Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 16 Feb 2017 (Thursday) 17:56
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

That "Nikon look"

 
KatManDEW
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2017 17:56 |  #1

http://gallery.snowtra​ils.com …417/Photos-by-Adam-Knapp/ (external link)

For starters, do you think the photos at the above link are flashed? Secondly, the photos have a different look to me, which made me think they were from a Nikon, and when I looked up the photographer, it seems that he does shoot Nikon. As a long time Canon shooter I've never gotten photos that look like that.

Do you like the look of the photos?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
331 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Feb 16, 2017 18:01 |  #2

Yes, obvious strobe work. Tweak the saturation and clarity in LR, maybe the blues in Camera Calibration. Nothing you couldn't do with Canon. I shoot Nikon now, and find that I spend most of my days working to mimic the color/look that I used to get with Canon lol. Grass is always greener ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2017 18:35 |  #3

tdlavigne wrote in post #18275903 (external link)
Yes, obvious strobe work. Tweak the saturation and clarity in LR, maybe the blues in Camera Calibration. Nothing you couldn't do with Canon. I shoot Nikon now, and find that I spend most of my days working to mimic the color/look that I used to get with Canon lol. Grass is always greener ;)

Thank you for the feedback! Strobe/flash for both the action shots on the slope, and the band on stage?

I wonder if permission was needed to shoot flash/strobe on the slope?

The 12th photo of that ski lodge can't be strobe, right? I was impressed by the detail in both the highlights and shadows in that shot.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,564 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3749
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 16, 2017 18:41 |  #4

If you could share some of your own photos that you feel should be crisper, I am sure we can point you to some techniques, either during the shot, or during post.

I will do this for you. I shoot with pretty neutral colors, I like Canon rendering because it leaves you so much room to enhance to your heart's content. I think on some other pics, you are seeing things either punched up in-camera or during post. I usually stay conservative. I usually process more like the left side, but you can pop up contrast, sharpening, and saturation if you like that kind of thing.

I don't know what the Nikon looks like, but the right side is more what I see posted online.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2017 18:50 |  #5

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18275918 (external link)
If you could share some of your own photos that you feel should be crisper, I am sure we can point you to some techniques, either during the shot, or during post.

I don't have any at night like that. It's the color, and dare I say, maybe dynamic range, that seem impressive to me. As for crispness or sharpness, I don't think those photos are especially sharp. Looks like the shutter speed was a little slow.

Attached is one of my shots from that same place during the day time.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,564 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3749
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 16, 2017 19:22 |  #6

I think one issue you have is that of an optical illusion. The background is so busy, it takes away from the color and detail you might be capturing. The background, blurry or not, really has an impact on visual perception. There is a reason many portraits are made with black backgrounds and flash, it makes the subject material stand out.

I tried my best to take that shot and modify it to give you an idea. This really didn't turn out like I had envisioned, but hopefully it at least portrays a bit of what I am trying to say.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,003 posts
Likes: 987
Joined Dec 2006
Post edited over 1 year ago by gonzogolf.
     
Feb 16, 2017 20:55 |  #7

Lots to consider here and almost none of it relates to camera brand or model. The work you link to is strobed. The strobe freezes action more efficiently than simply using shutter speed during the day as the flash duration is similar to high shutter speed but the flash serves to separate the subject from the background. The difference between your shot is background clutter. The sky in the flashed shots doesn't compete with the subject like the trees in your shot. Also in a bright day stopping down means subjects far away have more detail than shooting wider open in lower light.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2017 21:23 |  #8

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18275958 (external link)
I think one issue you have is that of an optical illusion. The background is so busy, it takes away from the color and detail you might be capturing. The background, blurry or not, really has an impact on visual perception. There is a reason many portraits are made with black backgrounds and flash, it makes the subject material stand out.

