Ditto. I'm in awe of his work - particularly love his Yosemite photos.
I'm not sure why that is. I used the time-honoured tradition of burning the sky, Ansel Adams (my hero) style.
[edit] Here's another using the same technique:
hehe! I think someone did! :o)
Some recent back-to-basics black and white darkroom (digital variety) stuff from me:
It's broadly accepted in the web development sphere that a target page width should be 970px. At 970px, all mainstream browsers and OS skins are accommodated. Exceed it and you'll get the horizontal scrollbar across the bottom, which is a no-no.
As time passes, you'll be able to move up to a higher width but with the advent of popular netbooks, the 1024px max screen width is likely to be with us for a lot longer than it should.
There are a few schools of thought on personal websites, and each have merit. I would say that, if you're not a graphic designer, don't try to pretend to be (because unless you have graphic talent, you won't fool anyone - also, don't pretend to be an opera singer. People who ARE can tell a faker. Boy was that embarrassing...)
You're not required to be multi-disciplined, nor are you expected to be able to turn your hand to web scripting languages. Obviously, if you CAN do that - i.e. if you have time in the day to learn it - it might serve you well.
There's nothing wrong with an honest, basic website that looks tidy and presents your information in a very simple, clear résumé format. In fact there's a lot to be said of that. Step outside of your abilities on your website at your peril. You'll get bogged down with browser compatibility errors that needlessly consume your time and undermine the presentation of the thing you're promoting. i.e. you.
If you do want to experiment with presentation and web2.0 technologies, I strongly recommend creating a private development website to cut your teeth on. There's nothing worse than exposing your learning curve to the people you're hoping will hire you.
HTH
As time passes, you'll be able to move up to a higher width but with the advent of popular netbooks, the 1024px max screen width is likely to be with us for a lot longer than it should.
There are a few schools of thought on personal websites, and each have merit. I would say that, if you're not a graphic designer, don't try to pretend to be (because unless you have graphic talent, you won't fool anyone - also, don't pretend to be an opera singer. People who ARE can tell a faker. Boy was that embarrassing...)
You're not required to be multi-disciplined, nor are you expected to be able to turn your hand to web scripting languages. Obviously, if you CAN do that - i.e. if you have time in the day to learn it - it might serve you well.
There's nothing wrong with an honest, basic website that looks tidy and presents your information in a very simple, clear résumé format. In fact there's a lot to be said of that. Step outside of your abilities on your website at your peril. You'll get bogged down with browser compatibility errors that needlessly consume your time and undermine the presentation of the thing you're promoting. i.e. you.
If you do want to experiment with presentation and web2.0 technologies, I strongly recommend creating a private development website to cut your teeth on. There's nothing worse than exposing your learning curve to the people you're hoping will hire you.
HTH
That's what I figured!
I'm all in favour of as many people as possible moving to DSLR if they feel inspired to do so. I understand what you're saying, but if I may refer back to something DWB said about "care" and "precaution": I believe that care is something everyone tries to take, 99% of the time. Precaution is what saves your hardware the 1% of the time you're not careful enough. I don't think Jack's NOT going to take care of his hardware, I think he's just precautionary in his nature (I've known him a long time now) and I also know that, while he drives carefully MOST of the time, he still wears his seatbelt ALL of the time. Precaution: Can't beat it with a stick.
Covered, I think. I also have to babysit my hardware because I can't afford to replace it. And it's old, and I'm relying entirely on Nikon build-quality at this point, and faith that their hardware will work forever. Otherwise, I wouldn't be dragging 2Kg of brick camera around, and would opt for a lighter lump hammer.
I agree with everything you say, but he's already invested in the DSLR. Referring back to the photos by the woman with "zero experience at handling a camera", I've realised that some people just have a knack; an eye for it. I'm sure the hardware the woman has is no hindrance to her, but we both know that it takes more than just kit to make a photo. You can ride on luck occasionally, but it's rare and you can't create a decent photography portfolio out of it. Jack's photos, in the past, show he's got a feel for a photograph. His purported ignorance and glibness aside, I know that with a DSLR he'll experiment, have some successes, make mistakes, ask questions and he'll benefit from our bitter experiences too.
