Nikon 14-24 - Bad Images

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by frederick, Apr 4, 2008.

  1. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Paul Furman, Apr 5, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    Better, these days, as I am learning what it takes to get sharp
    pictures with it. That thing is not very forgiving, is it?
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 5, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Especially with a 2X TC. If you're shooting handheld that front-to-back
    motion can quickly show its head since you are talking about a very shallow
    and thin DoF.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 5, 2008
    #23
  4. frederick

    JT's Ghost Guest

    Would a mono-pod help to stabilize the lens, and thereby eliminate the
    motion? It could also double as a sort of walking stick... Relatively
    inexpensive (as opposed to a tripod) and more mobile.

    Not having ever used anything over 200 mm I'm guessing that with the
    lens (400 mm) one isn't panning shots from say left to right...

    - JT
    just asking
     
    JT's Ghost, Apr 6, 2008
    #24
  5. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    For me, given my physical condition, for now shooting hand-held with
    such a lens is an impossibility. I am stuck with tripods and gimbal
    heads.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 6, 2008
    #25
  6. I do keep a monopod mount on the old 500 for extremely low light shooting,
    but for the most part carrying and using it is more of a nuisance than it is
    worth. I'm continually moving and some of the bird shots are very
    spontaneous and would never happen if I had to set up a monopod.
    Actually, you do a lot of panning when you are trying to capture birds in
    flight. In these situations you would be better suited handheld. There's
    no correct answer or right or wrong solution to this problem, you'll just
    have to experiment with different techniques and see what works best for
    your shooting style.





    Rita
     
    Rita Berkowitz, Apr 6, 2008
    #26

  7. For sports, where the action is on a flat plane, one pans a lot and a
    monopod is good for that. Not so with birds on the wing.
     
    John McWilliams, Apr 6, 2008
    #27
  8. That's a good one..
    But, Canon's have no need for a "Nikon Feature Button".
    Olympus or Pentax does not need them either..

    Steve
     
    Steve Sherman, Apr 6, 2008
    #28
  9. In fact probably half of them are below average.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 6, 2008
    #29
  10. It doesn't take any brains anymore to do photography. None at all.
    150 years of silver halide went out the window when *digital* imaging
    was invented. My entire youth and working life, _mis-spent_.

    Now ANYBODY can push a button and get an acceptable result. With or
    without computer enhancement. Photography has become a cheap
    commondity.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 7, 2008
    #30
  11. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Right, but the signal to noise ratio (good vs acceptable and lower) is
    worse than it's ever been IMO, and seems to have gotten much worse since
    dslrs got popular.
    You can see this in forums like DPreview, where quality of images that
    users post seems often to decrease inversely proportionally to the
    quality of the equipment used. (there are surely some exceptions to
    this too - in the right hands, great equipment can produce great results.)
    I put it down to impressive gadgetry being extremely alluring to people
    with mild Asperger-like disorders, who have really got little hope of
    ever taking a "good shot", as that requires communication of emotion
    with the person who is to view the image.
     
    frederick, Apr 7, 2008
    #31
  12. frederick

    C J Campbell Guest

    From what I have seen, people still manage to take some pretty bad
    pictures. Just go to Costco sometime and hang around the photo counter.
    You see lots of people with digital cameras oohing and aahing over
    photos with red eyes, heads chopped off, burned out with over-flash,
    stuff growing out of peoples' heads, focus on foreground things like
    screens, cage bars, or fences instead of the subject...

    All the digital magic in the world does not seem to keep people from
    taking bad pictures. The fact is, most people have no idea what a good
    picture looks like. The Costco customers will look at the photos I have
    just described and exclaim "Look at this photo of little Jimmy! Isn't
    it wonderful?" Even though Jimmy has demon eyes and his feet and the
    top of his head are cut off and his shirt is burned out from the flash.

    Nope. Still takes some skill to get a decent picture.
     
    C J Campbell, Apr 7, 2008
    #32
  13. Storytelling with a lens, is what USED to make Life Magazine worth
    whatever it cost.

    Eugene Smith (anybody remember him? I met him in person once when he
    visited my college), did a layout on the effects of mercury poisoning
    in Minimata Japan. He did it with a cheap camera. I saw the camera
    he used, he had it with him. A standard piece of crap. But his
    images are (were) unforgettable.

    So it isn't the machine that makes a photo noteworthy, or *art*, or
    NEWS, or anything, it is the eye behind the lens. That frozen moment
    in time, becomes timeless. That slice of life, the *decisive moment*
    as Cartier Bresson would say, is what separates the crap from the
    shinola.

    So much of photography today is "this is what this looks like, and
    this is what that looks like." Haven't we all seen it before.

    Telling a story with photography elevates it out of the mud. I would
    like to see more of it. It isn't easy, but one has to learn how to
    crawl before they can walk.

    Lg
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 7, 2008
    #33
  14. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Or it can be exactly the opposite. Visual arts can a more intuitive way
    to communicate and neurotypical people can be oblivious of visual
    subtleties sometimes :)
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 7, 2008
    #34
  15. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Possibly true. There's a definite link between great art and insanity
    too. Even the best sane artists often aren't the buddy you'd want to
    share a few pints with at your local.
    OTOH I'm amazed that some true genius artists in some fields interview
    and write as pretty regular guys (disturbingly so sometimes - Bob Dylan
    for example), yet there are so many wannabes who have seen the common
    link, and try to act the part, not realising that it doesn't need to be
    that way.
     
    frederick, Apr 7, 2008
    #35
  16. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Yeah Dylan is funny, he really was never a protest hippy like that at
    all. It takes all types.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 7, 2008
    #36
  17. you need to read the transcript of his song "Masters of War"
     
    Lawrence Glickman, Apr 7, 2008
    #37
  18. frederick

    frederick Guest

    Yes - perhaps "never a stereotypical protest hippy" might have been more
    accurate. I think perhaps he wasn't comfortable to be a leader in the
    traditional way. Perhaps that was a psychological flaw that good
    therapy or the right medication could fix these days.
     
    frederick, Apr 7, 2008
    #38
  19. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    Not to worry. BTDT
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 7, 2008
    #39
  20. frederick

    Paul Furman Guest

    On the contrary, they are folks I'd *most* trust without hesitation. It
    all depends how you define sanity.
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 7, 2008
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.