- 264
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
Official Photography Thread: Vol. ICan'tFindTheLastOne
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by ebayologist,
- Start date
- 264
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2004
- 298
- 36
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
Originally Posted by DUNKiSHH
I need some opinions. Am I OD'ing on the gradient?
I'd say yes because it kind of makes your shots looks kind of underexposed.
Also, I think it makes the colors a little dull.
Idk, that's just me.
- 1,718
- 28
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2006
so i have been debating on a nikon d40 / nikon d40x for awhile now.
the biggest difference is the megapixels from what i have read on here.
what about lenses? can you use the same lenses for the d40 on the d40x?
. . but some features will be lost like autofocus?
any help would be great . . aim, pm, or on here.
thanks alot.
the biggest difference is the megapixels from what i have read on here.
what about lenses? can you use the same lenses for the d40 on the d40x?
. . but some features will be lost like autofocus?
any help would be great . . aim, pm, or on here.
thanks alot.
- 185
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
I bought the Nikon D40 and I'm happy with my purchase, I'm just getting started so I didn't really want to spend a whole lot on my first DSLRcamera. Here are some pics that i took...sorry I'm not a pro like all these dudes here...
But any of you got one of these? I've been looking for a fisheye lens but like I said I'm pretty new at this and I don't really want to droprediculous dough on something i might not like in a couple of years...but I've been thinking of getting a fisheye lens and found this...any good?
- 1,086
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
Yeah, you can use the same lenses on the D40 and D40x - there's no difference from that aspect (and even with the new D60).
- 1,283
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2005
just got some prints back today,
assignment was depth of field
assignment was depth of field
- 526
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- 475
- 10
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
Originally Posted by termanology27
top left is
- 2,323
- 38
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2002
that guys lookin like Chow from VT or whatever his name was, i dont like those pics sorry.
- 2,674
- 31
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2001
I just got my Xti and I am to excited about it. I am even reading ever bit of instructions it came with. I will be posting pics of my visit to Thailand in aweek or so, so when the time comes I hope you all will enjoy.
- 185
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
Originally Posted by termanology27
I've tried all kinds of weird setting in my camera (D40), how do I set it to take pictures like the one you have on the top left?
Oh and I took these yesterday...advice?
- 526
- 10
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
Thanks for the comments everyone.
For that night shot i used a long shutter speed and iso 400.
Btw your shots seem under exposed.
For that night shot i used a long shutter speed and iso 400.
Btw your shots seem under exposed.
- 185
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
what does under exposed mean? is that bad?
I shot those pictures at ISO 200...
I shot those pictures at ISO 200...
- 737
- 11
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
some of these pics are amazing
- 185
- 10
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
^ who is that girl in your avy?
- 2,608
- 89
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
- 1,024
- 16
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2003
sorry, but just because an asian poses with guns means he automatically looks like the VT idiot? kinda like whenever i see a white teen with a gunhe's instantly labeled as the next columbian shooter.
- 1,290
- 10
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
Nice... While I would say the first two are a little ehh nothing remarkable but on par if you will but the latter three definitely caught my eye justchecking up on the thread. I feel like each one is hair or so crooked and the tonal ranges aren't impeccable or anything but definitely a vast improvementfrom any skateboarding photography I've seen from you or anyone else on NT and I think the fact they caught my eye among a kind of return to photo postfrenzy of late says something about them. If you don't shoot off a tripod you might try it, I think it would probably allow you to compose or at leastlearn to compose with a more refined sensibility, but they're nice nonetheless.Originally Posted by obie21
- 2,608
- 89
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2005
ebayologist-
thank you..i do not shoot off a tripod..however, i have been thinking of buying one..any suggestions on a good tripod(if there is such a thing)
thank you..i do not shoot off a tripod..however, i have been thinking of buying one..any suggestions on a good tripod(if there is such a thing)
- 468
- 12
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2001
Sup_
Yeah I am liking this one. It is off a smidgen but its nice.
I dunno maybe its me but I am kind of getting tired of looking at those type of pics quickster. Some are cool but some just doesn't
me anymore. I would say lay off or chill from using HDR now, but thats me bro. Good stuff nonetheless.
Peace.
- 1,290
- 10
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
Yea, no prob. Like I said before and J2o most of them are like smidgen off. If you shoot level with your horizon it's far easier to build symmetrywhich is essentially what composition is all about. Clearly there shots where a level horizon might not be the move it just strikes me that the shots you havetaken would be greatly improved compositionally if the horizon was level.
About tripods there are good tripods. And there's definately a difference both in feel, stablity, function, weight, etc. What you "need" reallydepends on your camera's weight (basically just the body and your heaviest lense) as you want one weight rated well over your camera weight. Its hard tosuggest something not knowing how much you want to spend so if you give me a ballpark and figure out your camera weight I can probably suggest something. Justfor instance I have a Bogen Manfrotto tripod thats like $180+ (was actually a gift, a very nice gift) but my Hasselbald also weights like 5.5 lbs with my 50mmlens.
If you want to go the cheap route it's not that cheap tripods are really taht bad they're just not the same quality and usually don't have as niceof features. It's like fake sneakers (without most of the stigma
- 1,086
- 10
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
^ I would agree with that - I just upgraded from basically the cheapest tripod that I could get at the time to one that was about $100 - not the most expensivein the shop but in the middle.
It's just night and day - the new one is so solid and it's really easy to adjust.
It's heavier but that's the trade-off for stability. I sometimes use the old one still if I'm going to have to carry it a long way.
It's just night and day - the new one is so solid and it's really easy to adjust.
It's heavier but that's the trade-off for stability. I sometimes use the old one still if I'm going to have to carry it a long way.
- 4,477
- 480
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
Yeah... I need a proper Tripod. the Gorillapod is ok, for when im on the go or have something to wrap it around to. Been looking at a Manfrotto 725B, has somedecent reviews and is only $149.99 CDN.
- 1,290
- 10
- Joined
- May 20, 2004
^There's at least a couple kids I know at school who have either that exact tripod or like a similar version of it. Ball head's or Pistol grip's(which is basically fancy reverse ball head) tripod's are the move for a still camera. Bogen Manfrotto is kinda the BMW/Mercedes of tripods if you will...The only thing I would add is that no one NT needs to be buying like tripods with removable heads or where the head's are sold seperate you're ODingfor most of what NT seems to do photographically especially with a digital camera where the actual need to have tripod is alittle less for a number of reasonsand there are people out there most of whom are lunatics (Ken Rockwell) who would argue against a digital photographer having a tripod all together...
