skidude

iTrader: (3)

Here is my example of black and white. The original image was incredibly orange, but in black and white it is much better. Still not my best image, but not terrible. Thoughts?


IMG_3481 by skidude108, on Flickr

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

not bad, the lights and fence are fighting for my eye's focus--since they are teh brightest thing in teh scene, and the person in the tree is getting a little lost.

I'd also clone out that beer can and make crop it in jsut a touch.

Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

Where's the best place to look for used lenses?

I generally go straight to Amazon, but I imagine there is a photography specific site that is better?

Also, how much should I ask for a Nikon 55-200 AF-S DX VR? We got a Nikon 18-140mm with the D7100 so the 55-200 is likely to never get used again. The extra bit of zoom isn't really worth changing a lens out for. The 55-200 we have has less than 500 exposures.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I use keh.com a lot. Adorama and B&H have used stuff. Even Amazon does used. Here's a place I've been recommended as well: Pro Photo Supply - Used Photography Equipment, Used Cameras, Used Video and Used Lenses in Portland OR

In like new condition, I'd expect you to get around $100 for it, if you're lucky. KEH.com only pays $73.00 for it.

Efini~FC3S

iTrader: (4)

Thanks.

I was planning on asking $100 for the 55-200, I thought that was about what they go for used.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I need to really read up on b&w converting. The colors were so harsh and blotchy looking in the color version that simply using the b&w converter in Photoshop didn't allow for much variation beyond normal tones. Any time I would move a color slider one way or the other, immediately I would start to see weird blotchiness in the skin. I kind of like the soft, low contrast look myself. At least for that image. I do really like that b&w of yours though. Nice contrast really makes it pop. It doesn't look like silver efex is for cs6? I need to look into more plugins. I currently have none. Or maybe it is, the more I look, seems like it is supported as a CS6 plugin.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

It should be.

Portraiture works awesome for smoothing skiin.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Meh. Not all that impressed with the reversed 50mm on the cheap extension tubes. It gets close, but the DoF is really stupidly small. Getting **** in focus without actually being able to focus (moving the camera) is frustrating. Image quality is decent, and I suppose if I had something interesting to photograph it could be fun. All I could find was an old pine cone and some moss on a tree. WOOO! It also sucks that now every spec of dust in the lens is visible.





No harm, no foul. 40 year old lens that I got for free, and a $10 set of tubes.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

actually produces great images. Such a shame I cant get it to work, almost makes me wanna buy an older canon or pentax. I have tons of manual lenses to use with it, including an 85-205mm f/3.5.

On my body I have to be about 5" from the subject and I have about 4" of workable focus range:



seriously dat Bokeh is intense.


Looks like it works great as a macro, remember the DOF will always be crazy short in macro, most people shoot at like f/22 in macro and even then focus stack images. Color me impressed.

I've been wanting to get a macro lens, but then I figured it's much cheaper to get tubes for my 85mm.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Is that the 50mm 1.4? Damn, that's not much range at all. I was hoping for considerably more than that.

I think not impressed was the wrong way to show my dissatisfaction. Image quality is great, but goddamn it's hard to frame **** up and get things in focus. I think you could get shots as close or closer with the 50mm mounted reversed on a long prime or zoom. And you would still keep aperture control on the camera, and focus. If only I had a long prime or decent zoom.

I'll have to get out tomorrow and find some things to shoot. I caught those just before dark and didn't have much light to work with, which made it even tougher to see what was going on through the f/16 aperture in live view. And really, f/16 might not be enough dof for getting this close. I guess I could always focus stack if it's a stationary object.

Get a reverse ring to mount the 50 onto your 85. That should give you some pretty decent magnification with tubes.

This is apparently a 50 on an 85, no tubes.



But it seems like single lens on tubes might be the better deal, to avoid complicated optics. I'd like to have a wide prime, maybe an old 24 or 28mm 2.8D, though neither of those have nearly the awesome optics of the super takumar 50.

PS, I have another set of tubes on the way, for a total of 98mm. Probably not realistic, since the dof will be the thickness of a sheet of paper even at f/16. Worth a try, for such little money. It'll be a backup set anywa, as these threads and metal feel very fragile. One time lightly cross threading and the threads are probably done.

