Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Hello, I've just joined as a new amateur photographer,
Feb 11, 2017 16:48:04 #
custodian
Loc: New York
elgazer welcome to the hog I joined a few yrs ago and I am still an amature haven't moved out of auto either for same reasons but the people here are GREAT very helpful although when I first joined I got some nasty remarks but you ignore those . I also listen and read what dave Peterson sys he has free tutorial sessions also and that is good advice
Feb 11, 2017 16:51:14 #
IBM wrote:
It's pretty basic what I said , and common knowled... (show quote)
And I started when I was 22 there is a lot of teckneckel jargon going on that BOGGLES gray mater , that leaves me in the dust ,but running a camera is not one ,
Feb 11, 2017 16:57:01 #
Gentlemen take your corners, Marquess of Queensberry's rules please.! 
Check out Wedding Photography section of our forum.
Feb 11, 2017 17:31:45 #
elgazer wrote:
So much to learn, with so little time. I wish I'd chosen photography when I was a lot younger.
Currently capturing reasonable images with my Canon EOS 1100D, which I love with the 75-300mm lens, but I'm not entirely happy with the colour and resolution, therefore, looking to purchase a Nikon. Is there a big difference?
Currently capturing reasonable images with my Canon EOS 1100D, which I love with the 75-300mm lens, but I'm not entirely happy with the colour and resolution, therefore, looking to purchase a Nikon. Is there a big difference?
I have a Canon Rebel T3i, which is pretty comparable to your camera and it takes pretty darn good pictures but since I love to spend other peoples money, go ahead and buy the best camera you can afford and send me the 1100D. I'm guessing it doesn't have a whole lot of shutter actuations on it so it'll make a real nice back-up for mine.
P.S. Welcome to UHH
Walt
Feb 11, 2017 17:33:42 #
elgazer wrote:
I'll look for 'white balance' and set to auto. I thought I knew all there was to know about my camera.
Before you start thinking a new camera will improve your images, I think you probably need to be on more intimate terms with the camera you already have. The ART of your photographic images will depend on what you SEE in your environment, and how your brain interprets it. The CRAFT of your photography will depend on how much you know about what your camera and lenses are capable of doing, and what you can accomplish with post processing. From the statement above I think it is safe to assume you have not yet exploited the limits of the equipment you already have.
Feb 11, 2017 17:38:03 #
The greens and blues look drab. There might be a setting where there are varying degrees of enhancement, such as "Vivid 1, or Vivid 2". On my Nikon, it is "Neutral, Standard, and Vivid" with micro-settings for each, having to do with contrast and sharpness. Try the same scene with each of these and see which results are most pleasing to you. (These are all jpeg, by the way.) I'm sure you'll find that Canon is capable of taking photos that will suit your tastes, no need to change systems, (and this from a die-hard Nikon user!)
Feb 11, 2017 17:45:01 #
ELNikkor wrote:
The greens and blues look drab. There might be a ... (show quote)
Yeah, it's like cooking, filter the blues, subdue the reds and strain the greens!
I have an old colander for sale, I can check the filter thread size if you want!
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Feb 11, 2017 18:12:45 #
I am aware of the impact of the tree on the composition. I included it because I wanted to see the perspective of the shooter (me) from the distance away to the ships, about 6 miles.
Feb 11, 2017 19:09:47 #
Feb 11, 2017 20:57:55 #
While it is extremely important that you get a great exposure with the camera. It's much more important that your shooting in RAW format and that you have an application to take full advantage of that format. It may be your disappointed in your camera results if your shooting in Jpeg, straight from the camera and comparing with Images that have had extensive work done in Lightroom and Photoshop.
These days almost everything has had post processing adjustments so if your not using RAW and Lightroom/Photoshop its unlikely your images will rival that of those that are.
It's another cost/time/learning curve but the final results can turn relatively uninteresting images into stunning images and poor ones into acceptable ones.
I prefer Nikon equipment, it's a personal preference and I don't think there's a great deal of difference in the hardware or the lenses but when I started using Lightroom, which essentially allows you to selectively alter the actual exposure in many ways, then my images became works of art.
These days almost everything has had post processing adjustments so if your not using RAW and Lightroom/Photoshop its unlikely your images will rival that of those that are.
It's another cost/time/learning curve but the final results can turn relatively uninteresting images into stunning images and poor ones into acceptable ones.
I prefer Nikon equipment, it's a personal preference and I don't think there's a great deal of difference in the hardware or the lenses but when I started using Lightroom, which essentially allows you to selectively alter the actual exposure in many ways, then my images became works of art.
Feb 11, 2017 23:37:30 #
IBM wrote:
It's pretty basic what I said , and common knowled... (show quote)
Why do you think that I am on the same level as the OP?
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.
Feb 11, 2017 23:39:46 #
elgazer wrote:
So much to learn, with so little time. I wish I'd chosen photography when I was a lot younger.
Currently capturing reasonable images with my Canon EOS 1100D, which I love with the 75-300mm lens, but I'm not entirely happy with the colour and resolution, therefore, looking to purchase a Nikon. Is there a big difference?
Currently capturing reasonable images with my Canon EOS 1100D, which I love with the 75-300mm lens, but I'm not entirely happy with the colour and resolution, therefore, looking to purchase a Nikon. Is there a big difference?
Is your 75-300 lens stabilized? If it doesn't have built in image stabilization in your lens, then you may get less than sharp images in all but great lighting unless you're using a tripod. Just a thought.
Sandy
Feb 11, 2017 23:39:52 #
IBM wrote:
And I started when I was 22 there is a lot of teckneckel jargon going on that BOGGLES gray mater , that leaves me in the dust ,but running a camera is not one ,
Do you really think that a "photographer" who doesn't know that you can change the white balance on a camera would be familiar with back button focus????
Really?
Feb 12, 2017 00:09:08 #
Just Trying To Focus wrote:
Is your 75-300 lens stabilized? If it doesn't have built in image stabilization in your lens, then you may get less than sharp images in all but great lighting unless you're using a tripod. Just a thought.
Sandy
Sandy
The 75 -300s are not stabilized. Simple research.
Feb 12, 2017 02:27:33 #
tdekany wrote:
Why do you think that I am on the same level as the OP?
Come on . Your ragging on me for asking him a couple, easy questions . After all he said in one section ====
I thought I knew every thing about this camera , so I sent a couple easy questions to see if he knew what I was talking about .
Then you come on and , your comment sounded like you also did not know what I was asking , jeeesees
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.