I suggest posting "missed photos" as a third top-level comment (and editing the body accordingly). We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
Ad astra per aspera
Convert to Lab colour
Any idea where that would be in Gimp ?
I have that issue with my 50mm since I tend to use it for low light shots and have the aperture on f/1.4.
I find that with the 50mm, even though it feels in camera that I have focussed on some specific part of the frame, the shot turns out with it focussing on the wall behind or slightly to the side of the person or subject of the shot. Most annoying.
Here's a good tip on aperture and DOF Ad astra per aspera
Then there is the fact that those detectors (captors maybe?) are about contrast values and that they are big enough in size to choose in the bracket area the "best" contrast, meaning the easiest, to focus on.
If you center the bracket on a limit between a fuzzy or dark material and a grouted well lit wall, it'll choose the wall !
Now if you combine the facts that the AF captors aren't exactly where you think they are, added to the "easy" contrast values, you'll find yourself with "accidently" focusing on parts of the scene you didn't choose yourself ! Some will claim they have front or back focusing problems (it happens and is repaired easily) when in most cases it's because of those AF captor sizes and targets...
While in manual focusing, you have the matted screen, but also the little green focusing light (lower left in the viewfinder). My own observation, backed by quite a number of other photographers is that this light has several states: not lighted (not in focus), lighted in full (in focus)... And flickering before "full" or after !
I have the sharpest focus when having the flickering green light before full light when focusing from close range toward infinity. While I use old MF lenses with a longer focusing throw (meaning I can be very precise between flickering or not), it seems it works also with AF lenses with a shorter throw (it's just harder to get to the precise point)...
If one day you discover you're fond of manual focusing a Katz-eye viewfinder glass replacement (not cheap but not needing any mortgaging the house either), it will allow you to use the stigmometer focusing screen all old SLR's used to have :-) Those who have eyesight problems and prefer manual focusing just rave about it !
I still rely on the original viewfinder glass, but might change in a few years ! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
More tips for me to follow! Thanks. Ad astra per aspera
With a digital camera like the D80, the ratio of the CCD is about 1.5 compared to 24x36 (or 135 format). That means that when set at 50mm focal (for example), the 135 equivalent (or apparent) focal length would be 75mm.
The old trick of trade, stating that you have to set your speed at least at the focal length value (1/50th or 1/60th for a 50mm lens) seems to apply with the so-called crop factor (1.5). That's for camera motion blur vs the subject motion blur !
At the tele end of your zoom (105mm) you should be at a speed of 1/200th (1/157th)if hand holding or use a tripod for slower speeds.
I'm sure that, looking at the exifs, you'll find you have a higher rate of sharp pictures at the wide end then at the tele one... :-)
Then you have the aperture (or f stop). Setting it wide open (small number) allows for more light or a lower speed value in a given light... But it reduces you depth of field (or DoF), meaning that the plane of sharpness is quite shallow ! Add that problem to an auto-focus or manual focus a bit too near or too far and you get a seemingly not so sharp picture !
Of course, all that is above is for a given ISO value (the good old film ISO/ASA number). But with the D80 you can add ISO as another variable by changing it or allowing it to change automatically with auto-ISO.
You can try a "false" manual setting... You get in auto-iso mode, in manual mode, you set a speed value, fixed high enough for your lens crop factor. You then forget about it and use your camera as in mode A (aperture priority), setting the f stop in relationship to DoF.... Then take the pictures ! Auto-Iso will adjust ISO value accordingly, setting it higher if the scene is darker or lower if the scene is lighter... It has some limitations though. The higher you go with ISO, the more you are prone to "noise" (or digital grain), and you can't go much lower then 100 ISO (if it hits the floor, you'll have to act on speed or f stop)!
Does this helps ? :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Great reply... And quite to the point :-) (Maybe that's why I don't teach photography)!!! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Ask for explanations of the other jargonese in there!
Really: I'll wait.
The closer you hold the hole, the more you can see of the scene, the further away, the less you see. So, short focal length means a wider angle view, long focal length means narrow angle view.
To illustrate the effect, I'll demonstrate why I do photography rather than drawing: on the left we have a pinhole very near the sensor, so the tree(!) only occupies a small part of the frame, on the right the pinhole is much further away, so the tree occupies lots of the frame.
So far so good?
Now, where this gets interesting is when you change the size of the sensor the light is falling on:
Three sensors indicated there, for a 60mm focal length: 35mm, the DX sensor in the Nikon digitals and most other digital SLRs and 6x6 film. Digital compacts have much smaller lenses.
If you trace the light you can see that the "house" (or "robot") is covering most of the 6x6 frame, that only a small part of it is visible to the 35mm sensor and even less to the DX sensor. A compact camera thinks that a 60mm lenses is a long telephoto while a 6x6 sensor sees it as a normal lens and a 4" x 5" would see it as an extreme wide-angle. Thus the 60mm lens on a 35mm is equivalent in angle of view to a 90mm on the DX sensor.
DId that help?
More seriously, great effort, you must have a scan nearby ! Next step: perspective (or the face you don't recognize with that big nose in the middle :-) )... Or why it is independent of the focal length but in direct relationship with the distance between the subject and the film plane (or captor, or CCD)...
The fact, as shown in Colman's drawings, that different focal lengths (i.e. the usual lens naming) gives you different viewing angles is often confused with the "perspective" effect (the too big nose). Most people think that with a wide angle you have a "bad" portrait, while with a mid-tele that's not a problem...
As in the drawings above, we tend to "fill" the frame for a portrait (just an example), so with a tele we are at some distance of the subject, while with a "wide-angle" we would be much nearer, thus accentuating the perspective effect.
It works with buildings too, when people want to get the whole church "in the frame" they often favor a great wide-angle lens increasing the weird feeling that parallels spires are meeting in some not too far points !
When you don't have the backing space for a "frame filling" shot (often the case in old cities) it is often easier (i didn't say better) to find a distant viewpoint (the hill outside the village ) and to use a big tele lens...
Or to use your ordinary lens (35m or 50mm) and frame part of the church in a way that conveys the feeling you had when seeing it (the church). :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Or to use your ordinary lens (35m or 50mm) and frame part of the church in a way that conveys the feeling you had when seeing it (the church). :-)
As in gioele 's Prague picture below :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Isn't that two separate issues? The face distortion is due to the way it's spread over the frame (compared to how we expect to see it - you can get the same effect by eye if you pay attention to what you're actually seeing), while the meeting spires is more to do with the sensor plane not being vertical - you point it up at the church and that causes distortion.
That's why view cameras can correct for it: you can set the back parallel to the subject and use the front movement to get the framing you want:
From Ansel Adam's The Camera.
The face distortion is about distance and as you say you can see it if you get near the subject's nostrils :-)
But for a given distance, a tele shot and a wide angle shot will generate the same perspective deformation if you superpose the two pictures (blowing one up or shrinking the other)... "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I just came back from a sudden trip from Finland; have I missed much? You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
perspective (or the face you don't recognize with that big nose in the middle :-)
The folks I know who do portraits on a regular basis swear that 100mm to 135mm (35 mm cameras) lenses are the best for such work--just to avoid the problem you mention.
These lenses also mean that you can get detailed shots without getting too close to the subject. "Remember the I35W bridge--who needs terrorists when there are Republicans"
For portraits - in the sense of a depiction of a person - that include the environment you can use much wider lenses without making the person look too scary. It's all a matter of how much of the frame they're filling.
This is helpful, thanks. I will have to read over everything again when I am not supposed to be working! Ad astra per aspera
One thing I found in an article - and verified myself experimentally - is that this particular lens reaches a max sharpness at f/2.5. Below that it is noticeably less sharp. The spendier f/1.4 50mm is at max sharpness throughout the aperture range.
