you plan on shooting just sports?

5/25/2009 9:23:06 AM

Waterfall near Asheville:





[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ...]

5/25/2009 9:48:13 AM

did you do an touch up to that? looks like the lighting was really working out well for you. gg.

5/25/2009 10:09:41 AM

do you have a circular polarizer? it may beable to deflect some of that light at the very top that washes out all of the detail in the water on the second picture.

5/25/2009 10:14:56 AM

^^ Circular polarizer, partly cloudy day. I was there on a picnic with my family so I had about 15 minutes to take pictures. Then I settled down for a sandwich and a beer and the light got *perfect*. oh well! I also wish I'd gotten more good shots with people in them for scale.

^ yeah the circ-po soaks up a stop or two, but I can see how a real ND filter would be useful. I'm guessing that that would help keep the highlights from blowing out on the water, right? or would it not make a difference? white water/black rock makes it pretty tricky.

5/25/2009 10:51:56 AM

ah, the ND filter probably wouldn't have done too much. i figure that the polarizer would have had an angle that would have deflected much of that light but its probably just too big of a difference in dynamic range. I won't insult your intelligence by asking if you turned the polarizer .

thing about an nd filter is that its darkens everything. so still probably would have happened. but i don't know i don't ever use ND's.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 11:04 AM. Reason : i do like the shot though]

5/25/2009 11:04:27 AM

an ND filter is valuable for landscapes because you can drag the shutter for longer periods of time to get those silky smooth water movements in bright day light. Even with the shade (on a sunny day) at F/22 at ISO 100, its nothing more than what 1-2" exposure? You'd probably want a 3 stop ND filter to drag it down to 8 seconds or more. A split ND filter is nice to have to properly expose the sky and land without using HDR, but than again, HDR is free and a split is a bit expensive, plus that's like the only use for it.

5/25/2009 12:29:03 PM

actually those were more like 1/2 to 1/2.5 at f/20. Like I said, it got a little cloudier later, but that was after I'd packed up.

also minimum ISO on the d40 is 200, hrmph.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 12:36 PM. Reason : ..]

5/25/2009 12:35:10 PM

Silly Nikon ppl and their ISO 200 min

5/25/2009 12:47:19 PM

^I know the D300 can go to 100 (L 1.0) iso.

Heres my waterfall attempt from yesterday while hiking Little Lost Cove (Burke County).

5/25/2009 1:08:18 PM

you shouldn't have to do an expansion to use an ISO 100...

5/25/2009 1:22:00 PM

there tends to be a higher demand for higher shutter speeds than lower shutter speeds so nikon tends to push their iso's closer to the high end and kinda leave 100 out. I think they also do this more along the lines of "our iso200 is closer to a 100/150 range in sharpness and grain but reacts a bit better to light". though i have felt the burn on the low end iso every so often wanting to slow down a shutter without having to go to f22 in the sun... one stop isn't that big of a deal really. 5d has iso50 expanded right?

split ND filter would have probably worked ok except the water fall is kinda in the middle of everything. but yeah i'd say the only thing you could do in that situation would have probably been to under expose a bit to get some detail in it and just HDR it a to bring everything else back up.

5/25/2009 3:20:20 PM

Fuck HDR.

5/25/2009 3:22:30 PM

or i guess you could shoot film.

I like HDR. it just tends to be overdone, gimmicky and overused.

5/25/2009 3:32:04 PM

HDR is great, when its done right, but only 2% of people who do HDR know how to use it. It's like the Solaris effect you can get with HDR, its cool looking for the first two pictures, but after that, its just stupid. Best kind of HDR is when you can barely see it, having proper details in the shadows and bright highlights that would normally be out of the dynamic range of the camera. Its a short fall of what our cameras can't see and what our minds can.

It's like the spoon trick from the matrix... lol

But yeah, the 1D and 5D's all have ISO50. Low ISO film is hard as shit to find and expensive since it's again in the niche market. ISO64 is probably the lowest color film you can still get and it's not cheap. ISO 25-50 of what I can find is B&W and like $5 a roll. I think our school has a set of ISO 12 and 6 somewhere in the fridge, but I don't think we have the chemicals to develop them.

By the time you digitize your film, you might as well spend the money on some ND filters.

5/25/2009 3:52:14 PM

oh i was saying film for the higher dynamic range. not for the low iso/slow shutter speeds.

yeah i've seen iso25. I think it was actually color. was a friend of mine who had it. That is the lowest i've seen in person.

5/25/2009 4:03:34 PM

Fujifilm has their velvia 50 transparency which is suppose to be awesome (I'll probably get a pack for the 4x5), but it's like $7 a roll for 35mm. B&W film has the higher dynamic range and film latitude; color isn't as gifted. Transparency film is very restrictive compared to B&W film, but against most modern SLR's, it's about the same range. Although the newer digital backs for the medium formats give a huge advantage than transparency films. The leaf backs have a 12-14 stop dynamic range which is like huge, but who has 80 grand to dump on a digital MF system?

You expose for the highlights to get proper exposure, but with B&W you can expose for the shadows and still get detail in the highlights. Just a rule of thumb, not to be taken as bible gossip.

[Edited on May 25, 2009 at 4:42 PM. Reason : ]

5/25/2009 4:32:28 PM

i've shot with that 50 velvi and yes it was pretty sweet. that was a while back. and as dynamic range goes, you are right, bw film pretty much has the market on lockdown. color film (reverse film) has a higher dynamic range than digital by a decent amount though. digital actually in many cases can beat out your typical slide/transparency film.

actually. i agree with basically everything you've just said. I can now admit that i have met you.

5/25/2009 5:54:29 PM

I really like how this eastern king snake came out.

5/26/2009 12:55:34 AM

very nice. Some shots for last nights game. Kinda sad the Canes lost, but relieved that I don't have to shoot hockey for while. A nice breather.

5/27/2009 11:07:01 PM

I just picked up a Canon XSi with 18-55mm and 55-250mm lenses. Pretty excited to start using it especially after coming from a 5 year old point and shoot. Hopefully, I can start contributing to this thread soon!

5/27/2009 11:30:09 PM

Quote :

"Anyone have any opinions about a used nikon D2h for $500?"

I'd be mostly concerned about battery life, the camera could be 5.5 years old. Canon's equivalent came out in late 2001, so you'd also be buying into technology that's 7.5 years old.

5/27/2009 11:58:38 PM

Holy shit that shot of Staal's stick in dude's face is awesome. Sweet shots dude.

5/27/2009 11:58:57 PM

^ what he said.

5/28/2009 8:08:43 AM

Personally, I would invest in a more modern semi-pro body than the old Nikon D2x/h. Like what Rob said, its quite old, battery life could be an issue and honestly, 4MP is not much room these days to crop. If you have good glass to go with it and can compose out of the camera with no cropping, then yeah, I'd say get it, specially for shooting sports.

But if you plan on using it as your main body and starting out to learn or coming from the P&S world, pass. Old digital SLR's like that are best kept as backup bodies for situations where your main body dies and waiting for it to be fixed or you are going into a hostile environment and need a cheap body that you don't have to worry about.

If you have Nikon glass already, look at D60, D80, D90, D200, D300, those are around the same price a little more, but you get a lot more in terms of value. Canon's 20D, 30D, 40D are about the same market as well, and then there's the line of rebels which are pretty damn nice now, almost better than the xxD's.

5/28/2009 9:34:56 AM

I know it is a pet picture but I like it. The only thing I would change is to move the leafs down just a smidge to cover his manhood.

5/28/2009 10:22:12 AM

great, now i can't unsee it

5/28/2009 10:25:38 AM

Nikon's D2H is the immediate successor to the D1H which was announced in February 2001 (along with the D1x) and reviewed by us in September of that year. The D1H built on the strengths of the D1 and added several new features including selectable color space, one-button playback, a new LCD monitor and others. However the biggest news about the D1H was the concept that it was a camera aimed specifically at sports and photo journalists who needed high frame rates and a large buffer. The D1H had the same sensor as the D1 (2.72 million effective pixels) but shot at five frames per second for up to 40 frames. The D1H was the class leader in its field and was only challenged by the 4.1 million pixel effective, 8 fps, 21 frame Canon EOS-1D which hit the shelves towards the end of 2001.

The D2H raises the bar even further, it has a brand new Nikon designed 4.1 million pixel 'JFET sensor' and is capable of capturing eight frames per second for up to 40 frames (five seconds of continuous shooting at 8 fps). The D2H also adds a whole lot more including a new eleven area AF module (Multi-Cam 2000), 37 ms shutter lag and just 80 ms viewfinder blackout, a new ambient external WB sensor, an orientation sensor, RAW + JPEG format, a huge 2.5" 211,000 pixel LCD monitor, a new lightweight Lithium-Ion battery (with detailed in-camera readout) and USB 2.0. The other 'big news' about the D2H system is the new WT-1 802.11b wireless transmission add-on which allows you to FTP images back to a server as you shoot them*.

