The Small Boat Camera Geek thread.....

[Captain Smollett]

Our 10th Anniversary was this year, and as our gift to each other, we decided to 'treat' ourselves to a new D-SLR camera.  We settled on the new Nikon D80.  It arrived today, and I've been playing around with it.  I LOVE this camera.

Now, I just have to go sailing and get some good shots to post.   :)

[Frank]

sailing shots...we need sailing shots.Glad you're happy with your new camera :o :o

[CapnK]

Bump! ;D

[AdriftAtSea]

Capn Smollett-

No feedback on the new camera yet?  No photos from it yet???  What's going on???  I'm actually looking at getting the D80 as my new camera early next year, as my D70s is getting a bit long in tooth. I hope you got some big (2GB+) cards for it...

[Captain Smollett]

Capn Smollett-

No feedback on the new camera yet?  No photos from it yet???  What's going on???  I'm actually looking at getting the D80 as my new camera early next year, as my D70s is getting a bit long in tooth. I hope you got some big (2GB+) cards for it...

Hehe, mostly just practicing and trying to get used to it.  I've taken some pics around the house at a Christmas party we attended last night.

So far, I love it.  It does a really good job in "auto" mode which seems to handle by far most of the 'casual' situations very well.  The picture quality is excellent, imo.  It interfaced flawlessly with GTKam on Linux, which made me happy, too. :)

Since my wife actually ordered it and was in charge of 'accessories,' she got a 4 GB SD card for it.  It holds about 1100 pictures of "Normal" size and "High" quality.  Should do pretty good.

The battery that came with the camera seems to last for a couple of hundred indoor shots with flash, at least.  I have not run the batt completely down so I cannot be sure.  The flash recharges instantly, or near enough so.

I've never used a D70, but it was my first choice until my wife one day said "what about the new one, the D80.  What's different about it?"  From my reearch on the two, two things I think you will like on the D80 over the D70 are a larger screen and the faster focus.  This D80 autofocuses so fast it is very nearly point-n-shoot.  Does the D70 have a backlit command window on top?  I think that might be one of the differences, too.  If so, three things.  I liked that the D80 taks SD cards, though initially I was inclined toward the CF's used by the D70 (or am I getting it confused with another model?).

We got the 18mm-135mm kit lens with the camera, and it is probably the best kit lens I've ever used (which is admittedly, not a lot.  I trend away from kits and in the past bought bodies and lenses separately).  I'd prefer a little bit faster lens (it's f 3.5 near 'normal' focal lengths) but seems to do okay.  Of course, it takes older lenses just fine.  I tried it with an older Nikor 50mm my sister gave me and the autofocus and exposure all function as they are supposed to.

One complaint, if you can call it that.  I have several flash units that I was hoping to reuse, but Nikon recommends (actually warns) against using anything other than their specific models of Speedlights.  The stated reason for this is other flashes may possibly damage the camera and will, of course, void the warranty.  That makes me reluctant to use my trusty Vivatar 383 that has been on several continents.  Also, my old Metz is out since there is no 'traditional' sync jack and I'm sufficienty scared off by the warning against using a hot shoe adaptor.  Oh well.  At least the on-camera flash would be enough to fire my slaves for any studio work I might find myself doing.

(Aside:  I was just given as a hand-me-down one of the compatible Nikon Speedlights, but it does not work at all.  I may try to get it working or may not fool with it).

If your D70 is aging and you are looking for a replacement, the D80 would be a good candidate (already have all you lenses, etc). I would give the D80 a high recommendation.  The first things that impressed me about it was "fast" and "simple," with of course ALL the flexibility you might require to get the shot you need.  The flexibility is hidden just enough to be out of the way but not so far as to be hard to find.  It's my understanding that the D80 has a dramatically improved menu system.

Hope this helps.  I'll post some pics when I get something other than my around the house practice shots.  ;)

[AdriftAtSea]

Capn Smollett-

You'll probably want to try using it in RAW mode, if you've got the software to handle RAW files.  The one problem is that I don't know of any good GUI RAW software for Linux.  The battery life on the Nikon DSLRs has always been quite impressive.

The 18-135 should give you an effective 35mm focal length range of 28mm to 200mm roughly.  A pretty useful range, although the lens is a bit on the slow side.  If you do have any specific questions, I used to teach photography and have been using the Nikon gear for over 25 years... and their digital gear I consult on with a bunch of pro photogs. 

One website I think you'll really like is strobist.com.  Its a blog about off-camera low-cost flash setups.  Has a pretty good basic 101 about doing this.  Your Metz and Vivitar flashes would work nicely for it, if you just got some optical slaves for them.  They also have a flickr group and some really impressive photos in the group.  Let me know what you think.  It's run by a guy who shoots for the Baltimore Sun.

