Photography Thread

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Thank you!!!

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Look at that scrubby thing (probably an oak) growing in the detritus on that beautiful fractured stone

I love the relative ancientness of the east coast. We're so lucky to live in such a geologically classy place (just kidding)

[redbreegull]

I have pictures of the west too.

[redbreegull]

I lived the coors light can.

[buzzard]

I've just received this in the mail. Also purchased for use with it was the MC Zenitar-M 16mm f/2.8 lens, which I'm a tad excited about using.



I'm okay with nobody caring.

[redbreegull]

I know nothing about cameras except mine. Is there something special about it and the lens?

[buzzard]

I wouldn't say there is anything special about the Zenit 12CD, as such. It's a cheap single-lens reflex with fully manual and mechanical operation, where this will hopefully lead to greater levels of personal satisfaction than my heavily automated and feature-rich Nikon F80. It was essentially purchased for its M42 thread mount, as this will allow me to buy the kinds of lenses I want without needing to throw thousands of dollars at a hobby. Conveniently so, I happen to be a big fan of Soviet optics.

As for the 16mm, it's an ultra wide-angle fisheye and can fit so much in frame that it's borderline amusing. Depending on the shot, it can offer anything between surprisingly little and ridiculously extreme linear distortion. While it is said to get a little hazy if you open it right up, it'll compete with the high-end alternatives at f/16 and is reportedly sharper at that aperture than even its nearest Nikkor and Canon rivals despite their price tags of around five times as much. As backwards as it may sound, the lens is why I bought the camera, though the MC Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 that came attached to the body is also known for providing gorgeous results.

The following provides a more subtle example of the fisheye's use on the New York City subway, with credit to Bob Atkins for the shot. Please don't sue me, Bob.




This significantly more extreme example comes courtesy of Karsten Klawitter, who was apparently more concerned with scaling Mt. Gimli than he was with getting the exposure right.

[redbreegull]

that's awesome. I wish I understood photography more but I'm bad with understanding how any machines work, cameras not excluded. I took a photography class and couldn't absorb any of it :/

[buzzard]

I reckon the best way to learn is to start out with something basic and cheap that also makes you do all of the work, where something like that Zenit can be found for around $40-60USD on eBay or whatever. Then it's just a matter of gradually becoming accustomed to the interplay between aperture, exposure time and film sensitivity through trial and error.

What kind of camera do you have, out of curiosity?

[teh b0lly!!1]

it always fascinated me reading about how film directors will occasionally pick a very particular lens for a film, or even a particular scene.

could you (in whatever amount of detail you wish) explain anything about that

[redbreegull]

I have an older Canon Rebel. I think the model is EOS Digital XT or something like that. It gets the job done and I don't have anything to compare it to; it's the nicest camera I've ever had. I just use the standard lens. It's really fine for me, I just mainly take scenery pictures of cool places for my own enjoyment and photoshop indulgence, but I do wish I knew how it all worked. poor old camera is having an issue right now actually, the apparently infamous Error 99. I'm not even sure where to take it to have it fixed, and the sensor or something inside of it is really dirty as well. It's been loved very hard.

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

it always fascinated me reading about how film directors will occasionally pick a very particular lens for a film, or even a particular scene.

could you (in whatever amount of detail you wish) explain anything about that

Any specific examples?

My first assumption is that they'd be referring to focal length, which determines the angle of view. As this dictates the visible extent of any single frame, it has a significant impact upon image composition. As far as basic examples go, where this is probably exactly the case for formulaic mainstream cinema, you'd more than likely employ a wide-angle lens for an opening shot of some given landscape to establish the setting and switch to a tighter perspective for character conversations or monologues. As confusing as it might seem in writing, a shorter focal length results in a wider viewing angle.

Kubrick, for instance, was known for his heavy use of ultra wide-angle lenses across much of his work. In sequences such as the maze pursuit towards the end of The Shining, he employed the extremely wide 9.8mm Kinoptik and had to keep the shot high enough up off the ground to minimize the barrel distortion you might get subtle glimpses of if you analyze the proportions of objects coming close to the extreme bottom of frame. For the interspersed close-ups, which would have presumably required awkwardly running backwards while strapped to a Steadicam rig, he switches to what I figure is a 50mm and thereby provides a perspective roughly equivalent to that of natural human eyesight.

Focal length will also greatly affect the apparent size of subjects relative to their distance from the lens, where any disparity in size between the bigger near and the smaller far will increase in proportion with the angle of view. This can be used to manipulate the way in which we perceive what we're seeing and give a sense of mood or perhaps impart some symbolic nuance. A sequence I particularly enjoyed in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, though this is purely my own interpretation of a scene and not something suggested by anybody creatively connected to the film, seemed to use that relative size effect in representing a shifting power dynamic throughout a conversation pertaining to and largely resulting from the strained relationship between a father and son.






It may be worth stating that I've not been educated in any relevant field and may be completely wrong about all of this.

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

oh and these are 28if's chickens

really? do you guys know eachother? is this a well known fact forever and my board knowledge is rusty?

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

really? do you guys know eachother? is this a well known fact forever and my board knowledge is rusty?

yeah we've known each other since we were kids but we pretended not to know each other here. he told hnibos though who eventually ratted us out but I think that was after 28if quit

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Wow

[duovamp]

I ride my motorcycle past Seneca Rocks every summer coming from Keyser. I'll go to Mount Storm down through Petersburg. Usually I'll make it to Monterey then head back to Keyser where my grandparents live. Some of the most amazing country.