* Buffered off the CF card with automatic reconnection on signal drop.

a bit of information from dpreview about the d2h. this should provide you with enough information to get the dogs wang out of the screen.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 10:41 AM. Reason : perfect]

5/28/2009 10:41:24 AM

^3 He needs to put his lipstick away

5/28/2009 10:44:01 AM

yes, he is a big dog ~100 lbs now and comes with matching equipment.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 11:03 AM. Reason : k]

5/28/2009 10:48:07 AM

haha... an economy sized tube of lipstick

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 10:49 AM. Reason : I can't spell]

5/28/2009 10:49:05 AM

ok, so this question may fall on deaf ears but....

What editing steps do you usually go through? I usually just check levels, saturation, and sharpness with photoshop...but I haven't delved into anything else. Just looking for some tips in that department.

5/28/2009 4:24:31 PM

what ever happened to ZiP?

5/28/2009 5:11:11 PM

Quote :

""

This is good stuff! Awesome color and composition.

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 28, 2009 at 9:22 PM. Reason : .]

5/28/2009 9:20:16 PM

blah

5/28/2009 11:54:44 PM

alright, can someone summarize the entry-level DSLR options available right now? my little brother is looking to start and my only experience is with the D90 and its 18-105mm kit lens and that's a bit above entry level

i wish i had seen the slickdeals sears deal from a few days ago (new canon rebel XS, EF-S 18-55mm, EF 75-300mm for $475 + tax with store pickup), but alas, i've done missed it

i'm just not up with what's available these days...what new kits can be had for around the $600-700 mark? i assume that what's available in that range will sometimes come up with some pretty good deals...looking for the best bang for the buck

5/29/2009 9:18:47 PM

used 40D

5/29/2009 11:28:38 PM

^ i hate compact flash cards

i was going to give him a couple of my 8gb SDHC (30mb/s edition) cards, so i probably should have mentioned that i was looking for something that supported SDHC

5/30/2009 10:04:30 AM

^ quaggie, the D40 doesn't use CF media

5/30/2009 10:09:19 AM

^ but a 40D does.

[Edited on May 30, 2009 at 10:13 AM. Reason : Canon 40D takes CF, Nikon D40 takes SDHC]

5/30/2009 10:12:08 AM

tell him to shoot film

5/30/2009 10:14:09 AM

he's already shot film...and developed his own black and white (which i've done a couple of times...it was pretty cool)

but the DSLR market is very different, and neither he nor i know much about it (i mean, i like to take pics, and yes, i use a D90...but i really don't know much about the options, especially in the entry-level zone)

5/30/2009 10:21:16 AM

what did he shoot with on film?

5/30/2009 10:25:29 AM

a relatively new nikon...i forget the model

5/30/2009 10:36:32 AM

what lenses does he have for it?

5/30/2009 10:37:55 AM

i THINK he's got an 18-55mm and a 55-200mm

dumb question...can you use SLR lenses on a DSLR (same company, of course)?

5/30/2009 10:39:22 AM

yeah you can.

some nikons one won't autofocus. but thats only on some dslrs.

the 18-55 and 55-200 are dx lenses so its probably not those if he is shooting film. but if he has something in those ranges {like maybe 28-80 70-300) then you really don't need to worry too much about a kit at the moment anyway. you could just buy a body. and with that said you could probably buy a d80 for around that. any lower and you will lose autofocus on some lenses like the d60 and d40. you could actually probably find my camera new for about that much now

5/30/2009 10:45:34 AM

Quote :

"used 40D"

5/30/2009 12:48:32 PM

how much would a nikon AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED lens be worth? it's supposedly new, never used

i realize it's a very basic lens, but that's okay

5/30/2009 12:56:03 PM

^that's a d40/d60 kit lens...

looks like an online list of $160-200 but I wouldn't pay more than $100-$125 for one. If mine broke and I had to replace it I'd use it as an excuse to get something else.

If you're looking to buy it, go for the VR version, which should only cost a little more if you're buying from a store, but if you're looking for a person selling one, many more people are upgrading away from the non-VR version (so more supply and less demand)

adorama has a "recertified" (=refurb?) d40 kit with this lens for $375, other places sell it NIB around $450.
body only a d40 looks like maybe $400? It's uncommon to find body only d40 boxes, I think.

for $600, I would try to get a used d80 kit (with 18-135) for ~$500 and then get a $100 prime lens.

5/30/2009 3:04:10 PM