Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: First shots from Yosemite seem low quality  (Read 12728 times)
Exegeter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2008, 12:25:53 AM »
ReplyReply

The color is a bit ugly, but I took this with tonight's test group.  Getting closer to the detail I want.  f/2.8, handheld, iso 400.
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 14, 2008, 02:47:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Haha, I wish. No, I'm not famous I build for myself, family, and friends. What's funny is that on my luthiery forum, we were just joking about the rap electric guitars have among acoustic lovers. I LOVE both. Oh I love both. Listen the intro of this you tube video, and if it isn't enough to show electric can be beautiful, I'll upload one of my own

http://www.youtube.com/v/kM4m7NMcBvk&hl=en

I'd love to hear about your guitar. Tell me about the qualities you like.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195642\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Other than the obvious tone, sustain,yada-yada what i enjoyed was the action. Like many from my era, a Yamaha got me started, bleeding fingers, slow action, I got good enough to be taken under the wing by an older player. He helped me buy my first real guitar a used D-18 in nice condition. Never looked back.

I think the only guitar I regret no longer owning of was a HD-28 LSH (the Clar. White). I had a bunch of blue grass buddies who constantly badgered me about my folk roots (Seeger et al) and got me playing with them. I had to have the large sound hole according to them. It played in beautifully and gained the wonder patina. I gave it to my son for graduation from HS 5 years later. A year later, I noticed it missing. he swapped it for some electrical POS and amp of dubious pedigree. I was heartbroken.

enough already,

I've been thinking about what book I would recommend for you to put all the pieces together. Most are either too basic or to specialized. I may stop by B&N on the weekend and see if I can find something that stitches much of this together.

Maybe someone else reading this might have a suggestion.

[attachment=6581:attachment]

a bit underexposed which brings up noise in the OOF areas.

bob
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 04:20:06 PM by bob mccarthy » Logged
Exegeter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2008, 10:49:24 AM »
ReplyReply

I always like the Martin sound.  I've been able to visit Richard Hoover's Santa Cruz Guitar Co. a few times, and I love what they're doing.  Their guitars have that fundamental sound of a Martin with a complex blanket of overtones.  

Thank you for looking for a book.  I have the Photo Workshop book.  I was under the impression that stopping down to f/16 would keep everything sharp and in focus.  The look Michael routinely gets in his images is out of this world.  

I've taken about 60 test shots with my 17-55, and the results are consistently like the ones I posted above.  I've only been able to bring back so much accutance with Aperture.  I'm sending the lens back, and I'm going to poke around with a 50mm 1.4 for a while.
Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 15, 2008, 11:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank you for looking for a book. I have the Photo Workshop book. I was under the impression that stopping down to f/16 would keep everything sharp and in focus. The look Michael routinely gets in his images is out of this world.

I've taken about 60 test shots with my 17-55, and the results are consistently like the ones I posted above. I've only been able to bring back so much accutance with Aperture. I'm sending the lens back, and I'm going to poke around with a 50mm 1.4 for a while.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=195915\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The size of the individual pixel on a sensor has a direct impact on the optimum aperture you can use for maximum sharpness.

F16 is softening your images and wasting what good qualities your lens offers you. A great lens is reduced to OK by defraction which is a function of the little hole created by the iris in the lens.

F5.6 or F8 is almost always where a lens peaks. Now Depth Of Field (DOF) is a function of aperture, so everything can be a little fuzzy but defined (F16/22), or what you focus on can be sharp with a little fuzzy in foreground and background (F5.6). This is a generalization, BTW.

Autofocus reduces thinking, for example where do i focus to get my subject in focus. If its a mountain, then it will focus at infinity at the exclusion of things closer. Manually pulling in the focus closer where the mountains are still sharp enough, but more of the foreground is sharp will possibly create a better picture.

Many will help here, do not be afraid to ask questions. The only absolute (except for occasional luck) is the camera will do an "excellent" job of giving you "mediocre" pictures, only you can capture truely excellent ones by understanding how to adjust.

You need to learn when and when not to trust the camera, and how to analyze your results to make adjustment to your technique.

Aperture is an excellent program, while I use CS3, quality results can be had from the Apple product.

I would not send your lens back just yet, it's likely just fine. I'm seeing more, exposure issues and possibly camera shake than any lack of lens quality.

I will look for a book.

Bob
« Last Edit: May 15, 2008, 11:37:40 AM by bob mccarthy » Logged
bob mccarthy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 372


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 19, 2008, 11:24:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Went to Barnes and Nobel on Sunday. While I visit the photography section frequently, I'm a stranger to the "digital" photo section. It looks like everyone and their brother has written a photography book. For beginner purposes, almost anyone would work. I would match up your experience honestly, with the small difference in emphasis of each author.

What I don't know is, how "beginner" you are.

Then it dawned on me that this site (LL) has tons of info in the form of tutorials, LL dvd/videos with much available for free.

My suggestion is get photography down first, learn about providing a solid platform,  correct amount of DOF, good focus, good exposure settings. Do everything in manual at first. Examine your histogram for immediate feedback to exposure, carefully examine shots in editing for critical focus. Create a feedback loop. You will progress rapidly.

Its all about managing light.

    How much is available is the first decision point,

    then comes what has to be in focus (aperture/dof),

    steadiness (shutter speed/tripod/hand hold techniques) and

    managing film/sensor sensitivity              (iso of film or sensor).




The mechanics are relatively easy.

Please don't get hung up on the digital stuff until you have the fundamentals of photography down. If you want, shoot jpegs with in camera setting that fit your taste. Raw and raw conversion just adds another layer of complexity at first.

With the ability to get a good technical exposure, the most important comes next =  what you point the camera at. Really to get a good photograph, this comes first. Composition, etc.

My recommendation is start with LL tutorials, then pay Michael and Chris for their videos.

Bob
« Last Edit: May 20, 2008, 08:06:42 AM by bob mccarthy » Logged
Exegeter
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77


« Reply #25 on: May 20, 2008, 02:21:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Bob.  

I have VJ's 1-12, and now 15-17, the Lightroom tutorial, and From Camera to Print.  I haven't gotten through the tutorials quite yet.  I enjoy the VJ's, but I don't think their purpose is explicit teaching.  Their purpose for me is more inspirational.  Like periodical journals, it's like a pseudo-dialogue for people who already have the technical experience---and this is good.  I enjoy them.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad