Comments please

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Steve, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....

    I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/

    There is no retouching or processing at all except for:

    1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    few of the train photos were shot in RAW. The rest are from the
    camera in JPG normal.)

    2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    web.

    Other than that, they're as from the camera. The in-camera settings
    are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    enhanced and mode to III. I just happen to like more vivid colors
    rather than a washed out look. It may be a little too much but those
    colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.

    After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    railroad is my attempt at being creative. There was a store with a
    bunch of Mannequins behind it. After I started taking pictures of
    them, other people noticed them and did the same. Personally, I
    really like a few of those manniquin shots. I also like some of the
    ones of the kids going by in the train windows.

    A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.

    Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    had the in-camera sharpening set to auto. I'll may change that so
    it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.

    Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.

    Thanks,

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 1, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Steve

    Guest

    I am not sure why what you did regret... showing the photos to this
    NG, or buying the camera and lens?
    I am not an expert, but I do like you selection of colour saturation
    set up. I think those photos are great, as you did say that there is
    no major processing in PS (except for resize and conversion). I can
    see the good quality of the Nikon camera.
    Thanks for sharing them with us (What part of PA is New Hope is
    located? However, the pictures of the old and broken mannequins are
    kinda creepy! Was that located in someone's front lawn?). Otherwise, I
    like the colour composition, the contrast and tones of all of the
    photos. I knew that this is a matter of taste. But, it is good to know
    that you can adjust the colour saturation to the setting that I love
    to see (without any "clean up" afterward).

    Steve wrote:
    > Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >
    > I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    > lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    > walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >
    > There is no retouching or processing at all except for:
    >
    > 1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    > few of the train photos were shot in RAW. The rest are from the
    > camera in JPG normal.)
    >
    > 2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    > (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    > web.
    >
    > Other than that, they're as from the camera. The in-camera settings
    > are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    > enhanced and mode to III. I just happen to like more vivid colors
    > rather than a washed out look. It may be a little too much but those
    > colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.
    >
    > After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    > railroad is my attempt at being creative. There was a store with a
    > bunch of Mannequins behind it. After I started taking pictures of
    > them, other people noticed them and did the same. Personally, I
    > really like a few of those manniquin shots. I also like some of the
    > ones of the kids going by in the train windows.
    >
    > A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    > three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    > time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.
    >
    > Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    > But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    > had the in-camera sharpening set to auto. I'll may change that so
    > it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    > really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.
    >
    > Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    > *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Steve
    , Jan 1, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steve

    Steve Guest

    Thanks for your comments. Glad you liked the pictures.

    I said I'd regret it because, while I've only been reading this group
    for a few days, I did look back on a lot of the old posts. What I saw
    was a lot of bickering about what kind of camera is best and worst,
    personal attacks, etc. etc. So I had misgivings about posting. I've
    been through all kinds of "wars" in other groups but they were about
    technical things. Photography is subjective and by posting pictures
    here, you're putting yourself out on a limb so to speak. But I have
    thick skin.

    As for the camera and lens, I love it so far. The only issues I have
    with my short time of using it is that, in my normal handling I keep
    changing the focus selector from where I like it (single focus) to
    continuous tracking. It would be nice if there was some kind of lock
    for that switch since it's in a place where my left hand goes to
    support the camera.

    The other issue is that in dark settings with no flash, there are some
    hot pixels. I can easily remove them with the scratch tool in PSP9
    without affecting any other part of the picture like some automated
    hot pixel removal tools do. I just choose a picture with some obvious
    hot ones, record my steps in removing them in a script, and then I can
    batch run that script for a lot of pictures at once since they are
    always in the same place. It wasn't an issue in these pictures since
    it's bright outdoors and they don't show up.

    Other than that, it's great! I used to shoot SLR with film (my last
    one was a Canon EOS Rebel) but for the last 4-5 years or so all I've
    used is the little Canon S400 P&S camera. I still use that and like
    it but this D200 is more camera then I've ever had so hopefully I'll
    become good enough to take full advantage of what it can do.

    As for your questions, New Hope is along the Delaware River about 20
    miles or so north of Philadelphia. The mannequins were outside a
    store that sells all kinds of strange stuff and collectables. The
    funny sign on the figure is outside that store. There's a lot of
    stores like that in New Hope. It's a thriving art/antique community.
    The buildings I took are Lulu's and Fran's, where I eat lunch a lot.
    Also John and Peters, where years ago I used to be in a band that
    played there.

    Steve

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 17:04:08 -0800 (PST), wrote:

    >I am not sure why what you did regret... showing the photos to this
    >NG, or buying the camera and lens?
    >I am not an expert, but I do like you selection of colour saturation
    >set up. I think those photos are great, as you did say that there is
    >no major processing in PS (except for resize and conversion). I can
    >see the good quality of the Nikon camera.
    >Thanks for sharing them with us (What part of PA is New Hope is
    >located? However, the pictures of the old and broken mannequins are
    >kinda creepy! Was that located in someone's front lawn?). Otherwise, I
    >like the colour composition, the contrast and tones of all of the
    >photos. I knew that this is a matter of taste. But, it is good to know
    >that you can adjust the colour saturation to the setting that I love
    >to see (without any "clean up" afterward).
    >
    >Steve wrote:
    >> Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >>
    >> I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    >> lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    >> walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >>
    >> There is no retouching or processing at all except for:
    >>
    >> 1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    >> few of the train photos were shot in RAW. The rest are from the
    >> camera in JPG normal.)
    >>
    >> 2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    >> (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    >> web.
    >>
    >> Other than that, they're as from the camera. The in-camera settings
    >> are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    >> enhanced and mode to III. I just happen to like more vivid colors
    >> rather than a washed out look. It may be a little too much but those
    >> colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.
    >>
    >> After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    >> railroad is my attempt at being creative. There was a store with a
    >> bunch of Mannequins behind it. After I started taking pictures of
    >> them, other people noticed them and did the same. Personally, I
    >> really like a few of those manniquin shots. I also like some of the
    >> ones of the kids going by in the train windows.
    >>
    >> A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    >> at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    >> three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    >> time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    >> The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.
    >>
    >> Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    >> But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    >> had the in-camera sharpening set to auto. I'll may change that so
    >> it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    >> really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.
    >>
    >> Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    >> *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.
    >>
    >> Thanks,
    >>
    >> Steve
    Steve, Jan 1, 2008
    #3
  4. Steve

    ransley Guest

    On Dec 31 2007, 6:34 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    > Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >
    > I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    > lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    > walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >
    > There is no retouching or processing at all except for:
    >
    > 1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    > few of the train photos were shot in RAW.  The rest are from the
    > camera in JPG normal.)
    >
    > 2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    > (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    > web.
    >
    > Other than that, they're as from the camera.  The in-camera settings
    > are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    > enhanced and mode to III.  I just happen to like more vivid colors
    > rather than a washed out look.  It may be a little too much but those
    > colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.
    >
    > After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    > railroad is my attempt at being creative.  There was a store with a
    > bunch of Mannequins behind it.  After I started taking pictures of
    > them, other people noticed them and did the same.  Personally, I
    > really like a few of those manniquin shots.  I also like some of the
    > ones of the kids going by in the train windows.
    >
    > A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > at keeping the camera horizontal.  A lot of shots are a degree or
    > three tilted to the right.  I know I can always fix that but the next
    > time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.
    >
    > Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    > But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    > had the in-camera sharpening set to auto.  I'll may change that so
    > it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    > really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.
    >
    > Ok, the floor is open to comments.  I'm always looking for
    > *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Steve


    Try cropping them , they are unbalanced, and try making several
    photos out of one shot by croping, now the Art begins.
    ransley, Jan 1, 2008
    #4
  5. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 22:18:12 -0800 (PST), ransley
    <> wrote:

    >On Dec 31 2007, 6:34 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    >> Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >>
    >> I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    >> lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    >> walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >>
    >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >>
    >> There is no retouching or processing at all except for:

    [...]
    >
    >Try cropping them , they are unbalanced, and try making several
    >photos out of one shot by croping, now the Art begins.


    Thanks for the comment. I might get in there and do some fun stuff
    with them. And cropping cound definitely help some of them. But I'm
    curious, in what way are they unbalanced? I'm not sure what you mean
    by that. Any specific examples?

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 1, 2008
    #5
  6. Steve

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-12-31 16:34:48 -0800, Steve <> said:

    > Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >
    > I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    > lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    > walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    > ...
    > Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    > *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Steve


    Well, as you say, many of the pictures could be straightened. This is
    common with the D200, especially with those who are new to it, so don't
    be too surprised it takes awhile to get it right. Be sure you keep your
    left hand under the lens, pro style.

    You have some good potential subjects here and they are definitely
    worth working with. However, none of these pictures really define the
    subject in a way that makes it really stand out. Foregrounds tend to be
    cluttered with poles, wires, bushes, trees and other extraneous junk.
    Backgrounds tend to be overpowering or distracting and they are also
    too cluttered. Walking around the area looking for different or less
    cluttered points of view can pay off big time. Also, there is lots of
    potential for detail shots that would have been memorable.

    You might want to bracket exposures more often. One picture of the
    train seems over-exposed as the eye is drawn toward the rear of the
    train. Pay attention to where the eye is drawn -- look along the lines
    of the picture -- and see if the journey is worth taking.

    People bending over with their backs to you are not as interesting as
    their faces, hands, and tools.

    You also want to work with portrait orientation more. You have several
    wide shots of the train, for example, which show little of interest on
    the sides but which cut off the top of the smokestack.

    All of the photos were taken at eye level. Some lower level shots of
    the train or even some of the buildings might have been worthwhile.
    Setting the camera on the ground or climbing up to a high vantage point
    can make a dramatic difference. Full length portraits of people
    generally look best if the camera is held at about the navel. This also
    often works for many other subjects. Try it with the mannequins and the
    train engine.

    You have a good eye for choosing interesting subjects. Paying attention
    to the details of the composition will take your photography to the
    next level.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
    #6
  7. Steve

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2007-12-31 16:34:48 -0800, Steve <> said:

    >
    > A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    > three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    > time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.


    One thing you might want to do is turn on the 1/3 grid lines in the
    viewfinder. Not only will this help you keep perpendicular things
    perpendicular and horizontal things horizontal, but it divides the
    viewfinder into thirds so that you can practice composing using the
    rule of thirds. Try putting the center of the main subject at the
    intersection of two of these lines, then look for other lines in the
    picture and arrange them so that these lines lead to the corner where
    your main subject is.
    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
    #7
  8. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:03:08 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2007-12-31 16:34:48 -0800, Steve <> said:
    >
    >> Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >>

    [...]
    >You have a good eye for choosing interesting subjects. Paying attention
    >to the details of the composition will take your photography to the
    >next level.


    Thank you for the suggestions. I may have to take another trip there
    and try some of them out.

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 1, 2008
    #8
  9. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:09:21 -0800, C J Campbell
    <> wrote:

    >On 2007-12-31 16:34:48 -0800, Steve <> said:
    >
    >>
    >> A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    >> at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    >> three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    >> time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    >> The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.

    >
    >One thing you might want to do is turn on the 1/3 grid lines in the
    >viewfinder. Not only will this help you keep perpendicular things
    >perpendicular and horizontal things horizontal, but it divides the
    >viewfinder into thirds so that you can practice composing using the
    >rule of thirds. Try putting the center of the main subject at the
    >intersection of two of these lines, then look for other lines in the
    >picture and arrange them so that these lines lead to the corner where
    >your main subject is.


    I did have the grid lines on. I guess I just wasn't paying too much
    attention to them in some of the shots.

    I'm sure I can achieve much of what you're saying by cropping out the
    excess stuff that may draw attention away from the subject and moving
    the subject to the intersection of the thirds. But I'll look out for
    that next time I go out.

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 1, 2008
    #9
  10. Steve <> wrote:
    >Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....


    If you don't... consider therapy? ;-)

    ....

    >Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    >*constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.


    Most of which, however, is totally worthless. There
    really isn't much point in asking _other_ people what
    they get out of _your_ photography, unless they are the
    ones you want to please with it. A random selection of
    Usenet readers is probably not really your target
    audience, eh?

    Almost certainly (given the way you wrote your article),
    the target audience for now is: *you*!

    Hence, if you were to post an article explaining what
    you like and don't like, perhaps with URLs to examples,
    then you might get some very good explanations of how
    to go about doing that. And if you post your own
    images, others can detail changes that might bring your
    work closer to the examples you provide of photography
    that you do like.

    Otherwise, what you'll get (and what you got so far) are
    random examples of how to match what someone else likes.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #10
  11. Steve

    C J Campbell Guest

    On 2008-01-01 05:58:57 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:

    > Steve <> wrote:
    >> Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....

    >
    > If you don't... consider therapy? ;-)
    >
    > ...
    >
    >> Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    >> *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.

    >
    > Most of which, however, is totally worthless. There
    > really isn't much point in asking _other_ people what
    > they get out of _your_ photography, unless they are the
    > ones you want to please with it. A random selection of
    > Usenet readers is probably not really your target
    > audience, eh?


    I disagree. Having people comment on your work can help you achieve
    your goals as a photographer. After all, photography schools and
    classes devote considerable time to such things as composition,
    lighting, perspective, posing, and many other photographic subjects.
    The fact is, you cannot be creative and do something different until
    you command the fundamental tools. That you personally find the
    comments of others to be totally worthless says a lot more about you
    than it does about those who are willing to take the time to look at
    his photos give an honest opinion about them.


    --
    Waddling Eagle
    World Famous Flight Instructor
    C J Campbell, Jan 1, 2008
    #11
  12. Steve

    Allen Guest

    Steve wrote:
    > Thanks for your comments. Glad you liked the pictures.
    >
    > I said I'd regret it because, while I've only been reading this group
    > for a few days, I did look back on a lot of the old posts. What I saw
    > was a lot of bickering about what kind of camera is best and worst,
    > personal attacks, etc. etc. So I had misgivings about posting. I've
    > been through all kinds of "wars" in other groups but they were about
    > technical things. Photography is subjective and by posting pictures
    > here, you're putting yourself out on a limb so to speak. But I have
    > thick skin.
    >
    > As for the camera and lens, I love it so far. The only issues I have
    > with my short time of using it is that, in my normal handling I keep
    > changing the focus selector from where I like it (single focus) to
    > continuous tracking. It would be nice if there was some kind of lock
    > for that switch since it's in a place where my left hand goes to
    > support the camera.
    >
    > The other issue is that in dark settings with no flash, there are some
    > hot pixels. I can easily remove them with the scratch tool in PSP9
    > without affecting any other part of the picture like some automated
    > hot pixel removal tools do. I just choose a picture with some obvious
    > hot ones, record my steps in removing them in a script, and then I can
    > batch run that script for a lot of pictures at once since they are
    > always in the same place. It wasn't an issue in these pictures since
    > it's bright outdoors and they don't show up.
    >
    > Other than that, it's great! I used to shoot SLR with film (my last
    > one was a Canon EOS Rebel) but for the last 4-5 years or so all I've
    > used is the little Canon S400 P&S camera. I still use that and like
    > it but this D200 is more camera then I've ever had so hopefully I'll
    > become good enough to take full advantage of what it can do.
    >
    > As for your questions, New Hope is along the Delaware River about 20
    > miles or so north of Philadelphia. The mannequins were outside a
    > store that sells all kinds of strange stuff and collectables. The
    > funny sign on the figure is outside that store. There's a lot of
    > stores like that in New Hope. It's a thriving art/antique community.
    > The buildings I took are Lulu's and Fran's, where I eat lunch a lot.
    > Also John and Peters, where years ago I used to be in a band that
    > played there.
    >
    > Steve
    >


    Isn't Chadd's Ford, where the Wyeths lived, in the vicinity of New Hope?
    As I recall,several artists of some renown lived in the New Hope area.
    And I enjoyed looking at your pictures--interesting locale!
    Allen
    Allen, Jan 1, 2008
    #12
  13. C J Campbell <> wrote:
    >On 2008-01-01 05:58:57 -0800, (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
    >
    >> Steve <> wrote:
    >>> Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....

    >> If you don't... consider therapy? ;-)
    >> ...
    >>
    >>> Ok, the floor is open to comments. I'm always looking for
    >>> *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.

    >> Most of which, however, is totally worthless. There
    >> really isn't much point in asking _other_ people what
    >> they get out of _your_ photography, unless they are the
    >> ones you want to please with it. A random selection of
    >> Usenet readers is probably not really your target
    >> audience, eh?

    >
    >I disagree. Having people comment on your work can help you achieve
    >your goals as a photographer.


    But having random Usenet readers in this newsgroup
    comment on a photograph is worthless when no specifics
    are initially stated.

    >After all, photography schools and
    >classes devote considerable time to such things as composition,
    >lighting, perspective, posing, and many other photographic subjects.


    And that has value.

    >The fact is, you cannot be creative and do something different until
    >you command the fundamental tools.


    Which is *not* what the comments on Usenet will relate to.

    >That you personally find the
    >comments of others to be totally worthless says a lot more about you
    >than it does about those who are willing to take the time to look at
    >his photos give an honest opinion about them.


    Who said that though? What I said was that there *are*
    ways to get helpful comments.

    And yes, I would say that your comments tell a lot more
    about you too. How could you give him "an honest
    opinion" of his photos if you have no idea what he
    wanted the photos to be? How can he trust your opinion
    if you read a Usenet article like mine but don't pay
    attention to the details? Hmmmm...

    BTW, the URL he gave won't even display a photo here. I
    used two different browsers and came up with blank
    screens on both.

    --
    Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
    Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)
    Floyd L. Davidson, Jan 1, 2008
    #13
  14. Steve

    Scott W Guest

    On Dec 31 2007, 2:34 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    > Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >
    > I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    > lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    > walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >
    > There is no retouching or processing at all except for:
    >
    > 1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    > few of the train photos were shot in RAW.  The rest are from the
    > camera in JPG normal.)
    >
    > 2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    > (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    > web.
    >
    > Other than that, they're as from the camera.  The in-camera settings
    > are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    > enhanced and mode to III.  I just happen to like more vivid colors
    > rather than a washed out look.  It may be a little too much but those
    > colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.
    >
    > After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    > railroad is my attempt at being creative.  There was a store with a
    > bunch of Mannequins behind it.  After I started taking pictures of
    > them, other people noticed them and did the same.  Personally, I
    > really like a few of those manniquin shots.  I also like some of the
    > ones of the kids going by in the train windows.
    >
    > A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > at keeping the camera horizontal.  A lot of shots are a degree or
    > three tilted to the right.  I know I can always fix that but the next
    > time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.
    >
    > Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    > But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    > had the in-camera sharpening set to auto.  I'll may change that so
    > it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    > really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.
    >
    > Ok, the floor is open to comments.  I'm always looking for
    > *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.


    I will echo the comment that C J made that many of the images could be
    straightened, it is nice to get this right in the camera, but if not
    just about any photo editing program will allow you to fix this after
    the fact.

    In a number of photos I was wishing for a slightly wider angle view, I
    am not sure in these is you were at the 18mm limit of your lens or
    not.

    The collection does show a town that looks like it has a lot of
    appeal.

    Some of the train photos seemed very nice, but again tilted.

    Scott
    Scott W, Jan 1, 2008
    #14
  15. Steve

    George Kerby Guest

    On 1/1/08 4:05 PM, in article , "Floyd L. Davidson"
    <> wrote:

    >
    > BTW, the URL he gave won't even display a photo here. I
    > used two different browsers and came up with blank
    > screens on both.

    Works fine in Safari and Firefox on OS-X.
    George Kerby, Jan 2, 2008
    #15
  16. Steve

    Tully Guest

    In article <>,
    Steve <> wrote:

    > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:09:21 -0800, C J Campbell
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 2007-12-31 16:34:48 -0800, Steve <> said:
    > >
    > >>
    > >> A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > >> at keeping the camera horizontal. A lot of shots are a degree or
    > >> three tilted to the right. I know I can always fix that but the next
    > >> time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > >> The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.

    > >
    > >One thing you might want to do is turn on the 1/3 grid lines in the
    > >viewfinder. Not only will this help you keep perpendicular things
    > >perpendicular and horizontal things horizontal, but it divides the
    > >viewfinder into thirds so that you can practice composing using the
    > >rule of thirds. Try putting the center of the main subject at the
    > >intersection of two of these lines, then look for other lines in the
    > >picture and arrange them so that these lines lead to the corner where
    > >your main subject is.

    >
    > I did have the grid lines on. I guess I just wasn't paying too much
    > attention to them in some of the shots.
    >
    > I'm sure I can achieve much of what you're saying by cropping out the
    > excess stuff that may draw attention away from the subject and moving
    > the subject to the intersection of the thirds. But I'll look out for
    > that next time I go out.
    >
    > Steve


    FWIW:
    1) In these examples I didn't find the (slight) color saturation
    enhancement objectionable.
    2) Were you pressed for time? these come off, for the most part, as
    snapshots because not much was done by way of composition and selective
    focus to take them to a level above that. Also, the fact that you were
    not paying attention to your grid lines--either to shoot level or to be
    deliberate about other angles --suggests these are far from your best
    effort, so why not post better?
    3) i agree with parts of both posters' comments about feedback. Good
    critique is very valuable on many levels. mediocre critique is a waste
    of everyone's time.
    3) Already noted: the mannequins represent one of two ventures into
    creativity in this group of photos. The other is that you sensed the
    interesting possibilities of steam and smoke. Hard to do much with it
    under full sun conditions, though. Suggestions would include trying to
    capture one of the locomotives in action during night, sunrise or
    sunset; varying exposures away from "normal": finding the train in a
    spot where there is an interplay of light and shadow...and think
    seriously about using selective focus when shooting down the flank of an
    object like a train (or the track)...
    4) I'd like to see what you can do with that station! Interesting
    exterior, with possibilities galore; what about the interior?
    --
    "It is the individual alone who is timeless. The individual's
    hungers, anxieties, dreams, and preoccupations have remained
    unchanged throughout the millennia." Eric Hoffer (1902-1983)
    Tully, Jan 2, 2008
    #16
  17. Steve

    Guest

    On Dec 31 2007, 7:34 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    > Ok, I know I'm probably going to regret this but....
    >
    > I just got a used Nikon D200 on ebay and bought the 18-200 VR zoom
    > lens and here is my first set of shots taken with it on a little
    > walkaround tour of New Hope, PA:
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603596709699/show/
    >
    > There is no retouching or processing at all except for:
    >
    > 1) Straight conversion of some RAW files to JPG with PictureProject (a
    > few of the train photos were shot in RAW.  The rest are from the
    > camera in JPG normal.)
    >
    > 2) Resizing, reducing the jpeg quality and rotating the vertical ones
    > (using PaintShopPro 9) from 10MP down to something reasonable for the
    > web.
    >
    > Other than that, they're as from the camera.  The in-camera settings
    > are almost all default except I changed the color saturation to
    > enhanced and mode to III.  I just happen to like more vivid colors
    > rather than a washed out look.  It may be a little too much but those
    > colorful buildings really are colorful when you see them in real life.
    >
    > After the first few buildings and a bunch of the New Hope & Ivyland
    > railroad is my attempt at being creative.  There was a store with a
    > bunch of Mannequins behind it.  After I started taking pictures of
    > them, other people noticed them and did the same.  Personally, I
    > really like a few of those manniquin shots.  I also like some of the
    > ones of the kids going by in the train windows.
    >
    > A few critical things I note myself right off the bat is that I'm bad
    > at keeping the camera horizontal.  A lot of shots are a degree or
    > three tilted to the right.  I know I can always fix that but the next
    > time I go out I'm going to try and pay more attention to orientation.
    > The camera is new to me and I have to get the "feel" of it.
    >
    > Also, they definitly look better with a small amount of sharpening.
    > But I wanted to keep them looking as they did right from the camera. I
    > had the in-camera sharpening set to auto.  I'll may change that so
    > it's one less thing I need to do with the computer. But that's not
    > really a big deal so maybe I'll leave it at auto.
    >
    > Ok, the floor is open to comments.  I'm always looking for
    > *constructive* criticism from people who are more experienced.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >

    I really like the pictures, I just let the web page keep changing the
    pictures. The thing that stood out is when the sky was in the picture
    at all the darker places did not come out. Try spot metering or as
    mentioned earlier bracketing. I liked the posting of your pictures
    because ... just because it is a Nikon does not mean it is a good
    camera. But it looks like you got a good one.
    , Jan 2, 2008
    #17
  18. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Jan 1, 1:18 am, ransley <> wrote:
    > On Dec 31 2007, 6:34 pm, Steve <> wrote:
    >

    [...]
    >
    > Try cropping them , they are unbalanced, and try making several
    > photos out of one shot by croping, now the Art begins.


    Ok, I did minimal cropping and rotating to make them look a little
    better. I didn't crop them to exactly what I thought would look best
    because I wanted to constrain myself to 4x6 ratio. Unfortunately I
    screwed up the original flickr link when I did this so here's the
    cropped and rotated ones:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603608607375/show/

    They're not much different, just a little more presentable.

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 2, 2008
    #18
  19. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Jan 1, 8:58 am, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
    > Steve <> wrote:

    [...]
    > Hence, if you were to post an article explaining what
    > you like and don't like, perhaps with URLs to examples,
    > then you might get some very good explanations of how
    > to go about doing that. And if you post your own
    > images, others can detail changes that might bring your
    > work closer to the examples you provide of photography
    > that you do like.


    Ok, of the set at http://www.flickr.com/photos/shelikoff/sets/72157603608607375/show/
    I like a lot of the mannequin ones. Especially
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2156565815&size=o
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2157353408&size=o
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2156562065&size=o

    The last one was one of the few that I used a flash on. It brings out
    the detail in the ironwork and the headress.

    I also like just about every one of the set of kids looking through
    the windows of the train. While someone else said I should watch out
    for things like signs in the way, for these shots I like the signs
    because it gives the sense of motion that isn't there otherwise.
    Here's the ones with the signs:

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2157376472&size=o
    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2156582877&size=o

    Of the other train shots, this one is one that got a glowing comment
    from someone on flickr before I deleted it when putting up the cropped
    version:

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2157369436&size=o

    And I like this one because the steam is just covering up the plant
    pot. I have a whole sequence of these. I shot it at 3FPS as the
    train was going by and just picked a few of the over 20 to put up.

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2156578437&size=o

    I like this one because of the woman looking up at the train:

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2157368538&size=o

    And this one because it looks like the guy posing for a picture is
    about to get inundated with steam. He did, about 1 second after the
    picture.

    http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=2156571739&size=o

    The ones of the buildings are just ok. Not really exciting shots but
    interesting colors I thought.

    > Otherwise, what you'll get (and what you got so far) are
    > random examples of how to match what someone else likes.


    I think I've got some pretty good suggestions so far.

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 2, 2008
    #19
  20. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Jan 1, 1:07 pm, Allen <> wrote:
    > Steve wrote:
    > > Thanks for yourcomments. Glad you liked the pictures.

    >
    > > I said I'd regret it because, while I've only been reading this group

    [...]
    >
    > Isn't Chadd's Ford, where the Wyeths lived, in the vicinity of New Hope?
    > As I recall,several artists of some renown lived in the New Hope area.
    > And I enjoyed looking at your pictures--interesting locale!


    Thanks!

    I guess close is relative. Chadd's Ford is about 60 miles or so from
    New Hope, on opposite side of Philly. It's also a great area for
    photos, especially if you like flowers and plants. Longwood Gardens
    is there.

    Steve
    Steve, Jan 2, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ¤p¯ó
    Replies:
    106
    Views:
    2,560
    Kline Sphere
    Dec 9, 2005
  2. Puzzled

    GoVideo comments please

    Puzzled, Oct 3, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    333
    Puzzled
    Oct 3, 2004
  3. Rich
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    360
    Mark N
    Aug 17, 2003
  4. Beowulf
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    307
    Mark N
    Aug 17, 2003
  5. Cube

    Just bought new kodak DX4900 Comments Please

    Cube, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    325
    Canongirly
    Aug 21, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page