Bro got a new camera
 

he came into town with a new Nikon d5100 just a kit lens for now
he hasn't had it to long so here are some shot he took with it be nice.. any tips or lens suggestions are welcome also if you want to suggest good software to use go for it. enjoy http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7...5e1e183e_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7212/7...06298d0e_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8147/7...e2f2f429_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5076/7...d9020a5c_b.jpg

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8014/7...d3fba641_b.jpg


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7105/7...bc01cd63_b.jpg
we really like this one

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7...fe1c8ed5_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7217/7...d87e90bb_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5349/7...d4625ca0_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7219/7...2bcb94ac_b.jpg

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5075/7...f3f813e5_b.jpg

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7214/7...75b177d2_b.jpg
we had a fun day messing around

Cool photos :tup:

thanks he did a good job

You should buy your bro a tripod..

Some of those pics look like Michael J. Fox snapped them.

Also the picture that you really liked kinda sucks. Why did he focus on the keyring?

The day pics don't look bad, but the cropping looks weird though.

Nice work. The first one's are a bit out of focus/blurry. Night shots are always a bit tricky, but once you know the basics, it's a lot of fun. Here's what you need:

-Get Tripod
-Set your ISO to the lowest it will go. I think it's ISO 100 for the Nikon
-Get a remote trigger or use the timer
-Set the camera to 'M' Manual mode
-Depending on how much you want in focus and the lens, set your aperture (f-stop). This will control your depth of field along with the focal length and distance. A higher number, like f11 or f22, will have more of the background in focus.
-Next, adjust the shutter speed to control the overall scene. Longer exposures will allow more light in.
-Last but not least...and probably most important is lighting the scene. Be mindful of how light hits whatever you're shooting. That 3rd shot looks remarkably better than the first two for example.
-Keep on experimenting. You're off to a great start.

In that last pic, it would be more interesting if the background was slightly blurred for example. Try this in that same setup...set the camera to aperture priority. Since the kit lens is probably an 18-55mm, zoom it all the way to 55mm. Set the aperture to the lowest f-stop, probably f/5 @ 55mm. Now just move forward or away from the car to compose the shot, bringing the car into focus.

As far as lenses, the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.8 are relatively inexpensive, but really, really great lenses. It's a 'prime' or fixed as oppose to a zoom. It's great because of the large aperture which gives you the bokeh or blurred background look easier.

If you want to shoot up close, invest in a dedicated Macro/Micro lens. The least expensive Nikon Micro is the 40mm. The difference between a dedicated Micro and a regular lens is the ability to magnify and a really close focal lengths.

There are a few affordable programs out there. Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture are probably the easiest and most popular.

:roflpuke2:

a tripod is on our list of things to get
as far as the key ring we were playing with it to me it looked cool thanks for the input :P
my brother thanks you sir for you input :tiphat:

No prob. Lightroom and I believe Aperture also, have full version free trials before you buy it. It last for about a month, so I would suggest your bro try it out before spending $100-150.

Nice shots my friend!! Keep them coming!!

I would recommend shooting in NEF and using Nikon Capture for adjusting sizing, resolution, sharpening, and exposure.

I think he should learn the basics before shooting in RAW. It's great, especially in post, but for someone starting out, I'd stick to jpeg. Often times they come out just as good.

I like the colors

Nice shots! I really like the one on the RPM gauge.

thanks guys i think hes reading these comments im sure he will be back to visit me one day :P

RAW format allows much more flexibility in editing with much better results possible. Editing in JPEG is always a compromise. There's nothing arcane about RAW. It's actually easier to manage than typical JPEG editing, but you're right...it helps to understand the rudiments of photography (exposure, color balance, ISO, etc) if one hopes to go beyond just taking snapshots of their cat.

:tiphat:

Totally agree. I was just thinking it might just be too much and possibly discouraging for someone starting out...especially if you don't know your way around a camera ....let alone a program like Photoshop. It might just be me and probably in my head, but I tend to think jpeg encourages shooting more pics. Something people who are new to photography often don't do enough of. No one likes having to edit in post.

It's true, JPEG is the province of the snapshot shooter because it takes up less memory card space and is faster in editing programs like Photoshop becasue it's a smaller image file. Additionally, most of the cameras out there apply various image manipulation algorythms to JPEGS (in addition to compression) in the camera to adjust the image to have a color balance etc that the camera manufacturer thinks that the photographer will think is a pleasing image. From my standpoint, I'd rather make those decisions myself, hence I prefer to shoot in RAW. Doing so, I can adjust, for example, the exposure of the image just exactly as if I'd had the camera's exposure set differently. With JPEG, I can only apply an overlay of lightness or darkness (with all the added artifact that implies), not change the actual exposure settings.

For quick and dirty pictures, I just shoot in JPG just for the sake of time and file size. Even though I have a 32 gb memory card, shooting in RAW takes too much time to edit and the file sizes are just cumbersome to deal with. Simple color/contrast/exposure Photoshop adjustments work fine on JPG files and besides, you're not going to upload 1920x1080 resolution pictures to your online photo album and nobody wants to wait for a picture of that size to load. Unless you're shooting a wedding or some super important event, JPG is fine.

Editing a RAW image for exposure etc, then re-rezzing and/or resizing as a JPEG for an online photo album or something will result in a superior image to just shooting the thing in JPEG. There's nothing magic or esoteric about RAW. Rather than reserving this very basic concept for some super important event, it's more accurate to say RAW photo editing should be used anytime you have images that you care about. It's true however, if you're just doing snapshots, or if you don't understand basic photography, editing in JPEG is probably "good enough" and letting the camera make all the imaging decisions is reasonable.

http://media.ziptied.com/members/fil..._thumbs_up.gif

Some truth in that, I'll grant you, but each one that can produce equally great results.

RAW:
Pro's
-uncompressed/lossless data from your camera's sensor
-higher dynamic range
Con's
-requires post processing 100% of the time
-can't print without post processing
-larger files size (around 8mb's for an 8 mp image)
-not as sharp & lower in contrast (without post processing)


JPEG:
Pro's
-image standard format
-sharper
-can print without post
-no correction needed most of the time (if shot correctly)
-low file size (1-3mb for an 8mp image)
Con's
-lower dynamic range
-compressed file (opposite of lossless. You could lose data when you manipulate) Basically, data the human eye can't percieve is thrown away much like an mp3 file is to music.


The good news is that most DSLR's in-camera software process jpeg's pretty well as oppose to inexpensive point & shoots. Shooting RAW is great because it lets you edit white balance, exposure all with lossless data. It means fixing a mistake made in the field is easier to correct. I personally shoot in jpeg+RAW 50% of the time.

A perfectly shot image will not need post processing. If you have to heavily edit every single image you shoot in post, you're doing something wrong in the field.

Nice pics. I like the rpm & shift nob photo's the best.

:tiphat:

Yes, but you assume that everyone is capable of shooting a perfectly exposed image with perfect white balance, color, and saturation. It also assumes that every scene being shot has even light distribution and doesn't require any post processing. I use a Nikon D3 with professional lenses, been doing photography and darkroom work since the 70's and I am of the opinion that such an animal as a perfectly shot image rarely, if ever, exists in its ability to reflect the photographer's artistic vision. I rarely find any image that I shoot to be perfect even out of my $5000 camera with its $1700 lenses.

Show me somebody who doesn't post-process their photographs from their digital camera and I'll show you somebody who is just doing shapshots. It would be a very rare professional photography gallery indeed, whether shot in JPEG or RAW, that demonstrates images that are not post-processed. Ansel Adams photgraphic art was ALL about post-processing. Compared to the hours and money I used to spend in the darkroom cropping, exposing, dodging, burning, I rejoice in the ability to accomplish all of that and FAR more in front of my computer far cheaper and far quicker.

My point is that post-processing is desirable for virtually every image if the photographer wants to achieve the artistic vision he had in his head when he pushed the button. If that's the case, then IMHO far better to start with digital data that is accurately and easily amenable to such manipulation.

I think your logic is beyond the point of this thread. Geez it's just a file type. No need to get all worked up about it. I'm not arguing, in fact I completely agree. This isn't a jpeg vs RAW thread, so lets not turn it into one. Of course shooting RAW has it's benefits, but for someone who's just starting out like the OP's brother, it's more of a burden than an advantage.

Having a wealth of knowledge & experience with photography, You of all people should know $$$ equip doesn't always equal better pictures. I'm not a pro by any means, but the notion that every shot must be post processed to be any good is a bit of a reach. It's obviously more difficult to get it right in the field, but it's not some unicorn you'll never catch. Artistic vision aside, everyone I know does some sort of post processing, including myself. I guess my point is that people tend to rely on post as a crutch. Artistic vision starts in the field, not in front of the computer screen.