[duovamp]

http://i.imgur.com/c9IICF0.jpg

Probably too big to embed.

[Rairun]

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Any specific examples?

My first assumption is that they'd be referring to focal length, which determines the angle of view. As this dictates the visible extent of any single frame, it has a significant impact upon image composition. As far as basic examples go, where this is probably exactly the case for formulaic mainstream cinema, you'd more than likely employ a wide-angle lens for an opening shot of some given landscape to establish the setting and switch to a tighter perspective for character conversations or monologues. As confusing as it might seem in writing, a shorter focal length results in a wider viewing angle.

Kubrick, for instance, was known for his heavy use of ultra wide-angle lenses across much of his work. In sequences such as the maze pursuit towards the end of The Shining, he employed the extremely wide 9.8mm Kinoptik and had to keep the shot high enough up off the ground to minimize the barrel distortion you might get subtle glimpses of if you analyze the proportions of objects coming close to the extreme bottom of frame. For the interspersed close-ups, which would have presumably required awkwardly running backwards while strapped to a Steadicam rig, he switches to what I figure is a 50mm and thereby provides a perspective roughly equivalent to that of natural human eyesight.

Focal length will also greatly affect the apparent size of subjects relative to their distance from the lens, where any disparity in size between the bigger near and the smaller far will increase in proportion with the angle of view. This can be used to manipulate the way in which we perceive what we're seeing and give a sense of mood or perhaps impart some symbolic nuance. A sequence I particularly enjoyed in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, though this is purely my own interpretation of a scene and not something suggested by anybody creatively connected to the film, seemed to use that relative size effect in representing a shifting power dynamic throughout a conversation pertaining to and largely resulting from the strained relationship between a father and son.






It may be worth stating that I've not been educated in any relevant field and may be completely wrong about all of this.

thanks. i was actually gonna give kubrick as an example - i have recently read that he used special lenses, developed for nasa (citing wikipedia - i dunno), for his Barry Lyndon film. apparently it had to do with flattening the objects and being much more sensitive to soft lighting, such as candlelight, but i thought that stuff had more to do with shutter speed or exposure, this all confuses me. maybe i should take a course.

[Rairun]

Lenses with the same focal length and aperture will look identical when it comes to depth of field, field of view and perspective distortion. The reason for choosing one lens over another would be barrel distortion, bokeh quality (not the amount of it), sharpness and color rendition (some lenses are more contrasty than other others, etc).

[wHATcOLOR]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

yeah we've known each other since we were kids but we pretended not to know each other here. he told hnibos though who eventually ratted us out but I think that was after 28if quit

Woah interesting, did not know that! How did things ever turn out with that lady he was seeing? I'm hoping he is with a different one now.

Did one of you guys have the glasses with the lenses that darkened in the sun?

Who would win in a wrestling match?

How often do you guys see each other?

[buzzard]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

thanks. i was actually gonna give kubrick as an example - i have recently read that he used special lenses, developed for nasa (citing wikipedia - i dunno), for his Barry Lyndon film. apparently it had to do with flattening the objects and being much more sensitive to soft lighting, such as candlelight, but i thought that stuff had more to do with shutter speed or exposure, this all confuses me. maybe i should take a course.

Originally Posted by Rairun

Lenses with the same focal length and aperture will look identical when it comes to depth of field, field of view and perspective distortion. The reason for choosing one lens over another would be barrel distortion, bokeh quality (not the amount of it), sharpness and color rendition (some lenses are more contrasty than other others, etc).

As another example, I am pretty sure I read that P.T. Anderson sourced an old and uncoated lens for at least certain scenes in There Will Be Blood with the intention of giving a more natural feel to flare from light sources and imbue a sort of vintage aesthetic.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

Woah interesting, did not know that! How did things ever turn out with that lady he was seeing? I'm hoping he is with a different one now.

he recently got married, different girl. now they have chickens.

Did one of you guys have the glasses with the lenses that darkened in the sun?

lol both of us had them at one point. They would have been useful except the only place I need to wear them really is in the car and something about the uv shit on the windows I guess prevents them from changing. and they take an embarrassingly long time to undarken when you go inside.

Who would win in a wrestling match?

Me. 28if is tall and lanky but I'm pretty sure a light breeze could knock him over. Also he might die of a hard attack if he exerted himself that much, plus I'm spry and have serious battle rage.

How often do you guys see each other?

once every so often. he lives a few hours away now but we still find time to get outrageously drunk together. 28if can drink like no one else.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

http://i.imgur.com/c9IICF0.jpg

Probably too big to embed.

yeah W. Va. is pretty senescent

[cork_soaker]

*

[buzzard]

Zenit 12CD
MC Zenitar-M 16mm f/2.8
Kodak ColorPlus 200

Sadly, as the reviews suggested, the lens could be a little sharper when it's opened right up. Still, there's only so much you can do in a dimly lit room.

[T&T]

look at the photo I took



to anyone who doesn't get the joke
was it NimRod who claimed he took this photo a few days before it went viral?? LOL

[T&T]

I lied, that's SPpunk's photo.

[barden]

a lot of your guys photos are kinda boring. a landscape photo isn't automatically an art bros, you point and shoot auto bastards.
I'm not going to post shit cause bitches i dont even take pics.

[FoolofaTook]

hell yeah bro like fuck that gay ass weak shit!