official photography thread

**pete..** · 06-06-2008 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

So like 400?

Yeah 400 should be fine, you know how ISO, shutter speed, and aperture are all related right?

***SWEET*** · 06-06-2008 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

So like 400?

like 100
I only shoot in iso 100, but I have a film camera

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by pete..

Yeah 400 should be fine, you know how ISO, shutter speed, and aperture are all related right?

Not really. I literally JUST picked this up.

**pete..** · 06-06-2008 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

Not really. I literally JUST picked this up.

ok you should I a lot of research on this stuff, but basically the higher the ISO the less light you will need but the picture will come out grainy, by using a longer shutter speed, or larger aperture( smaller number value) you can let more light in. Eveything has its tradeoffs however.

I'll try and find you a good link
edit: http://tiberius47.deviantart.com/art...e-ISO-52555757

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 08:41 PM

Awesome! Thanks!!

**BradleyGT** · 06-06-2008 09:21 PM

heres a few of my recent pics that turned out pretty cool.

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 09:32 PM

How do I capture fast moving objects?

**BradleyGT** · 06-06-2008 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

How do I capture fast moving objects?

faster shutter speed. if theres enough light, try 1/250 or higher. my canon can go up to 1/4000 (i think...havent needed to go all the way that high before) if you arent using the flash. thats insanely fast.

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 09:37 PM

And a slow shutter speed to get those city shots(with the moving car lights)?

**BradleyGT** · 06-06-2008 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

And a slow shutter speed to get those city shots(with the moving car lights)?

yeah, exactly. the slower the shutter speed the more important stabilization becomes. those city shots were done somewhere between 5-15 seconds. i left my tripod at home on accadent so i just set the camera on my windowsill(sp?) of my hotel room.

use whatever you have around you to make sure the camera does not move when using slower shutters. image stabilization lenses can help too, but my tamron unfortunately doesnt have that option

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 09:45 PM

If I were to buy a new lens, what should I get (Nikon d40)?

I've got a 18-55mm

Sorry for all of these questions. But you know how it is when you get into something new..

**BradleyGT** · 06-06-2008 09:52 PM

my tamron is a 28-300mm. i can get really good wide angles and still get in tight with the telephoto. its actually the only lens i have. the two pics of the statue of liberty were taken with one at full wide angle and the other telephoto (not quite all the way out either). that will give you an idea of how versatile it is.

im not really a pro when it comes to lenses. there are different speeds, focal lengths, min/max stops, etc that can make it a tough decision.

when it came down to it, i just wanted a lens that could do almost anything i needed it to so i didnt have to keep swapping out for different pictures. only problem is that my lens actually cost more than my camera body i think....

edit: now that i look at it, those statue pics arent really good examples because ive cropped off some of the edging so you cant see how wide the wide angle is.

**VulgarDisplayCFH** · 06-06-2008 11:33 PM

Nothing special. Random off-road pic.

**monkeyhead** · 06-07-2008 12:10 AM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

If I were to buy a new lens, what should I get (Nikon d40)?

I've got a 18-55mm

Sorry for all of these questions. But you know how it is when you get into something new..

For your D40, if you want autofocus, you have to get AF-S lenses.

**lexx** · 06-07-2008 02:01 AM

Originally Posted by monkeyhead

For your D40, if you want autofocus, you have to get AF-S lenses.

I still don't understand why they went that route of removing the focusing motor. I guess it does reduce the weight and size of the body, moving it forward onto the lens, but it can be quite restrictive - especially when buying third party lenses. hmmm

**monkeyhead** · 06-07-2008 02:53 AM

Originally Posted by lexx

I still don't understand why they went that route of removing the focusing motor. I guess it does reduce the weight and size of the body, moving it forward onto the lens, but it can be quite restrictive - especially when buying third party lenses. hmmm

Yeah, kind of dumb on their part, but I guess a lot of people buying the D40/x/60 models aren't going to be purchasing a whole slew of lenses. It sucks if they do want to purchase another lens because last time I checked, there weren't many cheap AF-S lenses.

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED from Nikon
^^^That lens is SEXY.

IMO, vulgar, you should have gone with a D50/70 (which are selling really cheap nowadays). If you had gone that route, your compatible lens selection would be much much larger.

**lexx** · 06-07-2008 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by monkeyhead

Yeah, kind of dumb on their part, but I guess a lot of people buying the D40/x/60 models aren't going to be purchasing a whole slew of lenses. It sucks if they do want to purchase another lens because last time I checked, there weren't many cheap AF-S lenses.

AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED from Nikon
^^^That lens is SEXY.

IMO, vulgar, you should have gone with a D50/70 (which are selling really cheap nowadays). If you had gone that route, your compatible lens selection would be much much larger.

I just bought an F100 with some average Tamron zoom lens, but I'll be getting one of these bad boys to go with it for sure. It also means I'll be able to use my D70 again, which has been idle in my bag for a long time because I've not had a lens for it.

AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D from Nikon

**Mystery Bob** · 06-07-2008 03:51 AM

I like these a lot:

Here's my latest addition:

**Mystery Bob** · 06-07-2008 04:09 AM

Originally Posted by VulgarDisplayCFH

How do I capture fast moving objects?

With a film camera , If you set your shutter speed to aproximately the same number as the focal length of the lens you are using (ex: 50mm normal lens/shutter speed 1/60th sec. or 200mm lens/1/250th sec.) you won't get camera shake. The longer the lens the higher the shutter speed to avoid blur... but that applies to your moving subject. If you pan with the subject you can throw the background out of focus and get the desired affect of speed. Just freezing the action with a real high shutter speed sometimes is boring. Likewise, since the smaller the lens opening the greater the depth of field (area in front and behind the subject focused on), using a wider open lens can achieve a similar affect by throwing the foreground and background out of focus. A perfect example is Blix's shot with the speedboard guy in front of the crowd. If the crowd was more in focus the shot wouldn't be nearly as cool as it is. The relationship of shutter speed to lens opening is like filling a bucket. If the water is turned on strong it only needs to run for a short while but if it's turned on less it must run longer.

**dcphotos** · 06-07-2008 06:32 AM

I've use the water-faucet example a bunch of times to explain to students the relationship between shutter and aperture a bunch of times.^

On the questions about noise and iso, it has a lot to do with the camera you are using. The smaller sensors will have a lot more noise. I shoot with a Nikon D2X and my point and shoot is a Canon G9. Both are 12mp cameras and the G9 is terrible above 200 iso and best at 80. I am hoping to get a D3 this fall, I have seen images captured at 1600 iso that you can enlarge and see pixels before you see noise, has a lot to do with a full-frame sensor.

I don't have a lot of stuff to post, I'll upload something cool later. This is a shot taken with the Nikon, it was badly underexposed, you can really see the noise in the shadows: