Not the best photos, but I do like the last one. Nikon D90 with Tamrom 17-50 F2.8 VC, early evening in the streets of Tokyo.

Really I should PP these to adjust for the different warmths of light – it’s caused by the first two including the lamp in the frame and the last two just pointing into the shadows.

Hong Kong with F707 NightShot

I still have it. Occasionally I pick it up and have a play, because with that fast lens, laser focus, IR NightShot, and a powerful flash with IR framing, it’s a good camera in low light. It’s even possible to get some nice bokeh:

Bokeh at F2.4

I can’t help but seeing a matchstick figure and head in that leaf photo. What would a psychiatrist make of that?

Apart from wishing the camera was a bit less sluggish during image review and supported memorysticks greater than 128MB, the main thing that stops me using the camera more these days is the “halo effect”. At the time it was a resolution class leader, but now I find the sharpening just too aggressive. I guess I did at the time also, but then there was very little alternative.

1:1 crop

It’s not too extreme in the leaf photo, but at times it can be overwhelming:

1:1 crop showing sharpening halo

Cold winter branches

When I look back at photos, I do wish I could get rid of that. Sure, it doesn’t affect the photos too much at 4×6, but it can become noticeable and it prevents cropping.

Still, it was a camera that created many great memories for me. I’m sure that while it still has life in it, every year or so I’ll return to it and play with nostalgia.

The tree test

From the center:

Center 1:1

The top right looks very funky:

Top Right 1:1

These were shot on a D90 in JPEG mode. This is a difficult photo for a number of reasons:

1. Depth of field: At F2.8 there’s going to be a lot of out of focus leaves. I’ve deliberately picked areas in the crops where some of the leaves are in focus.
2. Tricky exposure: The camera has exposed for the tree, to give leaf detail. This blows out the sky which results in excess light between the leaves.

In fact, the first shot of this scene the whole image was out of focus – obviously the camera found it challenging.

How does the Tamron compare to my other lenses? My non-scientific impression is that it’s smack between my Nikon 18-200 and my Sigma F1.4.

While the Nikon 18-200 (old model, not VR II) is definitely more controlled wide open at F3.5 than the Tamron is at F2.8 in the corners, the center is similar and so I notice CA and fringing about the same amount in everyday photos.

In contrast, the Sigma 30mm F1.4 is a purple monster when used wide at F1.4 – any spec of bright light being causing purple. And it’s not just at the corners – it’s the whole frame. That really stops me using the Sigma. Yes, it gets better if I use a smaller aperture, but I didn’t buy an F1.4 to shoot at F5.6.

I bet she doesn't know what this means

균형. Photo taken in Hawaii. No surprise that she’s not Korean.

Dog-eye lens?

I love that photo so much. The distortion is fantastic! Here are some more samples:

Is my master still in the toilet?

I'm a guard dog at Gringotts, you know

There wasn’t much light available so it was quite hard to get shots. You can see just how slow the shutter speed was here:

Enough! No dog biscuits, no more photos!

I didn’t expect to use the fisheye much, but it’s really enjoyable – and the great thing about the Tokina 10-17mm is that not only does it have a zoom making it more flexible to me than the Nikon 10.5mm (although the Nikon is f2.8), but it can apparently be used on full frame sensors also, which means I can continue to use the lens if/when I upgrade from the D90.

Ok, so on a full frame sensor only the end of the zoom range covers the whole sensor, but think about it: 10mm on a DX Nikon is 15mm. The lens of the zoom range 15-17mm works on a full frame sensor, which means I’ll get exactly the same wide angle of view. Cool.

Sorry, I’m not linking to full size samples of these images – I don’t want them to be reused elsewhere. Remember, these images are copyright.

No postprocessing has been carried out on these files (I should probably rotate the first one just a tad).

Brooklyn Lager in Tokyo

And a MONSTER burger to match!

Originals available in my Zenfolio portfolio here. If you’re examining for sharpness, remember that these are ISO6400 and so sharpness is limited by the D90 at this ISO.

More on the Tamron here. Ready to buy? Great price here.

Are you taking snapshots?

I definitely want to set myself up a proper small studio space with a white background and lighting after reading this. I saw one in Costco last time I was there – complete kit. Probably more expensive than just setting it up myself, but worth considering.

This article is also very helpful and highlights what I suspected – the first photos you submit don’t just need to be stock quality but need to scream about your photography skills:

How to start selling photos on microstock agencies

I’ve yet to resubmit applications – I need to find the time to sit down with Lightroom and really go through my photos.

Rejected by iStockPhoto

This week I decided to rest submitting three images to iStockPhoto. Again, all were rejected. Frustrating.

Rejected by iStockPhoto

The first – the sunset from Pre Rup, Cambodia – I was sure would get through.

The second and third from Banteay Srei I chose because there are only 46 photos of Banteay Srei on iStockPhoto. The second – part human statue with temple detail in the background – is nicely lit and I was sure would get through. The third – the lion detail – was more debatable, but it’s no worse than some of the 46 photos, such as this one which is terribly cropped and lit.

Rejected by iStockPhoto

The reply back from iStockPhoto is generic and so isn’t very helpful – in fact it’s exactly the same as I got back in May, so I assume they always send the same rejection mail:

Comments from the iStockphoto Administrator:

At this time we regret to inform you that we did not feel the overall composition of your photography or subject matter is at the minimum level of standard for iStockphoto. Please take some time to review training materials, resources and articles provided through iStockphoto. The photographs provided in your application should be your best work. Try and impress us, we want to see how you stand out from the crowd.

Three things have become clear to me from this rejection:

• Firstly, I need to up my game. I need to make sure the photos I submit are the best I can do. The photos above – they had no PP. They were not cropped, no enhancements to blacks, exposure, etc.
• Secondly, from looking at the stock images on iStockPhoto, clearly the standard for getting accepted at first is higher than the general standard of the photos in iStockPhoto.
• Thirdly, my impression of the selection criteria is wrong – at least for getting accepted. I based my submissions on what was a gap in their catalog. Maybe that would be true after being accepted, but clearly it isn’t true for getting accepted.

The frustrating thing is I can’t submit for another 7 days, so lessons learnt from the above, I submitted 10 images to Shutterstock instead. Today I got email back saying 5 were rejected and 5 “potentially OK” – progress, and Shutterstock’s feedback is better so I can understand where they are coming from, but now I can’t Shutterstock for another 30 days. Again though, point #3 was reinforced.

I want the next set to be “right”. I can try submitting 5 of the “potentially OK” images to iStockPhoto and see what happens, but I’d really like to understand what was wrong with the first image I sent to them, because out of all the three images above, that one I can’t understand the reasons. And yes, I’ve read their training materials, etc.

Update: I posted to dpreview to get some feedback. General point seems to be that while we see a sunset, when you look at the photo from a selling point of view, it’s difficult to see what the subject is. Personally I like that it’s a silhouette – but upon stepping back and looking at it, I can see that the outline isnt well defined. Very educational.

One thing that may make it more saleable: if the statue had some warm light on it, maybe from the direction straight onto its face or a bit more clockwise. That could be done with a battery flash and a bit of gel. That way the viewer can see what it is and maybe get a feel for where it is. Even then I dont know if it would be a saleable image. Thing is with stock photography you have to remove your own feelings from the process of choosing images. To you it may be a nice sunset with a statue of something sihouetted in the foreground, to an editor that silhouette is a meaningless non descript shape. You have to think of how someone else sees the image without any knowledge of the subject or even a caption. Not criticising your work, just trying to think how or what to sell that image as, I think with some detail on the statue it would be a pic of the statue with a pleasant sunset background, as a sihoutte it is a sunset with something(??) black in the foreground.

Keep on going though, its an education, and quite grounding when a shot you worked hard on is rejected due to an element which you thought would be cool or had no controll over. Dont take the rejection personally, you will quit before you even start.

Last year, taken with a Canon 25IS P&S (similar to this):

Cropped:

Quickly adjusted in FastStone Image Viewer (Hue +27, Gamma to 0.80):

The same images from my old D40x, most likely shot in “vibrant” mode (I can’t remember):

The sky in the D40x is more vibrant; the rock from the 25IS shot is more vibrant. Both are excellent in different ways. Even the unadjusted 25IS shot is good on its own – I only adjusted it to get it close to the D40x.

My D40x was eventually replaced by a D60, which I still have now. In some ways I actually prefer it to my newer D90 – I use the D90 only because of the extra ISO stop, larger screen, and faster processing, but the D60 still works better with my SB600.

Would I take better pictures if I had a D3S? Possibly. Extra depth of field and better ISO would certainly aid things – but you don’t need an expensive camera to take good photos. Even the right P&S can yield good results.

But that doesn’t stop me lusting after a D3S. Please buy me one.

An almost 180 degree beautiful rainbow. I like this photo – but it’s not stunning, and I want it to be stunning. It was taken just before 6pm when I was running for the ferry in the rain hence the light not being great.

Can you make this look stunning? Original is here – JPEG unfortunately, but it should still be possible to do something good with it.

I had a few PP attempts using FastStone Image Viewer – I quite like the first. What’s the best you can do with Lightroom/Photoshop/etc? Post a link to your photo in the comments.

Link to the challenge on DP Review.