Photography General - Sperging about taking pictures and shit

[sasazuka]

Forgot to dump this here.

It's definitely an improvement for exposure; the downside of longer exposures at night is, of course, if there's a moving train, it will just be a blur.

If you wanted the passing train to be the main subject of the picture, you'd really have to practice panning while holding the camera to be able to get any sharp detail on it at night or use a short shutter speed with a very high ISO, but then everything would be grainy.

 

[The Stranger]

I just got my first camera yesterday, it's a Nikon Z5 just with the 24-50mm kit lens. I took it out on a hike today, unfortunately it was just overcast, not even with cool-looking dark clouds, just ugly grey skies. Regardless, I tried my best. Any advice on better composition or camera settings would be appreciated. I also took the photos in RAW and processed them in Lightroom so any processing critiques would be helpful too.

Spoiler: Photos

 

[sasazuka]

I just got my first camera yesterday, it's a Nikon Z5 just with the 24-50mm kit lens. I took it out on a hike today, unfortunately it was just overcast, not even with cool-looking dark clouds, just ugly grey skies. Regardless, I tried my best. Any advice on better composition or camera settings would be appreciated. I also took the photos in RAW and processed them in Lightroom so any processing critiques would be helpful too.

There's the old "Sunny 16" rule of a wider aperture like f/5.6 or f/4 for an overcast day combined with an ISO of 400 to 800 but those are really just broad guidelines not hard rules. If your camera has a white balance setting, you can set it to "Cloudy/Overcast" for better results (or do a manual white balance using a white card every so often as lighting conditions change if you want even more control)..

Personally, I don't think it's a sin to have an overexposed sky on a cloudy day as long as the foreground is interesting.

Those photos all look pretty good to me. I like the one with the bridge and the macro shot of the flowers and budding leaves best.

 

[triggersliver]

I just got my first camera yesterday, it's a Nikon Z5 just with the 24-50mm kit lens. I took it out on a hike today, unfortunately it was just overcast, not even with cool-looking dark clouds, just ugly grey skies. Regardless, I tried my best. Any advice on better composition or camera settings would be appreciated. I also took the photos in RAW and processed them in Lightroom so any processing critiques would be helpful too.

Spoiler: Photos

View attachment 7367412 View attachment 7367413
View attachment 7367415 View attachment 7367418 View attachment 7367425

View attachment 7367428 View attachment 7367430 View attachment 7367432

Seeing as this is your first camera the pictures all came out well exposed and relatively sharp. For sunnier days, you would find having a circular polarizer to be a handy tool. Overcast days can be great sometimes since the sun and clouds diffuse the light and the sky becomes a giant softbox. You have pleasantly composed most shots with the rule of thirds in mind. If you did that unintentionally then congrats! I would urge you to find some landscape photographers work to view and find inspiration from their compositions or editing. Thank you for sharing!

 

[The Stranger]

There's the old "Sunny 16" rule of a wider aperture like f/5.6 or f/4 for an overcast day combined with an ISO of 400 to 800 but those are really just broad guidelines not hard rules. If your camera has a white balance setting, you can set it to "Cloudy/Overcast" for better results (or do a manual white balance using a white card every so often as lighting conditions change if you want even more control)..

Interesting. In the basic research I did before I got the camera I read that you want a small aperture for landscape photography so you can get the whole scene into focus. How do I consolidate that with the "sunny 16" rule? Would a polarized lens filter help?

Those photos all look pretty good to me. I like the one with the bridge and the macro shot of the flowers and budding leaves best.

Thanks, the flower photo was also a friend's favorite. Maybe I'll focus more on the close up nature photography lol.

You have pleasantly composed most shots with the rule of thirds in mind. If you did that unintentionally then congrats! I would urge you to find some landscape photographers work to view and find inspiration from their compositions or editing. Thank you for sharing!

lol it was indeed intentional, I did a bit of research while waiting for the camera to be delivered so I think I got the basics down. Do you have landscape photographer recommendations?

 

[DavidS877]

I just got my first camera yesterday, it's a Nikon Z5 just with the 24-50mm kit lens. I took it out on a hike today, unfortunately it was just overcast, not even with cool-looking dark clouds, just ugly grey skies. Regardless, I tried my best. Any advice on better composition or camera settings would be appreciated. I also took the photos in RAW and processed them in Lightroom so any processing critiques would be helpful too.

Spoiler: Photos

View attachment 7367412 View attachment 7367413
View attachment 7367415 View attachment 7367418 View attachment 7367425

View attachment 7367428 View attachment 7367430 View attachment 7367432

I did want to say something about this one:

It's a nice concept for a shot, but there's too much background and it's too distracting. My eye sort of goes to the road or whatever on the left. If you want to do macro-style photos with a out of focus background then fill the frame with the subject or at least make sure the background is fairly consistent and not distracting. Consider also trying to stop the aperture way down and try out bigger depth of field too.

There's the old "Sunny 16" rule of a wider aperture like f/5.6 or f/4 for an overcast day combined with an ISO of 400 to 800 but those are really just broad guidelines not hard rules. If your camera has a white balance setting, you can set it to "Cloudy/Overcast" for better results (or do a manual white balance using a white card every so often as lighting conditions change if you want even more control)..

For reference, since the image may not be clear to a noob, "reciprocal of ISO" means that if you're using ISO 100, then f16 and 1/100 of second, 400 ISO 1/400.

Also, I don't see much need changing camera settings for RAW since all the white balance is done in post, but it will give your raw converter a starting point. Auto White Balance is usually good enough if you shoot JPG+RAW and just want to use the JPG for quick sorting or previews and then process the RAW for real.

And if you do want to play with stuff, get a grey card, not a white card, white can blow out and make it hard to judge what is supposed to be white, especially in the sun. "Photo grey card" should easily find a neutral 18% reflectance card.

 

[sasazuka]

Interesting. In the basic research I did before I got the camera I read that you want a small aperture for landscape photography so you can get the whole scene into focus. How do I consolidate that with the "sunny 16" rule? Would a polarized lens filter help?

The small aperture for landscape photgraphy rule applies more to sunny days, if the main point of interest is in the distance, shooting with a wider aperture is fine as long as you don't need every little blade of grass and pebble in the foreground to be in focus.

I do have a cheapo Amazon brand polarized filter but I mainly use it to reduce reflections, I can't say how well it works for landscape.

 

[triggersliver]

Do you have landscape photographer recommendations?

Alex Burke
Robert Adams
Bryan Schutmaat
Matthew Genitempo
Stephen Shore

These are some more modern photographers, it's hard to find a lot of their work online and i've linked to their respective sites.

 

[The Stranger]

It's a nice concept for a shot, but there's too much background and it's too distracting. My eye sort of goes to the road or whatever on the left. If you want to do macro-style photos with a out of focus background then fill the frame with the subject or at least make sure the background is fairly consistent and not distracting. Consider also trying to stop the aperture way down and try out bigger depth of field too.

I get what you're saying, yea the background is way too busy. As far as the aperture goes, IIRC that was with the lowest stop on that lens lmao. Unfortunately it's one of those lenses where the max aperture changes with the zoom. At 50mm the lowest F stop is 6.3
Probably going to be the first upgrade I get, then

 

[DavidS877]

I get what you're saying, yea the background is way too busy. As far as the aperture goes, IIRC that was with the lowest stop on that lens lmao. Unfortunately it's one of those lenses where the max aperture changes with the zoom. At 50mm the lowest F stop is 6.3
Probably going to be the first upgrade I get, then

Nikon has some really nice lenses over the years and apparently today's Z 50mm 1.8 is near perfect, it's also $500. If you're not too worried about bulk you can get traditional F mount lenses and the adapter which opens up a ton of Nikon and aftermarket lenses from the new and used markets. I really like the 50mm 1.4 for 'available darkness' shooting and no depth of field at all.

One nice thing about digital is you can go, take a shot, use the preview on the display to zoom and see the depth of field, motion blur etc. Adjust aperture and shutter, rinse, repeat, adjust the exposure + and - and see how things change. Put it in Aperture priority and go through the whole range and let the camera choose the shutter speed, do this with a close and far object in view and focus on one and see how aperture impacts the other, Go into manual and play with everything.

Another accessory you might consider is a tripod, people usually think of them for long exposure but they're really handy to lock a shot down and play with all the settings.

 

[The Stranger]

Nikon has some really nice lenses over the years and apparently today's Z 50mm 1.8 is near perfect, it's also $500. If you're not too worried about bulk you can get traditional F mount lenses and the adapter which opens up a ton of Nikon and aftermarket lenses from the new and used markets. I really like the 50mm 1.4 for 'available darkness' shooting and no depth of field at all.

I heard about that adapter for the F mount lenses, I also heard that some of the functions of the camera don't work if you're using that? Like autofocus and stuff like that. Is that still true or did they update it?

 

[DavidS877]

I heard about that adapter for the F mount lenses, I also heard that some of the functions of the camera don't work if you're using that? Like autofocus and stuff like that. Is that still true or did they update it?

It's not something they're likely to update. And yes, Autofocus only works with the newest lenses. Auto metering with slightly older and limited compatibility with older than that.

Ken Rockwell has a good review, as usual. https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/mirrorless/lenses/ftz.htm

I'd probably not deliberately buy a new F mount lens to use with an adapter, but the used market is a different story.

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

i tried these with some ilford 100

it absolutely refused to go on the reel for the paterson tank and got scratched to shit
The excessive manipulation (i spent an hour trying to get it to feed, goddam) might have "helped" with the light aberrations maybe. the first was a really bright day, the 2nd was a sunny day, but inside a sort of covered street, and the 3rd was a bright day but i was under some trees

again, 110 year old uncoated lens, pictures of film hanging in my shower. I shot a roll of rpx25 before this and it doesnt have that problem, so maybe i set the aperture too wide (i have 1/25 and 1/50 shutter speeds) or the shutter got sticky near closing on the last roll

(these are some of the B roll shots, quite a few came out decent but i will share those elsewhere)
I have a stash of kodak E100 that i might put though my 50s folder, and il get some more rpx25 or some ortho 25 for this one as thats most like what it originally used

 

[DavidS877]

it absolutely refused to go on the reel for the paterson tank and got scratched to shit

Dear god, get some stainless reels.
Yes, it takes a tiny bit more skill but as long as you can properly bow the film you can load one.

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

yeah i would have liked to get steel ones originally, but nothing really comes up on the used market here, occasionally a lone reel and getting any further information or even a picture seems too much to ask for.

i might give the spiral and balls a scrub with a toothbrush and try again, i think i was a bit blindsided by the rpx25 just going straight in and then the delta bing so much more "wobbly".
just noticed i have a roll of delta 400, so will see how that goes

 

[DavidS877]

yeah i would have liked to get steel ones originally, but nothing really comes up on the used market here, occasionally a lone reel and getting any further information or even a picture seems too much to ask for.

i might give the spiral and balls a scrub with a toothbrush and try again, i think i was a bit blindsided by the rpx25 just going straight in and then the delta bing so much more "wobbly".
just noticed i have a roll of delta 400, so will see how that goes

As I recall during my very brief time with plastic one thing was to make sure they were totally dry when starting. And if you've done that then I have no other suggestions.

 

[Critical Raxx Theory]

i had used it a few hrs earlier for the previous roll, but it was dry by that point. The roll would get in maybe 1/4 of the way and then felt gummy/jammed. i ended up cutting the end of the film, it felt like it was curved over, and thats how i got it in. i havent had to do that with the previous rolls, but i will probably keep the scissors closer if it goes that way next time.

Here is a double exposure on the rpx25 roll, because the airport wants to know pressing the shutter doesnt explode the camera i suppose




*edit
ok i just took a second look at the delta 100 foil packet. its got a date of may 2008 on it, which probably goes a way towards explaining the unusual light marks i was seeing and general fogged/over exposed look. lol, i ment to grab the only slightly expired roll and totally forgot i had that

 

[Doggo]

I’m stoked with how good the cameras on my new iPhone 16 Pro are. I have a 7D Mk II with lots of fast, expensive glass, and the quality gap between the two is staggeringly small.

 

[The Stranger]

Someone else posted pics of Duluth's Aerial Lift Bridge and the lighthouses, now it's my turn. These are the only 2 photos I'm happy enough with to share (that being said, I'm not particularly happy with these either lol)

 

[triggersliver]

Someone else posted pics of Duluth's Aerial Lift Bridge and the lighthouses, now it's my turn. These are the only 2 photos I'm happy enough with to share (that being said, I'm not particularly happy with these either lol)
View attachment 7382674
View attachment 7382675

The water, sky, and clouds look lovely. It was a good choice to use a smaller aperture for more dof for the second image. Seeing the details in the foreground rocks and the lighthouse in the distance is pleasing to me. You should get a rocket blower, I spy some dust spots most likely on your sensor. Also don't be afraid to shoot stuff like this vertically or get some tight cropping.