Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Happy Alaska Day!

  1. #1

    Default Happy Alaska Day!

    I know it is not that much of a big deal outside of Sitka but happy Alaska Day anyways. It is our biggest parade of the year. Here are a couple of pictures from the parade.







    Some more from the day.

    Bruce
    There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  2. #2
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    Nice picts.

    And thanks Russians for the nice deal you made us.
    Last edited by kingfisherktn; 10-18-2009 at 23:03. Reason: spelling

  3. #3
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    Love the pic of the boy with the state flag. Great shot man.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,083

    Default

    All great photos, but the one of the kid is outstanding!

  5. #5

    Default Alaska Day

    Thanks for the nice comments. It was a grand parade and that little man was quite a sight. I must have 15 of him. He was dressed in his best, proudly standing by his dad's side, sharing all the candy that he got, waving his flag and taking it all in. He was fun to watch.



    Bruce
    There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  6. #6
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default

    That last photo of the boy... 'priceless' !!!

    Remarkable COLOR !!!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chugiak, ak
    Posts
    630

    Default YES the color is amazing!!

    Which lens are you using? any filters???? very impressive shots!!
    I was just out playing around with my nikon, and getting shot of the little guy, and I don't think they came out that nice!! Whats the secret!?!?!

  8. #8
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default

    the secret = correct exposure

    NOTICE: in the posted images - it is overcast = brilliant vibrant colors!

    contrary to popular belief - sunlight is not the best way to achieve extremely saturated colors - the exact opposite is true.

    Look at a stop sign on a sunny day
    Look at a school bus on a sunny day

    Overcast days produce entirely different colors of both of those objects!
    They are much more saturated without the sunlight !!! CLOUDY SKIES ARE THE BEST TIMES TO CAPTURE - COLOR(S) !!
    Sunny days @ noon or with the sun directly overhead is the absolute worst lighting (flat)
    (and all other colors)! "Just before it rains and immediatly after it rains are the best times for saturated vibrant color" (an exact quote).

    For a detailed explanation be sure to read the volume in Time/Life Photography series on COLOR They provide visual array of eye candy to illustrate the huge difference !!

    hint: it is not the camera, it is not the lens, it is not the filters, it is ONLY the skill of the operator of the camera.

  9. #9

    Default

    Thanks TBLOOMA,

    These were handheld with a 70-200 mm 2.8 IS with a UV filter. I am quite certain I have no secret. I took 40 pictures of interesting people, things and kids at a parade. In the end 6-7 images still reminded me of what I intended to capture. The others I shared with kids in the marching band, my daughter's cousins in the scouting entry and family.

    I have never taken a picture with a Nikon. I would like to try. I am sure there are things and situations that other cameras and lenses handle better than what I own. Had fun taking them. Was challenged with cropping and cleaning them up. Enjoyed kid's faces when I gave them copies of what I ended up with. Appreciate getting nice comments from people who I have enjoyed viewing their images.

    All positives except for the memory space I am taking up on my aging computer.

    October overcast days are not in shortage in Southeast Alaska. Any color seems jumps out here from the canvas of a billion shades of greens and greys. Sheesh...WAY too early in the year for drab cabin fever comments like that. Sorry.


    Bruce
    There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  10. #10
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olga1913 View Post
    Thanks TBLOOMA,

    These were handheld with a 70-200 mm 2.8 IS with a UV filter. I am quite certain I have no secret. I took 40 pictures of interesting people, things and kids at a parade. In the end 6-7 images still reminded me of what I intended to capture. The others I shared with kids in the marching band, my daughter's cousins in the scouting entry and family.

    I have never taken a picture with a Nikon. I would like to try. I am sure there are things and situations that other cameras and lenses handle better than what I own. Had fun taking them. Was challenged with cropping and cleaning them up. Enjoyed kid's faces when I gave them copies of what I ended up with. Appreciate getting nice comments from people who I have enjoyed viewing their images.

    All positives except for the memory space I am taking up on my aging computer.

    October overcast days are not in shortage in Southeast Alaska. Any color seems jumps out here from the canvas of a billion shades of greens and greys. Sheesh...WAY too early in the year for drab cabin fever comments like that. Sorry.


    Bruce
    Interesting discussion, with a lot of directions where something can be learned.

    I wouldn't worry about which camera you have. They all have compromises, and unless/until you get to the point were the differences actually restrict what you can do, it's not important.

    For example, whether Canon or Nikon a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS (VR for Nikon) lens is a genuine work horse. The one thing that I would question is using a UV filter on it. Unlike film, digital cameras are not sensitive to UV, so there is no need to filter out UV. Some people (and sometimes that includes me) use a filter to protect the front element of the lens from damage, but that has to be balanced against the added flare and reduced contrast that results from adding an extra glass-air transition. For many things you might want to take the filter off, for some you might well want to use it.

    Color saturation is greater on cloudy days, which was indeed a very significant thing with film because saturation could not otherwise be adjusted. With a digital imaging system it makes no difference at all. Even in bright high contrast sunlight it is possible to achieve over saturated colors!

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    chugiak, ak
    Posts
    630

    Default Thanks floyd!

    Flyod, thanks for explaining that!! I tried using a UV filter(on a digital) earlier this year on a sunny day and didn't see much difference. That probably explains why!!
    I agree that f2.8 lens is nice, I am currently saving for one myself, but am just happy playing with the one that came with the Nikon. I feel like I take OK pictures, but am very ignorant with the editing software, but thats coming along also!
    Tim

  12. #12
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBLOOMA View Post
    Flyod, thanks for explaining that!! I tried using a UV filter(on a digital) earlier this year on a sunny day and didn't see much difference. That probably explains why!!
    I agree that f2.8 lens is nice, I am currently saving for one myself, but am just happy playing with the one that came with the Nikon. I feel like I take OK pictures, but am very ignorant with the editing software, but thats coming along also!
    Tim
    If you are about to buy a Nikkor 70-200mm, new or used, you sure have good timing! Nikon has just announced the latest version of their 70-200mm, which will probably reduce the prices for all of the older versions.

    I see you have a Nikon D60 camera. The newest 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII at $2300 isn't exactly a "best buy" for a 1.5x crop camera, as its main attraction is better performance on fullframe sensors (the D700 and D3 series cameras). A comparison of the others might be worth your while:

    80-200mm f/2.8 AFD (push-pull zoom, avoid these for any camera)
    80-200mm f/2.8 AFD (two ring zoom, good lens, but the D60 cannot auto focus any AFD lens)
    80-200mm f/2.8 AFS (excellent lens)
    70-200mm f/2.8 AFS (excellent lens on DX camera)
    70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VR (excellent lens on DX camera)
    70-200mm f/2.8 AFS VRII (designed for FX cameras)

    For a D60 you'd want to avoid all of the AFD models because Auto Focus will not work. Note that I often use an 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD two ring zoom model, and it is a fabulous lens to the point that until this latest model was announced I've never even considered replacing it. (I'd like to have the VR feature, but I use an FX camera.)

    The first two 70-200mm f/2.8 versions are just about exactly the same as the older 80-200mm, except the last one has VR and neither play well on a fullframe camera.

    If you have the money, the first VR version is probably the "best" for a D60. Otherwise the 80-200mm f/2.8 AFS, though lacking VR, is an extremely good lens, and costs half the price too. (The non-VR 70-200mm is only available used.)

    The quality of these lenses shows up in many specific ways, and they far outshine lenses like the 18-200mm or 55-200mm. With a wide open aperture and even at the extremes of the zoom range, the results are sharp. They are wonderful portrait lenses, with good bokeh. They are also fast enough to use in school gymnasiums, so shooting "local events" is much easier. The VR versions of course are best for sports, and otherwise a tripod would be required. One negative is how big and heavy they are, and they intimidate people too!

  13. #13
    Member danattherock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    5,608

    Default

    One quick thought on UV filters, be sure to get high quality ones if you are going to use them. I have them on all my lenses for protection, but I did get nice UV filters. I have the Hoya Pro1D and HD UV filters and can't notice any drop in IQ with them on the lens. Got them from www.2filter.com as they had very good prices compared to B&H and others. MUCH cheaper in fact. Great place to get a circular polarizer from as well. Anyway, just thought it was worth mentioning. Nothing worse you could do than put a cheap UV filter on a lens. Figured you knew, but others reading may not.
    The two loudest sounds known to man: a gun that goes bang when it is supposed to go click and a gun that goes click when it is supposed to go bang.

  14. #14

    Default

    I too have a UV filter in place mostly for protection. With it in place I also do not think it impacts AF accuracy/speed on my lenses. Thanks for the filter site Dan.

    There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

  15. #15
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by olga1913 View Post
    I too have a UV filter in place mostly for protection. With it in place I also do not think it impacts AF accuracy/speed on my lenses. Thanks for the filter site Dan.
    Using a filter should not have any effect on AF.

    But it definitely does cause a very slight reduction in resolution. Filters also increase flare and lower contrast.

    As Dan mentioned, make absolutely sure that you use good filters. Many Tiffen filters, for example, are not "multi-coated". And many no-name filters aren't either. Hoya used to make a variety (ranging from bad to very good), so just the name isn't a postitive indication either.

    If it isn't multi-coated, it isn't worth using.

  16. #16
    Member tull777's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    825

    Default

    These are really nice pictures! I'm sorry that I missed out on the event!

    A famous photographer once told me ..."Why in the world would you put a $30 piece of glass on the front of a $1,000+ lens?"

    The only filter this particular photographer uses is a polarizer filter. He never keeps filters on any of his lenses.



    I believe that "Linear" Polarizer filters may cause metering and or focusing issues with digital and some of the newer cameras.


    http://www.pbase.com/tull777

    http://www.eddiefisherphoto.com/


    "If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out. ....."Tight Lines & Best Fishes"

  17. #17
    Member Majik Imaje's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Living @ the Top of the World in Barrow Alaska
    Posts
    628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tull777 View Post
    These are really nice pictures! I'm sorry that I missed out on the event!

    A famous photographer once told me ..."Why in the world would you put a $30 piece of glass on the front of a $1,000+ lens?"

    The only filter this particular photographer uses is a polarizer filter. He never keeps filters on any of his lenses.
    I agree and concure 10,000% !! I have never used filters - cept occasionally a polarizer. No need to.

  18. #18
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tull777 View Post
    A famous photographer once told me ..."Why in the world would you put a $30 piece of glass on the front of a $1,000+ lens?"
    Generally, that is a valid point. Specifically though it might not be. If you want to photograph welders at work a filter in front of your $2500 lens might save several hundreds of dollars in repair costs. Likewise if you do significant work on a saltwater beach, the coating on the front element is going to be destroyed. And again a filter will be cheaper than a lens repair.

    But people who just go out and put a "protective" filter on every lens they own need to consider how often they have ever damaged a lens or even heard of one being damaged in a way that the filter would have provided protection.

  19. #19
    Member tull777's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    825

    Default

    I use filters ...for my coffee!



    Filters? Honestly, I never ever leave home without them!

    http://www.pbase.com/tull777

    http://www.eddiefisherphoto.com/


    "If you're too open-minded, your brains will fall out. ....."Tight Lines & Best Fishes"

  20. #20
    Member Floyd_Davidson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Barrow, Alaska
    Posts
    388

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tull777 View Post
    I use filters ...for my coffee!
    The point of course is to use them where they actually have a valid benefit (coffee, for example), and avoid them where there is no benefit.

    The problem is blanket statements such as "Always use a protective UV filter..." or "Filters are always bad ...", neither of which is actually correct.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •