The Official Photography Thread - Vol. 3

[djyoung08]

After a couple unimpressive experiences with Tamron lenses I decided to quit playing games with my money and just buy only Nikon glass and now Canon glass now that I am on the Canon system.

going from nikon to canon what are your thoughts? do you like the change? i know they can both shoot great pictures, but from what i understand and see myself is that nikon has more dynamic range and the colors just pop well overall. i havent seen them as nice on canon when comparing. im asking because i went to canon due to doing video. im thinking about getting an 80d and focusing on video only and getting a nikon for photography. so if i go somewhere and its only photography i'll stick with the nikon, but if i plan on doing video and photography i'll go with canon.

just a thought though

Here's my pretty long winded response and thoughts.

Well I went from a nikon crop camera (d7000) with a 50mm 1.8, and 17-50 2.8 tamron lens to a full frame canon canon (5d mark II) with 50mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8, 70-200 2.8L II, 24-70 2.8L II, 100mm 2.8, and 8-15mm f/4L Fisheye.

Needless to say, the colors in my imagery are superior now than in the nikon setup i had from the lenses' color rendition / contrast / saturation alone.

As far as dynamic range in the nikon d810 versus 5d mark 2, well, i would hope a camera a couple years old would have a better sensor than the camera im shooting now which is going on 8 years old.... shoot the max ISO on my camera is 6400

Not trying to toot my own horn but i make it work.

Not saying these are award winning images but i think the color range is decent enough

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

IMO the stat oogling doesn't benefit photography. I am a very tech oriented person, I'm a software developer and love video games as well so I fall into the trap of stats and what camera is better on paper. At the end of the day, the best camera is the one you have on you to get the job done.

Not to mention shooting a d810 w/ a cheap sigma lens w/ a cheap filter over the front element, in raw with minimal editing will look extremely unimpressive

At this point in my photography (I am only 8 months in ), its more important for me to invest in glass than a camera body. I'd love a 5d mark III over my II because the dynamic range is better.... BUT i cant afford $2000 on a camera and afford lenses for it. I got my 5d II for 800 used and i've put the best glass I can find on it and have gotten, in my mind, very good results.

I hope that when canon releases a new 5d i'll be financially able to invest in it.

 

[Fong$tarr]

going from nikon to canon what are your thoughts? do you like the change? i know they can both shoot great pictures, but from what i understand and see myself is that nikon has more dynamic range and the colors just pop well overall. i havent seen them as nice on canon when comparing. im asking because i went to canon due to doing video. im thinking about getting an 80d and focusing on video only and getting a nikon for photography. so if i go somewhere and its only photography i'll stick with the nikon, but if i plan on doing video and photography i'll go with canon.

just a thought though

The Canon vs Nikon image quality is all subject to debate. Dynamic range is only important if you need that extra level of details in the shadows but not anything you can't get by bracketing shots. As far as color goes, I too felt Nikon's images popped more but I was also shooting on like a vibrant mode and even in the end, my photos got a lot of flack for being almost fluorescent back in the days. A lot of this you can just fix in post but you can also adjust the colors in your camera so that you can make your Canon shoot more saturated colors or make your Nikon shoot less vibrant.

The real debate has always been the glass more so than the body. The dynamic range thing will all come to a level where every camera will have it. I think the current winner is either Nikon or Sony but I am sure Canon will make a body that will compete soon. But the glass thing is something you can't really compromise if say Canon or Nikon have a specific lens that they only make for their camera bodies. I always wanted a Nikon for the 12-24mm but with the Tamron 15-30 and even the Canon 11-24, there really is no need for me to switch bodies. Anyways.... it's such a simple but hard debate but either or company will get you good results nowadays.

 

[HankHill]

Saw this video of a guy retouching an Alicia Key's photo. It was done on a low res jpeg. I'm really impressed.

Before:

After:

Video:

 

[7th Chamber]

I'd like to see how a Nikon body makes colors pop that much better than a Canon. I've never heard that argument before. I've only heard about the DR being superior.

