Lumberjack’s Photography

[lumberjack]

Figured I'd start a thread about my photography given its (sometimes) random nature and not wanting to pounce on someone else's thread.

Yesterday a friend of mine (a baker) sent me these pictures, on one they cut off the mixer, on the other they cut off the message board. They wanted to know if I could help:





This was the final result:

There's a weird shadow/shading on the left side, possibly due to a difference in exposure between the two pictures although the edge of the main picture isn't there. My presumption was without knowing it was a composite, it just looks like a shadow on the wall and isn't distracting.

 

[pantheraba]

So you used a software program to meld / integrate the two pictures into one?

 

[lumberjack]

Yessir, I did it in Photoshop.

If you look at her hand position on the mixer bowl, you can see a difference between the finished picture and the picture that shows the message board.

I was going to post more pictures but Carly showed up. I’ll post more when I get back to the computer.

Here’s couple pictures of the progress building that composite.

 

[Nutball]

Wow, no noticeable seems, but a lot of variables to deal with.

Wait a minute, look at the reflection of the feet!!

Very good overall.

 

[gf beranek]

Mighty fine, Carl. You're going to become the Norman Rockwell of kids photos.

 

[lumberjack]

Here are some pictures from the "Black and Gold" (the team playing against itself) game at the local high school yesterday.

Used two lenses, a 400mm F2.8 and a 135mm F1.8.


Turning to throw someone out at first:

Really bugs me that you can't read the writing on the ball... going to try to fix that next weekend:

 

[lumberjack]

 

[lumberjack]

Random vulture flying over the game:

 

[Nutball]

I like sports pictures, mainly for the funny shots you get. I have a pic somewhere of a guy throwing a football and he has no upper arm and a super thin torso from moving. Also one of a cat jumping with a slow shutter speed, he's all stretched out. I think they are on a different computer.

 

[lumberjack]

Some of y'all may have seen this my Facebook about this.

This pitcher also plays soccer... the soccer season ended this past Tuesday night with a loss in the semi final for Mississippi Class 5A Championship.


Copied from my FB post:
"Last night after New Hope beat Saltillo 3-2 in an emotionally charged second half, I saw an example of pure sportsmanship and grace.

That’s something to be proud of."

 

[lumberjack]

I like sports pictures, mainly for the funny shots you get. I have a pic somewhere of a guy throwing a football and he has no upper arm and a super thin torso from moving. Also one of a cat jumping with a slow shutter speed, he's all stretched out. I think they are on a different computer.

Sounds like rolling shutter/electronic shutter? My current sports camera uses electronic shutter if the lights don't flicker (like yesterday) but has a super fast readout to reduce rolling shutter to basically nill. The max mechanical shutter speed is 1/8000s, but the electronic can go to 1/32000s and up to 20FPS.

I'm lazy and spoiled... laying here in bed, I pulled those last 3 pictures from a drive connected to my desktop over the network... sounds fancy but with both being Mac I can access the drives of the other computer like they were on this computer, albeit at a lower bandwidth.

Hopefully in a month I'll have my new bodies which can use anti flicker with the electronic shutter, shooting 50MP pictures at up to 30FPS. Every "early" review I've seen shows them being essentially my three current bodies rolled into one. The plan is to sell my remaining two bodies (24mp sports camera and 61mp portrait camera I also use for sports) to help offset the cost of the two new bodies. With the electronic shutter working with flash and anti-flicker, not wearing out the mechanical shutter will be FANTASTIC. My sports camera took almost 3k pictures yesterday at baseball using the electronic shutter.

 

[vharrison]

Carl, those are just fantastic! That little girl looks like a doll and the sports shots really capture the essence of the game.

 

[lumberjack]

Carly playing outside yesterday at Heather's house. I "fixed" her runny nose in the second picture in photoshop, left the first authentic. 😂

 

[lumberjack]

And some pictures from town yesterday:

 

[vharrison]

Love that church!

 

[BeerGeek]

Keep 'em coming Carl. All fantastic!!!

 

[ruel]

Love the shot of that old duffer grabbing a paper, of another time

 

[gf beranek]

Nice images. Too cold for me.

 

[treesmith]

Just passed that dude on the burro. He’s STILL THERE! Gotta be getting cold!🥶

 

[Tim_B.]

Sounds like rolling shutter/electronic shutter? My current sports camera uses electronic shutter if the lights don't flicker (like yesterday) but has a super fast readout to reduce rolling shutter to basically nill. The max mechanical shutter speed is 1/8000s, but the electronic can go to 1/32000s and up to 20FPS.

Hopefully in a month I'll have my new bodies which can use anti flicker with the electronic shutter, shooting 50MP pictures at up to 30FPS. Every "early" review I've seen shows them being essentially my three current bodies rolled into one.

With the electronic shutter working with flash and anti-flicker, not wearing out the mechanical shutter will be FANTASTIC. My sports camera took almost 3k pictures yesterday at baseball using the electronic shutter.

Hey, Carl! I'm liking this thread, thanks for starting it. I love your photos. I'm a guy that was into photography a long time ago, when 35mm film was still the standard. I have not been keeping up with all of the changes in the technology that have been happening over the years.

In the quotes above you mention the use of an electronic shutter to achieve higher shutter speeds, and to prevent the wearing out of the mechanical shutters. I did read a long time ago, when digital first started to take off, the camera makers being surprised by the phenomenon of people wearing out the mechanical shutters. In the old days there was a financial reason that the shutters rarely wore out. People had to pay for every roll of film put through the camera, and for the processing of the negatives afterward, as well as the cost of printing out the images. Now, with digital cameras, there is no built in financial disincentive to shoot as many images as one feels like shooting. So the numbers of images that get shot by the average person has gone through the roof. Thanks for mentioning the new technology that is in play now.

I have a favor to ask of you, if it is not getting too personal. I was wondering if you would mind naming the make and model of the new camera bodies that you are about to receive. You are a smart guy who is good with machines and technology, so I value your opinion. If some piece of gear is something that has caused you to part with your hard-earned dollars, I know it must be of great quality. If I knew the brand and model of camera bodies you are about to acquire it would give me a starting point to look at in researching the current state of the art in photography. I'll completely understand if you are not comfortable revealing this information, however, and no hard feelings if you choose not to share the info. Thanks for your time, and thanks for all of your work in keeping this forum up and running.

Tim

 

[lumberjack]

I shoot Sony full frame (35mm sized) mirrorless.

My current bodies are/were the A7Siii (12MP, video centric hybrid low light monster can shoot 4K 120FPS and output raw 4K60 video), A7Riv (61MP, the pictures of Carly and the ice were with this camera, up to 10 frames per second), and the A9ii (24MP, best autofocus on the planet, for action/sports photography, up to 20 frames per second).

The new body (getting a couple) is the A1 which can (compared to the A7Siii) shoot 4k120, output 4k60 raw, plus 8k30, 50MP (vs the A7Riv's 61MP), 30 frames per second (compared to the A9ii's 20fps).

The A1 goes to ISO102k, the A7Siii goes to ISO 409K.
The A7Siii can autofocus to -6EV, the A1 only goes to -4EV.

This is a screenshot of the A7Siii 4k60 RAW (no denoising in camera or post) at 409k ISO, fantastically clean and impressively huge dynamic range (to me). Shot with the 16-35mm F2.8 wide open.


Out of curiosity I quickly ran this picture through a specialized denoising program to see what it would look like cleaned up.



The A7Riv PDAF (Phase Detect Autofocus) goes to F11, the A9ii goes to F16, the A1 goes to F22. This doesn't hugely matter aside from using the 2x teleconverter on the A7Riv and the 200-600mm (F13). Phase detect autofocus is much better than contrast based autofocus. Diffraction starts becoming a problem at F7.1 on the A7Riv, F8 on the A1 (I call it F8 for both).


My current stable of lenses are all Sony, aside from one Sigma.
16-35mm, 24-70mm, 70-200mm F2.8 GM
90mm F2.8 G Macro
105mm F1.4 Sigma
135mm F1.8 GM
200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G
400mm F2.8 GM

I have the 1.4x and 2x Teleconverters that will work on the 70-200m F2.8, 200-600mm F5.6-6.3, and the 400mm F2.8. I doubt I ever use them on the 70-200mm, too much image degradation.

 

[Tim_B.]

Wow, Carl! (@lumberjack) Thanks so much for that outstandingly thorough answer! I appreciate all of the time and effort you must have put into it. If it's ok with you, I'm going to keep a copy of your above post as a document to refer to during my reading on the subject. There is a lot of information there to try to process. It sounds like you are really heavy into it, and having a lot of fun while doing it.

I always had a hard time getting into the digital image processing after you've captured the image. The fact that you are managing to wade through the complexity of Photoshop says a lot about your tenacity. Thanks again for sharing your knowledge and your images. The detail available with digital cameras today is just a marvel. I hope you have a ball with all of it.

Tim

 

[Tim_B.]

@lumberjack; Also, I just noticed on reading this again that you own a macro lens. That is really cool, and something I’ve never had the good fortune to own. Extension tubes, if they exist, can I think allow for even greater magnification. Beyond that are the bellows systems that allow you to change the distance between the lens and the camera body on the fly. I can’t remember any more if that’s just to change focus or if it changes image magnification, also.

I hope you can continue to post images in this thread as the mood strikes you. I like seeing your work. Thanks again for posting. Tim.

 

[lumberjack]

Bellows and extension tubes reduce the minimum focusing distance, as I understand it.

Here’s a picture from Tuesday night, second baseman on a return flight from catching a line drive. This is with the 400mm lens, I HATE I cut off the top of his cap, I might photoshop fix it.

 

[Nutball]

What's he doing up there? Can't touch the base like that. Oh, he's on his way back down from a high reaching catch?