Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EL65KLdEHE
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EL65KLdEHE
Quote:
Originally Posted by natina
i can only imagine how interesting that photography class was
I know, I know...Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesoul
A few quick tips I've picked up:
1) Shoot RAW. The raw file has many more bits of detail that you can use to coerce the exposure you want after the fact. An 8-bit jpeg can represent around 16 million colors, whereas a high bit-depth file can represent over 28 billion. In post processing you can use those bits to increase detail in the bright and/or the dark areas. In your case, I'd go for a darker exposure in the camera so as not to blow out the highlights, and adjust the RAW file in post processing to get the look you desire.
2) Every lens has an aperture that gives the best detail, in most cases neither fully open or closed. If you are not happy with the detail you are getting in auto mode, use aperture priority and set the opening to f5.6 to f8. This is usually where most kit lenses give their best resolution. If this is your lens, the test results show it should have excellent sharpness regardless.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikko...3556vr?start=1
3) If your camera has the mode where it takes three consecutive shots, and adjusts the exposure -1, 0 and +1 for the group, this may help you decide where the sweet spot is for your gear. If the -1 setting gives a consistently better result, then use it for the combination of the camera and this lens.
I hope this helps!
Although it is true that taking lenses are designed to be sharpest at 3-4 stops down, if your lens won't produce an acceptably sharp print at maximum aperture--and I mean a decent-sized print, say 20x16, then get a new lens. This is one of the main reasons why good lenses are so expensive btw. There are many occasions when you need to use max aperture, especially on a DX sized sensor, in order to defocus the background, or in low light. If your lens can't do this, it's not up to snuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbski
Krissy... you're not going to get the answer you want to hear. Auto functions will only ever yield pedestrian results. You have to learn how to use the things you spent good money on. There is no short cut that'll give you the results you are looking for. I know what kind of stuff you are shooting and it shouldn't take any more than a couple minutes to set up your camera to shoot the things you need... (manual mode doesn't necessarily mean reconfiguring your settings for each and every shot.) If you are truly interested in the quality of your images know that every question you have has been answered in countless, easy to digest youtube videos. More importantly is knowing what questions to ask that'll get you closer to your goals even quicker... I'll save you the problem of that catch 22 by telling you right now. Lighting. Learn all about it as it relates to portraiture, modeling, shooting out doors. As you learn you will start to connect the dots between your light source, your subject, your lens and your sensor. Also, get Adobe Lightroom.
Thank you proving my earlier point, Jamie. :Bowdown::Bowdown::Bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
Without looking, can you please tell me what I've already stated about the lighting I use? Also, I've already stated that I have Adobe Lightroom. Also, I've already stated why I don't use the manual modes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
You have your way of "advertising" here... I have mine. I have a mild interest in photography. If I had more of an interest, believe me, I have the resources and smarts to do it properly.
I was just looking to start a conversation, welcome someone into the forum via inclusion, and pick up a few tips along the way.
The answer to my question was actually already stated, and thus I haven't had any further pertinent input to the thread until now.
I'll answer your actual questions directly.
1. Is it impossible to get crystal clear clarity when using a tripod / timer like I do when taking pictures?
ANSWER: No.
2. Are the auto-settings just not good enough or am I doing something wrong to get the washed out places and grainy pictures?
ANSWER: Yes.
I am not a big believer in heavy post-production besides adjusting colors a bit. I shoot on the highest quality JPEG setting. Is RAW that much better?
ANSWER: Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
Good advice, addressing a specific problem area directly and accurately. A fill light on a tripod mounted to the right would also serve; this could be a flash on a slave or an LED for continuous lighting (color temperature could be a problem though).Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
There is a lot of great advice for you to consider so far.
Here is my 2 cents.
Looking at the picture you posted, the scene as a whole looks well exposed you on the other hand are over exposed on the skin and under exposed on the face and hair.
I think the camera is auto exposing for the scene and not exposing for you. Try using your camera's "portrait mode" to convince the camera to expose for you as a center subject and not the scene as a whole.
If you are using "auto" matrix metering, the camera is setting an exposure to render the entire scene. Only Nikons newest models like the D800 can identify a human face automatically in the frame. So what the camera is doing is metering for the trees, the dark shadows a big splash of bright skin tone, more dark shadows; and setting an exposure to make everything show up.
The "portrait mode" is a crude way of telling the camera- there is a person in the center of the frame. All those scene modes are found on Nikons consumer cameras and are ways of biasing the camera to make the "right" auto exposure choices for you. I cant vouch for how well they work, but since you are shooting solo it would no doubt be better than just using the basic "auto" setting where the camera just sets an average exposure to get the whole frame visible regardless of what you are trying to do.
Try using flash as a "fill light source". Nikons (especially their consumer models) bias towards fill flash. They expect you to use it and the matrix meter tends to work better with it in Automatic modes.
Use the bracket function to shoot 3 frames automatically: one -1 under exposed one 0EV"proper exposed" and one +1 over exposed. You can first use +/-1EV steps but eventually will be able to narrow it down to +/-1/2 EV or 1/3 EV steps when you get the hang of it. Then choose the shots that look best.
Don't ask too much of your camera.
Considering what you are doing, your results are not too shabby at all. Most models have a photographer making intelligent photographic choices over time. You are doing it all by yourself (model and photographer) on the fly in tough lighting conditions. You are getting a usable image, using settings designed to take snapshots of the family in front of Epcot Center for Grandma.
Hope this helps!
Is this why when on any setting except the Full-Auto No Flash setting, the camera insists on using a flash? I forgot to mention that as the other reason why I don't use any of the other auto settings on the camera. Every single time, regardless of lighting conditions, it will pop up that flash. It doesn't really matter outdoors but indoors, that flash makes a big (negative) difference. I actually tried to tape it down one time and my camera made growling noises at me so I thought... "mmm...probably not a good idea".Quote:
Originally Posted by Merkurie
When shooting with a flash, you also cannot use the "interval timing" on the camera... which is what I use to take a group of 400-800 pictures at one time that I eventually edit down into around 150. Fine for indoor, studio... not fine of shooting outdoors in public places.
Thanks for that little bit of info... if correct, that really answers one of the questions I've had about the other auto settings on the Nikon D5100.
Get a Canon, dammit! :tongue:
There's no real advice to give to when the camera is stuck on auto and lighting conditions won't be improved upon, (on principal I assume? I don't understand how anyone could ask for improvements in their output but at the same time say they don't want to change anything about the level of effort they put into their work. That's the opposite of progress.)
Cameras aren't loaded with settings and dials to test your patience out of spite. They are there to serve the very purpose of your inquiry.
Jamie,Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
Quit being a dick. I stay out of posting snobbish comments in your threads because it is counter productive. I would ask for the same courtesy. You simply don't know when to leave well enough... alone.
Your condescending attitude is irritating.
You advertise yourself by posting pictures of yourself and / or having someone else do it for you. Fine. I advertise here by engaging people in conversation and trying to be friendly to everyone... throw out a joke here and there and generally being amiable.
I already told you in my previous response... this was a CONVERSATIONAL thread, not one where I wanted to become a photography professional. I've picked up a few tips, let some people show off their photography knowledge, and made someone feel welcome... which is what I wanted.
I've already stated, and I think have the credibility to say, that if I was truly interested in become a photography pro... I would. I have the monetary resources and brains to do it. It simply doesn't interest me. I will advance where and when I can and if technology demands it, and/or Fans start complaining. As of yet, I haven't reached that point.
I already thanked you for your input. I don't really see the point in your snobbish, condescending last post at all.
I actually had a Canon for a while and really liked it. I picked the Nikon D5100 for the articulating viewfinder mostly...Yup, vanity ruled my choice in picking the camera instead of bells and whistles. That's how I roll!Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
I suppose I would pick my next camera based upon whether it had Hello Kitty on it... but I don't want people to make fun of me.
Don't know if it's a Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax...or Sanro...Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
Edit: It's a Sony...Minolta?
OMG... where did you find that!! I am switching cameras immediately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Escalade
Google Image Search...although I don't think it's real.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
There HAS to be a market for this...
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/23334438
I know there is a company that custom paints phones mm maybe they would do ur d5100 :)
Krissy,
By the way..Thank you for your warm welcome. :)
How you got snobbish or condescending out of what I said is beyond me. Didn't say anything other than learning your gear provides the results you are looking for.
You ASKED for crying out loud. I never volunteer unsolicited information. Sounds to me like the moment you didn't hear good pictures would come easy you got all huffy. Look, Grooby doesn't hire me to run production because I suck at what I do any more than they put you in charge of blogs and junk because you aren't skilled at promotion and affiliate sales. Take advice gracefully when you ask for it outright. It's much more becoming.
I didn't get "huffy" (which is not the right word... what my reply to you was simply asking that you keep your negativity in your own threads) at all with anyone... except you. Clearly, I didn't respond negatively TO ANYONE else... I engaged those who had good posts and piqued my interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
I'm not going to start some big issue with you because, like I said, it is counter productive. We work for the same company and we're both owners of sites in a small market.
I've stayed out of entering into your threads and shredding your (for lack of a better word) "logic". Again, I ask for the same courtesy.
I simply don't believe you are so blind (or if I was to channel you, "stupid") to what you write that you cannot extract the implications. But, in case you are, I will spell it out:
"I don't understand how anyone could ask for improvements in their output but at the same time say they don't want to change anything about the level of effort they put into their work. That's the opposite of progress."
The implication here are that I am walking into a "Pull" door... over and over again. The implication here is that I'm "stuck on stupid". The implication here is that I don't have the mental capacity to "progress".
You do this all the time and it is probably why people get irritated. You put people down while basically saying how superior you are (that's the "I don't understand..." part. The implications are that you know better and etc. etc. Which you may well. And that's fine. There are factual ways to state something without being snobby, arrogant, and condescending... as EVERYONE else in this thread has done.
Also, you don't seem to read threads before you comment as demonstrated by your ignorance of what I had already stated before you got irritating... and that shows a lack of actual desire to contribute positively. That basically just says that you want to show off or get the last word or... whatever.
Your whole last post was fine... and then you just had to tag the end:
"Take advice gracefully when you ask for it outright. It's much more becoming."
Jamie... I have more grace and more "becoming-ness" in my little finger than you have in your whole body, however lovely it is. I don't just "go off" on people for no reason, which you do on a regular basis. So, don't even talk to me about "becoming". That is just ludicrous.
Anyway, like I said, I don't want to start a whole big thing with you. But, in your own words:
"You ASKED (How you got snobbish or condescending out of what I said is beyond me....) for crying out loud."
"Take advice gracefully when you ask for it outright."
In the interest of civility, and because you'll want the last word, I'll read but not reply to any further posts by you regarding this issue.
No problem, Hon. I'm always keen to pick the brains of those who have some knowledge to share. I hope you enjoy your stay here :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tate07
I read your big block of a response. Answer... I don't think you're stupid at all. Lazy perhaps. Not stupid. When I see people who want something for nothing my tone gets stern. It's that simple.
Sounds like lighting is probably your problem... However the camera might not be set to shoot the largest, highest quality photo... You need to make sure it's set to Jpeg and fine quality for largest file size... You don't need RAW. If it's color splotchy and with pixels it's probably your lighting and the camera using too high of an ISO in your low lighting... Even a couple indoor lights close to you won't really help. You'd be surprised HOW MUCH LIGHT you need to really get a crisp good looking exposure. Invest in a camera mounted flash.. SB-600 for example, or some other cheaper but good options that escape me at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
OK, so I am negating my "not going to reply".Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
And this proves my points.
