Posts for: Brucej67
Sep 26, 2012 07:47:23 #
I like the photographs the way they are and wouldn't add blur to them unless you want to be artistic. You could post process them in Photoshop and add blur if that is your goal.
ChinaPaul wrote:
After posting a few pictures of people performing a traditional dance in Northeast China called Yang Ge, an Ugly Hedgehog member suggesting that I add a blur effect to some of the photos.
I enthusiastically agree with this suggestion but would like to ask if anyone would like to recommend what settings I should use. ISO 100, 200, 400, F18, 1/100, etc.
Thank you for your assistance in helping me become a better photographer.
CP
I enthusiastically agree with this suggestion but would like to ask if anyone would like to recommend what settings I should use. ISO 100, 200, 400, F18, 1/100, etc.
Thank you for your assistance in helping me become a better photographer.
CP
Sep 24, 2012 18:44:02 #
Have you blown the photographs up to 100% or beyond? That is when you start to see problem in the lens or filters.
Dixiegirl wrote:
I leave mine on all the time and haven't noticed my photos being soft...unless I want them that way :-)
Sep 24, 2012 17:21:07 #
I agree that cheap UV filters or one made in the film era degrade the image, but my first experience with a bad UV filter was the Hoya which was not multi coated.
DavidT wrote:
quote=gemlenz I notice some of you folks don't us... (show quote)
Sep 24, 2012 06:26:31 #
My answer to this topic is if you are going to use a UV filter, buy a good one and don't cheap out. I recently bought a used (almost never used) Sigma 50-500mm lens from eBay. I tested the lens out in all focal lengths and when I enlarged the image to 100% they were out of focus. I was ready to send the lens out for service ($320) when it donned on me to take the UV filter off (HOYA 86mm UV(0)) and try it on the same subject I originally shot when I enlarged the pictures at 100% up to 290% they were tack sharp. I believe the filter on it had a tint and was so thick it didn't allow the autofocus to work properly. Personally I like Nikon Neutral Color filters better, but they only come up to 77mm in size.
Sep 22, 2012 07:24:35 #
The only problem I personally have with mine Eye-Fi is that it must be in a network to transfer images to my laptop or iPad (which I can do at home). I am currently looking for a way too transfer digital images from my camera to my laptop or iPad when I am not near a network (up in the mountains or by a stream). If you discover a way let me know.
drwindy wrote:
www.eyefi.com
Sep 21, 2012 10:14:59 #
Thanks, that was my opinion of it also.
ggiaphotos wrote:
Very pretty! I like the 3 dimensional look, almost jumps out of the frame!
Sep 21, 2012 07:58:57 #
Sep 21, 2012 07:34:27 #
I have had the RX-100 for over a month now and it is my take everwhere camera (love it). I agree with the last poster on the issue with the grip, but that is a minor issue compared with everything you get from this camera. I am including a picture taken with the RX-100.
pugfan wrote:
Has anyone had any experience with the Sony RX100?
My granddaughter at the fair
Sep 20, 2012 22:13:39 #
I also have a D7000, which is a wonderful camera; you will not be disappointed in its performance.
susie-q-tip wrote:
Wow! Do I know how to get a discussion going? I've... (show quote)
Sep 20, 2012 18:12:05 #
??
I am PJ wrote:
Wow get you.....instead of raising what if's, why not offer advice or answer the question asked......thought not ...... You can't
Sep 20, 2012 18:03:54 #
I don't trust either one; however Romney already stated the republican mantra which would reform the entitlement systems. Now, if they don't touch the citizens who are on social security and Medicare then what do I care about it, however if they cut either one of these programs to the 60,000,000 citizens who are on it we have a problem. And don't tell me it is us who caused the problem, during the Carter presidency it was the Politians then that raided the SS dollars by taking it out of the private fund and placing it into the public fund so they could misuse the excess money at the time. And by the way SS isn't paying me what I put in to it (two years my ass), it will take over 20 years of SS payments to just get the amount I paid never mind intrest.
sinatraman wrote:
and you trust barry who never worked a day in his ... (show quote)
Sep 20, 2012 17:05:34 #
Being retired and on the so-called entitlement program (that I paid into all my working life) I don't trust Romney any further than I can throw him.
FRENCHY wrote:
And here is the proof ,
rcirr wrote:
If they were bought by Bain...they would have a chance to survive and maybe even prosper!
And here is the proof ,
Sep 20, 2012 10:26:26 #
Wider range but lower photo quality for $600 less than the 24-70. The 28-300mm might be an all in one but if you start out with a lens of lesser quality just to cover the range will you end up happy?
kcornman wrote:
Sorry, I made a typo, should have been 28-300MM, and I fully agree it is not the top of the line glass that the 24-70 is, but he is asking about walk around lenses, that implies to me a wide range of zoom, smaller package, and not heavy to carry.
Brucej67 wrote:
Wider range, but lacks the quality, slow aperature and is only a DX lens (D600 is an FX camera).
Sorry, I made a typo, should have been 28-300MM, and I fully agree it is not the top of the line glass that the 24-70 is, but he is asking about walk around lenses, that implies to me a wide range of zoom, smaller package, and not heavy to carry.
Sep 20, 2012 08:22:24 #
Wider range, but lacks the quality, slow aperature and is only a DX lens (D600 is an FX camera).
kcornman wrote:
While this is by far one of my favorite lenses, as are the other you mention, I wouldn't call the 24-70 a good walk around. It is too Heavy and big. In my opinion, a great all around lens for this camera is the Nikon 18-300MM.
Brucej67 wrote:
The best all around lens would be the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 as a walk around lens,
While this is by far one of my favorite lenses, as are the other you mention, I wouldn't call the 24-70 a good walk around. It is too Heavy and big. In my opinion, a great all around lens for this camera is the Nikon 18-300MM.
Sep 20, 2012 06:18:47 #
The best all around lens would be the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 as a walk around lens, telephoto Nikon 70-200mm 2.8, wide angle Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 and for macro Nikon 105mm.
susie-q-tip wrote:
I'm considering purchasing the Nikon D600. What would be the most useful first lens to buy along with the body? I don't want to weigh myself down and have to be constantly changing lenses. I'm hoping to get some good advise from some of you seasoned photographers. I do close-ups of flowers and also want to be able to zoom in on wildlife to a certain degree. What do you say?