Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by dkjordan23

Only difference between D40 AND D40 really is the megapixels, right? I just looked it up, and found you can print pro quality 11 x 14 pics w/ 6 megapixels, so I guess the upgrade to D40x isn't really necessary when trying to decide between the two?

Theres a few other things kdwallace mentioned. I forgot though.

 

[SVNTI]

Originally Posted by kdwallace

I picked up the D40 instead of the D40x cause the only difference is 6.1mp on the d40 vs. 10 on the d40x. 6mp is enough unless your gonna print some huge posters or something with your images, Also, since the d40x has more megapixels crammed into the same sensor as the d40, it gives it more possibilities of getting noise in your image. And about the XTi, well, a lot of people say its better, but what kept me away was the price.

There are a few other differences - the main one is the pixels as you said but the D40x also has a ISO 0f 100 option - which produces less noise than the D40 - and in fact the D80 with its older sensor.

The only drawback is the fully mechanical shutter which means that the flash will only sync to a certain shutter speed - although I'm not sure what that means in practice - I would assume that the shutter is too fast so you get incomplete light coverage under some conditions when shooting with the flash.

 

[irapthough]

Can I get critiques please on these ?

 

[irapthough]

Double Post .

 

[ebayologist]

Do a little group critique. Just been busy of late and its like I see one person asking for a critique and I look again and there's another. I really thinkthat would be helpful if you guys who post pictures often would just critique each other on the basic sort of inherent stuff that the other person might havemissed while taking the shot. But I'll go in reverse and go a page or so back.

IRAPTHOUGH
1. I like the IRAPTHOUGH logotype the light helvetica is nice. I would keep it white and all the pictures the same size. Photographically sometimes you cut offthe subject (the shoes) which is odd.
2. Graphically I think the IRT would be helped to be larger. As a photo its fine, maybe a little more contrast and my first question would be why is itportrait instead of landscape not saying it should be one over the other but you should have a reason for a choice like that.
3. Just for starters flash is too harsh. beyond that ehh.. feels like an odd crop. I don't get it..
4. Nice, but again too much flash. I don't think it needs flash. and the flash hurts your focus.
5. It's alright. Would probably be better if it was more head on and again kill the flash or difuse it. and also maybe too tight.

Jae Kilroy
I really like the tonal range on those. It's nice. Good see something well executed and different in this post.

The Black James Bond
Just generally the flash does remind me of American Apparel advertisements which I'm not really huge on but whatever...
One one level though they have consistency. I think the one of your cousin is interesting, it takes that American Apparel motif and on certain level elevatesit with this sort of surrealness to it. whereas alot of the other ones feel flat and just very overt almost. And some of those you have sort of awkwardly hardcontrasts and weird shadows.

Jaw Knee C
My personal methodology to lenses is that a lens should serve the function of the photograph. i.e. if you're in cathedral and you want to get the wholething a wide angle makes sense or if you're shooting a landscape of in the distance maybe a telephoto. With that said I feel like your wide angle stufffunctions mostly around the lens stretching of perspective as a point of interest than a point of function. Like that one in your cubical somewhere works wellbecause the wide-angle shows us your whole cubical and gives this interesting perspective on it. So the lens functions to make an further the idea of thephotograph, your cubical... Whereas these like porch outdoor ones seem more like just twisting perspective where the photos become interesting because of thelens not the subject... And while you can definitely take my idea on lenses with a grain of salt as it's just my own that's what I was thinking lookingat those photographs.

ii2cky I like all 3 of those shots the last one with the candy the best though. The cool tone is fitting and just seems well composed.

 

[irapthough]

Thanks C .

 

[jaw knee c]

Peek-a-boo.....

 

[the black james bond]

Originally Posted by ebayologist


The Black James Bond
Just generally the flash does remind me of American Apparel advertisements which I'm not really huge on but whatever...
One one level though they have consistency. I think the one of your cousin is interesting, it takes that American Apparel motif and on certain level elevates it with this sort of surrealness to it. whereas alot of the other ones feel flat and just very overt almost. And some of those you have sort of awkwardly hard contrasts and weird shadows.

thanks a lot C...I think the hard contrast is due to the flash, if that makes sense, because quite a few of those I shot at iso 200 and needed a flash, butI definitely prefer 200 speed better, the quality is so much better than 400, and much less grainy/noisy...thanks again

 

[ebayologist]

^Yep, No prob. 400 speed film shouldn't really be that grainy with how big your photos are. They should look fine, probably has something to do with howyou or whoever scanned them. But yeah, if you're going to use a flash get an external one and a good diffuser...

 

[Junok]

Any good tutorials for a Canon S5 IS?

 

[djbooduh2o9]

 

[seattle206]

had my dslr for two days now and im still tinkering around with all the settings and learning how to use it. these are some pictures i shot today at myfriends place.

for the last two pictures i tried using the "Tv" & "Av" mode on my camera. I was trying to capture the ejecting shell but I couldntget it. there wasnt enough light so the "Tv" shot came out too dark, so i had to use "Av". a lot of these shots came out grainy, perhapsit was the iso and the resizing in jpeg. i think i need to switch to RAW. What are some tips to capture a really fast moving object when there is low light? i also downloaded PS and tried some editing on the pics.

 

[sneaker junkie2]

WOW

 

[Sinner]

nice pics... other than that nasty-*** toilet... eeek...

 

[ebayologist]

^^ A fast shutter-speed will capture fast motion. So when you have low light you can open up the lens or raise the iso. Also using a flash is very effectivefor freezing motion. A flash is a little more effective at freezing motion with film because of the way it works at capturing the image vs. the digital sensorwhere I think it will be similar but not to the same degree.

 

[seattle206]

^^ thanks, i never thought about using flash in daylight. another quick snaps around my house.

 

[SVNTI]

 

[seattle206]

Since it was a sunny in Seattle I went to our MLK memorial park to take some pics.

second day of having my camera and i took over 650 pictures. haha.

 

[jsr0cksmys0cks]

A few shots I've done a few weeks ago..

 

[the black james bond]

double post

 

[the black james bond]

Seattle, dope stuff man, I really like the one with the guy firing the rifle, you see the shell just popping out of the gun. really cool. and that nasty toilet

...but keep up the good work, I wish I had a DSLR so I could shoot as much as you have, but I don't have that luxury with film

 

[termanology27]

Couple from today @ a bike show.

Some old ones..

 

[irvking]

[color= rgb(204, 0, 0)]

[/color]

 

[seattle206]

sinnerp & black jamesbond thanks for the comps! this whole photography thing is fun. cant wait until spring & summer until i can get out to the woodsagain.

 

[Sinner]

Seattle206 - a nice little collection of firearms you got there... whatelse you got? on a sidenote, with pumpaction shotguns, can you really pump it with onehand, like they do in the movies? damn shame about the Seahawks...



I caved and just copped a Nikon D40... much to learn, I have...