• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

For what I'm seeing so far it's worth the $1300. :eek:)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=27189597
http://public.fotki.com/borysd/nikkor-135mm-f2-dc-/

--

After reading a handful of web pages about it and downloading the manual

http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/lenses/AF/AFDC135mmf2.pdf

this *seems* like the extra ring is moving one element and decreasing the DoF on one side or the other of the focal distance. Wicked. I'm going to buy one. *Maybe* this year... Now if they could / would do another version that would allow control on both sides.... hehehe. Yeah. I'mma get me one. Still want a tilt & shift too, but I could use the DC more.
 
Last edited:
Another technical question...

Can someone explain to me what is going on in these photos from a technical perspective? They all have a distinct, high-contrast, gritty feel to them. How??

Is it just a result of a ton of post-processing in Photoshop?

Yep, it's mostly done in post. I'm sure they were shot with the ultimate intention of looking like this, and some adjustments were made accordingly, but this is a well-known look. It's nicely executed by the photographer you linked too, but certainly not original to him.

And yah, the DC lenses. They're pretty sweet. Not sure I have any use for one, it wouldn't really match my shooting style very well, but they certainly have their applications. Hell, I rarely use my 85/1.4, and that kills me. I so want to think of myself as someone who can shoot all day with a good prime or two, but with the 24-70 in the bag I really have a tough time using anything else.
 

Damn you mosquito. I recognize two of the photographers in that thread, and they really seem to know their stuff.

Must...not....look...again....

I'm going to force myself to use the 85/1.4 a lot more before I decide to do anything silly like get another lens. Although I did have a 105/2.5 AiS for a while, it was underwhelming on the D200. I may drop $125 to try one out on the new camera. Apparently that lens was ledgendary on film, but DX sensors represent it poorly. Supposed to be awesome again on FF cameras.
 
Wow. That Flickr Photostream is :cool.

Sure looks like he shoots T-Max and colors in. But then again some of his photos sure look like he shoots in color and then uses high contrast and removes color (saturation?) via PS.

I'm a novice with PS. I should take a class or get a tutor. Or maybe just switch to LR.

Basically he uses a long lens and stops down. He finds down-and-outers with gritty faces to emphasis his f/stops. You could do the same if you wanted to in finding similar subjects. The key would be to gain their confidence so they'd let you shoot 'em (free cigs as an inducement, I suppose). And then of course take your time quickly in composing your shots. Then in post-production it appears LJ ups the contrast and removes the color. Or so I'd guess.

I like how that cycling shoot looks rather painterly.

His style is reminiscent of a great shot by Eugene Smith of some crazy guy in a Haitian (Port-au-Prince?) insane asylum. Black guy. It's an awesome shot. And then you see the original print from the original negative and you realize Smith burned the shit out of the background (i.e., blackened it), so only the black guy's incredible face and eyes stand out. Neat. Black on black, so to speak.

If you study art, you'll find that Caravaggio was the first painter to use light in highlighting faces in darkness. About a hundred years later Rembrandt followed suit, adding his particular seeing of light amid darkness.

So to "see," you must see "light." How better to emphasis your seeing with light but to choose subjects that will help your seeing look even better?
 
Sorry I helped feed your addiction!

Oh, I'm not sorry *at all*. I remember hearing about them but never went to the trouble of finding some example images to get a good idea of what could be done with them.


Damn you mosquito. ...

Too late. Already done and tickets bought.


Yeah, masa -- is "masa" OK? -- I'm kinda befuddled on what they did for #1 and #3 too. (#2 and #4 seem pretty straight-forward with PS.) They really look like T-Max or Delta. I can't tell from these small images if the originals were film or digital, but I'm pretty sure there were digitally processed somewhere in there. The grain / noise in the background of #1 doesn't match the rest of the image and the forehead blur in #3 doesn't match. Both could be done on an enlarger, but it's a lot easier to do it in a computer.

VM, for how to shoot things like that with film -- it's easier to *shoot* something like this with film 'cause you have, essentially a *much* wider gamut -- you do have pick the right film and paper, of course, and you have to set up the shots well. You essentially need to have well-textured subjects and put them in a relatively dark environment and then have bright key lighting and then expose for the highlights. To further increase the contrast you can underexpose a stop or so and then push it. You can also use colored filters to change the contrast of some colors.

