Your Best Photography

F11780FE69C3494D8C59F49C8D2825EF.jpg
 
Probably one of my best shots of "action sports." I need to shoot more things i care to watch and less college sports but that's the job I guess.

903717.jpeg
 
I got bored on an assignment and started messing around with the light. EDM music isn't really my scene but these were interesting I guess.

905717.jpeg

905718.jpeg
 
13932829:Juicy-J said:
had a few shots kicking around on my desktop..
Click to expand...

Was the first picture taken on the east coast somewhere? It looks like a Black-headed Gull, which would be found on the east coast mostly in winter, but the background looks more like somewhere out west where it would be incredibly rare.
 
13932834:VinnieF said:
Was the first picture taken on the east coast somewhere? It looks like a Black-headed Gull, which would be found on the east coast mostly in winter, but the background looks more like somewhere out west where it would be incredibly rare.
Click to expand...

That was actually taken on Lake Como in Italy - such an incredible place.
 
first time shooting in the studio. this zeiss lens is so dumb sharp i didn't even pull out a prime to shoot with

(sony a6000 x zeiss 4/24-70)

906383.jpeg

906385.jpeg

906386.jpeg

906387.jpeg

906388.jpeg
 
Another go at astrophotography. Very pleased with the results this time. Click it to see it better. I would love to try this with an expensive 400mm f2.8. Some day.

907351.jpeg

Compare to my previous M31 attempt. Same setup, just a better night and more exposure time.

907353.jpeg
 
13936299:VinnieF said:
Another go at astrophotography. Very pleased with the results this time. Click it to see it better. I would love to try this with an expensive 400mm f2.8. Some day.

View attachment 907351

Compare to my previous M31 attempt. Same setup, just a better night and more exposure time.

View attachment 907353
Click to expand...

Fuck man that's crazy. What's the setup like to get something like that?
 
13936645:Lonely said:
Fuck man that's crazy. What's the setup like to get something like that?
Click to expand...

It's actually nothing too special, and before I started trying I wouldn't have imagined I could do something like this with my setup. I used a Pentax K3-II and DA* 300mm f4 lens.

A picture like this can be done with most cameras and a moderately fast telephoto lens. It's all about getting as much exposure time as possible and stacking as many images as you can together. A really dark low humidity night is also key (as you can see from the two different pictures).

I took 19 pictures that were 30 seconds long at iso 800 and f4, stacked them with a program called Rot'n'Stack, then edited in photoshop (mostly fooling around with curves to get something that looked good). So about 10 minutes of total exposure at f4 and iso 800. You could probably get something that looks cool with one of the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 lenses that everyone has for their canon or nikon, but a fast prime is definitely the best.

The one caveat is that the Pentax K3-II has something they call astrotracer, which uses the in-body stabilization, the built in GPS, compass, and giro to track the movement of the stars for long exposures. It's really cool. And what it means is I was able to get my 10 minutes of exposure in 20 pictures instead of a couple hundred or whatever it would take to freeze movement with another camera (even at 300mm you can see the stars move noticeably through the camera). And this is where a really fast telephoto would be excellent. Like a 400mm f2.8 would be fantastic. Sucks they cost $10k+. Full frame would be best to keep noise as low as possible, but then you'd probably want at least 400mm.

It's super rewarding photography and I'd say give it a shot. It's pretty crazy that you take 20 pictures that look like this and they come out like that.

907472.jpeg
 
13936698:VinnieF said:
Full frame would be best to keep noise as low as possible, but then you'd probably want at least 400mm.
Click to expand...

Wait... you definitely don't need full frame for this...

Here's a trick folks.. have a crop body with a sensor that deals well with noise... Even the older Nikon D7000 or a canon 60d could do this well as they were both great for dealing with noise.

Then get a 200 f2.8 or faster.. seriously, a well calibrated vintage 200 f2.8 could do the trick well..

And then do all of the above. Works like a charm!

If you want to get super specific, one of those star tracking mounts. They don't cost a terrible amount (like 300 for a cheap one that works well on a moonless night) much better than 10 grand for an ultra fast tele.
 
13936931:DingoSean said:
Wait... you definitely don't need full frame for this...

Here's a trick folks.. have a crop body with a sensor that deals well with noise... Even the older Nikon D7000 or a canon 60d could do this well as they were both great for dealing with noise.

Then get a 200 f2.8 or faster.. seriously, a well calibrated vintage 200 f2.8 could do the trick well..

And then do all of the above. Works like a charm!

