Re: Group Shoot - Small World
Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:38 pm
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Is that natural lighting?
Yeah, I don't have a flash so I make do with what is available. Plus, I like the look of natural lighting.
Personal computing discussed
https://techreport.com:443/forums/
https://techreport.com:443/forums/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=62026
Usacomp2k3 wrote:Is that natural lighting?
CMRPhoto wrote:Usacomp2k3 wrote:Is that natural lighting?
Yeah, I don't have a flash so I make do with what is available. Plus, I like the look of natural lighting.
CMRPhoto wrote:Neat bee.Here's a shot I took a little while ago.
Oh, and, uh, hello everyone--there are some really nice shots here.
Alex wrote:Combo of a couple recent walks. All of the EXIF data is available @ Flickr (just click the shot you're interested in). Feel free to fire back with constructive criticism!
Alex wrote:Nikon ergonomics and lens quality/availability are quite nice.Thanks for the comments guys! I started shooting Nikon about 8-10 months ago and have really enjoyed the cameras and lenses.
Alex wrote:Out of curiousity, do you find yours to be sharp wide open or near open? Mine takes a fair bit of stopping down to really hit its stride.One of my favorites is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8D prime. Very sharp, fast, and dirt cheap (around $100 for a super lens).
Alex wrote:I was curious if you'd snagged the snazzy new AFS one. I do like the more extended working distance of my 100mm macro and the different perspective from close-up shooting with moderate wide angle glass or wider. Normal macros kind of fall in no-man's land for me (but one would have been handy last weekend, actually). I'd love to stumble upon a good deal on a 200 f/4 macro for even more working distance and the ever-welcome tripod collar. Probably the old MF nikkor.The 60mm lens I'm using is the Nikon f/2.8D Micro. I've had a lot of fun shooting with it. It's fairly easy to produce nice macros with it. You do have to get up close and personal with it though, which makes skittish winged bugs harder to shoot, but certainly not impossible.
Alex wrote:It's certainly a treat that pays off when you need it. Certainly not always useful, but when you've got the time to slow down and optimize a good tripod/head combo is worth its weight in gold (unfortunately that's not all that far removed from the cost).Matt, I agree, I should bring along a tripod for those types of shots. I have a cheap one that's falling apart. My birthday is Saturday, so I might have to treat myself to a decent tripod.
Alex wrote:Colors are starting to wrap up here. I figure I can get one more trip to the arboretum with my wife this weekend. Missed a lot of color due to being busy, unfortunately.BTW, you guys are posting some nice shots, keep them coming! Fall is just starting to show here in the south, so I expect the next few weeks to be great for hiking and photography. This is my favorite season of the year to get outdoors.
Hoser wrote:Your kit lens has a maximum reproduction ratio of 1:4, so it's never going to be a spectacular macro lens. Try dialling in some positive exposure compensation. It seems your camera is underexposing by 1/2 to 2/3 EV in this situation.Don't know if you'd consider these macro, as they were taken with the lens that came with my Alpha D300. I'm behind the learning curve with macro. These were just taken on the auto setting. I've got some reading to do for macro shots.
Hoser wrote:They're certainly close enough for this thread. Anything that gets close enough to look at details you might not notice otherwise fits quite nicely. I like the leaf in the flowers.Don't know if you'd consider these macro, as they were taken with the lens that came with my Alpha D300. I'm behind the learning curve with macro. These were just taken on the auto setting. I've got some reading to do for macro shots.
crazybus wrote:I'll "underexpose" to protect highlights and bring back shadows on purpose plenty too. Heck, the new Nikons can do that automatically with auto-dlighting. Color histograms are a huge help in controlling channel clipping, and RAW is just nice to work with as well unless you need to deliver your shots straight out of camera or lack the computing power to process RAWs effectively. The whole time/effort thing has really been cut back by workflow programs like lightroom, aperture, etc.In practice, I'll sometimes underexpose slightly on purpose, in addition to the negative exposure compensation I often need in matrix metering mode, if I know I'll likely be doing significant PP on a photo. My camera clips highlights quite severely, but conversely allows a fair amount of detail to be extracted from shadows. Underexposing gives me some latitude to play with the levels without risking immediate clipping on any individual colour channel. Of course, cameras vary as to their dynamic range and tone curves, so you need become familiar with your specific specific camera to get the most out of it. Shooting RAW will give you more headroom as well.
mattsteg wrote:crazybus wrote:I'll "underexpose" to protect highlights and bring back shadows on purpose plenty too. Heck, the new Nikons can do that automatically with auto-dlighting. Color histograms are a huge help in controlling channel clipping, and RAW is just nice to work with as well unless you need to deliver your shots straight out of camera or lack the computing power to process RAWs effectively. The whole time/effort thing has really been cut back by workflow programs like lightroom, aperture, etc.In practice, I'll sometimes underexpose slightly on purpose, in addition to the negative exposure compensation I often need in matrix metering mode, if I know I'll likely be doing significant PP on a photo. My camera clips highlights quite severely, but conversely allows a fair amount of detail to be extracted from shadows. Underexposing gives me some latitude to play with the levels without risking immediate clipping on any individual colour channel. Of course, cameras vary as to their dynamic range and tone curves, so you need become familiar with your specific specific camera to get the most out of it. Shooting RAW will give you more headroom as well.
SpotTheCat wrote:I meant to be slightly more clear on that point and forgot to That's more or less what I meant by "bring back the shadows". If I was shooting jpeg I'd leave it on to some degree or other. I'd consider leaving it on for RAW, but it wouldn't really affect me more than biasing the meter to be a bit more conservative in that role, as I don't use nikon software to process my NEFs.mattsteg wrote:crazybus wrote:I'll "underexpose" to protect highlights and bring back shadows on purpose plenty too. Heck, the new Nikons can do that automatically with auto-dlighting. Color histograms are a huge help in controlling channel clipping, and RAW is just nice to work with as well unless you need to deliver your shots straight out of camera or lack the computing power to process RAWs effectively. The whole time/effort thing has really been cut back by workflow programs like lightroom, aperture, etc.In practice, I'll sometimes underexpose slightly on purpose, in addition to the negative exposure compensation I often need in matrix metering mode, if I know I'll likely be doing significant PP on a photo. My camera clips highlights quite severely, but conversely allows a fair amount of detail to be extracted from shadows. Underexposing gives me some latitude to play with the levels without risking immediate clipping on any individual colour channel. Of course, cameras vary as to their dynamic range and tone curves, so you need become familiar with your specific specific camera to get the most out of it. Shooting RAW will give you more headroom as well.
I really like the ADL feature. It does more than underexpose, it actually changes the response curve, opening up more dynamic range to be displayed. If I had a camera with it, I would leave it "on" at all times.
SpotTheCat wrote:Honestly, that old misperception about shooting RAW doesn't really apply much at all these days. Setting up reasonable defaults and making batch adjustments goes a long way (or if you prefer, use your manufacturer's software that lets you start at the in-camera rendition) towards getting rid of tedious putzing. It's not really about fixing things that could be corrected by shooting better, nor is it about putzing around with every shot. It's more about making the good better or the impossible possible, as trite as that may sound. It doesn't make getting what you do in-camera right less desirable. It's not just to prevent "oh crap, I screwed up my WB" or "crap I set my EV wrong" situations. If you're in that position, "you're doing it wrong". I'm not sure what RAW has to do with taking back pictures that you don't intend to keep either.As far as RAW: when I shoot I generally don't come back with pictures I don't want to keep. I'm not about to putz around with every shot in RAW just to fix something that can be corrected by shooting better. (except for now, which I've tried correcting some huge dynamic range pictures, with mixed results. I want a camera with ADR. D90 or D700 please )
SpotTheCat wrote:Is that wide open?
Alex wrote:Nice shot Hoser. How's that Sony treating you?
crazybus wrote:I like the shadows under the leaf. Is that pure natural lighting?
Hoser wrote:The extra 4MP would make things look better.
Hoser wrote:The extra 4MP would make things look better.