With that being said, Canon's glass > *

 

[djyoung08]

I'd like to see how a Nikon body makes colors pop that much better than a Canon. I've never heard that argument before. I've only heard about the DR being superior.

With that being said, Canon's glass > *

This..

I always was under the impression that shooting RAW leaves you with a pretty flat image regardless

 

[Fong$tarr]

This is within Nikon's menus but Canon as a similar mode as well. I used to shoot vivid all the time just cause with night shots, it just provided that much more color but when shooting people, it just made them look like oompa loompas.

Of course you can even take a certain picture control and even fine tune it more with the menu below. You can pretty much make any mode tailored to your liking. I actually like to do this more so than just shoot RAW and do a lot of it in post.

 

[djyoung08]

This is within Nikon's menus but Canon as a similar mode as well. I used to shoot vivid all the time just cause with night shots, it just provided that much more color but when shooting people, it just made them look like oompa loompas.

Of course you can even take a certain picture control and even fine tune it more with the menu below. You can pretty much make any mode tailored to your liking. I actually like to do this more so than just shoot RAW and do a lot of it in post.

Isnt all of this non applicable when shooting RAW?

 

[tokes99]

This is within Nikon's menus but Canon as a similar mode as well. I used to shoot vivid all the time just cause with night shots, it just provided that much more color but when shooting people, it just made them look like oompa loompas.

Of course you can even take a certain picture control and even fine tune it more with the menu below. You can pretty much make any mode tailored to your liking. I actually like to do this more so than just shoot RAW and do a lot of it in post.

Isnt all of this non applicable when shooting RAW?

yes & no, i believe...most cameras don't process/show raw files in camera, so picture styles are not typically applicable to the raw file if shooting in raw but i want to say that some settings, depending on the camera (like on my sony camera, there is a dynamic range setting that seem to affect the raw data), might affect the raw file...it is one of those things you have to play around with to figure out

 

[Fong$tarr]

^^^^I guess RAW is a different beast but I think your light casual shooter will only see the JPEGs as their real view of their photo.

I find relying on RAW and post production a real insufficient way to shoot. Of course like the whole Nikon vs Canon thing, its sets up a discussion for debate. No different than film vs digital war where the film nuts will leave their images as is with no post edits. I guess I am in the middle where I feel like you have to do some work on your images in camera but as well as in post. Also I feel even RAW files can be pushed only so much until you start seeing your photo looking totally stressed in highlights and shadows. I think the less edits you do, the more your photo will look clean for web and for print. Again....that is just me.

 

[djyoung08]

^^^^I guess RAW is a different beast but I think your light casual shooter will only see the JPEGs as their real view of their photo.

I find relying on RAW and post production a real insufficient way to shoot. Of course like the whole Nikon vs Canon thing, its sets up a discussion for debate. No different than film vs digital war where the film nuts will leave their images as is with no post edits. I guess I am in the middle where I feel like you have to do some work on your images in camera but as well as in post. Also I feel even RAW files can be pushed only so much until you start seeing your photo looking totally stressed in highlights and shadows. I think the less edits you do, the more your photo will look clean for web and for print. Again....that is just me.

I never found shooting raw to be an insufficient way to shoot.

I picked my settings, i should pick my edit as well.

If i shot sports or shot directly for publication or something like that, I would shoot jpeg.

other than that, I dont want my camera to edit the photo for me. Just like I dont want my camera to pick my settings for me.

I've never taken a photography class or anything, but i always thought shooting in the raw format was like step 1 assuming you'll apply any editing to your images.

I couldnt imagine shooting a wedding in jpeg :x i'd be scared to death of all the contrast the camera would apply :x :x

 

[robinvandamn]

Some quick headshots for a friend. Used a white wall in my place and a off-camera yongnuo flash + a large neweer diffuser. 





so far the $70 yongnuo, in terms of sheer performance, matches the nikon speed light that I use for work. Excellent value and i'd recommend it to anyone looking into dipping their toes into off camera lighting setups. 