I'd also highly recommend getting a good UV or Skylight 1a filter to use on the lens if you're going to be using it on the boat.  Helps prevent salt water from getting on the actual good glass. 

DK

[Captain Smollett]

Yeah, we used to run Skylight filters on all our lenses to protect them...I have several.  But they are all 50 mm, so I need to pick one up for the larger diameter lens.

Been shooting since I was about 10, on and off "professionally" for about 22 years.  My Dad and I ran a part-time freelance outfit for a while - I did mostly landscapes (lots of really cool old barns in really cool settings in Western NC, and waterfalls, too), and my Dad did some model shots for some girls trying to get started.

I used to have some gear to set up that Vivatar off-camera, but I think either my Dad got rid of it or it got lost in one of my many moves.  I'll have to look into that.  For the short term, though, the on-camera flash seems adequate for the more casual shots.  I can also crank up the ISO if need be, if I don't mind the loss of quality.  BTW, the D80 has a really good High ISO Noise Reduction capability, but I have not played with the higher ISO settings much.  (I used to love to shoot Ektachrome 64, so I was never a big 'fast film' fan...the highest I went to in practice was 400).

I'll also need to pick up a remote for it since my old cable releases won't work.   ;)  That will help with the tripod low-light stuff.

I've been thinking about some set-ups for low light, long exposure shots from the boat.....With this camera, I'm getting excited about photography again (my little 1.5 megapixel piece of garbage point-n-shoot just did not cut it).  Since losing my OM-1 to age, I've been "out of the loop."

[Zen]

I have found that with the digitals even using 30 or 25 shutter speeds the shot is still clean. FYI

[AdriftAtSea]

Long-exposure photos from a boat... hmmm..either your anchorages are a lot calmer than mine or you want blurry photos. :D

The advantage of using RAW mode, even though the files are a lot bigger, is that you have a lot more data to work with.  The RAW mode files are essentially the camera sensor data in computer readable format.  You can play with the white balance, sharpness, exposure and a bunch of other things if you shoot in RAW mode, and you can often get much better quality from the image by doing so.  If you shoot in JPEG mode, the camera, which has relatively limited intelligence and computing resources, ends up making the decision on white balance, exposure, sharpness and image compression.  The JPEGs are only 24-bit color, where the RAW files are imported at 48-bit color, and have much greater tonal range.

In a lot of ways, shooting with a digital camera in RAW mode is more like shooting with color negative film.  Shooting with a digital camera in TIFF or JPEG mode is more like shooting with color slide film.  With RAW format images and color negatives, the images are much more open to exposure correction and color balancing, since you have more options in the post-processing stages.  Shooting in JPEG or TIFF mode or slide film is less versatile, since if the information isn't there, it can't be restored, since much of the original data for the image is lost in the camera, before it ever gets to the computer. 

Moose Petersen has a pretty good RAW workflow setup on his website, but I don't know of much software, besides possibly DCRAW that work in Linux.  GIMP is also not very well suited for image retouching due to its color space limitations.

[Oldrig]

Santa gave us an Olympus E-500 DSLR as an early Christmas present, and I've got to say I love it. We got a 1 GB card, and a lens backage that gives us the equivalent of 28-300 mm lenses.

So far, the pictures have been fantastic. The camera even has a "sunset" mode that I tested at St. Pete Beach, FL, two days ago (back in Mass. now, and it's actually snowing!).

I'd really be interested in photography-related threads, as I was once a fairly experienced 35-mm photographer (newspaper work on Tri-X mostly).

My image-processing software can handle RAW data files, but I haven't dealt with them yet. I'm still learning how to use this wonderful camera.

When I get back aboard, I'll try to post some sailing pix.

--Joe

[Fortis]

have to disagree on one point with drifty (so what's new?). using positive film (slides) allows you no end of control and versatilty to play with in  the darkroom.

This is why so much fashion and art photography was done on positive film. It has very different qualities. the blacks are sleaker. the entire image looks "faster" and more glamourous. Printing form positive film onto chromic paper allows amazing results that I would say go beyond what all but the very best can achieve with colour neg film. Of course the positive film never even comes close to the luminosity and silver content of good B&W negatives...but that really is a whole different ball game and style.

Night time, long exposure, positive film shots are some of the most drippingly gorgeous images that can be imagined.

If you like warm colours, reds and golds and such, then Kodak negative film can't be beat.

growing stuff like plants and leaves, Fuji neg film.

etc.
everything has its place and EVERYTHING can be manipulated to achieve the desired image.



Alex.

[Captain Smollett]

have to disagree on one point with drifty (so what's new?). using positive film (slides) allows you no end of control and versatilty to play with in  the darkroom.

I agree, Alex.  We used to shoot E-64 and then run type R prints in the darkroom.  I'm not sure why there is the notion that such printing cannot be manipulated in the darkroom (I've seen this on websites, too), as I've done it myself.  Maybe there is not the full versatility of using negative film vs. reversal film, but darkroom work CAN be done.

