I started working on some automotive photography, now that I have a car. This was taken at the Silver Spring Library parking lot.
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Showing posts with label photography. Show all posts
Film SLR
Earlier this week, I purchased a film SLR camera just because I thought that'd be cool. I settled on a used Nikon F100, which is perfectly compatible with all of my existing Nikkor D and G lenses. I ordered mine from B&H via eBay.
Unfortunately, I didn't time my research and purchase of any actual film, so my new old camera will be sitting around for some time until then.
I doubt I'll put good use into the F100 but I think it's cool just to play around with from time to time.
Switch to Lightroom?
In the process of doing a thorough audit of my photography gear and workflow, I'm starting to seriously reconsidering my photo managing and editing program. For about six years, I've been invested in the Aperture environment, and I've been running the latest Aperture 3 since it was introduced in 2010 (so long ago!).
I increasingly believe that post-processing is perhaps the biggest feature of digital photography. Don't get me wrong. It is highly respectable for photographers to try to get everything as perfect as possible in camera, and it is definitely something every photographer should strive to do. But there is so much more to digital photography than just traditional photography. I feel that not taking advantage of what could be done on the computer during post-processing is a shame. When I said this, I don't mean to take a reckless approach to Photoshop and image manipulation. Rather, tastefully use the computer to correct or enhance color, tones, distortion, etc.
In this regard, I'm taking a serious look at switching from Aperture to Lightroom. While I personally agree with Aperture's style of photo management and editing more than Lightroom's, as an outsider, Lightroom 5 looks incredible. So incredible, in fact, that it's worth disrupting my current system and workflow.
A potential switch to Lightroom isn't necessarily going to make my photos look better, but at the very least, it will allow some new potential and provide lot more flexibility, I think. I've been trying to hold out for Aperture 4 to see what new features will come of it, but it's getting harder and harder to wait on the sidelines. Lightroom appears so much more integrated and rich in new features; Aperture looks stagnant and a bit ordinary. Must investigate further.
I increasingly believe that post-processing is perhaps the biggest feature of digital photography. Don't get me wrong. It is highly respectable for photographers to try to get everything as perfect as possible in camera, and it is definitely something every photographer should strive to do. But there is so much more to digital photography than just traditional photography. I feel that not taking advantage of what could be done on the computer during post-processing is a shame. When I said this, I don't mean to take a reckless approach to Photoshop and image manipulation. Rather, tastefully use the computer to correct or enhance color, tones, distortion, etc.
In this regard, I'm taking a serious look at switching from Aperture to Lightroom. While I personally agree with Aperture's style of photo management and editing more than Lightroom's, as an outsider, Lightroom 5 looks incredible. So incredible, in fact, that it's worth disrupting my current system and workflow.
A potential switch to Lightroom isn't necessarily going to make my photos look better, but at the very least, it will allow some new potential and provide lot more flexibility, I think. I've been trying to hold out for Aperture 4 to see what new features will come of it, but it's getting harder and harder to wait on the sidelines. Lightroom appears so much more integrated and rich in new features; Aperture looks stagnant and a bit ordinary. Must investigate further.
Day One of POTD 2012
I've been playing around in InDesign and working on printing a photobook for Photo of the Day 2010. It's made me regret not doing it for 2011. I plan to get back to working on this on-going project for POTD 2012. If 2010 was any guide, POTD 2012 should be pretty awesome.
Join me!
Join me!
I Be Cooking
 |
| Deep Fried Cauliflower. |
 |
| Pesto Spaghetti |
This weekend required new techniques and stuff that I can actually say I'm more comfortable doing again when I need to. (A lot of this was a first attempt on my own, and I was honestly a little scared of deep frying stuff.) The deep fried cauliflower required use of my new whisk and tongs, both of which I purchased not even two weeks ago. The pesto spaghetti required the use of a blender for the sauce.
I suppose I'll get a little more serious into food photography as I try to get better at both cooking and making photographs.
Check out my Flickr set 'Food and Cooking'.
Photog x 3
 |
| East Avenue |
I've also gotten involved in taking some videos with my iPhone 4. I must say, it's pretty fun. My videos are at vimeo.com/usumbs.
iPhone 4 and POTD
 |
| Early Morning Sun on Campus |
Earlier this week, I got my new iPhone 4. Interestingly enough, I jumped on the bandwagon only after iOS 4.1 had the HDR feature for the iPhone camera. And I love it!
POTD evolved from being a project to practice my photography into being a photo-journal to share with distant friends and family.
I'm proposing that, for the future of POTD, I will shoot primarily with my iPhone 5.0 MP camera. Post-processing will be done through several photo-editing apps on the iPhone, starting primarily with Photoshop Express. (Originally, I've been post-processing through Aperture on my Mac, which, as you all know, has become terribly slow.) I believe that this way, I can not only post in a more timely matter (and without such a long pipelined procedure), but also share more candid photos that are more accurate to the experience.
We'll see how it goes.
Photo of the Day 2010 on Flickr.
Photo Portfolio
 |
| Over the bridge at the Cornell Plantations. |
The solution I came up with is Tumblr, mainly because I tried several times to find a purpose for it and couldn't. I created a new account and figured it out. I call it k.Cheng Photo Portfolio, and it'll have just my better photos. Flickr for everything else (candids, vacations, photo of the day). Check it out.
(Sadly, there's no built-in way to post to Tumblr from Flickr.)
POTD 100
Yesterday was the epic POTD 100. Hans and I made it. When I worked on this photography project by myself last year, I was three or four short of hitting the 100. Unfortunately for me, however, I had forgotten my camera at home and resorted to my iPhone 3G's shoddy camera.My POTD 100 is titled "Number Two".
Fail Me Once, Shame on You; Fail Me Twice, Die
After having an brandless SD card (2 GB) fail my sister for the second time, I decided to give it the treatment. I killed it. But hey, let's turn this into a learning experience:
1. Never buy or accept brandless memory cards for your invaluable digital photographs.
2. So that's what it looks like... Unsurprisingly, its a Samsung inside.
1. Never buy or accept brandless memory cards for your invaluable digital photographs.
2. So that's what it looks like... Unsurprisingly, its a Samsung inside.
White-Naped Crane
I don't usually do this, and I probably shouldn't, but here's a side-by-side comparison of "White-Naped Crane." Photoshop can be amazing.
Before
After
Just in case you're interested, here's some information about this bird.
Before
After
Just in case you're interested, here's some information about this bird.
Unedited "Nikon" E-mail: Part Two
Back in May, I had posted an Unedited "Nikon" E-mail, which provided a new photographer some pointers. This time, I talk about color calibration and some lighting conditions.
1. Color Calibration
Getting in to color calibration is a whole other mess. You can't just compare it with what you see on the back of your camera's LCD. If you really want to get into the proper way of calibration (which is very expensive), keep in mind you'll need to to calibrate everything down the line, from your camera RAW output image file to your LCD monitor to other people's LCD monitor to your printer to Kodak's printer
service, etc.
What you see on your screen, once you touch it up perfectly, might not be what other people see on their screens at home. So my personal rule of thumb is that if it is for the web, color calibration isn't that important. (Even if you are perfect, other's people's monitors
probably aren't.) If you are printing it yourself, then you have to deal with other problems. You have display profiles and printer color
profiles, etc. It's complicated. I don't know how to do it all.
There are external USB color calibrators for your monitor ($70+, maybe) if you're interested. It takes the ambient light and adjusts
accordingly, but then, of course, the color of your photo is affected by how the screen or print is lit. (That's why real photo galleries
are very meticulous about controlling lighting and positioning, among other things.)
Doing it by eye might be okay, but it's no where near what it actually should be. Apple has a built in calibrator you can use by eye. You can adjust the colors and the levels of contrast, etc. I don't know about Windows. (You can't simply download color profiles because each
monitor is physically different and your individual room lighting conditions have other needs.)
These are at the low end of things:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/index_us.php
http://pantone.com/pages/pantone/pantone.aspx?ca=2 (the Huey)
2. Poor Lighting Conditions
Problems with the situation you described is very common, when the sky is overexposed and the subject is underexposed. Shooting on a
cloudy day is actually preferred because everything is lit evenly (for the most part). Sun actually messes things up. Clouds actually act as a natural light box. http://www.cheapshooter.com/2007/07/26/do-it-yourself-pvc-light-box/
The easiest way to counter your problem is to shoot at different times of day or on different days entirely. (Photography is about waiting
for the right moment, and not showing up at a place and expecting things to be perfect for you. But I understand.) Otherwise, there are
processes called tone mapping or HDR that you can look into. Basically (with a tripod), take multiple shots at different exposures. You can then merge them together in post-processing and manually adjust the the level of shadow and highlights you want. Because you have multiple exposures, you have more detail over the range. (In Lightroom, you can adjust the highlights and shadows of your photo otherwise. If an image is whited-out, you have lost detail at the high end, and if an image is too dark, you have lost detail at the low end. Use your histogram to help you judge. You can recover some of the detail in post, but if it's blown-out, there is no information for you to recover. Very helpful to know and use: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/digital/histogram_101/
Another option you have are polarizers. They are considerably expensive for such a small piece of glass. For example,
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm
P.S. I'd advise against shooting in "Green" Mode (aka Automatic) because then you wouldn't get a feel for the mechanics of photography. Plus, once you're good enough, you wouldn't want to shoot green anymore. Otherwise, you're basically buying a DSLR for the bigger sensor (which does deliver sharper images with more detail), but you're still treating it as a point-and-shoot camera.
P.P.S. You don't want to be using flash ever unless you have a reason to. I see plenty of people with their smaller cameras having the flash turned on trying to take a photo of, say, the full moon. The light from the flash sure as hell isn't going to reach the moon. Light from a flash also has a maximum "focal length" distance that they can reach. Light photography (strobist) is a totally different way of shooting. I really only use flash if it is an emergency or if I'm using it as a fill light to bring out the subject. My personal tip is use flash when you think you don't need it, and don't use it when you think you do. For example, a flash late summer afternoon at the park can help bring out the face of a subject, and flashing when you are shooting fireworks just isn't going to cut it. Do you see what I mean?
1. Color Calibration
Getting in to color calibration is a whole other mess. You can't just compare it with what you see on the back of your camera's LCD. If you really want to get into the proper way of calibration (which is very expensive), keep in mind you'll need to to calibrate everything down the line, from your camera RAW output image file to your LCD monitor to other people's LCD monitor to your printer to Kodak's printer
service, etc.
What you see on your screen, once you touch it up perfectly, might not be what other people see on their screens at home. So my personal rule of thumb is that if it is for the web, color calibration isn't that important. (Even if you are perfect, other's people's monitors
probably aren't.) If you are printing it yourself, then you have to deal with other problems. You have display profiles and printer color
profiles, etc. It's complicated. I don't know how to do it all.
There are external USB color calibrators for your monitor ($70+, maybe) if you're interested. It takes the ambient light and adjusts
accordingly, but then, of course, the color of your photo is affected by how the screen or print is lit. (That's why real photo galleries
are very meticulous about controlling lighting and positioning, among other things.)
Doing it by eye might be okay, but it's no where near what it actually should be. Apple has a built in calibrator you can use by eye. You can adjust the colors and the levels of contrast, etc. I don't know about Windows. (You can't simply download color profiles because each
monitor is physically different and your individual room lighting conditions have other needs.)
These are at the low end of things:
http://spyder.datacolor.com/index_us.php
http://pantone.com/pages/pantone/pantone.aspx?ca=2 (the Huey)
2. Poor Lighting Conditions
Problems with the situation you described is very common, when the sky is overexposed and the subject is underexposed. Shooting on a
cloudy day is actually preferred because everything is lit evenly (for the most part). Sun actually messes things up. Clouds actually act as a natural light box. http://www.cheapshooter.com/2007/07/26/do-it-yourself-pvc-light-box/
The easiest way to counter your problem is to shoot at different times of day or on different days entirely. (Photography is about waiting
for the right moment, and not showing up at a place and expecting things to be perfect for you. But I understand.) Otherwise, there are
processes called tone mapping or HDR that you can look into. Basically (with a tripod), take multiple shots at different exposures. You can then merge them together in post-processing and manually adjust the the level of shadow and highlights you want. Because you have multiple exposures, you have more detail over the range. (In Lightroom, you can adjust the highlights and shadows of your photo otherwise. If an image is whited-out, you have lost detail at the high end, and if an image is too dark, you have lost detail at the low end. Use your histogram to help you judge. You can recover some of the detail in post, but if it's blown-out, there is no information for you to recover. Very helpful to know and use: http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/guides/digital/histogram_101/
Another option you have are polarizers. They are considerably expensive for such a small piece of glass. For example,
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-lens-filters.htm
P.S. I'd advise against shooting in "Green" Mode (aka Automatic) because then you wouldn't get a feel for the mechanics of photography. Plus, once you're good enough, you wouldn't want to shoot green anymore. Otherwise, you're basically buying a DSLR for the bigger sensor (which does deliver sharper images with more detail), but you're still treating it as a point-and-shoot camera.
P.P.S. You don't want to be using flash ever unless you have a reason to. I see plenty of people with their smaller cameras having the flash turned on trying to take a photo of, say, the full moon. The light from the flash sure as hell isn't going to reach the moon. Light from a flash also has a maximum "focal length" distance that they can reach. Light photography (strobist) is a totally different way of shooting. I really only use flash if it is an emergency or if I'm using it as a fill light to bring out the subject. My personal tip is use flash when you think you don't need it, and don't use it when you think you do. For example, a flash late summer afternoon at the park can help bring out the face of a subject, and flashing when you are shooting fireworks just isn't going to cut it. Do you see what I mean?
Bronx Zoo Photos
This past weekend, Adrian, my sister and I went to the Bronx Zoo (so freaking far away).
This next photo alone makes the outing worth the long trip. I like how it turned out.
This next photo alone makes the outing worth the long trip. I like how it turned out.
Unedited "Nikon" E-mail
A friend of mine recently purchased a Nikon D60 kit, and came to me and asked about photography tips and ideas. This is my unedited response...Here are a few basic pointers:
APERTURE
1. Most people tend to set it to "A" (Aperture) mode. That way, you'll be changing the f-stop (the f/4.5, f/22, etc) with your thumb. Notice
how it affects your shutter speed though. The smaller the f-stop, the bigger the "hole" and the faster the lens. "Fast lenses" are considered to be f/2.8 or less, and they cost much more.
2. The other reason why a smaller f-number is so expensive is because of the awesome bokeh (bokay, not boka [it's Japanese]). It's basically
the blurriness of the background. The smaller the f-number, the shallower the depth of field, which makes focusing really important. Shallow depth of fields make the subject pop from the background. You're probably used the a point and shoot which has a huge depth of field, meaning everything will be in focus no matter how hard you try (because of the small sensor size more than anything else). Example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/usumbs/2928331506/in/set-72157607890358270/
SHUTTER SPEED
3. Shutter speed is basically x, where 1/x is in seconds. A shutter speed of 500 is plenty fast, shooting at 1/500 seconds, etc. Pay attention to your focal length. As a rule of thumb, you don't want to be shooting less than 1/(focal length) as your shutter speed. So if you're zoomed all the way out to 200 mm, you don't want to shoot slower than 1/200 sec or 200. This is a simple way to avoid camera shake.
ISO
4. For a D60, I'd recommend staying within the ISO range of 100 to 400. It isn't much, but it's usable. Anything beyond 400 will get you a lot of grain. ISO is basically sensitivity of the sensor. The higher it is, the more sensitive. The higher it is, the more noise you're going to get. Sometimes, it has a nice effect. Most times, it doesn't. The higher end models D3 ($7000+) can shoot without noise up to 32000 ISO. It's a different generation of stuff. Pretty amazing.
LENSES & CROP FACTOR
5. For lenses, Nikon uses DX to mean crop body, for digital. Older lenses, or more "pro" lenses don't have the DX, meaning it's a full-frame lens. For camera bodies, they are crop-body be default, and are full-frame cameras with FX. Full-frame is real 35 mm and is simply awesome. bodies cost more. lenses cost more. and you get real focal length as printed on the lens. For a DX lens, if you zoom in to 200 mm, at a 35 mm equivalent, it is 200mm x 1.5 = 300mm (where 1.5 is the crop factor of your camera body). Canon is typically 1.6. If you apply a full frame lens at 200mm on your DX, you'll get 300 mm also. But.... if you throw a DX lens on a FX body, you'll get problems. Because the sensor is so much bigger in the FX, the DX lens is smaller and you'll get a black "border" around your photos. Do you see what I mean? DX is cheaper if you're not looking for full frame but it won't work on the FX bodies. Full-frame lenses work on all.
6. For the D40 and D60, you'll want to look out for AF-S lenses. These are the newer lenses with the focusing motor built-into the lens. This is because the D40 and D60 cannot control it from the body. D300, D3, etc, higher end ones, can focus with lenses without these motors. It kind of sucks because older lenses that are AF rather than AF-S can't automatically focus on the D40 or D60. You can still use it, but only with manual focusing. And manual focusing sucks... for casual shooting. It's useful sometimes.
OTHER
7. Nice choice with the Nikon. What kind of things are you interested in shooting? And any particular lens are you looking to buy in the future?
8. Click some ads:
http://blog.usumbs.com/2009/01/what-you-leave-out-photography-tip.html
9. http://kenrockwell.com/ This guy is crazy, and I don't think he's a good photographer at all. He has a lot to say and he is very controversial online. Don't take anything he says as opinion seriously, but you can learn something from this guy. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/index.htm I think he is a jerk and most people online don't like him (says he's a quack).
(Do you have a photos page or site I can follow?)
Please excuse my writing. I do not want to proofread it or fix capitalizations.
Good luck. Write back.
The "What You Leave Out" Photography Tip
Compact digital cameras have gone the way of the computer and now it is a safe bet to say that nearly all people with access to a computer have a digital camera. I want share a little tip that I have discovered for myself in my shallow study of photography. The main idea is that every photo has a purpose and it is up to the photographer to express the intended and unintended subject of the photo. I found the following tip to be the simplest way to do it.
It is more important to think about what to leave out than what to actually capture.
I have found that in every good photograph, whether technically or artistically, there is some truth to this. What is not shown draws more attention to what is shown, and what out of focus draws more attention to what is in focus. I will use some examples of mine to illustrate what I mean, but I do not claim to be a good photographer by any means.
1. Composition - Photo Link
When choosing what to leave out, the first step is to consider composition, i.e. what is in the frame and how things are oriented and positioned. In this first image there's a lot of negative space at the top of the photo. This empty space forces the viewer's eye to the lower half of the image, where it is darker. There is little else in the photo than can distract the viewer—no clouds, no boats, and in fact, no color.
2. Bokeh - Photo Link
Bokeh (bo-kay) is a Japanese term that refers to the "blurriness" of the background (optimally achieved at lower aperture with a shallow depth of field). With the bokeh blurring the background, the focus of the image is thrown on the actual subject. What is left out of this image is this blurred background. Photographers pay for SLRs and expensive lenses for this kind of effect. Bokeh makes the subject pop a whole lot more than if everything is in focus (unfortunately endemic to all point-and-shoot cameras by virtue of being compact).
3. Macro/micro - Photo Link
This is the photography of things very close or very small. Because of this, the background is typically blurred as a result of getting very close to the subject and the background is relatively further away. Most cameras have a macro mode (usually with the image of a flower). Of course, it is not as good as a dedicated macro lens. Consider a macro lens as being the microscope used to see the invisibly small. Because of the enhanced bokeh effect with macro photography, I would argue that it isn't too difficult to get a good macro shot no matter what the subject is. Still, it is an art and world unto itself.
4. Background - Photo Link
A simple background simply gives whatever is in front of it more emphasis. It is essentially left out of the picture, as it were.
5. Lighting - Photo Link
With lighting and shadows, it is all about what is included and left out. The word "photography" essentially means "light-recording". It is about how light is captured and how shadows, i.e. the lack of light, gives a subject texture and depth. In this photo, the subject is clear and it is the way the light affects the rest of the image that is interesting.
I am a firm believer that it is more important to think about what to leave out than what to actually capture, merely as a means to emphasize the subject of the photo. It doesn't actually matter how that is achieved. I just keep this guideline in the back of my head when I do go shooting. Let me know how it works for you.
It is more important to think about what to leave out than what to actually capture.
I have found that in every good photograph, whether technically or artistically, there is some truth to this. What is not shown draws more attention to what is shown, and what out of focus draws more attention to what is in focus. I will use some examples of mine to illustrate what I mean, but I do not claim to be a good photographer by any means.
1. Composition - Photo Link
When choosing what to leave out, the first step is to consider composition, i.e. what is in the frame and how things are oriented and positioned. In this first image there's a lot of negative space at the top of the photo. This empty space forces the viewer's eye to the lower half of the image, where it is darker. There is little else in the photo than can distract the viewer—no clouds, no boats, and in fact, no color.
2. Bokeh - Photo Link
Bokeh (bo-kay) is a Japanese term that refers to the "blurriness" of the background (optimally achieved at lower aperture with a shallow depth of field). With the bokeh blurring the background, the focus of the image is thrown on the actual subject. What is left out of this image is this blurred background. Photographers pay for SLRs and expensive lenses for this kind of effect. Bokeh makes the subject pop a whole lot more than if everything is in focus (unfortunately endemic to all point-and-shoot cameras by virtue of being compact).
3. Macro/micro - Photo Link
This is the photography of things very close or very small. Because of this, the background is typically blurred as a result of getting very close to the subject and the background is relatively further away. Most cameras have a macro mode (usually with the image of a flower). Of course, it is not as good as a dedicated macro lens. Consider a macro lens as being the microscope used to see the invisibly small. Because of the enhanced bokeh effect with macro photography, I would argue that it isn't too difficult to get a good macro shot no matter what the subject is. Still, it is an art and world unto itself.
4. Background - Photo Link
A simple background simply gives whatever is in front of it more emphasis. It is essentially left out of the picture, as it were.
5. Lighting - Photo Link
With lighting and shadows, it is all about what is included and left out. The word "photography" essentially means "light-recording". It is about how light is captured and how shadows, i.e. the lack of light, gives a subject texture and depth. In this photo, the subject is clear and it is the way the light affects the rest of the image that is interesting.
I am a firm believer that it is more important to think about what to leave out than what to actually capture, merely as a means to emphasize the subject of the photo. It doesn't actually matter how that is achieved. I just keep this guideline in the back of my head when I do go shooting. Let me know how it works for you.
My End-of-Year Want List
I'm going to let the consumerist in me indulge a little. There are a few things I have been eye-ing (but only just) as photography accessories.
WhiBal G6 Pocket Kit $29.95
Certified Neutral Gray Card for White Balance
SanDisk Extreme III SDHC $49.99
4 GB
Gorillapod SLR-Zoom $54.95
Portable, Packable, Heavy-Duty Tripod
B+W Polarizer Filter $107.00
52 mm Circular Polarizer
Lensbaby Composer $270.00
Smooth and Precise
Nikon SB-800 AF Speedlight $319.95
i-TTL Speedlight
I definitely don't deserve any of it though. It's not wishful thinking; just a little indulgence.
WhiBal G6 Pocket Kit $29.95
Certified Neutral Gray Card for White Balance
SanDisk Extreme III SDHC $49.99
4 GB
Gorillapod SLR-Zoom $54.95
Portable, Packable, Heavy-Duty Tripod
B+W Polarizer Filter $107.00
52 mm Circular Polarizer
Lensbaby Composer $270.00
Smooth and Precise
Nikon SB-800 AF Speedlight $319.95
i-TTL Speedlight
I definitely don't deserve any of it though. It's not wishful thinking; just a little indulgence.
Port Jefferson Visit
This past weekend, I trekked my way to Stony Brook again. Like last time, I stayed with Henry and Adrian.
We went to Port Jefferson on Saturday (12/06) to do a little photography, not knowing what we got ourselves into. I am only familiar with Port Jefferson because of the National Grid power station over there. Turns out the quaint little town of about 7000 was celebrating a Charles Dickens weekend, where the town plays the roles of characters from "A Christmas Carol". It was very interesting and different from what we are used to in New York City and Stony Brook; the people there were actually nice, and we each received a candy cane on two separate occasions: one from Santa at the restaurant we ate at, and one from the lady who runs the town information office, whom we asked for a bus schedule back to Stony Brook.
The two of us ended up hiking the beach at low tide (this was not the kind of beach for tourists and sunbathers), and we had traveled a total of about 10 miles on foot that day. We ended up going up the west coast of the Belle Terre peninsula from the Port Jefferson LIRR station. We turned back just as we got to the McAllister County Park bay (See the iPhone GPA Map insert.) Rather than pay for the LIRR to go back to Stony Brook (at $2.25 one way), we decided to try out the Suffolk County Bus which was only $1.00. In this trip, we not only pulled off some interesting and very cool shots, we have gained the first-person experience of what tides can mean and what walking miles on sand and rocks means for the feet. (If you look on the satellite view of this beach, you'll notice that the beach is actually under water at high tide. By the time we made it out to where we were, there was a little fear that some parts may become impassable because of the rising water. Thinking back now, that was some scary trip. Man...)
View Larger Map
I have posted photos to Flickr. Also check out Adrian's Port Jefferson photo set.
We went to Port Jefferson on Saturday (12/06) to do a little photography, not knowing what we got ourselves into. I am only familiar with Port Jefferson because of the National Grid power station over there. Turns out the quaint little town of about 7000 was celebrating a Charles Dickens weekend, where the town plays the roles of characters from "A Christmas Carol". It was very interesting and different from what we are used to in New York City and Stony Brook; the people there were actually nice, and we each received a candy cane on two separate occasions: one from Santa at the restaurant we ate at, and one from the lady who runs the town information office, whom we asked for a bus schedule back to Stony Brook.
The two of us ended up hiking the beach at low tide (this was not the kind of beach for tourists and sunbathers), and we had traveled a total of about 10 miles on foot that day. We ended up going up the west coast of the Belle Terre peninsula from the Port Jefferson LIRR station. We turned back just as we got to the McAllister County Park bay (See the iPhone GPA Map insert.) Rather than pay for the LIRR to go back to Stony Brook (at $2.25 one way), we decided to try out the Suffolk County Bus which was only $1.00. In this trip, we not only pulled off some interesting and very cool shots, we have gained the first-person experience of what tides can mean and what walking miles on sand and rocks means for the feet. (If you look on the satellite view of this beach, you'll notice that the beach is actually under water at high tide. By the time we made it out to where we were, there was a little fear that some parts may become impassable because of the rising water. Thinking back now, that was some scary trip. Man...)
View Larger Map
I have posted photos to Flickr. Also check out Adrian's Port Jefferson photo set.
Currently Planning a Trip to Montauk
The problem for most excursions is the limit walking puts on the distance one can travel. My threshold is about one-and-a-half miles one way (from the LIRR station).
This trip is primarily a photo walk and an exploration of Long Island.
View Larger Map
This trip is primarily a photo walk and an exploration of Long Island.
View Larger Map
Next Lens, Next Body
I have finally decided that my next lens will be the 105mm f/2.8 macro lens by Nikon. I would forgo the necessary "kit" range and stick to my guns of the 30mm and a 105mm, both primes, and both very fancy.
The problem is, I don't know if I'll have a camera for the lenses to accommodate. Haha. While the D90 is nice, I am not completely satisfied with it. Plus, seeing the direction of video in DSLRs and what good implementation could be(a la the 5D Mark II) and what bad implementation is (the D90), it would be a smarter decision to wait for Nikon's second generation video DSLR.
Plus, another excuse is that money is tight (which it undoubtedly is), and it would be unwise to splurge on something that is not critical and essential.
The problem is, I don't know if I'll have a camera for the lenses to accommodate. Haha. While the D90 is nice, I am not completely satisfied with it. Plus, seeing the direction of video in DSLRs and what good implementation could be(a la the 5D Mark II) and what bad implementation is (the D90), it would be a smarter decision to wait for Nikon's second generation video DSLR.
Plus, another excuse is that money is tight (which it undoubtedly is), and it would be unwise to splurge on something that is not critical and essential.
Photos from Stony Brook
This weekend was a trip dedicated to seeing Stony Brook as a resident of Long Island and seeing friends at the University. Weather was nasty, I didn't get much sleep, and the food was rather gross, but it sure as hell was fun. I am planning a second weekend trip to SBU.
While I am in the process of organizing over 400 photos taken this weekend, I'd like to post this one, taken on Sunday.
While I am in the process of organizing over 400 photos taken this weekend, I'd like to post this one, taken on Sunday.