the Photo thread

[clapton is god]

I've seen that one before, thebish. A gorgeous shot you should be very pleased with.

Yes, you can create most filter effects in post but where my efforts end up (a stock library) rejects any images that are over-filtered (and their definition of that is extremely tight) so I rarely do anything to an image beyond adjusting the levels witha slight 's' curve and pushing the vibrance a fraction. Very little sharpening if any and absolutely none in-camera. In fact all in-camera settings are on zero.

Lenses are so expensive it would make sense to have a daylight filter attached but I don't bother with that even.

[thebish]

I've seen that one before, thebish. A gorgeous shot you should be very pleased with.

Yes, you can create most filter effects in post but where my efforts end up (a stock library) rejects any images that are over-filtered (and their definition of that is extremely tight) so I rarely do anything to an image beyond adjusting the levels witha slight 's' curve and pushing the vibrance a fraction. Very little sharpening if any and absolutely none in-camera. In fact all in-camera settings are on zero.

Lenses are so expensive it would make sense to have a daylight filter attached but I don't bother with that even.

aye - i remember chatting to you about stock photography... I did submit some - and allowed myself to be easily put off by getting rejected by shutterstock - I also suspect that with the popular ownership of digital cameras the stock-photo market is a whole lot more saturated than it used to be and I haven't got the time/imagination needed to take the shots that are not already available over-abundantly!

[clapton is god]

I've seen that one before, thebish. A gorgeous shot you should be very pleased with.

Yes, you can create most filter effects in post but where my efforts end up (a stock library) rejects any images that are over-filtered (and their definition of that is extremely tight) so I rarely do anything to an image beyond adjusting the levels witha slight 's' curve and pushing the vibrance a fraction. Very little sharpening if any and absolutely none in-camera. In fact all in-camera settings are on zero.

Lenses are so expensive it would make sense to have a daylight filter attached but I don't bother with that even.

aye - i remember chatting to you about stock photography... I did submit some - and allowed myself to be easily put off by getting rejected by shutterstock - I also suspect that with the popular ownership of digital cameras the stock-photo market is a whole lot more saturated than it used to be and I haven't got the time/imagination needed to take the shots that are not already available over-abundantly!

You're not wrong. When I started submitting to iStock in 2007 the library there had around a million images in it. Now there are close on 12 million and it gets harder to make a buck because the customer has so many to choose from before they find mine. Still make a shilling at it though

[thebish]

I've seen that one before, thebish. A gorgeous shot you should be very pleased with.

Yes, you can create most filter effects in post but where my efforts end up (a stock library) rejects any images that are over-filtered (and their definition of that is extremely tight) so I rarely do anything to an image beyond adjusting the levels witha slight 's' curve and pushing the vibrance a fraction. Very little sharpening if any and absolutely none in-camera. In fact all in-camera settings are on zero.

Lenses are so expensive it would make sense to have a daylight filter attached but I don't bother with that even.

aye - i remember chatting to you about stock photography... I did submit some - and allowed myself to be easily put off by getting rejected by shutterstock - I also suspect that with the popular ownership of digital cameras the stock-photo market is a whole lot more saturated than it used to be and I haven't got the time/imagination needed to take the shots that are not already available over-abundantly!

You're not wrong. When I started submitting to iStock in 2007 the library there had around a million images in it. Now there are close on 12 million and it gets harder to make a buck because the customer has so many to choose from before they find mine. Still make a shilling at it though

glad to hear it - I remember you saying it pays for all your kit - which is pretty good going!!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I've seen that one before, thebish. A gorgeous shot you should be very pleased with.

Yes, you can create most filter effects in post but where my efforts end up (a stock library) rejects any images that are over-filtered (and their definition of that is extremely tight) so I rarely do anything to an image beyond adjusting the levels witha slight 's' curve and pushing the vibrance a fraction. Very little sharpening if any and absolutely none in-camera. In fact all in-camera settings are on zero.

Lenses are so expensive it would make sense to have a daylight filter attached but I don't bother with that even.

aye - i remember chatting to you about stock photography... I did submit some - and allowed myself to be easily put off by getting rejected by shutterstock - I also suspect that with the popular ownership of digital cameras the stock-photo market is a whole lot more saturated than it used to be and I haven't got the time/imagination needed to take the shots that are not already available over-abundantly!

You're not wrong. When I started submitting to iStock in 2007 the library there had around a million images in it. Now there are close on 12 million and it gets harder to make a buck because the customer has so many to choose from before they find mine. Still make a shilling at it though

glad to hear it - I remember you saying it pays for all your kit - which is pretty good going!!

