I for one would interpret a steep learning curve meaning that you have to acquire a lot of knowledge to move along. In other words you have to learn a lot, going up y, to advance along the x axis. Really a matter of perspective. A shallow learning curve means you can go along x without having to acquire much more knowledge, the y.
On the other hand you could interpret it as though as you move along the x axis you acquire more knowledge faster with a steeper learning curve.
This of course does not use x as time but rather x as skill level and y as knowledge.
Using Photoshop as an example I would argue that to do all the things you want to do (ie to advance along x) I have to learn a great deal more knowledge (steeper y).
To put it in graphic terms if you want to get to x (ie use photoshop at a Scott Kelby level) the area under the curve is much greater (the amount of knowledge needed is much greater). To use Lightroom at desired level x (again Scott Kelby level) the area under the curve is less than if I wanted to use Photoshop at the same level x. You could depict these levels of x on two different curves and the y would be much higher on the Photoshop curve as it would require a great deal more studying, practice, and reading to get to the Scott Kelby level of Photoshop mastery. In other words y would be much steeper.
So really we need to apply calculus to depict difficulty, i.e. area under the curve to get to a certain point.
Arex,
Your egg shaped moons are from both camera shake and long shutter speeds. A tripod is a must for moon shots.
Linda, - Beautiful moon shots. I recognized the ridge as well.
Beautiful picture especially considering there is no post processing. The reflection is a lot more saturated than the actual sky and mill. With a little processing (minimal) it could win that contest.
Start with Lightroom. Its organization set up and developing tools allow it to be what you use soley for 85% of photographs. It is a lot cheaper too.
Does anyone recommend a camera insurance company?
jerryc41 wrote:
I use the Tokina 16-28mm on my D600, and I have no complaints. Reviews are good, and the price is lower than a similar Nikon. You probably know that neither the Tokina nor the Nikon can easily use a filter because of the bulging front lens element.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/(lens1)/373/(brand)/Nikkor/(camera1)/0/(lens2)/370/(brand2)/Tokina/(camera2)/0
You can use filters on the Nikon 16-35mm; 77mm.
Thanks. I am going to order a couple of them.
The manuals are usually quite dry and boring to read. I might recommend a "manual" on your camera written by David Busch.
I have lost 2 pair of expensive sunglasses while photographing on hikes. I find myself quickly removing them and placing them over the collar of my shirt. The camera strap eventually knocks them off unbeknownst to me. Does looking through your viewfinder with sunglasses on really alter what you're viewing? Ultimately you're not seeing exposure through the viewfinder just composition and focus. Any thoughts?
Scott Kelby's "kelbytraining.com" is also a good resource. His books but it together well though he may not have the LR 5 version out yet. Once you learn LR you will love it. I do 80% of my post processing on LR.