Tasmania (or, how am I doing with my first DSLR?)

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jmc, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. jmc

    jmc Guest

    http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)

    Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
    with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
    This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition with it.

    I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    appreciated!), and of my website!

    Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some of
    'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm not a
    good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
    masterpiece :)

    Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
    *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
    your photos", one is a graphic artist...

    Thanks for visiting!

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jmc

    Mark² Guest

    jmc wrote:
    > http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >
    > Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
    > with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
    > This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition
    > with it.
    > I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    > appreciated!), and of my website!
    >
    > Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some
    > of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    > not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
    > masterpiece :)
    >
    > Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
    > *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
    > your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >
    > Thanks for visiting!
    >
    > jmc


    I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not all...but
    some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these images, and get
    aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD review (which shows a
    smaller image, but with histrogram also diaplayed after each shot, or during
    playback review). This will help you identify exposure issues in the field.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 12, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    > jmc wrote:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>
    >> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
    >> with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
    >> This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition
    >> with it.
    >> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>
    >> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some
    >> of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    >> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
    >> masterpiece :)
    >>
    >> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
    >> *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
    >> your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>
    >> Thanks for visiting!
    >>
    >> jmc

    >
    > I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    > However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not all...but
    > some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these images, and get
    > aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD review (which shows a
    > smaller image, but with histrogram also diaplayed after each shot, or during
    > playback review). This will help you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >


    Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my camera's
    LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you give me an
    example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are overexposed :)

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #3
  4. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (12-Feb-07 7:08 PM):
    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>
    >>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
    >>> with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
    >>> This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition
    >>> with it.
    >>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >>> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>>
    >>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some
    >>> of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    >>> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
    >>> masterpiece :)
    >>>
    >>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
    >>> *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
    >>> your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for visiting!
    >>>
    >>> jmc

    >>
    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
    >> you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >>

    >
    > Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my camera's
    > LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you give me an
    > example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are overexposed :)
    >
    > jmc


    In looking at the histograms (after refamiliarizing myself with the
    histogram article on Luminous Landscape) and though I see your point,
    they're not pushed up against the dark side of the scale, so I thought
    this is OK. I was trying hard to keep from blowing out the highlights,
    though I see sometimes I've managed both :)

    I'm not yet in the habit of using histograms while taking my shots,
    though I know I need to learn that. I'd still like to know which pics
    you think are underexposed, so I can ask further questions...

    I've been taking photos for, lessee, 30 years now, but do it mostly by
    "feel" and some of the more basic rules. Now that I have a real camera,
    I *am* trying to improve my photography, so really appreciate your comments!

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #4
  5. jmc

    Mark² Guest

    jmc wrote:
    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>
    >>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200
    >>> pictures with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you
    >>> non-US folk!). This is my first DSLR, and my first major
    >>> picture-taking expedition with it.
    >>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >>> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>>
    >>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take,
    >>> some of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    >>> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane
    >>> image a masterpiece :)
    >>>
    >>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to
    >>> sell? *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you
    >>> should sell your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for visiting!
    >>>
    >>> jmc

    >>
    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will
    >> help you identify exposure issues in the field.

    >
    > Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my
    > camera's LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you
    > give me an example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are
    > overexposed :)


    Are you looking at a flat-sceen LCD? If so, they are almost universally too
    bright at out-of-teh-box settings. Many of these shots are about a full
    stop under-exposed according to my histograms in photoshop. Not all, but
    quite a few. Particularly landscapes and seascapes.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Feb 12, 2007
    #5
  6. jmc

    frederick Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > jmc wrote:
    >> Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >>> jmc wrote:
    >>>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>>
    >>>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200
    >>>> pictures with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you
    >>>> non-US folk!). This is my first DSLR, and my first major
    >>>> picture-taking expedition with it.
    >>>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >>>> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>>>
    >>>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take,
    >>>> some of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    >>>> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane
    >>>> image a masterpiece :)
    >>>>
    >>>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to
    >>>> sell? *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you
    >>>> should sell your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks for visiting!
    >>>>
    >>>> jmc
    >>> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >>> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >>> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >>> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >>> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >>> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will
    >>> help you identify exposure issues in the field.

    >> Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my
    >> camera's LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you
    >> give me an example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are
    >> overexposed :)

    >
    > Are you looking at a flat-sceen LCD? If so, they are almost universally too
    > bright at out-of-teh-box settings. Many of these shots are about a full
    > stop under-exposed according to my histograms in photoshop. Not all, but
    > quite a few. Particularly landscapes and seascapes.
    >

    I agree with you.
    They are able to be adjusted without too many problems (levels).
    One example image is IMG_0692.jpg, which with a tweak in levels can look
    well exposed, while increasing the dramatic effect of the clouds. As it
    is, it (IMHO) is a little flat and also underexposed by perhaps a stop.
    Unfortunately, the now ubiquitous over-bright LCDs mean that correctly
    exposed images look all washed out to probably the majority of punters
    on the www. Another side effect is a continuous stream of questions on
    printing forums as to why home inkjet prints look too dark.
     
    frederick, Feb 12, 2007
    #6
  7. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, frederick exclaimed (12-Feb-07 8:01 PM):
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >>>> jmc wrote:
    >>>>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200
    >>>>> pictures with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you
    >>>>> non-US folk!). This is my first DSLR, and my first major
    >>>>> picture-taking expedition with it.
    >>>>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >>>>> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take,
    >>>>> some of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest.
    >>>>> I'm not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane
    >>>>> image a masterpiece :)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to
    >>>>> sell? *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you
    >>>>> should sell your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks for visiting!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> jmc
    >>>> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >>>> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >>>> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >>>> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >>>> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >>>> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will
    >>>> help you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >>> Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my
    >>> camera's LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you
    >>> give me an example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are
    >>> overexposed :)

    >>
    >> Are you looking at a flat-sceen LCD? If so, they are almost
    >> universally too bright at out-of-teh-box settings. Many of these
    >> shots are about a full stop under-exposed according to my histograms
    >> in photoshop. Not all, but quite a few. Particularly landscapes and
    >> seascapes.
    >>

    > I agree with you.
    > They are able to be adjusted without too many problems (levels).
    > One example image is IMG_0692.jpg, which with a tweak in levels can look
    > well exposed, while increasing the dramatic effect of the clouds. As it
    > is, it (IMHO) is a little flat and also underexposed by perhaps a stop.
    > Unfortunately, the now ubiquitous over-bright LCDs mean that correctly
    > exposed images look all washed out to probably the majority of punters
    > on the www. Another side effect is a continuous stream of questions on
    > printing forums as to why home inkjet prints look too dark.


    Actually, I keep the brightness of my LCD down, but point taken - this
    is an exceptionally bright monitor. I used the monitor's software to
    calibrate brightness and colors.

    I agree with you that 0692 could be brighter (I missed that one,
    apparently). On many though, when I try to brighten, I start to wash
    out the sky, or something else. I'm still learning how to use curves
    correctly, as opposed to brightness/contrast controls.

    The brightness on my prints pretty much matches what I see on the
    screen, they're just slightly darker - but not by much.

    I've just darkened my screen down a bit more though, I'll have to go
    through the pictures again with an eye to the histogram and then repost
    them.

    Thanks for the comments!
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #7
  8. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    > jmc wrote:
    >> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>

    > I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    > However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not all...but
    > some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these images, and get
    > aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD review (which shows a
    > smaller image, but with histrogram also diaplayed after each shot, or during
    > playback review). This will help you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >


    Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
    - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
    on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?

    Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
    Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
    overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
    doesn't need as much improvement?

    Thanks again for the help.

    Jodi
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #8
  9. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, jmc exclaimed (12-Feb-07 9:25 PM):
    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>

    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
    >> you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >>

    >
    > Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
    > - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
    > on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
    >
    > Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
    > Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
    > overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
    > doesn't need as much improvement?
    >
    > Thanks again for the help.
    >
    > Jodi


    oh, btw, I adjusted only the images, not the thumbnails. Once I get a
    feel for what I need to do, I'll go back and do the originals, then redo
    all the images and thumbs...

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #9
  10. jmc wrote:
    []
    > Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few
    > images - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a
    > good primer on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?


    Jodi,

    For monitor settings, look at the top three-row chart here:

    http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp

    You should be able to distinguish the darkest and the lightest 3 boxes.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Feb 12, 2007
    #10
  11. jmc

    SimonLW Guest

    "jmc" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>
    >>> Just got back from our vacation in Tasmania. Took over 1200 pictures
    >>> with my new Canon Digital Rebel XTi (EOS 400D for you non-US folk!).
    >>> This is my first DSLR, and my first major picture-taking expedition
    >>> with it.
    >>> I'd love to hear comments both of my photos (constructive criticism
    >>> appreciated!), and of my website!
    >>>
    >>> Although I try to create a good photo with every picture I take, some
    >>> of 'em are more to document moments or some item of interest. I'm
    >>> not a good enough photographer to be able to make even a mundane image a
    >>> masterpiece :)
    >>>
    >>> Just out of curiosity, do you think my photos are good enough to sell?
    >>> *I* don't think so, but I've had a couple people say, "you should sell
    >>> your photos", one is a graphic artist...
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for visiting!
    >>>
    >>> jmc