I tried my best to take that shot and modify it to give you an idea. This really didn't turn out like I had envisioned, but hopefully it at least portrays a bit of what I am trying to say.
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by TeamSpeed in
./showthread.php?p=182​75958&i=i225885050
forum: Camera Vs. Camera

Thank you for the time to do that! I get what you're saying.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 16, 2017 21:29 |  #9

gonzogolf wrote in post #18276066 (external link)
Lots to consider here and almost none of it relates to camera brand or model. The work you link to is strobed. The strobe freezes action more efficiently than simply using shutter speed during the day as the flash duration is similar to high shutter speed but the flash serves to separate the subject from the background. The difference between your shot is background clutter. The sky in the flashed shots doesn't compete with the subject like the trees in your shot. Also in a bright day stopping down means subjects far away have more detail than shooting wider open in lower light.

The more I look at them I'm not so sure they were strobed, or there are just intense floodlights there. I'm planning to go there over the weekend and I may stay till after dark to check it out and try some shots myself.

The shots of the band in that gallery also have a different "look" to them. I don't think they were flashed. All of the photos in that gallery, both on the slopes and the band on stage, look slightly overexposed to me, and more blurry than what I like. I thought the 12th photo, of the ski lodge at the bottom of the hill, was impressive.

Here's another gallery from another photographer that day. Do you think these are in-camera multi exposures?

http://gallery.snowtra​ils.com …Photos-by-Anton-Schluter/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,003 posts
Likes: 987
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 16, 2017 21:30 as a reply to  @ KatManDEW's post |  #10

They were strobed, you can't freeze motion in flood light unless you are at ISO bazillion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,003 posts
Likes: 987
Joined Dec 2006
     
Feb 16, 2017 21:34 |  #11

Not trying to be harsh here but that different look is what you get from a skilled photographer. As for the stacked shots those look like they were stacked in post processing from a series of shots taken with a tripod mounted camera.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,839 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 1691
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 16, 2017 21:59 |  #12

if you download an exif viewer add on for your web-browser you can see his settings...they all say 'flash fired'

the first set was a nikon with a tamron 24-70mm

second photographers shots are actually taken with a t5 and a kit lens, i'd imagine he just stacked them afterwards in post processing


as for your shot, i'd say open up the lens more, and blur the background...or find a spot where you get the background farther away, or more pleasing...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
331 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Feb 17, 2017 01:01 |  #13

KatManDEW wrote in post #18275914 (external link)
Thank you for the feedback! Strobe/flash for both the action shots on the slope, and the band on stage?

I wonder if permission was needed to shoot flash/strobe on the slope?

The 12th photo of that ski lodge can't be strobe, right? I was impressed by the detail in both the highlights and shadows in that shot.

No, I was only looking at the first couple action shots. The lodge is w/o strobe, lit by what I assume are some rather large event lights of some sort. You can see the shadows behind the crowd. The shadow/highlight detail is doable with the Nikons because of the extra DR their (read: Sony) sensors provides. I hear the new 5DIV is close though in that regard.

As for permission, he was likely hired to shoot the event. Or maybe knows someone who works there. I'm leaning towards the former though, as standing around on an active slope with equipment flashing the patrons probably wouldn't go over so well if he didn't have permission.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
17,839 posts
Gallery: 24 photos
Likes: 1691
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Feb 17, 2017 01:08 as a reply to  @ tdlavigne's post |  #14

Lodge photo still says flash fired...


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
Post edited over 1 year ago by KatManDEW.
     
Feb 17, 2017 04:46 |  #15

DreDaze wrote in post #18276127 (external link)
if you download an exif viewer add on for your web-browser you can see his settings...they all say 'flash fired'

the first set was a nikon with a tamron 24-70mm

second photographers shots are actually taken with a t5 and a kit lens, i'd imagine he just stacked them afterwards in post processing


as for your shot, i'd say open up the lens more, and blur the background...or find a spot where you get the background farther away, or more pleasing...

I used to have an EXIF viewer installed. Lost it when I got a new computer. Need to get it again. Thanks for the reminder!

Do you have a recommendation for a EXIF viewer add on?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,901 views & 29 likes for this thread
That "Nikon look"
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is allen456
832 guests, 369 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.