Nikon User Thread

[Dirty_Ass]

WOW, cheezweezl. LOVE the CC, very colorful, but it still manages to impart the feeling of drabness evident in your daughters face. Kudos

 

[cheezweezl]

thanks you guys. here's some really extreme cc for effect.

orig.

cc'd

 

[Matt Grunau]

First real "shoot" with the camera weeks after I got it. The guy is a phenominal pianist who has 4 bands in the area. This was part of series for his web site and album cover.

Original:

Some Photoshop work, sky replace, background desat, face blemish remove, differing curves for foreground and background:

Not as extreme as Cheese's, but fun none the less.

 

[cheezweezl]

cool pic. looks kind of desolate and he has kind of a troubled look. feels like it should be cold outside when i look at it. what if you cc'd it with a blue cast?

 

[MattinSTL]

cool pic. looks kind of desolate and he has kind of a troubled look. feels like it should be cold outside when i look at it. what if you cc'd it with a blue cast?

Okay great, now I gotta' jump in and suggest a sky replace with a stormy sky and pull the whole shot to black and white exept for the red handkerchief and then title the album in red above that. Sheesh.

 

[cheezweezl]

here's a quick example of what i mean. sorry, i've been going nuts with photoshop the last few days and i want to screw with every pic i see....

 

[Matt Grunau]

here's a quick example of what i mean. sorry, i've been going nuts with photoshop the last few days and i want to screw with every pic i see....

You blew out the mids in his jacket and much of the bricks. The contrast is a bit harsh.

If you want higher contrast, use blending modes in conjunction with curves, and work in Lab mode if you plan on altering the color very much.

Too much over use of curves and saturatin in the name of CC'ing seems to be getting a hold of folks lately.

I'm not knockin you work, but subtelty can be more convincing and establishing than something pushed too hard.

 

[MattinSTL]

Hey I just thought you guys should know that Transcend 2GB 150x SD media is tested and works in the D50... and it's $48.99 shipped from NewEgg. From what I've read you can use 4GB SD media as long as you NEVER try to format it in the camera! Apparently as long as the card goes in pre-formatted, or factory formatted to FAT32 then the cam will write to the entire 4GB card... but when it comes time to reformat the card you MUST do that with a computer or card reader or else the card will be permanently turned into a 2GB card by the D50.

Anyway... I've got my 2GB SD card and 18-70mm on the way... I'll order my D50 body later this week... I was still kind of on the fence between 50 and 70s, but I've just seen TOO many great 50 pics. Deal done... Okay so I don't think I'll make my original 10 days prediction... but it won't be more then 10 days from today and THAT is for certain! Pretty soon I'll be able to post on this thread with my own shot for cryin' out loud. :crybaby:

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

OK party people... This is a complete test and I am turning to my fellow D50 faithful for a little feedback.

A couple of weeks ago I purchased a really cheap Vivitar 70-210mm 2.8 lens on Ebay. It was really cheap and upon my first use of it, I didn't like it and thought the image was a bit too soft for my taste.

Well tonight I decided to run an A/B test between the Vivitar 70-210 2.8 and the Nikor 70-210 4-5.6. These are the resized images with links to the full rez images as the titles for each image. Please let me know which lens that you think is best.

Thanks for the help and feedback.

By the way: The close up shot on my desk is a crap shot of tapes through some plastic. I just zoomed in to get a better idea and try to stay similar on the two shots.

Vivitar 70mm Outdoors

Nikor 70mm Outdoors

Vivitar 210 Outdoors

Nikor 210 Outdoors

Vivitar 70mm Indoors

Nikor 70mm Indoors

Vivitar 210 Indoors

Nikor 210 Indoors

You know, this post took a long time to put together... I'm not used to spending this much time putting things together... OK, well I would appreciate the feedback on which 70-210 you think is best, sharpest... I'm sort of leaning towards the 4.0-5.6. Either way, the feedback would be appreciated. Thanks!

-Jeremy

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

For some reason not all of the images are coming through (at least for me).

I've gone through the tagging twice, so you might need to click on the full rez images... I'm sorry, but still appreciate any feedback.

I just have a hard time believing that some crap Vivitar, even if it is 2.8 throughout is better than the Nikor glass.

Thanks everyone.

-Jeremy

 

[MattinSTL]

I'm having trouble making a decision there... did you make sure that you have identical focal lengths and aperature?

Also I'm wondering how the movie "vigalantes" is?

 

[cheezweezl]

You blew out the mids in his jacket and much of the bricks. The contrast is a bit harsh.

If you want higher contrast, use blending modes in conjunction with curves, and work in Lab mode if you plan on altering the color very much.

Too much over use of curves and saturatin in the name of CC'ing seems to be getting a hold of folks lately.

I'm not knockin you work, but subtelty can be more convincing and establishing than something pushed too hard.

yeah that was a quick and dirty fix just to show you what i was suggesting feel wise. it was just that he's wearing a tux and hanging out with a sad look on a bright sunny summer day....seemed like it should be cold to me.

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

I'm having trouble making a decision there... did you make sure that you have identical focal lengths and aperature?

Also I'm wondering how the movie "vigalantes" is?

I made sure that I had identical focal lengths but didn't ensure that the aperature was identical between the two pieces of glass. I need to run another A/B test and include some more detailed stuff.

I bought Vigalantes because it was made by a DVXUser, but haven't had the opportunity to watch it yet...

This weekend I will take both lenses out and go up to the park and see how they perform, but as of right now I'm leaning to the Vivitar (please don't strike me with lightning) being a better overall performer.

-Jeremy

 

[alpha omega117]

i know this is very off-topic but i need help. a friend asked me to take pictures of her in her wedding dress. I have a d-70 with a 18-70mm and 70-300mm lens and a sb-600 speedflash. She wants it done at a local bed and breakfast. Its a Victorian Style house with a lake and stuff. What im asking is how to go about things. I've never done something like this.
The wedding shots ive seen are very soft and have some diffision. Is this done in post of shot with the camera. I have Adobe Photoshop Cs2 and know it pretty well. Anything and i mean anything you could tell me would be great. Thanks so much

Jacob

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

Lots of post processing for good wedding photography with a DSLR (converting to B&W, adjusting curves).

There are a lot of websites that feature wedding photography as well as several books that display wedding photography pictures.

If I were you, which obviously I'm not, I would get as many 2gig cards as possible, bring the lenses you have, and then go to the book store and sit there and look at wedding photography pictures for a while. Then I would go to google and search wedding pictures and just go through them for a while, anytime possible looking at how the light was bounced and the focal lengths used.

Imitation is supposed to be the highest form of flattery, right?

Good luck.

-Jeremy

 

[Matt Grunau]

i know this is very off-topic but i need help. a friend asked me to take pictures of her in her wedding dress. I have a d-70 with a 18-70mm and 70-300mm lens and a sb-600 speedflash. She wants it done at a local bed and breakfast. Its a Victorian Style house with a lake and stuff. What im asking is how to go about things. I've never done something like this.
The wedding shots ive seen are very soft and have some diffision. Is this done in post of shot with the camera. I have Adobe Photoshop Cs2 and know it pretty well. Anything and i mean anything you could tell me would be great. Thanks so much

Jacob

Take a piece of wax paper and a rubber band and put that on the end of the flash. that will diffuse the light nicely, and although it's not a real tech fix, it helps quite a bit.

The 18-70mm lense will do you fine. I have been wanting to get one for quite some time.

For diffusion in Photoshop, you have a couple of options. download and look at this:

http://www.paramm.com/soft.psd

Look at the Blured for Muliply, Blurred for Screen, and Blurred Original layers. Look at the effect each one has by itself, and in combination with other layers. When the Blurred for Screen and Blurred for Multiply layers are on, it's almost identical to just having the Blurred original layer on by itself. But, since the Screen layer is gonna lighten, and the Multiply darken, you can adjust the opacity of each to creat the look you want. Also, multiple copies of the background layer, each set to incresingly high blurs with their own opacity for blending is always a good option. Plus, the blending mode of each layer or series will help to lend to a ceratin look you like.

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

Rapier,

What are the odds we can get a little dodge and burn tutorial going for really pulling out the details of images? I always struggle with getting the right balance for the image I'm working on.

-Jeremy

 

[Matt Grunau]

Taken yesterday about a mile away from my house.

Nice. I actually like the first one better. I can't quite palce why.

What are the odds we can get a little dodge and burn tutorial going for really pulling out the details of images? I always struggle with getting the right balance for the image I'm working on.

-Jeremy

I don't use either the Dodge or the Burn tool (if that's what you were referring to). I stick with blending modes, and layer masks, and adjustment layers. Sometimes, you actually have to paint in detail, edges, and whatnot, or use a sharpened copy of the layer for those regions only.

As to the details, sure, I can probably work something up, if you give me a reference pic. One of the easiest ways it to take a pic you have, convert it to Lab or CMYK, copy only the Luminance or Black channel, and use that as an Occlusion map.

Another trick is to find the channel in RGB which has the most contrast and detail, and copy it to juse as a Luminosity layer, or set to a bledning mode that will enhance the edges.

Working in Lab, you have the ability to sharpen ONLY the Luminance apart from the other colors. That can really bring out detail.

Post something you are wanting to see, and I'll come up with something.

 

[Jeremy Ordan]

Here are two more images. The original was snapped last Saturday at my brother's birthday party. I dodged and burned the hell out of the image, did a lot of curves, saturation adjustment, levels, curves, more levels, more dodging, more burning...

I'm still not very good at the dodging and burning but getting a little better. I didn't really know what I was looking for with a finished image with this picture, but it is starting to come together and I think with a lot more playing around I can finally get close to what I want. There is a lot of blowout with the hair on the upper right hand side...

Original

Adjustment

This was shot on the 17-55 Nikor lens.

-Jeremy

 

[Chris Messineo]

Nik, That fence picture is gorgeous. I love it.

Jeremy, I definitely prefer the orginial. The cc's is far too blown out, I can' even see her freckles anymore.

Chris