Learn more and enjoy the photograph
The purpose of this exercise? I am not sure if I could appreciate it. Maybe the next project would be flying snowflakes in time lapse, coupled with, say, new age music. How about that? Good idea? Is this still the dpreview site with which I was previously familiar?
I will be more interested to see the image quality after converting from 200mm to 400mm (?) using this converter.
Michael Piziak: Several of these photos just don't appear real.Most of them are amazing though.
As far as I could tell, only #6 and this one are not real.
When did the Smithsonian competition start promoting fake art even not overly PS edited. It is surreal and, yes, it is fake. Maybe I am too old school.
Jake64: The Cannonization of Nikon has begun. One model after another that share all too many features of the previous. OLPF removal aside, this is the same camera as the 5200. Even with the filter gone it only satisfies pixel peepers and no one else. But I guess that's what comes down to in the battle for market supremacy. It's pixels people understand and given that every manufacturer of DSLR makes good cameras, the folks looking to buy one to take photos of their newborn will look for quantitative values such as pixels, screen size, and the ability to instantly share their jpegs with a wifi receiver.
Just go for D7100 then.
Without grip, GM1 will likely be a bit small for most of users used to shooting dslr. I wonder if the price is competitive enough with Nex 5 series if one adds optional grip to GM1.
I dislike this new studio setting. I really have hard time differentiating the quality of image between different cameras. Plus, it defeats the opportunity for me to make comparison with previous cameras. Why does dpreview make such a change?
When will the review on 5R be completed? I am waiting to see if the high ISO/low light performance of 5R is comparable with or better than 5N. Could Lars or Richard publish at least the studio test shots? The high ISO of 5N seems better than 6 and 7 and, if 5R is comparable or better, I will go for 5R because of its hybrid focusing and other features. Does it make sense?
I really do not like the layout of this studio test.
I still do not think combining two or more pictures into one is a good photography principle and practice to follow or encourage.
Why does the author involve blending two pictures into one with the gradient tool. The gradient tool can be used without. I just do not see the point.
Very informative. Thank you for posting.
Joe Pineapples: I see no connection between the sample image and the Vermeer masterpiece...
Yes, I see a "quite a good resemblance" but this is not a main point.
The main point is, yes, we could create stunning portrait shot using one light, two lights, bouncing lights, etc. Why mimicking a famous painting, using just one light, black background, etc., becomes a theme here? Why do we restrict ourselves to this principle for exercising portrait photography? Be creative, hosts! I hope you guys are not using the "challenge" as a platform to promote Rick's class.
Thank for the much better explanation. The rule only said to "avoid excessive saturation." I am clear about the theme now, but you have not answered my first part of question. Why this becomes Rick Sammon's style? Camera companies target on improving dynamic range of their camera. We as individual photographers always try to boost the details from shadow without incurring too much noise and control the highlight without loosing the details. What exactly makes Rick Sammon's style of HDR images different?
How is Rick Sammon's style of HDR images different from others? I guess my question is what exactly the style of HDR images I produce fits into this particular "theme." Please advise.
Not at all. The challenge is entitled so to encourage the interested individuals to submit a piece of work they think having the professional quality.
CJ Lan: I am neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, or micro 4/3 users. I use/like a camera as long as it is good in features and practical. Honestly speaking, I do not quite understand the philosophy behind the Pentax design engineers. Not getting into full frame market before jumping into very expensive medium format 645, interchangeable lens system with tiny p&s sensor (Q), now a bulky mirrorless camera. and who knows the next in the future. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the main purpose getting rid of mirror is to achieve portability of a interchangeable lens camera system. What does K-01 try to accomplish in this regard? If just for using the existing line of lenses, I would rather stick with K-5 or any other Pentax APSC for their professional looks, not this as bulky and toy-looking "SLR".
It is interesting that you think the main reason for mirrorless camera is not reduction of size and weight. I wonder what benefits will that be. It already sacrifices the optical viewfinder and faster AF (contrast detect instead of phase detect) featured in the regular DSLR. If not for reduction in size and weights, again, what other advantages does a mirrorless camera offer. Please advise. Maybe I could learn something here.
I am neither Canonian, Nikonian, Pentexian, or micro 4/3 users. I use/like a camera as long as it is good in features and practical. Honestly speaking, I do not quite understand the philosophy behind the Pentax design engineers. Not getting into full frame market before jumping into very expensive medium format 645, interchangeable lens system with tiny p&s sensor (Q), now a bulky mirrorless camera. and who knows the next in the future. Correct me if I am wrong. I thought the main purpose getting rid of mirror is to achieve portability of a interchangeable lens camera system. What does K-01 try to accomplish in this regard? If just for using the existing line of lenses, I would rather stick with K-5 or any other Pentax APSC for their professional looks, not this as bulky and toy-looking "SLR".
(2) You need to experiment the size of hole to avoid vignetting. The first ring I have made/used is the hole that will give me one stop down of the light, which means the diameter of the ring hole is 1/sqrt(2) of the diameter of the adapter flange attached onto the camera. This cheap adapter with home-made ring serves me well. I do not notice degrading in image quality.
You might wonder how many sizes of rings one needs to make and it will be inconvenient to swap them. In fact, for micro 4/3 cameras, the sweet aperture is around f4-f5.6. Too small ring hole should be used with caution to avoid diffraction limits and loss of sharpness. Therefore, so far, I have only used one fixed size ring mentioned above, which gives me one stop down of light. I also found it is useful to avoid shutter speed go out of ceiling (1/4000 for my Oly EPL2), in particular under bright sunlight.
Some Canon lenses such as EF-S 10-22mm could NOT work with the adapter with built-in aperture control, due to the extruding rear element. This happens to be one of my favorate lenses. What should one do? Well, here is the poor man adapter. Simply buy the simple Chiese-made adapter (w/o aperture control) around $15 bucks and then attach a home-made ring.
Several coveats though:
(1) ring needs to be higher quality plastic otherwise you will leave lints around th edge after you cut it into shape. You do not want the lints to get onto sensor or inside the camera body. It is also preferrable to use black, non-reflective material to avoid internal light refection.
You could unfocus but, the problem is, can you refocus!