Posts for: aram535
Jun 10, 2012 18:11:54 #
A nice flash might the cheaper alternative then.
Jun 10, 2012 17:15:06 #
This isn't a "body" short coming, it's a lens issue, or rather maximum aperture issue. The lens is simply not fast enough for the amount of light that was available in the area.
I would suggest getting a 70-200 f/2.8 ( I believe Nikon does make one) which would allow you 2 more stops of light. Otherwise the choices are getting 50mm f1/.8 but then you're loosing the focal length -- walk up if you can. Or you have to use "Flash".
If you change bodies just to get more ISO space that works, but that's usually not going to solve the issue, just hide it with more noise.
I would suggest getting a 70-200 f/2.8 ( I believe Nikon does make one) which would allow you 2 more stops of light. Otherwise the choices are getting 50mm f1/.8 but then you're loosing the focal length -- walk up if you can. Or you have to use "Flash".
If you change bodies just to get more ISO space that works, but that's usually not going to solve the issue, just hide it with more noise.
Jun 10, 2012 17:10:01 #
I sent the full sized one via email, but just to share it with everyone.
Jun 10, 2012 06:49:47 #
I like gdwsr's answer, and since I didn't mention it before the reason I didn't pick #1 is that the berry and the branch are both coming out of the bird's head. At first glace I thought the bird had a growth. The color is so similar and all. At least on the 3rd, which is less cropped (#1's crop is better) the things coming out of the head of the bird are not so "in your face".
Jun 9, 2012 19:46:57 #
If the first one is of the ducks, why is there so much wood and water in the picture? If you hadn't said anything I wouldn't have even noticed the ducks. :-) Gotta get closer.
The second is nice, although it looks like you clipped your whites. I would rather see detail in the highlights and loose some detail in the darks than blow out the white. It's also at much too high of an angle. To be critical, and this is if you want to get a hangable shot -- gotta get lower with the animal and shoot at their eye level for a better shot.
The second is nice, although it looks like you clipped your whites. I would rather see detail in the highlights and loose some detail in the darks than blow out the white. It's also at much too high of an angle. To be critical, and this is if you want to get a hangable shot -- gotta get lower with the animal and shoot at their eye level for a better shot.
Jun 9, 2012 19:33:12 #
Obviously a pocket camera user that has never used manual. :-)
I didn't come up with it, every photographer in the world that has at one point or another used a film camera will tell you that the Sunny/16 rule is the rule to go by.
If you happen to have a roll of unboxed film, open it, there is a small piece of paper in there. On the paper it will say the same thing. It isn't a film thing, it's an exposure rule and it's true for pocket cameras, 35mm film, digital or medium format.
Don't believe anyone else? Go outside on a sunny day and try it. Put the camera in Manual Mode, f/16, ISO 400, SS 1/400th. Take a shot of the sky. It's be the right color. (Remember you have to be outside too, don't shoot it through the glass that may be defusing it.
Don't want to shoot at f/16? Open your aperature, and increase your shutter speed at the same rate.
f/16 at 1/400th @ ISO 100 = f/5.6 at 1/1000th @ ISO 100
I didn't come up with it, every photographer in the world that has at one point or another used a film camera will tell you that the Sunny/16 rule is the rule to go by.
If you happen to have a roll of unboxed film, open it, there is a small piece of paper in there. On the paper it will say the same thing. It isn't a film thing, it's an exposure rule and it's true for pocket cameras, 35mm film, digital or medium format.
Don't believe anyone else? Go outside on a sunny day and try it. Put the camera in Manual Mode, f/16, ISO 400, SS 1/400th. Take a shot of the sky. It's be the right color. (Remember you have to be outside too, don't shoot it through the glass that may be defusing it.
Don't want to shoot at f/16? Open your aperature, and increase your shutter speed at the same rate.
f/16 at 1/400th @ ISO 100 = f/5.6 at 1/1000th @ ISO 100
Jun 9, 2012 17:38:23 #
"On a sunny day set aperture to f/16 and shutter speed to the [reciprocal of the] ISO setting for a subject in direct sunlight."
So at f/16 ISO 100, your shutter speed is 1/100th. This is 100% correct exposure every where at all times when the sun is out and subject is in direct sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule
So at f/16 ISO 100, your shutter speed is 1/100th. This is 100% correct exposure every where at all times when the sun is out and subject is in direct sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule
Jun 9, 2012 16:25:05 #
I think what your eye is getting drawn to is the contrast of the blue/green/yellow which is a pleasing combo for an artist, but the content and subject matter have no value to hold a viewer. There are too many distracting items in there.
So it's a good color theory exercise, but not much of a photograph.
So it's a good color theory exercise, but not much of a photograph.
Jun 9, 2012 16:21:18 #
All nice scenes, but they have no pop.
Top two, IMHO are over exposed. Use the SUNNY/16 rule to get the right exposure. You're also over sharpening for landscape. The lines are too sharp and nature doesn't come that way.
The last one is very very muted, the sky is almost blending into the mountain, which is an effect you can ask for in PP but then the bottom green doesn't work (which isn't really green). The wires on the bottom left are distracting.
Top two, IMHO are over exposed. Use the SUNNY/16 rule to get the right exposure. You're also over sharpening for landscape. The lines are too sharp and nature doesn't come that way.
