Cycling & photography

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

...all criticism graciously accepted, please tell me - what could have made this photo i took on a ride recently, that i am very much happy with better. either equipment wise, or framing?

(I'm a cyclist and a photographer, but I almost don't mix the two at all. I often mix hiking and photography or backpacking and photography, but not cycling. Photo link below if you're curious.)

Angry,

That depends. What do you want to communicate? What story do you want to tell? What emotion are you trying to convey? Three things jump out to me, but they may or may not be a factor to you. First, I'd like to see some more contrast in the sky, and more contrast between the top of the silo and the sky. I'd also like to go a little wider; the edge of the trees that make up the left side of the frame feel a little awkward. Similarly, I'd prefer to see the edge of the road come down into the bottom left corner. You've got a nice leading line (the cable fence) coming in from the lower right; it'd be nice to mirror it on the left side. Primarily, though, I'm left unsure whether the subject of the photograph is the road disappearing into the distance, or the old red barn. It's a good record shot of what you've done and where you've been.


(With that, I'll take off my critic's hat, because I'm a lot more comfortable doing that on a photography forum than a cycling forum. Like I said, I don't generally mix the two. Joosttx does and amazing job of it. I've thought about picking up one of the m4/3 cameras and bringing it along, because I've never felt at home with the controls of a point-and-shoot. If you want to check out my landscape work, an older portfolio is online at http://markhespenheide.com/landscape/landscape.htm)

[teleguy57]

Been following this thread with interest. I used to be a fairly serious photographer with a focus on ski mountaineering and backpacking. Gear for that time was a Nikon FM with 35, 55 micro and 105 primes. Carried at least a monopod everywhere and often a tripod. Every shot possible was bracketed so I shot tons of fim -- which had to be carried. My adventure buddies nicknamed me "Otto", as in Otto Preminger, because I was always directing them for compositions and having them redo stuff.

Fast forward to cycling. I love the quality stuff I see here, but struggle with both riding and shooting. I don't take my Nikon D40 on the bike, but also don't like futzing with a cell camera and my Canon A630 doesn't quite do it for me.

I've been thinking about selling my film gear and picking up a simple, small P&S type (Canon S90/S100 type) so I can have easy access to it. Probably should just pull the trigger and do it.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by teleguy57

I've been thinking about selling my film gear and picking up a simple, small P&S type (Canon S90/S100 type) so I can have easy access to it. Probably should just pull the trigger and do it.

Of the small, pocketable cameras, the Sony RX100 seems to be the best bang for the buck & size. You can get a reasonable deal on the II, III & IV.

[joosttx]

Originally Posted by .RJ

Of the small, pocketable cameras, the Sony RX100 seems to be the best bang for the buck & size. You can get a reasonable deal on the II, III & IV.

These are taken with the RX100 I. I think all the later models have a better senor.

[ceolwulf]

Originally Posted by .RJ

Of the small, pocketable cameras, the Sony RX100 seems to be the best bang for the buck & size. You can get a reasonable deal on the II, III & IV.

Is there any image quality difference between versions? They're all the same sensor yes?

My passion for photography, I concluded the other day as I dry fired a couple shots on my Minolta X-700, died with film. It's mostly an accident of timing though I think, with other life circumstances; not the fault of digital as such. But my Pentax DSLR kit is all sold now and all I have left is a Pentax MX-1, which I really like, but is too heavy for a jersey pocket. And mainly just gets used for taking snapshots for eBay ads and such anyway ...

Do want to get a Fuji outfit once an X-E3 launches, with the new sensor.

But mainly I ought to get a better monitor and a photo printer so I can actually do something with what I create.

I have this notion that I'd like to make small books, with hand-made paper and wooden covers, and prints tipped in. Maybe 20 or 30 prints in a book. People only have so and so much wall space ...

[Ray]

Originally Posted by .RJ

Of the small, pocketable cameras, the Sony RX100 seems to be the best bang for the buck & size. You can get a reasonable deal on the II, III & IV.

They were the first with the 1" sensor. And they're still arguably as good as any. But both Canon and Panasonic have released worthy competitors using the same basic sensor. I've had an RX100 and a Canon G7X and preferred the Canon for my purposes. I'd compare based on features and preferences rather than just stating one is "the best". They were definitely the innovators in that segment, no doubt, as they are in sensor development in nearly every format up to full frame. But their cameras often leave a fair amount to be desired...

-Ray

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by teleguy57

Fast forward to cycling. I love the quality stuff I see here, but struggle with both riding and shooting.

When I leave the house, I know I'm either going to be riding or shooting, I can't really think in terms of doing both. When riding to a location, the bike becomes transportation, a background task to what I'm really doing. If I think of it as riding time, I never stop. It becomes a bike ride with a bag of expensive glass and electronics on my back. I've done this enough times, I now call it scouting locations - that just means the bag never came off my back...

I've been trying to get other photographers/cyclists to give this a try. Much of the resistance comes from photographers who shoot full frame and would need a trailer attached to the bike for their equipment - I have one and I've offered... I have a lot of M43 equipment, and I have a number of prototype bags that are well suited to riding. I've offered to loan equipment out if people want to try it. Perhaps the idea of a bag of someone else's expensive glass and electronics on their backs while riding off road turns people off... Or maybe I'm just 20% more crazy than the next cyclist/photographer - that may be why I was the one hanging under the BU bridge with a lens that costs more than my car...

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by ceolwulf

Is there any image quality difference between versions? They're all the same sensor yes?

I think some differences. The lens changed at some point, too. I dont know the specifics, I'm all in on the Fuji stuff these days.

[OtayBW]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

i also believe that a photo just needs to bring the viewer to the viewpoint of the photographer, as long as the image is reasonably clear, it tells the story it is meant to tell.

all criticism graciously accepted, please tell me - what could have made this photo i took on a ride recently, that i am very much happy with better. either equipment wise, or framing?

I can't really suggest anything on composition or framing, without being there, but I will give you a viewpoint RE: the 'story' as I see it. It suggests to me a condition of inevitable change: the approach of winter, shorter days, cold, damp, gray skies; aging barn, silo mildewed, fence in disrepair, slightly rutted road. The gray and the decay evoke a longing, a clinging to a season gone by and the reflection on beginning another, less hospitable one - metaphorically speaking, of course (emphasis on this...).

Well, I grew up in the 60s, so there's no telling what this all means!

[Ti Designs]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

all criticism graciously accepted, please tell me - what could have made this photo i took on a ride recently, that i am very much happy with better. either equipment wise, or framing?

OK, I'll be the bad guy... This is why I'm so into the technical end of photography. That's not really what you saw. Your eyes have 20 stops of latitude, your camera sensor has 5 or 6. Your eyes look around and gather information before putting together one mental image, the camera gathers the same amount of information per unit of area. While National Geographic would disagree (they have very strict guidelines for image submission), that image needs a little help. I've never looked up and seen a plain white sky. Even a polarizing filter would have brought out more detail there. Aside from that, the contrast level is fine, it has some good leading lines, and as a photography teacher once told me, you never break the rule of thirds unless you do... I would have bracketed this +1/-3 and processed as HDR to bring out detail in the sky, and just a bit more depth in the shadow, or I would have shot the same image 4" apart and processed as a 3D image - I think all the little detail in 3D would really work.