The essence of photography

[ajay124]

shivam

"If your highlights are correct then I think it is time to calibrate my monitor. This brings me to another important but usually ignored aspect of digital photography.
The monitor on which the photographs are viewed / processed / edited should be of very good quality."

Yes! The monitor on which you view the pics is all important! Personally when I view them on my iMac, I am knocked out by the results! And when I view them on any other monitor, which is not an iMac, I exclaim, so what ? I believe an essential part of enjoying photography at home is to get one of these:

Apple iMac Desktop Computer - Buy iMac, the Ultimate All-in-One - Apple Store (U.S.)

* I am not connected with Apple in any way. I simply believe that the BEST value for money product I have ever brought is the iMac. Good job, Mr. Jobs!

 

[Shivam]

Even iMac needs calibration.

Advantage is that you will have to calibrate it less often.

For Spyder - http://spyder.datacolor.com/

 

[josephjohnt]

I calibrate my monitor once in a lifetime, but i am not sure how i can get calibrated results between my monitor to the prints done outside.

I've heard Mac monitors use IPS panels and am thinking to invest on a Dell Ultrasharp monitor which has IPS panel. Its way cheaper than the apple monitor. I have seen people using it with Mac Pro.

 

[ajay124]

After contemplating virtually every nikon mount lens on the Nikon, Tokina, Zeiss and Voigtlander websites, I ruled out several lenses because they were too expensive. And I ruled out many more because they did not seem to be the right ones to acquire. Which left only a few lenses on my wish list. For immediate use I made two lists:

normal lens shortlist:
35mm 2D
35mm 1.8G
40mm 2.8G micro
50mm 1.8D
50mm 1.8G
50mm 1.4D


I opted for the 50mm 1.8D as it was 50-70% cheaper than the others, and it also happened to be an FX lens, with superb resolution and insignificant/nil distortion, vignetting or chromatic aberration.

short telephoto/portrait lens shortlist:
60mm 2.8D micro
85mm 1.8D
85mm 1.8G
105mm 2.8D micro

I chose the 85mm 1.8D because it is a nicely built, reasonably priced FX lens which is capable of shooting stunning portraits, if the photographer knows his job.

There was actually no pressing need to buy more lenses, but once I started window shopping for new toys, I convinced myself that I needed something at the wide end and the long telephoto end. Two more primes or a single multi purpose 10x zoom? No lens interested me enough to make me want to buy it.

Yesterday evening I was browsing through the ebay.in website and I came across a Tokina 24-200 f/3.5-5.6 FX zoom. It is a discontinued lens and I have never seen it on the Tokina website. I was immediately attracted by it's 24-200 focal range and solid build quality. The condition of the lens being offered seemed to be very good and the price was a very affordable 15K, inclusive of shipping. I took a chance and placed my first ebay order! Their paisapay service (funds are only transferred to the seller, after the buyer has received the goods) inspired my confidence. I sent a mail to the seller, received an immediate response, spoke to him on the phone and finally placed the order yesterday evening. I have received confirmation that the lens has been shipped and I expect to be shooting with it day after tomorrow

Tokina's new 24-200 lens

 

[Shivam]

That Tokina looks like an interesting lens especially at that price. Do post your impressions of that lens after you have used it.

Just a small correction in the above list from my viewpoint. I don't consider 35mm lens as normal. For me more than the area covered, 'normal' denotes the perspective almost similar to what our eyes see. 50-55mm range comes near that.
On a dx sensor, the 35mm lens creates an almost equal angle (or covers similar amount of view) but it is not 'normal' since the perspective is changed. The distances between various objects might appear to be larger than what our eyes perceive in reality when looking at that size of 'field'.

 

[iaudio]

Ajay, nice find. Let me know if you come across another!
I am waiting for your feedback on the same.

 

[ajay124]

I was earlier scanning OLX and Quickr for used cameras/lenses. I did get in touch with a few sellers, but after speaking with them on the phone, I felt that most of them were fly by night operators pretending to be photography hobbyists. Several sellers claimed they had bought the camera or the lens from abroad. As if buying from 'abroad' would confer a more desirable status to the product My recent searches have revealed that the best prices and deals on Nikon are available from local dealers, rather than from online sellers or 'abroad'!

None of the deals materialized, because after talking to the seller on the phone, I did not feel confident enough to make a blind call. Most sellers were reluctant about mailing clear and revealing pics of the product. Sellers of cameras like the D300/D700 were cagey about the shutter count and were demanding unreasonable prices. Ebay.in seems like a better bet for finding the occasional good bargain. Their paisapay option is more reliable than a direct transfer of funds to an unknown seller. I am happy with my first transaction but the proof of the pudding will be only revealed when I actually get to eat it

 

[Shivam]

I have bought photography related stuff on eBay and thankfully I have never had any problems. I use paisapay all the time.

