Jump to content

Official General Photography Thread


chris(pa)

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 584
  • Created
  • Last Reply
No offense, but Sup's version looks much better. Did you use a gel on your flash (I never have, but heard they're helpful). What type of lighting was the ambient?, florescent or incandescent?

 

No gel. I had the head pointed straight up for bounce, and in ETTL mode most of the time. Some shots I shot in manual flash mode using either 1/1, 1/2, or 1/4 power. The lighting in the room was incandescent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None taken...but could you tell me why?

 

I just tried to put more emphasis on the subject(s)...by taking away from the background.

 

Here's another...

IMG_019X.jpg

 

Skin tones in yours are too washed out and your white balance is farther off than his. Plus his ambient is warmer than yours, which is much colder. His overall picture has a warm cosey feel to it, while your edit feels cold and more "snap-shot-ish". The saturation in the background is okay in his as it adds color to the picture.....the background should be pleasing to look at too. My opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God I love this thread. So many nice photos.

I went back and deleted a lot of my dumb question posts to clean it up.

 

Hung, I was wondering how you did those "scratch" Ps space pics...do you use any photos at all or what?

They're awesome btw.

 

Oh and I'm sure Nancy will appreciate this...

Looks great. I wanna go take some photos now.
do it up
I'm going to in a bit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

God I love this thread. So many nice photos.

I went back and deleted a lot of my dumb question posts to clean it up.

 

Hung, I was wondering how you did those "scratch" Ps space pics...do you use any photos at all or what?

They're awesome btw.

 

Oh and I'm sure Nancy will appreciate this...

 

Nope. Started with a white background and built from scratch. Those took a lot of time, too many steps to explain it on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D60 was announced today

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

 

Boo for the stupid D60. THis anouncement really makes me hate Nikon. THe D60 should be named D40xs because it is only slightly better than the D40x. Stupid thing still doesn't have the AF drive motor in it, so it solves nothing in the area of using non AF-S lenses. I'm so pissed (as so many others are too) at Nikon for such a stupid move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I have sat here and skimmed through each and every page/post and really did not understand too much of what you guys are talking about.

 

Granted, I am very very new to this photography world so the terms and numbers and millimeters you all use mean nothing to me. I really want to learn or at least have a basic foundation of the number millimeter lens mean and other tidbit terms. I am about ready to jump the gun and buy a SLR but do not know which one. I have did a LITTLE homework on SLRs and have narrowed it down to Nikon and canon. More so for Nikon b/c various comments online say nikon is a great camera for starters? I do not want to spend so much money on a camera for "starters" and then buy a whole new one for "pros"? Get what I'm saying?? According to comments online, they say Nikon D40 is a great one for beginners b/c the features are simple (not too complicated) and its small and compact? (i thought all nikons were ABOUT the same size?). However, the D40's megapixel is too low for me. I have seen you alls photo in this thread. Photos from Chris(PA), Nancy, HungGSR, sup, and maybe a few others. They all look GREAT!! Some of them are more clear than others. The flower pictures seem to really be clear, as well as some of you alls waterfall pics. I also like Nancy's shopping cart picture! Anyway, I am swaying towards Nikon cameras and im sure Chris(pa) would want me to get a Canon lol My dad has this rebel that he bough over 10 yrs ago (when Andre Aggasi was advertising it) and its kind of easy to use.. It also looks more modern looking. Nikon's camera kind of looks normal..? Actually the looks of the camera doesn't matter, its how it performs lol So I am wanting a 10MP SLR b/c seeing you alls clear photos make my winkie wiggle.

 

Anywho, my dad is into photography and we don't ever get along. Im hoping this new hobby will bring us closer somehow. feedbacks on what to get? brand? model? school me!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the d40x is 10.2 megapixels, i believe. the d40 is great to learn with but the only thing i dislike about it is if you want to auto-focus you need a af-s lens, theres no built in motor in the d40 bodies and like nate mentioned theres no af in the d60 as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I have sat here and skimmed through each and every page/post and really did not understand too much of what you guys are talking about.

 

Granted, I am very very new to this photography world so the terms and numbers and millimeters you all use mean nothing to me. I really want to learn or at least have a basic foundation of the number millimeter lens mean and other tidbit terms. I am about ready to jump the gun and buy a SLR but do not know which one. I have did a LITTLE homework on SLRs and have narrowed it down to Nikon and canon. More so for Nikon b/c various comments online say nikon is a great camera for starters? I do not want to spend so much money on a camera for "starters" and then buy a whole new one for "pros"? Get what I'm saying?? According to comments online, they say Nikon D40 is a great one for beginners b/c the features are simple (not too complicated) and its small and compact? (i thought all nikons were ABOUT the same size?). However, the D40's megapixel is too low for me. I have seen you alls photo in this thread. Photos from Chris(PA), Nancy, HungGSR, sup, and maybe a few others. They all look GREAT!! Some of them are more clear than others. The flower pictures seem to really be clear, as well as some of you alls waterfall pics. I also like Nancy's shopping cart picture! Anyway, I am swaying towards Nikon cameras and im sure Chris(pa) would want me to get a Canon lol My dad has this rebel that he bough over 10 yrs ago (when Andre Aggasi was advertising it) and its kind of easy to use.. It also looks more modern looking. Nikon's camera kind of looks normal..? Actually the looks of the camera doesn't matter, its how it performs lol So I am wanting a 10MP SLR b/c seeing you alls clear photos make my winkie wiggle.

 

Anywho, my dad is into photography and we don't ever get along. Im hoping this new hobby will bring us closer somehow. feedbacks on what to get? brand? model? school me!!

 

The D40's megapixels is only too low because you don't know much about photography and DSLR's. The only thing megapixels means is how large you can blow up an image with good results. A D40 is good up to a 20x30 picture and you won't notice a difference between the D40 and D40x unless you print larger than that. Are you ever going to print larger than a 20x30 (which is quite huge)? At less than 20x30 they will both have the same quality and no noticable difference.

 

Second, stay away from the D40, D40x and D60. They all lack a built in AF motor which means that some of the less expensive (yet great quality) lenses won't autofocus on those cameras. AF-S lenses are much more expensive and you'll only have to buy one or two AF-S lenses before you'll have more money tied up than with a nicer camera and regular AF lenses.

 

D80 would be a good choice. It's got the larger megapixels for you (which again, doesn't actually mean jack crap for 90% of the consumers). D80 also has many more focus points, 2 dials (seperate for Aperature and Shutter control's), a built in AF motor, top LCD screen, etc..... Way better camera and not something you'll outgrow in 6 months (or 2 months in my case).

 

Another word of advice. The lenses matter more than the camera body regarding picture quality. A 70-200 (pro glass) mounted on a D40 will have better pictures than a 55-200 (entry level glass) mounted to a D80. However, this is the reason to stay away from the D40(x)/D60. So many great glass that doesn't focus on them. I noticed a HUGE difference in the quality of my pictures when bolting a 50mm f1.8 lens onto my camera. This lens wouldn't focus on the above camera's though which is why I had to upgrade after 2 months.

 

Regarding the millimeters. All that refers to is the zoom. The lower the number, the wider the picture (zoomed out all the way). The higher the number, the more zoomed in the lens will be. So, for wildlife, you want a lens with a higher mm like 300. So a 70-300mm will cover the range of view from a 70mm all the way to a 300mm. A prime lens is a fixed focal length like my 50mm f1.8. It doesn't zoom and is at 50mm always. Primes are generally lower f-stop (another lesson), which has many advantages. Also primes are less complicated to build and usually less expensive. Less moving parts also so less to break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let stated, dont get caught up in MP

 

THEY DONT MEAN crapT

 

Get a Canon XTi with 18-55 and you'll be set

 

Agreed, it's what I have.

 

I couldn't be happier with the XTi as my starter camera. It's very reasonably priced, the kit with the 18-55mm kit lens costs about $590 now (I paid almost $700 last june for mine). Plus it supports the full line of Canon lenses (80+).

 

Here's the forum I'm on. Post a thread, and you'll have a page of replies within a few minutes. Really helpful.

 

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.