Help choosing a lens
Discussion
When you get round to considering what lens to buy again, I'd suggest you go and look at the EXIF data for some of your favourite photos taken with your zoom. This should tell you what actual focal length you've been shooting at when you're getting the results you like, which should, in turn, make your decision easier to make.
I use Canon rather than Nikon, but both have a very cheap 50mm f1.8. The reason for this is that on a full frame camera, this represents pretty much exactly the human field of vision, so what you see through the lens is exactly what you see without the camera being there.
We don't have full frame cameras though. In the case of your Nikon, the 50mm lens actually works like a 75mm lens would on a full frame body, so you're 50% zoomed in compared to the naked eye.
For some people, this will give them exactly what they want in terms of field of vision. For me, whenever I was trying to get non-posed shots of my kids (and I've got three of 11 and under, so trying to get them to pose is a nightmare!), I found the 50mm lens forced me to be too far away, so I got highly frustrated with it.
I subsequently bought a 28mm f1.8 (roughly the same field of vision as 31mm would be on Nikon, I think), and since I got that, a couple of years ago, I can't remember using the 50mm even once.
So... Look at where you're currently shooting with the zoom, and find a prime close to that, and you should get the lens that's right for you, not one that's right for me or any of the other posters on this thread!
What I don't understand myself, given how long crop sensor DSLRs have been around now - and considering they take up all but the highest level of consumer cameras and pro cameras - is why none of the main lens manufacturers have produced a cheap and cheerful 1:1 field of vision fast prime lens for them?
I use Canon rather than Nikon, but both have a very cheap 50mm f1.8. The reason for this is that on a full frame camera, this represents pretty much exactly the human field of vision, so what you see through the lens is exactly what you see without the camera being there.
We don't have full frame cameras though. In the case of your Nikon, the 50mm lens actually works like a 75mm lens would on a full frame body, so you're 50% zoomed in compared to the naked eye.
For some people, this will give them exactly what they want in terms of field of vision. For me, whenever I was trying to get non-posed shots of my kids (and I've got three of 11 and under, so trying to get them to pose is a nightmare!), I found the 50mm lens forced me to be too far away, so I got highly frustrated with it.
I subsequently bought a 28mm f1.8 (roughly the same field of vision as 31mm would be on Nikon, I think), and since I got that, a couple of years ago, I can't remember using the 50mm even once.
So... Look at where you're currently shooting with the zoom, and find a prime close to that, and you should get the lens that's right for you, not one that's right for me or any of the other posters on this thread!
What I don't understand myself, given how long crop sensor DSLRs have been around now - and considering they take up all but the highest level of consumer cameras and pro cameras - is why none of the main lens manufacturers have produced a cheap and cheerful 1:1 field of vision fast prime lens for them?
325Ti said:
please expain in basic terms how you got the above image? is the black background simply something you created in photoshop afterwards?
Underexpose heavily on the camera (without the flash) so that the image appears nearly black, then add the flash in until the subject is the correct brightness. The flash isn't shining on the background so the background stays black. Mr Will said:
Underexpose heavily on the camera (without the flash) so that the image appears nearly black, then add the flash in until the subject is the correct brightness. The flash isn't shining on the background so the background stays black.
There you go! You might have to move the child a bit further away from anything that might get "caught in the light" but since for example in the above photos she was seated in high chair I'm guessing that wouldn't be a problem. And then a SNAP will become a PORTRAIT 
True but it depends whether you want a posed portrait or a spontaneous record of reality. How good an actress is the OP's daughter? By the time you've dragged her away from the bear and said 'Sit here, look this way, hang on a minute while I fiddle with some buttons...' how natural is that going to be?
This thread seems to have wandered along way from lenses.
This thread seems to have wandered along way from lenses.
Simpo Two said:
True but it depends whether you want a posed portrait or a spontaneous record of reality. How good an actress is the OP's daughter? By the time you've dragged her away from the bear and said 'Sit here, look this way, hang on a minute while I fiddle with some buttons...' how natural is that going to be?
This thread seems to have wandered along way from lenses.
No, not at all. All he has to do is keep taking photos the same way. How would underexposing the background and upping the flash power make it less candid?This thread seems to have wandered along way from lenses.
