dominikov

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on May 4, 2009

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

SirSeth: I've heard (but have yet to experience) that a tilt-shift lens can be a great gear choice for wild flower vistas. It lets you tilt the focus plane to include small foreground objects and distant mountains without needing to focus stack or use an f-stop that might bring in diffraction limitations.

@SirSeth Rich's advice is spot on. It's also worth keeping in mind a little tilt goes a long way.

With no tilt applied, visualize the plane of focus extending out parallel to the sensor plane. Now imagine there are some trees in the shot close to the lens extending into the top of the frame. As you apply tilt, you're now shifting the plane of focus away from the tops of those trees.

If you're already shooting with a wider aperture (i.e. low light or windy conditions where you need a faster shutter speed) there's a good chance those objects at the top of the frame are way out of focus.

Camera position is critical. If you've positioned your camera level with or above a subject like wildflowers and the only landscape in the frame above those flowers are some mountains in the distance and the sky, you can apply a lot more tilt.

To summarize, when it's applied correctly for scenes that it's suited to, tilt will produce results that are only possible with focus stacking.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 14:12 UTC
On article Canon EOS-1D X Mark II: What you need to know (147 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nick Brundle - Photography: Looking forward to the new Canon 5D Mk IV coming on August 25, 2016, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III & the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II.
That is news.....

"pros know what's best"

More like pros use what they're given.

Getty provided its photographers in Rio Canon gear.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 08:23 UTC
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: OK, I'll bite. My personal opinion is that these images - like the waterfall ones in the previous 'how to..', are awful. Focus stacking, Orton effect, oversaturation, high contrast; all deployed for immediate visual effect. Rather than depicting real landscapes, this type of image aims for an idealised landscape that doesn't exist in the real world. They are to landscape photography what kitten photos are to wildlife photography - calendar fodder.
Just expressing my views, which others will not agree with. There's no universal right or wrong here, but I thought another perspective might be thought-provoking.

@quietrich, nothing wrong with striving to accurately capture what you see however a two dimensional medium is never going to convey what it's like to be standing there so a little artistic license for print is generally needed to compensate for that.

That might involve shadows being a little brighter than they were or a sky darker and more saturated than it actually was — the list goes on.

It was going on long before DSLRs and Photoshop showed up. Film wasn't accurate but then it usually added character. Flat raw files look sterile and boring SOOC and usually need a little refinement. Some might take it too far however it's completely subjective and there are no rules.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2016 at 03:52 UTC
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (59 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: OK, I'll bite. My personal opinion is that these images - like the waterfall ones in the previous 'how to..', are awful. Focus stacking, Orton effect, oversaturation, high contrast; all deployed for immediate visual effect. Rather than depicting real landscapes, this type of image aims for an idealised landscape that doesn't exist in the real world. They are to landscape photography what kitten photos are to wildlife photography - calendar fodder.
Just expressing my views, which others will not agree with. There's no universal right or wrong here, but I thought another perspective might be thought-provoking.

@quietrich, post some of your own work. It's easy to be a critic. Put up some of your own photos for scrutiny.

Chris, thanks for sharing.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2016 at 08:08 UTC
On article Nikon issues firmware updates for D4 and D800/D800E (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

draculavn: Bye bye nikon. I will buy a 5D mark 3

I lost count of the 5Dmk2 updates. Where are they at now, 2.1.2?

After nearly 4 years, until last week, the D700 only needed 2. Most aren't even installing the 3rd one.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2012 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

gl2k: Unfortunately this is not the only problem. Seems that the D800 is plagued from quite a few issues.
Fix them and I'll buy it.

No one cares whether you buy it or not because a lot of us who pre-ordered in the first few days still haven't got one yet.

Link | Posted on May 4, 2012 at 22:15 UTC
On article Just posted: Nikon D800 test samples (423 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathantw: The 645D looks so much better when it comes to the label on the bottle. You can actually tell it's a printed label at ISO 50 since you can see the little dots. I might bypass the D800 and just get a medium format back instead.

Sounds like a tough decision considering how close they are in price. You know, $3000 vs. $10,000 :)

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2012 at 07:13 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7