# two pictures took today



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

hope you like.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

First one is good, second you've chopped her foot off!


----------



## Janitor (Feb 14, 2006)

ryanuk said:


>


It's so peaceful until...


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> First one is good, second you've chopped her foot off!


nope! not been croped mate i just cut her foot off when i took it


----------



## Mark J (May 10, 2007)

Prefer the second one to be honest, the 'blown' sky in the first is too distracting.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Yeah that's what i meant.:thumb: It is one of the most common mistakes people make.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Mark J said:


> Prefer the second one to be honest, the 'blown' sky in the first is too distracting.


That's not blown. It'd overast so there is no detail to be seen.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

sorry whats blown meen lol


----------



## Janitor (Feb 14, 2006)

Over exposed - but quantified above


----------



## Mark J (May 10, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> That's not blown. It'd overast so there is no detail to be seen.


Brightest overcast sky I've seen for while then.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ryanuk said:


> sorry whats blown meen lol


Blown Sky:










Non Blown Sky: (well apart form a slight bit of cloud in the middle but this is the best example i can find from the photos on my laptop)


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

i get ya 

thanks


----------



## Mark J (May 10, 2007)

rmorgan84 - I understand what you're saying, you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear - that sky isn't the best for photographic purposes.

IMHO - it's blown and if it had been my shot, I would have had to have recomposed - all down to personal preference I suppose


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Mark J said:


> rmorgan84 - I understand what you're saying, you can't make a silk purse out of a pigs ear - that sky isn't the best for photographic purposes.
> 
> IMHO - it's blown and if it had been my shot, I would have had to have recomposed - all down to personal preference I suppose


I don't mind blowing the highlights aslong as it lends itself to capturing the mood of a photo, when it is just because of technical incompetence that's a different story.


----------



## Mark J (May 10, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> I don't mind blowing the highlights aslong as it lends itself to capturing the mood of a photo, when it is just because of technical incompetence that's a different story.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

not sure what you to are talking about but i think the look cool and the sky looks good with the photos,but then iv had a few stella's


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

Basically (it would take all night to expalin the science behind it) a cameras sensor can only capture and properly expose a a certain amount of variation between the brightest part of a scene and the darkest part of a scene. This is called dynamic range (DR). 

So the cameras meter sets the camera to get an average exposure, so the midtones are properly exposed, but in high contrast scenes (e.g. bright sky in the background & shadows in the foreground) so the shadows come out black with no detail (underexposed), and the sky comes out white with no detail (overexposed).

So the reason your first photo has a slightly bright sky is because the majoirty of the subject is dark, so the senor is exposing accordingly.

This is what HDR phots are all about, taking 3 or more exposures of the same scene so that when merged the entire photo is properly exposed.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

rmorgan84 said:


> Basically (it would take all night to expalin the science behind it) a cameras sensor can only capture and properly expose a a certain amount of variation between the brightest part of a scene and the darkest part of a scene. This is called dynamic range (DR).
> 
> So the cameras meter sets the camera to get an average exposure, so the midtones are properly exposed, but in high contrast scenes (e.g. bright sky in the background & shadows in the foreground) so the shadows come out black with no detail (underexposed), and the sky comes out white with no detail (overexposed).
> 
> ...


thanks for taking the time to wright that mate!

i see what you meen now.

hope to improve soon and get a nikon d60 asap


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ryanuk said:


> thanks for taking the time to wright that mate!
> 
> i see what you meen now.
> 
> hope to improve soon and get a nikon d60 asap


D60 is very good, however the d80 is vastly superior and soon will be only a little more expensive than the D60 as they releasing a replacment some time this year (prob gonna be called a d90), which will make the D80 prices fall steeply.


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

I really like the first one too, have you run it through PS at all? maybe a little tweak of the levels might be worth it. Good shot though chap!!


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

If you're using a DSLR then a neutral density graduated filter could be used to reduce the brightness of the sky.


----------



## leeshez (Dec 26, 2005)

nice.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

thanks very much for the comments,im using a panasonic fx12 so not as good as a dslr.

hope to get one in a few months when i have the cash as i want to learn more about photography.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

ryanuk said:


> thanks very much for the comments,im using a panasonic fx12 so not as good as a dslr.


Don't be mislead that getting a DSLR will automagically make your pics a lot better. Yes, they *can* produce better pics, but it is still largely down to your skill, the camera just gives you more "tools" and the option to change the lens but it's still down to you.


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

parish said:


> Don't be mislead that getting a DSLR will automagically make your pics a lot better. Yes, they *can* produce better pics, but it is still largely down to your skill, the camera just gives you more "tools" and the option to change the lens but it's still down to you.


I'll second that! its a lot to do with what's behind the camera not the cam itself!!!


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

parish said:


> Don't be mislead that getting a DSLR will automagically make your pics a lot better. Yes, they *can* produce better pics, but it is still largely down to your skill, the camera just gives you more "tools" and the option to change the lens but it's still down to you.





dubnut71 said:


> I'll second that! its a lot to do with what's behind the camera not the cam itself!!!


Neither of you are wrong, but what you say shouldn't put him off buying one.

Granted a good photographer with a cheap camera will take better photos than a poor photographer with an expensive camera. But when i got my first SLR i didn't have a clue how to use it but there is no better way to learn than jumping in the deep end.

However as said don't think of it as a miracle device for award winning photos. When i first started learning about photography one of my father's friends spent a few hours with me taking me through the basics, and one thing he always said is when evaluating a bad photo, 999 times out of 1000 the quickest way to establish what went wrong and how to avoid the problem in the future, is to assume you made the mistake and not your equipment and go from there.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

rmorgan84 said:


> one thing he always said is when evaluating a bad photo, 999 times out of 1000 the quickest way to establish what went wrong and how to avoid the problem in the future, is to assume you made the mistake and not your equipment and go from there.


That sounds like excellent advice :thumb:


----------



## dubnut71 (Jul 25, 2006)

rmorgan84 said:


> Neither of you are wrong, but what you say shouldn't put him off buying one.
> 
> Granted a good photographer with a cheap camera will take better photos than a poor photographer with an expensive camera. But when i got my first SLR i didn't have a clue how to use it but there is no better way to learn than jumping in the deep end.
> 
> However as said don't think of it as a miracle device for award winning photos. When i first started learning about photography one of my father's friends spent a few hours with me taking me through the basics, and one thing he always said is when evaluating a bad photo, 999 times out of 1000 the quickest way to establish what went wrong and how to avoid the problem in the future, is to assume you made the mistake and not your equipment and go from there.


Indeed, the quality and range of technique you can apply is pretty unlimited with a DSLR too, I don't regret getting mine!!


----------



## ADZphtg (Mar 23, 2008)

Best advice i can offer is take as many pictures as often as possible, and ALWAYS shoot on manual. The biggest bonus with digital camera's is that it costs nothing to delete. I may take 3-4000 images at a big event and only use 100, If you take it and don't need it it's better than regretting not taking an image.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ADZphtg said:


> Best advice i can offer is take as many pictures as often as possible, *and ALWAYS shoot on manual*. The biggest bonus with digital camera's is that it costs nothing to delete. I may take 3-4000 images at a big event and only use 100, If you take it and don't need it it's better than regretting not taking an image.


I personally don't see anything wrong with using aperture priority or shutter priority under the correct circumstances, they serve a purpose and still give you plenty of control.

Obviosuly for very important shots i will use manual exposure and an incident light meter but this is often overkill.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

thanks for the help lads,some great advice been given!

also,what are the pro's and con's of cannon 400d and nikon d60?

i think i want the nikon but not 100% made my mind up.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ryanuk said:


> thanks for the help lads,some great advice been given!
> 
> also,what are the pro's and con's of cannon 400d and nikon d60?
> 
> i think i want the nikon but not 100% made my mind up.


TBH between those two there is very little difference, i would base your decision on which one feels most comfortable for you to hold.


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

cool,is nikon ment to be a better make over cannon in terms of build quality?


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

ryanuk said:


> cool,is nikon ment to be a better make over cannon in terms of build quality?


Not really you'll have people who favour the nikon brand (like me) and people who favoir canon, but if being objective there is no real difference.


----------



## -ROM- (Feb 23, 2007)

One thing i forgot to say, is the nikon D80 is better built that both the D60 and Canon 400d.

The D60 body currently retails @ approx £399 and the D80 body @ approx £499, the extra £100 is money well spent, and also in a few months time a replacement for the D80 (prob gonna be called the D90) will be out which will bring the D80 price down a lot, so if you are clever and buy a D80 just after they release the D90 you will be getting a hell of a lot of camera for practically the same price as the D60!


----------



## ryanuk (Jun 22, 2007)

thanks very much for that info! i will hold back till the new one comes out then and see if the price of the d80 drops


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

ryanuk said:


> rmorgan84 said:
> 
> 
> > One thing i forgot to say, is the nikon D80 is better built that both the D60 and Canon 400d.
> ...


Hmm, not too sure. When the Canon 400D came out the price of 350Ds didn't drop much - unless Nikon's marketing/pricing policy is different to Canon's?


----------

