Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax / Samsung dSLR, K Mount Mirrorless

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 9, 2010, 8:33 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Goldwinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 6,515
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
GW - it's the terrain and the prevailing winds, the camera was reasonably level. The trees at the tree-line are far more upright. That one big tree is more or less by itself and subject to a great deal of wind - the spot is very exposed and close to the highest spot for 50-100 miles. Not long after I got the DS I was changing lenses at about that spot and a gust almost blew me over (and I dropped one of the lenses in the snow).

Which brings up a question - would the picture look better if I were to rotate it slightly, even though it wouldn't match the real scene?

I'm not going to get rid of the 3N1-30. I'm going to get rid of the Lowepro Slingshot 200 since it's limited to just the right shoulder.
OK, that makes sense. Maybe if you used "lens correction" like for extra wide lens distortion, you could bring it all in like you want? if you don't care, I'd like to try it with CS5 and see what I can do with it.

Had to laugh at the site (in my head) of you getting blown over in the wind! At least the lens wouldn't have broken in the snow.


I didn't think you'd get rid of the 3N1 but, wanted to get my name on the short list just in case.
__________________
GW

Life's a breeze on a Goldwing...
Goldwinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 9, 2010, 10:51 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

You are always welcome to play with the picture, doing something with the lens correction might work well. I was using the 24mm, which has a bit of fish-eye effect on a full frame camera (i.e., a fair amount of barreling for a regular lens). It's just too bad that I didn't step back a couple of steps and tried it. I didn't try it because I thought I would get too much foreground and lose the distant valley and hills.

Scott - I'm certainly no expert when it comes to IR photography. From what I've read here and there, you are capturing reflected infrared light. Foliage reflects lots of infrared, but the air doesn't. Haze of water vapor doesn't reflect IR, it reflects blue so IR will "see" through quite a bit of haze. It won't see through it all, as you can tell from #3 - you can't see all the way across the valley. And I think the white at the very edge/horizon line are clouds. In winter I couldn't be sure - I'm facing toward the Sierras with the width of the San Joaquin Valley between, and you can see the mountains covered with snow on a clear, crisp day over 100 miles away.

GW - you are right about the lens not getting broken. There was several feet or more of snow under my snowshoes (which were probably the reason I didn't actually go over) and the lens was unhurt (though snow covered). It was my old M 50 f1.7, which is built like a tank anyway. You should have seen the dust and grit in the viewfinder, though (it was still there when I sold the camera).

Right after that I discovered the two handed way of changing lenses and I always now use it, along with turning my back to the wind, to change lenses. It hasn't stopped me from changing them just about anywhere I feel a need for another lens though.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2010, 1:48 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
penolta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California USA
Posts: 5,206
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtngal View Post
Which brings up a question - would the picture look better if I were to rotate it slightly, even though it wouldn't match the real scene?
I like them all. FWIW here is one with the big tree upright - the smaller ones still lean a bit - they probably can't resist the wind as well, but also the distortion correction is greater towards the sides of the frame. Have you tried a panorama - If I interpret your dissatisfaction correctly, that might restore the feeling of vastness that you miss with the present framing.

Name:  Untitled-1.jpg
Views: 63
Size:  99.7 KB
__________________
.
.
If life brings you lemons, you can make lemonade.

Last edited by penolta; Nov 11, 2010 at 1:58 PM.
penolta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2010, 2:55 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
rhermans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Antwerp - Belgium
Posts: 3,454
Default

magnificent series Harriet.
__________________
rhermans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2010, 6:34 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

A panorama is a good idea - that's a good excuse to go back up there (if I can figure out a way to drag all my stuff along without paying such a high price). Take the series with a longer lens - don't need much foreground or sky, bring the distant view "closer". Can always use a good excuse to get off my duff and head up to the high places.

Thanks Ronny for the compliment.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 11, 2010, 11:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Gumnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 1,259
Default

i like IR photos and have thought of giving it a go (even back when i used the K1000) but so far havent even bought a filter

all are good but my preference is 4 the one with the tree on the left, thats a great tree
the is plenty of foreground interest and the distant mountains look real good
a shame there were no clouds, but you cant have everything

i was led to believe plastic body cameras let in to much light through the plastic
or are todays cameras really metal bodies with plastic "skins"
__________________
www.johndolphin.net/photos
Gumnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2010, 6:55 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
mole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,522
Default

Some incredible images from the master of IR and mountain photography. Really unique perspectives!

Sure do hope the shoulder is completely healed. Have you considered getting a daypack that is not designed for cameras, but rather for hiking. I've used this one a lot:
http://www.rei.com/product/778465
and found it to be very comfortable, even on longer hikes.
mole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2010, 8:37 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

John - I have no idea whether that's true or not, but the K100 is sealed well enough to do fine with the Hoya filter. Since shutter speeds are normally around 1 second, I would think that if it wasn't sealed enough there would be problems (there would be enough time for light pollution). I can't remember how to remove the eye piece and am not so sure I remember where the cover is that came with (all) of my dSLR cameras, so I just put a finger close to the viewfinder to block any stray light.

Mole - I'm certainly no expert, just someone who messes around with IR on occasion. Thanks for the thoughts about the shoulder - its significantly improved since the hike. Maybe some day it will heal, but I'm not holding my breath and I am looking at alternatives for carrying my camera stuff.

I have a pretty nice hydration pack that I could use, but most of the time I find whatever is in the pack stays there for the hike. I'll change lenses often during a hike and want something that does NOT require me to remove the pack in order to access my stuff. That's the neat thing about sling and convertible bags like the 3N1.

I tried using a waist/hip pack along with the hydration pack, but I'm too short and the bottom of the hydration pack either ended up resting on the waist pack or (if I was carrying it forward) put pressure on the buckle and bothered my back.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2010, 7:25 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Keltech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Andover, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,178
Default

Harriet I look at your HDR photographs and they inspire me to go back out and shoot IR with my K100D and Hoya R72 filter but I never seem to do it. I do like the IR effect and need to use the technique more often to become comfortable with the process.

I have found in the past that using my kit lens I have to cover the viewfinder in order to be able to set the white balance correctly for the shot. The scene needs to be brightly lit or it becomes impossible to set WB. I find going to my 50mm 1.7 it is a lot easier to accomplish this. Perhaps a fast wide prime lens is what I need to take better advantage of this process. Have you had difficulty setting White balance at all?

I like this series very much. The first and third are my favorites.

Lou
Keltech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2010, 10:01 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
mtngal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Frazier Park, CA
Posts: 16,056
Default

I pretty much leave the K100's custom white balance set to IR. You are right about needing a bright and definitely green lawn - not all greens will work well for setting the WB. I used the kit lens to set the WB and most of my initial shots were taken with it, let the camera set shutter speed and discovered it was underexposing by about 2 stops. It wouldn't set the WB until I changed to M mode and set the exposure about 2 and a half stops brighter than what the camera thought, then it worked.
mtngal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:28 PM.