I usually see 1/250 as the max. I don't know anything about your Sunpack, but I know the Nikon 800 series allows you to do things like mount the flash on a tripod and place it off scene so, in a way, it acts as more or less portable lighting.
Yeah I have a single SB-800 that I use wirelessly with the on camera flash on the D200. I bought it initially for that feature, the overall power and re-charge speed and the fact it could do stroboscopic effects. I didn't use it much when I first bought it and thought maybe I'd wasted money on it but now I use it all the time, It's a fantastic bit of kit.
I might pick up a second when I have the money rather than invest in Bowen's or similar which I'd have to lug around everywhere. The iTTL is nice when taking portraits and stuff but to be honest it's so all over the place (sometimes impossible to get a string of consistent shots) that I set the flash power from the camera wirelessly and change the aperture to nail the exposure.
Turns out that you can fire the on camera flash first which triggers the off camera flash without adding to the exposure. This gives you a lot of control. I can only really recommend the SB-800 if you’re going to push it to its limits. Some people never use a flash, some use it all the time, It's great not to need a sync cable though.
Probably some kids. Probably some kids who are going to see that sign and be pissed. Probably some kids who are going to see that sign and be so pissed that they'll have to go and break the nearest baby tree.
Someone actually took down the sign the very next morning before I went to work. I assume it was probably some mother that felt accosted by the word "dick" because they left the tree alone.
So on my recent trip to Denver, this is one of the only pictures I got that was even somewhat decent. I kind of like this one, but it's not like it's a great shot, the iso was high on this, so it ended up a bit grainy. Frankly I think it somewhat works in this shot though. It was really hard to find good photos on this trip and I'm not sure why. I ended up taking a bunch of pics at the graduation I was there for but they all ended up really harshly lighted and terrible.
I don't notice the grain as much as I notice that the image is blurry. It's probably because of the low lighting and that it was probably a hand held shot.
I think it would look better sharper. If you use photoshop, try going to the channels tab and clicking on the blue channel. That's usually where the most noise enters in. Then use the "reduce noise" filter and clean that one channel up. Then try running a smart sharpen set to remove "lens blur" (not gaussian, which is the default) and then set the amount to ~30-50% and the radius to 1.x (less than 2.0, but try adjusting it). That's assuming you're working on a medium-to-small image (already sized down for web). If you're working on the original (the full-sized 7mp or 8mp or 10 or 12 or whatever your sensor size is) you might need to bump the amount up closer to 150%-200% and the radius up to 3 or so. Play with it and see what looks good.
You can probably get a fair amount more sharpness than you have right now without adding much noise or adding that unnatural over-sharpened look.
Nice write up Pope. I've never played with sharpening in PS, but I guess I should. I'm still trying to hold out for Lightroom 2 having a better form of sharpening. Supposedly it's also going to have dodge/burn tools.
Thanks! I usually sharpen my RAW files and don't worry about sharpening in PP, but the way Photoshop sizes down you always lose a little crispness, so a touch of smart-sharpen at the end brings a pic back to life.
I have Lightroom but haven't yet installed it. I end up using Digital Photo Pro and it's good enough for my purposes. I keep meaning to, as I hear all sorts of great stuff about Lightroom. I'm just really lazy.
Thanks! I usually sharpen my RAW files and don't worry about sharpening in PP, but the way Photoshop sizes down you always lose a little crispness, so a touch of smart-sharpen at the end brings a pic back to life.
I have Lightroom but haven't yet installed it. I end up using Digital Photo Pro and it's good enough for my purposes. I keep meaning to, as I hear all sorts of great stuff about Lightroom. I'm just really lazy.
I'm kicking myself that I had my ISO set on 100 here:
But I was really stoked just to see that. It was a very neat moment - the dragonfly landed... waited, then shuffled to the bottom of the leaf. I didn't know why until the ant marched up and started poking at him. So very neat.
Using aperture priority mode? Would have had a faster shutter speed at a higher ISO? Would have stopped the motion?
I think it's a good shot, though I wouldn't have minded a little quicker shutter. Don't know what you're shooting with or whether you would have had to have pushed it into the "grainy," section of your ISO range to have made a difference in shutter speed.
Using aperture priority mode? Would have had a faster shutter speed at a higher ISO? Would have stopped the motion?
I think it's a good shot, though I wouldn't have minded a little quicker shutter. Don't know what you're shooting with or whether you would have had to have pushed it into the "grainy," section of your ISO range to have made a difference in shutter speed.
Oh I only glanced at the image and with the small size didn't see the motion blur. I used to go out with my camera always set to 100 ISO, but I've made it a habit to usually walk out the door set to at least 200 if not 400.
Those are some gorgeous tones and the detail is frightening. The crop does feel a bit weird, but maybe I'm just not used to that print size. What print size is that?
I promise this is the last set of park shots I'll post for a while. I haven't gotten out much these past few days besides walking the dog and going to work, though, and the camera can't follow me to work.
These birds have been in the same place every time I start returning home from the walk for four days running now.
He's trying to look into the future.
Oh, and here is an image of him trying to eat his own face. Linked because it's the quintessential 'pet shot,' being very weak technically and interesting only due to the cute, squishy subject.
Squishy-puppy is adorable! And I really like the looking back to the future one.
I like the colors, the lighting, the detail, and the comp of the clock picture a lot. The angle it is shot at bothers me some. This is totally subjective, and many people here have said they like the pic as is so my opinion is only that, but I would be tempted to use the crop tool with the perspective checkbox checked and bring down the top right corner of the crop outline thingy so as to crop the top right corner some. That will drag up the right side and make the clock feel less tilted. You'll still get the angling-off-into-the0distance effect, but it will feel less off-kilter.
As I said, that's just me (and possibly DarkMoon).
There is no exif because of software issues, it had to go through Lightroom, IrFanView, Gimp and then Photoshop, each time converted into a format lost and forgotten to man. Lens is a standard zoom 14.0-54mm f/2.8-3.5, only fancy.
*Edit* @Pope: I need to go back to crop school, I've never touched the perspective tool at all
I my new D40 so much. I even got a little USB reader with the SD card I bought for it that plugs right in without any cable needed!
Unfortunately, getting it caused my entire day to be shot, so I've only been able to do little test shots of my bed to figure out the exposure and stuff. I cannot wait to use that 1/4000 shutter speed on a really bright day or with some lighting or something. Pictures will be posteyfied tomorrows, if all goes as planned.
erisian, something about those two shots bugs me a bit...The first almost looks like it could be better with a splash of color, though it's technically quite sound, and the latter...It seems like either the rope/stick/whatever that is shouldn't be there, or the flower should be out of focus to some degree. As it is, my eyes keep on getting drawn between the ropething and the flower...Or was that the intention?
I'm a pretty new photographer and I've got a pretty stupid question. I'm planning on saving up for a DSLR at some point here but I also have my grandfathers old Pentax 35mm that at the time was a pretty snazzy camera, I guess. I'm not at home so I don't have model numbers and such but I know I have three lenses, one's not so great but the other two are pretty nice to work with. I'll get the exact lense specifications later. It needs a little tlc to clean it off from dust and stuff but I should be able to do that.
But for now the basic question is this: Does it make more sense to take what little availible cash I have and start saving for a dslr now or should I hold off on the DSLR and spend some time working in slide and other mediums.
I understand the nice learning ability of the DSLR. you can learn a lot about being able to adjust right on the spot. But is there merit to the 35mm? is there something I can get from it now that I wouldnt get from 6 months of waiting to purchase a DSLR? Is there still advantage to the old 35mm film standard?
The more and more I read I find photographers have pretty much abandoned film except for a few hold outs. Is it worth it to be a hold out for a little while or should I scrap the idea of film and just plan the road to starting with digital?
Sorry to just unload all of the questions, I just thought I'd get some information from people who knew more about it then me.
Seidkona on
Mostly just huntin' monsters.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
Totally start shooting film. It'll make you think before you shoot and you'll be a better photographer if you do decide to go digital eventually. The only slight roadblock might be cost, but if you only shoot B&W and setup a little darkroom at home you can allay a whole bunch of the cost.
Tried out some panning the other day. I'm planning to go to a night race event in a few months so I'm trying to get this down.
I'd like to get more exaggerated motion blur, but when I try it gets a lot harder to anticipate a vehicle's movement and everything ends up blurry. I didn't want to use my flash at the time though.
I liked this one a lot since the effect was the most prominent here (slowest shutter speed out of all the shots I did), but I think the first shot was the sharpest of all.
I'd also like to try 'zoom bursting' while panning, but right now I'm having trouble pulling it off since most of the time when I rotate the zoom ring I end up juddering the camera and getting a blurry mess as a result. Does anyone have any tips on how to go about doing this?
For zoom bursting, you might have good luck with one of those little GorillaPods or a common micro-tripod. Just set it on/wrap it around a nearby object to give yourself more wiggle-room.
Alternatively, ditch the motion-blur effect and crank the shutter-speed as high as you can without the image getting too dark.
Posts
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
I might pick up a second when I have the money rather than invest in Bowen's or similar which I'd have to lug around everywhere. The iTTL is nice when taking portraits and stuff but to be honest it's so all over the place (sometimes impossible to get a string of consistent shots) that I set the flash power from the camera wirelessly and change the aperture to nail the exposure.
Turns out that you can fire the on camera flash first which triggers the off camera flash without adding to the exposure. This gives you a lot of control. I can only really recommend the SB-800 if you’re going to push it to its limits. Some people never use a flash, some use it all the time, It's great not to need a sync cable though.
What kind of jerk breaks a baby tree? Someone get Poison Ivy on the phone!
