took these this weekend

finally figuring out lighting







[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 7:22 PM. Reason : whoops]

8/11/2008 7:19:11 PM

Quote :

"finally figuring out lighting "

How do you figure?

8/11/2008 9:17:21 PM

^i mean color balancing and whatnot

8/11/2008 9:21:58 PM

GRRRRR

I got my camera back from Nikon but unfortunately, either they missed my 'problem description' (filled out on their website and supposedly included in the box I sent), or the people at the UPS store didn't include it in the box I sent to Nikon. Nikon claims they never got my proof of purchase, problem description, any of that.

I called them several times after being notified that they hadn't received any of the information, I explained the problem and faxed them all the info they needed, all that.

I finally get the camera back after returning from vacation, take a few beach pictures tonight during the sunset, and there's dead pixels. I'm pretty pissed.

[Edited on August 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM. Reason : ]

8/11/2008 9:39:09 PM

Anyone getting shots of the meteor shower? I've got the D40 outside right now on a long exposure...
So far I have a few shots that look decent on the camera LCD. Hopefully they'll look nice on the computer too. I'll upload after a bit.

8/12/2008 2:08:06 AM

Repost of my shots in the Perseid thread....

Quote :

"I put the D40 on the tripod and did a bunch of long exposures -- here's what I've got so far. The first 3 shots are Perseid meteors, the last 2 pictures are some planes or satellites I managed to get in the shot. Perseid: Perseid: Perseid: Plane (?) 2 Planes (?) "

8/12/2008 2:49:40 AM

^Thats pretty cool, how long was the exposure on those? I need to get a tripod...

Playing around with my lights. Still haven't really gotten the hang of them and how reflect it around.

8/12/2008 3:59:11 AM

Anywhere from 37 to 118 seconds, depending on the shot. I have the wireless clicker accessory, and though it hasn't seen much use before tonight, now it's worth its weight in gold.

Basically you click once, then watch the sky (or go do something else), click it again, and see if you got something.

I also played around with ISO speeds for these night shots. I believe I used 200 or 400 for most of those shots, but I'm using 800 now because most of the meteors I'm seeing are quite faint.

8/12/2008 4:10:12 AM

I went out with my camera, telephoto, tripod, and wireless remote for a while tonight to try and catch some meteors, but the gods weren't working with me. All I got were some stars a bunch of light noise from the city

so I decided to point my camera at some constellations, crank down the aperture, and see what happens. If anything came out I'll post them here.

8/12/2008 5:25:19 AM

^Be sure to check out my thread, which has some photos of the meteors and a reference to the Ring Nebula. Somebody with a decent setup needs to get a photo of the Ring Nebula.

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 5:27 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 5:26:53 AM

[Edited on August 12, 2008 at 7:57 AM. Reason : ]

8/12/2008 7:55:32 AM

i'd like some opinions as to which picture looks better - obviously, there's a great deal of difference between contrast and color, but i'm not sure which one looks "better"...the first is as shot (it was early morning, which is why the light looks like it does), and the second is after some minor corrections in photoshop (mostly automatic settings, but i liked the contrast)...i'm just not sure if i'm over-correcting my images

8/12/2008 9:20:05 AM

What's the longest exposure time you can take on a D40 out of the box?

8/12/2008 9:21:54 AM

quagmire02, i personally like #2
the spider seems a little over exposed to me on the first shot

8/12/2008 9:51:53 AM

^^If you put it on bulb, should go as long as you hold it open.

8/12/2008 10:39:28 AM

Quote :

"What's the longest exposure time you can take on a D40 out of the box?"

30 seconds is the max time you can set, but if you get the wireless controller (~$17?) and set it on bulb, you can make it stay open as long as you want. Click once, go do something, click again to close the shutter.

...of course, you could also hold the shutter down manually but that's a pain.

8/12/2008 11:22:41 AM

^^^^^ I too like the second one better.

8/12/2008 11:46:29 AM

^^ That's what I know of as "time mode" is there a "bulb" setting on the remote as well? Just curious...

quagmire: both pictures look pretty natural. I don't know that the time spent in photoshop is necessary. I think I like the first one better.

8/12/2008 10:32:01 PM

Quagmire: Im on a different monitor now and actually like the first better on this one. Its less bright then I remember it on my other monitor.

You all need to go to the flicker page so we can start the weekly tournaments!

8/13/2008 12:30:14 AM

Quote :

"^^ That's what I know of as "time mode" is there a "bulb" setting on the remote as well? Just curious..."

"Bulb" mode is on the camera, and it's exactly as I described. It holds the shutter open as long as you're depressing the shutter release button, or until you click the clicker a second time (depending on whichever you're doing at the time).

The clicker works like this:
Normal mode: Clicking once takes a picture.
Bulb: Click once to open the shutter, click another time to close it.


Pretty simple.

8/13/2008 2:05:24 AM

^Neat

I personally like the second quagmire because it's "cooler". Spiders give off that shivery feeling and I get that in the second one, the first one is warm and bright with a spide butt.

8/13/2008 1:27:16 PM

Quag - i like the second imagine better. it seems to be a little more sharp and the colors seem to be right. the first is a little too washed out (relative to the second)

8/13/2008 1:42:02 PM

A Papillon, not mine though.



What could make this picture better? The dog looks awful!



[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : dF]

8/14/2008 10:51:10 AM

you're

8/14/2008 12:35:17 PM

you can make a layer of the dog and adjust the curves, hue, saturation and brightness/contrast
i would also adjust the color of the entire photo but i prefer cooler colors to warm colors.

i would also crop the photo just a tad to remove the small window on my right. to me, that is distracting b/c i like the "your fucked"

8/14/2008 12:44:17 PM

I tried...it's really rough, though.



[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 3:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2008 3:25:11 PM

The original is better, the dog looks to be fairly underexposed, but because it's against a light background it would be hard to get a highly detailed photo with anything but a bracketed shot.

They are very clear though.

8/14/2008 6:40:24 PM

that dog is black as night. its gonna be REALLY hard to get a decent picture of a black dog by a light area without using flash. you brought out the dog but he looks a BIT washed out. but really you can see the detail in him better. might beable to play with the levels a bit more to get a bit more of the black back in him. cool set though.

8/14/2008 6:44:29 PM

How's this one?



[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 9:37 PM. Reason : mjj]

8/14/2008 9:32:24 PM

what camera are you using to take those pictures of the girl and dog? also what settings? automatic?
did you touch them up in photoshop any?

8/14/2008 9:59:06 PM

who is the girl in the pics?

8/14/2008 10:00:22 PM

Nikon d40 on auto. My challenge was coming up with poses and getting good shots fast while keeping the percentage of decent photos up. I have played in PS in that last one I lightened the exposure before adjusting contrast and saturation. I don't know anything about layering, curves, or that stuff.

The girl is my friend. She's taken.

[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM. Reason : dwew]

8/14/2008 10:14:51 PM

yeah, i did that one up there on my work monitor, and when i got home and saw it, I thought, "ew"

8/15/2008 9:29:04 AM

do y'all use any program in particular to get the "correct" colors on your monitor? i don't even know what those programs are called (color correction?)...but are they worth the money, in your opinion? my work monitors (i have 2) actually show different colors (though they're the same age, model, size, and connection)...my laptop seems to have the best and most consistent color representation of them all, but will those programs fix even cheap panels?

8/15/2008 9:52:27 AM

^ I had the same question after printing some pictures at Target. They came out noticeably more saturated than my screens show. Is it me, the printer there, or do they add a little beauty filter to the pictures?

and is there a cheap way to color manage my screen?

8/15/2008 11:15:25 AM

8/15/2008 11:21:39 AM

Is that top shot an HDR/exposure blended shot?

8/15/2008 12:35:52 PM

I knew someone would ask that!

No...it's just the backlight shortcut in photoscape, x2.

It's an awfully easy way to make a picture look like it's HDR

8/15/2008 12:45:05 PM

Ah, neat! I saw the way the light changed around the interaction with the trees and sky and it made me wonder...

8/15/2008 12:51:45 PM

Here's an article (albeit a bit old) about color calibration for monitors.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/colorvisionspyder.htm

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 2:54 PM. Reason : ]

8/15/2008 2:53:51 PM

Yay!

8/15/2008 4:20:20 PM

Quote :

"Here's an article (albeit a bit old) about color calibration for monitors. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/colorvisionspyder.htm"

I currently have the Spyder 3 Elite calibration tool and it's badass. With the upgraded software, compared to the regular Pro version, I have all four monitors on my main computer calibrated correctly. It's nice to swing photoshop across multiple monitors and they all proof the same (except some noticeable difference between the dell 2408 and soyo's.

The New 2408 I have actually makes it a bigger headache to proof colors than I used to mainly because it's like double the contrast of the soyo's and a higher color gamut (110% vs 72). Even when I proof on the screen, I still heavily rely on the values and histogram to give me proper. The blacks on the dell is much more defined and the colors are richer (comes super natural saturation out of the box, have to change it to normal).

Digital Color management becomes a real headache with print work, specially when you deal with high quality photo paper, such as magazine, gloss and any kind of finish on them. Color management itself can be it's own career, and if you can master that, there's big $$$ in it. Just can't wait to play with the digital lab and their printers at school. I mean they have every kind of Epson printer there.

It actually amazes me that a lot of photographers in the area who work with magazines don't do any kind of color management. When I talk to them about it, they give me an eye ball and say the printers do that stuff...




And yes, its totally worth it. If you look at my past work, you can see a definite difference when proofing before and after I had my monitors calibrated. Best tool to get, specially if you do a lot of web publishing, graphic design, and other design work. It helps with print work, but more is based on experience, ICC profiles and how well you know your printer.

[Edited on August 17, 2008 at 8:28 PM. Reason : ]

8/17/2008 8:25:36 PM

^Color calibrating for web publishing is pointless if you can't control the viewer's monitor.

8/17/2008 8:47:09 PM

OH SNAP!



(hey Rob)

8/17/2008 8:57:36 PM

^^how do you know I don't already have that capabilities...

8/17/2008 10:57:00 PM

ordered the 50mm 1.8 yesterday

we'll see how I like it come Wednesday afternoon

8/18/2008 11:52:33 AM

you will like a plenty. i wish mine didnt get stolen

8/18/2008 12:12:43 PM

Is that lens better for night shot?

8/18/2008 12:37:15 PM

more like a low light / indoors lens but this or the f/1.4 is a must have for portraits

8/18/2008 12:48:10 PM

What makes it so good for portraits?

The two lens I have go to 4 or 3.4....

Portraits AND weddings alike?

8/18/2008 1:24:48 PM