Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
32. Most photos are bad, a National Geo article is the result of something like 20,000 photos
Wed Aug 7, 2013, 01:35 AM
Aug 2013

Last edited Wed Aug 7, 2013, 02:24 AM - Edit history (1)

And then National Geo uses something like 20-30 of them in the article and that was in the days of FILM. Today, with digital cameras who knows how many photos their take for an article.

As to your question of asking me about taking photos, I have no problem with you asking me but let me go over some comments about taking photos:

Just remember that most photos are bad when taken. This is especially true of "Action" shoots, such as taking photos on animals. Accept that fact and you will enjoy taking photos and will sooner or later find one you took that is great.

Digital Cameras often use Single Lens Reflex (SLR) terminology as "equivalent". Most SLR are and were 35 mm (Through many are now digital) thus it is a good reference point.

Presently I am using a simple digital camera, that are one step below SLR, for I have a habit of breaking them. I dislike the real cheap ones, so I go the step below SLR Cameras. I dislike them for their f-stops are to "high". The lower a lens "F-Stop" the quicker it can operate and take action photos (and night photos). I once owned a SLR with a 50mm 1.7 F stop lens. It worked nice on action shots, animals and at night. I was into photography at that time and thought about replacing it with a 1.4 f-stop 50mm lens, but the price kept me back (the 1.4 f-stop was twice the cost of a f stop 1.7 50mm lens I was using),

When I was using a SLR, my favorite lens was a 70-210 variable lens with a 4.0 f Stop. Could not take good photos with it at night and hard to use in quick action shots, but for most Photos good enough. Larger zooms were just to heavy, smaller zones brought with them the question of "Why" given most of the smaller variable lens, had higher f-stops then a 50mm lens.

At present, I am using a zoom lens with a 2.8 f-stop (2,8 to 4 f-stop, not only the zoom varies so does the f-stop). Please note it is NOT an SLR and does NOT use interchangeable lenses. It is NOT a great lens, but good enough for most photos I want to take, of bike trails, bikes, my dogs and any animals I run across. It cost just under $200 so when I break it (and I will) it will not be like if I broke a $500 SLR with a $1200 zoom lens. You must keep things in prospective. My sister has an SLR that runs $800 and I brought her a 70-200 zoom F4 lens for it for about $1200. It is a Digital Camera and a very good camera. If I wanted a SLR, it is the combination I would get. The Camera is about 10 years old (it uses one of first screens a digital camera had to review your pictures, but the same model today has a much larger screen then she has).

On non-SLR cameras, you have to try to get the lowest F-stop you can. Most bottom at, at about f 2.8. When buying a Zoom, check the lens zooming ability. Now, in recent years I do NOT see Camera bragging about their "Electronic" zooms like they did about 10 years ago. People had caught on that electronic zooms can be done at home on your computer IF THE PHOTO IS SHARP ENOUGH, and to be sharp enough the LENS (Optical) ZOOM has to be the highest possible with the lowest f-stop. i.e. Optical Zoom is more important then electronic zoom.

Here is roughly what I am using today: This is what B&H Photo is selling for $194. The Fuji I am using is about three years old (about time for me to break it) and has only a 18 x zoom, unlike the 40 x this one has.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/919913-REG/fujifilm_16301535_finepix_s4800_digital_camera.html

Notice when you read the write up, f stop is f/3.1-5.9 (it is mentioned in the write up BUT not the list of Highlights&quot . 30x Optical Zoom in Mentioned, "35mm Equivalent Focal Length:24-720mm" is mentioned. given 720 divided by 23 equals 30, the 30 x means 30 times what you would get from a 24mm wide angle lens NOT a 50mm "Normal" lens. Thus its real zoom is 720 divided by 50 or 14X. It is a high end NON-SLR camera. Do NOT compare it with a SLR.

Please note mega pixels is 16.2 mega pixels. Anything over 10 is considered good. Kodachrome, the premier film is considered to be the equivalent of 20 megapixels. Other Color Films are NOT as high in mega Pixels equivalence, generally around 10 mega pixels, thus 16 is very good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome

Please Note Kodachrome is no longer in production AND no longer can not be processed. This is the result of low end Digital cameras both breaking the 10 megapixel level AND high end cameras (see Hasselblad below) doing 2-3 times as good as Kodachrome use to do.

SLR 35mm like digital camera are hitting 20 megapixels.

Now my sister has a EOS 50 (no longer made) it was replaced by the EOS 60 (18 megapixels), which is in the process of being replaced by the EOS 70 (20 megapixels), Here is the EOS 60, which sells for $599 with no lens.



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/732047-REG/Canon_4460B003_EOS_60D_DSLR_Camera.html

About 5-10 years ago I purchased for her a zoom lens, autofocus f-4.0



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/919915-REG/fujifilm_16303014_finepix_s6800_digital_camera.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12129-USA/Canon_2526A004_400mm_f_5_6L_USM_Autofocus.html

I suspect the lens will outlast the Camera Body, AND can be used on later Canon Autofocus Cameras.

Notice, the total comes to over $1800 dollars. She gets very good photos, but some of mine are as good.

If you want sticker shock, look at the Hasselblad. Hasselblads digital cameras have 40-60 megapixels capacity but at $16-42,000 dollars, way out of my price range.

I like my sister's camera, but I also like mine. I am more willing to risk breaking mine then she of hers. Technically my camera has more zoom then she does, but given her lens are that much larger then more they take in more light and thus better photos. The issue is one of give and take. In most situation I would opt for the high end NON-SLR camera like I am using. I really do NOT see an real advantages to SLR EXCEPT if you are a professional photography (or want photos like a professional).

The real advantage of a Camera is you USING IT. Expect a lot of bad photos to go with the few great ones (most will be just "good&quot . Practice helps. i.e. the more photos you take the better photos you will take.

One last comment on f-stops Technically a F-stop is the ratio between how LARGE the lens is and its "focal point". The Focal point is the point behind the lens where the image comes into focus (in Camera where the film is, or in digital photography where the image is created). In cheaper lenses, to increase magnification the focal point is pulled rearward (or the lens forward), this has the side affect of increase the focal point length and with it the f-stop of the lens. In better lenses, the focal point remains the same as does the f-stop for the glasses in the lens increase the magnification (Generally by having the distance between the glasses in the lens increase, thus you have many pieces of glass in such lenses, but the distance from the final glass to the focal point remains the same. Not only more pieces of glass are needed, you also need larger pieces of glass in such lenses and why they cost so much).

As to cheaper lenses. Makers of Camera and their lenses often try to LIE about their F-Stops, for example the following:

f/2.9 (W) - 6.5 (T) to f/19

Sounds like it has a F-stop of 2.9, but only it is wide angle mode (in this camera when it is a 24mm). Its "Telephoto" (the (T) in the above specification) F-stop is 6.5 to 19 i.e its f-stop for anything over 50 mm equivalence is 6.5 to 19. Terrible numbers, only usable in bright sun light. i.e. if it is sunny you can use the Zoom, if it is overcast, all you will get is a blur at moderate to high zooms. 16 is considered a cut off on f-stops. Higher F-Stops means Sunlight is NOT bright enough. F8 is considered a good balance in most situations assuming bright sunlight and little action. More action or less sunlight means you need a lower f-stop.

Canon produces a 800 mm telephoto (NOT a Zoom) lens with an F stop of 5.6 for over $12,000. Why? To take long distance photos. a F-stop of 5.6 is about the max you want unless you are taking a photo under "ideal" circumstances, i.e. full sunlight and the subject is standing still.

More on F-stops:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

Please note, high f-stops do have good points. For example if you have some question as to the distance, a high f-stop minimize any chance of blurring by having the increase depth of field obtained with higher f-stops. A lot of photos of mountains, lakes etc are done with high f-Stops to get the whole mountain or lake in the photo.

Stravation will do that. Myrina Aug 2013 #1
Wrong BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #5
No, in the U.S., poverty causes obesity. SunSeeker Aug 2013 #9
Actual Starvation increases obesity rates happyslug Aug 2013 #18
Wow, I'm tempted to bookmark this post for the great camera information. Jamastiene Aug 2013 #30
Most photos are bad, a National Geo article is the result of something like 20,000 photos happyslug Aug 2013 #32
And some credit should go to Michelle for leadership on on this issue. pnwmom Aug 2013 #2
Yes to you and to anyone else who recognizes the great work she has done here BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #12
i agree. over some stiff opposition. mopinko Aug 2013 #25
Thanks Obama! christx30 Aug 2013 #27
I find it odd that Michelle Obama is not mentioned in this article frazzled Aug 2013 #3
Of course not. AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #6
She was mocked & reviled for these efforts by many right-wingers. deurbano Aug 2013 #14
No it isn't. Igel Aug 2013 #19
"The report covered the years 2008-2011" frazzled Aug 2013 #21
Sorry...She is enormously popular and influential with many poor working women BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #22
If you actually read the article, you'd see that this report, covering 2008 - 2011, pnwmom Aug 2013 #29
The NYT article today has included Michelle Obama's contribution frazzled Aug 2013 #35
+1 to everyone who responded to you. Nine Aug 2013 #37
Don't know whether to laugh or cry. cliffordu Aug 2013 #4
Why? AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #7
Well.... cliffordu Aug 2013 #8
Ok, I guess. AtheistCrusader Aug 2013 #11
Someone should credit Michelle Obama for her efforts Hekate Aug 2013 #10
Absolutely. n/t pnwmom Aug 2013 #13
YES!!!! SkyDaddy7 Aug 2013 #17
Good news EuroGame Aug 2013 #15
Thank-You Michelle Obama!! SkyDaddy7 Aug 2013 #16
Magnificat! n/t Igel Aug 2013 #20
Michelle OBama does deserve credit, i have noticed in areas that tend to be poor and were usually JI7 Aug 2013 #23
I absolutely commend our First Lady for her efforts regarding this issue Skittles Aug 2013 #24
One quarter of DU insist they feel let down and t wasn't what they voted for.nt pkdu Aug 2013 #26
Many poor mothers look up to the FLOTUS. Ilsa Aug 2013 #28
Michelle Obama really has made it a priority to encourage American kids to eat healthier Lugal Zaggesi Aug 2013 #31
That is a fabulous book, truly beautiful! I bought it for my daughter who was planting a garden last CTyankee Aug 2013 #34
Great news! Quantess Aug 2013 #33
My kid goes to summer day camp at the Y AngryAmish Aug 2013 #36
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Broad Decline in Obesity ...»Reply #32