New kitties are an inspiration

ajgauthier

I must say I'm glad I found smugmug and dgrin! I've been perusing photos and the exposure to creative and spectacular photography is helping me get back into the swing of this hobby! However, recently I rescued 2 kitten sisters who inspired me to go through 6 rolls of film already! Sigh...time for a digital point and shoot I think (Canon A95 perhaps!)

Anyway, I've gotten some compliments on some of my recent photos and would like to post for y'all. Though, I am wondering how to take a photo of them w/o the flash-glare in their eyes (I accomplished it in one kitten on one of the pics).

Enjoy!
AJ

ajgauthier

more kitty pics
another image

ajgauthier

and last one
last one!

digital faerie

eeek! I just want to lay down in the floor and let them crawl all over me. I love how you caught them jumping in the air like that. concerning flash....maybe bouncing flash off the ceiling or wall? Or by a strong light source like a window or outside.....cats are hard. I know!

ajgauthier

yeah, they are adorable, eh? For the "jumping in air"ones...I wasted 2 rolls of film and got about 5 spectacular poses. One of the cats (the calico) has these amazing eyes - yellow with a wide ring of green around the pupils. I'd love to get that captured on film, but the flash ruins it, or if there is no flash then it's grainy, etc. I have a fast 50mm lens for astrophotography I may try on her...we'll see! Thanks for the comments!

AJ

digital faerie wrote:

eeek! I just want to lay down in the floor and let them crawl all over me. I love how you caught them jumping in the air like that. concerning flash....maybe bouncing flash off the ceiling or wall? Or by a strong light source like a window or outside.....cats are hard. I know!

David_S85

...wait a minute

ajgauthier wrote:

...I wasted 2 rolls of film and got about 5 spectacular poses...
AJ

Film?

Could somebody fill me in about this "film" thing?

ajgauthier

yeah - I'm a bit old-fashioned that way I guess...however, unless you have $10K to burn, you can't get anywhere near the quality for large prints from film/slide film as from a digital camera. I invested a lot in nice lenses for my Rebel 2000, and don't feel that the Digital Rebel is worth it yet - 6.3 MP makes a mighty fine 3x5 or 4x6, but anything larger than that and it loses sharpness and gets pixelated/grainy. However, I am saving cash for Canon's A95, 5MP, a small zoom, but there are the creative (manual) settings for aperture, focus, and exposure. Good enough for a snap and shoot, but I'll also have my "film" camera around as well.

:-) AJ

(A technology-person by day, but old-fashioned in her hobbies!)

David_S85 wrote:

Film?

Could somebody fill me in about this "film" thing?

Cosmic

I love the shot of the kitty sleeping!

I would try without the flash; although, could prove to be difficult with cats ;-)

Steve Cavigliano

Very nice kitten pics ^5
AJ,
These are really good.


It's hard to capture animals using a flash. They get those "demon eyes". As others have suggested, try diffusing or bouncing the flash (if you have an external flash). Alternatively, there are Actions that can be used during post processing to correct the animal's eyes.

Scroll about 90% down towards the bottom of the page in the link below. Look for "Demoneye Remover", by Chip Springer. Check out the rollover demonstration. Looks pretty good to me : Not the mention all the other really kewl Actions resident there.

http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm

Hopefully, you have pp software that allows you to use Actions.


Thanks for sharing,
Steve

ajgauthier

thanks Steve for that link! Lots of great goodies to try out in Photoshop :-)
AJ

Steve Cavigliano wrote:

AJ,
These are really good.


It's hard to capture animals using a flash. They get those "demon eyes". As others have suggested, try diffusing or bouncing the flash (if you have an external flash). Alternatively, there are Actions that can be used during post processing to correct the animal's eyes.

Scroll about 90% down towards the bottom of the page in the link below. Look for "Demoneye Remover", by Chip Springer. Check out the rollover demonstration. Looks pretty good to me : Not the mention all the other really kewl Actions resident there.

http://www.atncentral.com/download.htm

Hopefully, you have pp software that allows you to use Actions.


Thanks for sharing,
Steve

billw

Re: film?

ajgauthier wrote:

yeah - I'm a bit old-fashioned that way I guess...however, unless you have $10K to burn, you can't get anywhere near the quality for large prints from film/slide film as from a digital camera. I invested a lot in nice lenses for my Rebel 2000, and don't feel that the Digital Rebel is worth it yet - 6.3 MP makes a mighty fine 3x5 or 4x6, but anything larger than that and it loses sharpness and gets pixelated/grainy. However, I am saving cash for Canon's A95, 5MP, a small zoom, but there are the creative (manual) settings for aperture, focus, and exposure. Good enough for a snap and shoot, but I'll also have my "film" camera around as well.

:-) AJ

(A technology-person by day, but old-fashioned in her hobbies!)

AJ:
I'm afraid I must disagree with you. A picture taken with a 5 MP digital and printed at 8x10 looks less grainy than an 8x10 from a colour neg. I have the prints to prove it - I've seen it with my own eyes.
Any print you get from the local lab will have a maximum resolution of 300 pixels per inch (ppi). Try scanning one of your 4x6 prints at 150, 300, 600 and 1200 dpi and compare them in Photoshop - you'll see.
For 8x10s from my digital camera I print at 240 ppi. When I examine one of those prints under an 8x loupe i can see the pixels. But I can also see film grain if I examine any film print at 8x. But that's now how one looks at an 8x10 - it's framed/mounted, hung on the wall, and the viewer will be at least 18 inches away.

Don't take my word for it, though. Check out this link
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/
d30_vs_film.shtml
where Michael Reichmann, a professional photographer, compares the lowly Canon D30 (3.1 MP) to the best 35 mm transparency film.

I only recently made the jump from film to digital, and have not regretted it. And I don't regret waiting [despite having bought a new film camera less than 3 years ago] because I got my dream digital camera [here follows a shameless plug : ] - the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20.

-- Bill

ajgauthier

thanks for insights billw, we've just had different experiences...and I will admit mine is limited and I'm certainly no professional. However, I have also seen examples (my master's advisor was a photographer) between digital and film where my prof scanned in film with a negative scanner at this oober-high resolution that made a fabulous poster print, and the same shot with a digital camera (I think it was 6 MP) blown up to a poster size (think dorm room type poster), and the same shot with slide film (also scanned in ultra-high res) also blown to poster. The slide film won hands down, next was the film negative, and then the digital pic.

so - there is a limit for digital vs film, depending on who is scanning in the negative (Walgreens vs. a pro photo outfit w/ fab machines). For general purpose, digital wins b/c it does make good 3x5, 4x6, and yes 8x10. Great for wedding photography for sure. But, I'm just waiting til the MPs increase and the price decreases for the digital SLRs...until then, it's not worth it to me personally...I can wait :-)

AJ

billw wrote:

AJ:
I'm afraid I must disagree with you. A picture taken with a 5 MP digital and printed at 8x10 looks less grainy than an 8x10 from a colour neg. I have the prints to prove it - I've seen it with my own eyes.
Any print you get from the local lab will have a maximum resolution of 300 pixels per inch (ppi). Try scanning one of your 4x6 prints at 150, 300, 600 and 1200 dpi and compare them in Photoshop - you'll see.
For 8x10s from my digital camera I print at 240 ppi. When I examine one of those prints under an 8x loupe i can see the pixels. But I can also see film grain if I examine any film print at 8x. But that's now how one looks at an 8x10 - it's framed/mounted, hung on the wall, and the viewer will be at least 18 inches away.

Don't take my word for it, though. Check out this link
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/
d30_vs_film.shtml
where Michael Reichmann, a professional photographer, compares the lowly Canon D30 (3.1 MP) to the best 35 mm transparency film.

I only recently made the jump from film to digital, and have not regretted it. And I don't regret waiting [despite having bought a new film camera less than 3 years ago] because I got my dream digital camera [here follows a shameless plug : ] - the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20.

-- Bill