Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: bobburk3
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 35 next>>
May 26, 2023 11:20:02   #
As we were driving out of Arches National Park at sunset, I looked over to the side and saw this beautiful scene with the snow covered mountains in the distance. Sunrise and sunset are the most magical times in the park as the warm sun creates this beautiful glow from the limestone rock formations.


(Download)
Go to
May 26, 2023 10:15:05   #
Photos from our recent trip to Arches National Park. In order to avoid overcrowding at this popular park, the Park Service has instituted a reservation process. It seems to work well since the park was busy, but not so crowded that I could not get lots of pictures without a bunch of people in them. Reservations are made online for the hours of 7AM-4PM.


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)
Go to
May 26, 2023 10:01:11   #
StanMac wrote:
Quite a selection there. I’m still climbing the learning curve on Photoshop Elements 2018, though. My old brain can handle only so much at one time anymore. But I may invest in Topaz Denoise.

Stan


Think about getting Topaz Photo AI instead of denoise. Denoise is great, but Photo AI does denoise and so much more.
Go to
May 26, 2023 09:56:54   #
Beautiful shot. Just got back from spending three days at Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. Arches is one of my favorite parks.
Go to
May 26, 2023 08:51:44   #
Looks like one of the parks in Utah. Just got back from visiting Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park. Sunrise and sunset in those parks is magical.
Go to
Apr 16, 2023 14:17:09   #
I love the fox picture but I wish it was not slanted (even though that's the way it might have been). Personally, I would have straightened it (but that's just me). The color and clarity are amazing.
Go to
Apr 16, 2023 14:12:49   #
These barn shots are gorgeous. Reminds me of some similar shots I took of a barn like this one in Steamboat Springs, CO. with the ski slopes in the background.
Go to
Jan 13, 2023 12:21:56   #
AzPicLady wrote:
It looks fine to me. That is indeed odd, since you're using the same monitor. Does this happen on all pics, or only the ones in that folder?


Just noticed it this morning. I will have to check other other folders to see if it is the same.
Go to
Jan 13, 2023 09:46:20   #
When looking at a picture I was getting ready to send off to a contest, I realized that the finished jpg image looks more golden/tan in the jpg image that I saved to a folder on my laptop than the image I was looking at when doing the color correcting in Photoshop. When I went back and looked at some other photos, I noticed that it has been happening to other images as well. More noticeable on some than on others....Wow, When I look at the picture I just attached here, It doesn't have the red/orange tint that I see when I view the image in my files. I am totally confused now. Can't wait to see how this looks when I upload it to Uglyhedgehog.


(Download)
Go to
Jan 7, 2023 18:25:31   #
amfoto1 wrote:
You probably actually have a AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR lens (no one makes an f/1.4 70-200mm).

That's a very sharp lens.

Review by Ken Rockwell: https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm
Review by Digital Camera World: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/nikon-af-s-70-200mm-f4g-ed-vr-review
Review by PC Magazine: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/nikon-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f4g-ed-vr This review notes slight loss of sharpness at the edges at f/4 when used on a full frame (FX) camera, which sharpens up very well at f/5.6. However, you are using the lens on a DX camera which naturally crops off those slightly soft edges and corners, using only the sharpest, central part of the lens.
Review by DXO Mark: https://www.dxomark.com/nikon-af-s-nikkor-70-200mm-f-4g-ed-vr-review-an-enlightened-70-200mm-lens-choice/

There are many more, all of which agree it's a wonderfully sharp lens. If you're getting poor results, probably you're doing something wrong.

It would be best if you were to upload one or more example images, demonstrating the lack of sharpness you're seeing... fairly large JPEGs with their EXIF data intact and using the "store original/Add Attachment" feature here on UHH. We could then look at the image(s) and info to give you much more helpful analysis.

Without seeing image samples, we can only guess. It may be that you're using too slow shutter speeds. Or maybe you have a poor quality "protection" filter on the lens or a dirty sensor in your camera, both of which can cause loss of sharpness. Or perhaps you need to calibrate the focus of this lens on your particular camera. Or maybe you're using the wrong AF mode or setup. There are additional possibilities, including that you have a "bad copy" of the lens (although this is probably the least likely cause).

We might be able to narrow it down, if we could see some examples.

I shoot a lot of sports... a couple million images over the last 15 or 16 years... and have two 70-200mm lenses: an f/2.8 and an f/4. Because this is one of my most used lenses (on crop sensor cameras like you), I bought the f/4 lens as a backup. But I have actually ended up using it more. I was stopping the f/2.8 lens down to f/4 or f/5.6 a lot anyway, to be sure I had sufficient depth of field when subjects were close. So the f/4 wasn't an issue and it's a smaller, lighter lens that's just as sharp or sharper than my f/2.8.

I use Canon gear, but in the end it's no different than Nikon. While it's a great range for a lot of sports shots, sometimes 70-200mm just wasn't "long enough" (even on crop sensor cameras like yours). For a long time I supplemented the zoom with a 2nd camera fitted with a 300mm f/4 lens. Nikon offers a couple of those, too, which might be a solution for you. There's a fairly compact and much lighter weight AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR that's more expensive, as well as an AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D IF-ED that costs about $500 less but is larger, heavier and doesn't have image stabilization. Here's a more detailed comparison (along with the 70-200mm f/4 and 70-200mm f/2.8 for comparison): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_4D_IF-ED_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_300mm_f_4E_PF_ED_VR_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_70-200mm_f_4G_ED_VR_Lens_vs_Nikon_AF-S_NIKKOR_70-200mm_f_2.8E_FL_ED_VR_Lens/BHitems/207356-USA_1111442-REG_897230-REG_1292140-REG

An alternative that I'm using now is a single lens... in my case a 100-400mm zoom. It's certainly more versatile than a fixed 300mm focal length. For Nikon you have what may be an even better option: the excellent AF-S Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR. Depending upon what sports you may or may not need the focal lengths beyond 300mm. I rarely do. But for sports on large fields like baseball, soccer and football, 400mm can come in handy. Both this Nikkor and my lens are f/4.5-5.6 aperture, so up to a stop "slower" than the f/4 lenses above. So the Nikkor 80-400mm might not be great for night games unless the venue is very well lit. I keep my f/4 and even some f/2.8 lenses handy for more challenging lighting situations, indoors and night games. Nikkor 80-400mm: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/936121-REG/nikon_80_400mm_f_4_5_5_6g_ed_vr.html

I mention using two cameras with the 70-200mm and 300mm, and still do that with 100-400mm. But you might be able to get by with just a single camera thanks to the wider range of focal lengths the Nikkor 80-400mm offers. (I also usually carry a 24-70mm and need to swap to it at times.) By the way, I make a point of using two identical cameras and set them up exactly the same other than the lenses, for very quick and seamless swaps between them during fast action shooting. If you wanted to do this too, you'd need to track down a good used D7200, since Nikon discontinued that model some time ago. I see there are a lot of D7200 at fairly reasonable prices on the used market: https://www.mpb.com/en-us/product/nikon-d7200?showAll=true

I hope this helps and you upload some sample images so we can look at them and give you better feedback.
You probably actually have a AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm ... (show quote)


This is a fantastic and helpful reply and I really appreciate your taking the time to give me all that information. I will have to take some time to digest it all. By the way, you are right. I mislabeled the speed of the lens. It is f4, not 1.4. My mistake copying it down. I wish it was 1.4.
Go to
Jan 7, 2023 10:03:57   #
Bridges wrote:
I think you are looking at the line that reads 1:4 which is not an f1.4 lens. On your crop frame camera, you are already shooting at 350mm when compared to a 35mm film camera. If indeed you have a 70-200 f2.8 or f4.0, both are regarded as very sharp lenses in the Nikon line of lenses. There is always the chance you have a bad copy which can happen with any lens with any manufacturer. As far as a sweet spot is concerned, the sharpest a lens performs is two stops from wide open. That was the standard before digital. Digital has expanded the sharpness zone and as long as you are not at the extremes of the range you should be getting reasonably good in-focus shots. On a 2.8 lens, you should be getting sharp shots between f4 and f11. Check your technique and camera settings before you claim the lens is not sharp. What ISO setting are you using? If you are set between 200 and 400 go up to 1200 ISO and try shooting at 5.6. Are you using a monopod or a tripod? Shooting at the extreme of 350mm (which is what you are shooting at the 200 setting), a slight movement at the camera position will create a lot of movement 50 to 100 ft. away.
I think you are looking at the line that reads 1:4... (show quote)


This is very helpful. Thank you.
Go to
Jan 7, 2023 09:26:48   #
I have a D7200 which I like, and a Nikon a AF-S Nikkor 70-200 1.4G that I use a lot for sports photography. It is a decent lens but not quite as sharp as I would like. Any recommendations for a little sharper lens would be appreciated. Not sure how much I would have to pay for a better lens but I am open to used glass in very good condition. I am open to going up to zoom that goes to 300 also. I have had good luck buying used lenses. When I see other photographer's shots from the same event I shoot at, and they are sharper, it makes me realize I can do better. Also, is there an optimum f/stop that this lens is best at? I can I determine the optimum opening for a lens for sharpness?
Go to
Dec 30, 2022 14:20:51   #
OnDSnap wrote:
Are you looking for something in particular?


I have a Nikon D7200 that I love, but the Mode knob has frozen up for some unknown reason and I have had an estimate of $235 plus tax and shipping to repair it. It has about 96,000 clicks on the shutter and I was wondering if this is the time to replace it. I hardly ever change the mode selection but it would be nice to have it working when I need it.
Go to
Dec 29, 2022 08:31:31   #
suggestions on where to buy used Nikon DSLR
Go to
Dec 27, 2022 15:38:37   #
rmorrison1116 wrote:
WD-40 was not designed specifically as a lubricant and is not nearly as good a lubricant as those that were designed specifically as a lubricant. If your camera is in need of something like WD-40, you are possibly not taking care of it as well as you should.


You have no idea how well I take care of my camera.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 35 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.