 

[ajay124]

I have probably seen as many black and white films, as I have seen color films. If I was to make a list of my favorite films, most of them would be in black and white. When I think of cinema the images which immediately come into my mind are b&w shots from the films of Eisenstein, Vertov, Dreyer, De Sica, Fellini, Antonioni, Bunuel, Truffaut, Godard, Resnais, Bergman, Kurosawa and Ray. And most of all - Tarkovsky. I have never, ever come across anything as visually pure, magical and uplifting as the earlier b&w films of Andrei Tarkovsky.

Since I developed an interest in photography, I like to browse through the photos shot by Henri Cartier Bresson, Ansel Adams, Robert Capa and other famous photographers of the b&w era. One can learn a lot about composition and technique by looking at the work of these masters. I tried shooting/processing a few b&w pics earlier, but the results were distinctly underwhelming! But with a gradually dawning understanding of spot metering and histograms, I feel I have made some headway in this direction. Currently the picture control of my D90 is permanent set on Monochrome/B&W.

Warning: Looking at life in black and white is highly addictive

B&W - a set on Flickr

 

[jitubisht]

Warning: Looking at life in black and white is highly addictive

B&W - a set on Flickr

I agree Ajay. Black and white adds grace to any portrait. Some of the best portraits/landscapes I have clicked are black and white. Although I dont click them black and white from my camera, but eventually I end up making them black and white. It's just got a great feel to it!

 

[iaudio]

Yep, and good Black&White images are timeless! I mean, colors kinda vary with years, certain colors maybe 'in' and certain colors maybe not and this varies from time to time. Not so with Black and white.

 

[Shivam]

I suggest clicking raw even if you set a black and white profile on the camera. Almost all the cameras have very pathetic black and white processing compared to color processing. Use the black and white mode, just to understand and for a quick review but process all the photos on any good program and select the color filters and the intensity according to the requirements.

If you want to directly click black and white, I suggest buying a camera or a back ( if your camera has interchangeable backs) which has an exclusive black and white sensor. The sensors meant for coloured photographs have 'wells' filled with different 'pigments' that interpret the same color differently and so the end result is not as good as it should be. Apart from this the processing in coloured cameras takes place to bring the best out of skin tones in a general sense but that spoils many other beautiful images that can be made from the interplay of light and dark and of various shades.

 

[ajay124]

Yep, and good Black&White images are timeless! I mean, colors kinda vary with years, certain colors maybe 'in' and certain colors maybe not and this varies from time to time. Not so with Black and white.

Black is black! I want my baby back!

I suddenly remembered a song which was among the first western songs I heard back in school. There were several versions of this song floating around, and all of them were catchy. Disco was unspoiled and nice until the mid 70's, but they messed it up in the 80's by polishing and mass packaging it, a la Michael Jackson.

Los Bravos - Black Is Black (1967) [High Quality Stereo Sound, Subtitled] - YouTube

 

[ajay124]

I suggest clicking raw even if you set a black and white profile on the camera. Almost all the cameras have very pathetic black and white processing compared to color processing. Use the black and white mode, just to understand and for a quick review but process all the photos on any good program and select the color filters and the intensity according to the requirements.

If you want to directly click black and white, I suggest buying a camera or a back ( if your camera has interchangeable backs) which has an exclusive black and white sensor. The sensors meant for coloured photographs have 'wells' filled with different 'pigments' that interpret the same color differently and so the end result is not as good as it should be. Apart from this the processing in coloured cameras takes place to bring the best out of skin tones in a general sense but that spoils many other beautiful images that can be made from the interplay of light and dark and of various shades.

Nice post. Raw is essential for lens correction during post processing. While converting some of my colored pics to b&w, I was happy with the results I got with b&w filters like maximum black, maximum white and neutral density. I have come across many nice pics on Flickr. But I found the flickrstream of Jorris Martinez, primarily shot/processed in intense b&w, quite remarkable :

Clair de lune | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[gobble]

Interesting to know that a color sensor will not give the best results for B&W.

Ken Rockwell seems to think it wont have any adverse effect

There's no quality advantage: all digital cameras use color sensors anyway. Actually all color sensors are B/W sensors with RGB filters permanently painted on top of alternating pixels. Kodak made a very special B/W DSLR some years back without the RGB filter atop the sensor, and thus it did give the advantage of higher resolution and speed and you did have to use a color filter in front of the lens. Otherwise there are no B/W digital cameras common today.

