First 30D pics
Discussion
bloomin fantastic shots mate. Love that first one, real depth to it.
Have to ask this... how many shots did you take you WOULDN'T have shown? I find it all very depressing seeing some of the pics posted up here, but I occasionally snap a half decent one - just thinking what your ratio's of good to bad are!!!!
Have to ask this... how many shots did you take you WOULDN'T have shown? I find it all very depressing seeing some of the pics posted up here, but I occasionally snap a half decent one - just thinking what your ratio's of good to bad are!!!!
Davi said:
Have to ask this... how many shots did you take you WOULDN'T have shown? I find it all very depressing seeing some of the pics posted up here, but I occasionally snap a half decent one - just thinking what your ratio's of good to bad are!!!!
Answer: LOADS!!!
It was the first time I tried shooting any kind of sports so I took over 300 of the Marathon. Probably got about 5 decent ones from that. Don't give up. If you shoot enough you'll get some good shots, from then on it's all about trying to improve your ratio. Mine is still very low but getting better.
Yet to invest in a digi SLR but intend to soon, just relying on the old film SLR and a "snapshot" digi at the moment - ironically getting better shots with the digi than the film!V6GTO said:
Just keep shooting guys...digi photos cost exactly 0 pence each. 
Martin.
Err, yes, sort of. Provided you don't work it out based on price vs expected number of shutter operations from the kit purchased.
But of course compared to film media you are right. On the other hand most digital cameras will likely have far more images produced than 35mm bodies (and lenses) would have done, so the 'previously owned' market may not be too good a source of bargains in the future in the same way that 35mm technology can be.
Or has build quality improved enough to counter such doubts?
LongQ said:
Just keep shooting guys...digi photos cost exactly 0 pence each.
Martin.
Err, yes, sort of. Provided you don't work it out based on price vs expected number of shutter operations from the kit purchased.
Even if you do - let's assume that a D200 will last something like 100,000 shutter actuations.
Divide the £1050 cost by that and you get...
1.05p per shutter release.
I'd wager the camera will be long obsolete before it wears out, so not a problem for most people.
anyway.... I like these marctwo, just a couple of minor comments.
The london marathon one looks a little bit under-exposed but that might be my monitor - the composition is pretty much spot on for that type of pic though if you ask me.
For the staircase one, some of the verticals are vertical, but some of them aren't - converging verticals... it ruins the shot for me because I keep thinking it's not straight then realising it is.
Something like Photoshop will let you correct this by deforming the image, i think CS2 has a lens correction filter, but I don't have it so can't say if it's any good.
Of course it might not bother you. I often wonder if I'd taken the pic myself whether I'd notice the things I do when I look at other people's images.
The london marathon one looks a little bit under-exposed but that might be my monitor - the composition is pretty much spot on for that type of pic though if you ask me.
For the staircase one, some of the verticals are vertical, but some of them aren't - converging verticals... it ruins the shot for me because I keep thinking it's not straight then realising it is.
Something like Photoshop will let you correct this by deforming the image, i think CS2 has a lens correction filter, but I don't have it so can't say if it's any good.
Of course it might not bother you. I often wonder if I'd taken the pic myself whether I'd notice the things I do when I look at other people's images.
_dobbo_ said:
The london marathon one looks a little bit under-exposed but that might be my monitor - the composition is pretty much spot on for that type of pic though if you ask me.
Yes, I agree. I corrected this lastnight but haven't updated the pic yet. Composition was a fluke, they go by so quick I was just happy to get them in focus!
_dobbo_ said:
For the staircase one, some of the verticals are vertical, but some of them aren't - converging verticals... it ruins the shot for me because I keep thinking it's not straight then realising it is.
Agree too. I'll have to go back and re-shoot this one.
_dobbo_ said:
Of course it might not bother you. I often wonder if I'd taken the pic myself whether I'd notice the things I do when I look at other people's images.
I appreciate the feedback. Of course it's nice to get lots of good comments, but it's the critisism that will help me improve.
UKBob said:
Can you elaborate on your focussing problem? What exactly did (or didnt) happen?
Basically the camera seemed to be front focussing (focussing closer than the point I had wanted). For example, I shot some portraits at f1.8. Here the DOF is very small and it's important to get the eyes in focus. The shots I got had the eyes out of focus but the eyebrows and end of the nose in focus.
After getting a replacement 30D, I did the same tests and found out that my 50mm seems to front focus a little at f1.8. At f2.8 it's good, but only a few of the shots I took actually focussed correctly. This leads me to believe that it has something to do with my technique.
So people, if you were shooting a close up portrait with very shallow DOF, where would you focus? The top eyelid? The bottom eyelid? The center of the eye?
marctwo said:
Can you elaborate on your focussing problem? What exactly did (or didnt) happen?
Basically the camera seemed to be front focussing (focussing closer than the point I had wanted). For example, I shot some portraits at f1.8. Here the DOF is very small and it's important to get the eyes in focus. The shots I got had the eyes out of focus but the eyebrows and end of the nose in focus.
After getting a replacement 30D, I did the same tests and found out that my 50mm seems to front focus a little at f1.8. At f2.8 it's good, but only a few of the shots I took actually focussed correctly. This leads me to believe that it has something to do with my technique.
So people, if you were shooting a close up portrait with very shallow DOF, where would you focus? The top eyelid? The bottom eyelid? The center of the eye?
Just a thought from a totally crap wanna-be here, but could going on the eye itself not cause problems for the focus with reflections / depth if you happen to get it right on the pupil etc? Only suggest as I've had some problems with reflective material in the past.
Davi said:
Just a thought from a totally crap wanna-be here, but could going on the eye itself not cause problems for the focus with reflections / depth if you happen to get it right on the pupil etc? Only suggest as I've had some problems with reflective material in the past.
Yes, I am sure it could. It will be interesting to hear from people with more experience in this field than I.
_dobbo_ said:
Having been caught out the same way on a couple of occasions I'm now careful to shoot portraits at something a bit smaller than f1.8 - hanging around at f8 or f11 seems to mean I get much more reliable focusing!
I guess that's one way to do it. Doesn't quite give the same effect though does it?
V6GTO said:
I focus on the part where the coloured part of the eye meets the white part, never had a problem. Don't forget...when shooting using fag paper DoF your own body movements (and that of the model) have a big influence on the shot working or not. HTH.
This would certainly explain why some shots were spot on and others OOF. Although I still had trouble at f2.8 and have shot a lot at this aperture and don't remember having such a problem before.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff