i said i think blondes are misrepresented; oh the irony
i’ve never seen a shark & i hope i never do; i’ve seen plenty of sting rays though when i’ve been out fishing or on the waverunner
thanks for the details on that amazing night shot : )
my aunty & uncle gave me their photoshop CS3 because they got CS4 so i might start to like editing yet. i don’t know how to use it do you know anything about it(?)
i’ve never heard of stitched photographs(?) is that like panoramic(?) i really don’t know how to take those, although i went to an art gallery in year 12 & there was a panoramic night landscape & i was amazed by it
i know right (about the waverunner) i haven’t taken him out yet i’ve been too busy it sucks it really does, hopefully this weekend
i don’t know honestly; i’ve never had trouble getting a job : )
are you thinking of visiting & working(?)
we still don’t know definite dates but possibly may
x
___________________________
i can see the tag ‘sand’ but i’m thinking this looks more like water, because of the skys reflection
it’s beautiful
p.s i read on anthony hemmings blog that you were asking about macro lens
i follow cindys blog : http://cindydyer.wordpress.com/ & i’ve been talking with her (off wordpress) for a while now about photography
because i’m really really keen for a macro (micro, in nikon terms) & she suggested getting the 105mm micro
that’s what she uses & she says it’s the best, i’ve done a lot of research & yes, she’s right
: )
take a look at her site
Wow- what a texture! This might look interesting as a high-contrast black and white as well. I think the value of photographs that make people think and don’t provide instant answers is all but forgotten by many photographers today, but a number of your shots on here challenge that. Keep it up. I think I’ll post an abstract today for solidarity.
R1?!?! You’re a braver man than I am. I think a 600 would be more than enough for me, although I think a Triumph Speed Triple is my dream bike. Something about a well-designed naked bike just looks so mean. . .
The picture I posted is a little soft because of the lens used (Pentax 18-55mm kit lens, comparable to the Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and all of the others). Zooms compromise image quality compared to primes, especially on the less expensive side of the equation. It could do with more sharpening and a clarity bump in Lightroom- my post-processing skills have increased a lot since I shot this last summer. The 50mm f/1.8 I ordered should be a razor- it has a great reputation for optical quality, and for $125 US it’s hard to argue with.
All I really have to say about Lightroom is that the following things, in order, have had the largest impacts on the quality of my output:
1. Tinkering with film and learning from it
2. Getting Lightroom and learning to use it
3. Ditching cheap zooms for cheap primes
If you aren’t post-processing your RAWs (Lightroom has Adobe’s RAW converter built in), you’re missing half of the equation when it comes to control of your photos- the equivalent of making prints from your color negatives. If you’re shooting JPEG, you’re letting the camera do it for you (which, with a D90, isn’t really all that bad most of the time). It took me more than a year to figure this out.
I think the Sigma is what I would go with for a macro lens if price is a concern. The Nikon lens is just that little bit better, and you really pay for that last little bit. If you have the money, it’s worth it. If you don’t, it isn’t, and you’re the only one who can call that one. When you ask about aperture, do you mean when comparing macro lenses (like a 105 f/2.8 is usually better than a 105 f/4)? While this generally holds true for most lenses, for macro you’ll really never be shooting wide open for macro shooting (since you’re so close, you’ll need a tiny aperture for a usable depth of field, usually /11-f/22), so I wouldn’t rely on it exclusively. That said, a good lens at 1.5″ focus will be a good lens at any focus, so if you’re looking to use it as a telephoto lens as well (which you would want to, because it’s a great lens no matter where it’s focused), a faster lens might make a difference if you plan on using it wide open. To the extent that I understand it (which, remember, isn’t too much since I don’t really shoot macro), the most important things are going to be sharpness and focal length (since getting farther away from the subject is the difference between getting and not getting the shot if you’re shooting things that don’t like to be disturbed).
i said i think blondes are misrepresented; oh the irony
i’ve never seen a shark & i hope i never do; i’ve seen plenty of sting rays though when i’ve been out fishing or on the waverunner
thanks for the details on that amazing night shot : )
my aunty & uncle gave me their photoshop CS3 because they got CS4 so i might start to like editing yet. i don’t know how to use it do you know anything about it(?)
i’ve never heard of stitched photographs(?) is that like panoramic(?) i really don’t know how to take those, although i went to an art gallery in year 12 & there was a panoramic night landscape & i was amazed by it
i know right (about the waverunner) i haven’t taken him out yet i’ve been too busy it sucks it really does, hopefully this weekend
i don’t know honestly; i’ve never had trouble getting a job : )
are you thinking of visiting & working(?)
we still don’t know definite dates but possibly may
x
___________________________
i can see the tag ‘sand’ but i’m thinking this looks more like water, because of the skys reflection
it’s beautiful
p.s i read on anthony hemmings blog that you were asking about macro lens
i follow cindys blog : http://cindydyer.wordpress.com/ & i’ve been talking with her (off wordpress) for a while now about photography
because i’m really really keen for a macro (micro, in nikon terms) & she suggested getting the 105mm micro
that’s what she uses & she says it’s the best, i’ve done a lot of research & yes, she’s right
: )
take a look at her site
Wow- what a texture! This might look interesting as a high-contrast black and white as well. I think the value of photographs that make people think and don’t provide instant answers is all but forgotten by many photographers today, but a number of your shots on here challenge that. Keep it up. I think I’ll post an abstract today for solidarity.
R1?!?! You’re a braver man than I am. I think a 600 would be more than enough for me, although I think a Triumph Speed Triple is my dream bike. Something about a well-designed naked bike just looks so mean. . .
The picture I posted is a little soft because of the lens used (Pentax 18-55mm kit lens, comparable to the Nikon, Canon, Sony, Olympus, and all of the others). Zooms compromise image quality compared to primes, especially on the less expensive side of the equation. It could do with more sharpening and a clarity bump in Lightroom- my post-processing skills have increased a lot since I shot this last summer. The 50mm f/1.8 I ordered should be a razor- it has a great reputation for optical quality, and for $125 US it’s hard to argue with.
All I really have to say about Lightroom is that the following things, in order, have had the largest impacts on the quality of my output:
1. Tinkering with film and learning from it
2. Getting Lightroom and learning to use it
3. Ditching cheap zooms for cheap primes
If you aren’t post-processing your RAWs (Lightroom has Adobe’s RAW converter built in), you’re missing half of the equation when it comes to control of your photos- the equivalent of making prints from your color negatives. If you’re shooting JPEG, you’re letting the camera do it for you (which, with a D90, isn’t really all that bad most of the time). It took me more than a year to figure this out.
I think the Sigma is what I would go with for a macro lens if price is a concern. The Nikon lens is just that little bit better, and you really pay for that last little bit. If you have the money, it’s worth it. If you don’t, it isn’t, and you’re the only one who can call that one. When you ask about aperture, do you mean when comparing macro lenses (like a 105 f/2.8 is usually better than a 105 f/4)? While this generally holds true for most lenses, for macro you’ll really never be shooting wide open for macro shooting (since you’re so close, you’ll need a tiny aperture for a usable depth of field, usually /11-f/22), so I wouldn’t rely on it exclusively. That said, a good lens at 1.5″ focus will be a good lens at any focus, so if you’re looking to use it as a telephoto lens as well (which you would want to, because it’s a great lens no matter where it’s focused), a faster lens might make a difference if you plan on using it wide open. To the extent that I understand it (which, remember, isn’t too much since I don’t really shoot macro), the most important things are going to be sharpness and focal length (since getting farther away from the subject is the difference between getting and not getting the shot if you’re shooting things that don’t like to be disturbed).