How to Use Filters

HTH

--G

 

[Shivam]

Interesting to know that a color sensor will not give the best results for B&W.

Ken Rockwell seems to think it wont have any adverse effect

--G

I should not be saying this but Ken Rockwell is a self proclaimed authority who seems to have been given a special left handed camera but unfortunately he got the wrist watch (zoom to see the numbers on the dial), shirt button etc... wrong in that photo. Do I have to say more ? His wife obviously is a rich lady.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/Images/KenLens3k.jpg

I found this on another forum - Either that is a womans shirt or a special made left handed button shirt cause ALL my shirts have the lower button lapel on the right.

In my opinion his photos have very poor balance of elements, extremely overblown colors, and sharpness (sharpening by increasing the contrast of adjoining pixels ?).

A pinch of salt with everything that one can read on internet - this is my advice.

 

[ajay124]

Sometimes, life can be a bit of a roller coaster ride

A few days ago I contemplated buying the Nikkor 18-35 FX lens, but I dumped the idea after reading a lack luster review on Photozone. My interest shifted to the attractively priced 28mm 2.8D prime. But it was not wide enough and it was not available, so I dropped that one too. I came across the Tokina 24-200 FX lens on ebay.in for 15K. It seemed like a great option, so I bought it. I received the lens a couple of days ago. To my dismay it was completely incompatible with my D90, inspite of being touted as a Nikon mount. For starters, it would not auto focus. Manual focusing was possible but the focusing ring was unresponsive and b-a-d! I could take pictures on the manual mode, but the shutter went dead if I tried using anything other mode! Aperture could only be set from the aperture ring, but not from the body. Only centre weighted metering was working and I hardly ever use that. Exposure compensation was not working. In a nut shell, the lens was completely useless on my camera! For me, it is goodbye to third party and used lenses! In future I will only buy Nikon and new! Fortunately both ebay and the seller have been extremely helpful. The lens has been shipped back and I have been promised a full refund in a few days.

Today morning I discovered that effective from today, Nikon has jacked up the prices of its lenses by 10%! The mrp of 18-35 has gone up from 31K to 34K. Luckily (on Saturday) I had asked the (only) dealer who had it in stock, to keep it on hold for me. He agreed to give it to me at the older price, less the usual discount. And with this lens, it it truly love at first sight! I can understand why Shivam likes it. A completely different perspective and experience, from my 50 and 85mm primes. It has changed my impression about zooms. It shoots sharp and clean images. Huge amount of distortion, which can be used artistically, or removed through lens correction. Therefore, not an insurmountable problem! If I do my bit in terms of focusing, exposure and composition, the 18-35 is capable of creating great images. It is a good lens. There is no one to blame except ME, if the pics don't pop!

First pic:

panchkula #1 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Shivam]

I was hoping to see your experiences with the 28mm lens however I am glad that you too like the 18-35 Nikkor. It does work wonders !

 

[sound1]

I suggest clicking raw even if you set a black and white profile on the camera. Almost all the cameras have very pathetic black and white processing compared to color processing.

IMHO, cameras have pathetic processing irrespective of b&w or colour. Biggest problem is they compress the dynamic range making the image look very bland & pale. Always shoot in raw and do the exposure compensation/brightness/contrast adjustments/ post processing in photoshop.

On a side note: a polarized filter (circular only) could be a very handy tool for many 'difficult' ligthing situations, such as hazy atmosphere, overcast conditions, too much water reflections and broad daylight. It almost always gives you better contrast, colours and dynamic range. Just my opinion.

 

[Shivam]

IMHO, cameras have pathetic processing irrespective of b&w or colour. Biggest problem is they compress the dynamic range making the image look very bland & pale. Always shoot in raw and do the exposure compensation/brightness/contrast adjustments/ post processing in photoshop.

On a side note: a polarized filter (circular only) could be a very handy tool for many 'difficult' ligthing situations, such as hazy atmosphere, overcast conditions, too much water reflections and broad daylight. It almost always gives you better contrast, colours and dynamic range. Just my opinion.

Exactly what I always say. Always click raw.

With regards to emphasis on black and white processing- it's worse than color (I agree color is also pathetic).

Another point to remember in favor of raw-
You will have the same post-processing in your camera even after years of use with maybe some minor improvements in firmware but with raw you can keep on improving your results by the updated or upgraded software.

I can now give even better processing to my D40 images (raw) clicked many years ago than what D3X gives from its in-camera processing.