Dogography
Per Nico's (Reno&Rico) suggestion, this is a thread to share tips, tricks, and pics of dogs.
Share with all of us the shots you are really proud of, why you think they are great, and what you did to make them great.
I will start, here is a picture of Blue I took the other day. I took this on a very flat-light day, it was moderately bright out but still overcast enough to reduce the harsh shadows we tend to get here in New Mexico this time of year...
This was shot in ISO 400 f/5.0 at 165mm; Post-processing: Brightened a bit, and cloned-out some mud on his nose.
I like the way the grayness of the day kinda blended with Blue's gray/blue color.
Here is a version with a bit more contrast and shot at 120mm:
----
Share with all of us the shots you are really proud of, why you think they are great, and what you did to make them great.
I will start, here is a picture of Blue I took the other day. I took this on a very flat-light day, it was moderately bright out but still overcast enough to reduce the harsh shadows we tend to get here in New Mexico this time of year...
This was shot in ISO 400 f/5.0 at 165mm; Post-processing: Brightened a bit, and cloned-out some mud on his nose.
I like the way the grayness of the day kinda blended with Blue's gray/blue color.
Here is a version with a bit more contrast and shot at 120mm:
----
Comments
This picture was taken last year with Canon 5D, 135mm F2.0L @ F3.5 / 1/800 sec. The maximum performance would be at F8,0 but would give a bit to much depth in field (in my opinion, and less bokeh). The focus was on Reno's face, to see the actual pixels I placed them next to the image, this way full sharpness is visable. Weak in the image is the little space in front of his eyes to the edge of the picture. But Rico in the back brings back the balance a bit, I guess.
Sangmort - I shoot both, however my rule of thumb is NEF(Nikon Raw) for anything that may be printed or I want to do post production with. JPEG for anything else.
P.S Congrats on getting one past the goalie Brad.
ROFLMFAO!!!! *died laughing*
Bad goalie for letting one in! ~
Jack, what do you mean with EXIF? (Is it exposure time, F-stop?) If you use Firefox you can add an extension to the browser, which allows you to read all data from the image.
I have no technical expertise to add. I took ONE photography class back in college, before digital cameras and it became very clear how much all the numbers and ratios pained me. Not my natural medium. I only sweat the small stuff of my choosing. Shoot in RAW, shoot big, take LOTS of pictures with whatever you have and some will come out interesting and/or nice! Remember that everybody pics and chooses, nobody* shoots MOSTLY good pictures with every roll. The best thing about digital cameras is that I no longer have to have all the garbage developed and printed just to SEE the 3 good shots I took anymore.
*Except maybe Brandon!
In the past I have shot only in JPG because, honestly, I didn't really care that much about my pictures. I actually hated taking pictures, I only recently started to enjoy it - and so, recently I switched to RAW.
As for how many "keepers" I get from a session, I would say 1 in 5 or so are "keepers"... Sometimes I do better, like 1 in 3, other times I shoot like 100 shots and get one good one (this happens a lot for me with action shots - I'm still learning).
Right now I have out grown my setup, I really need to get a new body but I have been low on spending money. I would love to get a full-frame body, I need to have something that can preform better in lower light - I take a lot of low-light shots... Even the pic I posted above gets kinda grainy when you look at the pixels, at that was not that low of light. Here in NM we either have low light or freakishly bright direct light, so I need something that can preform in low light better.
I'm thinking I will go with the Canon EOS 7D, I like that camera a lot, and I like that it can shoot high-def vid. I think I may splurge and get it with the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens... and eventually I would like to get the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens (which cost more that the body).
I think that would be a good low-light setup. I hope. I'm just sick of taking grainy pics.
I could use an external flash too, I take enough pics of black shiny-coated dogs that I need something to help add some fill.
----
*Clarity is not perfect on this one, but the "moment" was great.
----
As for the 24-105, what alternative would you suggest for low-light? The 24-70?
The 100-400 is an IS lens.
I currently have an old Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi.
----
I think that it was probably on the auto setting, lol.
One option, rent both and see what you like most. Than decide!
Maybe if you find back the original image you can check the info box to find back the data.
Aperture: f/3.7
Focal Length: 29.7 mm
ISO Speed: 400
Exposure Bias: +0.66 EV
Flash: Off
I have much to learn in the photographical field.
I do enjoy messing with the contrast/brightness of photos =]. Makes for "fun" pics!
Corina, if you have any questions, feel free to ask. The purpose should be to learn some easy steps to make more pics the way you wanted them! This applies for any type of camera. Processing the image is important to get the best pictures.
Picture: Reno shaking off water. To freeze the water droplets I used a high speed, 1/1600 sec with F4.0 on a 180mm f3.5 lens.
Some post processing: the second picture is further enhanced in LAB-colors. The image is more bright without loosing the color. Some sharpness is added in the light channel.
I have been considering just getting a few fixed lenses (like a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm) instead of zoom lenses (obviously, this is an "over time" thought as these lenses are really expensive).
Most of the shooting I do seems to be in the 35-85 and then the 135-200 range... Tho it is nice to have something closer to 300 or above when I want to shoot a critter running by the house or something.
----
If I were you, I'd see which range you'd like most often, then get one prime in that range. Primes really open you up to a whole new learning experience, esp. with the nice aperture. So I'd pick one, really learn it, then go from there to order some more.
Also, as a helpful hint from one photographer to another, I highly advise ordering from Amazon if you want to test out a new lens if you're not sure if you want to buy it or not. Order it, [ with the free shipping, no tax, & reduced price ] get it, & try it out. If you don't like it you have 30 days to send it back, & return shipping is like $10 maximum [ consider it a "renters fee" ] & there's no restocking fee like some brick & mortar stores have.
Usually I order 2 lenses that I'm considering, test them both out, & send back the one I don't want.
[ yes, I amazon ] ~
[ btw, I'm in the canon camp so these two posts references canon gear, sorry Nikor fans. Tho I'm sure nikon has a very good quivalent ]~
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/5.0
Focal Length: 135 mm
Focal Length: 134.5 mm
Camera: Nikon D5000
Exposure: 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture: f/4.2
Focal Length: 75 mm
Focal Length: 75.5 mm
ISO Speed: 200
Exposure Bias: 0 EV
Flash: On, Return detected
I took these last night so this was before I got your tip about focal length to shutter speed. But if I was retaking these would I have used a quicker shutter speed in both pics?
Remember, if you shoot in RAW your camera does not really pp your images, if you shoot in jpeg pp is being done "in-camera" so PP is an essential skill! Once you learn how to PP you can really make an image pop! [ & really learn how to "save" bad images ] ~