The more I think about it, the more I think you're reading Jack wrong. I think he'll surprise you.
I'll definitely be experimenting with this. I'm also planning to head to a busy shopping centre and see what I can get from people-motion. I've actually never seen daytime long-exposures of traffic trails before - of course I'm sure they exist, but I feel like I'm ground-breaking because I've never seen them.. and I'm running with it
The stone/rocky waterfall is actually only a couple of hundred yards from my house. I never realised it existed until a couple of weeks ago, when I heard the sound of the water about 30ft off to the side of the road. I went to explore, and found it. It's running off an old and derelict 18th century mill dam. The snow melt gave it a bit of volume - water and audio - else I'd never have known it was there. The sluice gate is at a place called Ponden Clough, a mile or 2 from my house. It's at the head of a very remote valley, near the location of Top Withens - basis for "Wuthering Heights" - and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it's there. Behind it is a natural waterfall, which looks great from a distance but is pretty inaccessible at this time of the year, without better mountaineering gear than I possess.
Gah.. not happy about this, but...
See, I don't accept "if you're not serious about photography you've no right to use a DSLR"-esque approach at all. You might just as well tell every press photographer that ever won a Nobel prize to go back to pin-hole cameras if he's going to use and abuse his hardware. Because believe me when I say this, they treat their kit like SHIT. Seriously, take a step back and read what you wrote. It just smacks of SLR snobbery. I'm absolutely sure it can't be meant like that, but man.. that came across so badly.
Eh!? If Jack wants to chuck money at a camera, some memory cards, and some protective filters then what is wrong with telling him about filter screw threads and sizes? Does he HAVE to memorize a cameras for dummies manual before we allow him to pitch a few simple questions (or venture into SLR photography at all)? He wants to protect his lens. A UV filter will help. The nanocrystal coating and a petal hood will do the rest. He's beginning his photography journey and I think supporting advice rather than disparaging comments are called for.
There was a time when I was that guy, though. I spent many thousands on camera kit of various qualities over the years, and it was 20 or more years before my "photography epiphany" - that it's up to ME to get the photo, not the camera, the bag, the jacket with the lens pockets, the slave flash units and the rest. But that journey was my rite of passage, and the lessons I FINALLY learned from, decades later, all still count and I use them all, every day I go taking photos. I'm afraid I just can't accept that Jack's learning curve should be dictated to him. He's looking for a starter DSLR, tips on precautions and advice on hardware. I'm honestly at a loss to understand your fervour.
Well.. I thought the same.. but then I realised, on a less gloomy day, there wouldn't be any headlight trails to capture
I would have liked an ND32 but my camera has a prohibitive problem with noise on exposures over a minute or two. I think 45 seconds is about my limit, really, before the image is speckled with red noise dots. I picked up the two ND8s so I could mix and match.. I wanted to be able to take longer exposures while holding a shallow DOF. I'm going to look for an ND16 because I think when the weather turns up, I won't be able to get the longer exposures even stopped down to f/22 or greater (I think f/32 is my limit at 105mm). At 18mm, though, multiple filters are beginning to visibly encroach on the corners.
Re: post-processing, very little. I've increased contrast/saturation a little, and cooled down the 3rd image a little (not much). PP was difficult on the sluice gate because reflections from indirect sunlight interfered terribly with the water effect. I basically juggled brightness and exposure until the reflected sunlight's effect was diminished a little.
[edit] Jack's new lens WILL come with a cap, and if it doesn't he'll still need to see the screw thread size before he can buy one. When the salvaged strap cuts his neck, with the weight of his DSLR, he'll go buy a wider one.
See, I don't accept "if you're not serious about photography you've no right to use a DSLR"-esque approach at all. You might just as well tell every press photographer that ever won a Nobel prize to go back to pin-hole cameras if he's going to use and abuse his hardware. Because believe me when I say this, they treat their kit like SHIT. Seriously, take a step back and read what you wrote. It just smacks of SLR snobbery. I'm absolutely sure it can't be meant like that, but man.. that came across so badly.
Eh!? If Jack wants to chuck money at a camera, some memory cards, and some protective filters then what is wrong with telling him about filter screw threads and sizes? Does he HAVE to memorize a cameras for dummies manual before we allow him to pitch a few simple questions (or venture into SLR photography at all)? He wants to protect his lens. A UV filter will help. The nanocrystal coating and a petal hood will do the rest. He's beginning his photography journey and I think supporting advice rather than disparaging comments are called for.
There was a time when I was that guy, though. I spent many thousands on camera kit of various qualities over the years, and it was 20 or more years before my "photography epiphany" - that it's up to ME to get the photo, not the camera, the bag, the jacket with the lens pockets, the slave flash units and the rest. But that journey was my rite of passage, and the lessons I FINALLY learned from, decades later, all still count and I use them all, every day I go taking photos. I'm afraid I just can't accept that Jack's learning curve should be dictated to him. He's looking for a starter DSLR, tips on precautions and advice on hardware. I'm honestly at a loss to understand your fervour.
Well.. I thought the same.. but then I realised, on a less gloomy day, there wouldn't be any headlight trails to capture
I would have liked an ND32 but my camera has a prohibitive problem with noise on exposures over a minute or two. I think 45 seconds is about my limit, really, before the image is speckled with red noise dots. I picked up the two ND8s so I could mix and match.. I wanted to be able to take longer exposures while holding a shallow DOF. I'm going to look for an ND16 because I think when the weather turns up, I won't be able to get the longer exposures even stopped down to f/22 or greater (I think f/32 is my limit at 105mm). At 18mm, though, multiple filters are beginning to visibly encroach on the corners.
Re: post-processing, very little. I've increased contrast/saturation a little, and cooled down the 3rd image a little (not much). PP was difficult on the sluice gate because reflections from indirect sunlight interfered terribly with the water effect. I basically juggled brightness and exposure until the reflected sunlight's effect was diminished a little.
[edit] Jack's new lens WILL come with a cap, and if it doesn't he'll still need to see the screw thread size before he can buy one. When the salvaged strap cuts his neck, with the weight of his DSLR, he'll go buy a wider one.
Last edited by SamH, .
Reason : ..
I don't generally use creative filters, but I bought a couple of ND8 filters the other day. By adding both of them, I've been able to have a bit of fun taking long exposures even in the middle of the day:
When I'm not taking photos, my camera is always in its bag, but this isn't about my camera. Jack's camera will likely spend time in his coat pocket, on the car seat, passed from pillar to post at parties and ultimately be left, accidentally forgotten, on a beach somewhere off the east coast before being swept off to another beach in France or The Netherlands. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm anticipating Jack's camera will see some heavily varied action, and some cheap and simple precautions wouldn't go amiss.
With regard to filters, I've had a UV filter on the front of my lenses for as long as I can remember, and I can't remember the last time I even noticed excessive flare, except when the filter has been filthied by sea spray and various other stuff that, out of respect for both hardware and my wallet, I'd never subject my lenses' front elements to. Perhaps it's true what they say about Nikon's nano crystal coatings.
With regard to filters, I've had a UV filter on the front of my lenses for as long as I can remember, and I can't remember the last time I even noticed excessive flare, except when the filter has been filthied by sea spray and various other stuff that, out of respect for both hardware and my wallet, I'd never subject my lenses' front elements to. Perhaps it's true what they say about Nikon's nano crystal coatings.
That's £250-300 worth of lens, so I disagree. This is not a solution for Jack.
Also, we'll have to agree to disagree on the filter. Frankly the lens coating on modern lenses is more than capable of resolving the additional - if any - flare created by a UV filter, especially with the flower petal hood in place, and the benefits of not writing off your £250-300 lens's front element in a pub scrum, or while it rolls around on the back seat of a Proton, are incalculable. Sorry, Ben, but I think you're utterly wrong.
