[HUG ] Re: Arial Ballet
- From: Bob Adler <rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
That's a tough and good question. I don't know if I have an answer as I'm a bit
new to the Canon.
I think there is a difference between what I see from directly viewing a Velvia
transparancy (which is about all I shot other than BW with my Hassy) on a light
table and what I see on the screen. More saturation on the Velvia and a bit
less contrast between light and dark.
However, I scanned all my velvia for printing and I see a big difference
between my scans and my digital shots. I have a much greater dynamic range with
the digital camera file vs the digital scanned file. There is more detail.
Seems some detail was lost in the scanner (Nikon 8000 scanned at 4000dpi; 400MB
files) believe it or not; especially in the shadows. Not sure why; my guess is
that the digital camera's firmware is customized to produce the best direct
from the sensor and the scanner relied on the computer to do that
interpretation. Just guessing though.
So as I was hybrid (shot and developed my film, scanned and printed digitally),
the prints I'm getting from the Canon are as good as if not better than from my
scans. And the whole kit is a heluva lot lighter to carry around!
Just what I'm seeing so far.
Glad you thought the birds were "cute" :-)
Bob
Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA
rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.raflexions.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Nick Wilson <toona@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 8:11:28 PM
Subject: [HUG ] Re: Arial Ballet
Bob
Cute birds, Bob!
Just a question on the 'migration'. No doubt the new shots are very
sharp, but are you seeing any differences in the overall look of the image?
A supposed inherent digital look is a bit controversial, especially with
RAW shots, but there is certainly something going on, eg the infamous
and displeasing 'wax works' look in portraiture. I am interested in how
much is inherent in the camera and how much is simply current fashion.
Nick
PS putting out sugar for nectivores is actively discouraged here in the
great southern land, as it isn't as nutritious as nectar.
> Thanks all for the comments.
>
>
>
> I'm playing with a new camera that is replacing my Hasselblad system;
> Canon 1DsMkIII. I used a 100-400 f4 - 5.6. That's it. No flash, no 2x
> extender. Just shooting RAW.
>
>
>
> Each image, when you view the large one, shows some EXIF information:
> f-stop, shutter speed and ISO. Early in the day I pumped the ISO to
> 1200. I thought the results were amazing, especially since I have
> never had such a lack of grain with film. Later on I moved it down to
> 400 and still got some nice shots.
>
>
>
> I shot over 500 shots. I think there are only 2 I would work on more,
> the one that Doug Herr pointed out with the male (red) blurred in the
> background and the image with the arched back.
>
>
>
> I actually thought the background was ok. It was some pines about 100
> yards away. Perhaps it's too light? Too dark? I didn't think it
> interfered with the images but others do think so.
>
>
>
> This is my first attempt with wildlife. Not sure if I'll go back. It
> was mainly an exercise in learning how to use this new camera in
> different ways. Much different than my normal rocks and waves thing. I
> thought about using my 90 tilt/shift, but after looking at the speed
> of these buggers for about 2 seconds, decided a long lens was the only
> way to go. Basically waited until one hit the viewfinder and fired
> away. Auto focus, once I figured out how to use it, worked about 60%
> of the time (which is better than my manual focus did!). I did no post
> processing other than a bit of exposure adjustment and cropping.
>
>
>
> BTW, I did use this new gear out at Pt. Lobos on Friday. I'll post one
> image that I really like with a 24Tilt/shift. My concern with moving
> from medium format was that I wouldn't be able to print 40"x XX" like
> I could with my scanned 6x6 negatives. Man was I wrong. It looks
> terrific; better than my scanned negatives printed on a Lightjet
> printer (Ciba chrome). I'm really happy with the switch.
>
>
>
> So let me know if I can still participate in this forum as I no longer
> have H gear :-(
>
> boB
>
>
>
> Bob Adler
> Palo Alto, CA
> rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx
> http://www.raflexions.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "jmswllms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <jmswllms@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 12:42:13 PM
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: Arial Ballet
>
> Nice pics Bob, I think I read somewhere if you use high speed strobe
> you can freeze the wing movement. Some times movement is good. Again
> your pics are great, are they film or digital.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Bob Adler" <rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx>>
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 9/22/08 7:54 AM
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: Arial Ballet
>
> Thanks Sherm,
> They were all taken with a 100 - 400 f4 - 5.6, all at the long end. No
> blind; these guys are well trained :-)
> As for what's on the first bird's bill, I have no idea. If I remember
> to ask my vet friend, I'll get back to you. Maybe a sinus infection ;-)
> These images are cropped so I'm not sure how much larger than 8x10 I
> could go. But it was a fun way to spend a Sunday morning. There were
> lots of other feeders I didn't stake out, so perhaps I'll go back.
> Thanks very much for looking and for your comments and historical
> perspective,
> Best,
> Bob
>
> Bob Adler
> Palo Alto, CA
> rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.raflexions.com <http://www.raflexions.com/>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Sherman Bloom <shermanbloom@xxxxxxx <mailto:shermanbloom@xxxxxxx>>
> To: hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hasselblad@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 1:52:09 AM
> Subject: [HUG ] Re: Arial Ballet
>
> Bob,
>
> These are great. It amazes me that we can get such well focused
> images of these birds. In days past it was a much more difficult
> thing to do, but modern equipment has made it at least possible for
> us. When Eliot Porter got pictures like this it was only after
> superhuman effort that few of us would be willing to put in (but that
> was not primarily on hummers). Later, when a Dupont did his good work
> with these birds, he had to use photocell detectors to trip his camera
> so that the bird was photographed where the camera was prefocused.
> Were you in some sort of blind, or did these birds just ignore you.
> How long a lens? Here in Mississippi it would be very unlikely that
> you'd be able to get a picture with two hummers in the same field of
> view, because here they are very nasty towards each other, and an
> invading bird is immediately attacked at high speed. It happens so
> fast that an observer hardly realizes that it has happened. Even when it
> is male defending his territory from a female. Years ago I was in
> Costa Rica, where there are many kinds of hummers, and they crowd
> around a feeder so that you might get several species in one shot.
> Unfortunately I didn't have photographic equipment with me at the time.
>
> In the first picture the bird seems to have something on her bill.
> Maybe a healing wound?
>
> Anyway, these are very nice pictures. The birds are excellent and the
> background nicely out of focus. My guess is that you were working at
> high shutter speed and almost wide open aperture with at least a 200
> mm lens. Probably 300? Maybe with a telextender?
>
>
> Sherman
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2008, at 11:26 PM, Bob Adler wrote:
>
> My vet loves wildlife photography. He's smart and he's good. He does
> workshops, when he's not running his vet practice, in Alaska for
> photographing bear, eagles and whatever else is around.
> He invited me, along with several other hobbyists, to his house today
> where he has about 20 humming bird feeders. His wife said they go
> through 25lbs of sugar every 5 or 6 days.
> Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, but fun. Stopping time with a
> camera gives a whole new appreciation for the abilities of these
> little sugar rats!
> http://www.raflexions.com/Hummers
> Hope you enjoy.
>
> C&C always appreciated.
> Bob
>
> Bob Adler
> Palo Alto, CA
> rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:rgacpa@xxxxxxxxx>
> http://www.raflexions.com <http://www.raflexions.com/>
>
>
>
>
> ============================================================================================================To
>
> unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org
> <//www.freelists.org/> and logon to your account (the same e-mail
> address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe
> from there.
>
>
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
