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
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 17, 2017 18:02 |  #31

gonzogolf wrote in post #18276845 (external link)
The skill to know you can use flash duration to freeze motion. The skill to shoot from nn angle that isolates the subject from the background.

Uh, yeah, flash can do that. A large percentage of those shots have trees and bright floodlights in the "isolated background".




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,567 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3755
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (2 edits in all)
     
Feb 17, 2017 18:26 as a reply to  @ KatManDEW's post |  #32

What browser do you use? I would strongly suggest going to that browser's add-ons or plug-ins configuration page, and search EXIF. I personally use this person's plug in.

Having this would have eliminated alot of the questions and ensuing arguments. :)

https://addons.mozilla​.org …user/alan-raskin/?src=api (external link)

There is nothing I see in those pictures that cannot be obtained with Canon gear. With a more blurred or flat dark background, appropriate exposure, strobing, and post processing, I would even say somebody that does this alot and was good at it, and was armed with Canon gear, knowing how to post process could probably get better images.


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 17, 2017 18:51 |  #33

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18276932 (external link)
What browser do you use? I would strongly suggest going to that browser's add-ons or plug-ins configuration page, and search EXIF. I personally use this person's plug in.

Having this would have eliminated alot of the questions and ensuing arguments. :)

https://addons.mozilla​.org …user/alan-raskin/?src=api (external link)

There is nothing I see in those pictures that cannot be obtained with Canon gear. With a more blurred or flat dark background, appropriate exposure, strobing, and post processing, I would even say somebody that does this alot and was good at it, and was armed with Canon gear, knowing how to post process could probably get better images.

Thanks for the link! I will get that right away. Been too busy to do it so far today. I used to have a browser add-on for EXIF, but lost it during a computer upgrade.

And yes, I would like to think to think someone with Canon gear could get as good or better images. With the possible exception of the ski lodge shot, in a single non-HDR exposure at low ISO, with better DR than what is available from Canon.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,567 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3755
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 1 year ago by TeamSpeed. (6 edits in all)
     
Feb 17, 2017 20:06 as a reply to  @ KatManDEW's post |  #34

The DR differences only really come into play when you start to pull up shadows for whatever the desired effect you are going for. The 80D, 5D4 and 1DX2 now sport the new sensor, and Canon is now not that far from Sony at all. In any case, DR matters little in those shots if there is no post processing later where the shooter is trying to bring up shadows, or if the overall image was underexposed, and they had to pull it up 2+ stops.

I really don't get the term HDR though. HDR is nothing more than shrinking the final DR of the image down to just handful of stops so that you can make out everything in the scene. I would think some of the HDR shots I have seen should really be called LDR. :D


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tdlavigne
Senior Member
Avatar
333 posts
Likes: 99
Joined Mar 2015
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Feb 17, 2017 21:53 |  #35

Unless you specifically NEEEEEEED that extra 1-1.5 stops of dynamic range, there's nothing you can't do with a Canon sensor in these images. I'd go so far as to say that what you're seeing isn't really a benefit of increased DR, and more just decent lighting and Lightroom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,567 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3755
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 18, 2017 00:10 |  #36

It is getting expensive paying my shop to change the shutter oil every 3K clicks. I might have to start doing it myself.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Feb 18, 2017 03:09 |  #37

.

KatManDEW wrote in post #18276949 (external link)
And yes, I would like to think to think someone with Canon gear could get as good or better images.

.
Well, of course they can! It doesn't look like there is anything particularly special in the images you linked to, from a technical standpoint. What is special about them is the result of the point of view from which they were taken, the distance-to-subject from which they were taken, the backgrounds themselves (in most of the images), and the subject-to-background distance (again, in most, but not all, of the images), and the skillful use of artificial lighting.

The "look" that you seem to refer to is just a function of having an illuminated subject with enough background separation that the background was not illuminated along with the subject. There is nothing about the "look" that would necessitate a sensor other than what Canon DSLRs come with.

What is really responsible for that look was the artist's vision, and his knowledge of lighting and compositional geometry, and how the one affects the other - which allowed him to capture his vision.

