Page 11 of 35 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141521 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 275 of 869

Thread: Amateur Photography Thread

  1. #251
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    ...yup, should have tried faster and faster speeds until i saw better results. stuff is just now coming to me even though i've been reading up on this stuff for a while. sometimes it just takes a while for things to finally click.
    Don't worry about it. Trying to translate what the human eye sees into what the film (or--"now-a-days"--camera sensor) sees, can require a bit of experimentation before it snaps into place. The eye can quickly and automatically adjust for variances in light across a scene without you even noticing it, so how you "see" the scene is not a good indicator of how the film will see it. Always break the scene down into light and dark areas before analysing for exposure.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    (Vivitar Filter Kit)
    Interesting. But, for the price, I guess you can't too wrong.

    Toss the "fluorescent" filter into a drawer, and forget about it. It's entirely useless.

    When you screw the hood onto your lens, be sure that the larger tulip petals are on top and bottom, and the shorter ones are at right and left. Try to get the corners lined up perfectly, or you'll have some awkward clipping/vignetting that'll just piss you off.

    I normally stay away from after-market hard lens hoods, and just spend the extra money on ones made specifically for the lens I have. The lens-specific hoods usually have a bayonet mount that will always line up correctly; and, they are reversible, which saves a ton of space in the gear bag. I do have one cheap collapsible rubber hood, which is also a good choice as you can leave them on the lens, and collapse them when you don't need them, or when you're putting gear back in the bag. The drawback is that they can get a little warped while stowed in the ear bag.

    For a 52mm front element you'll most likely rarely need the hood except in situations where the sun is coming at you from harsh forward angles causing lens flare (those nasty purplish hexagons). If the sun is in frame, the hood is useless, no way around it.

    This is probably a good kit to start with, anyway. And, from the reviews on Amazon, the polariser appears to do what it's supposed to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan Glenday View Post
    (Polariser finger-tricky-thingy)
    In addition to Duncan's trick for determine where best to point the camera to optimise the polariser's effect, don't forget that the polarisers are mounted on a rotating ring that gives you the ability to weaken or strengthen the polarisation ("lighten" or "darken" the image) for the best punch in definition and contrast. You will actually see the change through the viewfinder as you rotate the polariser, so don't worry about needing to guess at this.

    However, the hard plastic lens hood will make using the polariser a challenge, so you might not want to use both at the same time.

    Keep in mind, these are "extreme budget" pieces. When you're done practising with them, you might still want to save for Tiffen or low-end Hoya polariser and UV filters. They will produce far better images than the budget Vivitar, and still shouldn't break the bank.

  2. #252
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    You have a shitload of gear MB - a nice palette of tools from which to choose. I wish that I had the time to enjoy it as much as yourself - most of my pics are relegated to our little parties, club/band pics and family outings.

    Film is still an excellent medium - and I am tempted myself to regain/rebuild my old Nikon F3 system (body, 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 85/3.0, 35-135/4.5, flash) and move forward with my slide films once again. I still have a Leica Prodavit projector + lens that kicks fucking ass to this day on my stacks of old slides. The Kodachrome emulsions are still perfect to this day and supposedly have an amazing archival potential.

    It is indeed difficult to find vendors that sell real film anymore - which is sad.

    To be perfectly honest - you don't need a lot of megapixels if all you will be doing is viewing your digital images on a computer screen or the web . . . printing is another story. I've been able to print 16 X 20's from my old Leica digital with excellent results - they hang in my house right now - - - but anything bigger would pixelate for sure. My photo site and print vendor will warn me when the print size exceeds the limitation of the pic size and resolution - so be it.

    I've just ordered 8 lovely 8X10's that will hang diagonally going up the stairs - - - now to get the frames (ouch $$$) - but it will look really nice when finished.

    Just have fun.

  3. #253
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by WHORG View Post
    You have a shitload of gear MB - a nice palette of tools from which to choose. I wish that I had the time to enjoy it as much as yourself - most of my pics are relegated to our little parties, club/band pics and family outings.

    Film is still an excellent medium - and I am tempted myself to regain/rebuild my old Nikon F3 system (body, 50/1.4, 28/2.8, 85/3.0, 35-135/4.5, flash) and move forward with my slide films once again. I still have a Leica Prodavit projector + lens that kicks fucking ass to this day on my stacks of old slides. The Kodachrome emulsions are still perfect to this day and supposedly have an amazing archival potential.

    It is indeed difficult to find vendors that sell real film anymore - which is sad.
    Thank you sir! It's all geriatric equipment, but it's mine, it's paid for, and it works!! Incidentally, the Sigma 135mm telelphoto has just stopped working, as the aperture blades will no longer stop down. I've replaced it with a cheap Hanimex equivalent from ebay, which is all I can afford right now, that I suspect won't be the best lens in the world but will serve its purpose for now. I don't know what the situation is like in the US, but film is still remarkably easy to come by in the UK. UK chemists chain Boots (Britain's equivalent of Wallgreen's) still sells a variety of films in most of its stores (including its own brand), and offers colour print processing services as well. Black and white is trickier, not to mention more expensive and takes longer to get developed, but most larger Boots stores still offer it, and that's before we get to independent photographic retailers. There's always online via Amazon and ebay as well.

    Nikon F3 eh?? Nice camera! The closest I have to a professional quality SLR is my recently-acquired Contax 139Q, which I've just put a test reel through. Lovely piece of kit - wonderfully solid and well made.


    Btw, it's not really a question of time for me. God knows I'm busy enough in my professional life. I am, however, lucky enough to spend significant time working at home, so I can nip out into our garden on breaks and snap a few pictures. All of the pictures not taken in our garden have been taken on weekend trips out with my partner to local landmarks or to my parents' place in North Yorkshire. It's not really a question of having a lot of time, just making the most of the time I do have. Admittedly, I don't have the additional responsibilities of family life, but I'm sure that five minutes could be found in the day just to shoot a few frames - that's really how the vast majority of pictures are taken.

    Just have fun.
    And this, as ever and disregarding whichever medium we prefer, is the most important thing of all!!
    Last edited by kid_runningfox; 06-27-2013 at 10:01 AM.

  4. #254
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    Sounds like lots of fun experimenting with all the lenses and film - - - good times.

    The Nikon F3 was a beautiful body - you could literally pound nails with that thing and it would be just fine.

    Aperture blades can easily get stuck. I had the same issue with the 50mm/f1.4 Nikkor back in the day (huge blades) - it turned out to be the oil they use on the blades >>> it had mixed in somehow with the grease they use (internally) for the focus rotation on the barrel - and they both gummed up together and caused the f-stop blades to halt at a certain point during the exposure cycle. I sent it into Nikon and they cleaned it up really well and used a different lubrication system given the fact that I was living in a very hot climate at the time. That was a beautiful lens and my best low-light performer - - -

    Later . . .

  5. #255
    Moderator Duncan Glenday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    2,092
    Quote Originally Posted by kid_runningfox View Post
    ...Incidentally, the Sigma 135mm telelphoto has just stopped working, as the aperture blades will no longer stop down
    ...
    If the blades are bent, I'd imagine the lens is toast. But if it's just a matter of cleaning and lubricating the blades, I would think there must be people who can fix that for a lot less than the cost of a replacement lens..?
    Regards,

    Duncan

  6. #256
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan Glenday View Post
    If the blades are bent, I'd imagine the lens is toast. But if it's just a matter of cleaning and lubricating the blades, I would think there must be people who can fix that for a lot less than the cost of a replacement lens..?
    Well, I was quoted £78 to fix it, and the lens only cost me £20 - including postage - so, sadly it would appear that getting it repaired's a non-starter. This is somewhat frustrating as it's a nice lens I haven't had for very long, and it's probably something stupidly simple that's gone wrong that would take about 5 minutes to fix if I knew what I was doing. This reminds me that one of the things that certainly HAS become a serious problem over here in the last few years is getting old analogue kit repaired or maintained. For example, I inquired not so long back about getting my Fujica SLRs serviced, and was informed that not only was this not financially viable (despite the fact I was quite happy to spend the money), but as long as they still worked satisfactorily I shouldn't let ANYBODY near them with tools to dismantle them! I suspect that this is in part down to a shortage of new parts, but there seems to be a general reluctance on the part of my local camera retailers to fix anything that isn't broken that at times almost seems to border on reverence. I guess it's sensible advice, but I WOULD like to at least get the focusing screens cleaned on them - especially as my ST801 has a tiny dead spider clearly visible on the screen thanks to it having spent 9 years being stored in a loft! It doesn't affect the performance of the camera (and there 's a lot to be said for using a camera that's purely mechanical apart from the meter once in a while), but it's annoying nonetheless.
    Last edited by kid_runningfox; 06-27-2013 at 07:46 PM.

  7. #257
    "When you screw the hood onto your lens, be sure that the larger tulip petals are on top and bottom, and the shorter ones are at right and left. Try to get the corners lined up perfectly, or you'll have some awkward clipping/vignetting that'll just piss you off."

    just got the lens and filters yesterday. experimenting with the lens i noticed something that makes me think i'm not using it right. obviously you attach it to the lens but when the lens auto-focuses, the hood rotates with it throwing the thing out of alignment. i haven't taken any pictures yet to see what the results are but it doesn't seem right that the hood moves like that. maybe the removable ring that looks like a gear has something to do with it?

    "In addition to Duncan's trick for determine where best to point the camera to optimise the polariser's effect, don't forget that the polarisers are mounted on a rotating ring that gives you the ability to weaken or strengthen the polarisation ("lighten" or "darken" the image) for the best punch in definition and contrast. You will actually see the change through the viewfinder as you rotate the polariser, so don't worry about needing to guess at this."

    i was wondering what that ring was for. that was my next question.
    "She said you are the air I breathe
    The life I love, the dream I weave."


    Unevensong - Camel

  8. #258
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    It sounds as though your lens is not internally focusing (or zooming) - but rather a portion of the barrel is rotating in this situation.

    I rarely use my lens hood for the D2 anymore - but it does accept filters once on the camera - and it stays in place once on the lens (internal focus/zoom).



    The hood has it's own (square) cap too - which is cool - and being rigid, protects the lens itself from fingerprints and bumps.

    I intentionally go for flare/glare at times myself - it introduces a sense of realism to the image. I just cup my free hand and "hood" the lens in that manner most of the time. The less stuff I have to carry around the better . . . to each their own.

    ~JK

  9. #259
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    [I]...when the lens auto-focuses, the hood rotates with it throwing the thing out of alignment. i haven't taken any pictures yet to see what the results are but it doesn't seem right that the hood moves like that. maybe the removable ring that looks like a gear has something to do with it?
    Ooops. Sorry. I completely forgot about front-element rotating lenses (none of mine are built that way).

    Yes, this is a problem. I have no idea what that gear-thingy is, but if it's to turn the lens hood after you focus, then you are likely to de-focus when you turn it.

    While you are probably not going to need a lens hood for a 52mm front element, if you really do want a lens hood for the situations you get into, you'd want something like this:.Opteka Rubber lens hood.
    . If you're ordering more than $25 from Amazon, this one is less expensive: Zeikos Rubber lens hood.

  10. #260
    Moderator Duncan Glenday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    2,092
    Quote Originally Posted by kid_runningfox View Post
    Well, I was quoted £78 to fix it, and the lens only cost me £20 - including postage - so, sadly it would appear that getting it repaired's a non-starter. This is somewhat frustrating as it's a nice lens I haven't had for very long, and it's probably something stupidly simple that's gone wrong that would take about 5 minutes to fix if I knew what I was doing. This reminds me that one of the things that certainly HAS become a serious problem over here in the last few years is getting old analogue kit repaired or maintained. For example, I inquired not so long back about getting my Fujica SLRs serviced, and was informed that not only was this not financially viable (despite the fact I was quite happy to spend the money), but as long as they still worked satisfactorily I shouldn't let ANYBODY near them with tools to dismantle them! I suspect that this is in part down to a shortage of new parts, but there seems to be a general reluctance on the part of my local camera retailers to fix anything that isn't broken that at times almost seems to border on reverence. I guess it's sensible advice, but I WOULD like to at least get the focusing screens cleaned on them - especially as my ST801 has a tiny dead spider clearly visible on the screen thanks to it having spent 9 years being stored in a loft! It doesn't affect the performance of the camera (and there 's a lot to be said for using a camera that's purely mechanical apart from the meter once in a while), but it's annoying nonetheless.
    I understand how that must be s a problem. (Photography's equivalent of music's vinyl and turntables!)

    I understand there's an emerging group of hard core photographers who still insist on using film, and some camera manufacturers continue to provide equipment for them (particularly in large format equipment) ... but at enormous cost.

    Is it time to consider going digital? It will ultimately save you $$, and it's SO much easier!

    Also (I haven't researched this, but I suspect Greg and / or Joseph can correct me) I think there are a few up-scale manufacturers who have interchangeable backs - so your camera can be used as either digital or analog.

    Either way - looks like you're if for some heavy expenses. Might be worth buying up a few extra 801s on E-Bay..?
    Regards,

    Duncan

  11. #261
    Member thedunno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    2,119
    And now for something completely different: Here are some shots of my recent vacation to Central Asia.
    Uzbekistan (mosques) and Tajikistan (mountains)

    https://plus.google.com/photos/10743...70698460478337

    Joost

  12. #262
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Google
    You do not have permission to view this album.
    wZ V C W5FXVH B RTWQQQFXF SD DERSWTX .,. JG

    ...and, the rest of that is what my three-month-old thought of Google's statement.

  13. #263
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Duncan Glenday View Post
    I understand how that must be s a problem. (Photography's equivalent of music's vinyl and turntables!)

    I understand there's an emerging group of hard core photographers who still insist on using film, and some camera manufacturers continue to provide equipment for them (particularly in large format equipment) ... but at enormous cost.

    Is it time to consider going digital? It will ultimately save you $$, and it's SO much easier!

    Also (I haven't researched this, but I suspect Greg and / or Joseph can correct me) I think there are a few up-scale manufacturers who have interchangeable backs - so your camera can be used as either digital or analog.

    Either way - looks like you're if for some heavy expenses. Might be worth buying up a few extra 801s on E-Bay..?
    Nah, I've BEEN digtal and I FAR prefer using film, whatever the expense. Also, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with either of the Fujicas I own - they're wonderfully robust, and despite the rigours of age they both still work well and take lovely pictures. The detritus on the focusing screens is really just an irritation more than anything else, but doesn't affect the performance of the cameras as a whole. Also, as much of the conversation on these pages reveals, there's a level of complexity to digital SLRs, in terms of the facilities offered, that I neither want nor need. There's something very intuitive about using an all-manual SLR like my ST801 that I personally find very conducive to taking good photographs, and I really don't need anything beyond decent optics and perhaps aperture-priority AE. All of the 'bracketing,' multiple exposure modes, etc that digital SLRs offer is just excess baggage, imho, and creates more potential ways to mess up an otherwise decent photograph. Believe it or not, I even prefer doing my own focusing! I appreciate that this may seem excessively Luddite-like, but I find most digital SLRs extremely intimidating in their over-complication of something that should be relatively straightforward.
    Last edited by kid_runningfox; 07-01-2013 at 10:04 AM.

  14. #264
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by thedunno View Post
    And now for something completely different: Here are some shots of my recent vacation to Central Asia.
    Uzbekistan (mosques) and Tajikistan (mountains)

    https://plus.google.com/photos/10743...70698460478337

    Joost
    Some fantastic shots there! I particularly like the ones of the people on the streets, but they're all lovely!

  15. #265
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    But Mark - remember that auto focus, exposure modes, bracketing and the like . . . all originated in the age of film, and carried over to digital quite easily.

    Now that sensor technology and processing have equaled or surpassed emulsions - your images should retain all of your favorite characteristics of film - - -

    Yet - I completely understand the tactile pleasure of emulsion - the eager wait until your prints are complete - and the surprise that awaits you upon opening the envelope and laying your eyes on your creations. I've found undeveloped rolls of film when moving at times, had them developed - - - wow - - - some great memories bubble to the surface in this manner - - -

    In the music industry - there's a current trend to take all the tracks inside a digital audio workstation computer - converting the signals back to analog - then sending all the tracks outside of the computer to an actual mixing console. Audio sounds different when mixed on a real desk, with copper wires . . . as opposed to mixing internally in ProTools, Logic - etc. Once the analog mixing (summing) is complete - the tracks are then mastered back in the DAW for finality. Some say the mix sounds wider, warmer - with more sonic separation . . . I've heard A/B comparisons myself - and hear something different.

    Maybe the same can be said about analog photography - the silver molecules bring a certain feel to the image, the range of contrasts, shadow-detail, color saturations - - - who knows.

    The bottom line is use the tools that make you happy, and learn them well -

    later.

  16. #266
    from around the complex..





    Last edited by UnephenStephen; 07-05-2013 at 03:48 PM.
    "She said you are the air I breathe
    The life I love, the dream I weave."


    Unevensong - Camel

  17. #267
    ALL ACCESS Gruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Dio, Alabama
    Posts
    3,167
    Very nice and such vibrant colors!! Getting better by the frame!

  18. #268
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    from around the complex..
    Now THAT'S what we're talkin' about!

    What'd you do differently? Are you getting more comfortable with the aperture/shutter-speed relationship, now?

  19. #269
    ALL ACCESS Gruno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Dio, Alabama
    Posts
    3,167
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Now THAT'S what we're talkin' about!

    What'd you do differently? Are you getting more comfortable with the aperture/shutter-speed relationship, now?
    They are very different from his previous images! I love seeing progress like this!

  20. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by Greg View Post
    Now THAT'S what we're talkin' about!

    What'd you do differently? Are you getting more comfortable with the aperture/shutter-speed relationship, now?
    a little experimentation plus learning a bit more about my camera settings. eg: i've had my Picture Control set to Standard for everything. changing it to Landscape made a big difference (not the same as the auto scene mode). some things i wasn't using before (D-lighting, WB) were changed/set automatically. here's the full metadata..

    Matrix metering (i had center-weighted)
    1/125, F11
    110
    24mm
    WB Auto (i had Daylight)
    Active D-Lighting Auto (had it turned off)
    oh, and no polarizer. did use the hood though.

    must have done something because i've used similar iso, shutter and aperture settings via Manual for other outside shots that didn't turn out nearly as good.

    the macros i took on Standard.
    Last edited by UnephenStephen; 07-05-2013 at 06:56 PM.
    "She said you are the air I breathe
    The life I love, the dream I weave."


    Unevensong - Camel

  21. #271
    still can't get this scene right but probably has more to do with the time of day/sky conditions than it does the Picture Control. the one from Fri was taken around noon but the complex was lighted perfectly and the sky wasn't as hazy. this one was taken yesterday morning between 9:30a and 10:30 - the sun was above but behind me and the sky was much hazier. i used a polarizer but that didn't seem to do much so either i'm not using it right or it doesn't work. to compensate for the polarizer, i set the EV to +0.7..

    Lyman4_ 037_1900_01.jpg

    on the brighter side, i took 83 pictures yesterday and none of them had blown hilites or lost shadows on the original exposures (though some were more underexposed than others depending on the settings).

    Picture Control - Standard
    Matrix metering (i had center-weighted)
    1/125, F11
    200
    55mm
    WB - Daylight
    Active D-Lighting - off
    Last edited by UnephenStephen; 07-07-2013 at 11:19 AM.
    "She said you are the air I breathe
    The life I love, the dream I weave."


    Unevensong - Camel

  22. #272
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    i've had my Picture Control set to Standard for everything. changing it to Landscape made a big difference
    This will affect how the camera judges the metered values the image. While "standard" should be fine, it will require you to do more work to determine the correct exposure.

    Set to "landsape" for landscapes, the camera will do extra calculations to make sure the sky and shadows are exposed more evenly when it tells you what it believes you should be using.

    However, neither picture mode will of any use if you are not using the metered values as a reference when shooting in manual or half-manual modes.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    Matrix metering (i had center-weighted)
    This is good for overall landscape exposure, backlit subjects, or any scene where you need to know what the camera suggests you use for the best average of all areas of light in the image.

    Centre weighted is better when you read the light off your subject or point of focus/exposure, and know how to compensate for the rest of the light in the image by adjusting that initial reading.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    WB Auto (i had Daylight)
    Until you get completely comfortable with shutter speed and aperture, I'd suggest leaving this on auto all the time.

    QUOTE=UnephenStephen;122891]Active D-Lighting Auto (had it turned off)[/QUOTE]

    This is a Nikon feature that only works when the RAW images are viewed in the Nikon software. It does nothing if you want to transfer the images to an application like Photoshop or GIMP.

    Essentially what it is doing is creating a "fill light" effect for the dark areas to balance out the exposure with the bright areas. Sort of what your eye does automatically. Unfortunately, when this is on, you may learn the incorrect exposure settings for the image.

    Again, though, it is only useful inside the Nikon software. It can become a crutch, So, I suggest leaving this off, as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    (Fountain photo)

    still can't get this scene right but probably has more to do with the time of day/sky conditions than it does the Picture Control. the one from Fri was taken around noon but the complex was lighted perfectly and the sky wasn't as hazy. this one was taken yesterday morning between 9:30a and 10:30
    A 1/2 or full stop down and this should have been good. The light is exposed evenly across the entire image. The only problem is that it is ever so slightly under exposed. Just a hair longer on the exposure should have fixed it.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    the sun was above but behind me and the sky was much hazier. i used a polarizer but that didn't seem to do much
    The reason the polariser didn't work is in bold. The (sun) light needs to be entering the shot at right angles, and "above" doesn't normally count.

    Also, if rotating the polariser on the lens doesn't lighten/darken what you see in the viewfinder, then you are not at the correct angle to the sun. You don't need to fire off a shot to see if it's working.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    i set the EV to +0.7..
    Okay, this is not quite the way to use the exposure compensation control, but almost. This probably had the effect of changing your exposure to 1/100 & f11, and it wa still under exposed. You could have shot a series at 0, +0.7, +1.0 and +1.4, and you might have hit it at +1.0. But, firing a single shot at EV +0.7 sort of defeats the purpose of.exposure compensation control, and hides what it really happening with the shutter speed and aperture settings..

    However, the image you got at EV +0.7 is entirely fixable in post process but changing the levels.

    This last image, though, has far better balance of sky land water to make it an interesting landscape. The sky is not jilted in this shot as it had been i your ealier images. If the sky had clouds, it would be even more interesting and could have swayed the exposure in your favour (more white in the shot).

  23. #273
    "A 1/2 or full stop down and this should have been good. The light is exposed evenly across the entire image. The only problem is that it is ever so slightly under exposed. Just a hair longer on the exposure should have fixed it."

    that one was post-processed. this is an unprocessed version of another in the same series..

    Lyman4_ 036_1900.jpg

    here's an unprocessed one that was a hair longer..

    Lyman4_ 007_1900.jpg

    Matrix metering
    1/100, F11
    200
    55mm
    WB Auto
    Active D-Lighting off

    one even longer..

    Lyman4_ 002_1900.jpg

    1/80, F10
    200

    to me they all look a bit washed out. probably the haze.
    Last edited by UnephenStephen; 07-07-2013 at 07:16 PM.
    "She said you are the air I breathe
    The life I love, the dream I weave."


    Unevensong - Camel

  24. #274
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    54
    Goats


  25. #275
    General Miscreant Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    that one was post-processed. this is an unprocessed version of another in the same series...
    Okay, since I don't know what that one looked liked before the post prrocessing you can ignore my comments on the direction to alter the exposure for the settings you posted with that image.

    Quote Originally Posted by UnephenStephen View Post
    one even longer.
    Since the image with the filename "lyman4_002_1900.jpg" is closest and you mentioned an exposure of 1/80 & F10 at ISO 200, I can say that this is so far the closest raw exposure to correct. Maybe at f9 you have gotten it. But, my eyes are not good enough to tell, in this image, if the fountain and background trees are both in focus. If not, you would need to stay at f10 or even f11, and slow down the shutter to 1/60, or use a tripod at 1/30.

    One problem you have is that the algae and plant growth on the pond surface is making the image look muddy. If the pond were not covered with that layer of brown-green flotsam the entire image would start to pop.

    Try to visualise the image using only the quality of the water immediately around the fountain.

    The haze you mention could be due to a lack of focus in the background, or from the harsh overhead sun in a cloudless sky.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •