tech-forums photography thread (56k)

[H4x3r]

I'd have to call and check, but when i was looking to get one for my sister a few months back it was around $625 for just the body

 

[Poizen22]

I'd have to call and check, but when i was looking to get one for my sister a few months back it was around $625 for just the body

thats about the consumer cost now for a d80 body you can get one with a lense close to 899. looking at it i might skimp out on the d90 alltho my friedn who has the d80 has used a d90 and says it is worth the upgrade the d80 aparently has a crappy light meeter where as the d90 doesnt.

Mostly Digital : Nikon D80 Body

looking up reveiws of the d90 v.s teh d8- i have come to find out the d80 is actually one of nikons worst dslr cameras ever made, its aparently very bugged and glitched with alot of things, and not many of its features work well, of its second gen of dslr cameras the d80 has been given the title of the worst. so d90 it is, it is outperforming the d300 which gets my mind going the d60 aparently takes better photos then the d80. the d80 only offers a few more marginal features which dont work that well anyway.

 

[j12]

Thinking of purchasing a d80 body for around $430. But i'm not sure which lens would be good. Any suggestions?

 

[aspire]

Thinking of purchasing a d80 body for around $430. But i'm not sure which lens would be good. Any suggestions?

Nikon | 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S DX Lens | 2162 | B&H Photo

Good lens for all around use.

If you just want a basic lens you can't beat the 18-55...

Nikon | 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Lens | 2170 | B&H Photo

 

[Hefemeister]

Here are a few more outside shots for you all. The last one has a bit of photoshopping in it.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3079637594/" title="Hunneberg Vänersborg by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3079637594_a32e28fd1a_o.jpg" width="768" height="526" alt="Hunneberg Vänersborg" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3083283058/" title="DSC_1124 copy by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/3083283058_37886c9e55.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="DSC_1124 copy" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3083283458/" title="tomte nissa på trästump copy by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/3083283458_36fc653e22.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="tomte nissa på trästump copy" /></a>

 

[aspire]

Here are a few more outside shots for you all. The last one has a bit of photoshopping in it.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3079637594/" title="Hunneberg Vänersborg by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3248/3079637594_a32e28fd1a_o.jpg" width="768" height="526" alt="Hunneberg Vänersborg" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3083283058/" title="DSC_1124 copy by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3123/3083283058_37886c9e55.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="DSC_1124 copy" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/32439321@N06/3083283458/" title="tomte nissa på trästump copy by Katarinas fotografier, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3200/3083283458_36fc653e22.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="tomte nissa på trästump copy" /></a>

I think they're all a bit overexposed.

Play around with levels and curves and see if you can't get them looking a bit more natural.

 

[H4x3r]

there is no way they are over exposed.....the only thing that is a bit over exposed is the child that was cloned into the third pic with the log..the second picture of the Hair is perfect and the first seems like it has a little bit of camera shake if not a slow shutter speed. The skin tones are great on the second one as well

 

[aspire]

there is no way they are over exposed.....the only thing that is a bit over exposed is the child that was cloned into the third pic with the log..the second picture of the Hair is perfect and the first seems like it has a little bit of camera shake if not a slow shutter speed. The skin tones are great on the second one as well

First picture the path on the left of the stream lacks any detail as it is too bright.

Second picture the entire right side of the childs face is overexposed.

Third picture the middle of the log is also overexposed.

 

[H4x3r]

there is a difference between overexposure and accent lighting, the child's face is evenly lit, while the right side of his hat has a hard accent tone which compliments the glow of the sun in the hair. The log has the bright left side to offset the lower tones of the right side. As for the forest, i don't see anything wrong with the exposure, it is focused on the branches and even if you were to darken that path, you wouldn't achieve any level of detail that it doesn't already have. As well as the log, and face, if you were to adjust for the "overexposed" areas, then the rest would be underexposed to some degree

 

[aspire]

there is a difference between overexposure and accent lighting, the child's face is evenly lit, while the right side of his hat has a hard accent tone which compliments the glow of the sun in the hair. The log has the bright left side to offset the lower tones of the right side. As for the forest, i don't see anything wrong with the exposure, it is focused on the branches and even if you were to darken that path, you wouldn't achieve any level of detail that it doesn't already have. As well as the log, and face, if you were to adjust for the "overexposed" areas, then the rest would be underexposed to some degree

There's a reason why when you shoot having an underexposed picture is always better because the detail is still there. If a picture is overexposed that detail is lost for good.

Using some layers in photoshop you can lighten the areas that are too dark and get a nice even exposure.

You of all people should know this, it's a fundamental part of shooting with film. You have to burn and dodge areas to get the exposure you want. Same concept carries over to digital.