I'm really appreciating the VR on my zoom lens after working with the new one. It's really tough to get decent low light shots even at f/1.8 that don't exhibit a fair bit of camera shake.
you are the media you consume.
(We have both the AF-D one and a much older manual version.)
Having less of the picture in focus is actually an advantage. Look at my picture of a bottle on a mountain background below; it's out of focus on purpose.
I usually have it set all the time, except in twilights where it will light more a scene then I want it, making a full day shot of an almost night scene. "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
here is my first (very amateur) entry, from one of two visits last week to the Hangzhou Botanical Gardens.
Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
they turn out to be "wintersweets" (Chimonanthus praecox), or 蝋梅 (là méi, literally "wax or glazed plum") in Mandarin.
unlike the other blossoms, these have a very noticeable and delightful fragrance. i had never known them before, they turn out to be fairly common. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
I'm guessing you posted this under the constructive criticism thread by accident ... but I think a little cropping helps with the impact of that.
Or you just have a nice feeling about the scene and take a picture of it to keep it in some sort of Proust's madeleine diairy !
In the first situation you already think about communicating the picture when you take it, in the second situation,it's more personal and when you show it to others, it's like giving them a bit of your inner feelings...!
None is superior to the other, they are just juxtaposed ! But Colman was right in trying to show how the same picture can tell different stories... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
thanks for the tip about cropping. i am still just playing around with adjusting hue, saturation, contrast, etc. in iPhoto, but i had not even thought about cropping. Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.
The problem I see here is more about including the light appliance. It adds a "hot spot" on DSLRs cameras that are not so good on extreme values (as can be seen here with the posterisation effect) ! No, the real drawback of such a framing with the light appliance is that it fools your metering system (matrix, average, spot ?) by trying to find a mean value between the very dark shirt (dress?) and the very white hot spot ! As it can't, you loose all details in the shadows AND in the hot spot...
Framing without the appliance would have given at f/1.4 and with a "normal" speed an ISO value that would have kept the shadows correctly illuminated and less noise even at a higher ISO...!
Then there is the focus problem with the shallow DoF (what settings for AF do you use ?) that might have been corrected by manual focus... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I do find with the 50mm that I have more trouble focussing it on AF than with other lenses. But when I switch to manual focus I always mess it up even if it looks right in the viewfinder. Ad astra per aspera
The lighting is horrible - mixed tungsten and flourescent as far as I can tell - I can't colour correct is properly.
Why didn't you use a bit of flash? It's a pretty formal portrait.
It was actually an opportunity shot. I was taking a photo of her talking to someone and she saw me and turned around to face the camera. Ad astra per aspera
Direct flash goes with harsh shadows (and sharp pictures)!
Anyhow, once you're tagged as the "Gal with the camera" and after a few minutes, indirect flash won't surprise people too much, while direct flash can (and even hurt people with eye problems)! "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I'd suggest this more Capaesque cropping would have been better, the Guinness poster is a bit distracting, and, as it's incomplete, looks accidental. She is the subject but you still have the dark Guinness thing on the wall suggesting a pub. Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
While the second one is with spot metering on the shadows with an even light (backlit), 20mm, f/2.8, 1/80th, 180 ISO
"What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Did you focus these on manual? I've tended to spot meter everything, along with the focus, and haven't experimented enough with the different metering settings on the camera.
I seem to be able to improve one aspect of technique at a time, then I look back later on and realise that I'd ruined a shot because I hadn't exposed it correctly or thought about increasing the aperture or changing the ISO... Ad astra per aspera
Spot metering is not what I would have chosen for a shot like that. What did you meter off? Or do you mean the matrix metering?
Any useful summary for me to bear in mind on metering? Ad astra per aspera
Matrix metering isn't good when its voodoo guesses wrong - back-lighting is a classic, though with D-lenses (that tell it where they're focused) it can do some magic. Lots of light or dark areas in the frame can confuse it too. Snow, sand, etc.
One recent example that occurs to me is shooting a small stained glass window from inside the church.
The camera decided it was really dark because the window only took up a relatvely small amount of the frame, while I really wanted to expose for the light outside the window, which made the interior stone black but showed the colours of the window nicely. In that case I spot metered on the window.
when its voodoo guesses wrong
Exactly... :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I manual focused because it was a 50mm Nikkor-S that is about thirty years old :-) The second shot was with AF (20/2.8 AFD).
The first picture isn't really sharp (and the subject was speaking so his chin is more blurred then the rest), but acceptable in small sizes, while the second picture can be blown up at decent sizes !
On the D200, matrix metering is quite good for most cases (apart when you have a direct light in the frame), because I started shooting a long time ago I'm more familiar with centered average metering, as I know what I will get. I usually keep spot metering for peculiar cases, as in the second picture with the big white diffusing background...
Don't worry about improving one aspect at a time, it'll soak in :-) Apart from very specific shoots (macro, astronomy, stills, etc.) you shouldn't have to "think" too much, meaning the basics (composition, settings, etc.) should be more on the instinctive side... But to get there, most of us ruined kilometres of good film :-) "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
I think the problem here is that there's not enough front lighting and rather odd backlighting, so the face is partly in shadow.
I've brightened it, Color Balanced and sharpened here a little, which brings it out slightly, but flesh tones are always going to look a bit odd with the vivid colour mix in the background and that Pub Lamp of God backlight effect.
This crop is possibly a bit sterile because it's lost the hands, but it highlights the thirds, and also removes the chairs which are a bit cluttery.
Anyway - it's a different take on the scene, so I thought I'd try it this way to see how it worked out.
Interesting blue eyes now too. (The spice...must flow...)
I want to put together an exhibition for my 30th birthday, towards the end of the year. The idea is that I get lots of friends and colleagues together who I haven't seen in ages, celebrate my birthday, fundraise for my charity with the event and give myself a challenge for the year to produce an exhibition.
But I know I'm not good enough yet. I also have no idea what theme to have, nor how to put an exhibition together.
Any advice is welcome!
tzt as well, how do you put your exibitions together? Ad astra per aspera
But I'm a total newbie. You have a normal feeling for a moment, then it passes. --More--
Portraits aren't my thing - I find them incredibly hard and they never come out right, so for now I've decided on just aesthetic scapes. These are two from a trip to Bruges, taken with a simply point and click. I like them, but they don't have that extra zing. How would you improve?
During trips I also enjoy photographing food - because I think it contributes a good slice of a succesful trip. This one I nearly contributed to (last week's?) session of cafe shots. I think the grainyness of the picture actually contributes to the atmosphere. Perhaps I should convert this one to black and white.
I think only that bit is properly exposed ...
Question: how would you reduce that kind of flaring effect?
Perhaps I should just take a beginner's course before I start bothering people here...
Basically, that's scattering off and between the surfaces of the individual lens elements within the lens (as far as I know!). High-end lenses are designed to avoid it, use all sorts of funky glass and special coatings to reduce the amount of flare from bright patches and correct for other things. (I'm having a sudden crisis of confidence that flare is the right work now. Oh well.) They don't always succeed - even some very expensive lenses can need careful handling to avoid it.
If your camera can't handle it you need to avoid the bright patches when you can.
I don't see the point of moving towards expensive equipment if I can't make decent compositions in the first place...
Anyhow, you'll just have to talk to Mr Sun about the whole scheduling thing.
A lot of landscape photographers talk about the early and late hours of sunlights as being the magic times for photos. That or an overcast day: trying to take photos in midday sun is hard work.
Besides, I can't check. It has broken down since and I left it in the Netherlands. I'm devoid of camera at the moment. If there's money over after my car purchase (trepidation, trepidation) I can focus on that one...
Digital or film?
I can't check that either - when I had the film developed I also requested a digital format. That's the one you see here. Interestingly, I like the paper version over the digital one.
There are people who go to some trouble and expense to buy older lenses without some of the high-tech coatings in order to get certain flare effects like that.
