paolo_pescia

<p>Mihai thanks for considering the english grammar in the forum! I studied English in New Zealand 2 years ago but there is always something to learn about it, I think to consider more lenses with Af than the ones that doesn t has, I m reading about the sigma 10-20 and it is really good quality </p>

<p>Frank I really thanks for your advise, I have just started to think about the sigma 10-20, it seems to be a great lense, the Nikon ones are too expensive for me, around 1000 dollars new and 600-700 used. I found for 470 dollar the sigma new, I checked some of the pictures taken with the sigma and they looks very nice and the quality too.<br>

If you have more advise please don t hesitate </p>

<p>Frank I really thanks for your advise, I have just started to think about the sigma 10-20, it seems to be a great lense, the Nikon ones are too expensive for me, around 1000 dollars new and 600-700 used. I found for 470 dollar the sigma new, I checked some of the pictures taken with the sigma and they looks very nice and the quality too.<br>

If you have more advise please don t hesitate </p>

<p>Thank you Frank but i think that the photographers that told me about tokina have considered that the autofocus in some kind of photography like landscaper, inside a forest and so on is not really necessary but this as I want to say is very personal, but thanks a lot about your point of view and Shun thanks a lot too</p>

<p>sorry for the mistake hehe , Mihai I know the nikkor 10-24 mm is expensive and many photographers think that the tokina is a little better but as I know it doesn t AF on the nikon d40 but pictures about landscapers, sunset, waterfalls and forest can be made with over f 18 with tripod in order to focus manually at 3 or 4 meters and it makes all in focus with depht of field.<br>

So the autofocus it is not really necessary in this kind of photos is it>?</p>

 

<p>Shung Leslie thanks but I have forgottens to mention that the fisheye is not for me, i don t like pictures with distortion or fish eyes effect, <br>

I just want to shoot in forest, waterfalls, landscape.... the recent post was that i was looking for the 35 mm lense but many photographers advised me about the tokina 12-24 mm.</p>

 

<p>Hallo, I m looking to have a wild lense for my nikon d40, in one of my post it has turned out that considering what I would like to shoot I need a wild lense...<br>

so I m asking an advise about these lenses, which one do you think is best to my work</p>

<p><strong>Nikon 12 - 24 mm f/4, Tokina 12 - 24 mm f/4, Sigma 10 - 20 mm f/4 - 5.6 and Tamron 11 - 18 mm f/4.5 - 5.6.</strong></p>

<p>Hallo to everyone, as I love waterfall-wood-river-ocean photography I consider to have a Neutral density filter like Nd8 or Nd16... I know there are so many that are bad quality and many other good quality on the market... so i have not idea how to choose a good one for my Nikon d 40, and then wich one is better the nd 8 or 16?knowind I would use it inside wood, waterfall and water effects and is good to have the water coton, to eliminate reflex,<br>

thanks so much to all of you</p>

<p>hallo, I was looking for the nikon 12-24 mm f4 on ebay but the price is very expensive, is there a similar good lense but at lower price?please</p>

 

<p>Thanks very much to all of you, you did really a good job! I can say now i have learned much about this topic, to answer at the questions yes, I do use a tripod and i m looking forward to have a cable realise to improve the quality of images, and i also shoot above the f 6 in the wood, I often use f 22 to have a full depth of field, so I m really sure that the lense i need is a wild one so I will be able to have a great photos in panorama, forest and ecosistems, etc etc. as i understood the f 1.8 is usefull with low light only if you don t carry a tripod, so you could have a faster speed at the wider open.</p>

<p>I would like to ask one more question,<br>

What makes more luminose a lense? I have always heard that the lenses with f1.8- 2.8 can make more limpid a pictures than the f3 or more, or in other words what make about the same kind of lens a better lense? remaining about the wild 12-24 or the 35 mm</p>

<p>thanks to all, Jose i rarely use the hystogram but i m learning how to use it, i always use light meter </p>

<p>sorryyyy i m tired i have written the wrong camera, seriously is the 300 if this is important for you... for me in this moment is important to have an idea about the micro lens, sorry for the mistake</p>

<p>thanks, i heard about it, but i would like to know if with the 105 mm nikkor 2.8 af the light meter from the camera works because i used a old lens full manual that didn t worked the camera light meter and you must know each exposure or use a light meter</p>

<p>Hallo to everyone, recently I posted a question about a micro lens that i m not totally satisfied, I'm wondering about some of the micro lenses, I would like to shoot flowers and details... but i also don t want to spend 1000 dollars, I have a nikon d 40 and 700, i was wondering for a focal around 105 mm... do you have any idea that can be affordable please?<br>

regards paolo </p>

<p>I use a nikon D-40 and D-300</p>

<p>Hallo to everyone, I'm confused about 3 lenses, I m looking for a 35mm lense that allows me to shoot in low light condition like in the wood (trees, waterfalls, sunset, storytelling, ).<br>

I was suggested for the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35MM F/1.8 G<br>

BUT i saw that Nikkon offers the AF-S Nikkor 35mm f-1.4 G<br>

and the AF-S NIKKOR 24 mm f 1.4 ed<br>

Wich one do you suggest me to have?if you have different lenses for what I would like to shoot please tell me.<br>

Thanks and Regards to all</p>

<p>Hallo, I'm not new in here but I can't find the Mail box, I sended a message last week to a photographer and I would like to check if he answered, sorry for the basic question!<br>

Thanks<br>

Kind Regards</p>

<p>It s really a pleasure to have a place to share informations and advises. because informations are not secrets, after is how to see things that change the skills of the photographer... sorry for the English incorrect :-)</p>

<p>Thanks very much to all photographers, you always give great responses and advises. Thanks a lot and I wish you a great day.<br>

Kind Regards paolo</p>

<p>Thank You so much for all the answers, they are all very inspiring! I will try as soon as possible, <br>

G Dan Mitchell thanks for the great answer.<br>

have a nice week.<br>

paolo</p>

<p>Hallo, I have a couple of questions about Nature Photography, I like botanic and I like to photograph the different Earth's environments , especially inside the forest.<br>

I would like to know the best way to shoot inside a forest with prevalence green color, like muss and fern, and my problem is that the green is always soft, i like the real green, like vivid green.<br>

I use tripod, Nikon D40 with 18-135 mm lense, and I know that to shoot waterfalls and rivers i should use neutral density filter! I should buy it.<br>

Please if you have advises don t esitate to tell me.<br>

I thank you for your time and i wish you a great day<br>

Kind Regards Paolo</p>

<p>sorry, but photomerge is normal panorama, I try to use panorama to make 360 degree that it let you turn inside the picture, i mean the spherical image called 360 degree.... </p>

<p>Hallo, I have been shooting panoramic pictures and I m interested to create 360 panoramic pictures, I have just searched the option in Photoshop but I haven t found it, <br>

Do You know how can I create 360 pictures with an Apple, Photoshop, please???<br>

I would like to thank you <br>

Paolo</p>

<p>thanks for answearing, I have checked if there are any default preset during import but i havent seen the option in the import window.</p>

 

<p><strong>hallo, i m new in lightroom 3. when I import Raw Photos to the catalog , during the upload they look the right saturation and colour as i took them... then they change into a bland muddy mess, without the right colour.! I m sure it can be changed and have the real colour from the camera even in lightroom, How can I change this please????</strong></p>