Also, we'll have to agree to disagree on the filter. Frankly the lens coating on modern lenses is more than capable of resolving the additional - if any - flare created by a UV filter, especially with the flower petal hood in place, and the benefits of not writing off your £250-300 lens's front element in a pub scrum, or while it rolls around on the back seat of a Proton, are incalculable. Sorry, Ben, but I think you're utterly wrong.
There are lots of 18-something VR lenses. I would recommend getting at least a 18-105, or a 18-135 if you can stretch to it. The 18-200 lens is expensive, but it's no longer a jack-of-all-trades lens and actually performs really well. If you bought that one, you'd more-or-less not need any other additional lenses for the foreseeable future.
DEFINITELY get a filter to protect the front element. A UV filter is ideal. You will probably need a 67mm diameter, as that seems to be a running theme these days with new Nikon lenses, but check the thread when you've picked out your lens and get it then.
DEFINITELY get a filter to protect the front element. A UV filter is ideal. You will probably need a 67mm diameter, as that seems to be a running theme these days with new Nikon lenses, but check the thread when you've picked out your lens and get it then.
Umm.. that was partly a cheat
Attached is the original image, re-sampled 50% because the original is over 4MB.
LOL! I'm so slack with my blog, I know! I'd like to get some more photography tutorials up, but I'm still a photography numpty really and I don't feel very comfortable posting with "authority"
[ps thankye very kindly, sir!]
[ps thankye very kindly, sir!]
As part of my project 365, I'm determined to get worthwhile imagery out of a cheap pocket digital. I bought the Nikon Coolpix, bottom of the range camera, and I've been exploring its capabilities. So far, I've got these..
I recently started a "Project 365" series, which I'm hoping will help keep me focused on photography this year and encourage me to seek out imagery in everyday life. Well, that's the plan anyway I strongly encourage anyone that's looking to push their photography a little harder to take part in a project like this. Mine is at http://projects.p365.org/simonh
Here are some of my more recent shots:
I strongly encourage anyone that's looking to push their photography a little harder to take part in a project like this. Mine is at http://projects.p365.org/simonhHere are some of my more recent shots:
Hey, do what you want Nathan.. I just recommend against it, for the reasons I posted.
Given the negative tone of your first post on this, I'd like to see evidence to support your statement. Get posting.
You're introducing a destructive tone to this thread that I don't think will be appreciated by its participants. This thread has run its entire history with appreciative comments and constructive observation until now. It would be a shame to see it degenerate.
Out-of-hand criticism and dismissal of other peoples' photographic efforts is something I think you'll find that most photography forum users are careful to avoid. Anyone can destroy a photographer's confidence with a few very short words. But you don't do it, ever, firstly because it's unkind and secondly because by doing so you invite everyone else to obliterate your own photographic efforts. And trust me when I say that they will. Set yourself up as the bad guy and your photos become fair game. Seen it a thousand times before.
flermo is S2 licenced on a different username but (for obvious reasons - hence the thread at all) wasn't able to log on to the forum using that name, to ask for help.
I've closed the thread now because his problem is resolved and he now has full access again with his S2 account
I've closed the thread now because his problem is resolved and he now has full access again with his S2 account
Information here: http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=63603
VR kicks ass but I don't really think it's make-or-break on an 18-55mm.
The vibration reduction system does help you shoot in lower light situations because you can shoot 2-4 stops slower without handshake blur. But it doesn't stop motion within the frame, so if someone's hand is moving it'll blur, or if someone is talking their lips will be fuzzy, if they blink during exposure things really begin to look odd.
VR really comes into its own, I think, above about 80mm. To an extent it then loses effectiveness above ~250mm, because handshake can be too dramatic for the VR to counter. Combine a steady hand with VR in short- to mid-telephoto and it's an awesome feature.
Umm.. doesn't the D40 require AF-S lenses? There's no lens motor in the D40 body
I'd forget the Olympus out of hand, based on feedback from Matt (TS).
The K-M (with the 2 lenses, right?) would be a good pick. My brother has the A200 and it's plenty of nice consumer features (not actually my thang) as well.
Over to you guys..
That's a pretty significant variable. Need to know.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG