A few favorites so far from 2016

[workerdrone]

My wife and I are really enjoying Florida since we started full timing in November, we're currently in Key Largo for a month or so learning to sail and saving money -

The variety of wildlife down here is wonderful and very easy to get close to - such a nice change from our native New England!

A few favorite photos from the last month here -

I use mostly Nikon SLR's and pro quality lenses, so you won't be able to see top quality from the small pix allowed here but hope you enjoy - if you'd like to see better resolution please do visit my site or FB page 

[MN Blue Skies]

Nice images!  I see that you like fast lenses.  You aren't asking for CC so I won't give any.

[workerdrone]

Thanks - CC always welcome, I'm always trying to improve - and it's fascinating to me that I can never guess which images people will like the most - I've probably thrown away hundreds that certain folks would call their favorites while spending lots of time processing others that they can't click past fast enough haha

Is there anyone that doesn't like fast lenses   

[SeilerBird]

Is there anyone that doesn't like fast lenses   

Me, I think they are way too heavy, way too expensive and totally unnecessary. But I do like your images. My favorite is 6590. If you are going to post images here you should resize them so they fit on a computer screen. About 800 x 600 works best for this forum. Otherwise it takes a lot of scrolling to view the image.

[workerdrone]

Thanks - Hmm...I'm on an older 15" laptop and they take up about ⅓ of my screen - do a lot of folks really run that low a resolution?

[MN Blue Skies]

Me, I think they are way too heavy, way too expensive and totally unnecessary.

Seiler, I believe portrait and commercial photographers would strongly disagree with you. 

[MN Blue Skies]

Thanks - CC always welcome, I'm always trying to improve.

Workerdrone, one of the first things I learned in my photography 101 class is being open to CC (constructive criticism).  Since then my experience has been that professional photographers don't have a problem with CC.  Photography hobbyists and enthusiasts are more likely to take CC personally.

[SeilerBird]

Seiler, I believe portrait and commercial photographers would strongly disagree with you.

I know they would, that is not my point. He asked doesn't everyone like fast lenses and I said I don't. I could give a crap less about what anyone else uses. I did not say everyone should agree with me. I am just explaining there are different points of views in this world.

[workerdrone]

Smiler, I respect your opinion and I think it can be a fun challenge to get the best possible results from whatever is on hand or is in the budget. Most here probably wouldn't want to deal with my equipment it's heavy and not easy to use, not to mention pricey and doesn't make sense if you're not making money with it...

Still hard to believe that anyone that loves photography wouldn't like to try out some fast glass    It's sort of like saying you don't like Lamborghinis, they're expensive, loud, and totally unnecessary - probably all true but I still want to put one through its paces

[SeilerBird]

Smiler, I respect your opinion and I think it can be a fun challenge to get the best possible results from whatever is on hand or is in the budget. Most here probably wouldn't want to deal with my equipment it's heavy and not easy to use, not to mention pricey and doesn't make sense if you're not making money with it...

Still hard to believe that anyone that loves photography wouldn't like to try out some fast glass    It's sort of like saying you don't like Lamborghinis, they're expensive, loud, and totally unnecessary - probably all true but I still want to put one through its paces

I have owned a lot of fast glass in my lifetime. I started with a Minolta SRT101 in 1969 and have had plenty of different cameras and lenses. The faster a lens is the softer it is. The difference in price between an f/4 and and f/2.8 on a Canon 70-200 L lens is around $600. I am sorry but you will never convince me I need to spend $600 for one more lousy stop of light. Increase the ISO one stop and you get the same amount of light. In the days of film there might have been an advantage but in the days of digital spending $600 for one stop just seems ridiculous to me. If you want to spend your money that way then be my guest.

And last weekend I test drove a Tesla model S. You could not pay me to drive a Lamborghini. I don't want a noise machine. I love a Tesla since it is extremely quiet, smooth and has more power than most Lamborghinis do. Different strokes for different folks. I don't know why people feel they need to attack my opinions and tell me their opinion is more correct than my opinion.

[workerdrone]

I'm not attacking anyone and as I said, I do respect your opinion.  The extra stops are not worth the $ to you - that's fine, that's your opinion and a lot of other fine people share it.  You prefer the Tesla to the Italian road jewelry, can't argue with that, different strokes.  I'd love to take them both out for a weekend and I love what Tesla is doing

I don't want people to be misinformed though - I figure people are on the forum to have fun and in this section to either show and get some CC or to learn something about Photography - you state that the faster a lens is the softer it is - sorry that's just not true.  Please tell me that you think the 100% crop attached of a bald eagle is soft - and on the computer if you look at the previous photo of the sandhill crane being harassed by hundreds of blackflies, you can see the wings of the flies

Perhaps you're speaking of the blurring effect you can achieve with a fast lens, to isolate the subject from a background or to emphasize a certain portion of the image with selective focus, something you can't so easily do with a slower lens or aperture.  That's why a 200mm f2 lens is $4000 more than a 200mm f2.8 lens, and both would be considered fast and two of the sharpest lenses on the planet.  There is simply no comparison between the two for a portraitist.

Also the statement that you can just increase the ISO one stop and get the same amount of light - true, but your quality will go down.  You might get away with it and it might or might not be noticeable in your presentation format, but no matter how good your camera's high ISO abilities are, the best quality will be found at the lowest (base) ISO.

Also sorry about the previous smiler typo

[SeilerBird]

I don't want people to be misinformed though - I figure people are on the forum to have fun and in this section to either show and get some CC or to learn something about Photography - you state that the faster a lens is the softer it is - sorry that's just not true.  Please tell me that you think the 100% crop attached of a bald eagle is soft - and on the computer if you look at the previous photo of the sandhill crane being harassed by hundreds of blackflies, you can see the wings of the flies

I am not misinforming anyone when I state my opinion. But it is not an opinion that the faster glass is softer. Not in the center of an image like your eagle eye, but closer to the edge. If you don't know this simple fact then you have a lot to learn about photography.
 

Perhaps you're speaking of the blurring effect you can achieve with a fast lens, to isolate the subject from a background or to emphasize a certain portion of the image with selective focus, something you can't so easily do with a slower lens or aperture.  That's why a 200mm f2 lens is $4000 more than a 200mm f2.8 lens, and both would be considered fast and two of the sharpest lenses on the planet.  There is simply no comparison between the two for a portraitist.

No I am not referring to bokeh.

Also the statement that you can just increase the ISO one stop and get the same amount of light - true, but your quality will go down.  You might get away with it and it might or might not be noticeable in your presentation format, but no matter how good your camera's high ISO abilities are, the best quality will be found at the lowest (base) ISO.

This will be my last discussion with you on this subject since you clearly have a lot to learn about photography. One stop just doesn't make that much difference in the quality especially since getting a one stop larger lens will also decrease the quality.

[MN Blue Skies]

Unfortunately this friendly thread took a really negative and hostile turn.    

I agree with workerdrone's comments.  He seems to have an excellent understanding of his photography equipment and I look forward to discussing photography with him in the future. 

[MN Blue Skies]

Workerdrone, I am curious about which lens and aperture you used for image CPG_6590?  Did you do anything in post production?

[workerdrone]

6590 (the dwarf bald cypress in the Everglades shot) was shot with a 500mm f4 lens at f4 - certainly not a traditional landscape lens but it's fun to try different things.

I shoot everything in RAW format, so all of my shots will be post processed quite a bit on the computer afterwards - RAW will otherwise look very soft and blah if directly converted to JPG - so I generally sharpen things up, add some contrast and saturation, and adjust black and white levels as needed.  I know I can be heavy handed with the post processing sometimes but hey, they're my images so I'll do what I want

I never add any blur or use any funky filters unless maybe it's something I shot on my iPhone

And I will certainly and always agree that I do still have a lot to learn about photography 

[workerdrone]

A couple more from today - with a non-pro camera

[workerdrone]

A few more recent favorites thought I'd share - I've been doing tons of boring business photos in the Florida Keys for the past few weeks, fortunately it's still fun to spend a couple hours a week finding some wildlife or nice scenery to relax and shoot for a break from the commercial stuff 

[MN Blue Skies]

 

A few more recent favorites thought I'd share - I've been doing tons of boring business photos in the Florida Keys for the past few weeks, fortunately it's still fun to spend a couple hours a week finding some wildlife or nice scenery to relax and shoot for a break from the commercial stuff 

As a professional portrait photography I would love to see some of your "boring" business and commercial stuff

[workerdrone]

oh - thanks   I really need to work on my people skills and get into more portraiture; it's probably why I do so much wildlife for pleasure haha

I'll do the occasional wedding when someone twists my arm hard enough but I really shouldn't because I never enjoy doing it very much - stressful - but I'd be very interested to improve in portraiture - any favorite tips for helping both photog and subject relax and do their best?

[Rosebud3]

Workerdrone, been enjoying your photos. I'd like to know which digital Nikon body and lenses you are using. I've had a Nikon FM2 for over 20 years and was very disappointed when Ektachrome and Kodachrome had to die because of digital. When I sell my house and go on the road in a year or two I'll get serious about photography again and will be looking to buy a Nikon digital SLR.

I'll shoot what I want and do what I want with my images and if someone wants to buy my images, great, if not, I won't care. They will be totally for me and my creative expression. When I was first out of college I considered photography as a career. I worked with both a wedding photography (too scarey to risk blowing someone's wedding pics, plus I was pretty shy back then) and at an ad agency assisting the in-house photographer. Hated both. Decided if I was forced to do photography for someone else it would ruin it for me so I went into commercial art instead.

After 32 years of graphic design and technical illustration, I switched to dog grooming (fell in love with dogs after my DH passed in '99). And now I'm looking ahead to retire, reconnect with photography, and hit the road.

P.S. Blue skies, wondering how the NT 21fbs is working out for you. It is on my very short list. Do you miss not having a couch?

[MN Blue Skies]

  After 32 years of graphic design and technical illustration, I switched to dog grooming (fell in love with dogs after my DH passed in '99). And now I'm looking ahead to retire, reconnect with photography, and hit the road.

Have you ever considered doing dog/pet portrait photography?  On March 21, I will be attending a 1/2 day seminar put on by Barbara Breitsameter, a national award winning dog photographer.  After the seminar I will have the opportunity to enjoy dinner and a glass of wine with Barbara and other Minnesota and Wisconsin pro photographers. (I love my PPA membership!) Here's a link to Barbara's web site:  http://poppybluephoto.com/  Barbara is a remarkable lady.  She has overcome the challenges of being a pro photographer with Parkinson's Disease.

Blue skies, wondering how the NT 21fbs is working out for you. It is on my very short list. Do you miss not having a couch?

Rosebud,  We still love our North Trail Caliber 21fbs.  DH and I both prefer the dinette over a sofa.  When we are inside we spend a lot of time on our laptops so we like the tabletop space.  This spring we will be taking our first 6+ week extended trip so we will see how that goes or if we will start thinking about trading up.

[workerdrone]

Hi Rosebud, I have been primarily using Nikon D800 and D810 bodies but also have an FM for film projects and reminding myself of the way things used to be

I also greatly enjoy the Nikon 1 series of cameras, currently have the V1 and AW1 - I had the V3 which was a wonderful little machine too but at the time I was not making any $ with it and I sold it.

I use a wide assortment of glass (Nikon, Sigma, Zeiss...) from 14mm to 500mm, pretty much all full frame versions, sometimes a PC (tilt shift) lens or teleconverter.  I buy virtually everything used and have found that if I buy top of the line used, I can enjoy it for a year or two and resell for basically no losses if I wish.

Currently eagerly awaiting a mid 80's manual focus 105mm to get back from service - the grease had dried up inside - one of the neat things about Nikon of course is that they allow you to use any lens from the latest all the way back to 1950's glass with their SLR's.  So you can have the latest body and sensor and enjoy vintage glass with it

I'd be happy to opine on used shopping if you have an idea of budget and what you'd like to shoot; high end bodies usually aren't required and will depreciate quickly unlike the pro glass 

[75sling]

There is nothing like "pro" glass.  It's all about the GLASS!   Bodies are the "throw-aways".....razors are the throw-aways......razor blades are what you pay for.....GLASS is what you pay for.

I didn't see any light-weight point-and-shoot watchamagigic on the moon landing, did you?

It was carl zeiss glass on the best medium format system of its day, hasselblad.....not Nikon, not Canon and not Leica....

It's all about the GLASS!

Let's all kick back and meditate.........it's all about the glass....it's all about the glass...

I, do, feel better now.

75sling

[SeilerBird]

For me it is all about the photographer.

[Rosebud3]

Have you ever considered doing dog/pet portrait photography?  On March 21, I will be attending a 1/2 day seminar put on by Barbara Breitsameter, a national award winning dog photographer. Here's a link to Barbara's web site:  http://poppybluephoto.com/  Barbara is a remarkable lady.
 Rosebud,  We still love our North Trail Caliber 21fbs.  DH and I both prefer the dinette over a sofa.  When we are inside we spend a lot of time on our laptops so we like the tabletop space.  This spring we will be taking our first 6+ week extended trip so we will see how that goes

I'm interested in nature photography leaning toward abstract  images. Did look at Barbara's web site. Really nice photos.

Re the 21fbs. I just wish the table was not "built-in." I'd rather one with folding legs that I could remove and/or take outside.

[MN Blue Skies]

I'm interested in nature photography leaning toward abstract  images.

Regarding abstract nature photography, would you be editing in Lightroom and/or Photoshop?  I'm sure you already know that RAW is more versatile for editing images.  I love doing composites!

Re the 21fbs. I just wish the table was not "built-in." I'd rather one with folding legs that I could remove and/or take outside.

I think our dinette table can be removed but I'm not absolutely sure.  I know it doesn't have folding legs but for us that's okay because we prefer to use a folding table or picnic table outdoors instead of the hauling out the dinette table.

[workerdrone]

One from tonight at our winter campsite

Is anyone else having trouble with the images being too big for their displays?  I'm used to photo websites and Facebook where I post much larger and higher quality versions...

[SeilerBird]

Yep the image is too large. Go with 800 x 600.

[workerdrone]

I did hear you the first time - I'm wondering if there are actually other people out there still using such a low resolution on their computers.  I'm on a small older laptop and they take up only a portion of my screen

[SeilerBird]

I did hear you the first time - I'm wondering if there are actually other people out there still using such a low resolution on their computers.  I'm on a small older laptop and they take up only a portion of my screen

That is not the resolution people are using on their computers. That is the maximum amount of space left over after the margins eat up a lot of the horizontal resolution. Here is what I am seeing.