Bleedin'ell, didn't realise I was chatting to professionals.

[plymouth wanderer]

I haven't forgotten Bish i'm fishing sunday all day so hopefully will have some pics to put up

[hi there, i'm chris]

No filters used, don't possess any these days, although I used to enjoy using them. F18 so, yes, small aperture. Camera was Nikon D700 (I have the money together for a D800 but am reluctant to spend it as the 36mb files would give me storage problems - but its a hellofa camera.) with a 24-70 lens on it.

I love temperature inversion shots such as that one,spotty. It doesn't happen often up the Lakes but when it does it transforms the landscape into somewhere magical!

Ah. there was a period where I went mad for filters, bought just about every type going: smoky sky, starburst, vaseline light, polarising, coloured... I've still got a camera bag full, but I grew bored with using them.
Only filter I used now is a UV filter of which I've got one for each lens, and I use them mainly as protection for the lens surface itself from windblown grit, dust etc.

with a digital camera you can recreate most filter effects very easily in post-processing, so, though I have a polorising filter and an 8-stop ND filter - I rarely use them.. I bought the ND filter (a cheap one as I couldn't afford the Big Stopper!) to take those arty photos of streams/waterfalls looking all milky and smooth... but - never actually did it as those shots are so cliched now!!

a nice long exposure with a small aperture (beyond f14, say) will produce the starburst effect - I discovered this by accident whilst on a London-by-night shoot/pub crawl with a couple of friends...


Wobbly Bridge and St Paul's by revnev, on Flickr

that really is a great picture.

[Always hopeful]

As mentioned on another thread recently, I'm looking to buy a (half) decent digital camera.

About 30 years ago, I bought an Olympus OM-10, and over a period of time added a load of lenses and filters and stuff, but lost interest in photography due to the time delay between taking the photo and seeing the results. Since then, I've continued to have an interest in taking photo's, but could never justify spending loads of money on a decent camera, since (within reason) even the most basic digital camera is capable of producing similar results to the OM-10.

Anyway, time's moved on, and I'm now looking to get back into having the equipment to take decent photos.

I've been considering buying a DSLR, but I'm reluctant to buy one, since I'd definately want a pretty powerful zoom, so would very quickly be looking at a £1000 investment, which is simply too much for me (and let's be honest, Mrs H) to justify.

Consequently I'm now looking at buying a bridge camera as a compramise. The recently released Lumix FZ200 is what I'm currently considering. It seems to have everything a DSLR has (and more so in some cases), other than it having a smaller sensor.

Does anyone have any experience of these cameras and can anyone make any recommendations? I'm not particularly interested in blowing the photos up into huge prints, but I do want something that's significantly better than a £300 point and shoot, capable of producing some decent, interesting results as demsonstrated in the photos already shown on this thread.

Am I wasting my time and should I be looking at a DSLR? Help!

[Little Green Man]

I've got a DSLR (Samsung) but I wouldn't be without a point and shoot. I've had a couple of Panasonic Lumix cameras of that type and I've been very happy with them. The current one sports 20x optical zoom. The crappy one, a bit bashed with a feeble 10x zoom, gets lugged around with me when I don't have the other two. If I'm in the right place at the right time it still takes a decent photo (even if I sometimes have to pimp them in Photoshop).

That said I wouldn't say no to having a Lumix G5 too.

[clapton is god]

As mentioned on another thread recently, I'm looking to buy a (half) decent digital camera.

About 30 years ago, I bought an Olympus OM-10, and over a period of time added a load of lenses and filters and stuff, but lost interest in photography due to the time delay between taking the photo and seeing the results. Since then, I've continued to have an interest in taking photo's, but could never justify spending loads of money on a decent camera, since (within reason) even the most basic digital camera is capable of producing similar results to the OM-10.

Anyway, time's moved on, and I'm now looking to get back into having the equipment to take decent photos.

I've been considering buying a DSLR, but I'm reluctant to buy one, since I'd definately want a pretty powerful zoom, so would very quickly be looking at a £1000 investment, which is simply too much for me (and let's be honest, Mrs H) to justify.

Consequently I'm now looking at buying a bridge camera as a compramise. The recently released Lumix FZ200 is what I'm currently considering. It seems to have everything a DSLR has (and more so in some cases), other than it having a smaller sensor.

Does anyone have any experience of these cameras and can anyone make any recommendations? I'm not particularly interested in blowing the photos up into huge prints, but I do want something that's significantly better than a £300 point and shoot, capable of producing some decent, interesting results as demsonstrated in the photos already shown on this thread.

Am I wasting my time and should I be looking at a DSLR? Help!

The Sony RX100 is getting a lot of attention at the moment and is well worth looking at. I've not used it myself but from the spec and reviews I've read you could do a lot worse. Cost is currently just over £400 so still a considerable investment. Roughly the same money will get your Lumix and that also has excellent reviews. I'd get yourself into Jessops and handle the cameras and find which one feels right in your hands.

I just replaced my Canon G9 with a G10 off eBay and I got it for £250, which isn't bad for a 14mp camera with all the features I need and is built like a brick.

[Always hopeful]

I've got a DSLR (Samsung) but I wouldn't be without a point and shoot. I've had a couple of Panasonic Lumix cameras of that type and I've been very happy with them. The current one sports 20x optical zoom. The crappy one, a bit bashed with a feeble 10x zoom, gets lugged around with me when I don't have the other two. If I'm in the right place at the right time it still takes a decent photo (even if I sometimes have to pimp them in Photoshop).

That said I wouldn't say no to having a Lumix G5 too.

I've had a Lumix TZ1 point and shoot for a good few years and it's served me well. Whilst I've been very pleased with it, I want something better, without it costing me too much. The G5 would be nice, but this would put me in the same position as if I'd bought a DSLR. I'd still need to buy a load of lenses to cover the range that the FZ200 would cover.

Ultimately, I guess its like most things in life. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

[thebish]

I've got a DSLR (Samsung) but I wouldn't be without a point and shoot. I've had a couple of Panasonic Lumix cameras of that type and I've been very happy with them. The current one sports 20x optical zoom. The crappy one, a bit bashed with a feeble 10x zoom, gets lugged around with me when I don't have the other two. If I'm in the right place at the right time it still takes a decent photo (even if I sometimes have to pimp them in Photoshop).

That said I wouldn't say no to having a Lumix G5 too.

I've had a Lumix TZ1 point and shoot for a good few years and it's served me well. Whilst I've been very pleased with it, I want something better, without it costing me too much. The G5 would be nice, but this would put me in the same position as if I'd bought a DSLR. I'd still need to buy a load of lenses to cover the range that the FZ200 would cover.

Ultimately, I guess its like most things in life. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

what is it that you want a massive zoom for? (are we talking night-time peeping tom work - or wildlife photography?)

[Always hopeful]

I've got a DSLR (Samsung) but I wouldn't be without a point and shoot. I've had a couple of Panasonic Lumix cameras of that type and I've been very happy with them. The current one sports 20x optical zoom. The crappy one, a bit bashed with a feeble 10x zoom, gets lugged around with me when I don't have the other two. If I'm in the right place at the right time it still takes a decent photo (even if I sometimes have to pimp them in Photoshop).

That said I wouldn't say no to having a Lumix G5 too.

I've had a Lumix TZ1 point and shoot for a good few years and it's served me well. Whilst I've been very pleased with it, I want something better, without it costing me too much. The G5 would be nice, but this would put me in the same position as if I'd bought a DSLR. I'd still need to buy a load of lenses to cover the range that the FZ200 would cover.

Ultimately, I guess its like most things in life. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

what is it that you want a massive zoom for? (are we talking night-time peeping tom work - or wildlife photography?)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure! I think it's more a case that the bridge cameras seem to come with big zooms as a matter of course, which means that once the investment's made, there's no need to be looking to buy any addidional lenses in the future. Plus, it means you don't need to lug a bag around with you, with all the lenses you might need. Its all there in one package.

Having said that, a large zoom would be very handy to take action photo's of my youngest lad playing football, so it's not as though it would never be used.

[bobo the clown]

I've got a DSLR (Samsung) but I wouldn't be without a point and shoot. I've had a couple of Panasonic Lumix cameras of that type and I've been very happy with them. The current one sports 20x optical zoom. The crappy one, a bit bashed with a feeble 10x zoom, gets lugged around with me when I don't have the other two. If I'm in the right place at the right time it still takes a decent photo (even if I sometimes have to pimp them in Photoshop).

That said I wouldn't say no to having a Lumix G5 too.

I've had a Lumix TZ1 point and shoot for a good few years and it's served me well. Whilst I've been very pleased with it, I want something better, without it costing me too much. The G5 would be nice, but this would put me in the same position as if I'd bought a DSLR. I'd still need to buy a load of lenses to cover the range that the FZ200 would cover.