[Dougcan]

You guys are strange!  I prefer to manipulate my photo in a lighted room, that way I can see the keyboard to the computer I'm using to "tweak" my photos with!   ;D

[AdriftAtSea]

Actually, the real reason that chrome films were used in the fashion industry is that the color separations and film scanners at the time couldn't deal with color negative films.  Slide films, unless very accurately exposed, generally hold less information in them than do negative films.  This is due to the film development process used for chrome films, where the image is developed, the film bleached and chemically fogged to produce the "positive" image.  Unfortunately, even the slightest bit of overexposure tends to lead to the highlights blowing out completely—clear film, and too much underexposure leads to the shadows blocking in almost completely.

Most slide films have an exposure tolerance range of about 1/2 a stop... where you will get a pretty good image.  Most color negative films have an exposure tolerance range of about 4 stops, where you will get an acceptable image, and a range of about two stops where you'll get a pretty good image. 

Another reason chrome films were often used is that the color saturation of chrome film, especially if it is exposed with a touch (1/4-1/3) stop of underexposure, will give you much better color saturation than was possible with older color negative films.  This is still the case, but the differences are far less.

Printing with positive print materials, particularly Cibachrome, would give you very good color saturation...  Cibachrome was particularly noticable due to the Azo-based dyes it uses. 

I'm not saying that darkroom work can't be done using chromes, but that your range and versatility in results is going to be a good deal more limited. 

BTW, the only chrome film that isn't a color film, but produces color slides is Kodachrome.  The K14-based films add the dye to the film in the processing, unlike E-6 based films, like Fujichrome and Ektachrome, where the dyes are already in the film as color-coupled dyes.  There is no dye in Kodachrome when you buy it... that's why it isn't possible to process without a big, expensive machine. 

I'd definitely disagree with Alex's statement that "everything can be manipulated to achieve the desired image."  I would rather state that while everything can be manipulated to achieve the desired image, it is much better to start with the right film for the desired results, as achieving the desired results becomes much simpler, and usually much higher quality.  I'd also like to see Alex get a full color, fine-grained image print from a T-Max 3200 negative. :D

However, Alex fails to address my main point—which was that shooting with RAW format files in a digital camera will often lead to much better results in the final image than using JPEG or TIFF format files in camera. 

[Fortis]

From a T-max 100 I can get you that fine grained image....From anything over T-max 400 I would need to make the image about 12feet wide and state that I was deliberately generating an abstract look!

And doing colour washes through B&W (both negs and paper) as well as hand colouring for "real colour" detail over liminious greys are both established fine art techniques (usually practiced by semi-hysterical Wagnerian women...but that could just be my personal experience to date).

As for your point, I think you ran the argument into fairly obvious extremes and I do not feel the need to follow. Yeah, generally shooting color film for colour results tends to be a good notion. Surprise.

My experience was with cibachrome and ektachrome, we could only ever get the "family slide night" quality of kodachrome locally and so didn't use it (way too yellow, based on our tests) Never looked into the hugely different process Kodak employed.

I did introduce a battery powered kicking frog bath toy to the dark rooms of Phillip Institute as an agitator, though. About a week later half the class had one!
(toxic frogs!)

Alex.

[CapnK]

I'm with Doug - gimmee the GIMP! ;D

But that is besides the point, which is:

SHOW US THE PICS, MON!

:D :D :D

[s/v Faith]

In my universe, things kind of circle in orbit.... I can not necvessaraly put my hands on things all the time.

  I am afraid my digital camera (a better quality Kodak) has burnt up on re-entry.....  >:(

  I can not find it anywhere, and Rose (who normally keeps much better track of things then I) can not seem to find it either.

  Anyway, I am looking for a decient digital camera, preferably waterresistant... and sub $150...

  Any suggestions?

[AdriftAtSea]

The combination of sub $150 and water-resistant is a bit tough. 

I'd look at the older Pentax WP or the Olympus equiavlent of it (current model is the 770SW IIRC)... both make a small, compact, water-resistant digital camera that has a 3x optical zoom. 

I have the WP, and the picture quality on it is fairly decent.  Here is one I took last summer with it.

[Captain Smollett]

Sweet pic.

[AdriftAtSea]

Thanks Captain Smollett...

BTW, the boat in question is the C&C 38, Melissa, that Norm takes care of over at the Boston Sailing Center... from our Cape Ann Circumnavigation last year. 

If you don't recognize the red building, it is Motif #1...version two, which was built after the original Motif #1 was destroyed by the Blizzard of 1978.  It is often said to be one of the most painted/photographed buildings in the United States.  Not too odd considering its location in Rockport, Massachusetts, which is an artists colony of sorts.