Another Lense Topic!

[tlc]

Still nothing, maybe it is my pc!!

[Tailwag]

Still nothing, maybe it is my pc!!

hmmm Gremlins...........

Edited December 9, 2008 by Tailwag

[Impatiens]

. So heres my question now that I am very confused. If I do get a 50mm lense what benefit is it going to be over the one I have now? Will I have more depth of field?? Can I do with a 50 mm what I am already doing with the lense I already have? Please help me understnd I know I probly sound like a total dumb bunny!! any advice greatly appreciated.

With wide aperture lenses, you get less depth of field, and that's the whole point of them really.

Set the lens to 1.8, focus on your dog and the background is out of focus. Like rugerfly's portrait.

Up close, you may find that not all of the dog is sharp, the nose is in focus and the eyes aren't. You have to focus selectively. (Having a pug, I don't have that problem.)

1.4 is better at it and 1.2 is better still. (Though it costs a fortune and weighs a ton.)

The 1.4 is on my list, when I have recovered from the D300.

[rugerfly]

I dont think I will ever recover Impatients. Good to see another d300 user though

[tlc]

. So heres my question now that I am very confused. If I do get a 50mm lense what benefit is it going to be over the one I have now? Will I have more depth of field?? Can I do with a 50 mm what I am already doing with the lense I already have? Please help me understnd I know I probly sound like a total dumb bunny!! any advice greatly appreciated.

With wide aperture lenses, you get less depth of field, and that's the whole point of them really.

Set the lens to 1.8, focus on your dog and the background is out of focus. Like rugerfly's portrait.

Up close, you may find that not all of the dog is sharp, the nose is in focus and the eyes aren't. You have to focus selectively. (Having a pug, I don't have that problem.)

1.4 is better at it and 1.2 is better still. (Though it costs a fortune and weighs a ton.)

The 1.4 is on my list, when I have recovered from the D300.

thanks for that, so basically if I went to a 50 mm 1.8 I am going to get a lot more blur in the background if I am close up compared to my largest apature of 3.5, I think I am finally starting to get it!! Ebay here I come!! But I still wanna see Vickies Pictures

[tlc]

I dont think I will ever recover Impatients. Good to see another d300 user though

So from all the talk about the D300, (im sure you guys are trying to make me jealous ) I take it there is absolutley no camparison to the D80?? I guess the proof is in the photos they really speak for themselves!! Has anyone here got the D700?

[Vickie]

So from all the talk about the D300, (im sure you guys are trying to make me jealous ) I take it there is absolutley no camparison to the D80?? I guess the proof is in the photos they really speak for themselves!!

I'm not sure that's true. So far the only thing I am getting from my D300, that I didn't get from my D70s is more frames/second which is very useful in agility shots...otherwise, I don't see a huge difference in either quality or essential functionality.

[Vickie]

thanks for that, so basically if I went to a 50 mm 1.8 I am going to get a lot more blur in the background if I am close up compared to my largest apature of 3.5, I think I am finally starting to get it!!

Don't forget...the best way to actually get depth of field and blur the background is to actually have depth of field, ie the background is not close to the subject.

Take this photo as an example:

settings were F8, 1/800 at 300mm. I have other shots I took on the day at the same setting where there was a branch right behind the lorikeet so there was not much depth or blur. But this one I chose because there was nothing behind the lorikeet, so the background was very deep & blurred b/c it was so far away. Make sense?

The same logic will apply whichever lense you use...the further away the background, the more it will be blurred.

I try to take into consideration the perspective as well. Let's say you have a dog sitting on the ground. If you stand up & take the shot, the background will not be very far away...b/c it will be the ground around the dog. But, it you get down on the ground yourself (other than getting licked ) the background will be further away & the blur will increase.

Edited December 9, 2008 by Vickie

[tlc]

So from all the talk about the D300, (im sure you guys are trying to make me jealous ) I take it there is absolutley no camparison to the D80?? I guess the proof is in the photos they really speak for themselves!!

I'm not sure that's true. So far the only thing I am getting from my D300, that I didn't get from my D70s is more frames/second which is very useful in agility shots...otherwise, I don't see a huge difference in either quality or essential functionality.

ok well thats good to know, It is just that I need lots more practice!! Thanks Vickie.

heres a few pics I have taken just recently, they have had a bit of tweaking in PS, I have my last class tonight and we had to do a PP Presentation of 12 good photos, I have been trying to get some good ones, here is just a few

If anyone has any good suggestions criticisms or otherwise id like to hear em.

[tlc]

thanks for that, so basically if I went to a 50 mm 1.8 I am going to get a lot more blur in the background if I am close up compared to my largest apature of 3.5, I think I am finally starting to get it!!

Don't forget...the best way to actually get depth of field and blur the background is to actually have depth of field, ie the background is not close to the subject.

Take this photo as an example:

settings were F8, 1/800 at 300mm. I have other shots I took on the day at the same setting where there was a branch right behind the lorikeet so there was not much depth or blur. But this one I chose because there was nothing behind the lorikeet, so the background was very deep & blurred b/c it was so far away. Make sense?

The same logic will apply whichever lense you use...the further away the background, the more it will be blurred.

I try to take into consideration the perspective as well. Let's say you have a dog sitting on the ground. If you stand up & take the shot, the background will not be very far away...b/c it will be the ground around the dog. But, it you get down on the ground yourself (other than getting licked ) the background will be further away & the blur will increase.

awesome photo, and yes what you have said makes perfect sense, thanks so much!!

[Vickie]

heres a few pics I have taken just recently, they have had a bit of tweaking in PS, I have my last class tonight and we had to do a PP Presentation of 12 good photos, I have been trying to get some good ones, here is just a few

If anyone has any good suggestions criticisms or otherwise id like to hear em.

WOW, they are really good!!!

My favourites are the 2nd & the 5th & your PS work is good too as it is not obvious.

I would probably crop a couple of them slightly, the first & the 5th. The 2nd is a beautiful composition, a couple of PS things to make it even more perfect would be to straighten the horizon (maybe 1 degree right?), add a little more contrast & slight USM...just my opinion. They are really good. You will have to let us know how the presentation goes .

oh & where are the other 4 pics??? we wanna see them .

Edited December 9, 2008 by Vickie

[tlc]

Gee thanks so much, I am a lot more confident now!! The rest of the pics were photoshoped a lot and some were black and white and some kind of like sepia but I dont know what the hell im doing with sepia, is there a quick way to make a pic sepia like black and white? Im using PS cs4 I will post the rest but I have to get my ferrel doggies for a run before I have to go to work this arvo...

Thanks again and ill go back and look at each pic and take note of your comments and remember for next time.

[rugerfly]

if you look for a secon hand lens make sure its 1.8 D not E if the prices are up over 100. No problem buying the older E one, but You can get the D new with nikon warranty for 170. If they are including a filter ask what sort it is.

[tlc]

if you look for a secon hand lens make sure its 1.8 D not E if the prices are up over 100. No problem buying the older E one, but You can get the D new with nikon warranty for 170. If they are including a filter ask what sort it is.

ok thanks you guys are so helpful, I hadnt thougth about the filter, obviously the one i have on my kit lense will not fit as im assuming they will be a different size. Im thinking I will try to get a new lense if they are only around the $200 mark. I think the new 1.4 is around the $400 but I think ill go for the 1.8.

Thanks again!!

[tlc]

Hi Guys, last nights class went really well everyone liked my presentation, here is a link to the final photos I put in my presentation.

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=609066843

I need a bit of help with making photos Sepia, with the ones I tried to I just mucked around with the color settings till I got it the way I liked it, but there must be an easier way?? Just a click perhaps like black and white???

edited cause im a dufus!!

Edited December 11, 2008 by tlc

[chris.p.day]

Hi,

Not sure if you are still thinking about lenses, but I would definitely look at the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, this lens is razor sharp throughout the focal range and only costs about $550-600, not as cheap as the Nikkor 50mm 1.8, but a lot more versatile and only a smidgen less sharp at 50mm.

You can check out the review at photozone (good site for lens reviews)

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-...-report--review

I'm sure other people may tell you the same thing, but it's better to keep your body and invest in good glass!

Cheers,

Chris

ps. If you are looking for a store Dirt Cheap Cameras is pretty good

http://www.dirtcheapcameras.com.au/sp-af17...-if-p-1245.html

[Ashanali]

Hi Guys, last nights class went really well everyone liked my presentation, here is a link to the final photos I put in my presentation.

http://www.new.facebook.com/album.php?aid=...mp;id=609066843

I need a bit of help with making photos Sepia, with the ones I tried to I just mucked around with the color settings till I got it the way I liked it, but there must be an easier way?? Just a click perhaps like black and white???

edited cause im a dufus!!

There are many different ways to produce a sepia print but I prefer to use an action that I created myself.

I call it a desaturated antique action. It's in another thread...

Personally, I haven't really liked any of the 'antique' actions that I have found so I ended up writing my own which is very simple.

first, creat a colour layer.

click the shadows box and boost the red and the yellow. ( cyan - red to about +18, yellow - blue to about -18 )

Next, open a hue/saturation layer.

Click on the colourise box

Make the 'hue' 25

Make the saturation '25' then click ok.

Now on the layers table, change to opacity of the hue/saturation layer so that you can just start to see the colours come through underneath. Adjust it to achieve the look you want.

done.

As I said, countless ways to do any single thing. You may like this recipe, you may not. You might find it will work well for some photos but not for others. It won't hurt to give it a try.

[polomum]

Sooooo.....what filter exactly would you want on the 50mm 1.4 if you were hoping your hubby in HK was pricing for you....Singapores not much better in price at all!!!!!

[polomum]

tlc your pics are fabulous........I love closeups so I'd crop as well......was your teacher impressed??

[tlc]

Thanks guys for the imput, will definatley look at the tamron also try out the the sepia recipie!! The teacher didnt say a lot but compared to the rest of the class I think mine were pretty good I had a lady in the class tell me i should be doing pet portraits, I did tell her I have done a few shoots for people and they have been very happy but Im a long way from anything pro!! she was impressed...LOL

Polomum do you have a filter on the D80, you should have just to protect your lense if nothing else I just have a UV filter on mine, the filters are different sizes for different lenses I think the 50mm filter is about a 52 so I will have to get a new one for the new lense as the one i have now is a different size. hope ive given you the right info!!

You can get the filters in a pack i think they have like a uv, polarising and a warm in a pack for around the 70 - 80 mark at harvey norman so they would be a lot cheaper on line.

Im heading to geelong tomorow and there is a store down there that has the 50mm f1.8 in store for $199 and at Harvey norman the same lense was $307. I will ask if they have the tamron while im there, but im one of these ones if I make up my mind I want something i just have to have it sooner rather than later. Anyway enough rambling thanks again you guys rock!!