Ultimately, I guess its like most things in life. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

what is it that you want a massive zoom for? (are we talking night-time peeping tom work - or wildlife photography?)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure! I think it's more a case that the bridge cameras seem to come with big zooms as a matter of course, which means that once the investment's made, there's no need to be looking to buy any addidional lenses in the future. Plus, it means you don't need to lug a bag around with you, with all the lenses you might need. Its all there in one package.

Having said that, a large zoom would be very handy to take action photo's of my youngest lad playing football, so it's not as though it would never be used.

does he move that fast ??

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

As mentioned on another thread recently, I'm looking to buy a (half) decent digital camera.

About 30 years ago, I bought an Olympus OM-10, and over a period of time added a load of lenses and filters and stuff, but lost interest in photography due to the time delay between taking the photo and seeing the results. Since then, I've continued to have an interest in taking photo's, but could never justify spending loads of money on a decent camera, since (within reason) even the most basic digital camera is capable of producing similar results to the OM-10.

Anyway, time's moved on, and I'm now looking to get back into having the equipment to take decent photos.

I've been considering buying a DSLR, but I'm reluctant to buy one, since I'd definately want a pretty powerful zoom, so would very quickly be looking at a £1000 investment, which is simply too much for me (and let's be honest, Mrs H) to justify.

Consequently I'm now looking at buying a bridge camera as a compramise. The recently released Lumix FZ200 is what I'm currently considering. It seems to have everything a DSLR has (and more so in some cases), other than it having a smaller sensor.

Does anyone have any experience of these cameras and can anyone make any recommendations? I'm not particularly interested in blowing the photos up into huge prints, but I do want something that's significantly better than a £300 point and shoot, capable of producing some decent, interesting results as demsonstrated in the photos already shown on this thread.

Am I wasting my time and should I be looking at a DSLR? Help!

Blimey. My first proper camera was an OM10. Still have it, though haven't used it for about 8 years. Many years ago I got a Canon G3 which was fantastic. Dunno what number they are up to in the series, but unless the series has gone down hill then one of the newer versions will do most things you're likely to want. Mine took some better photos than more expensive kit. Sadly it got dropped, and whilst it still works it can be a bit temperamental at times

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

This is a scan of a pic I took with the old OM10 around 1995. It is taken through a caravan window in Snowdonia.

[thebish]

what is it that you want a massive zoom for? (are we talking night-time peeping tom work - or wildlife photography?)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure! I think it's more a case that the bridge cameras seem to come with big zooms as a matter of course, which means that once the investment's made, there's no need to be looking to buy any addidional lenses in the future. Plus, it means you don't need to lug a bag around with you, with all the lenses you might need. Its all there in one package.

Having said that, a large zoom would be very handy to take action photo's of my youngest lad playing football, so it's not as though it would never be used.

I only ask because i know next to nothing about Lumix cameras - but I do know that it is always worth checking what they mean by ZOOM when they tell you about ZOOM...

there are basically two kinds of ZOOM - optical zoom and digital zoom..

the optical zoom is proper zoom - and involves the lens moving out of the camera - getting physically longer - this is zoom worth having

digital zoom is often simply the camera taking the picture - then cropping it and stretching the pixels - which is fine for some uses (such as a grainy image of Miss Perkins deshabille by the open bathroom window) - bit not great if you were trying to get into wildlife photography and wanted sharp and clean images from a long way off...

as I said - I don't know anything about Lumix cameras - so this isn't a comment about them - just a word of caution about ZOOM!

[malcd1]

This is a scan of a pic I took with the old OM10 around 1995. It is taken through a caravan window in Snowdonia.

I saw a great-spotted woodpecker in my garden yesterday. I was going to run for my camera to get a photo but realised it wouldn't show up very well with Lumix. Being a bit of a saddo it made my day as it's only the second time I have seen one in my garden.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I saw a great-spotted woodpecker in my garden yesterday. I was going to run for my camera to get a photo but realised it wouldn't show up very well with Lumix. Being a bit of a saddo it made my day as it's only the second time I have seen one in my garden.

Took quite a few attempts to get him. The slightest thing and they fly off. Brilliant to watch them

[thebish]

This is a scan of a pic I took with the old OM10 around 1995. It is taken through a caravan window in Snowdonia.

I saw a great-spotted woodpecker in my garden yesterday. I was going to run for my camera to get a photo but realised it wouldn't show up very well with Lumix. Being a bit of a saddo it made my day as it's only the second time I have seen one in my garden.

not sad at all - they are a real delight! nice pic AT - worth the effort!