Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

[brichter]

Took around 1000 pics (~ 30 gigs of RAW), which will probably yield about 100 I'm happy with

Don't know why you're crying, back in the day (yes, I'm an old geezer!) that would have cost a small fortune, what with film and processing costs!

Nice pics, I'm jealous! I haven't managed to get to Scotland yet, but it's on the bucket list!

 

[highonF4i]

^^^ I like the first pic the best.

Big props to you. I don't have the patience to shoot scenic shots. I only know how to shoot people. I'm excited that my lighting skills seem to be improving.

thanks. People are certainly much more dynamic and in my opinion, much more difficult than landscape because of movement and changes in DOF. Plus with a landscape, there's nobody there to get pissed if you do a shitty job I get super nervous shooting people. I have all the lighting stuff i need to practice portraiture, but no subjects

Don't know why you're crying, back in the day (yes, I'm an old geezer!) that would have cost a small fortune, what with film and processing costs!

Nice pics, I'm jealous! I haven't managed to get to Scotland yet, but it's on the bucket list!

You're absolutely right, I totally take that for granted without thinking about it. Starting on film would have been a great education in choosing shots that work the first time, rather than trial and error, my current method.

 

[wannabe]

thanks. People are certainly much more dynamic and in my opinion, much more difficult than landscape because of movement and changes in DOF. Plus with a landscape, there's nobody there to get pissed if you do a shitty job I get super nervous shooting people. I have all the lighting stuff i need to practice portraiture, but no subjects

People are easy for me. Maybe it's just my personality. I have found a natural ability to put people at ease in front of my lenses.

And, when you say you have no subjects, that makes me think that you are either being lazy or super picky. There are plenty of people around who want their pictures taken. All you have to do is ask. And, as you get better, more people will want to volunteer.

Just remember that portraits are not just a matter of getting the lighting perfect. You need to interact with your subjects and put them at ease. Any sketchiness in their minds will show up in their faces in the pictures.

 

[Cycle61]

Do you have a graduated ND filter? First picture is nice, but the sky appears to be totally gone. It's tough shooting scenes like that, your eyes take in the whole thing but the camera struggles with the huge dynamic range between the sky and the valley below.

 

[highonF4i]

People are easy for me. Maybe it's just my personality. I have found a natural ability to put people at ease in front of my lenses.

And, when you say you have no subjects, that makes me think that you are either being lazy or super picky. There are plenty of people around who want their pictures taken. All you have to do is ask. And, as you get better, more people will want to volunteer.

Just remember that portraits are not just a matter of getting the lighting perfect. You need to interact with your subjects and put them at ease. Any sketchiness in their minds will show up in their faces in the pictures.

Definitely not lazy or picky, but intimidated perhaps. I worry that in my beginning stages I won't do people justice and that stresses me out immensely. I feel like if you volunteer to take pics, people will expect results. You're absolutely right though, I need to put myself out there. Your work is fantastic, btw. I can only hope someday get to a fraction of that level. I'd love to know how you got your start.

Do you have a graduated ND filter? First picture is nice, but the sky appears to be totally gone. It's tough shooting scenes like that, your eyes take in the whole thing but the camera struggles with the huge dynamic range between the sky and the valley below.

I do, I had the graduated filter on top of a ultra dark ND filter but i still couldn't save it - chalk that up to inexperience. I could have closed the shutter earlier perhaps, but I was liking the way the water was looking at around 8" (iirc) and didn't want to go less. The better time for that shot of course would be dawn or dusk when the sky was dimmer, but you just don't have that luxury when you're tearing around a country on vacation I was sometimes deliberately underexposing the ground to keep the sky under control knowing i could add "fill light" in post, but that adds noise and doesn't look that great. I need to expand my filter kit for sure. Right now I'm using circular screw-ons, but I'm a bit overwhelmed by the variety of options (prices/sizes/brands) for slide in filter sets.

 

[Joebar4000]

boy do I know how to kill a thread I guess.
Just got back from a trip to Scotland and Amsterdam. Took around 1000 pics (~ 30 gigs of RAW), which will probably yield about 100 I'm happy with . Now comes the arduous editing process. Not eager to do so while jet lagged.

Did you get an ND filter yet?

Here's a few shots I took on the trip where filters were handy/necessary.

critique is always welcome.

the first one i put a graduated filter on top of my darkest ND filter, and the sky is still blown to shit. I hate bright overcast days.

Out of curiosity, where were the 2 in Scotland taken? Looks a lot like the walk up to Sron Na Ciche on Skye, but then, most of the Western Highlands looks like that...

Nick is going to hate me for this, but... this is where HDR photography would actually work, and what it was originally intended to get around.

If you do it right, you don't get the hideous local over-contrasting that cheesy realtors love to slap all over non-HDR images.

You can also fake it by shooting in RAW, and then copying into two images (one for sky, one for the rest) and merging manually, but that's a bitch.

OR, copy as one bright, one dark, and dicking with the EXIF data via an EXIF data editor (or directly in the RAW file via a text editor) and then the HDR munging program will do it for you.

OR, next time, just do it with multiple exposures at the same time like wot yer supposed to do with HDR.

 

[Joebar4000]

OK, **DISCLAIMER**

I am by no means an HDR expert, but I did spend a few months in the 'HDR hole' (http://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/photographer-graph-1024x858-1-580x485.png) and learned a few things.

Here is probably one of the least 'HDR-looking' images I created, and the high and low exposures used to create it (there were a few more, but you get the point).

Correctly exposed subject, overblown sky:

Under-exposed subject, correctly (ish) exposed sky:

The munge:

 

[highonF4i]

Out of curiosity, where were the 2 in Scotland taken? Looks a lot like the walk up to Sron Na Ciche on Skye, but then, most of the Western Highlands looks like that...

Nick is going to hate me for this, but... this is where HDR photography would actually work, and what it was originally intended to get around.

If you do it right, you don't get the hideous local over-contrasting that cheesy realtors love to slap all over non-HDR images.

You can also fake it by shooting in RAW, and then copying into two images (one for sky, one for the rest) and merging manually, but that's a bitch.

OR, copy as one bright, one dark, and dicking with the EXIF data via an EXIF data editor (or directly in the RAW file via a text editor) and then the HDR munging program will do it for you.

OR, next time, just do it with multiple exposures at the same time like wot yer supposed to do with HDR.

All the photos in this small set minus the piper (which are just the very first photos I processed for no particular reason) were taken either on the Isle of Mull after crossing at Oban and driving up to Tobermore, or on the road to Inverness along the Lochs, including Loch Ness. Wish I can be more specific but my brother was in charge of the map. I was looking through a viewfinder the whole time

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvsr6/sets/72157631512672753/

re: HDR, I can do it using photomatix but often achieve undesirable results (user error). I should probably just merge images in photoshop but hate opening the program because I get depressed about how much editing potential I'm not using. I use lightroom. I'll explore some of the solutions you mentioned for sure.

That chart is absolutely hilarious. I'm stuck in the dammit I suck stage, somewhere between gear faggotry and technique but didn't fall to deeply into the HDR hole. My tripod led me into a huge hole, but rather than HDR it was that every long exposure shot of soft water is cool (not the case.)

 

[Cycle61]

Nope, I'm not gonna hate on HDR when it's done properly, and used as a tool for capturing scenes with wide dramatic ranges.

But it's very difficult to get right. I can't do it. Even the picture above has that gray/dull look in the hills right below the bright vibrant sky. It sticks out.

 

[Jdizzy92]

Nikon D600 came out.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/0...with-39-point-af-and-uncompressed-1080p-video
Here is some side by side comparison of the Nikon D700 vs D600 ISO pictures.
http://fotospekter.si/primerjava-med-nikonom-d700-in-d600-pri-razlicnih-iso-vrednostih/

Video review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seVSmQB1-tw&feature=player_embedded
Fuck, I don't know what I want now. I guess it's similar to the D7000 except with a bigger Frame. Now I don't know what I want......!
I waited for this to come out to see how it compares to the D700. Now I don't know if I want to upgrade my D300 to the D600 or the D700. If I get the D700 I can swap my battery grip, batteries, and CF cards to it. If I get the D600, I will have to get everything new...
The things I like about the D600 is that it has HD video, 100% viewfinder, 24megapixel(this is great because I do a lot of landscape shots),bigger image sizes, lighter, smaller, latest technology in it. It uses the latest image processor. Faster start up time....
The things I like about the D700 is I can swap some of my D300 stuff to it, has a faster shutterspeed, more focus points, larger sensor, same button layout as my D300(which I love), I can find them new for the same price as the D600...

What you guys think? Nikon D600 or D700?

 

[Charles R]

If you hang for a bit, I may be able to help you at least get one of each in your hands. I myself use a D700, and a buddy of mine just ordered the D600.

edit: looks like the buddy did an 'about face', and got a d800 instead. lol.

 

[Jdizzy92]

Yep, seems like the Nikon D600 is pretty awesome according to the DxOMark report. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...high-bar-for-sensor-image-quality/Comparisons

 

[Cycle61]

Looks like an amazing sensor, for sure. Just have to wonder how the handling is, that makes far more difference for my use than a few percentage points of ISO and bit depth. I'll probably rent one for an engagement shoot, and see how it feels and operates. The mid-range bodies tend to force you into the menus more often than I like, the pro bodies are basically press button and turn dial for almost any adjustment you'll ever have to make on the fly.

 

[i_am_the_koi]

MMMMMM Lens Shopping

 

[Jdizzy92]

Well, I got my D600 and I was wondering if I should bother keeping my 35mm f1.8 lens? Thinking about selling it and getting the 50mm f1.8.

 

[brichter]

LMK the details if you're looking to sell it...

 

[n10sive]

Well, I got my D600 and I was wondering if I should bother keeping my 35mm f1.8 lens? Thinking about selling it and getting the 50mm f1.8.

If I had a true focal length camera I would definitely keep the 35mm, especially for outdoor work as it more closely matches what your eye sees.

How about a focal length extender?

 

[Cycle61]

If I had a true focal length camera I would definitely keep the 35mm, especially for outdoor work as it more closely matches what your eye sees.

How about a focal length extender?

The 35/1.8 is a DX lens, won't work properly on a full frame camera. It can be done, as long as you keep the aperture pretty much wide open and don't mind significant light falloff at the corners of the frame. I was forced to do that once during a wedding when I dropped and broke my 24-70 mid-ceremony.

 

[n10sive]

ah...thanks Nick.

 

[BrassPremier]

Yea you're better off getting the 50mm 1.8