| Moderated by: chrisbet, | Page:   ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ...   |
|
|||||||
| Tuscany - Page 7 | |
| Visits to Il Paretaio and around Tuscany | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Mon Sep 30th, 2019 22:56 |
|
61st Post |
Robert
|
I am becoming confused here, I thought you had bought a D610? The only time I see any advantage from using a DX body, is to increase reach, ie. birding or anything needing more pulling power. Especially if you are saving JPEG images in the camera. Saving as NEF's provides the opportunity to 'rescue' less than optimal exposure settings and still get superb final images. NEF's contain a basic JPEG, so viewing should not be an issue, processing might be? I don't know what software you have, I use Lightroom for all storage and processing, the artificial intelligence 'auto' provides a very good basic image which you can easily refine to get the final image you want but that's another skill. The main benefits of an FX, full frame camera are a far better viewfinder, much easier, more relaxed technique and more options for cropping. I find FX is a far more relaxed experience all round, the moment I pick up a DX camera I feel constrained. Unless you are going to use either a monopod or tripod, your hand held images are going to be worse with a DX than an FX or require very good technique, which is difficult to learn, especially when photography is an adjunct to your lovely horses (and rightly so!). I would venture a D3 or D700 (same sensor, smaller body) would be very good for what you need, but more pixels from a D610 would give more options for cropping. D700's are not expensive and might even give you better images than the D610 because of the larger pixels being more forgiving. For sport, like rugby or cars where there is significant movement in the subject, I always reach for the D3, even though I have the D800 in my bag. The players won't stand still and pose, any more than one of your horsed will, even if you have excellent technique you still have to allow for the moving subject which limits your options for settings and make the technique even more demanding.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 1st, 2019 03:34 |
|
62nd Post |
chrisbet
|
I think it is JK confusing you by answering the question before last  Yes I have a D610 now and these images were taken with it and the 70 - 300 lens. A heavy combination but manageable as I don't go far with it. I have a battery grip on it and it nestles nicely on my fingers when I am just carrying it. I couldn't agree more with you, the FX is much easier to use, more accurate on the focusing and much faster on burst shooting which I use a LOT while panning with the horse. Having taken on board your comments elsewhere about DOF / aperture / exposure / ISO I have found a happy mixture that gives enough DOF while minimising movement blur of swishing tails - horses' tails move way faster than anything else! These images were taken by a friend - I just set the camera up and told her to keep the focus point on my leg ...
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Tue Oct 1st, 2019 04:30 |
|
63rd Post |
jk
|
I agree Chris. I was answering your interim question regarding choice of camera. Robert is confused because your purchase has been made, and I am commenting on your pre-purchase options. I personally think that FX has so many advantages over DX, except when you do wildlife and sports action photography. DX is significantly better for wildlife and sports. I am not saying that it is impossible to do sports or wildlife with FX cameras but there is a considerable weight and cost penalty for doing this! I know as I have a Nikon 400mm f2.8 AFS that I seldom use as it is very heavy but it is superb as a 400mm or with a teleconverter x1.4, x1.7 or at a push x2. I think this is where Eric is having issues with cameras. He does many different genres but prefers to do landscape and wildlife but also wants a smaller, lighter camera. A smaller lighter combo is a Nikon P900/P1000 or similar. But then the smaller sensor is not so good for landscapes. It is always about compromises.
____________________ Still learning after all these years! https://nikondslr.uk/gallery_view.php?user=2&folderid=none |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 02:45 |
|
64th Post |
Robert
|
Thanks for the clarification! I did check back in this thread before I replied. Chris, you mention swishing tails, my instinct would be to try to let them swish, visibly. I feel it helps make the image real, more lifelike. It brings action to the picture, in my opinion. I believe it falls in the category of blurred bicycle spokes and airplane and helicopter propeller disks, even some birds tails wagging. It brings a little movement to the image, rather than still life. OK, if you want a catalogue image, go for sharp all over but for real life, I believe a little movement blur adds to, rather than detracting from the picture. How much is debatable and how far you take it is part of the conundrum but I do believe there is such a thing as too sharp an image. The human eye detects blur, why not the camera? Once things settle down in my life, I hope to have more time to experiment with lenses and bokeh, get a greater understanding of what needs to be sharp. To focus on the subject, but not over do it. This is why I have concentrated on fast, non-zoom FX lenses for my collection, as fast as I can afford that is! LOL The human eye, in combination with the brain 'focuses' on the object of interest, a camera on the other hand, focuses on everything which is stationary and in the focal plane and freezes that moment.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 06:40 |
|
65th Post |
chrisbet
|
Even at 1/400 there is detectable movement blur at the end of the tail. You also get flying particles of sand - maybe a bit slower could help "lose" these. The human eye is working in 3D - the photograph is only 2D, there are bound to be differences. If you are looking at a moving object then it always appears sharp since you eye follows the movement unless it is moving as fast as a propeller blade - I agree that seeing these stationary is a bit unnerving!
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 16:17 |
|
66th Post |
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Even at 1/400 there is detectable movement blur at the end of the tail. I have to say there is a significant quality improvement with this recent set of images Chris. Well done. You must be pleased when you look back at the first horse photos you posted, and see the improvement.
____________________ Eric |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 16:40 |
|
67th Post |
chrisbet
|
Thank you Eric - I am pleased with the improvement, the advice I got here was spot on  Maybe not the best exposure but lovely sense of movement in the horse and stillness in the rider (me!) - exactly what we aim for as riders... I have tried bringing up the shadows but I can't seem to do it without blowing the highlights.... need more instruction on post processing! 
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 17:01 |
|
68th Post |
Robert
|
I agree Chris, the picture is nice, contrasty lighting like that is difficult, you can't bracket, so any shadow recovery has to be in the processing. Fortunately shadow recovery is much easier than highlight recovery in fact blown highlights are What software are you using? My experience is limited to Adobe Lightroom and Ps but I know JK and Eric use other software, which may be lower cost. For best results in dealing with extremes of exposure in one image you are better to save as NEF, it gives you your best options and greatest flexibility when trying to recover highlights and shadows. JPEG's have already been processed in the camera and any further processing by you will be likely to lead to artefacts and noise, especially when you are trying to recover highlights and shadows. A small flash would help but likely spook the horse, I guess.
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 17:36 |
|
69th Post |
chrisbet
|
Flash is a big no-no - I use Darktable, the linux equivalent of Lightroom.
____________________ If it is broken it was probably me .... |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| Posted: Wed Oct 2nd, 2019 22:27 |
|
70th Post |
Robert
|
I thought as much, that's why I like cars and motorbikes, they don't jump around when you point the camera at them, well only a bit... D200, Sigma 10-20 wide zoom at Mallory park. The white balance is wrong... way too blue.  OK, well in Lightroom, on the right hand side in edit image mode is a list of adjustments. They are intended to be worked through in order downwards. Not every adjustment has to be altered, some I almost never touch, others I have a 'standard' setting which seems to suit the majority of my work. I just work down the list and make adjustments which gradually improve the image to my eye. Starting with cropping and ending with sharpening. A couple of upgrades ago they introduced 'Auto adjustment' which adjusts the main exposure related adjustments pretty well, subduing highlights revealing detail, and enhances the shadow areas again evening the exposure and bringing the shadow areas up without overdoing it. This is only a suggestion and I usually reduce the brightness from the auto setting. The auto adjustment is said to utilise auto intelligence? Machine learning, I have noticed it does seem to learn from my re-adjustments that I don't like over bright images and I am finding I don't have to correct it to my taste as often as I used to when it was first introduced, perhaps it's learning from me, or from all the other users too, perhaps I am not alone in not liking over bright images??? The auto adjustment does not address the micro contrast settings like clarity, texture, de-haze or vibrance; I usually apply about 25% clarity and a little texture depending on the image, de-haze I usually limit to 2 or 3%. Very rarely any vibrance, more often than not reducing it slightly. Reducing the contrast a little can sometimes help. The difficulty in describing this process is that every image is different, I fail to understand how people can run a batch process on anything other than identical pictures like star-scapes or identical portraits, like school photographs which have identical lighting etc. Not only that but everyone has their own idea of how they want their photograph to look, their 'style' if you like. There are also some very useful filters like the NIK filters, which used to be free, were gobbled up by Google, then spat out again and are currently available again in a slightly enhanced form for what I believe is a reasonably modest fee. These filters don't make any 'magic' adjustments, they simply make adjustments using the available parameters which any user can make but they do it in a very simple way, which saves the user having to learn advanced techniques to achieve their goal. One particular NIK filter I do use sometimes is 'Detail Extractor' which is a powerful tool to ...extract detail! LOL It's very effective, especially in slightly shadowy areas and things like stone walls suddenly stand out and come to life. NIK filters have a very powerful selection tool which means you can apply the filter to exactly to part of the image you want to adjust. You can increase or reduce the effect of the filter by clicking in an area and adjusting sliders which increase or reduce the area the filter affects very effectively. It can, for example adjust hair tone without adjusting the background or visa versa. That is probably NIK filters most powerful aspect, individual selective points. BUT, much of this can be avoided with a good, well lit, NEF exposure out of the camera. Always check the histogram, take trial exposures until you hit the sweet spot. Eventually you will be able to 'read' the histogram and recognise a nice exposure at a glance. The histogram is probably the biggest single benefit of digital photography besides the free film!
____________________ Robert. |
||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| This is topic ID = 1687 Current time is 09:33 | Page: ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... | |
| Nikon DSLR Forums > Photography > Photography Expeditions & Travel > Tuscany | Top | |
Users viewing this topic |
||
Current theme is Modern editor
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk Thank you. |
Hosted by Octarine Services
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0800 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 81 queries executed.
UltraBB 1.173 Copyright © 2008-2025 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.0800 seconds (72% database + 28% PHP). 81 queries executed.