The last one is very very muted, the sky is almost blending into the mountain, which is an effect you can ask for in PP but then the bottom green doesn't work (which isn't really green). The wires on the bottom left are distracting.
Jun 9, 2012 16:17:26 #
IMHO the only time that you have to ask yourself if you should or shouldn't PP is if you're going to enter it into a contest. Even then, a simple adjustment or HDR effect does not change the content, it simply shows that is already there.
I would draw the line at putting in a new sky if there was no clouds there to begin with but I would use the power of the PP system to pull in what is captured without "Dilemma".
I would draw the line at putting in a new sky if there was no clouds there to begin with but I would use the power of the PP system to pull in what is captured without "Dilemma".
Jun 9, 2012 16:14:18 #
The last one is the best of series. However, it really depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for a simple technical review:
1. It's bit of the soft side, (i.e. could be a little sharper).
2. The bird is directly in the center of the image.
3. The color is slightly muted. Could use a little more saturation.
4. White breast is on the brink of blowing out, could have backed off just a tad to bring in a little more detail. I think that would have also helped with the saturation.
5. The background is horrid, but that's the shot you got ... if you could have setup slightly right of where you were you may have been able to get just a green background which is better than this.
6. You have a very large depth of field it looks like. Getting closer or opening up furhter (if you could, would have reduced the DoF, making the background more out of focus.
I hope that helps.
1. It's bit of the soft side, (i.e. could be a little sharper).
2. The bird is directly in the center of the image.
3. The color is slightly muted. Could use a little more saturation.
4. White breast is on the brink of blowing out, could have backed off just a tad to bring in a little more detail. I think that would have also helped with the saturation.
5. The background is horrid, but that's the shot you got ... if you could have setup slightly right of where you were you may have been able to get just a green background which is better than this.
6. You have a very large depth of field it looks like. Getting closer or opening up furhter (if you could, would have reduced the DoF, making the background more out of focus.
I hope that helps.
Jun 9, 2012 16:06:22 #
Sadly I cannot agree at all with FilmFanatic.
IMHO, depends on who actually processes the film and if you can find good quality film now days. The art of film processing is lost in most retail stores. What I would suggest is find a local professional lab. They can produce both 35mm negative and scan them in for you at a high resolution.
If you do print them DO NOT scan them afterwards. It will not do it justice. Scan the negative.
IMHO, depends on who actually processes the film and if you can find good quality film now days. The art of film processing is lost in most retail stores. What I would suggest is find a local professional lab. They can produce both 35mm negative and scan them in for you at a high resolution.
If you do print them DO NOT scan them afterwards. It will not do it justice. Scan the negative.
Jun 8, 2012 15:12:24 #
This is the comparison I like to use:
Would you rather cook your dinner or let Olive Garden do it by their "manual". You can both start with similar ingredients, theirs will always be "blah" but you can make it whatever way you like.
The camera's system was programmed by a bunch of programmers in Japan, in the 1990s. You were in the scene when you took the picture, who do you think can provide a better idea on how the scene should look?
That's RAW vs jpeg.
Would you rather cook your dinner or let Olive Garden do it by their "manual". You can both start with similar ingredients, theirs will always be "blah" but you can make it whatever way you like.
The camera's system was programmed by a bunch of programmers in Japan, in the 1990s. You were in the scene when you took the picture, who do you think can provide a better idea on how the scene should look?
That's RAW vs jpeg.
Jun 8, 2012 00:38:01 #
I think the important fact to remember is that "editing" an image should be done with purpose in mind. Simply editing it for the sake of editing it almost never leads to anything good.
Look at the image, tell yourself what you specifically don't like about it. The subject isn't clear. There is a branch in the way that I didn't see in the view finder. There is a piece of garbage on the ground, etc. That's editting.
If you're shooting raw, then there are a few small steps that you have to take with every image but this is usually not very image related, it's just a simple process. Every image get +10 contrast, set black point, set white point. Done, do sharpening (subject dependent). You're done.
When you ask yourself what can I do to make the image good, just delete the image -- I don't mean this literally but that's the result.
Look at the image, tell yourself what you specifically don't like about it. The subject isn't clear. There is a branch in the way that I didn't see in the view finder. There is a piece of garbage on the ground, etc. That's editting.
If you're shooting raw, then there are a few small steps that you have to take with every image but this is usually not very image related, it's just a simple process. Every image get +10 contrast, set black point, set white point. Done, do sharpening (subject dependent). You're done.
When you ask yourself what can I do to make the image good, just delete the image -- I don't mean this literally but that's the result.
Jun 7, 2012 22:55:09 #
First, the problem is that it's not a very interesting image. The foreground is missing anything interesting and the leading line leads you away from your subject (which I'm assuming is the building). The small bit of shrubbery on the left is keeping me in the photo but it's not enough to keep my interest, or loop me around back to the building.
The edits are all just "fine" they don't help me focus on anything in particular just different interpretations of the same.
I think the problem is that your subject is dark, and the scene is light. Eye goes to the lightest part, follows the lines out to the end and that's it.
Sorry to be blunt.
The edits are all just "fine" they don't help me focus on anything in particular just different interpretations of the same.
I think the problem is that your subject is dark, and the scene is light. Eye goes to the lightest part, follows the lines out to the end and that's it.
Sorry to be blunt.