That "Nikon look"

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

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?

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

tdlavigne wrote in post #18275903
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.

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.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18275918
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.

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.

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.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18275958
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: 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.

gonzogolf wrote in post #18276066
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/

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

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.

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...

KatManDEW wrote in post #18275914
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.

Lodge photo still says flash fired...

DreDaze wrote in post #18276127
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?