If you want to get super specific, one of those star tracking mounts. They don't cost a terrible amount (like 300 for a cheap one that works well on a moonless night) much better than 10 grand for an ultra fast tele.
Click to expand...

I never said it was needed, but there's no denying full frame is far superior for astrophotography than crop sensors. Medium format would be even better.. Pentax 645Z would be amazing due to its pretty much unsurpassed low light capabilities.

And yes, a 200mm f2.8 would for sure work, but then you're not getting the reach that you need to fill the frame with deep sky objects. For example to fill maybe 1/2 the frame on a full frame sensor with M31 you'd need roughly a 500mm lens. So if you really want the best setup you'd get a fast telephoto and a full frame camera and put it all on a tracking mount. The setup would cost $20k+ though..

Of course just buying an actual good telescope and putting your camera on that would probably be cheaper than a good 400 f2.8 or 500 f4.

I mean yea, you can get cool pictures with a 200mm f2.8 and a crop sensor, but they'll just never be on the same level as what you could get with a full frame and 400 f2.8.
 
13936698:VinnieF said:
It's actually nothing too special, and before I started trying I wouldn't have imagined I could do something like this with my setup. I used a Pentax K3-II and DA* 300mm f4 lens.

A picture like this can be done with most cameras and a moderately fast telephoto lens. It's all about getting as much exposure time as possible and stacking as many images as you can together. A really dark low humidity night is also key (as you can see from the two different pictures).

I took 19 pictures that were 30 seconds long at iso 800 and f4, stacked them with a program called Rot'n'Stack, then edited in photoshop (mostly fooling around with curves to get something that looked good). So about 10 minutes of total exposure at f4 and iso 800. You could probably get something that looks cool with one of the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 lenses that everyone has for their canon or nikon, but a fast prime is definitely the best.

The one caveat is that the Pentax K3-II has something they call astrotracer, which uses the in-body stabilization, the built in GPS, compass, and giro to track the movement of the stars for long exposures. It's really cool. And what it means is I was able to get my 10 minutes of exposure in 20 pictures instead of a couple hundred or whatever it would take to freeze movement with another camera (even at 300mm you can see the stars move noticeably through the camera). And this is where a really fast telephoto would be excellent. Like a 400mm f2.8 would be fantastic. Sucks they cost $10k+. Full frame would be best to keep noise as low as possible, but then you'd probably want at least 400mm.

It's super rewarding photography and I'd say give it a shot. It's pretty crazy that you take 20 pictures that look like this and they come out like that.

View attachment 907472
Click to expand...

That's great info. Some of my attempts. Pls don't crucify me. These were done with a kit before I got my wide prime.

Supposed to be clear tonight, gonna grab my 300 and a buddies astrotracer and take a crack at it.

**This post was edited on Aug 15th 2018 at 4:59:48pm
 
13936963:VinnieF said:
I never said it was needed, but there's no denying full frame is far superior for astrophotography than crop sensors. Medium format would be even better.. Pentax 645Z would be amazing due to its pretty much unsurpassed low light capabilities.

And yes, a 200mm f2.8 would for sure work, but then you're not getting the reach that you need to fill the frame with deep sky objects. For example to fill maybe 1/2 the frame on a full frame sensor with M31 you'd need roughly a 500mm lens. So if you really want the best setup you'd get a fast telephoto and a full frame camera and put it all on a tracking mount. The setup would cost $20k+ though..

Of course just buying an actual good telescope and putting your camera on that would probably be cheaper than a good 400 f2.8 or 500 f4.

I mean yea, you can get cool pictures with a 200mm f2.8 and a crop sensor, but they'll just never be on the same level as what you could get with a full frame and 400 f2.8.
Click to expand...

Alright, well, screw it. Get a 5dii and a 500mm mirror lens with a teleconvertor (because fuck it. Get that reach) and a star tracker mount and win at everything.
 
I got to try out panning shots for the first time at UMC in Utah during the PWC. I was filming for my company in the TCR class but these cars were on track right before they went on so I had time to try some photos.

907962.jpeg

907963.jpeg

907964.jpeg
 
Taking pictures of a heron trying to scratch itself with a stump leg. Kinda funny to watch. I should have taken a video.

908443.gif
 
a few from spending 2 weeks in colorado and wyoming... landscapes are shot on a6000//zeiss 24-70, portraits on a6000//50/1.8

908769.jpeg

908770.jpeg

908775.jpeg

908773.jpeg

908771.jpeg

908772.jpeg

908774.jpeg
 
Not sure if this is correct, but I see this as the centre of our galaxy down at the bottom right with one of the arms extending towards the top left. So many stars.

912234.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top