Love this guys stuff. 50mm lens on 68mm tubes.

http://digital-photography-school.co...ml#post1215022

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Yeah, the 85mm on tubes works well as is:



you can get 1:1 with it. I was shooting 1:2.7 at 70mm with my sigma and I thought that was pretty close as it.


Spider on Purple Flower 1 by The Braineack, on Flickr

I was considering that Tamron 90mm Macro, You can get them for under $300 non-VC, and like $600-700 VC. $40 for a set of tubes is much cheaper.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

1:1 is nice, but something about seeing things on scales that you normally just don't see, is exciting to me. Like I never knew what the pore structure on a pine cone seed looked like... and now I do.

For sake of comparison, here is my 40mm at 1:1 vs the 50mm reversed on 50mm tube (whatever reproduction ratio that would be) Sorry, they are handheld, and both at f/4.

Close:



Really close:



I hadn't really noticed it till now, but that picture makes the element yellowing very apparent on the 50mm



Bokeh on the 50mm at 1.4, which I find quite pleasing. Still very sharp even at 1.4, on the little that is actually in focus.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Had another nice little snow last night. More snow than we had a few weeks ago, and far less retardation on the roads since everyone was prepared for this one. Of course I got stuck over at a friends house with that damn 50mm 1.4 and couldn't zoom past 4', so I was buzzing around people all night like a fly. We had a bit of a snow-in party, though I didn't think it was going to do anything. Ended up with 6-7 inches, which for around here is a metric **** ton.Trying to frame **** with a 50mm on a crop, while being limited to 4' and closer is tough. At least it's 1.4 and let in enough light to hand hold at 1/60 and get decent exposure at ISO2000-4000.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I rediscovered a shot i did in 2010:


Blue Bulb by The Braineack, on Flickr

it's up to 96.6 on 500px.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

someone bought us a bottle of Reisling:


Riesling Bottle by The Braineack, on Flickr

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

Was it any good? I hope so, they put some work into making a cat bottle for it. Not sure if that matte finish lends itself well to being photographed. Lacks that usual reflection that is so nice in bottle/glass images. It's still nice in its own way.

I wanted so bad for this to look good, but no matter how I edit it, it's just not looking right to me. Though I don't suppose it helped that I shot it handheld from a running car without taking time to shoot it properly. It lacks sharpness and detail, which is to be expected. Can't make a diamond from a turd I guess. I guess maybe it's still presentable. At least a good image for me to tinker with in PS to try and improve my more natural looking HDR techniques, which still have a ways to go. So many ways to approach HDR, and some better suited for certain situations and images. I edited it to more resemble a hyperrealistic painting than a photograph.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yeah that one is tough. bg is too distracting. dunno what you can do. I'm horrible at landscapes.



I sat outside all day, under a picnic table, and finally got decent shot:


Tufted Titmouse by The Braineack, on Flickr

I shot at 3.2, I wish I was at f/8.

NA6C-Guy

iTrader: (1)

I'm pretty bad myself, but trying to learn since I'm such an outdoors type of person. It helps to actually go places worthy of pictures, of which not many are very close. I have to drive at least 100 miles to get to nicer Appalachian "mountains".

I love the shot at 3.2, though I think maybe f/5.6 would have been about ideal for balance between foreground focus and bg bokeh. You were UNDER the table? Or just under a roof over the table?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Yeah 3.2 was too narrow, I think f/8 would have ensured the entre bird/foreground was in focus while still mainting plently of smooth bokeh. and that's a pretty sharp stop on the lens. at 3.2, 200mm, and about 7ft to subject, that's a DOF of about an inch. Which seems about right when you see how narrow on the bird it is. f/8 would have given me only even 2 inches of DOF.

Although, the light was starting to fail when I took this shot and I was already at iso 500 with 1/800. Next time I need to try to start at 1/1200 as a few of the shots I took were blurry from how fast it moved.


I zip tied a bunch of fallen branches on the verticals on my deck. I made a huge pile of bird seed just below them.

Then I got two canvas tarps and made a "blind", layed them strategically on a table on my deck and sat under it patentially waiting.

It failed on me when a squirrel finally jumped up to eat and I knock half it down on me and it blocked the damn shot


Half Squirrel by The Braineack, on Flickr

ahaidet

Could have been a really great shot... I chuckled a bit at thought of you hiding under the table then the image of it all collapsing made me laugh...

In all seriousness this inspired me a little bit to try and put more effort into setting up some cool shots.