Photographer's View of Disney

[mkt]

Originally posted by PhotoDave219
MKT is right, try the off the beaten path stuff, you'll get some great stuff.

take some of these pics as examples..

(i wasn't the photographer on these.. I just did some touchup work for these)

the top 3 were taken backstage (WITH PERMISSION) in the Feature Animation Parking Garage

and the 2 of the fantasmic stage were taken in the middle of the day before they started prepping for the show.

also, the ToT shot was taken from the Parking Garage as well

 

[pisco]

Here are some of my favorite pics from my last couple of trips to the World.

To see all of my pics from those trips check out the links in my sig.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Very nice. I like the tiger one & the jellyfish.

What kind of camera are you shooting with?

 

[Bobster]

Great pics pisco. Just curious if you use a tripod of some sort for the night shots?

 

[pisco]

Originally posted by PhotoDave219
Very nice. I like the tiger one & the jellyfish.

What kind of camera are you shooting with?

Thanks Dave. All of these pictures were shot with a Fuji 6900 Digital Camera. I am currently tying to talk my wife in to letting me buy a Canon 10D digital SLR. I would really like to upgrade before I we go to the World next time.

Originally posted by Bobster
Great pics pisco. Just curious if you use a tripod of some sort for the night shots?

Bobster, all of the night shots were shot at ISO 400 handheld. The fireworks would have been better if I could have gone with a longer exposure but I just can't bring myself to lug a tripod around on vacation. Maybe I'm just not a big enough camera geek... yet! :lol:

The funny thing is that I did bring a tabletop tripod that can be velcroed to just about anything but I never wound up using it. There were fewer fences, lamposts, rails ect. than I expected that would work for this.

 

[PhotoDave219]

I've seen the 10D. Go for it. Great price on it - For a D-SLR. I hear the noise problem at high ISO isnt as bad as in the past.

Justify it to her this way - price of film and price of processing. I know using a D1 saved me about a Grand in film and processing.

The only real need for a tripod is fireworks, but as you see, shooting them handheld is possible. Other than that, lugging a tripod really isnt worth it - unless its just you walking around the park solo just to take pictures. (Of course, i still think that fireworks look best on slide film, but thats a personal thing)

Bogen makes a nifty (and sturdy) table-top tripod that fits in the bag easily, and goes for about $35.

And youre right, there are darn few sturdy places to use to steady a camera, especially in epcot. I musta looked really weird laying down on the ground trying to get this one nite shot from across the lagoon

 

[timoteo]

If you want the truly best, most artistic, most "art photography" like photos then it would be the photos in the book
"Designing Disney Theme Parks: the Architecture of Reassurance. The Photos in that book are hands down the best. Some photos are small but the ones they have the most artistic anywhere. Find that book to see what real photographers can do with disney.

 

[Timekeeper]

Canon 10-D

When did the 10D first become available? There's a great review of it in the last issue of Popular Photography, so I'm guessing it's relatively new. (According to the review, it's the best D-SLR for it's price bracket. Prosumers watch out.) I would personally love to pick up the 10D, I'm just afraid that, like with most technology products, the 20D will come out in a few months with a 9 MP resolution chip. I just wish that the MP res would have made a significant increase from the D60 to the 10D (like it did from the D30 to the D60.) But as long as prosumer level D-SRL's remain in the 6 MP window for at least another year, I won't feel as bad about jumping in and grabbing one now.

Any thoughts?

Tk

P.S. Some of the above posted photo advice included getting up close and filling the frame. While this is good advice, we must remember that many tourists (dare I say most?) use point-and-shoot cameras that are the victim's of parralax compensation. That means, because you're looking through a small window and not through the actual lens of the camera, your pictures will come out cropped slightly differently than you framed them in the viewfinder - usually a little lower and to the right. This said, it's probably safer for those shooting with a point-and-shoot camera to "back up" and not "get close." That way nothing important, such as some's head, is cropped off in the photo. Cropping can later be done on the computer, or by getting enlargements (such as an 8x10) and cutting them down (to a 5x7).

:sohappy:

 

[PhotoDave219]

The Canon 10D made its debut recently at the big show in Vegas with a huge marketing campaign. Almost every photo mag has some writeup on it.

My thoughts? I'd grab it now. Nikon and Canon are at war, and the consumer is winning big at the cash register.

While huge Megapixel cameras are nice, unless youre shooting a double page spread for a magazine or plan on doing anything poster size, (or high end weddings, fashion, etc... basical pro stuff) something like the Canon 10D or the Nikon D100 will do you right (Each have a 6+ MP chip).

The average amature photographer who takes their camera to disney really doesnt need anything more than either of those. The increased MP chips are just a way to get people to spend more $$$$ on either a new camera or bigger memory cards to hold all those increased file sizes. After this generation of cameras (10D, D100, that new EOS and whatever Nikon does next), there really isnt any reason to replace one within 5-10 years .. unless for some silly reason they do away with CompactFlash cards.

Quick Laymans Explanation ------> With MegaPixel chips, bigger isnt always better. Anything over 3 MPs can get you to print out an 8x10 print at around 150dpi. When you print off your home Printer (i have an Epson C60 POS), the highest resolution that you really need the photo to be at is 150-200 dpi in order to get good results. The highest resolution you really need your printer to be at is the 720 or 1440 dpi photo quality settings. Otherwise, youre wasting ink. (If anyone wants an indepth speal or explanation on all this, just PM me)

Basically TK, its gonna last you a long time, just make sure youre happy with it. You might want to go to a local camera store and play with it before you go out and buy one. Or rent one and play with it. Just make sure youre happy with it before you slap down $1500.

After that, I'd put my money in lenses and live with the generation of cameras that we have now. Of course, i'd be nice and happy with the 2.74 MP Nikon D1h.

Until they find a way to severly reduce noise at high ISO, you're better off getting a really fast lens (that would be a 2.8 or 1.8 apature of F stop for eveyone who's heads i just flew over) to take night shots with.

While i'm not going to launch the film/digital debate, there's something about the look of a FujiChrome Velvia shot with the vibrant blues that still just isnt quite there with the latest digital camera. It all comes down to personal preference.

Good point on the parallax - Forgot about that. I guess best advice there is to take 2 steps back from where the "ideal" is from the viewfinder. There really are countless ways to screw up a good photo, and chopping someone's head off is definetly up there with putting your finger over the lens.

Oh yeah, one last. If you bring a digital camera or D-SLR to Disney, just dont forget the laptop so you can download each night and look at them.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

For all you buffs fixated by pixels, don’t get conned. Just check its actual pixels and not attained by interpolation.

I just love to hear everyone saying what a wonderful thing digital photography is. And it is truly wonderful if you want loss of detail in highlights, waxy skin tones (a big favorite amongst D1 owners) and lovely magenta colour casts.
Why do digital cameras have monitors on the back? so you can check every shot you take, cause exposure wise its worse than shooting trannies.
In my bag right now I have an F90 and a D100 & a D1H, when i go to WDW i know what camera Ill be taking and it wont have a chip. I learned the hard way last Nov, never again will I waste my time with a digi camera in high contrast situations. why spend ages trying to get a good shot on digital when I know with film id have got a good result 1st time.
Oh and I think you’ll find that you can get baby pods that only weigh a couple of pounds and well worth it for long exposure stuff.

As for saving money with digital, only if you produce very little hard copy. Besides with a neg scanner you have as much flexibility of digital but an easier format to archive without degradation.

 

[ghostygreeter]

I tend to disagree a bit with your opinion. I've seen many digital photos without the problems you state. It all depends on the camera you choose. Also remember that the digital camera technology is only at the beginning. Improvments are constantly being made. After all it took the current incarnation of the camera a long... loooooooong time to become what it is today. I've been quite satisfied with my Canon G2. It's not an SLR but it takes great shots, with few of the problems you state. One good site for checking out strengths and weaknesses of digicams are at http://www.dpreview.com ... But anyways, just thought I would give my two cents. Anyways, I'm leaving WDW as a college program alumni and I am dreading walking out my door... Pitiful, but I love it here.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Sorry I should have quantified my opinions. The job I do digital technology is generally adequate, for the average guy they’d have similar levels of success. However i defy anyone looking at an original portrait taken by digi and compare it to film and not notice the difference. And that’s not even bringing medium format into the equation.

If the original poster wastalking about snaps then my comments are misplaced, however as he has the cameras he mentioned i take it he takes his photography a little more seriously.

I can only base my opinions on the results of tests we carried out. FACT film technology has improved and digital while good for many things is not yet in the ballpark.
By the way saw the new canon at Focus, its very nice. But Ill always be a Nikon devotee

 

[PhotoDave219]

Pumbas, i'm with you on the whole high contrast situation. The first gen Nikon D1's have a huge problem with killing a great scene. (Still was better than the first gen Canon stuff, but thats a different story entirely) Digital cameras are still best in either bright sunshine (if you want to live with some contrast problems)or partly overcast. Low Light just doesnt mix with digital photography, and using a flash often gives mixed results.

However, the average disney guest with their prosumer D-SLR just isnt going to care about the little quality issues that pros tend to pick up on. They're more concerned (and rightfully so) with being able to instantly see their pictures and email them off to relatives right away. And thats great. They quality is good enuff for them and comprobable to that of newspapers.

As for the noise/low light conditions, thats what really good lenses are for. I mean if you can put up with the noise from a first gen D1 at 1600, you can live with anything.

Personally, if i'm doing something where i need high-end results (ex - high fashion, modeling or Disney Fireworks!) toss me the fujichrome. But my vacation pix? I'll stick with with the digital. Its cheaper and less time consuming in the long run for me. When i go hard copy, i'm aiming for the new Ilford Galerie injet pearl paper. Very, very nice paper for framing. (Available at a camera store near you, its worth your while)

Its an interesting debate, both have their pros and their cons and here really isnt the time nor place for it. I have a spot for my F100 and my D1.

In the end, its what youre most happy with. And i think that most vacation photographers will be happy with something digital, so they can never run out of film and send stuff to grandma right away.

And for those who are curious, the Canon 10D goes for $1499 and the Nikon D100 goes for @ $1800.