robert_potts1

I am using Elements 5.0 and Lightroom. Lightroom is simple and intuitive to learn in my opinion, but it is not really a pixel editor. You might want to use lightroom for most of your stuff and fall back on CS some things occasionally.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head on this. Using a light meter does not ensure perfect exposures. Some of the best shooters around bracket their settings. You can use a camera without a meter at a pretty good success rate by guessing. Exposure is part science and part voodoo. What Michael said is certainly true. If you know your subject well and shoot often under familiar conditions, you remember and develop a feel. I have a digital camera that doesn't meter with the lenses I use. I love a histogram. With film, use something with a large dynamic range and guessing should be good enough. You will probably know when you need the meter's help after a time, so for now, don't worry about it and shoot the way you want to. I do think this style of shooting works better for digital where a glance at a histogram once in a while tells you that you are in the ballpark.

I have the Nikon kit 55-200. It's a lousy plastic contraption that inspires no confidence, but I love it for the image quality and will use it heavily until it quits whenever that may be. I have practically given up on the autofocus because it is so poor. In low light it at least always stops far out of focus so you know where you stand. The focus is quite accurate on the other hand, when it does work. I know nothing of the Tamron, compare and consider.

Leave the doors behind. With a harness you can shoot off one of the skids. I would take one camera and the 28-135.

With a good camera, point and shoot is a mode(s). With a point and shooter, that is all you get. Sound like the D40 bridges the two. Doesn't that make it a bridge camera?

Peter, if you are still around, to clarify; I was refering to DX kit lenses. I guess DX lenses are too small as well.

Since Nikon is reportedly introducing new full frame lenses, a full frame camera is implied.

 

After cropping a bunch of DX images in photoshop to fit a magazine page, I find it bothersome to throw away so much data from images that are so small to begin with. This often plays havoc with my compositions. I am left wondering whether DX is really a pro format. I would definitely prefer to crop from a full frame. Also, am I the only one who is seeing vignetting in DX that looks like what people are getting from full frame Canons?

 

My main gripe with the status quo is aspect ratio. All of the current 3:4 options are too small or too large. Somebody could produce a 3:4 or 4:5 that would work with full frame lenses by having a multiplication factor.

A Mamiya 6 with a 36x36mm sensor would sure be nice. I don't expect to see anything like that in the next 5 years. I think we will see things of this sort when sensors become cheaper to manufacture.

Mark as usual is on the mark. I don't know what is in your area, but you may have to travel hundreds of miles to find approachable birds. Some parts of the country have pretty lean pickings. What I do is go to a National Wildlife Refuge that has an auto tour route. I have photographed many raptors perched on fence posts or snags while using my car as a blind. You need a bean bag or window mount to support the lens.

For my landscapes, I need three lenses; a wide, a tele, and a normal. All three in one is nice. A kit lens is good enough for lots of landscape work, but if you live in an area with dry, pristine atmosphere, a prime might be better. A reasonable compromise might be a high quality zoom like the expensive 17-55 Nikon. As for f22, you need to know when to use it and when not. It won't produce crispness in small format in my experience. Also, Galen Rowell shot many of his landscapes with telephotos. With my D80, I am using the 55-200 kit lens most of the time for landscapes, so it depends on whether you shoot like you are near-sighted or not and of course what subjects you shoot.

I have a feeling this is about what you like to shoot and how you like to shoot it. Anyway, overcast is excellent for strong colored subjects that are isolated by magnification. I don't know what exactly you have in Denmark this time of year, but portraits, structures, macro and anything cut off from the sky should work. You may have to work with color relationships which can be a little different for you if you are accustomed to working with sunlight. Also, winter is the best time to study and educate yourself on things like photoshop because the days are shorter.

Costco has it for $59.99 with the coupon.

Could be lots of things. Maybe Nikon is about to introduce something new this spring. It could be competition from the D80 making D200's sell poorly. And what you said. The Fuji sensor in D200 clothing should appeal to the pros who buy these. etc.

Phil could be right but for other reasons. In medium format, 6x9 is regarded as an odd-ball and justifiably so. 35mm with same aspect ratio may also run into trouble in the brave new world where chips are big and dirt cheap sometime in the distant future. In a world without limits, it is possible that 40x30mm will be the new standard.

Compact has pros and cons. I think the ideal size and shape for a camera is the Mamiya 7. I have a D80 which I use as a second camera and it works well for that. But it is too small with too many buttons too close together. It could have a bigger screen, bigger flash, and more importantly, a bigger battery. More little DX lenses would indeed help with the down sizing.

I don't think everyone has the same definition for "pop". Anyway, if you want to study pop, compare Velvia to Astia. Or compare an unworked raw image to one that has been spruced up. Light also has a ton to do with this. I think Dan Mitchell is on the right track.

Good Morning. I own a bunch of tripods. Some are dead and the rest are on their last legs. The legs actually fall off my Gitzo carbon fiber from time to time. So I don't think you should think of a tripod as a lifetime investment.

 

Heads are another matter. I have only killed a couple of cheap ones. I keep recycling my heads with new legs and a good head could conceivably last a lifetime. My favorite is a geared head, but ballheads are very popular.

 

I use wood, metal, and carbon fiber. Wood and carbon fiber are better depending on the camera and vibration characteristics. But metal works fine as there is no denying the effectiveness of sheer mass. Also techniques for using a tripod and shutter release are more important than the material.

 

Go to a shop and handle the tripods to find one you like. . .and rember, with macro the tripod is just one of many factors impacting sharpness.

This looks fairly typical. Yes, a wee bit under, but can be much improved with software. Also the face is picking up a lot of red from the shirt, but can be easily changed. A larger flash unit set to bounce, and a reflector, or a small slave you can carry around in your shirt pocket would all help to improve various aspects of harsh flash photography. I assume you are shooting raw which grabs more data and can be adjusted a lot.

If you like flowers, maybe you should think "gardening" instead. There are millions of gardeners and many gardening magazines that consume a vast quantity of images. Stock is nuts these days, but magazine rates generally aren't too bad. You will have to cultivate relationships and carve a niche.

I like the mid-tone stuff, but the brights seem too bright. Try more versions in post processing. I guess daylight at night bothers me.

'Tis the season. Spring is just around the corner. Things have been surprisingly quiet. Too quiet, maybe. The quiet before the storm.

 

I have a feeling that someone has been hoarding lots of perfect full frame chips that will soon be dropped on the market at a reasonable price. The question is whether the chip goddess will be as free with these little treasures as she was with the 10mp APS-C's. In other words, I hope she shares with Nikon.

 

Good new things are coming. More pixels. Better Pixels. Better color. Better DR. Bigger sensors. Lower prices. This subject bores some folks, but I love it. Let the new season of rumors begin.

What Edgar said. Plenty of publications still accept slide submissions according to Photographer's Market. Some guidelines still express a preference for color transparencies. On the other extreme, some folks ask for Mac-compatible images. It's really difficult to be all things for all people right now. Good luck.

Yep. This is what we generally get. Butterflies magically appear when the sun is bright as if they are photosynthetic. The best you can hope for is to follow one around until the sun goes behind a cloud.

I assume you are shooting raw. If you have not read the essay on exposing to the right at Luminous Landscape, do so and digest it. The gist of it is that the best quality image is one that is over-exposed but not blown out. Then adjust the image simply in post processing. You capture more information that way.

 

I found that most of my images were ok with no compensation. But a few lost highlight detail. So I went to -0.3. About the only time I use -0.7 now is when a shot includes white highlights such as in the case of surf or boat hulls.

I should add that when you are i n the Port Angeles area, you should visit Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge especially in early autumn.