CJ the genesis ? lol

 

[Fong$tarr]

I guess I used the wrong word. Shooting RAW is like the un-artistic way of shooting photography (I don't even think that is the right word). I know as far as workflow, it's the best way to do it but I am more or less debating the art form of photography. I post photos on a skate forum as well as here and I get no friggin love from those guys. They are all just naturalists and think my stuff is overly done. I follow a street photographer on IG and all his shots whether from his Leica or film are straight from the camera. He feels any edits just gives you a false impression of what actually was displayed in the streets.

 

[dragicon]

Anyone here uses a D800? Would you trade a D610 for a used D800?

I think a lot depends on what style you shoot. I've had a D800 for a long time. When compared to the d800, the d610 will have similar image quality and dynamic range. The autofocus, functions, and weather sealing are better on the d800... The fps, feel, and price are much more attractive on the d610. I would ask the question to myself "what feature of this camera is holding back my photography", and if you can't think of much, then I would stay with the d610. There's always going to be a bigger and better camera in the world, but the d610 is capable of taking incredible images.

 

[dragicon]

I guess I used the wrong word. Shooting RAW is like the un-artistic way of shooting photography (I don't even think that is the right word). I know as far as workflow, it's the best way to do it but I am more or less debating the art form of photography. I post photos on a skate forum as well as here and I get no friggin love from those guys. They are all just naturalists and think my stuff is overly done. I follow a street photographer on IG and all his shots whether from his Leica or film are straight from the camera. He feels any edits just gives you a false impression of what actually was displayed in the streets.

photoshop can be used to also recreate what you saw after the fact. If I took a photo of a bird and clipped the tip of its wing, and added it back afterwards, I am just recreating what I saw. Yeah, I should have gotten it in the frame, but sometimes you just can do it. Photoshop, different darkroom techniques, having people posing in pictures, street photographers moving, and all kinds of other techniques are all photo manipulations.

 

[7th Chamber]

 

[djyoung08]

Wore an i shoot raw shirt on monday and copped another one yesterday.

 

[7th Chamber]

Wore an i shoot raw shirt on monday and copped another one yesterday.

I had picked up the ISR Rapid Strap, but don't use it as much anymore.

Piggybacking on what you said though, I always thought shooting RAW was step 1 along with shooting in manual mode. I don't necessarily agree that applying edits give a false sense of the image. I mean, isn't all art subjective either way?

 

[djyoung08]

Wore an i shoot raw shirt on monday and copped another one yesterday.

I had picked up the ISR Rapid Strap, but don't use it as much anymore.

Piggybacking on what you said though, I always thought shooting RAW was step 1 along with shooting in manual mode. I don't necessarily agree that applying edits give a false sense of the image. I mean, isn't all art subjective either way?

Just from a safety net standpoint i would never not shoot RAW for a wedding.

Could you imagine fixing color balance on a under exposed too punchy jpeg that is supposed to get printed on a 20x30 :x i would freaking die

 

[7th Chamber]

Just from a safety net standpoint i would never not shoot RAW for a wedding.

Could you imagine fixing color balance on a under exposed too punchy jpeg that is supposed to get printed on a 20x30 :x i would freaking die

:x

#TeamRAW

 

[djyoung08]

Just from a safety net standpoint i would never not shoot RAW for a wedding.

Could you imagine fixing color balance on a under exposed too punchy jpeg that is supposed to get printed on a 20x30 :x i would freaking die

:x

#TeamRAW

#TeamRAW
#TeamGroceries
#TeamGeralt

 

[7th Chamber]

#TeamRAW
#TeamGroceries
#TeamGeralt

 

[Fong$tarr]

I had picked up the ISR Rapid Strap, but don't use it as much anymore.

Piggybacking on what you said though, I always thought shooting RAW was step 1 along with shooting in manual mode. I don't necessarily agree that applying edits give a false sense of the image. I mean, isn't all art subjective either way?

Yes art is subjective which is why the debate is really just what it is. No right or wrong answer but good to hear both sides. I think digital is just a different beast. RAW is definitely there to use and would be foolish to not use (even though I didn't) but I still think given the right scenarios, I can shoot anything in JPEG that I can with a RAW file. The real question is why do it since you have the capabilities of shooting RAW. But say you were given a film camera or a camera with no RAW capabilities (which is rare now a days), you should know how to take a photo and make it look proper without having to rely on post edit skills. I think that is the basis of a good photographer. As they say, it's not the camera but the person using the camera.

Also....I don't practice what I preach since I rely a lot of post. Again...just a debate.

 

[tokes99]

I guess I used the wrong word. Shooting RAW is like the un-artistic way of shooting photography (I don't even think that is the right word). I know as far as workflow, it's the best way to do it but I am more or less debating the art form of photography. I post photos on a skate forum as well as here and I get no friggin love from those guys. They are all just naturalists and think my stuff is overly done. I follow a street photographer on IG and all his shots whether from his Leica or film are straight from the camera. He feels any edits just gives you a false impression of what actually was displayed in the streets.

it is good to note the really isn't a 'best way' especially if one considers/takes photography an art...art is about choices and raw vs. jpg is a choice about opening up more options for controlling the image that come out of the camera vs. what the output the camera's processing engine. some would rather not spend time editing others want to squeeze out every bit of the possible goodness from the image...the film vs. digital thing, again just a choice, don't understand why one would be 'more natural' than the other...

related to the above point, to the extent one does photography as an art, the only opinion that matters is that of the artist really (leaving out the technical things of 'proper' exposure, focus, etc.), yes one should probably be aware of the discourse, language, and norms around the things they create and there will always be ways that folk codify & make 'rules' according to some arbitrary standard or some in-group (us) vs. out-group (them) mentality, but there really aren't any rules as it pertains to art. trying to make something according to some one else's standards is probably one of the easier paths to frustration...

which goes into the commercial part of having to sell the thing or producing work for clients, and unless one has a name or really distinct style such that people find you, it is almost a given that you will be subject to whatever is the client believes or thinks is popular or accepted style, and it just becomes a reinforcing thing that everyone follows until someone comes along and does something slightly different or with an unexpected approach/twist...

 

[djyoung08]

I had picked up the ISR Rapid Strap, but don't use it as much anymore.

Piggybacking on what you said though, I always thought shooting RAW was step 1 along with shooting in manual mode. I don't necessarily agree that applying edits give a false sense of the image. I mean, isn't all art subjective either way?

Yes art is subjective which is why the debate is really just what it is. No right or wrong answer but good to hear both sides. I think digital is just a different beast. RAW is definitely there to use and would be foolish to not use (even though I didn't) but I still think given the right scenarios, I can shoot anything in JPEG that I can with a RAW file. The real question is why do it since you have the capabilities of shooting RAW. But say you were given a film camera or a camera with no RAW capabilities (which is rare now a days), you should know how to take a photo and make it look proper without having to rely on post edit skills. I think that is the basis of a good photographer. As they say, it's not the camera but the person using the camera.

Also....I don't practice what I preach since I rely a lot of post. Again...just a debate.

This is all well put.

Honestly what I would do if someone gave me a film camera I would look for my time machine and come back to the present.

Also, whether you shoot RAW or jpeg, the image is being processed and modified from the very first time the photons do their photon thing on the image sensor.

When film was developed back in the day, those were edited as well.

People with a stick up their rear about "not editing" always seem to forget that.

 

[mylesp]

I'd like to see how a Nikon body makes colors pop that much better than a Canon. I've never heard that argument before. I've only heard about the DR being superior.

With that being said, Canon's glass > *

Ive just seen it with friends cameras compared to my canon and a friends 60d. I just seem to like the colors with nikons low budget cameras vs canons. Although i have no complaints. Its only when i view by comparison. I saw a friends shots and thought they were edited and come to find out they were raw files on his computer. I was like wtf lol. Im happy with my results on my canon t1i for now though