Trip report started...

[Groucho]

I began my trip report over on the trip report board...

You can read it here. I've got about the first 24 hours or so now and a bunch of pictures. I hope you enjoy!

I've got over 2,400 pictures to go through so it'll take me a few days at least to finish it... but once begun is half done, right?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Good start. I can't wait to see the rest.

If they build DVC timeshares at the north end of the contemporary, they'll sell out in a day.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

The shot of the castle taken from the Contemporary shows some atmospheric haze. As a trip report, it's probably good to leave it alone because it represents what you really saw.

From a pure photo optimization standpoint, I usually take pictures like that and adjust the black and white points. If you look at the histogram, you'll see almost the entire photo clumped in the middle. By moving up the black point and moving down the white point, the dynamic range of the photo will be expanded so that you'll have more visual constrast.

In Photoshop, this can be done using the Levels command and adjusting the little pointers on the left and right hand side.

I can't post an example right now as I don't have access to my tools. I did post an example in the Favorite Pictures of the Year 2006 thread where adreayoung posted the following great photo of the undefeated Boise State Bronco's stadium. I took the same photo and posted an example of what it would look like with more dynamic range. I didn't do a great job with it, but it shows you the effect.

 

[ukcatfan]

If they build DVC timeshares at the north end of the contemporary, they'll sell out in a day.

The idea of this makes me so sad I feel like I grew up in that building! From age one to about sixteen, when my parents bought at OKW, I stayed there at least one week a year. We did venture over to GF once when it was built, but went straight back over to the north wing on the next visit.

Kevin

 

[Master Mason]

your pics aren't showing for me??

 

[Groucho]

Actually, I was going to start a new thread at some point regarding some of the issues you mention. Specifically - is it better to show colors as they truly are or colors as they looked to the eye?

The shots from the Contemporary were pretty dull and dim out of the camera. The first several days were pretty cloudy and overcast and colors generally didn't "pop", to the eye or to the camera. My camera is set to "natural" color and generally is pretty good as showing things as they actually looked, but sometimes you just need more than reality so I did tweak those up a bit. On some, I added more contrast, I think I took some away on a couple of the photos.

But the Grand Floridian photos (and some others, like some nighttime Main St USA photos that I haven't added yet) caused me a little consternation. For Grand Floridian, the "true" color is a basic white on the walls. The color out of the camera (and more what the eye would see) is a warmer, yellowy color. This is purely a white balance issue. I went back and forth and eventually decided to keep more with the warmer color, even though it wasn't as "true" - the last two gingerbread house photos, especially the one from right in front, show a big difference in wall color versus the shots looking down from the second floor.

Of course, there's no "right" answer, it's just a matter of taste. But it can be a tough decision.

It was clear from the untouched, default-setting photos that the shots taken on later days, when there was bright sunshine, do have a lot more "pop" and brighter colors, and will probably not require much tweaking.

I think that early on in the trip, I switched from center-weighted metering to spot metering, which I believe helped overall, though there are still the occasional photos where the background is exposed properly and the subject is not. Even though I have it set to spot focus, it probably is occasionally going slightly off-center - the DL camera I have is too cheap to have the red dots that tell you exactly where it's pulling focus/exposure from. I did play with some other custom settings, too, over the trip, which I think may be helped a little.

On a side note, people seemed to be better behaved this trip about using the flash on rides - I actually don't remember seeing it at all, or maybe once or twice. You did see a lot of red-eye reduction used on the castle and other inanimate objects, though!

 

[Groucho]

your pics aren't showing for me??

Are you getting anything - errors, etc? You can view the pictures directly here, there shouldn't be any problems unless my webhost is down. If you can view them on the original page, you should be able to view them in the thread?

The idea of this makes me so sad I feel like I grew up in that building! From age one to about sixteen, when my parents bought at OKW, I stayed there at least one week a year. We did venture over to GF once when it was built, but went straight back over to the north wing on the next visit.

My family stayed in one of the wings when I was pretty young (and they claim that we once stayed in the tower, though I don't remember that at all, and I would think that I would!)... the main thing I remember was loooong walks! But compared to all the walking at Pop Century, Saratoga (at least they have an internal bus), Epcot, Animal Kingdom, etc, it's probably not so bad in comparison! I also remember that it was slightly disappointing as it's so close to the tower - but it's not actually the tower! The Contemporary is pretty iconic to me, as it probably is to most folks who grew up going to WDW occasionally (it opened a month after I was born.) Some people don't like it, a few even hate it, but it's an essential WDW component IMHO.

(Although I didn't buy the version that goes with the toy monorail... I looked for it last year to go along with the monorail I bought, but nowhere had it; this time they had it but I just never actually got further than picking up the box. I probably should have bought it...)

I'd love a DVC location by the Contemporary, though. Overall, though, I was extremely impressed by Saratoga Springs, and it was really ideal for this trip as due to being sick, we spent a lot more time in the room than we have on previous trips, and it was nice being is a pretty quiet location. Hopefully we'll get a chance to try the other DVC locations as time goes by, but SSR will probably be our primary destination. (I am going to try to stay at Animal Kingdom Villas next trip, though!)

 

[Groucho]

The trip report is complete now (finally!), I hope you all enjoy it! See the link in the first message. And when it says that there's lotsa pictures - there are lotsa pictures!

That also means that my gallery at my web page has all the pictures I'm planning on adding... 644 of them, to be exact! All available in pretty high resolution, topping out at 1600x1200.

Next step, a "lessons learned" photography-related post... hopefully in the next few days.

 

[Shifletjl]

Which lens/lenses did you use for your night photography of the Tree of Life, Wishes/Castle etc.? Thanks

 

[Groucho]

The pictures should all have their exif data still, so if you have an exif viewer in your browser (like fxif for Firefox), that should give the info. You can also see the info displayed when viewing them in my gallery.

I'm sorry that I can't give a more straightforward answer but I used a few different lenses. Most of the fireworks photos were with the Zenitar 16mm fisheye or the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens. Most of the static long-exposure night shots were with the 18-55mm, maybe a few with the Pentax 50mm. I think a couple of the Tree of Life shots were done with the Pentax 50-200mm. As you can see, it's hard to give an exact answer to your question.

Nearly all of the night shots that were taken with a tripod or other support were shot at F8, so nearly any lens could give pretty good results. The key is really a good, steady tripod/monopod and a remote shutter release.

 

[spoon2003]

Groucho (or anyone),
Your indoor pictures are so sharp and clear so I checked your exif to get some hints. I see Flash: Reserved .... what is "Reserved"? external?

Thanks

Sue

 

[Shifletjl]

Thanks.

 

[Groucho]

Groucho (or anyone),
Your indoor pictures are so sharp and clear so I checked your exif to get some hints. I see Flash: Reserved .... what is "Reserved"? external?

Thanks

Sue

Thanks for the kind words! I do appreciate the compliments.

As for "reserved"... Hmmmm...... I'm really not sure. I very, very rarely used the flash, and I don't have an external flash for my camera. What are you displaying to show the exif data? Irfanview lists it as "not fired, compulsory flash mode" which basically means that I choose whether or not the flash fires, not the camera. (Pretty standard for the program/aperture/shutter/manual/bulb modes.) I would guess that "reserved" is just different wording for the same thing.

The sharpness and clarity are part of what make DSLRs so great... any DSLR with a good lens can take pictures like those. The small sensors in PnSs generally make for pictures that aren't as sharp and detailed (especially indoors), and of course they can't do tricks like real large apertures (allowing steady photos indoors and the small depth-of-field shots) or fisheye photos. There's there's the issue of noise at higher ISOs... though I fairly rarely went above 400 ISO.

The photos from my previous trip, where I took the PnS that I had at the time, are pretty blah in comparison, IMHO.

 

[spoon2003]

The sharpness and clarity are part of what make DSLRs so great... any DSLR with a good lens can take pictures like those.

Oh, I think the photographer's skills & knowledge play a big part too!! Lots to learn on my part, but I'll get there

 

[boBQuincy]

Most of the fireworks photos were with the Zenitar 16mm fisheye...

The Zenitar has to be one of the best bargains in wide angle lenses there is! For about $100 it is sharp, fast, and about as easy to use as a manual lens can be (at f/8 most everything is in focus).
Some buyers mentioned a "rough" feel, and mine is a bit loose on it's dedicated Canon mount (needs a shim) but compared to any other $100 lens (except the 50) it is very good.

 

[Groucho]

Supposedly the newer ones are better. Mine feels very nice and tight and smooth, and had none of the infinity focus problems that some people have reported. I don't have a bad thing to say about it except that it's a fairly heavy lens (my heaviest, outside of the huge 400mm.) Well, and that it's fully manual, but that's not really a complaint, more of an observation.

And really, you don't even need a high f-stop, once you're past somewhere about 2.3' or so, everything is in focus no matter what your f-stop is. The higher might help if you're trying to get really close to something... that was kind of an issue when shooting something as small as the Lightning McQueen car, you needed to be right next to it so have it fill the frame - and that was with the crop! With the film camera, the lens had to be almost right up against the car, and then you have to worry a little bit about focus.

Still, those are minor quibbles. I do wish that I could find a free de-fishing plug-in or figure out a good way to do it without buying something else (I have mentioned before that I'm very cheap!)... for those occasions where I do want to lose the fishy look. I have seen people do that and stitch the photos together to make panoramas, with good success.

Overall, though, I definitely love the Zenitar!