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 18, 2017 07:53 |  #38

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18277016 (external link)
The DR differences only really come into play when you start to pull up shadows for whatever the desired effect you are going for. The 80D, 5D4 and 1DX2 now sport the new sensor, and Canon is now not that far from Sony at all. In any case, DR matters little in those shots if there is no post processing later where the shooter is trying to bring up shadows, or if the overall image was underexposed, and they had to pull it up 2+ stops.

I really don't get the term HDR though. HDR is nothing more than shrinking the final DR of the image down to just handful of stops so that you can make out everything in the scene. I would think some of the HDR shots I have seen should really be called LDR. :D

I got that EXIF viewer. Thanks again for the recommendation and link. I didn't check all of those photos, but it looks like all the ones on the slope are at ISO 800-1250, where Nikon/Sony have no dynamic range advantage over Canon. The photos of the musicians on stage were ISO 6400, f/2.8, with no flash.

That photographer apparently got pretty close to the action on the slopes, since he was shooting a 24-70 lens on a full frame body. That's probably a little more daredevil and obtrusive than I will be. I'll have my Canon 24-70 f/2.8 with me, but I'll more than likely be standing back a little with my Canon 70-200 f/2.8. My bones don't heal as well as they did when I was younger, and I don't like to be obnoxiously obtrusive while photographing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,567 posts
Gallery: 81 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3755
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Feb 18, 2017 08:03 |  #39

What camera are you using? Does it have WiFi? If so, you could set up the equipment and remote fire.


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
12,154 posts
Gallery: 140 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2923
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Feb 18, 2017 09:24 |  #40

.

KatManDEW wrote in post #18277337 (external link)
That photographer apparently got pretty close to the action............that​'s probably a little more daredevil and obtrusive than I will be...............I don't like to be obnoxiously obtrusive while photographing.

.
It's not 'obnoxiously obtrusive' if the skiers and snowboarders are hiring him to photograph them, and pleading with him to "do whatever it takes to get awesome shots, pleeeaase!"

.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 18, 2017 22:56 |  #41

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18277404 (external link)
.

.
It's not 'obnoxiously obtrusive' if the skiers and snowboarders are hiring him to photograph them, and pleading with him to "do whatever it takes to get awesome shots, pleeeaase!"

.

IF




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 19, 2017 19:36 |  #42

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18277343 (external link)
What camera are you using? Does it have WiFi? If so, you could set up the equipment and remote fire.

My 5D4 has WiFi and I've triggered it remotely with my phone. Thanks for the idea.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KatManDEW
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
637 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 192
Joined Jan 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Feb 22, 2017 20:40 |  #43

I think they had a special jump setup at the bottom of the hill for the photos in that link that I posted, because of all the people standing around in the photos. I had to walk halfway up the hill to get to any of the jumps. I was only able to stay for a very short time after it got completely dark.

For what it's worth here are a couple shots I got. C&C welcome. And if anyone wants to take a crack at one of the raw files I can make them available somewhere.

Thanks to everyone who has participated in this thread.


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


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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick ­ Aufiero
Senior Member
459 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 86
Joined May 2013
Location: Oklahoma city
     
Mar 14, 2017 21:04 |  #44

I mean all of those clearly had flash used on them. Maybe not the ones that were wide angle with a lot of people in them but even then maybe. There's literally nothing special about those shots so I don't think that has to do with the type of camera they use as opposed to the skills and knowing the settings to use

Cool shots and all but nothing that stands out that makes me think "wow I wish I had a Nikon"


My site is www.NickAufiero.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kf095
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,301 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 224
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Canada, Ontario, Milton
     
Mar 15, 2017 09:55 |  #45

Nikon colors and Canon colors.
After growing out from advanced P&S we went to the all gone now Canadian Store. It was at the end of 2008. I wanted Nikon D90. It was with more advanced zoom. It was 1200 CAD before taxes. But my wife spotted open box Canon 500D. We paid for it, memory card, tripod and extended warranty slightly above 1K CAD with taxes included.
My wife still don't want to use it because non of the Canon DSLR have central point selection in full Auto mode. But D90 has it.
Later on I went to customer site in Montreal. One of the technicians has very good images of same kind I was taken as screen saver on his computer screen. I asked. He was using D90. And it was first time for me to realize what Nikon renders it differently for colors.


Old Site (external link). M-E and ME blog (external link). Film Flickr (external link). my DigitaL and AnaLog Gear.

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

8,903 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 STKI
693 guests, 261 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.