[quote="$1"]
[img_assist|nid=1067241|title=state park|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=0|height=0]
[/quote]
Awsome Rob!
Chippy, I think you can teach us a thing or two, jeez you have like 20 years on me with regards to photo experience.
Developing photos in your bath? Priceless.
Our school had a dark room and all the chems + 3-4 enlargers. I really enjoyed that part of photography. It was really rewarding even if the shots were mostly rubbish.
thanks retroman ,
good info !
you'll like this [probably]
I sat ON the toilet [seat down , fully clothed] .
used an ironing board for the four chemical trays .
a wooden board over the sink for the enlarger ....
and of course , a safelight bulb in the overhead light ....
....might explain why now , at 51yo , when I surf [glasses OFF , obviously ] , my vision ain't all that good ... that , and squinting through a viewfinder , all those years [I spent two years while working at kodak [sydney , 1981] , taking photos in dark smoky pubs , of rock bands ...400iso film , no flash , tricky to focus ...but GREAT memories !
retro , the more blurred one of the car ... you got the exposures for that too, please ??
if still 100 iso [is that what you / your camera sets , mainly?] ...i'm figuring 1/ 8 to 1/15 of a second , or less ...
your monopod seems to work well ...
have you taken shots hand-held at 1/60th , much , also ? surfing ones ? skateboarding ones ? other sports besides autos ? [ horseracing or motorcross , or footy [soccer] for instance ? ]
so , as retro has illustrated above [thanks HEAPS , mate !] ...
part 2 " DEPTH OF FIELD "
you can see from his beer and snowboard photo just how the combination of aperture and shutter speed has affected the resulting photo's "depth of field "
...., this is the term for the distance in front of [ and behind ] the subject , that is in focus , or out of focus . Also , the distance of the camera from the subject has a bearing on this too .
I will try to dig up a few of my photos to put up here , occassionally .... but mainly , I am really keen to see what YOU guys come out with !
it doesn't 'have' to be surfing ....
..... to illustrate / explore the different aspects / fields of photography , and techniques , is what I had in mind , talking to others here ...[ Those who are friends on 'facebook' , and also any who visit my blog , would be aware that surfing is only one of quite a few subjects I enjoy photographing ! :) ]
Also ,
if anyone has got anything they would like to show / ask / advise / discuss / comment on , in terms of photography , surfing related , or otherwise ?
..... then , by all means , please ..... feel free to ...er..."fire away" , like a manic motordrive ! :)
cheers !
The if the focal length change comes from the size of the sensor. Full frame refers to the sensor being the same size as an image on 35mm film. If the sensor is smaller than a 35mm image, which is like 36x24mm, then the image is effectively zoomed in becuase the field of view of the sensor is narrowed, and the circle image the lens creates is still the same. So you’re basically taking less of the image the lens is producing.
I develop my own black and white film still, never got into color. It’s really not that difficult. Never had a printing setup in my house though. I did do a bit of printing in highschool.
Something that is super fun to shoot is skateboarding. Crusing through the city is so much fun, I think this was in brooklyn but I don’t remember.
And here’s an interesting trick, multi exposures. I took one of the moon then severly underexposed the surf shot. I still can’t decide if it looks like it was at night.
Chippy, can you post a link to your blog?
thanks dr !
here ya go !
http://www.bchipper.blogspot.com.au/
yes , your last photo just reminded me of what I miss from my 35mm film shooting days ... multiple exposures !! [ ...push in the 'film disengage' button , while simultaneously winding the film advance lever , to cock the shutter ...repeat as neccessary , take a blank frame at the end of the exercise , to avoid disasters ]
and also , the other thing I miss....
the really nice[r] black and white tones from using film , and different grades of paper and filters , when printing ... I miss THAT too !
I guess with a digital SLR , a good one , that hopefully the black and white quality might be better than the point and shoot camera's results I have had so far .....the poorer results are particularly noticeable as the light fades after sunset [one of my favourite times of day , as well as dawn and pre-dawn , to take photos !]
Dr Zoidberg and Ben,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. I too had a history with 35 mm and am slowly getting the hang of digital - or, trying to.
Bottom line seems to be - like everything else - good tools make for good results. I’m looking at better cameras than my present point and shoot.
Enjoying this thread - you folks know your stuff.
Thanks again,
Pete
Dr zoidberg!
There are some lovely photos on your Flickr. I really like the one of the camera on the ground with the mountains in the viewfinder. That’s a keeper.
Well worth having a Flickr through all 9 pages of it!
Chip, the exposure on the blurry shot was 1/3 s, you were not far off.
The exposure of the image with m. Webber (f1 car) was 1/1000 s. I tried doing the panning shot without the monopod, the hit rate is a lot lower I’ve found. But it certainly can be done, and in some cases you thats all that’s available.
Thanks. I’ve found with digital you really need to nail your post processing work. You obviously need a good image out of camera, proper exposure and white balance and all. But I find digital images need a bit of post work to look right. Also just picked up my first blank, gonna start shaping my first board soon. Blank is a 5’10" fish from us blanks.
Gotta shoot RAW. Digital is so much better than film.
.....please tell us more , I know nothing about 'raw' , mr. cutty !
cheers !
dr.zoid ,
the car [?] on fire photo is insaaane !! ...
....did you just 'come across' that , in your travels ?
could be a good insurance company ad photo , methinks ? [ie: "don't let this happen to YOU !" type thing ]
cheers for the flicker link ...
does that site automatically give you "all rights reserved " [ie: copyright] protection on your photos ?
that is a good idea ! ..... I have been wondering about that , myself , lately ?!
cheers
Like 75% or more of my photos are stuff I just come across. Usually if I find somehting cool and don’t have a camera I’ll go back. I find that if I go out looking to shot a specific theme or whatever I don’t do to well. I learned that in highschool photo, and that’s why I’ll probably never take another photo class. That car fire thing was shot out the window of a slow moving car. I’ve got no idea about the rights reserved thing or how that works.
Since I’m gonna be shaping my first board soon I’m gona try and do a series of shots on it. Most are probably gonna be akwardly composed self timer shots and goofy portraits with dust masks, but hopefully I’ll get something cool out of it.
Maybe someone can eplain to me why my photos post with such poor quality. I use a Mac on on iphoto I can zoom in and they’re great. The files tend to be big (circa 1.5 mb) so I reduce them to about 500-600kb before uploading them to Photobucket. I thought it might be the files were too small but when I drag jpgs off websites to save they have much better quality and much smaller files. Any ideas?
In the meantime here are some photos from a camping trip at Abreojos, Baja California, back in the 80’s. Good times.
Ben here’s a few I did with a 3 megapixel Digital camera a while ago. An Olympus C-730 ultrazoom. In some shots you can see the slower shutter speed panning with the subject. I have one shot that shows the same thing but using a fast shutter speed. It stops the action and everything is clear. I used a little telephoto so the background gets even more blurred.
There’s a shot showing how the telephoto lens will throw the background out of focus, and there’s a shots of the first light coming up over Waikiki using Kodachrome 25 and a very slow shutter speed. The long open shutter with film causes something called Reciprocity Law Failure that changes the colors a little. The same happens when you use a wide angle lens to shoot outdoor shots with a fast shutter at f22. The sky goes into a deep blue color.
I sometimes do the shutter blur thing. It’s super easy with my s70 becuase it has a viewfinder that doesn’t black out when you pull the shutter, so you can follow your subject all the way through the exposure. Example:
And this image came out of camera with surprisingly good colors, required very little editing if I recall. I love when that happens.
I threw some neopan 100 in my yashica last time I went to surf, but the waves were great and it’s hard to watch your buddies get killer rides through the viewfinder. Only shot 1 frame, but I’m gonna make sure I finish that roll and maybe shoot a few digi shots before I get in the water next time. And I like staying late in the day too, on the east coast the sun lights up the water and the surfer nicely since it’s over land, aimed east. I’ve got a 2 stop red filter than I want to try some slower shutter surfing stuff with for the yashica.
Taken with the Pentax SP1000 , 400mm lens , Ilford HP5 film [400ISO ]....
Gregg ['Noddy'] Macaulay ....
[ Taken with the same camera and the same lens , but with the 2x converter ...making it an 800mm lens equivalent !]
Drew Everest ....
...WOOHOOO !!
? east coast America ?
being from west australia ,
I have NO idea where that is , but that looks like a very fun inside section / reform to me !
nice photos , mate !!
interesting water colour , too .... do you have very BROWN sand , there ? [ours , here , is very WHITE !]
what camera and lens were these taken with ??
and during what time of the year , is that your winter / spring ?
cheers
ben
