dseltzer

Naman, Having looked at your portfolio, I'd have to first say I'm not really sure what constitutes a good photographer... I think there are multiple definitions... but I believe I know a good artist when I see one! My impression is that most photographers use PS at least to some extent, like for some sharpening, raw conversion, curves, etc. Many, many people use it a lot, and the amount depends on the subject matter and one's artistic vision. I think there is no right or wrong, and there are "good" photographers who use PS a lot, and many who strive to have as close as possible to a finished product right out of the camera.

 

I really enjoyed looking at your work, and IMHO your work is excellent, creative, well executed, both in terms of original photos, and your impressive PS work... you are very skilled at it. Having said all this, I agree with Pete Millis and what he suggests would be a very worthwhile exercise. In the end result (which never happens since we're always evolving) you will find the style/s and amount of post processing that feels right to you, and that's all that matters. I am glad you posted this question, else I might not have seen your fine work, or at least not so soon. Regards, David

Not to be contrary, but it seems to me that we consumers (pro, amateur, or otherwise) to insure the camera companies' investments, not the other way around. Oh, it'd be nice to think they're looking out for me, but that's just way too grandiose and optimistic. Companies that develop, produce and sell cameras and other photo gear are driven first to get a return on their investments in time, labor, materials, etc., and to return an investment to their owners, private or publicly held. It *is* in their best interest to make as good a product as they can, but within reason. Only so many people can afford Hasselblads, or Rolls, or other more value holding material goods, and even those do depreciate unless they endure long enough to become collectors' items.

 

Whenever I get the urge to buy a new camera, I would hope to get a decent trade in, or to sell my old one on eBay, etc., but my biggest hope is that I end up feeling like whatever I spent was worth it for the value, utility and pleasure I received.

Wow! I knew if I posted this question I'd get lots of good info. Thanks, all of you! I guess

what I've done so far with my Nikon would best be considered close-up vs. macro. I see

the logic of going for the Sigma 105 mm F2.8 and I'm going to look into it... see if I maybe

can play with one at one of the local stores. I've used a bellows with a reversed lense back

in my 6x7 days and the results were outrageously good, so I'm going to consider that, too.

I do know that I'll be tripod and manual focus bound if I get into serious macro shooting,

but I think I'll more likely go for a good lens or tubes for now, and maybe get more

elaborate later. Sounds like it really may not matter which tubes, as long as they fit, if I

probably wouldn't use the electrical connections anyway. Then I'm looking at about a $10

investment and I could easily consider that as well as a really good macro lens.

 

Thanks a lot for all the great info and advice!

For macro work I know (or at least I think) there's no substitute for a good macro lense, and if one wants/

needs to get closer, maybe a bellows. I used to use one on my Pentax 6x7 with great results. But it looks

like extension tubes might provide a much less expensive method for increasing the closeness (am I right

in assuming the closer to 1:1 is what's desirable?) is using extension tubes. If this is true, then I'd like to

know what anyone thinks and has experienced in terms of brands. It looks like there are three main

brands - I have a Nikon D200 - Nikon, Kenko, and Promaster. And I'm assuming the better choice would

be tubes with electronic connectors.

 

So, could you tell me if using extension tubes is a reasonable idea, and if so, is there a significant

difference between brands? There is a pretty big difference in price: >$200 for Nikon (set of three), about

$170 for Kenko or Promaster from B&H or Cord, and I've also found Kenko on eBay for about $125 with

shipping. Any guidance on this will be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

David

Hi Dave. Like 'em all, but my favorites are: F2, 7 and 9. These are the ones my eye finds most

interesting and the best in terms of focus, lighting and contrast. They all have possibilities,

but 1, 3, 6 and 8 seem a little too soft for my taste. I'll be most interested to see which ones

you pick and what you do with them. Regards, David

Greg, Thanks! All info is much appreciated.

Really beautiful sunrise shot you posted here!

Thank you, Ian! And thanks to Fred for an excellent explanation! Finally, I get it.

From the way you've framed it, you're obviouslynot going away altogether willingly. So, I hope

whatever is pulling you away isn't anything too awfully bad. I'll echo Walter's admonition to

"keep on shooting, learning, and growing," and I'll hope to see you back here somewhen...

hopefully sooner than later! Best wishes, David

When in the Critique Forum and looking at ratings there's always the statement, "There are some Top

Rated Photos rankings, including the default, which use only the anonymous ratings from the Rate Recent

feature." It's one of those things I've tended to gloss over, but I've never understood what it means. I'm

sure I'm missing something really obvious, but I just can't get it. Help!

This has become increasingly interesting and informative... far more good info than I'd imagined. Yes, Tony, I have developed B/W in a home darkroom (same as lab?), so I think I know what you mean.

 

Anyone have a favorite place they'd recommend for purchasing Singh-Ray filters? B&H? Web? I'm guessing the pricing will be similar in most places that sell them. Just curious which stores people prefer.

Many thanks to Mark, Ilkka, David H. and David C! I so appreciate all your info and advice. Not surprised about the position and scratching issues, and all the tips and experience based info is so valuable!!! Your kind and helpful feedback is a lot of why I love PN!

Obi, Thanks for the info about Art Wolfe. I'm glad to know that, though not surprised... I'm

sure lots of folks do similar "improvised" use of equipment. Actually, it could be that the only

time hand holding the filter would not be OK would be if the shot needed a slow shutter and

vibration could be a factor. Beyond that, it seems like a holder would be mainly a

convenience... and not a small expense considering the holder *and* the adaptor ring!

Thanks, Derek. I thought there had to be something like you've described. If I'm

understanding, one needs a converter ring for the lens, then the holder and a filter. Just

snooping around a little, it looks like there are multiple makers of the filters, or are they all

actually Cokin or Lee?

Having just noticed one of the POWs (Morning Light by Dave K) was done using a ND 2 Singh-Ray Galen

Rowell filter, I set about finding out what they are. Well, I've found them in several places, and so far I'm

clueless as to how one uses them. Are they hand held in front of the lens? Is there some sort of bracket or

holder one can use?

 

I appreciate any enlightenment you can give this learner!

And all this has <i>what</i> to do with <i><b>photography</b></i>?

Ah, well, it is interesting. BTW, Ed, I like your idea, but I think using the ''hypostrophe'' maybe works a little better than the ``back quote.`` Just a thought.

Wow! What great answers to my question. I appreciate all the info you all have written, and you've really done a great job of helping me understand what auto focus is all about. Oh, and I really like the nice tricks, like turning off the sub-command wheel and using aperture rings. I'm gonna have fun playing with that!

There are a lot of comments I've seen that have piqued my curiosity about the AF

ability of the D200, or lack of it as many seem to say. I'd like to learn how

the AF capability of a camera (not just the D200) is measured and what specifics

about the D200 make folks say it's not so great. I know (I think) for example

the D300 will have 22 focus points vs. 11 for the D200, so that's obviously one

measure. But folks obviously aren't measuring the D200's performance against a

yet to be released new model, right? So, what's the scoop on this?

"If one believes a rank is invalid, then they should simply disregard it as such instead of claiming there is something to be learned from the invalid rate." Um, how can a rating be invalid? It might not be welcome, but it's what the rater thought, right? Actually, maybe validity isn't even the issue as much as people, notwithstanding their desire to learn, want to be admired and put a lot of themselves into their photos. No, I don't think that means raters should be cautious, just that it's really no surprise that feelings can get hurt, despite actually *also* wanting to learn and improve.

 

Adding my 2 cents worth that comments/critiques are more valuable for learning than numbers, I notice many people do post their work for critique only. Sometimes I think I should do that, but the number (even in a compressed range of 3-7) does have some value to me as a rough marker of how much others like what I've done. I admit it, I like knowing that.

 

Off the thread, but I hope you don't mind my asking after Pete Mills' comment about looking at old threads, how does one get to them?

No idea how your image came to be as it is, but actually I really like it! Not to downplay your frustration and concern, but the image you got is really quite artistic, don't you think?

Could you say what solution you found? I have the same printer and just got an iMac but haven't tried to connect the two yet. So, it'd be helpful to me, and probably others, too, if you would post your answer.

Mark, Your pictures are wonderful. I had no idea hummers would be so trusting, or bold. I do see they're very territorial with each other regarding who gets to drink! Experimented today with setting up 7-8 feet from the feeder and the birds ignored me within about 10 minutes. They even tolerated a fill flash, though not right away. Anyhow, I need better light than I had today, and I need to work on settings... seemed like 1/1600 all but froze the wings when at the ends of their range of motion. Thanks so much for your excellent help! Thanks, too, to everyone for your comments.

 

David

I'm using a D200 and love it, but I'm having trouble when I use my Nikon AF

Nikkor 70-300 1:4-5.6 G lens. Most recently I did a series using a tripod

(Promaster SystemPRO 2) and remote shutter release to shoot hummingbirds at a

feeder. I was positioned about 35 feet away and had the lense at full length. I

was using shutter priority (1/2000) to freeze action, and all other settings

were managed by the camera. Aside from the lense simply not being quite long

enough, the images are in focus, but they just aren't crisp. I've had similar

results shooting the same lens at closer range, too. Seems like I get much

crisper images with my Tamron AF XR DiII 18-200 1:3.5-6.3.

 

My questions are: does anyone know if my Nikon 70-300 might not be optimally

suited for the D200? And I'd like to know which long lenses (zoom or not isn't

important) folks have found to work best with DSLRs and the D200 specifically.

 

I'm really interested to know others' experiences and advice.

 

Thanks!

 

David