*Official* Post Your Pictures Thread

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
I like it, but the horizon is a bit distracting.
Yeah I know. Took it well over a year ago though - I've improved since then. :)

Took a few shots tonight. Not quite sold on them as I made a few key mistakes.
However I haven't posted any pictures in awhile, so I thought it'd be nice.

IMGP4265E_zpsd1b0eee7.jpg

Reminds me a little bit of this one which I took:

8578732484_05626c10f2_b.jpg


Nice shots though!

I really want to go out and get some new shots (mostly so I can enter that photo tourney ;) ) but I'm looking outside and the weather looks crap again. The weather forecast on my phone is predicting it's going to be sunny in a few hours time, but frankly it's hard to believe. :(
 

G80FTW

Active Member
My first attempt at sports photography with the 18-55 lens:






Was using 1/4000 shutter speed 800 ISO and apertures between 3.5 and 4 depending on zoom and I didnt quite get the background blur I wanted. Any ideas? Or is that just the best this lens can do? Was also using autofocus.
 
Last edited:

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
Was using 1/4000 shutter speed 800 ISO and apertures between 3.5 and 4 depending on zoom and I didnt quite get the background blur I wanted. Any ideas? Or is that just the best this lens can do? Was also using autofocus.
That lens is going to be limited in terms of both speed and focal length. Your shots are actually pretty good considering it's a basic lens. :good:
 

Geoff

VIP Member
Was using 1/4000 shutter speed 800 ISO and apertures between 3.5 and 4 depending on zoom and I didnt quite get the background blur I wanted. Any ideas? Or is that just the best this lens can do? Was also using autofocus.
For a kit lens it's great, if you had a decent lens though just imagine how good they would be!

Why did you use ISO 800 though? You don't need a 1/4000 shutter speed.
 

G80FTW

Active Member
For a kit lens it's great, if you had a decent lens though just imagine how good they would be!

Why did you use ISO 800 though? You don't need a 1/4000 shutter speed.

Sure I did! The 800 ISO is what I didnt really need. Most of the pictures came out too bright and I had to dim them.
 

Geoff

VIP Member
Sure I did! The 800 ISO is what I didnt really need. Most of the pictures came out too bright and I had to dim them.
Did you shoot in manual? You don't need that high of a shutter speed to stop motion, you could have done 1/2000 @ ISO 400, or used Av mode.
 

G80FTW

Active Member
Did you shoot in manual? You don't need that high of a shutter speed to stop motion, you could have done 1/2000 @ ISO 400, or used Av mode.

I wanted 1/4000 to eliminate any motion blur. Iv got blur using anything below that on other things. Besides why would a faster shutter speed not be good for stop motion?
 

Geoff

VIP Member
I wanted 1/4000 to eliminate any motion blur. Iv got blur using anything below that on other things. Besides why would a faster shutter speed not be good for stop motion?
Oh it is, there just comes a point where you are sacrificing IQ, sharpness, and contrast with the higher ISO.
 

Hyper_Kagome

Well-Known Member
For the life of me I cannot remember how I shot these pictures back in 2011:

270463_10150307902570189_4881409_n.jpg


267504_10150316295845189_4264949_n.jpg


Because the ones I did last night came out NOTHING close to that, and I even played around with the lighting filters in Photoshop to try and make them seem more... appealing. They just don't please me nearly half as much. Perhaps I'm being too picky?

zjrqACX.jpg


jXnBTSi.jpg


Maybe once I find my tripod (I moved again so it's somewhere...) I can set that up and try again. I know in the first sets my light source was a lot closer than in the second sets. Just been wracking my brain trying to remember what I did to get such a crisp Black and White. Was it a program, or my built in presets on the camera itself...

Also, I find that I've getting these weird brightly coloured pixel-like flecks in my pictures as of late. Could it be dust within the shutter area that is causing this?
 
Last edited:

G80FTW

Active Member
Oh it is, there just comes a point where you are sacrificing IQ, sharpness, and contrast with the higher ISO.

I could have, and should have used 400. But i dont think my IQ is bad with even 1600 in good lighting. Next time ill go with 400.
 
Last edited:

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
The images look fine to me. The D3100/3200 (and presumably the new 3300) are actually pretty good up to ISO 1600.
 

G80FTW

Active Member
The images look fine to me. The D3100/3200 (and presumably the new 3300) are actually pretty good up to ISO 1600.

Yea. I personally dont notice a difference between 400 and 800. In darker images Im sure I would see more noise, as I do with 1600, but in daylight I can pretty much use all the way up to 1600 and have great IQ. I normally shoot at 100 in daylight though, this was my first time experimenting with daylight action shots so I used 800 just to make sure they would be bright enough at 1/4000 shutter speed. It made them slightly over exposed, but I find that dimming an image doesnt effect IQ as much as trying to make it brighter in editing.

But I noticed with dimming the image the light starts to look less natural, which is why I will try to stay away from over exposing even slightly.
 

Geoff

VIP Member
I could have, and should have used 400. But i dont think my IQ is bad with even 1600 in good lighting. Next time ill go with 400.

The images look fine to me. The D3100/3200 (and presumably the new 3300) are actually pretty good up to ISO 1600.

Yea. I personally dont notice a difference between 400 and 800. In darker images Im sure I would see more noise, as I do with 1600, but in daylight I can pretty much use all the way up to 1600 and have great IQ. I normally shoot at 100 in daylight though, this was my first time experimenting with daylight action shots so I used 800 just to make sure they would be bright enough at 1/4000 shutter speed. It made them slightly over exposed, but I find that dimming an image doesnt effect IQ as much as trying to make it brighter in editing.

But I noticed with dimming the image the light starts to look less natural, which is why I will try to stay away from over exposing even slightly.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the images are bad and noisy, I'm just saying as you increase the ISO, you do sacrifice sharpness and contrast, as well as increasing noise.
 

Geoff

VIP Member
No, no ideas? :(
Alright. I'll just duck outta here again.
It has nothing to do with the wrong filters in photoshop, you need better lighting in the shots. I flash or strobe isn't positioned in the correct spot to get the same effects. If you didn't use flash in 2011, the ambient lighting is not the same, so it's hard to recreate the shots.
 

Hyper_Kagome

Well-Known Member
It has nothing to do with the wrong filters in photoshop, you need better lighting in the shots. I flash or strobe isn't positioned in the correct spot to get the same effects. If you didn't use flash in 2011, the ambient lighting is not the same, so it's hard to recreate the shots.


The image itself just seems so much more crisp, too.

And the weird pixels. I'm unsure what those are all about. They show up really clear in colour photos.
 

voyagerfan99

Master of Turning Things Off and Back On Again
Staff member
To me it just looks like poor lighting. The EXIF data was removed from the originals so I can't tell what your original settings were, but your issue with the new ones is simply lighting.
 
Top