gen_b.

<p>I've been trying to get into the habit of reviewing my histograms more often (on my D50, after shooting), and I've noticed that many of them are combed and have gaps. I've read that this means my photos are lacking the necessary tones, hence the rough gaps instead of smoother edges, but I could not find more practical information on how to prevent this from happening.</p>

<p>I know how to easily adjust exposure to allow for proper highlights and shadows and midtones, but what is one to do about combing issues?</p>

<p>No insult taken. This is my first tripod, and I doubt anyone was born knowing these things. <br /> I got the quick release plate loose now -- thank you -- it took a combo of two levers to disattach it, instead of one. One is sort of a 'safety' lock, since the first lever is more for quick convenience.<br /> <br /> In terms of the camera crashing, I was using the right-hand circular lever, that adjusted the fluidity/rigidity of head movement-- not the stalk handle. No wonder.<br /> <br /> What is the intention of the small ~2" vertical lever located near the top of the tripod? Some google image diagrams say it's an "elevation crank", but it does not do a thing when pulled either way.</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>I am the owner of a 70" Opteka tripod, and I've been having some issues with it. <br /> <br /> I ordered it from Amazon, and no instructions were included on proper mounting and usage. It's been largely intuitive, except for two problems:<br>

The mounting screw is not accessible from underneath, it seems, so I'm forced to spin the camera onto the screw instead of vice versa. Very annoying, especially if I need to work quickly.<br>

Also, the tripod is useless at most angles, as the entire tripod head (and my camera) SLAMS forward or backward violently, from the displaced weight. I've tried all of the levers and knobs, to no avail. No one else I've asked has been able to figure it out, either.<br /> <br /> The Opteka website does not place their manuals online.<br /> <br /> Any ideas?</p>

<p>Vultures, the lot of you.</p>

<p>Here's my version.<br /> <br /> <img src="http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee242/venividibitchy/HowAboutThis.jpg" alt="" /> <br /> <br /> Please keep in mind that I tend to favor vintage photography tones and textures -- retouched skin reminds me of pageant photos.</p>

<p>The only thing I notice in common with "portra nc" is the intense amount of sharp skin detail. Someone of today would retouch the Hell out of the stills I placed above, as everyone looks all leathery, and pockmarks and veins and imperfections look thousands of times worse. It fits the movie, though.<br>

<br /> I played with some photo filters, adjustment layers, and color temperature levels on stock images tonight, but I haven't come across anything satisfactory yet.<br /> <br /> Wow, Peter, I just google-imaged "The Third Man" and "The Good German", and I can understand why you'd want to replicate that look. I love images that are cinematographic.</p>

<p>One of my favorite filmmakers of all time is Martin Scorsese -- I'm always amazed to see the very authentic vintage tones used in his movies, even those made decades after the fact. I recognize a similar style from many of my own family photographs of the era; there's a certain saturation, a certain tint used, etc.</p>

<p>How might I recreate a similar effect on a digital photograph of today? What are some key characteristics to look for, during processing?<br /> To be very specific, movies like Goodfellas and Mean Streets come to mind (trailers linked below).<br />

/>

<p>As a loosely related aside, I'm also curious as to how one can achieve Scorsese-style lighting. This photo isn't a movie capture, but it reminds me of one quite a bit:<br />

<p>Any insight would be greatly appreciated.</p>

<p>You're all awfully snobby and combative, for a mere suggestion.</p>

<p>If it's such a redundant statement that people make, then I'd suggest opening a critiques FAQ, rather than bitching about it, and mocking people.</p>

<p>I can see why introducing comments was an issue, but in my eyes, it still seems better than trolls. I see these same people rating very obviously strong photographs (I'm not just butthurt about my own) with 2s, and that's rather ridiculous.</p>

<p>To those asking why I've come to this conclusion after posting only two recent critique requests -- if I did not receive any constructive feedback on the first time, it's surprising enough that I tried a second. The average user is not going to continue to upload images, if the result is nil; that would be a waste of time and energy.</p>

<p>As far as ratings go, I mentally compare them to philosophy test scores. The reader's opinion will greatly vary the score, as with any subjective field of study, but there will still be a general idea of the quality of thought and practical application. If I see my ratings going up over time, I will have a clinical basis that my technique is improving, and that can be a wonderful motivator.</p>

<p>Are you all always this pompous?</p>

<p>It seems to me that every time I post a photo in the critiques segment, that "anonymous" raters will go through and rate my photos, without offering any constructive criticism or explanation for their deductions.<br>

As a student hoping to improve, I find this very disheartening. I suppose I could disable ratings altogether -- but that would negate a lot of the purpose of posting it.<br>

Is there a possibility that ratings could be required to be accompanied by a message within the text box -- however short they may be? It might help to repel trolls who appear to parade through the critiques page in a bot-like fashion.</p>

<p>I've taken my fair share of biology classes, and understand the basic principles of aperture, but there seems to be a gap in my knowledge base regarding the "infinity" factor. No article I've found seems to touch on it.<br /> <br /> From what I understood, the aperture will determine at what distance the subject will be in focus. I imagine it as a line of focus that's very thin/narrow and close-by at large apertures like f1.8 (therefore, what's before and after is blurred), and wider and farther away at small apertures (what's before and after is also blurred, though the area of focus is larger) like f22. I understand that larger apertures let in more light than smaller ones, and therefore, will effect the shutterspeed accordingly, etc., etc., etc.<br /> <br /> But what I do not seem to grasp is that many aerial photography articles express that it's "irrelevant" what aperture I use from a plane, as I "don't need a depth of field". Wouldn't an aerial landscape require the greatest depth of field of all? If I used f1.8 at 30 or 40k ft, wouldn't the airplane's fuselage or nearest part of the wing be in focus, but the ground would be out of focus?<br /> <br /> Or is it that any given aperture has more than one gradient of focus -- and that the ones at further distances are irrelevant in a home or on a field, but more noticeable from a plane or on a very tall mountain or in a seemingly never-ending field? Is there a point where focus resumes? <br /> <br /> Is it different for every aperture, or dependent upon the specific lens, like the minimal focal length is? Anything before the lens' minimal focal length is blurred -- does that mean anything beyond the lens' maximum focal length is focused?<br /> <br /> Also, I'm curious as to how my lens' focus ring works together with the camera's mechanical aperture. In an ideal situation, they are meant to be identical? If I use AF to focus on a particular object, look at the aperture ring, and see it's at, say, 5.6, is that a good indication that I should be using f5.6 or greater to get that bit in focus? What if I set my lens to manual infinity, but used f1.8 as an aperture? Which instruction would the camera listen to?<br /> <br /> Forgive my ignorance, please. Any info. would be very helpful.</p>

<p>I deleted a significant number of photos a few years ago, thinking I'd 'start fresh'.<br>

Unexpectedly, my Uncle passed away, and his wife longs for a print of a photo I had taken of a beach that was significant to them. All I have is a 800x530 image. I resized it from a Nikon D50 "Normal - large" jpeg using CS2, and saved it on level 12 -- the highest quality. No effects were added.<br>

<br /> I do not think that she'd be critiquing the fine details of the print, but I'd still like to do what I can to improve the quality.<br>

<br /> What's the biggest that I could stretch it, with reasonable quality? Are there any methods of resampling with CS2 that I could attempt?<br>

<br /> I know it won't be ideal, but something is better than nothing.</p>

<p>This seems to be a common issue with this lens.<br>

I shoot with a D50, and a 50mm/1.8 primarily, and I've had the same troubles from time to time. No help from Nikon, because if it is properly seated, everything works fine.</p>

<p>I'm looking for some tips on how to reconcile a difficult lighting situation. I shoot self-portraits (and record video) in a 12x20 (~) room with an east-facing window that seems to produce nothing but shadows and filtered light because of a tree. Cloudy, blown-out winter skies do not help, either.<br /> <br /> At present, I can use no lower than ISO1600 at F/2 or below, despite having nearly blinding lights on. I have one overhead hi-hat (60w), and a standing lamp with 5x60w bulbs that flex in any direction. Even when I use custom WB, I still seem to get golden-orange photos, but that is usually the least of my worries.<br /> <br /> If I could get enough light for an F/5.6 & 1/60 or better shot, with ISO 400, I'd be content. I am a bit of a perfectionist, and I don't really like the look of a flash, or post-processed images to remove noise.<br /> <br /> <br /> Would it be best to get an off-board flash, plus a reflector/diffuser, or to purchase additional lighting? <br /> <br /> What are my options? Any recommendations?</p>

I'd love some ideas on how to properly sort my photos, both those I take, and those I save as inspiration.

Thank you all for the information; the focus range issues with the Minolta sound like more pain than they are worth.

 

Perhaps, though, I will give the MD/MC to F-mount for the Tokina a go. It's definitely affordable enough to try.

Some cursory research has shown me that most of the preferred extreme telephoto lenses are in the $600+-$1,000+

range...but I'd still love to explore taking photos of airplanes, birds, backyard animals, insects, the moon,

etc. I have not been able to get close enough with my 50mm, for obvious reasons.

 

Is the Nikkor 70-200mm a strong choice, or can I get closer for the money? Are adapters and teleconverters a

worthy consideration?

 

I would appreciate any and all information that you all could provide.

Does anyone happen to know of a case for a d-slr that is not much bigger than the camera itself? Perhaps, some

kind of a skin, like they make by the dozen for music players and cellphones?

 

I have a standard camera bag, like much everything I see online, that will accommodate a body and a few lenses,

but I find it a real hassle to travel with. I usually end up carrying the camera 'round my neck, and keeping any

extra lenses in separate cases, because of how easily they fit in my regular tote around other items...

I've inherited two lenses through my family - one a Minolta, one a Tokina (one of them, a long macro telephoto,

which I'd really like to use), both with Minolta mounts.

 

Unfortunately, I can only use "F" mounts with my Nikon D50.

 

There isn't any kind of an adapter available, so they won't go to waste? Or can their mounts be changed, for a

reasonable fee, at a camera shop? It might be less than buying new lenses, altogether.

 

Any information would be greatly appreciated.

Some ideas off the top of my head:

 

- The "Noise" of the city: Folks on cellphones, taxi cabs, crowds, an approaching subway, etc.

 

- New York Communication/the "Hustle-and-bustle" of the morning commute: Again, crowds on cellphones, overzealous

physical expression oft-seen in New Yorkers, couples, public camaraderie, acts of kindness between strangers,

etc. You could also experiment with a lot of various shutter speeds, or even time-lapse for a change of pace.

 

- Litter/pollution/graffiti/ways in which the city is "tainted" over time.

 

- Poverty vs. wealth.

 

- The evolution of the city (if you pass any areas with heavy construction)/ old vs. new.

 

- The multi-ethnic background of the city -- visit Chinatown, Harlem, Orthodox Jewish, Italian-American,

Polish-American areas, etc.

 

- Different ways in which people "escape" from the city: wearing headphones, visiting parks, reading, sleeping,

sitting in

bars...

 

- 9/11 tribute.

 

- Transportation: Taxis, highway, subways, bridges, boats, airport, helicopters, streets and sidewalks, bicycles,

horse-and-buggies, etc.

 

- Society's idea of beauty (so outwardly displayed on billboards, modeling agency buildings, endless beauty and

fashion stores...)

 

I hope that I have been of some assistance;

 

Good luck!

Does it matter the method one uses to convert photos from the camera to the computer, or is it purely

preferential? Is it different whether one uses JPG or RAW?

 

I've seen people use different mechanical (USB cord vs. memory card reader) and software (Nikon's Capture

Software vs. Window's built-in program) means to do so.

 

I always just load the pictures through Windows, and post-process with CS3. Am I missing out on anything?

Sorry, my last post's html got messed up somehow.

 

Here are the examples again:

 

Wide enough to do these kind of shots in a smaller space:

 

http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee242/venividibitchy/2711239038_2c775802e0_o.jpg

 

http://joshuasandler.com/images/Old/gallery1/11/mushroomF.jpg

 

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2443217564_db9fe4452c.jpg?v=0

 

 

But still flattering enough in a "normal", not too tight range:

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2693690042_260605faae.jpg?v=0

 

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/886/venegasra9.jpg

 

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/2461746141_9564c151dd.jpg?v=0

 

http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/492/vegeus6.jpg

 

http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9994/vege2jy1.jpg

 

http://joshuasandler.com/images/Old/gallery2/4/sbw6.jpg

Thanks!

 

Wow, that's still a pretty tight view.

 

Please forgive my ignorance, as I'm a mere student; however, I am looking for something with this kind of a range:

 

Wide-enough to do these kind of shots in a smaller space:

<img src="http://i229.photobucket.com/albums/ee242/venividibitchy/2711239038_2c775802e0_o.jpg"><br>

<img src="http://joshuasandler.com/images/Old/gallery1/11/mushroomF.jpg"><br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2443217564_db9fe4452c.jpg?v=0"><br>

 

But still flattering enough in a "normal", not too tight range:

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2184/2693690042_260605faae.jpg?v=0"><br>

<img src="http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/886/venegasra9.jpg"><br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2394/2461746141_9564c151dd.jpg?v=0"><br>

<img src="http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/492/vegeus6.jpg"><br>

<img src="http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/9994/vege2jy1.jpg"><br>

<img src="http://joshuasandler.com/images/Old/gallery2/4/sbw6.jpg"><br>

Hi all,

 

Thank you for all of your helpful input; it is greatly appreciated.

 

I realize that I do need to practice more, and I don't claim to be the most profoundly talented photographer --

I'm still learning -- but I still feel it is difficult to improve when my camera doesn't take pictures when I

press the shutter...That discourages me more than anything.

 

I also had no control on the exterior condition of the window, or else I'd have certainly wiped it down.

 

I understand that for moving subjects, I should be using shutter-priority mode, which is what I used for the

boiling water, and I tried both slow, and fast speeds, and I still came up with that blurry mess...hence my

belief that this could be a mechanical issue.

Hi Matt,

 

Thanks for your response, and example! How do you feel the 30mm works for small scenes with smaller apertures?

I'm looking for a standard or wide-angle lens that has the shortest minimum focus distance possible, but also

works well in indoor, low-light situations, and has good speed for candid portraits. It needs to be able to work

well in small places, like my 10'x20' bedroom, etc. or else I'd get the 85mm/f1.8. It has to be able to handle

medium to small apertures well, as I am a bit tired of blurred backgrounds.

 

For example, I would like to be able to take photos of my Husband whilst we're on the same couch, or in the same

bed, without needing to run half-way across our place to get everything I want in frame. Yesterday, with my

50mm/1.8 (and Nikon D50 with 1.5x crop factor) I had to stumble two rooms away to get him fully in frame! It was

absurd.

I'd also like to be able to have his face fill the entire frame, with both eyes in focus, and without my AF

acting up. I like cropping with my eye and the viewfinder, as opposed to later with a computer program.

 

Perhaps, a lens with a focal distance very similar to the human eye...?

 

I've considered:

Tokina 12-24mm/f4,

Sigma 10 - 20 mm f/4 - 5.6,

Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5,

Tamron Autofocus 17-35mm f/2.8-4,

Tamron Autofocus 28-75mm f/2.8,

Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6,

Sigma AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3,

But am open to any other suggestions within the $300-$400 range, unless the lens is really worth it (in the

18-200 case...).

 

Any thoughts?