Try to explain my dogs what do you want them to do
It's all about "capturing the moment" for me 
well im back again - still trying to get to play with the flash and still havent managed to buy a lens yet - but i will do soon
are the photos improving? i havent had a chance to learn about the graphs yet and stilll struggle to tell what is under / over exposed and what is the current level of light - but i personally think these look more natural than some of my previous attempts
are the photos improving? i havent had a chance to learn about the graphs yet and stilll struggle to tell what is under / over exposed and what is the current level of light - but i personally think these look more natural than some of my previous attempts
Mr Will said:
If you've got a big spike at either side then it's under/over exposed. There isn't really much more to it than that!
It's not that simple. If the scene is generally dark the peak will be towards the left and vice versa; that's fine. The usual thing to avoid is clipping - ie where the line exceeds the ends. However there are times when part of the scene actually needs to be pure black or pure white, in which case clipping is correct. So you have to assess the histogram in relation to the scene and what you want.I think those photos are really coming on nicely. Nice flash diffusion, you can see the structure of the face and there are no harsh shadows.
They are showing a few really nice things about using a flash. First is really good eyes - you have a catchlight, and the iris colour is illuminated well. I always think children's eyes are one of their best features and it can really be a struggle to get good eyes with natural/indoor light.
Skin tone is really good as well. It can be a real struggle to get good skin tone in natural light mixed with indoor light as you have a mix of colour balance and you often won't have 100% of the spectrum so no matter how you fiddle the white balance the skin never quite looks the right shade of pink.
I will have a fiddle with them later on and show you the exposure graphs.
They are showing a few really nice things about using a flash. First is really good eyes - you have a catchlight, and the iris colour is illuminated well. I always think children's eyes are one of their best features and it can really be a struggle to get good eyes with natural/indoor light.
Skin tone is really good as well. It can be a real struggle to get good skin tone in natural light mixed with indoor light as you have a mix of colour balance and you often won't have 100% of the spectrum so no matter how you fiddle the white balance the skin never quite looks the right shade of pink.
I will have a fiddle with them later on and show you the exposure graphs.
OP you've improved a heck of a lot in a short time (I was wondering if you'd give an update, so thanks for doing so). It's probably personal taste, and a minor point only, but now that you have got the 'subject' sorted out, paying a little attention to the background could be worthwhile. The second shot works pretty well as the background is blurred, the first shot may have looked better against a plain background, using the solid colour of the wall, rather than the frame of the door. Like I said, only a minor comment and great to see the improvements you've made.
Cooled White balance slightly, made background vertical and symmetrically exposed, slight sharpen for web, enhanced eye colour and removed skin distractions.
Child_Example_Flash_Modified by pistonheads_tests, on Flickr
Child_Example_Flash_Modified by pistonheads_tests, on FlickrTo demonstate the point, with a solid wall background...
6rsiv6_b by Ian J Bradshaw, on Flickr
And with a complementing background (with levels tweaked a little to lighten the subject).
6rsiv6_c by Ian J Bradshaw, on Flickr
6rsiv6_b by Ian J Bradshaw, on Flickr
And with a complementing background (with levels tweaked a little to lighten the subject).
6rsiv6_c by Ian J Bradshaw, on Flickr
No problem at all, wanted to show you what I meant which I think it has done. I used PS....but really it's better to consider the background before you press the shutter rather than sorting it out afterwards in post. Too time consuming doing this and would be a nightmare in the second shot due to the hair and trying to clear cut it, the dressing gown in the first shot made it easy to do.
I would say 99% of my shots are processed in PS, but only for levels, cropping, sharpening (sometimes) and removing blemishes (or dribble in the case of my son!). Most take around 5 mins, and that's on a slow laptop. I don't use RAW as I don't find the need and that adds another time consuming step. Having said that I shoot RAW plus JPG just in case.
It's worth investing in PS, though it is tricky to get your head round initially but makes sense if you stick with it. YouTube tutorials were a great help to me.
I would say 99% of my shots are processed in PS, but only for levels, cropping, sharpening (sometimes) and removing blemishes (or dribble in the case of my son!). Most take around 5 mins, and that's on a slow laptop. I don't use RAW as I don't find the need and that adds another time consuming step. Having said that I shoot RAW plus JPG just in case.
It's worth investing in PS, though it is tricky to get your head round initially but makes sense if you stick with it. YouTube tutorials were a great help to me.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff