Photo Tech Thread[views:2496][posts:16]_____________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 2:01pm - Joshtruction ""] I figured from time to time there are a decent amount of people in here asking questions about camera's so why not make a post to get all techy right? So if you got any tech questions let it rip!!! I will answer to the best of my ability, and I am sure others will give better advice than I can. Aaron, do you ever use filters when taking pics of bands? http://cgi.ebay.com/Nikon-D70S-D70-S-Digit...QcategoryZ43456QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem is that good deal???? |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 2:08pm - the_reverend ""] I've used some star filters. if you want to keep your lenses in ok shape, get a protective or "uv" filter. any other filters cut out too much light so you can't use them for bands. microdrives are TERRIBLE. they are non-solid state so moving them tends to break them. only use flash memory. the 28-70mm (get a fixed f/2.8 24-70 or the digital 17-50 f/2.8 both sigmas) lens will only work well 28-50. you will never be able to use the 70-300 ($189 for the better model then that) at a show. in 7 days there is a new camera, the D80 with a 10.2Mp sensor and all the latest newest sweetness. it's price point is $899. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 2:18pm - Joshtruction ""] is there any info on the d80 online? I keep having tons of money trouble and with the new camera's comming out I think I might be able to get a d70 cheap. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 2:23pm - the_reverend ""] pictures that is it. if you are worried about $$, just get a D50. $500-600 with a lens. |
| ___________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 2:39pm - anonymous ""] my digital camera cost 19.99 and works great,whats the difference between a 20 and 1000 dollar camera? seems to me unless you're doing something important or professional{like the rev or carina} an expensive camera is a huge waste of money |
| __________________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 11:25pm - davefromthegrave ""] anonymous said:my digital camera cost 19.99 and works great,whats the difference between a 20 and 1000 dollar camera? seems to me unless you're doing something important or professional{like the rev or carina} an expensive camera is a huge waste of money once you try one, you'll understand |
| __________________________________ [Aug 3,2006 11:28pm - dertoxia ""] i bought a 1.3 megapixel cannon powershot for some ungodly price like 500 bucks back 7 years or so ago when it was some fancy stuff. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:14pm - Joshtruction ""] davefromthegrave said:anonymous said:my digital camera cost 19.99 and works great,whats the difference between a 20 and 1000 dollar camera? seems to me unless you're doing something important or professional{like the rev or carina} an expensive camera is a huge waste of money once you try one, you'll understand well more like once you try one and know how to use it you will understand. But yeah, you got the point across. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:18pm - the_reverend ""] it's like test driving a BMW and then buying a pinot |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:38pm - Joshtruction ""] [img] ok aaron, what could I have done to make this picture better as far as lighting, or just better in general? P.S. I think you were looking for pinto |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:45pm - the_reverend ""] what do I look like a photo expert? you could have taken more than one photo on a tripod and blended them together. you could also take the mi-range of your levels and bring them down. it also would have been cool to see stars in the sky from blending 3 exposures together. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:50pm - Joshtruction ""] thats a really good idea with the stars and 3 exposures. gives me a new idea to try next time. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 1:59pm - the_reverend ""] I'm not sure why the bottom of the picture's hotter than the rest of the pic. looks almost like you used a flash with a slow shutter and then cropped the picture. I don't tihnk you used a tripod, but that would have help. if you are using a tripod, do aperture priority and put it at f/16. that means you'll get a shutter of 2" or something. |
| ___________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 2:35pm - anonymous ""] is that the fucking alamo? |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 2:37pm - the_reverend ""] no, do you see a basement? no basement, no alamo. |
| _____________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 2:43pm - Joshtruction ""] yes I used a tripod. I was having trouble getting the grass to show because of how bright the building was, it was making it black. I used a flash but did not crop. I tried to dim the flash with my hand so you can't notice. Shutter was open for quite a while (like seconds) and the pic was taken with my 2mp powershot. hahaha no thats not the alamo... thats an old cival war base in new bedford. |
| _________________________________________ [Aug 4,2006 3:18pm - davefromthegrave ""] the_reverend said:I'm not sure why the bottom of the picture's hotter than the rest of the pic. looks almost like you used a flash with a slow shutter and then cropped the picture. I don't tihnk you used a tripod, but that would have help. if you are using a tripod, do aperture priority and put it at f/16. that means you'll get a shutter of 2" or something. or he could just take it in the daytime. ahyuk hyuk hyuk ok, now that i got all my asshole bullshit out of the way, He could also have set the fstop to something really long, like 15" or so, which would have resulted in fairly even lighting throughout the picture, except for the lights off to the right, which would be glowing in sort of a pleasing way. maybe it would look something like this. [img] just an idea for you of course, it's your photo to do what you want with. |