PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[Peter Maguire]

Yes, I must admit that using a white card can give you overexposed highlights if not used with care, but it is possible to rescue these by moving the grey point slider to the right. One advantage of using a manufactured target is there is not just black and white but a mid-grey (known to the photographic world as 18% grey, but the reason for that is a subject for another time!), and the method I'm using now utilising Adobe Lightroom actually uses the mid-grey rather than the balck and white points - it's the most successful I've been with photos from the Loughborough show.
The other approach would be to move the sliders on the levels histogram, making sure that you do not lose the highlight detail by not taking the slider all the way to the first pixels on the histogram.
I guess I'm just not in favour of "auto-"anything. You lose the element of control to whoever wrote the software: does he/she know what you intended to do when you processed your photograph?
Of course these methods are more applicable to pictures where the colour temperature of the light is near to natural daylight. It would still be difficult to get accurate colour reproduction in the conditions of the Loughborough show hall (which is where this thread started) using Levels in Photoshop.

Peter

Is anyone still following this thread, or have I lost people along the way?

[Paddy Tobin]

No, Peter,

I'm still following, just didn't have anything to add. The 18% grey card is the one I have found most reliable.

Paddy

[ian mcenery]

I also use the method outlined by Peter for a quick but mostly satisfactory outcome. As we are dealing with white balance you can also use the colour temperature slider bar to good effect. I use Photoshop Elements but I think most editing programs have this facility

As Peter says in shooting RAW (very few compacts can do this) you can adjust the actual colour temperature to a specific light value measured in Kelvin. Bear in mind that the orange light is low temperature and that the bluer the light the hotter it is - confusing isn't it.

[gote]

Peter,
Thinking it over I think I misunderstood you. You are right of course.
My biggest problem in digital photo - as opposed to scanning - is washed out highlights. I tend to underexpose by at least one full stop to alleviate the problem. I tried spotmetering once but the result was very erratic. I am contemplating taking out the old incident light meter and set exposure entirely manually. However, If I had that amount of time I could as well use silver halide instead.
My philosphy is: if the automatic feature is good enough in 8 cases I have more time over for the two tricky ones.
Göte

[Peter Maguire]

Göte,
I find washed out highlights are a problem too, probably most irritating when I take landscape pictures. A lot of my photos from last summer's trip to Switzerland had overexposed skies as the dynamic range of the scene was just too much for the camera sensor.
Of course you can cure the problem with a graduated filter, but although I always carry some, it's always too much trouble to take them out of the rucksack.
I have tended recently to start doing HDR (high dynamic range) pictures, where pictures are taken of the same scene on a tripod with a range of exposures to record the highlights right through to the shadows. This has the added advantage that it forces you to slow down and think about what you are photographing, which is what the large format photogrpahers say smugly when they only take two or three exposures in a day. These can then be merged on the computer over the long winter evenings (Photoshop 2 and above automate the process for you) to give very good results. But I know what you are thinking - I should really get tha rucksack of my back and take the filters out! 

Peter

[Carlo]

HDR is an intriguing solution to the problem, but requires the use of a tripod and is best when little or NO movement is occurring (and is usually done with 5-7 or more images). Might be easier to expose once for the foreground elements and once for the sky, then use the sky from one and the ground from the other to create the image your eye can see. 

[gote]

The best results will undoubtedly be using a view camera with a 6x9 back and transparancy film. Then to scan and manipulate at will. I COULD do that but I do not have the time. (Or I am too lazy) There was a time when the photographer had to bring his darkroom into the field, make the plate on site and expose it wet for immediate development. Compared with that most efforts are nothing.
Göte

[Paddy Tobin]

Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 G AFS VR IFED zoom


Does anybody use this lens?

I am thinking of purchasing a general purpose everyday lens and have being reading reviews of this one and am wondering if anybody has experience with it.

Paddy

[Anthony Darby]

Jings. Don't do things by halves do you Paddy?

[Paddy Tobin]

But, Anthony, I'm worth it!

And, I'm only thinking of it - I'll do this for at least a few months before deciding and could very well continue with the lens I have in use at present. Just happens there is the possibility of a nice  present coming my way shortly so, you can't blame me for dreaming a little.

Paddy

[TC]

Paddy

I have tried this lens with a view to buying it.  Apart from the weight and price,  I could not fault it.  It is reckoned to be one of the best pieces of glass Nikon has ever produced.
However, to get the best out of its autofocus, it really needs to be coupled with the D300 and above.  This makes an expensive outlay extremely expensive.  Now that Nikon have bumped up their prices by 40% in the UK, it is not really value for money.  However, in the Euro zone, the prices are more stable.  If you have the money and can have a definite use for it, get one.  It is also a lens which rates a pemium on the second hand market.

[Paddy Tobin]

Many thanks, Tom.

How do you think it would go with the D200?

You say, "have a definite use for it" - I had general use in mind, in other words as the lens most often attached to the body. Your thoughts on this?

Paddy

[TC]

Paddy

A good deal of my photography deals with birds in flight and fast moving aircraft. In my experience, Nikon's autofocus always lagged behind Canons system until the D200, but it was still not on a par with the combination of Canons cameras and lenses.  With the advent of the D3, D700 AND D300 and the new lens designs, they have now taken the lead.  If you look at sports, wildlife and press photographers, they are moving from Canon to Nikon.  Nikon's autofocus is reckoned to be better than Canon's, at present.  If you are using the D200 then autofocus will work perfectly well for most situations.  It only struggles at times with fast moving objects.  The D300 would cope much better in these conditions with less failures although there is no such camera that will always work perfectly in autofocus.  The 70-200 would work well with the D200 as it has a built in motor which reacts much faster to changes in focus. What I meant to say was that the D300+70-200 is a better combination than D200+70-200.
A 70-200 is not a general use lens.  It equates to 105-300 in 35mm terms.  It's really not much use for plants except in special cases.
A general use lens would be in the region of 24-70, equating to 42-105.  I notice that Nikon have brought out a new lens in the DX fitting -usable only on digital cameras- labelled AF-S DX 18-105 VR/SWM.  This would appear to be a good range of focal lengths for general use.
In Nikon's web site, they list the 70-200 under telephoto lenses.  As I said, it depends on the subjects you wish to photograph.  I don't think you would enjoy carrying your camera with the 70-200 attached as it would probably strangle you after a while.

[Carlo]

A very popular lens here in the US has been the AF-S Nikkor 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 G ED. Many people put it on and never take it off. I have several others, but if I'm traveling and not doing something special, I can take the camera and this one lens and cover most situations.

[Paddy Tobin]

Being strangled would be a consideration to bear in mind.

Many thanks, Tom, good advise, greatly appreciated.

I presently use the kit lens, 18 - 200, which came with the D200 for general use and a 100mm lens for close up work on flowers and thought the 70-200 would give me wider opportunties. Re weight, the 100mm is quite a heavy piece compared to the 18-200, definitely know you have something very solid in your hand and is best used on a tripod.

Post Scriptum: I have just noticed Carlo's comments as I was about to post this. Carlo, the lens you mention is the one I presently use almost all the time and it is a very useful one, covering most situations very adequately.

Paddy