Photography - Technique and Equipment considerations

[CJ]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one.

Never tried it myself, very impressive.

[Taryn]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one. [img Cut /img]

Tasty! You nailed it, methinks. Hmmm... I didn't think there'd be much on the right at all, but there should be a small blip as representative of the bright parts(?). Oh well...

Thank you.....there were only a couple of good ones out of about 150 shots though, but it was good fun.

[Taryn]

Thanks Brett. I wish I had seen your post before I left, I forgot all about video, that would have been good. I could have taken both cameras and used one to video it.
I tried various settings, S from about 1/8 to 4 seconds, F 3.5 to 6.3 but stayed on ISO 600. The fireworks only lasted about 15 minutes so by the time I had started working out what to do, it was all over.
I'm not sure how to use all the info on the view screen yet..........and I really should have learned more about that by now. I just checked the shots on the camera and there's nothing at all on the right side of the histogram.
I haven't tried shooting raw yet but I intend to try it out soon.

This is the best one.

That's a fine shot. A good way to get good photos of fireworks is to use the bulb function for your shutter. This way you can wait for the sparks to fly and then open the shutter. Wait until those sparks are over and then close the shutter again. This way you can get the whole "tracing" journey of the sparks for sure since you have more control of the exposure time. If the shutter is opened for too long the photo might be overexposed so stop down the aperture to f/8 or something like that. ISO you would probably keep at 400 or below to maintain image quality.

Thanks. I haven't used the bulb function yet, it's another one of those things I have yet to learn more about. It does sound like it would be a good for shots like this. I have a few fireworks left from the weekend so I will have a go as soon as I get time.

[Taryn]

Never tried it myself, very impressive.

Thank you CJ.

[BrettA]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all.

And sometimes not even available - neither my 300 f/2.8 nor my 14-24 f/2.8 can even take a filter at the front element.

Why is that? That seems weird. Keep in mind that there are various filter sizes out there depending on the filter thread diameter of each lens you own.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your reply, aznx... but for the example of the 14-24 2.8, I gather that it's mainly the bulbous front element that's been the issue...

...and I note that as of a few days ago, Lee Filters should soon release a solution! And my 300 2.8 isn't even threaded, though it measures about 109 across the inside (there certainly are bigger filters). And just to clarify, I can use filters - there's a slot for filters near the rear (camera) end. And this is a new, professional level Nikon lens (but still, no way to protect the front element with glass as I understand it, though the carbon fibre lens hood does a damn good job, IMO).

[aznxscorpion517]

No a UV or skylight filter is compulsory to protect the front element of your expensive lens, not a waste of money at all.

And sometimes not even available - neither my 300 f/2.8 nor my 14-24 f/2.8 can even take a filter at the front element.

Why is that? That seems weird. Keep in mind that there are various filter sizes out there depending on the filter thread diameter of each lens you own.

Sorry, I hadn't noticed your reply, aznx... but for the example of the 14-24 2.8, I gather that it's mainly the bulbous front element that's been the issue...

...and I note that as of a few days ago, Lee Filters should soon release a solution! And my 300 2.8 isn't even threaded, though it measures about 109 across the inside (there certainly are bigger filters). And just to clarify, I can use filters - there's a slot for filters near the rear (camera) end. And this is a new, professional level Nikon lens (but still, no way to protect the front element with glass as I understand it, though the carbon fibre lens hood does a damn good job, IMO).

Ah, yes...that's what I was suspecting. The lenses with those bulged front elements can be a problem. They are usually on fisheye lenses. I just heard about this new solution as well.

[Pensioner]

This is one of my son’s photographs taken a few miles outside Christchurch New Zealand using the gigapixel technique.

http://goldingarts.co.nz/zoom/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigapixel_image

[CJ]

This is one of my son’s photographs taken a few miles outside Christchurch New Zealand using the gigapixel technique.

http://goldingarts.co.nz/zoom/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigapixel_image

Wow! Something to study!

[FBM]

An example of a potentially nice exposure blown by having the ISO set too high:



(At least, I think that was the problem. It was a few months ago.)

[Faithfree]

This is one of my son’s photographs taken a few miles outside Christchurch New Zealand using the gigapixel technique.

http://goldingarts.co.nz/zoom/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigapixel_image

Brilliant image!

[Skylarking]

As titled: first night exposure attempt

Here is my first long exposure at night- an over exposure at that. I've resized from the original. I shot it at, from memory... ISO 100, f/22 at around 20 minutes(20) The lens was a ZUIKO DIGITAL ED 40-150mm 1:4.0-5.6 (though I barely understand what that actually means).

I'm thinking upgrading my camera. Oh, I have an Olympus E-420. It came with two pancake lenses- one of those mentioned above.

The image is attached. I'm still a newbie, so any criticisms would help.


EDIT: and I also submitted another shot, using the same set up, only I used the 60 second shutter release built into the camera. I under exposed that one.

[Skylarking]

An example of a potentially nice exposure blown by having the ISO set too high:

[img]<snip>[/img]

(At least, I think that was the problem. It was a few months ago.)

I like the image. It's nice and mysterious.

[FBM]

An example of a potentially nice exposure blown by having the ISO set too high:

[img]<snip>[/img]

(At least, I think that was the problem. It was a few months ago.)

I like the image. It's nice and mysterious.

Thanks. That's what I was shooting for.

[Skylarking]

An example of a potentially nice exposure blown by having the ISO set too high:

[img]<snip>[/img]

(At least, I think that was the problem. It was a few months ago.)

I like the image. It's nice and mysterious.

Thanks. That's what I was shooting for.

In that case, I'm jealous of you.


What camera do you use?

[FBM]

In that case, I'm jealous of you.


What camera do you use?

It's pretty much an antique now. Fujifilm Fixpix S2 Pro.

I like mysterious: