glasslakesphotography

<blockquote> <blockquote> <p>yes, they produce lesser quality images than the more expensive models;</p> </blockquote> <p>Except that they don't.</p> </blockquote> <p>You would like to assume that the cheapest of Nikon DSLR imaging sensors is just as good as the one in the $6k D4? <br> Even though in there are considerable differences between the higher end models as well. Particularly in noise present in the image, ISO capabilities, image sharpness, and over-all quality. DPreview has a couple nice comparison tools which show differences in the quality of the standard test image. There are differences in the quality, you just have to notice them. <br> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare<br> and the new tool at <br> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison</p>

<p>Go film, a 35mm SLR will do wonders.<br> Yes I said it, film. A basic film camera with none of the features, bells, and whistles of modern day cameras. A point and shoot will work and get them started, but film will force them to learn patience and the underlying photographic techniques. It will teach them to value every shot, and the needless clicking away of the shutter sucks up valuable film. As they get older pick up some darkroom equipment, safety practices and technique will instill a discipline and maturity in the your photographer. If they take a passion into the art, they will have valuable knowledge that others of their generation will be lacking. <br> Just my two cents. </p>

<p>If the tripod is stable, and you trust the expensive camera on it, then use it. Test it out, see how sturdy it is in the different positions. I have heavy tripods, an old Gitzo and a newer manfrotto. They both work wonders. I shoot with the 800 as well, and the advice I can offer is to remove the vertical grip when using the tripod. I have noticed it dose not allow the camera to be held as tight to the tripod head as I would like, and causes some vibration from the shutter movement.</p>

<p>Hi Skip,<br> That is a lot of math which made my head hurt just reading it. I work with flash now and again and I operate on the basic principles of trusting TTL, and adjusting the flash compensator +/- to get what I am looking for. It is less exact, but running the numbers is a real pain in the arse. But when working with flash in a controlled setting like a portrait, a flash light meter is your best friend. If you do not have or use one then you can work by these rules:peeds<br> ISO controls all the light in the image<br> Shutter Speed controls the ambient light<br> Aperture controls the amount of flash in the image. <br> Remember that it is all about balance. Identify the overpowered or underpowered light and modify it. Shade, diffusers, ect are your friend. If the flash is maxed out then move it closer. The inverse square law applies, where doubling the distance is 1/4 the light. If you are having to use super high shutter speeds then your light source is probably too bright. Maybe lowering the ISO and toning it down will work? Like a flashlight at high noon, how useful is it? <br> Sorry that I cannot directly answer your question, but possibly changing your methodology may yield the desired results. Also I found this link. http://dpanswers.com/content/genrc_flash_calc.php<br> Hope this helps!</p>

<p>The 3100 is an entry level camera, and works just fine for those who are entering the field. Yes, they are cheap; yes, they produce lesser quality images than the more expensive models; yes, I would destroy one in an hour because they are plastic. But they are perfect to get out there and do what you need to do. When it comes to the camera body, remember that they are disposable. Your money should be getting invested into the lenses. They will last a lot longer then the camera itself. When you do go to upgrade, look for specific reasons other then wanting to take better pictures. Look at the reasons which are holding you back, if it is the limitation of the camera then you know what to do.<br> I recently upgraded to a Nikon D800, from a 6.1Mp Nikon D100. If you have never seen one, google the model. They are bricks, with a small screen. But all the controls are there at your fingertips, and it had no "modes" to speak of. I dont like modes, I like the ability to instantly change my exposures. I play a little game with people sometimes, I ask them to look at my photos and to assess which ones were taken with the 10 year old camera. They never can tell. <br> In short, be a photographer who uses their camera to create art; not one who is dependent upon it to create the art. </p>

<p>Hello all! <br /><br />I have posted before concerning my ongoing educational series. I have recently added another post to that series, this one covering the importance of post processing of digital photographs. It is not really intended to be an instructional on how to do it, but it covers some of the sciency bits to explain the necessity. Please check it out and let me know what you think. Thank you.<br> http://www.glasslakesphotography.com/importance-post-processing/</p>

<p>Thank you Andrew.</p>

<p>Andrew, I appreciate the time and replies you have given. Is there an article which delves into an explanation on the two paths? Again I apologize, for my whole photographic life I have been one of those "do it in the camera" folks. Now I have come to the understanding with myself that post production editing is a requirement for competitive products, and to get the most out of those lovely raw images my D800 produces. So as I attack the learning curve on post production and output I just want to ensure that I am going down the correct path. Reading your replies and viewing your profile I respect your opinion as one educated thoroughly in these matters, if you say that use of a 10 bit pipeline would be beneficial to produce a better final product I will take that into great consideration. </p>

<p>So, in short; a higher bit workflow will produce better results regardless of the bit depth of the printing process. Due to the process being the best process which will yield a better result at the end. Also using a higher bit display will indicate flaws in the data where using the lower bit display system will indicate a similar flaw which may be in the data or indicating the shortcomings of the 8 bit display system. Am I better off starting to work in a 10 bit display, or continue along the 8 bit pathway and working with an Imac? I like to know what I am working with the full depth of the 14 bit images I capture. I just simply do not know what the 10 bit world has to offer.</p>

<p>I am a loss when it is coming to this discussion. I have been working in an 8 bit environment ever since I switched my film for CF cards, so please pardon my ignorance on the subject. The link you provided is a good read and seems to support that using a 10 bit display will ensure a better quality image, especially as the technology improves. When it comes to a final printed product will it matter what monitor I use to get there? </p>

<p>Hey there folks!<br> I am looking into getting on the 10 bit channel 30 bit display train. Will using a 30 bit display better represent the images which will be reproduced by printing,? or dose a 24 bit display show all the possible colours that the printer can produce? Knowing that there are more and more colours of inks being added to printers every year when will the use of a wide gumet display come in handy? Commercial labs such as Bay Photo and Pro DPI only accept 8 bit JPG files to print from. So what this boils down to: is spending the money on a 30 bit display worth it to colour match for printing, or are the printers not able to reproduce exactly that the display shows de to their limitations? </p>