you can download or the ones which come with your computer. It doesn't require an expensive computer to do. It's also fairly quick; you can spend as much or as little time cropping as you want.

I guess I should mention one thing. When you use digital zoom in your camera, it does two things: it crops (which throws away pixels) and then it enlarges (it creates pretend pixels to get your picture file back up to 3072 x 2304).

I don't bother with enlarging, because most computers and websites will do it for you when you view the picture. If you want to do the enlarging permanently, it could also be done in software. The advantage is the quality can be better than what your camera produces (though it all depends on the quality of the software you use).

Taking advantage of having an ultra-zoom lens, I was also able to get good detail of Rocky's face this afternoon, as she took her beauty nap

I love the detail/texture in Rocky's face. And I thought I had a scruffy face!

[Pomai]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Another technique you can try is to skip the digital zoom in the camera and do it on the computer

Speaking of which, I discovered the 12x Optical zoom (plus digital) feature also makes this camera capable of serving as a monocular (single lens version of binoculars).

Take the SBX image for example: took the shot, then when previewing the image via the camera's LCD (or EVF viewfinder), used the zoom-in to further zoom in on the shot. This is where using the highest resolution setting (7 megapixels in this camera's case) came in handy. Doing this, I could see details of the distant subject (SBX) that would otherwise no-way be seen by the naked eye.

Of course, then importing and seeing the shot on the computer screen could see much more detail.

As far as using (pixel-squeezing) digital zoom (vs. lens-based optical), I'm not an advocate of it, but hey, when you're desperate for the (in this case VERY distant) shot, I'll take whatever I can squeeze out of it! No way Photoshop (or any other applications) could have compensated (got that relative detail) by just cropping in on it.

Speaking of pixels, what do you think about shooting in RAW format (vs. compressed/pre-processed JPG)?

Personally I don't have the (post-processing) time or hard drive space to deal with that when I get a (prosumer or DSLR) camera that offers the RAW option.

[AlohaKine]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

This is Hong Kong in 2000. Note the light rail track size and the rollers to prevent it from a derailment. People take this thing not day to day but for the view from victoria peak.

[AlohaKine]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

And this is where its going. Victoria Peak - What a view.

[D'Alani]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Do they still have that tram that takes you up to Victoria Peak? Back in the 60's-early 70's there was a tram that hung on a wire that took people up to the peak. It was pretty hairy riding in that thing.

[AlohaKine]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

It is all rail now. Some parts are geared that stop the tram from slipping backwards. There are gear teeth in the middle of the rails.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

And this is where its going. Victoria Peak - What a view.

Nice shot, AlohaKine. That one building looks likes a big ol' Lite Brite.

Speaking of which, I discovered the 12x Optical zoom (plus digital) feature also makes this camera capable of serving as a monocular (single lens version of binoculars).

Oh I never thought of that, Pomai. You definitely would need the digital zoom in that situation.

I guess another situation where you'd want digital zoom is if you're trying to time your shot for a specific moment, like when the surfer's face is turned towards you. Without the digital zoom, you might not see it happen on the LCD screen.

No way Photoshop (or any other applications) could have compensated (got that relative detail) by just cropping in on it.

When it comes to digital processing, a desktop computer will always out perform a camera, so the question is whether we really need that extra quality. For average consumers like ourselves, probably not.

Going back to the first part of my statement, a camera's built-in, battery-powered processor can't compete with a desktop's quad-core, 200 watt, processor. Also, the camera has to cut corners, so it can update your LCD screen at 30 fps (or whatever it is). A computer program could take "hours" to do the enlargement, if you really wanted the quality.

I hear Alien Skin's "Blow Up" plug-in for Photoshop sets the bar for photo enlarging. It's probably overkill, unless you're a professional.

Speaking of pixels, what do you think about shooting in RAW format (vs. compressed/pre-processed JPG)?

There are many professional photographers who earn a living shooting just JPG. They're too busy to deal with a RAW workflow, and they're happy with the results they get out of their camera.

RAW basically gives you a safety net, so you can correct for bad exposure or poor color balance. As some people say, if you shoot it right the first time, you don't need RAW.

On the other hand, flash-cards/hard-drives quickly get larger and cheaper; so do computers. An 8GB speed class 6 SDHC card costs just $20 on Amazon. $114 can get you a 1TB hard drive. Hardware will soon become a non-issue (depending on your budget, I suppose). The one issue which will remain is the extra work and time it takes to process your RAW files, but it's possible to automate most of the work.

From an artistic point of view, RAW does give you more elbow room to experiment.


For myself, I tend to shoot JPG by default. Especially when photographing children, where I machine gun my camera. If there's a lot going on, I can easily put 2,000 JPGs on a card (most of them are crap, though ). My camera can shoot at full rate for about 50 JPG's, before it slows down. Only 4 with RAW.

Now if it's a special event, where I'd hate myself if I ruined a good shot, like say a wedding, I'll go with RAW. It's amazing how much detail you can pull out of the shadows. It's like going back in time and turning on the flash when you forgot to use it. I also use RAW for shots where I spent a lot of effort setting it up (if I remember to switch to RAW, that is )

I tell my software to auto correct all the RAW files. My monitor isn't color calibrated, and I don't always trust my eyes. I'll browse through the results, and if I really want to hand tweak one, I'll spend the time on it.

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Sunsets in Manoa.

These are Photoshop'ed. Even though the sun was setting, the sky was still bright, so it drowned out the colors (like a faint rainbow). What I did was darken the sky but left the colors, thereby increasing the contrast.

[Pomai]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Now if it's a special event, where I'd hate myself if I ruined a good shot, like say a wedding, I'll go with RAW.

Good Lord. Now there's a nightmare come true! Wedding Photographers have got to be one of the most underappreciated professionals out there. Ack!

Great tips! I read all you said.

Those sunset shots in Manoa are stunning! They almost have the texture of Koa wood. See it? I'd frame them and put it on the wall. Really nice.

Contributing more photos here are some of the better shots I took this past Halloween night at The Shack Waikiki, starting with a "Thrilling" Michael Jackson impersonator...



A Portuguese Man O' War...



A Nun that needs all the blessings she can get...

[Pomai]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Continuing with a few more from The Shack Waikiki this past Halloween night, here's an Oscarette...



She almost looks like an Alien. lol A beautiful one, indeed!

This is classic...



The person behind the mask is a dude, who cut out the eyes and mouth area, making it look rather creepy, yet funny all at the same time. lol

GNR's Slash...

[MyopicJoe]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Good Lord. Now there's a nightmare come true! Wedding Photographers have got to be one of the most underappreciated professionals out there.

No kidding. I'd stress out too much being the main photographer at a wedding. I rather let the professionals take the timeless shots of the bride and groom, while I photograph the guests having fun (I'd probably have more fun myself!).

They almost have the texture of Koa wood. See it?

You know, now that you mention it, the light does look like Koa wood. That's an interesting way of seeing it. Thanks for the description!

A Portuguese Man O' War...

Heh, he's my favorite. I guess that's one good thing about Halloween: everyone is less camera shy. They want to be noticed, they can hide behind a costume, and I'm sure the booze helps


Do any of you folks regularly take pictures of strangers? I'm not comfortable doing that, but I suppose it's a skill which can be practiced. A handy talent, for those who do it naturally.

Though sometimes a camera makes it easier to strike up a conversation with a stranger, especially when you're not taking their portrait, but rather shooting an activity they are engrossed in.

[sophielynette]

Re: HT's Photo Sharing Thread - Chapter 4

Do any of you folks regularly take pictures of strangers? I'm not comfortable doing that, but I suppose it's a skill which can be practiced. A handy talent, for those who do it naturally.

Though sometimes a camera makes it easier to strike up a conversation with a stranger, especially when you're not taking their portrait, but rather shooting an activity they are engrossed in.

I did an internship for a magazine and had to photograph strangers a bit. Once I settled into the job I didn't really feel subconscious, because I knew it was my job, what I was supposed to be doing. But if I'm just taking photos for myself I'm a lot more subtle about photographing other people, because I somehow feel like it's not something I'm supposed to be doing.