john.mathieson

I see a lot of photos with a very silky look, some almost looking like an

acrylic painting.

 

Anyone know how this is done? Here are a couple of photos / portfolios I really

admire, with examples of what I mean.

 

These have a sheen or silky look - not at all like a sharp more journalistic

photo, but are very smooth and almost surreal. What kind of photoshopping does

this?

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5386031

http://www.photo.net/photo/6127828

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=744944

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=745417

I would echo what Mark U said. School gyms are very marginal for lighting. I use a Nikon 85 mm 1.4 and still need a bit of fill flash in some gyms. I have also used a 1.8 and it was very good. If you are using a 50mm you will have to get close. You can slide in behind the baseline if you are quiet and unobtrusive - but you don't really want to be using much flash there. DO DEFINITELY use a custom white balance - and you will also need to put in a gel in your flash which you may have to play around with. (Get an Expodisc if you can).

Sitting down near the corners is also a good place - and you can get a good image with some aggressive cropping.

I set mine on Aperture priority as low as is needed to get around 1/250 or 1/500 - I test it out before shooting the back of the backboard. I always use ISO 1600 unless in a university gym with proper lights. You can play with your focal zone quite a bit - often if you are tracking a player, you can have an off centre focal zone that will work well.

Have fun.

Also, don't forget that the best sharpness does not come with the lens wide open - a Nikon 85 1.4 is much sharper at 2.0 than 1.4. Also, as mentioned, the focal plane depth can be much shallower with a faster lens.

That being said, you can do more with ISO than you used to be able to - I can get very noise free images even at 1600 - and the new Canon 1DMkIII can apparently go to 6400 with the same noise as some at 1600. So, it is changing.

 

I have used both the 1.4 and 1.8 Nikon 85mm - and there is a noticeable difference with the 1.4. The 1.8 is very nice, but you can do more with the 1.4.

 

I actually just sold all my older slower lenses and have gotten some newer faster lenses with no regret.

David - any further feedback on the 1.7 since you have been using it a few months? One question I have is how does it affect the mechanics of hand holding the lens - balance, feel etc?

 

I have used a number of lenses. Surprisingly, some of my best soccer images have been crops from my simple 18-200. Sometimes the images from this lens are amazing! But, I would be interested in the 70-200 with a TC as an option compared to the 80-400, rather than as a comparison to a longer prime. A longer prime is obviously perfect for certain situations - and the focus speed of the 80-400 a major deterrent. I know the focus speed of the 70-200 is good with a 1.4 - how is it with a 1.7?

Cheers

One of the main reasons I chose the D200 over the D80 was I didn't like how small the D80 was - too small for my hands. The D200 is great - size 8 hands (not THAT big).

Now I have a lot of other reasons why I like the D200 - SO much better than my old D100.

I think there is a great deal of variability in gym lighting. I have only found a few gyms where I could use a 70-300 2.8 without flash. I now use an 85 1.4, and sometimes use fill flash (using a D200). I have to say, though, I am not that happy with the effect I have been getting with flash. I have used custom white balance (expodisc) which works very well, but have trouble matching the flash colour - the standard gel filters don't really seem to match very well. I also seem to have too much flash, even with the SB80 stopped down 2 stops. I might try 3 - any advice here? (I am quite new at this).

 

The pictures I have been happiest with have been without flash using the 1.4 - exposed at around f2. The ones where lighting demands using it at 1.4 are still good.

I don't there is much substitution for properly placed strobes. THEN - the 70-200 2.8 is fabulous. I am at a tournament right now, and the official tournmanent photographer is really getting some nice shots with 2 big remote strobes.

 

One funny thing - he and I have been shooting at almost exactly the same time - and only once in 300 shots in a game did I get his strobe hitting my shot (horribly overexposed).

Thanks, Rand - those are both excellent suggestions.

Just learning about white balance. Have been shooting in gyms with mixtures of

lighting - some fluorescent, some high powered spots - not sure what type - but

until I started doing custom white balance with an Expodisc, I was getting some

strange colour mixes.

 

Now, using a D200 and an 85 mm 1.4 lens, I am quite pleased with the results -

usually ISO 1600, set aperture priority at around 2.0.

 

But, a flash does give a boost to the colours - - but I am not sure how to pick

the right flash gel filter. The light isn't simple tungsten or fluorescent. Is

it just trial and error, or is there a feature on the D200 that could help. Is

there any kind of colour metering in it? Or do you have to buy a colour meter?

 

Thanks in advance for your advice.

John

OK thanks

Thanks everyone - I haven't responded earlier as I have been on a trip to Guatemala - WOW - somebody called it the most photogenic country in Latin America - and I can't disagree.

 

As for the basketball, I have ordered an 85 mm 1.4 - and they gave me an 85 1.8 to use in the meantime - just barely fast enough for our local school gyms - the 70-200 2.8 was great for hitting someone at the top of their jump, or moving slowly, but the 1.8 makes a big difference on faster moving shots. Looking forward to the 1.8.

 

As for it usefulness at the far end of the court - grainy when cropped, for sure. Will try some of that software. Better answer is to rise on to my hind legs and walk a bit!!!

 

Many thanks for the advice and great shots. I clearly have a long way to go - but the feedback from the parents is great - even with so-so pictures, they are happy if their son or daughter is in it! A couple of my photos got published in their newsletter too. Whatever, I am having fun, and that is the whole point for me. Look forward to learning more from this board.

 

Cheers

John

I have been very happily using an 18-200 zoom with my D200 - but after a

month, the lens slips when pointing up or down - if I have it at say 50 mm and

point it down, it slips down to maybe 150mm- I have to hold the zoom ring to

keep it still. I would think this a manufacturing flaw - agree or disagree?

I find the grain at 1600 on the D200 to be noticeably less than on previous cameras I have used including the D100 - but still very obvious. Still, allows for some useful pictures of action in lowish light. I found the 800 also a lot less noisy than other cameras, and WAY less noisy than 1600 - more of a difference than you would expect.

 

Sheep shearing in the dark - I can just hear the snide remarks from the comedians. !

Anyone have experience with this shop - couldn't find any reviews or comments

on a search - makes me suspicious. VERY low prices on NextTag search. If it

seems to good to be true......

 

John

Carl - you must have better lit gyms - I have just this week borrowed a 70-200 2.8 Nikon thinking about buying it - I found that at 2.8, 1600 I could only get 1/125. Challenging for freezing any action. Thinking about an 85 mm 1.4 instead.

 

I do like you point about sitting at the junction of sideline / baseline a few feet back - that does give a good perspective, and is great for the 70-200.

 

What do you think about the 85 1.4 for basketball?

Borrowing and maybe buying a Nikon 70-200 2.8 - trying it with High School

Basketball - certainly much better than my 18-200 3.5 - was wondering how others

might set the lens - set aperture at 2.8, set the shutter speed at what seems to

be the maxium, or on program?

 

I think it seemed to be better with fixed 2.8 aperture - but only tried one night.

 

This allowed a shutter speed of only 125 - a bit slow for the best action. Maybe

a fixed 85 mm 1.4 would be better?

 

What do you think? Thank you very much.

Thank you everyone for the informative answers. Sounds like either the Nikon 12-24 or Sigma 10-20 would be more widely useful for my needs.

Sorry for a very basic lens question - help would be appreciated. I don't

understand the difference between a wide angle zoom and a fisheye zoom (if

there is one).

 

I have a D200 with an 18-200 Nikon lens - had been interested in a wider angle

such as the 12-24 - but wondered about this lens -

http://www.tokinalens.com/products/tokina/atx107afdx-a.html

 

The Tokina AT-X 107 DX is 10-17 mm, f3.5-4.5 - I see the 10mm fisheye demo

photos they show - but is this different from the way the 12-24 lens would

look between 12 and 17 mm? In other words, would this show fisheye distortion

at all focal lengths, or just at 10-12mm or so?

 

I believe Nikon has a 10 mm but not a comparable zoom. Just wondered if the 10-

17 would mesh better with my existing 18-200 than the 12-24.

 

Thanks.

Just a caution about the CF cards - I ruined my D100 by bending the pins on the CF receptacle - costs about as much to repair as the camera was worth. So, I bought a D200 - and plan to mainly use the USB cable. Can get quite a lot on one 2GB card.

Here is a screen save showing Photoshop Elements 2 - I have dragged the layers toolbar out of the "stable" of toolbars on the top right - it normally sits there, and pops down when being used, and then disappears - if you are used to the toolbars in full PS you might find this annoying, but you can then just drag the box onto the screen and it will stick there.

Regarding Photoshop Elements - I agree it a very good value, but you are not correct in saying it lacks layers - it does indeed do layers basically the same as full PS - it does lack masks (plus a few other things I have never even thought of using). PS Elements is a really useful programme, and great value. I have both Elements 2 and PS 6 and I really don't notice any difference, except a few cosmetic differences, and the way the toolbars stick to the main page.

Micro is just what Nikon calls their Macro lenses - even though they only go up to 1:1 (not real micrography).

 

(It turns out that that quirk is kind of handy on EBay - if you are searching for a Nikon macro lens, just put in something like "105 micro" and that is all you will find (not a lot of unwanted stuff). If you put Macro in as a search term you get a ton of stuff.)

The very question I was asking, myself a few weeks ago.

 

The first two lenses I bought were the 24-120 and 70-300 - both Nikkor ED zooms. I have been extremely pleased with these lenses, but I am not particularly discriminating (yet). I have noticed the need for really good lighting at 300 mm - I can see why pros shell out a few thousand $$ for the really big prime telephotos. But, for my purposes, I am enjoying them.

 

The 70-300 is more like a 105-450 on the D100, and the 24-120 is more like a 36-180. I have gotten some half decent soccer action shots with the 70-300, but lots more crappy ones (no film wasted, though!) I have had perhaps more success on landscapes with the 24-120 - some I have really enjoyed printing at 8.5 x 11.

 

I would like a really wide lens - the Sigma 15-30 seems to get good reviews, and the Nikon 17-35 seems worth the big $$ according to what I have read.

 

Then, I got a prime - a Nikkor 105 2.8 Micro - and I must say, I could certainly see what a fine lens that is with my first few shots. It is truly superb. I was quite stunned by some off the cuff point and shoot pictures of my kids - wow - what a great portrait lens. I now see what people were talking about, as I read through a lot of the posts on this fine board.

 

The camera is fabulous - the only real limitation is rapid sequence - for sports especially. But, since I make my living doing something else, I am really happy with the camera. I am sure you will enjoy yours, too.

A local shop has a Nikon 500 mm mirror MF lens - looks very

interesting - any comments on this lens? It is in excellent

condition - price $500 Canadian or about $320 USD.

Try Escrow.com - although I haven't tried it, it would seem like a good idea. I have bought some things from Europe without trouble. But, for an expensive piece of camera gear, I would like a bit of security.

I have been thinking the same thoughts for several years, with a nice supply of Minolta lenses in the cupboard. Did the same thing - wrote Minolta - same answer.

 

Just bought a Nikon D100 - but still keeping my Minolta. I have to say that within the first week, my photography has already improved (not to say that was much of a leap!!) because it is so easy to do a ton of bracketing in various directions and see your results immediately. I wish Minolta had come out with a nice DSLR, but I sure like my Nikon.

 

PS - One thing I found - the Minolta 7000i vintage 1988 focuses better in AF mode on bland subjects than my new Nikon - I have always thought it was an exceptionally useful AF mechanism - the Nikon hunts much more on things like bland walls, dog fur etc. But the Nikon has way more modes and options for AF. Still, the Minolta was pretty good for its time.

 

John