A. You just cannot leave things well enough, alone.
B. You cannot speak without having to insert your own negativity.
C. You cannot (or will not) take responsibility for the implications of what you write.
D. You are SO FULL OF YOURSELF.
If you're basic assumption is that asking for advice is "want(ing) something for nothing"... YOU ARE AN IDIOT. People ask for advice EVERY SINGLE DAY. You must spend a lot of time "being stern"... which I think is a SAD state to be in constantly. Of course, being god yourself, I know that is difficult for you to understand, but we poor mortals here on this little thing called Earth... yeah... we need help every now and then.
Do you realize how ACTUALLY stupid of a statement your comment is?
Regardless of that, I have already stated the reasons for starting the thread... IT WAS CONVERSATIONAL. Either you didn't read it... or you simply are too stupid to grasp it (and yes, I'm just using the type of language you would use... because you will probably understand it better).
As for being lazy... that is just, again... ludicrous. ANYBODY who knows me, knows that I am the furthest thing from lazy... in anything I put my mind to. Another stupid statement from you. (And yes, before you go whining about it, I see you put the clarifying "perhaps" in there. Please... so transparent.)
Listen Jamie. I stay out of your job (production). I don't critique it, I don't agree with others who do. I don't put you down publicly (until now). I work in promotion. Part of that involves engaging people here and making them feel welcome. Stay out of my business and I will continue to stay out of yours... as a professional courtesy.
It's as simple as that.
Any mod... please close this thread as it has become pointless.
Ok, not trying to butt in, or put in my 2 cents of photography knowledge in, as I know as much as I asked from Jamie.
But the way you had your OP, sounded like you wanted needed advice to "better" your production output and expand your knowledge/curiosity of taking better photos.
And springing from it you got several people adept in photography give you their advice. Most everyone has given about the same advice, quite literally.
Jamie stated her advice, which is great advice and according to what you asked, it pretty much answered your question. The problem is...
The way you "came back"/"answered" advice is that you don't want to change anything on your camera and basically disregarded the most given advice of "lighting".
I don't see how you read her replies as "combative". She gave you advice, really good advice, which you chose not to use because you "don't feel like it". You replied to her in a "combative/offensive" way thinking she was being a dick. Looks to me that the way you are taking her advice is incorrect.
It perturbed Jamie ( as well as myself, didn't want to say anything until now when I keep seeing you "attack" Jamie ) because you disregarded it and came back at her with sass, as well as "appearing/sounding" like you don't want to do the "work" to improve your work. I.E. Change the setting on the camera and improve lighting, among other things.
That is what I read and see. I don't understand why one wouldn't want to improve by ( regardless of interest levels in photography ) changing settings. Just as Jamie and a few others here have said...You are not going to find that a camera's "auto-settings" are going to give you the answers. Hence, use manual, watch the tutorial vids posted.
Also, if you wanted this "thread" to be more of an "open" thing for anyone, perhaps your OP should've been worded openly, not pertaining to your particular issue.
That said, I hope you realize Jamie isn't being a "dick". She was just annoyed that you aren't going the lengths to improve your photography ( regardless of your level of interest in photography ).
That's like getting advice, and saying "I don't want to put in the extra effort/time into it because I want a camera that will give me what I want right then", and you aren't going to find a camera that does that...you have to tinker with it and without the extra effort, the advice you got from everyone here won't mean shit. That's what Jamie has been saying.
LOL...and now seeing this...means that you don't want to improve your effort level. And that apparently this thread isn't for "everybody" otherwise you wouldn't have said this.Quote:
Originally Posted by GroobyKrissy
So if this thread gets deleted, then no one can learn from the advice given....like how you kept saying, you "intended" it for...which reading and re-reading each page shows that that wasn't the case.
First of all, if you're not:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
"Ok, not trying to butt in..." Then don't.
Second of all, I expected as much. It seems that the two of you are are like children, each not able to let the other defend themselves or represent themselves without coming in and "rescuing" the other. Honestly, grow up and fight your own battles... that goes for both of you.
Eva, as with Jamie, I have stayed out of threads critiquing you in any way. AGAIN, as with Jamie, I ask that you do the same.
However, since you raised the points and have shown that you wish to engage and play out the logic... HERE YOU GO, points answered as posted in your reply.
Since you so closely follow Jamie's threads, you know that she jumped all over Tate07 for his input into her threads. Tate07 is a new poster, and I dislike someone's first impression of the people here to be one of absolute incivility. THAT is why the thread was started... I even pretty much stated as much in the OP... mentioning him BY NAME. I work in promotions. Part of that IS engaging here, creating threads, having fun with people, and etc. That is part of my job... as well as part or just being fun and entertaining for me. So, the intent of the thread was NOT to become an expert in photography as you assume. And, even if there was ANY confusion as to that point, I had already stated the goals in my starting the thread plainly BEFORE Jamie's irritating response.
PLEASE STATE / QUOTE FOR ME WHERE I:
"The way you "came back"/"answered" advice is that you don't want to change anything on your camera and basically disregarded the most given advice of "lighting". "
In fact, I thanked her for her input. All other subsequent questions / posts by me had nothing at all to do with lighting, nor did I even bring that subject up again. I engaged those who I had further questions for, and did not reply to the rest. So, you're in fact... COMPLETELY WRONG about that. Demonstrate to me otherwise.
I never used the term "combative" at all. I said she was being a dick... and she was. Honestly, Eva, if the exact same thing was written in the exact same manner to either you or Jamie... YOU BOTH WOULD BE UP IN A TIZZY. That is just fact from pretty much any previous conversation involving either of you that has gotten heated.
Notice how the two of you never respond to an actual accusation... you just move on and do the same thing. I laid out a clear case as to why her statements in the reply were condescending and snobbish... WHICH WERE NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL BY YOU OR HER. Instead, all I got was another backhand basically calling me lazy. That is a really grown up way to respond.
And here is the question... WHAT IN GOD'S GREEN EARTH DOES IT MATTER IF I TAKE ANY ADVICE GIVEN BY ANYONE TO YOU OR TO JAMIE? You say: "It perturbed Jamie ( as well as myself, didn't want to say anything until now when I keep seeing you "attack" Jamie ) because you disregarded it and came back at her with sass, as well as "appearing/sounding" like you don't want to do the "work" to improve your work. I.E. Change the setting on the camera and improve lighting, among other things."
How in the world is it any of your business what advice I take or what advice I disregard? Why in the world should that even matter at all to either you or Jamie? How are you or she the arbiter AT ALL of how I interact with people here or who's advice I respond to or who I don't respond to at all? WHY SHOULD THAT MATTER AT ALL TO YOU?
Eva... CLEARLY you haven't read the thread in it's entirety. I HAVE STATED NUMEROUS TIMES NOW that the intent of the thread was to start conversation about photography, pick up a couple tips, AND HELP WELCOME someone to the forum who got a pretty bad impression here. People are much more apt to respond when they believe they are sharing knowledge / information, as the numerous responses have correctly demonstrated. It is "gracious" and "becoming" to be nice to people in your first interaction with them.
I could have just said in the OP, "Hey all. I'm writing this thread because Jamie jumped all over Tate07 and I want him to NOT feel that everyone here is a total jerk. So, I invented this thread because I noticed he was interested in photography and maybe I can pick up a few pointers, and maybe some others of you and Tate07 can talk about photography." But, that would not be "becoming" and I wouldn't think of calling someone out, that I work with, like that. So, I did it tactfully... which obviously worked as it seems you both seem to think it was me actually wanting to become a professional photographer with the advice from one thread... on a porn forum.
AGAIN... WHAT IN GOD'S GREEN EARTH DOES IT MATTER TO EITHER YOU AND JAMIE IF I'M GOING TO GREAT LENGTHS, NO LENGTHS OR ANY LENGTHS TO IMPROVE MY PHOTOGRAPHY? How is that even pertinent to you or her AT ALL? The fact is, You, Jamie, and Franklin are pretty much the same. Hard to hear, I know. You all think you have the corner on what is right. At the core, that is what the majority of your / her / his arguments come down to: I have an opinion and if anyone doesn't agree with my opinion, they are wrong and need to come around to my point of view.
You are making the incorrect assumption that I haven't listened to anything anybody said or am not taking it into consideration. The FACT is that I thanked those (including Jamie) for their input. I have already stated that the goals of the thread were met. I got a few tips, people got to show off their photography knowledge, and as Tate07 has already said, he felt welcomed.
Again, Eva / Jamie, I'll ask you. If for nothing other than professional courtesy, let's agree to steer clear of each other. I haven't engaged in threads critiquing either of you, although I could easily have done so and taken them apart (and no, I'm not going to point out where). The both of you are highly irrational at times and that is fine. You interact with your Fans the way you want. I could care less since I don't see myself as the arbiter of of that issue. All I ask is that you extend to me the same courtesy.
You're kidding, right? THIS is your big, "GOTCHA"?Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
I didn't ask that the thread be DELETED. I asked that it be closed because I knew sooner or later you would show up to come rescue your girlfriend. And I knew I would respond. And on and on and on. We both have better things to do and a mod CLOSING the thread would just let this die down quietly.
THINK BEFORE YOU TYPE... especially if you're going to try and have a "GOTCHA" moment and end up looking like a complete fool.
why are you getting sassy and catty? i don't see/understand what it's accomplishing.
And by the way...we aren't the ones acting like children hun.
Krissy, I'm not basically calling you lazy. I'm flat out calling you lazy, (in your photographic efforts. Other aspects of your work are beyond the scope of this thread.) You are also passive aggressive to the nth degree if you were starting a thread about photography, not to learn a thing or two about the craft, but to defend a first time poster under an overwrought pretense. Obviously you woke up on the wrong side of the bed when you initially started this thread so I won't hold your bad attitude against ya.
Pro-tip: Try saying more with less. It's easier on the eyes.
OK... so I will flat out call you lazy too. Because you can't read an entire thread before you open your big mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie French
Passive / aggressive? Good lord. Take a look in the mirror.
You just don't understand. I wasn't "DEFENDING" anybody. I was creating a space where he could have some input and feel welcome. Defending would be if I actually posted in your thread calling you out for being such a jackass. I know you're too lazy to pick up a damn dictionary... but c'mon... DEFEND... pretty easy to define.
OK... I will flat out call you stupid too since your reading comprehension skills are equal to that of a six-year old... and that is giving the six year old a lot of credit.
Short enough for you?
LoL... yeah... no response to the "delete thread" post you made, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
Like I said, you and Jamie... take no responsibility... just move on and blame everyone else.
So.....you then resort to name-calling and shouting out false accusations and assumptions???
Again Eva... I ask you this:Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
PLEASE STATE / QUOTE FOR ME WHERE I:
"The way you "came back"/"answered" advice is that you don't want to change anything on your camera and basically disregarded the most given advice of "lighting". "
You can't. So you deflect. This is your entire MO in discussions. You throw things out there that you can't back up. Then, instead, you either sit back and wait for Jamie to come along and just cuss someone out, cuss them out yourself, or just deflect to something else.
I asked you a specific question. Give me the answer or else admit you're just defending your girlfriend for the sake of that. If that is the case, then fine. I understand that.
The name-calling I gave back (implied stupidity).Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini
Give me PRECISELY what is a false accusation?
Give me PRECISELY what is an assumption on my part?
Pose the question and I'll answer it. Believe me Eva, as smart as you think you are, you are WAY out of your league here.
AND AGAIN: Please answer the question... WHY DOES IT MATTER TO EITHER OF YOU WHAT ADVICE I TAKE OR NOT...WHAT PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS I IMPROVE ON OR NOT? Why should that matter to you at all and give you a reason to be "perturbed"?
Yeah... you're well accustomed to using sarcasm... yet can't recognize it when someone else uses it? Your reading comprehension skills are even worse than Jamie's.Quote:
Originally Posted by EvaCassini