Awesome stuff anable. And seriously, who goes around breaking trees?! Dicks that's who
My Portfolio Site
Which, really, is why we should hate kids.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
You can probably get a fair amount more sharpness than you have right now without adding much noise or adding that unnatural over-sharpened look.
That's just my 2 cents, of course.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
I have Lightroom but haven't yet installed it. I end up using Digital Photo Pro and it's good enough for my purposes. I keep meaning to, as I hear all sorts of great stuff about Lightroom. I'm just really lazy.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Yeah, I use DPP as well, and it is excellent.
But I was really stoked just to see that. It was a very neat moment - the dragonfly landed... waited, then shuffled to the bottom of the leaf. I didn't know why until the ant marched up and started poking at him. So very neat.
Why?
I think it's a good shot, though I wouldn't have minded a little quicker shutter. Don't know what you're shooting with or whether you would have had to have pushed it into the "grainy," section of your ISO range to have made a difference in shutter speed.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
Oh I only glanced at the image and with the small size didn't see the motion blur. I used to go out with my camera always set to 100 ISO, but I've made it a habit to usually walk out the door set to at least 200 if not 400.
New lens I mentioned, now I need to get my software running smoothly, XD.
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
I promise this is the last set of park shots I'll post for a while. I haven't gotten out much these past few days besides walking the dog and going to work, though, and the camera can't follow me to work.
These birds have been in the same place every time I start returning home from the walk for four days running now.
He's trying to look into the future.
Oh, and here is an image of him trying to eat his own face. Linked because it's the quintessential 'pet shot,' being very weak technically and interesting only due to the cute, squishy subject.
Really liking that clock photo Mr. F.
I like the colors, the lighting, the detail, and the comp of the clock picture a lot. The angle it is shot at bothers me some. This is totally subjective, and many people here have said they like the pic as is so my opinion is only that, but I would be tempted to use the crop tool with the perspective checkbox checked and bring down the top right corner of the crop outline thingy so as to crop the top right corner some. That will drag up the right side and make the clock feel less tilted. You'll still get the angling-off-into-the0distance effect, but it will feel less off-kilter.
As I said, that's just me (and possibly DarkMoon).
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Sheri Baldwin Photography | Facebook | Twitter | Etsy Shop | BUY ME STUFF (updated for 2014!)
*Edit* @Pope: I need to go back to crop school, I've never touched the perspective tool at all
Birds are weird.
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
EDIT: and a flower from another, similar cactus:
My Website | My "photo-a-day" 2010
Unfortunately, getting it caused my entire day to be shot, so I've only been able to do little test shots of my bed to figure out the exposure and stuff. I cannot wait to use that 1/4000 shutter speed on a really bright day or with some lighting or something. Pictures will be posteyfied tomorrows, if all goes as planned.
erisian, something about those two shots bugs me a bit...The first almost looks like it could be better with a splash of color, though it's technically quite sound, and the latter...It seems like either the rope/stick/whatever that is shouldn't be there, or the flower should be out of focus to some degree. As it is, my eyes keep on getting drawn between the ropething and the flower...Or was that the intention?
I'm a pretty new photographer and I've got a pretty stupid question. I'm planning on saving up for a DSLR at some point here but I also have my grandfathers old Pentax 35mm that at the time was a pretty snazzy camera, I guess. I'm not at home so I don't have model numbers and such but I know I have three lenses, one's not so great but the other two are pretty nice to work with. I'll get the exact lense specifications later. It needs a little tlc to clean it off from dust and stuff but I should be able to do that.
But for now the basic question is this: Does it make more sense to take what little availible cash I have and start saving for a dslr now or should I hold off on the DSLR and spend some time working in slide and other mediums.
I understand the nice learning ability of the DSLR. you can learn a lot about being able to adjust right on the spot. But is there merit to the 35mm? is there something I can get from it now that I wouldnt get from 6 months of waiting to purchase a DSLR? Is there still advantage to the old 35mm film standard?
The more and more I read I find photographers have pretty much abandoned film except for a few hold outs. Is it worth it to be a hold out for a little while or should I scrap the idea of film and just plan the road to starting with digital?
Sorry to just unload all of the questions, I just thought I'd get some information from people who knew more about it then me.
XBL:Phenyhelm - 3DS:Phenyhelm
I'd like to get more exaggerated motion blur, but when I try it gets a lot harder to anticipate a vehicle's movement and everything ends up blurry. I didn't want to use my flash at the time though.
I liked this one a lot since the effect was the most prominent here (slowest shutter speed out of all the shots I did), but I think the first shot was the sharpest of all.
I'd also like to try 'zoom bursting' while panning, but right now I'm having trouble pulling it off since most of the time when I rotate the zoom ring I end up juddering the camera and getting a blurry mess as a result. Does anyone have any tips on how to go about doing this?
T-shirts | Last.fm | Flickr | dA
Alternatively, ditch the motion-blur effect and crank the shutter-speed as high as you can without the image getting too dark.