rene gm

<p>I tried the extension stuff, and it did not work, honestly.<br>

Your choices are:</p>

<ul>

<li>stick with larger objects like bigger flowers or such,</li>

<li>buy a macro lens like the Sigma 50mm F2.8 Macro,</li>

<li>or buy a good compact digital, which all can do macros.</li>

</ul>

<p>As Andrew Garrard explained, macros are not easy. You have very little depth of sharpness to work with and easily blur the image when the object moves.</p>

<p>These nice photos load very slowly. Did you optimize them for the web? I just tested one of them and it as over 1MB. You might add a bit more compression, and resize to just the needed size.</p>

<p>For this, I like the following approach in PS: duplicate the layer, and soften the layer underneath, until the white specks are gone. Then use "darker color" for the layer above. This will remove the specks, and somewhat soften your image. Give it a black mask, and paint the dark areas, where the specks can be seen into mask in white. A job of about three minutes.</p><div></div>

<p>If you are trying to go pro the D7000 is the better choice, with its choice of lenses, or its lighting system, and the optical viewfinder. You can use a full frame lens for later upgrade.</p>

<p>You could try the F1.4 50mm, but then you have awfully little DOF.<br /> But stages are often brighter than it seems at first sight. Depends on the lights. You will need to carefully select an exposure to avoid blown out highlights. Often this lets you expose at reasonable speeds and F-values. And don't be afraid of high ISOs.<br /> Good luck!</p>

<p>I answered on the other thread. Has nothing to do with tripod. Simply the focussing is wrong.</p>

<p>The 28-105 is - was - for full sized sensors. You are only using a center part of it. Thus no fringing, little distortion, and no corner softness.<br>

If you can live with the missing VR and the 28mm, it should be a very nice lens. I once used a 28-80 on a D60 and was very happy too at that time. For a walk around, I need 18mm definitely, as well as VR.</p>

<p>I have the 18-105 in heavy use, and really, it is close to impossible to break its mount, besides an accident happens. And a metal mount on the camera will then take the camera with it. Just buy the same lens again, UNLESS you want the 16mm urgently for your carry around lens. After all, the 16-85 is twice the price!</p>

<p>There is another one, you might consider: Sigma 50mm F2.8. The price is on the cheap side. But the optics are quite good. There is also the Nikkor 85mm macro, which should beat all of them.</p>

<p>I think the question should be why that image came out under-exposed. Robert has the correct explanation: with more light the white feathers would blow out. There is simply too much contrast in the scene and the image looks under-exposed. But the image is correctly exposed.<br>

Since you definitely do not want to blow out in the feathers, you have only the following choice: Lighten up the shadows! It can be done in the ACR RAW converter of a new PS Elements, or in Photoshop Elements itself. It can also be done in the D90, by the way. You will gain some noise in the shadows.<br>

Maybe stand up earlier, when fog makes the light more pleasant.</p>

<p>Dear Mark, I like your picture style, but some (e.g. <a href="http://auntellensfarm.com/marks-stuff/candids/DSC-0332-052.JPG/image_view_fullscreen">http://auntellensfarm.com/marks-stuff/candids/DSC-0332-052.JPG/image_view_fullscreen</a>) of those are really blurred. Unless your subjects did move fast, I suppose it is camera shake. So you might be better of with a VR lens, even if you loose F2.8. You can shoot F3.5 VR with a Nikon kit lens.</p>

<p>Of course, with good light at F8, it just does not matter, which lens you take.</p>

<p>When I travel with my family, I carry the D90 with 18-105mm VR and nothing more. I think it is the best lightweight equipment you might find anywhere. P&S just do not offer the same flexibility and image quality. I do not carry a camera case. The setup helps me to concentrate on seeing, and to keep on track with the rest of the family.<br>

The problem with this lens is that you often have to fix distortion in post processing. Since I work on images anyway from RAW, that's not a problem for me. And for travelling, carrying around a set of primes is not my cup of coffee.</p>

<p>Maybe you should consider buying a flash, that can be bounced against the ceiling. With a white ceiling, this will give you tremendous results, and give you all the freedom to shoot from anywhere in any direction. The direct oncamera flash is a much worse solution, but you can use it if you reduce its power.<br>

If you shoot with no flash, you can use spot metering to the faces and take the overexposed window as a style element in the images. Manual exposure, or a button to store the current exposure permantently will do the job too.<br>

Yours, RG</p>

<p>There are duplicate images. I'd also remove replications of the same pair.</p>

<p>With a fast connection, the site loads fast enough. <br>

Almost all photos are extremely blurry. This could be a software issue, sending preview images only, or a restriction of the WiX version you are using. I can impossibly be your style?! Anyway, you will not get into business with this.<br>

I hate the WiX advertisement. You should advertise only for yourself, not for the web tool you are using. Maybe that is just because you are using a test version of WiX?<br>

The scrolling worked, but I had to figure it out first by accident.</p>

<p>My feeling is that P has become obsolete, and I never use it. In the old times, it was the only way to get reasonable results when there was no time to fiddle around. But now the camera can also play with ISO, using Auto ISO. So I can set A or S as I need for the purpose (A for DOF, S for sports or tele shots), and let the camera do the rest, even if it means adjusting ISO. <br>

Of course, if you are one of those pixel peepers who set the camera fixed at lowest ISO, and want an automatic mode, P may be your choice for a fast automatic mode. I still feel, that setting A or S and applying a little bit of knowledge to the kind of situation you are expecting may be the better way to go.</p>

<p>I liked it better than the pictures alone would have been. It may not be pure photography, but so what?</p>

<p>You need to focus on the subject. See where your focus frame is (e.g. in the middle of the viewer), and point the camera so that it is on the subject. Press halfway to focus, then keep the press and compose the shot. THEN press down completely.<br>

This is a picture of a room with two people in it. Use your Tamron at the 55mm end to narrow the view.</p>

<p>I also think it is a focus problem. Try learning to focus on the eye with half press down, then compose the frame. And use a little higher F-stop, like F7.</p>

<p>I had one (35mm F1.8 DX), but sold it, since I found myself not using it. For portraits, it is too wide, and for indoor rooms it is not wide enough. I feel, a starter should invest into something else, like a flash, a tripod, or Photoshop. Lensewise, there are macros like the Sigma 50mm, or a tele like the 55-200 supplementing your 18-55.</p>

<p>I am using the D90 in RAW (matrix metering most of the time) together with Photoshop in post processing. I have also observed the inconsistence of the results, when first viewed in ACR. Currently, I just fix the exposure in ACR and that's it. Only with very much contrast I find blown highlights. But it would not occur to me to blame the camera for this.<br>

I also tend to fix the brightness in Photoshop towards the lower side, because colors look better then. I do this by adjusting the middle slider in the tone curve dialog. Turning down the brightness in ACR gives not so good results, strangely.</p>

<p>The D90 does reduce CA for jpegs. The disadvantage of course is that you have to shoot in JPG or use NX2. I prefer RAW and removing CA in postprocessing in those rare cases, it makes a difference.<br>

And yes, the kit lens (18-105) does produce visible CA sometimes, and the images look better, when it is removed (even looking without pixel peeping).<br /><br /></p>

<p>You should do some experiments on your own to isolate the problem.</p>

<p>Try a tripod (or a table) together with self timer, and a still, flat subject, in an automatic mode of the camera. If you cannot get sharp images, something is broken.</p>

<p>Then I'd try handheld shots in good light at 1/125, F8. If you fail there, you have problems with your AF system, or an extremely unsteady camera handling.</p>

<p>Just keep going, until you know, what goes wrong. This will help you more than any answer we could give.</p>

<p>The above image should be OK with your settings, but with a very shallow DOF. Note that it is somewhat inaccurate to use center AF and then turn the camera, since the distance to the subject will change. You should shift the focus field to the flower. But I bet that this is not the reason for such a blur.</p>

<p>As I repeated ever so often, the 50mm 1.8 is a special purpose lens, which even at 2.8 has a shallow DOF. You simply cannot get everything sharp in your image. If you want everything in focus, you need good light and F16, or a wide angle. But this would make the faces look strange due to distortion.</p>

<p>You can edit comments with MS Windows file properties. This won't change the image at all.<br>

I once tried to save and load, and save and load, and save and load, ... an image until I saw a problem. It takes a long time, if you start with a high JPG quality (like 10 in Photoshop).</p>