Jump to content

bill_keane2

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    847

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by bill_keane2

    Massive WB issues .....!! <<insert frustration here>>

    in Nikon

    Posted

    "Because I find when I shoot in RAW, the pictures are completely drained of color as they are in JPEG.

     

    I do understand that when shooting in RAW more post processing is required and the photo needs to be somewhat "restored" to have proper coloring & pop but I am just not trained or aware of how to do that."

     

    Something is seriously wrong... Monitor calibration, or a weird setting in-camera. Whether RAW or JPEG, with a D200, if your colors aren't popping (and WB usually right on), something is set incorrectly, or defective.

    Artistic snobbery

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    I was at a gallery exhibition and was asked by someone partial to paint what my medium of choice was... When I

    said, "photography" I was told how it used to be that photographers had to be experts in the darkroom, whereas now

    that's not the case. So I indicated that, in fact, many great image-makers that used slides, never used a darkroom,

    and that today, with digital, post-processing to one degree or another is something almost every serious

    photographer has to get involved with.

     

    I guess this didn't go over well, because the person I was in conversation with then said they might like to get a

    camera, but they wouldn't know what to do with all the "beautiful" images they would wind up having to deal with...

    ("1,000's and 1,000's")

     

    I suggested perhaps external harddrives, and vault rental, but that was taken with a bit of sarcasm...

     

    But at least I learned that the greatest challenge in using a camera isn't creative insight and expertise, but storage...

    Tamron 17-50 Lens

    in Nikon

    Posted

    Try two exposures of the exact same thing using the Tamron and SB-800, one on the D200, one on the D300...

     

    Is it possibe that your exposure compensation adjustment was active on the D300? Just a guess.

    solar eclipse using ... use live view

    in Nikon

    Posted

    "However, your warning says do not look at a solar eclipse period." Paul

     

    With respect, my post only quoted someone else's complete prohibition... My original post begins, "There are many safe ways to look..."

     

    Paul, I realize you were very explicit about totality... And I apologize if I implied otherwise...

     

    However, many amateurs have no idea when totality is, that's all. When you mention the warnings you've received about lunar eclipses, it indicates the general lack of awareness that persists.

     

    But back to your post, as one really interested in capturing solar eclipses, might I suggest an electronic guidance system on a sturdy tripod that would keep the camera pointed sunward, without having to resort to LiveView (which might not work as well in relative darkness).

     

    I might also suggest using the Intervalometer on the D300 (I assume it has one), set at one exposure every second, to make a time lapse record... Thus you have individual captures, but also an opportunity to make a really stunning movie.

    solar eclipse using ... use live view

    in Nikon

    Posted

    Paul, in the article you cite, you quote the last sentence. Here is the first: "The Sun can be viewed safely with the naked eye only during the few brief seconds or minutes of a total solar eclipse."

     

    You have experience, great. You may be in a group led by someone with experience, excellent. But not everybody (perhaps even some happening on this thread) who gets excited to view eclipses knows anything about those which are annular, or even just partial.

     

    My point was, we have to be careful in saying what is perfectly safe (for experienced people), but may be very dangerous for others (who really don't know when totality has been reached, or in a given eclipse, how long it will last)...

     

    BTW, Thousand Oaks filters aren't crap. I've used one on my Maksutov to show the sun to lots of kids and adults.

    solar eclipse using ... use live view

    in Nikon

    Posted

    "DO NOT look at the sun during a total eclipse."

     

    There are many safe ways to look. Baader film glasses is one, Thousand Oaks glass filters are another. While it may technically be OK to use the naked eye right at actual and complete totality, the risk of extreme vision impairment isn't worth it -- and encouraging others do try this, especially when it is unknown what their intelligence/experience level is, is, in my view, dangerous and unconscionable.

    Tamron 10-24

    in Nikon

    Posted

    Rob, Tamron is billing this lens as a VERY high resolution, VERY low distortion performer... While not a constant f/2.8 if it's as well designed as the 17-50, the price will make it very attractive...

    Changing from the standard 18-55 to something better ?????

    in Nikon

    Posted

    I think the Tamron 17-50 2.8 might be the next step up price wise. It's VERY sharp. Keep in mind that you should be using f/5.6 to f/8 for maximum sharpness on a given lens. The 18-55mm is supposed to be a pretty good kits lens...

     

    But in any case, I can vouch for the Tamron.

     

    Another option is to get a preowned lens, or just get the Nikon 50 f/1.8. It's a prime lens, no zoom, obviously, but SHARP.

    26 Megapixel 40D Compared to 35mm Film

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    "Giving the poster the benefit of a doubt, why even bother to post JPGs and apologize for what we're not able to see."

     

    Or denying what we plainly ARE able to see. I shot K25 then Velvia almost exclusively. As much as I loved them, I can't imagine why I'd want to go back to them, at least in 35mm. Add to this that the only lab near me still processing Velvia just went out of business...

     

    Even if a given film is miles above a DSLR, not many of us can practically use film with nearly the same convenience and ability to achieve fine quality as digital. I too own a Coolscan. It's great, but no match for a D200 at ISO 100.

     

    I've had Velvia scanned professionally and expensively via an Imacon into 70mb TIFFs. The results leave me wishing I'd owned a D200 instead...

    26 Megapixel 40D Compared to 35mm Film

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    Even assuming the Tmax offers greater resolution, when scanned, it also offers a grain pattern that looks like sand sprayed all over the image.

     

    Perhaps a direct print would be far better than a scan, and far better than the 40D, but in this thread, and in all variations of the images, the 40D looks clean and the Tmax looks dingy in comparison. Just visually, on the images presented, I doubt anyone would think Tmax was superior.

    Is high power flash still necessary along with today high ISO perfection?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    "And then there was a D-lighting feature in Nikon cameras that make you wonder what is the fill flash for anyway.

     

    In photography 101, we have been taught that it is always better to use natural lighting source instead of the "harsh" flash lighting. That's why some professionals are using reflectors instead of a flash unit when shooting a model at outdoor."

     

    I don't think D-Lighting is a replacement for what a flash can do in a back-lit portrait. And in my own view, the Nikon flash system is anything but harsh. Many times, in outdoor settings, or inside during the day, people wouldn't know that flash was used at all -- it's that good.

    Lenses for landscape

    in Nikon

    Posted

    "print quality is subjective"

     

    No argument here. But in the attached image, the name of the church is easliy readable in the 20"x30" print, and this particular print has been lauded as the best of this building anyone has ever seen... Would it be better with a 24MP camera? It'd better be!

     

    BUT to read the lettering (as people have done), one has to get WAY closer to the image than normal. In other words, it's (subjectively) plenty detailed enough, and may have been even better with a tripod.

     

    http://www.photo.net/photo/5872694

    D200 v. D700 Anomaly

    in Nikon

    Posted

    Or the D200 had a more conservative calculation equation built-in to its software.

     

    On the D200, the counter may say one thing, but the actual number of possible exposures can turn out to be much greater.

×
×
  • Create New...