You can do a lot of the same things shooting digital color and then processing it to increase the contrast / raise the black point: it's easier to *process* an image to look like these digitally. You can also use glass filters or mimic that behavior with software. Lemme see if I can dig up an example I did...

Oh, oh. On #2, for *how* to create shadows like that if you don't actually see them when you shoot, pretty much just make a mask -- paper or digital -- out of the highlights and, like she said, burn the shit out of the rest.
 
Last edited:
A Pulitzer Prize-winning photojournalist taught me that trick of using two filters to bring up the contrast of a black-and-white photo. Can we do that in using PS or LR?

Man, I still have a lot of film and photo paper. Wonder if any of it's still good.

And thanks for asking, David. "Masa" is Japanese. Which I'm not. "Masameet" (phonetic spelling) is Filipino, which I am. Sorta anyway. I understand the American need to shorten names in a friendly, nicknaming way. But it'd be like me saying, "Ya' atay" instead of "Hensci" to you. Not quite right. :)
 
Like using two ND filters for longer exposures? Do that with the contrast control. For, say, two red filters, that'd be like reducing the overall green and blue levels (just do it more) before converting to monochrome. So, yeah, but it doesn't work as well as doing it with film. On the upside though, you can easily change from using a 'red filter' to a 'yellow filter' or even 'a particular yellow filter' to do something with a very specific color.
 
Last edited:
Basically he uses a long lens and stops down. He finds down-and-outers with gritty faces to emphasis his f/stops.

:confused I assumed he used a large aperture and long lens to create the shallow DOF but I don't know how to really jack up the contrast like that.
 
Like using two ND filters for longer exposures? Do that with the contrast control. For, say, two red filters, that'd be like reducing the overall green and blue levels (just do it more) before converting to monochrome. So, yeah, but it doesn't work as well as doing it with film. On the upside though, you can easily change from using a 'red filter' to a 'yellow filter' or even 'a particular yellow filter' to do something with a very specific color.


I mean in PS or LR.

As to using two ND filters, that'd mean those gel filters and not the screw-in NDs. Too much crap for me to want to carry around, scratch and ruin. Which given my history with gear is too likely a possibility. :|
 
VM, for how to shoot things like that with film -- it's easier to *shoot* something like this with film 'cause you have, essentially a *much* wider gamut -- you do have pick the right film and paper, of course, and you have to set up the shots well. You essentially need to have well-textured subjects and put them in a relatively dark environment and then have bright key lighting and then expose for the highlights. To further increase the contrast you can underexpose a stop or so and then push it. You can also use colored filters to change the contrast of some colors.

It might be worth mentioning that the photographer for these four example photos was shooting with a Nikon D3.

Moreover, LJ mentions another Flickr photographer who's work he admires greatly, "artetetra". http://www.flickr.com/photos/artetetra/ Most impressive of all is that she shoots with a Canon Rebel XTi!!! (see below)

I think photo LJ's photo #3 above is really impressive. I'm fairly adept at Photoshop but generally know little when it comes to professional post-processing of photographs. The light (catchlight?) in his eyes suggests the environment is fairly well lit... daylight perhaps?

At a certain level, I grapple with how much post-processing is valid. Right now, I'm trying to concern myself less with post-processing and more with photography techniques. Since I am new and naive, I feel it will benefit me more in the long run. There was a radio program on NPR a year or so ago where they were talking about the ethical boundaries of post-processing, specifically how they apply to photojournalism. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Here are a few of the examples from Artetetra for posterity:




Photo #1



Photo #2



Photo #3

 
Last edited:
:confused I assumed he used a large aperture and long lens to create the shallow DOF but I don't know how to really jack up the contrast like that.


Maybe he's shooting much closer, with his Canon on a tripod and a 100 mm macro lens screwed in.

It's also possible that he's slightly underexposing his images (i.e., changed the EV in the camera).

He's on the internet. I bet he won't mind answering your questions. Post here if he does.
 
WTD175.jpg
 
Back
Top