All The Pretty Horses (pics)

problemchild

San Jaun Capistrano held their jumping grand prix ($50,000) today. I figured I would try out my new camera and lens.

See all the pics here --> http://michaelkdickson.com/new_page_39.htm

..........................................................

A few samples......

pmccurdy

Wow!
Those are some dang fine action photos. I'm jealous.

What camera? What lens?

Cheers,

Patrick

problemchild

pmccurdy wrote:

Those are some dang fine action photos. I'm jealous.

What camera? What lens?

Cheers,

Patrick

I use a Kodak cardboard box camera.

gus

pmccurdy wrote:

Those are some dang fine action photos. I'm jealous.

What camera? What lens?

Cheers,

Patrick

See what happens when you ask a perfectly sensible question Patrick.

PossumCorner

You can even see the needle marks
Nice result with the new box Brownie - bet you wish you'd had it when you took the San Diego pano.

Rohirrim

Nice Captures. The timing on the last one is perfect!

problemchild

Humungus wrote:

See what happens when you ask a perfectly sensible question Patrick.

Yes see what happens when you show pictures and everyone asks what camera you have.

Exif view would answer it ...

Rohirrim

problemchild wrote:

Yes see what happens when you show pictures and everyone asks what camera you have.

Exif view would answer it ...

And your EXIF info is....where?

problemchild

Rohirrim wrote:

And your EXIF info is....where?

I believe its embedded in the pic...open photoshop (file/file info/camera1 data)
You can view any pics exif that way and see how they took the pic.

Sorry I get asked what camera I have so often its just frustrating. I could take those pics with any film and most digital pro-sumer cameras.

I just cant figure out if people think that the camera is taking the pics or me.

gus

problemchild wrote:

I believe its embedded in the pic...open photoshop (file/file info/camera1 data)
You can view any pics exif that way and see how they took the pic.

Sorry I get asked what camera I have so often its just frustrating. I could take those pics with any film and most digital pro-sumer cameras.

I just cant figure out if people think that the camera is taking the pics or me.

PC...we try to be a little different in this photographic forum in that when someone asks a simple question, we do our best to answer it. A blunt rude answer to another member without provication is not going to help anyone.

A lot of our members do not have expensive cameras/lenses or photoshop & harvest information on the site to help them choose if they decide to move into some better gear.

I welcome you to the forum & hope you will stay & share you knowledge with others here.

Gus

DavidTO

Humungus wrote:

PC...we try to be a little different in this photographic forum in that when someone asks a simple question, we do our best to answer it. A blunt rude answer to another member without provication is not going to help anyone.

A lot of our members do not have expensive cameras/lenses or photoshop & harvest information on the site to help them choose if they decide to move into some better gear.

I welcome you to the forum & hope you will stay & share you knowledge with others here.

Gus

Yep. If you read around you'll find it's a constant refrain here: it's not the camera, but the photographer. And you'll also notice that we don't obsess on technical details, but simply use them as needed. As a whole I think we've reached a nice balance of the technical and the creative. Perhaps you could help both by letting us know not only what camera you shoot with, but any other tips you have for getting such great horse shots.

On a side note, I'm a recent LAB-evangelist, thanks to Rutt. I've really been digging what can be done with it. We've started a group to go through Dan Margulis' latest book Photoshop LAB Color. It's been a blessing and a curse for me. I'm constantly looking at shots and seeing how they could be improved with it. Your shots, for example, benefit nicely from the basic recipe outlined in Chap. 1.

DavidTO

BTW: really looking forward to seeing more of your shots.

Rohirrim

problemchild wrote:

I believe its embedded in the pic...open photoshop (file/file info/camera1 data)
You can view any pics exif that way and see how they took the pic.

Sorry I get asked what camera I have so often its just frustrating. I could take those pics with any film and most digital pro-sumer cameras.

I just cant figure out if people think that the camera is taking the pics or me.

I think that most users here feel that it's the person behind the camera, not the camera that makes a great pic. I'm sorry you felt slighted.

As to the EXIF. When pics are uploaded to DGrin the EXIF info is stripped to save on bandwidth. I believe that most webbrowsers also don't contain the EXIF in JPEG's that are downloaded. Many of us will post a separate link to the EXIF or post the actual data for those that may be intersested in looking at it.

Welcome to Dgrin,

Michiel de Brieder

great action shots!! Thanks for sharing!

pathfinder

problemchild wrote:

I use a Kodak cardboard box camera.

Yo!! Problem Child!! I use the same box camera as you!! The 1DsMkII box camera.

Which 400mm lens are you shooting with? f5.6 - DO - or f2.8?? The background bokeh was so nice in your images I thought maybe it was due to Gaussian blur, but a 400 mm lens will also do it nicely : You are correct - the exif data is in the images on your site - nice shots.

And I do know, for sure, that nice equipment is perfectly capable of making lousy pictures if not used capably by the shooter. I have lots of lousy pictures that remind me of that frequently. But in the right hands, great equipment can really sing too.

problemchild

pathfinder wrote:

Yo!! Problem Child!! I use the same box camera as you!! The 1DsMkII box camera.

Which 400mm lens are you shooting with? f5.6 - DO - or f2.8?? The background bokeh was so nice in your images I thought maybe it was due to Gaussian blur, but a 400 mm lens will also do it nicely : You are correct - the exif data is in the images on your site - nice shots.

And I do know, for sure, that nice equipment is perfectly capable of making lousy pictures if not used capably by the shooter. I have lots of lousy pictures that remind me of that frequently. But in the right hands, great equipment can really sing too.

Its the 2.8 lens. The 5.6 has funny egg shaped/circle bokeh as does the DO.

Yes the exif is there because the pics are on my site as you described.

Its funny Im lectured for cracking a joke about using a box camera and then attacked for doing so. Suddenly its all my fault for having a sense of humor. No one replies about the one who attacked me for making the joke.

ian408

Those are some nice lookin' horse pictures

It's interesting. I'm often curious about settings because I know less about
exposure than I want to. So, I found a little EXIF viewer that I got from
[url=http:///www.takenet.or.jp/~ryuuji/]here[/url]. Then when I want to
know the settings, I just click the image in the browser and drag it off to
the reader. Viola! Job done.

Not every image has EXIF data in it. Most do and this is a handy way to
avoid having to ask the question--not to mention you don't have to open
PS to get the data.

Ian

Harryb

problemchild wrote:

Its the 2.8 lens. The 5.6 has funny egg shaped/circle bokeh as does the DO.

Yes the exif is there because the pics are on my site as you described.

Its funny Im lectured for cracking a joke about using a box camera and then attacked for doing so. Suddenly its all my fault for having a sense of humor. No one replies about the one who attacked me for making the joke.

Hey PC,

Welcome to the wildlife forum and those are some prime shots.

When you first posted the pics you said that you were using your new camera and lens for the first time. It was kind of inevitable that someone was going to ask you what camera and lens you were using.

Jokes sometimes don't across as jokes in text that's why I will throw in one of our myriad of smilies when I make one. If you had used in with your box camera response I think your intent would had been clearer.

In the past I have been tired myself of the "what camera/lens" question. In another photography forum I was roundly chastised for my refusal to identify what camera I had used for my pics. I have found it easier just to put my main equipment in my profile.

Anyhow I enjoyed these shots and the others you have posted and look forward to seeing some more of your work in the future.

problemchild

Harryb wrote:

Hey PC,

Welcome to the wildlife forum and those are some prime shots.

When you first posted the pics you said that you were using your new camera and lens for the first time. It was kind of inevitable that someone was going to ask you what camera and lens you were using.

Jokes sometimes don't across as jokes in text that's why I will throw in one of our myriad of smilies when I make one. If you had used in with your box camera response I think your intent would had been clearer.

In the past I have been tired myself of the "what camera/lens" question. In another photography forum I was roundly chastised for my refusal to identify what camera I had used for my pics. I have found it easier just to put my main equipment in my profile.

Anyhow I enjoyed these shots and the others you have posted and look forward to seeing some more of your work in the future.

I see your point and its understood...thanks

I have had poeple look at my web site and say what camera are you using. I always say a cardboard box camera and everyone gets the joke. I guess forums are different.

michaelkdickson.com

snapapple

Wow! These are beautiful shots. Since you mentioned you were using a new camera and lens, I was tempted to ask about them. But just looking at the pictures told me they were some pretty good hardware. My 400mm lens would not give that soft bokeh. I get funny egg shaped things. (I'll post a bird shot in a few minutes for example - in my own thread, of course.) But, equipment aside, the images are crisp, well composed, well timed. You chose camera settings that isolated the subjects and froze the action perfectly. The colors seem pretty true, but, as Thomas mentioned, LAB could possibly make them even better. Very nice work.

Steve Cavigliano

Good work PC

The last pic looks like the horse and rider are jumping right out of my monitor Very kewl!


Steve

problemchild

Lab
LAB

snapapple wrote:

Wow! These are beautiful shots. Since you mentioned you were using a new camera and lens, I was tempted to ask about them. But just looking at the pictures told me they were some pretty good hardware. My 400mm lens would not give that soft bokeh. I get funny egg shaped things. (I'll post a bird shot in a few minutes for example - in my own thread, of course.) But, equipment aside, the images are crisp, well composed, well timed. You chose camera settings that isolated the subjects and froze the action perfectly. The colors seem pretty true, but, as Thomas mentioned, LAB could possibly make them even better. Very nice work.

So can someone tell me the lowdown about lab?
I use c1pro/raw/cs2 to develop now.

Rohirrim

problemchild wrote:

LAB
So can someone tell me the lowdown about lab?
I use c1pro/raw/cs2 to develop now.

No easy task here . I also use C1 then CS2. C1 just seems to get better results than ACR. After the RAW conversion, convert the image into LAB mode in Photoshop and then the fun begins .

The whole LAB discussion is from Dan Margulis book Photoshop LAB Color. I think most people become a convert after reading the first chapter. It's truly amazing how some subtle changes in this color space can bring out subtle colors.

There is a discussion going on in the Digital Darkroom forum regarding this that you may want to check out the links to start with are:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18549

Regards,

problemchild

Rohirrim wrote:

No easy task here . I also use C1 then CS2. C1 just seems to get better results than ACR. After the RAW conversion, convert the image into LAB mode in Photoshop and then the fun begins .

The whole LAB discussion is from Dan Margulis book Photoshop LAB Color. I think most people become a convert after reading the first chapter. It's truly amazing how some subtle changes in this color space can bring out subtle colors.

There is a discussion going on in the Digital Darkroom forum regarding this that you may want to check out the links to start with are:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18308
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18549

Regards,

..............................................................................................
Im looking at the LAB samples done by people in those threads and Im NOT impressed. I can make the pictures look much better with levels/curves/saturation/brightness/smart sharp...

Why would anyone use usm anymore?
Some of the samples (actually most) looked off hue and abnormal...

Heres a sample of how I do it from above methods. The only thing LAB would do to this is make it look fake and weird from what Ive seen so far.

The 1ds2 pics are so almost perfect why mess them up with some weird rgb levels thing?

Frost

Nice half dome!
I have seen some things done with Genuine Fractals 4.1 and then using Photoshop macros to simplify things a bit. Really astounding work that can be accomplished to a digital photograph.

Personally, I shoot a Fuji S9000 and am not in the league of the major DSLR folks, but I'm just learning. Got to start somewhere. Too bad they don't make a graflock back digital for my view camera.. that would be something!!