    >>
    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also diaplayed
    >> after each shot, or during playback review). This will help you identify
    >> exposure issues in the field.
    >>

    >
    > Underexposed? Really? They look fine on my screen, and on my camera's
    > LCD, and on the screen of the computer at work. Can you give me an
    > example of one that is underexposed? Maybe my eyes are overexposed :)
    >
    > jmc


    Pointing the camera at the sky like that will cause the meter underexpose
    the scene. best to dial in some exposure comp.
    -S
     
    SimonLW, Feb 12, 2007
    #11
  12. jmc wrote:

    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>

    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
    >> you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >>

    >
    > Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
    > - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
    > on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
    >
    > Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
    > Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
    > overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
    > doesn't need as much improvement?
    >
    > Thanks again for the help.
    >
    > Jodi


    Hi Jodi,

    You have some nice compositions, and many can be improved a lot
    with some dodging and burning. The Ron Bigelow site
    has some nice articles, including one on curves:
    http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm

    Here are some images that I think could be improved:
    0653: darken the bright areas.

    0550: darken the sky and use curves to darken the blacks

    0546: darken the sky and lighten the foreground: make the flowers
    stand out. Apply an S-curve to make the flowers stand out.

    0666 is another with bright sky and dark foreground.

    In general the viewer's eye is drawn to the brightest thing
    in the scene. The brightest thing dominates, usually, especially
    if it is large. If you have photoshop CS(12 or 3) try the
    shadow/highlight tool. Without CS_, select a region, then feather
    the edge of the selection, then use curves to brighten or darken.
    The human eye has a much larger dynamic range than film or digital
    cameras, or display screens and prints. That dynamic range must
    be compressed to show what attracted you to take the picture.

    Roger
    http://www.clarkvision.com
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Feb 12, 2007
    #12
  13. jmc wrote:
    > Suddenly, without warning, Mark² exclaimed (12-Feb-07 6:40 PM):
    >> jmc wrote:
    >>> http://tinyurl.com/yq7g8e (using tinyurl to avoid spam)
    >>>

    >> I think you're doing fine for your first round of photos.
    >> However, a large proportion of these shots are underexposed. Not
    >> all...but some very much so. Have a look at the histogram for these
    >> images, and get aquainted with the "info" view on your camera's LCD
    >> review (which shows a smaller image, but with histrogram also
    >> diaplayed after each shot, or during playback review). This will help
    >> you identify exposure issues in the field.
    >>

    >
    > Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few images
    > - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a good primer
    > on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?
    >
    > Thanks for the comments, keep 'em coming. How's my composition skills?
    > Aside from them being underexposed, what else do I need to work on,
    > overall, to improve my skills? Is there anything I'm good at, that
    > doesn't need as much improvement?
    >
    > Thanks again for the help.


    Taking a look at just 0546 for a minute, others have given ideas on
    exposure, and the mass of dark green foliage is one thing that sucked
    the light out, plus the general backlit nature of the angle, so the
    foreground should be brought up quite a bit, perhaps using curves. I'd
    try cropping off the left side, esp. where a pole says it isn't
    vertical, but the houses in the background there take away from the
    composition.

    Enjoyed your shots of a wonderful spot, is that Tassie.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Feb 12, 2007
    #13
  14. jmc

    jmc Guest

    Suddenly, without warning, David J Taylor exclaimed (12-Feb-07 9:39 PM):
    > jmc wrote:
    > []
    >> Ok. I darkened my LCD screen a bit, then adjusted the first few
    >> images - 0546-0585, and 0636. Better, or worse? Where can I get a
    >> good primer on how to use the tone curve adjustments better?

    >
    > Jodi,
    >
    > For monitor settings, look at the top three-row chart here:
    >
    > http://www.jasc.com/support/kb/articles/monitor.asp
    >
    > You should be able to distinguish the darkest and the lightest 3 boxes.
    >
    > David
    >
    >


    Thanks. I can.

    jmc
     
    jmc, Feb 12, 2007
    #14
    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. JB

    Advice please: DSLR or DSLR-style?

    JB, Oct 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    630
    Siddhartha Jain
    Oct 21, 2004
  2. Guest
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    1,488
    Patrick Boch
    Mar 18, 2005
  3. chris_real

    Tasmania - Canon 20D - panoramas

    chris_real, Apr 23, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    327
    chris_real
    Apr 25, 2005
  4. Cynicor

    Doing my first wedding in less than two weeks

    Cynicor, Jun 9, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    93
    Views:
    1,551
    John Turco
    Dec 30, 2006
  5. jmc

    What am I doing wrong (new to DSLR, bad pics)?

    jmc, Jan 10, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    779
    Ståle Sannerud
    Jan 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page