TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through October 20, 2008

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: General Discussions ARCHIVES: Jan ~ Apr 2009: All Things Technical: The Help Desk: Digital Camera/Photography Help (ARCHIVES): Archive through October 20, 2008 users admin

Author Message
Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 11:14 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    


So if I wanted to get a good decent prime lens that could use as an everything prime, what would you suggest?

Like, for example, with my P&S, I can do the self-shots, where you stretch your hand, and usually you can get 2-3 people's faces in the frame. Yesterday, I tried it, and the 50 got my face, filling the ENTIRE frame (talk about scary! LOL).

0

Here is how close everything seems, just sitting with my feet in front of me...ideally, I'd like to get a few feet more on each side...

1

My D80 has a 1.5 multiplier. With that in mind, what am I looking for? Ideally, I'd like a lens that takes pics that are equal to what I am seeing, distance wise. The 50 still feels like a zoom. 6mm doesn't even EXIST as a lens, LOL. Would I be looking at getting a 20 lens to act as a 30, or should I look at a 24 to act as a 36?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Thursday, July 31, 2008 - 2:08 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
LOL - 6mm lenses exist on the P & S's. They just aren't available for SLRs.

The general belief for years was that the 50mm was the equivalent of what people see. Of course, your 50mm isn't showing you a 50mm view on your SLR. It is showing you a 75mm view.

More recently, the convention has been that 35mm is more equivalent to what people see and 35mm is considered the start of the wide angle range. To get to 35mm on your camera you would need a 24mm lens.

One of the more popular Canon L lenses (L is the pro designation for Canon) is the 17-40mm zoom. It is quite an amazing lens for the price (less than $1,000), the only downside being it is a little slow with a max aperture of F4 and a bit soft in the corners (which is less of a problem with the cropped SLRs).

Another really popular and good L lens, which I use frequently, is the 24-70mm L.

Of course, mentioning L lenses isn't a lot of help to you with a Nikon so you need to find a Nikon equivalent. The fixed length lenses should be better optically anyway, but I seriously doubt that you will find any wide angle fixed length lenses at a local store. You'll probably have to order off of the Internet (which will give you a better deal anyway). You really can't go wrong ordering from places like B & H in the States.

Wow … a quick look at their web site tells me that Nikon has a pretty good selection in the wide range including some nice looking zooms. Remember that you get what you pay for of course and the really cheap ones probably aren't all that good.

One of my pro friends shoots with Nikon lenses. I can ask him what he thinks if you like?

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Friday, August 01, 2008 - 2:00 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Actually, I have a good selection of places that seem to have good stock too. THIS PLACE is actually one block from my apartment! Decent selection of lenses, nice guys who know what they are talking about, willing to actually BARTER on bigger purchases, and you can't beat the location. LOL They have both a 20mm and a 24. I'm thinking that I might go for the Nikon 20mm prime 2.8, as it's easier to get closer to friends/people, but sometimes harder to back up with bigger objects like fountains, etc.


We need to keep posting in here, because every time I scroll by my face, I scare myself! LOL

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Friday, August 01, 2008 - 2:40 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
LOL - The only thing scary is that you're a little out of focus. Or maybe it was narrow DOF.

That is awesome that you have a store nearby that has that good a selection, intelligent help and a flexibility on price. Shame on me. I should have known you would have something like that there.

I guess you've seen this site:

Fred Miranda Reviews

People there seem to like it a lot.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 12:24 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
I was playing around at f/1.8, and was holding the camera backwards on myself. So as to where the auto-focus went, I have no clue. LOL If I were on the other end of the camera (as the photographer, I'd try to manually focus on the eyes.

One thing I wonder about, is that I have bad eyesight, and apparently, you're supposed to adjust the area by the viewfinder, for vision compensation, but I haven't done that, and I always wondr if my poor vision (far-sightedness) is interfering in my focusing capabilities. I don't know who I'd consult, to help me initially set up my camera to accommodate for my poor eyesight....

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 10:07 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
That's a pretty good result for f/1.8 and considering how you made the shot.

As far as setting up the camera to compensate for being nearsighted or farsighted, I don't think there is anything too scientific about doing it. There is usually a little wheel next to the viewfinder and you basically auto-focus the lens and then look through the viewfinder and turn the little wheel until everything is clear.

I've never bothered to do it as I always leave my glasses on when I'm shooting.

All that said, I don't think being farsighted would be a problem (though you can turn the little wheel the other way to compensate for that as well).

Why do you care though? I always use auto-focus anyway (though I vary how I use it). The new SLRs don't have a prism or split focusing screen so they are almost impossible to focus manually. I say almost impossible because I have a pro friend who to my total astonishment focuses manually but I'm darned if I know how he can see well enough to do it!

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 11:33 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
I find I like manual focus for things where the auto-focus could be fooled. IIRC, you mainly do portraiture, yes? I would imagine it would be easier for the AF to know your exact subject.

I just tried the diopter(?) eye thing, and it worked this time. My eyes are nice and bad in the morning, so seeing the adjustment was easier today. Hopefully my pictures will be better for it. I wonder if it will affect my ability to focus appropriately....

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 11:35 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Oh PS - I was shrinking my pics for the first time in iPhoto, so I chose the "small" jpg setting, and large photo setting, so that huge pic was only 11kb or something, so maybe some of the focus issue is actually compression?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 11:58 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
You can miss-focus pretty badly and not notice it with landscape photography because the DOF is usually so wide. It's much much more important for portraits and it is crucial for macro. My buddy who does the manual focussing is shooting portraits. Amazing.

I'm amazed that your image looks so good as it must be pretty compressed to get that file size. I don't think much of the blur in your posted picture is due to jpg compression. I think it is probably more related to limitations of the lens, the extremely wide aperture and narrow DOF. No lens will perform at its best at its widest aperture.

As I said though, it is still pretty good. By the way, I know this was probably just a quick throw off post but I see you left the color profile as Adobe RGB. It will look better on the web if you convert to sRGB before posting, right?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 12:02 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
No ... now that I look at it more closely I can see jpg artifacts as well.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 3:40 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
I'm not familiar with the differences in color profiles.....I've always just left it alone. My teacher asked us to switch to Adobe RGB for our class (I guess because he uses it to view/edit). I should go learn more about color profile. I guess because I just have a MacBook, and don't play around in Photoshop much, I never bothered to care about color profiles further than whatever the default was set at.



Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 3:44 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
PS - I'm trying to send you the original file (.nef), if you want to take a look at it...

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, August 02, 2008 - 4:42 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
Thanks. I got it. That was fun! I did a little post-processing and I'll post it if you like (LOL – Of course that may mean that you have to post some more to avoid scaring yourself).

Your teacher is right to suggest that you to switch to Adobe RGB as it is a much wider/better color space for photographers to use to capture more colors in an image. It is excellent for personal printing on home or pro in-house printers. However, many outside labs that print are setup for sRGB so if you take images to somewhere like Walmart for prints, you should definitely convert the color space to sRGB first, or your colors will look dull. There is no color management on the web so it is also best to convert to sRGB before posting images (or they will look dull as well).

Bonbonlover
Member

07-13-2000

Sunday, August 03, 2008 - 5:51 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Bonbonlover a private message Print Post    


Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, August 04, 2008 - 2:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Thanks Jimmer! I'd love to see what you can do to "fix me" LOL!!

I have two questions. First, are "micro" lenses ones made specifically for close ups? At the Broadway Camera site, they have some lenses specifically labeled MICRO, and I was just wondering why....

Second question, is about the 18-200 lens writeup. In most places, the description contains a point that says, "NOTE: Due to optical characteristics of IF (Internal Focusing) lenses, the shooting distance becomes shorter as the focal length shortens."

What does that mean?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, August 04, 2008 - 4:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I think you mean macro lenses. Macro lenses are optically designed for close-up shooting of small stuff but they are usually fine for regular photography as well. Some companies call them micro lenses. I don't think there is any difference.

With respect to your second question, it just has to do with the way the lens focuses but I don't think it will have any real world impact on your macro photography at this point.

Here's your picture!

Picture

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, August 04, 2008 - 11:43 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Wow! Although I still scare myself, that looks so much more lively! You really made my eyes pop out! It's amazing how post-processing can really improve a picture! It's like, the picture itself is only at half of its potential. Very cool Jimmer! Thanks!

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Tuesday, August 05, 2008 - 6:43 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I'm glad you enjoyed seeing it. Sometimes people think that post-processing a digital image is trickery (and it is true that sometimes there is trickery involved). However, a lot of it is just bringing out the existing detail and potential contained or hidden within the image.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 12:19 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
OMG, that picture still freaks me out. Yikes.

Hey Jimmer, do you have any experience with extension tubes? It's hard to find thorough information on them online; I find that really weird. Are they hollow, or is there a lens involved?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 12:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
You mean for macro photography? They extend the back of the lens away from the focal plane, which allows for closer focusing. With modern cameras they have all the contacts needed for the lens to communicate with the camera. I don't think there is any extra glass involved but I've never used one. From what I understand they work very well though.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 1:30 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
It's weird, you can find non-Nikon ones online for like 20 dollars, yet the few places I can find that sell licensed Nikon stuff, the tube is like 200 dollars! And I've even seen places for official Nikon ones, where the person reviewing it has said they don't work with the new digital lenses. They look like fun, especially if you're trying to get in closer, but the focus isn't cooperating because you are "too close".

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 1:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
LOL - I should have qualified my statement that from what I understand the Canon ones work well. It's interesting if the Nikons don't work with the new digital lenses. The back of the digital lenses is closer to the focal plane so maybe it has something to do with the fit?

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 3:09 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
Jimmer, did you spend a lot of time on EEyore up there? That shot looks great! What did you do to her? TIA!

Hukdonreality
Member

09-29-2003

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 4:54 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Hukdonreality a private message Print Post    
Hey Julieboo, how does your foot taste?




hee hee, I know you didn't mean that Eeyore looked like a hag in her before picture, but it WAS worded kinda funny!!

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, October 20, 2008 - 5:20 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
LOL - Eeyore is Eeyore in both pictures. Thanks for asking though Julie.

What I did is what I always do when I post-process with PhotoShop. First of all Eeyore sent me the Raw file which meant that I was starting off with a good large unprocessed file. So I ran it through the Raw conversion (using ACR which is Photoshop's raw converter) adjusting the distribution of the light and so on to bring out the details. Then I just did some mild PhotoShop work to bring out more of the detail in her eyes and reduce any uncomplimentary shadowing.

But I really didn't do anything significant with respect to retouching or glamorizing the look. I could have but with most of my clients I want to get a look so that they look great but have a natural look - like they are having a really great day. :-)