Home Forums Gear Photography A Tide of new Photo Posters

Now that's a penis envy lens if ever I saw one!!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

so...MT, is Alaska in your future ?

The answer is? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

No, I live in Alaska... you know Los Anchorage... NotQuite Alaska, but you can get there from here. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
M

No way MT all this time I thought you lived inSouth Jersey.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Here are a couple of moon shots I took in October. The first one it was a little foggy outside. But the effect is good. The second one, a bit clearer. Both were taken with a 400 lens, the latter one on a fairly quick shutter speed, can't remember any exacts, either f stops or iso.
M

i really love those pis M. Very gorgeous.

Must be my "Joisy" accent! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
M

I thought so since you have been posting pictures of AK. I live near Squarebanks, but Los Anchorage is much closer to Homeroids. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

This is probably the best moon shot I've got so far. It's a partial eclipse that happened last fall. This was with a 4mp camera with a 10x zoom.

A while back several of us on another forum were all trying to get good moon shots. Then a guy with a Canon Rebel SLR and a $1200 800mm lense showed up. End of contest. The clarity was like he was standing on it.

The 2d photo was an accident. I was trying for a shot when the wind was blowing. The tripod sort of moved. A lot.

Dick

Taiyasanka Harbor, Alaska ( NOAA chart 17317 if ya wanna see where that is )...

This ole sow has been a regular for 10 years and her MO has always been triplets...

oh....now i get it. Los Anchorage being NotQuite Alaska

ya got that right... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Awesome photo!
Santa brought Sitka a new doubler, so the next full moon, I'm gonna put that with the 400 and see what I can do. I put the tripod on the deck, but I have to stand very still and make sure no none else comes out. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
M

Part of the reason that I bought an Olympus SLR is that it can be used with a remote. It's an option, but I had one with my old camera that works. It's far easier than using a self timer, just point and click. For shots in the dark like this, it's great.
I"ve thought about a doubler to go with my 300mm, but I haven't figured out what all this camera will do with what I've got yet. I need to quit buying toys until I'm done playing with my new ones.

Dick

Great Moon shot Rock Chuck!
Rather amazing what one can do when not crippled by only knowing how to use a camera in auto mode.

It seems it will be all we see in the years to come.
The art of taking a photograph is rapidly being lost.
I seldom see natural light photos with interesting shadows anymore.
The new digital age is making people auto dependent with the cameras they purchase. I have a feeling few have a clue what to do other than set it on auto and point and shoot.

Dear akasparky,

I agree to a point with you on that statement, kinda what I was getting at with the original post. There are some of us that have only recently begun to use the fancy super duper format. All the pictures are beautiful that get posted here. If all art was the same it would be a dull world. I myself had mostly used a slr 35mm on manual settings and just a little point and shoot digital also on the manual setting. So take a peek at some of my old posts and you'll see my version of unfancy photography. Though I would not hesitate to use a upscale model I'm perfectly happy with what I use as I shoot pics for the sheer joy of photography.

Elf

The new digital cameras are not any different than existing cameras. All the new SLR cameras allow you for doing everything manual if you want. You can even focus the lens manually if you want to. The main difference between film and digital cameras is that a film is not needed for taking a picture with the digital one, and also that you have a whole bunch of options at the touch of a button.

If you look at the photos in this forum, you will see that quite a lot of them are taken with the camera set to manual mode:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=28

You will notice some pictures where the water looks milky. Well, to take such a picture with a digital camera, one must set some of its functions out of fully auto. I use both a Nikon F3 film SLR and a digital camera, but in some areas i can't find 25 ASA films anymore, and if I use slide films, it takes a fortune to get it processed in New Jersey, and I have to wait for weeks to see how the pictures look.

Taking a picture with any film camera does not guarantee that what one sees through the viewfinder is what will appear on the film. That "beauty" we have talked about here exists mostly in one's mind at the moment one takes the picture, and it rarely shows on film they way one sees it when taking the picture. That's exactly what happens when one takes a picture with a digital camera, and that's why some of us take a whole bunch of pictures to keep the very few good ones and discard the rest. And yes, a digital camera set to full auto gives you a great advantage, since it increases the likelihood of increasing the number of good pictures. However, taking good photos always requires learned skills regardless of the type of camera used. Finally, we have had-for years now-fully automatic film cameras.

Until about 3 years ago I used an old Pentax K1000 35mm. It's totally manual except the light meter. I spent a lot of money on film trying to get good shots but some of the good ones came out REALLY good. The digital is great because you can see instantly what you have at no cost. I usually shoot several of everything and dump all but the best one.
I cussed my digital C-750 for it's horrible autofocus and shutter lag. Those functions take forever. Action shots are almost impossible with the lag time in the electronic view finder. What I see in the evf is past tense. A shot of a running dog will give you a nice blank background because Fido is already around the house. There's no comparison with a SLR where everything you see is real time, the focus time is measured in microseconds, and the shutter clicks when you push the button, not 5 sec later.
Lag time is one of biggest complains you will read of an almost any digital review.

Dick

I still have a Nikon FM, which is completely manual (except for the light meter). I used it a Chitinal last year, and it finally broke down. Technology is changing quite fast. I remember that not too long ago only a few of us had computers, and we had no idea about such things as "Internet" and posting pictures online. The same thing is happening to the use of cameras, and I bet that within a few years some sensors will have the capability of providing a clear picture in the darkness of night.

Ray....will photoshop straighten my horizons...???