LDM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 The blurring for the DOF simulation does help showcase the car better, and removing the power lines is a big improvement too. What exactly is the dodging and burning you refer to? I'm sure it's subtle, but all I really see is some blurring and line removal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The blurring for the DOF simulation does help showcase the car better, and removing the power lines is a big improvement too. What exactly is the dodging and burning you refer to? I'm sure it's subtle, but all I really see is some blurring and line removal. Len, You are correct, in this case the burning was subtle, used along with the blurring in the third shot to help bring the car to the front. The term dodging comes from the darkroom days when light is kept from reaching the paper (blocked) from the enlarger lens (above which sits the negative), thus the image is lighter in that spot... Burning is where a portion of the image is exposed to more light, thus the image is darker in that area. In terms of a photograph, lighter objects will tend to look closer, darker objects will recede into the background. To give some distance to the house behind the car, I "burned" it slightly (or thought I did, in review it must have been a very slight adjustment) , and blurred objects behind the car to give a DOF appearance.... Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Ok, I just reshot the badge pictures with the aperture fully open and came up with this: I know the lighting isn't as good and I got the ugly wall refection in these shots so disregard that part, but would you say the depth of field is better? Also, could I crop the pictures better? Basically these were just quick test shots to see what I could come up with in "A" mode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Ok, you folks need to STOP!! I read this post and then spent about 30 minutes at the Henry's website looking at cameras!!! And then another 10 minutes at Amazon looking up the dummy books on the models I was looking at........ LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 PS, what lense did you get with the 5100? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Haha. If it weren't for this site I probably would've been happy with my point-and-shoot. I have the 18-55mm zoom lens. I got the kit that came with the camera body and that lens. Next investment will probably be something with a good telephoto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Thanks Len. So basically this setup here? http://www.henrys.ca/64742-NIKON-D5100-W-18-55-VR-LENS.aspx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yeah, that's the one. I got mine from Beach Camera and it came with an 8 GB SD card, cleaning kit, a camera bag (albeit a cheapo one) and free shipping for $846, though after I bought it, it still shows up in a search but you can't look at the product page or add to cart: http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/search.aspx?kwd=E5NKD5100KT. Being in Canada, I don't know how that would effect your pricing. I'd been originally thinking about the D90, but after doing some research, the D5100 seems to exceed it in almost every category, is a newer platform (just released in April I believe), and is still the same price. Also, the body/lens kit just seemed the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yeah, you don't want to know what they would hammer me for when it comes to brokerage fees. Let's just say my last $150 Adam's order came with an extra $50 fee after Fedex was done with it! Besides, Henry's is only a 5 minute drive from the house...LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Ok, I just reshot the badge pictures with the aperture fully open and came up with this: I know the lighting isn't as good and I got the ugly wall refection in these shots so disregard that part, but would you say the depth of field is better? Also, could I crop the pictures better? Basically these were just quick test shots to see what I could come up with in "A" mode. So you have it on 3.5? I see "separation", which is what we are shooting for... I forgot to mention "bokeh", which is the "quality" of the blur... and you tend to get that with more expensive lens (like the 70-200 VR 2.8.. a cool ~$1600) Example below: Buttery smooth.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 8, 2011 Author Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yeah, it was at 3.5. Here's the metadata for that shot if it helps with diagnosis: $1600 is a little more than I'm looking to spend on a lens at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Len, Can you PM me the exif info for the rear badge shot... interested to see why the DOF on that shot seems shorter than your last attempts.... Also, where you about the same distance away from the car in both? Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Bit the bullet and picked up the same rig you got Len. Whole lot of learning curve! LOL. The place I bought it from has classes for all kinds of cameras and experience levels. Gonna drop the $50 and take the Beginners Nikon DSLR course they are offering next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 10, 2011 Author Share Posted June 10, 2011 Sorry for influencing you to spend money. It does seem to be a really nice camera though, from the little I've messed with it. That course sounds like it should be helpful. Is this your first DSLR too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nordgrey Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 My first DSLR, but I played with dad's 35mm SLR for years, so not EVERYTHING is new and confusing.......LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAYBEN Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 if you get another lens, I suggest spending the extra $ and getting the 18-200 VR, its more versatile than having the 18-55 and constantly switching to the 55-200 for certain shots and vice versa.. I will be getting one soon.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpurser Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 This is my first post after browsing for a while. One thing I've noticed is that some of your shots are underexposed. You can fix this by increasing the exposure compensation by something like +2/3 stop. The reason why they were underexposed is that the camera's exposure meter thinks the car is grey, not white. Be sure to use the histogram to make sure the exposure is correct. BTW, car photography is a hobby of mine. I have a flickr set of some of my GXP shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/chadpurser/sets/72157624543958304/ -Chad EDIT: Some are underexposed, not all. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanFish Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Lots of great info here guys! Looks like I'll be joining the DSLR party soon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 Thanks for the advice Chad. I'll try and keep that in mind next time. Those GXP shots look pretty sweet. Maybe someday I'll be able to take photos half as good as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 This is my first post after browsing for a while. EDIT: Some are underexposed, not all. Sorry. Chad, Good catch... if memory serves Nikon will attempt to preserve highlights, so will "under" expose if left to it's own devices... in which case you have two choices... do as you said, or adjust in POST... shooting in raw allows alot of wiggle room here.. so depending on conditions you can shoot RAW and adjust as needed. Jpeg will allow some adjustment but you are more likely to lose highlights... Since I use lightroom 3 as my tool of choice I would be more likely to allow the camera to underexpose... Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDM Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 Chad,Good catch... if memory serves Nikon will attempt to preserve highlights, so will "under" expose if left to it's own devices... in which case you have two choices... do as you said, or adjust in POST... shooting in raw allows alot of wiggle room here.. so depending on conditions you can shoot RAW and adjust as needed. Jpeg will allow some adjustment but you are more likely to lose highlights... Since I use lightroom 3 as my tool of choice I would be more likely to allow the camera to underexpose... Regards, Mike After Chad posted that I went back and tweaked the exposure adjustments on a couple photos and it seemed to improve the appearance. I also played with the white balance a little bit too. I guess it's best if you get this all right in the camera when you first take the shot, but the software seemed to do an alright job of manipulating things. My camera can take RAW and JPEG at the same time so I may just start shooting like that to make post adjustments easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WildBillsBlueC6 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 I wanted to jump in and say a few things about exposure on digital camera. I am a photographer and an engineer and spent a lot of time studying this. The first thing is that your camera does not know what your subject is, so they try to set the exposure for neutral gray, which is a color that reflects 50% of the light that hits it. So if you have light colored subject it will under expose, and if its a dark subject it will over expose. This is why most pictures at a beach are under exposed, they are lighter than neutral or middle gray. The second part is that because digital camera's are really computers with optics they operate linearly so 50% of the information stored from your picture is from the top f stop so you NEVER want to underexpose with a digital camera. You will get the most detail by getting the light to the very right edge of the histogram but not beyond. This is often referred to as ETTR - Exposure To The Right. So take a shot, look at the histogram and adjust the camera exposure over or under based on what you see for the subject. When you move to a new subject or location do it again. Then post process to set the exposure for how you want it displayed. When taking pictures of thing like car's always leave more room in front of the car than behind it, so it gives the illusion that there is room to move forward. It is more pleasing to the eye. I take pictures of all kinds of things, some normal and some not so normal. You can see some examples at http://www.flickr.com/photos/billnphoto/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpurser Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Chad,Good catch... if memory serves Nikon will attempt to preserve highlights, so will "under" expose if left to it's own devices... in which case you have two choices... do as you said, or adjust in POST... shooting in raw allows alot of wiggle room here.. so depending on conditions you can shoot RAW and adjust as needed. Jpeg will allow some adjustment but you are more likely to lose highlights... Since I use lightroom 3 as my tool of choice I would be more likely to allow the camera to underexpose... Regards, Mike Yeah, I always shoot in RAW. I've saved so many shots in PS and LR by using RAW. -Chad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 The second part is that because digital camera's are really computers with optics they operate linearly so 50% of the information stored from your picture is from the top f stop so you NEVER want to underexpose with a digital camera. You will get the most detail by getting the light to the very right edge of the histogram but not beyond. This is often referred to as ETTR - Exposure To The Right. Bill, I guess it depends on what you are trying to preserve (shadows) or highlights, but generally I would agree with the above while pointing out care should be taken to not blow highlights (set camera to flash for this if available). Most cameras also now show rgb histograms (older cameras did not, so you couldn't tell if you were blowing out a given channel). Once you lose (white) highlights you can't get them back, so learning to do what Bill said "getting the light to the very right edge of the histogram but not beyond" is key. Warm regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gencoupe3dot8 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 White Balance is a subject unto itself... but it looks like the d5100 uses a fair amount of intelligence for auto wb... http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d5100/features04.htm It looks like you can also change WB in the shooting menu... the best way to do WB is custom wb with an ExpoDisc You might want to check this review out for info on the D5100: http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Canon-Rebel-T3i-EOS-600D-Compared-to-Nikon-D5100.shtml I like the idea of an HDR feature... (some caveats) Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.