Photography

[Jim143]

A mixture of trips - from Vegas, to Valley Forge to DC over the last decade

Bellagio





Caesars Palace



New York, NY



Paris



Venetian



Venetian, Second Floor



Devils Den (Dive site I like to dive at)







Washington, DC

I took the pictures of Vietnam Memorial for my Brother-in-Law





I took the pictures of Illinois and Pacific for my Father-in-Law (where he grew up and where he served)





I took the pictures of Korean War Memorial for my Wife's Uncle





I took the pictures of Police Memorial for all the police in our family and for the local Deputy who lost his life in the line of duty a few months before this trip.  I have a picture of his name etched in the wall, but I did not post it here.



Valley Forge

[LennG]

Jim

Great pics.

As I have said several times, DC is just a remarkable city, especially for a photographer. Everytime we go I always make it a point to visit the Black Wall. I was only in Viet Nam for a very short time (TDY 3 weeks in DaNang) but I did lose a couple of good friends there and always make a point in paying my respects when there.  Also love your shots of the Korean War memorial. The fact hat it was a rainy day and the figures are wearing , what appears to be rainwear, even though, I know it's not, just adds something to the pic.

Funny, last time we were in Valley Forge, i was still using film, so whatever pics I have are buried away somewhere. Valley Forge and Gettysburg are two places I have to revisit, in the digital age. It has been a while for both places.

Funny, when my kids were young, we always went to Hershey Amusement Park last week in August, evey year. IN PA, kids went back to school that week, so the park was 1/2 empty. I never realized that Getysburg is only about an hour away form there, so one year we decided to educate the kids and spent a few days there. I immediately fell in love with the Civil War and from then on I just cannot get enough info on it. We have had the good fortune to be able to visit many of the battlefields. Can't say my wife enjoys it too much, but she knows I love it, so she goes along. But Gettysburg started it all. Got to get back.

Keep them coming.

[LennG]

I actually like that shot of the surfer. You don't know that he is surfing per se, but you can see speed, movement and action. I think it's an interesting picture.
I can't tell you how many times I've made "mistakes" that turn out to be something good!

Frank

I am with Ozzie on this, I LOVE the surfer pix. Just looking at it shows action color and just sets the mood. Do you ahve what the original looked like before yoiu made it what it is? Just curious and I am simply amazed what one can do with pics with software and knowledge.

[LennG]

Lets give you some 'screen savers' today. Something for every season

I always use my own photo's for screen savers, so if you like them, save away.

[ozzie]

Beautiful Lenn, but I need six more to make a calendar!! 

[LennG]

Beautiful Lenn, but I need six more to make a calendar!! 

    Lou

I make up a calendar every year with some of my pix. But lately it has just been pix of me and the missus. But you gave me a good laugh because, as I said, that is exactly what I used to do.

PS. Don't worry, more to follow.

[Shoelessjoe]

Frank

I am with Ozzie on this, I LOVE the surfer pix. Just looking at it shows action color and just sets the mood. Do you have what the original looked like before you made it what it is? Just curious and I am simply amazed what one can do with pics with software and knowledge.

Lenn, I've attached the original picture below (surfer not cropped).  I wasn't happy with the results but it was a learning experience.  When listening and talking to experienced photographers they all say that they take a lot and out of many they may get only 4 maybe 5 that they are happy with.  One man that I respect as a photographer a lot in the camera club that I belong to told me that he went on a  photographic trip to Alaska last year and of 6,000 pictures that he took he had a handful, maybe 4 or 5 at the most that he liked.

Let's say on a shoot where I take say 500 pictures the first thing that I do after loading them into Lightroom is rate each photo with a 5 star rating system.  One and two stars being bad, 3 star is worth a second look while 4 is worth working on with Lightroom.  One and two star are deleted.  I almost never get a 5 star photo.  The fishing boat is a good example of a 5 star photo.  Very rare.  The sunset photo above was a 4 star.

Surfer not cropped (3 star).


This is the first picture in a series (3 star). 


This is a second (3 star).


Wipe out (4 star).

[Jim143]

I know the digital world has changed photography a lot.  In the film based world, when I was shooting track meets or anything fast, I would use a faster speed film.  In High School, all I knew was 400 iso.  I have some good pictures of me pole vaulting (a friend who is now a professional photographer used my camera).  I wish is still had it, but last day of senior year for the class two grades ahead of me, some of the guys with muscle cars decided to smoke the tires in the parking lot.  I had a great black and white photo of an old GTO, smoke billowing off the back tires, yet the speed of the film stopped the tires to where you could read the white lettering on the tires.

In Japan, I learned that FujiFilm made 800 iso and I learned you could "push" it at higher speeds.  I ran 800 iso, pushed to 1200 iso for Air Shows.  Those were some great pictures that I wish I could find.  They are in a box somewhere in the house.  For closeups and portraits, 100 or 200 iso was the best.

So, my question - in the digital world, can you change the iso or does that even exist anymore?  I am wondering because in the film world, I would push the iso for a clearer photo on the surfer.  This is in NO way a slam on the picture.  I know how hard it is to capture a moving target.  And the distance from the shore to the wave, and him moving quickly, those are good pictures.

[Ron in NJ]

I know the digital world has changed photography a lot.  In the film based world, when I was shooting track meets or anything fast, I would use a faster speed film.  In High School, all I knew was 400 iso.  I have some good pictures of me pole vaulting (a friend who is now a professional photographer used my camera).  I wish is still had it, but last day of senior year for the class two grades ahead of me, some of the guys with muscle cars decided to smoke the tires in the parking lot.  I had a great black and white photo of an old GTO, smoke billowing off the back tires, yet the speed of the film stopped the tires to where you could read the white lettering on the tires.

In Japan, I learned that FujiFilm made 800 iso and I learned you could "push" it at higher speeds.  I ran 800 iso, pushed to 1200 iso for Air Shows.  Those were some great pictures that I wish I could find.  They are in a box somewhere in the house.  For closeups and portraits, 100 or 200 iso was the best.

So, my question - in the digital world, can you change the iso or does that even exist anymore?  I am wondering because in the film world, I would push the iso for a clearer photo on the surfer.  This is in NO way a slam on the picture.  I know how hard it is to capture a moving target.  And the distance from the shore to the wave, and him moving quickly, those are good pictures.

ISO still exists but for the most part it is automatically adjusted as a function of shutter speed and aperture.

On mid level and up digital SLR cameras, You can force the camera to capture at a desired ISO if you want.

[LennG]

ISO still exists but for the most part it is automatically adjusted as a function of shutter speed and aperture.

On mid level and up digital SLR cameras, You can force the camera to capture at a desired ISO if you want.

Ron hit it right on. like on my camera. I usually always leave it on auto which sets everything from light to speed including ISO. But I do take that off auto sometimes if I am in very low light and when trying to shoot other things.

Jim

I know exactly what you are talking about with the higher speed films. I usually always used 400, but have used 800 at times, never tried the 1600. It's funny, I am cleaing out my workroom and found about 20 rolls of film that I had put away years ago. Gosh it has to be maybe 10-15 years old if not more. Now they are garbage.

[LennG]

So let's finish Ozzie's calender

Just a few more, what I like to refer to as 'screen savers'

[Jim143]

Give me that snow covered house any day over this hell called summer in Florida.  I can only take off so much clothing (legally - and still have somewhat nice neighbors) but in snow, I can put on as much as I need.  Honestly, it isn't much. I still dont wear a jacket until it's under 30 degrees. . . .

[Shoelessjoe]

I know the digital world has changed photography a lot.  In the film based world, when I was shooting track meets or anything fast, I would use a faster speed film.  In High School, all I knew was 400 iso.  I have some good pictures of me pole vaulting (a friend who is now a professional photographer used my camera).  I wish is still had it, but last day of senior year for the class two grades ahead of me, some of the guys with muscle cars decided to smoke the tires in the parking lot.  I had a great black and white photo of an old GTO, smoke billowing off the back tires, yet the speed of the film stopped the tires to where you could read the white lettering on the tires.

In Japan, I learned that FujiFilm made 800 iso and I learned you could "push" it at higher speeds.  I ran 800 iso, pushed to 1200 iso for Air Shows.  Those were some great pictures that I wish I could find.  They are in a box somewhere in the house.  For closeups and portraits, 100 or 200 iso was the best.

So, my question - in the digital world, can you change the iso or does that even exist anymore?  I am wondering because in the film world, I would push the iso for a clearer photo on the surfer.  This is in NO way a slam on the picture.  I know how hard it is to capture a moving target.  And the distance from the shore to the wave, and him moving quickly, those are good pictures.

When I first started ISO was know as ASA or (American Standards Association).  That changed to ISO (International Standards Organization) in 1987. 

To understand ISO you really need to understand the exposure triangle.  There are 3 parts to the photographic exposure triangle Aperture, shutter speed and ISO.

Aperture is the opening of the lens.  The larger the aperture the more light is let in however,  you sacrifice depth of field (DOF) or the area of the picture that is in focus with a larger aperture lens opening.  The smaller the opening the greater the greater the DOF.  If you open the aperture you can create an effect know as bokeh which is the blurring of the background.  This helps you to direct the viewer to look at a subject that is closer to you such as a person.  If you open or close the aperture to the maximum you may see out of focus pictures in the 4 corners while the center may be in focus.  As you look to the center of the picture it should be more in focus.  Move the aperture to the middle f stops of say f8 or f11 and the edges becomes more in focus.  These f stops are the sweet spot of the lens.

Shutter speed is speed at which you expose the sensor to light.  The faster the shutter means less light but you can then freeze action.  The slower the shutter means more light but action will be blurred like the picture of the surfer that I shot.  That was shot at 1/13 of a second while it should have been between 1/500 and 1/1000 of a second at a minimum.

Now for ISO.  You can set the ISO to whatever you choose just like your film with an ISO of 400 or pushed to 800.  Contrary to some thoughts ISO doesn't allow more or less light onto the sensor.  Instead it changes the sensitivity of the sensor and how it reads the light and adjust but the same amount of light is hitting the sensor based on the aperture and shutter.  The higher the number the more sensitive which means the less light you need to get detail in shadows.  With film, the lower ISO rating meant that the film acetate were very fine, thus producing a smoother, cleaner image. A higher ISO had larger, jagged grains, thus producing

[Jim143]

When I first started ISO was know as ASA or (American Standards Association).  That changed to ISO (International Standards Organization) in 1987. 

I got my first real camera - a Yashika from my uncle stationed in Sapporo, Japan in 1977.  I honestly dont remember the ASA standard.  I upgraded that to an Olympus OM1 in 1980 with a motor drive and two telephoto lenses so I could do sports for the school yearbook.  I added a bounce flash for awards ceremonies and other indoor activities for the year book

[Shoelessjoe]

One thing further if anyone is looking at buying a camera or any gear for that matter be it lens', flashes, tripods or whatever let's discuss it.  Someone here might have a different perspective about it.  For example, I purchased a used nikon D5300 around 2017 through Amazon.  Loved the camera did great with it but I saw a deal for the Nikon D7200 which was a significant upgrade from the D5300.  Nikon was closing out the D7200 and had placed a significant reduction on it's price.  I went to MPB which is a reputable company that deals with buying and selling of used equipment.  They gave me a quote on the D5300 that was good so off went the camera along with an old D60 that I had.  They examined it and found the sensor to be scratched which meant that the camera was worthless.  They took the D60 off my hands at a decent price but not the D5300.  I believe that the camera sensor was scratched when I got it used through Amazon but can't prove it.  It was one of those secondary companies that Amazon deals with where you think you are buying online from Amazon but you are not dealing with them directly.  From now on I only deal with 2 companies for cameras, B&H Photo and Adorama the official camera store of the NY Giants.  The D7200 was new when I got it from B&H and was under warranty when I got it.

Buyer beware.  I say all this because if someone here is planing on investing in something that cost a lot maybe someone here has had dealings with whomever and could help and guide in the correct direction.  Also, we may have experience with buying certain products and can help so if anyone needs any advice please feel free to raise any questions you may have.

By the way this has not stopped me from looking at equipment.  I just got new flash equipment and will be working with that to learn the use of it.  Just another fun thing to do.  Also, going forward I will be looking to get into full frame mirrorless cameras and may even make a switch to a Sony which is considered to be the best of mirrorless.  In the next 5 years most pros and hobbyist will have moved to mirrorless it is not will but when they will make the switch.  What can be done with the newer cameras are remarkable and Sony right now has at least a two year advantage over Nikon and Cannon.  The Sony auto focus system is some of the most remarkable camera equipment out there.  Nikon and Cannon are hurting.  They lost out on the low end camera market when the cell phone moved in and took over that part of the market and when Sony came out with the advancements in mirrorless that was another area they lost.  There market is being cut at both ends and they may have nowhere to go.