He's not stating every image should be developed in post. No one develops every single image, If they are then I want to know that photographer who shoots all images flawlessly. However, you shoot all your images in raw to have "uncompressed" quality. JPG is good for 60% of people. It gets them adequate RGB values. However I find the colors crushed and the inability to retouch and or edit is scary and unprofessional. But again the forum isn't comprised of fashion photographers car photographers. My two cents as a professional if you feel really good about a shoot after the first few shots switch to raw + L JPG. You'll he happy you did.


ThePhotographer

Of course. Artistic vision starts in the field but it doesn't end there for images that are important to the shooter. And if one is going to post-process in order to make the picture reflect what the shooter wants it to reflect, better to do it in RAW. Post-processing images shot in JPEG requires that you undo what the camera has decided about color, sharpness, white balance, and exposure, or even worse, try to overlay your own processing concepts on the decisions the camera has already made about those aspects.

Certainly I don't advocate post-processing every image one shoots. The majority of mine don't even get past the thumbnail stage. When I find an image that I like in my camera, I want to be the one who decides how it's going to print up, not my camera, or worse, KodakGallery (now Shutterfly, I guess) or Whitehouse Color.

I've started shooting in RAW + L Jpeg for everything so if I feel the need/urge to do some read editing in post I can use the RAW format. Otherwise if the JPEG image turned out the way I like it I may well just use that. Digital "film" is free so why not use both.

i guess i should ask what tripod is good now and good lenses?

He needs to first determine his needs relative to the distances that he will be shooting at (zoom range), then determine how much he wants to spend. I have always preferred Nikkor lenses, but there are several other brands, usually cheaper, that may be suitable for him. A good website to review such things is DP Review. It might also be fruitful to read through the various Nikon camera and lens forums on that site.

I never said it ended in the field. I just don't agree with the whole "l'll fix it in post" attitude.....and let me make it perfectly clear since you are under the impression that I have something against shooting in RAW, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AGAINST IT! I just find it overkill in this thread about a guy just starting out. 9 times out of 10, someone who's just starting out in photography won't be able to use the extra data in a RAW file to their benefit. They'll spend hours adjusting every aspect and come up with an image that looks just as good as the jpeg. It would be like letting someone drive an F-1 car and expecting him to know what he's doing and achieve the results of a pro.

For a professional fotog, it really depends on what you're shooting. Some sports photographers for example, need the speed without slowing down the buffer. In a setting like fashion or portraits, shooting RAW is the obvious choice. It's a controlled setting and large file sizes isn't as much of an issue.

I shoot mostly in jpeg because for me, it's good enough. I'm not a pro, an artist, a seasoned vet, nor claim to know everything about this field. I wasn't even alive in the 70's. This is just a hobby to me. The closest my images will ever come to a gallery is my hallway... and I'm fine with that.

:iagree:

:tiphat:

:tiphat:

Yeah, that's where we disconnect. My belief is that editing one's images is every bit as valuable a photographic skill as shot composition and camera settings for anyone who is serious about their photography. The ability to do that easily and cheaply is one of the true advantages of digital photography and makes $180 for Nikon Capture or $100 for Photoshop Elements a worthwhile expenditure. Certainly one can tweak JPEGs, but if you're going to tweak, might as well do it in RAW where the data is more amenable. Post processing has been a key component of photography for over 100 years.

I simply don't share your view that it's some kind of crutch used as a means of correcting poor shooting technique. I don't buy the concept of turning over the final image quality to some Nikon engineer's algorithm that reflects his concept of what my images should look like. I understand your point of view...I just don't agree with it.

Then what's the point of spending $5,000 on a camera if you don't trust the engineering? Let's just agree to disagree and call it a day.

You speak as if in-camera image processing to get JPEGs is the major component of a quality camera. Yikes! There's a huge difference between trusting the construction, the sensor (the major expense component), metering, autofocus, and trusting the JPEG image processing firmware. Surely you must see that.

That's not what I meant

One buys a $5000 camera for the engineering execution I mentioned above (construction, sensor, metering, autofocus), not the JPEG image processing firmware.

Perhaps we can put this to rest by just saying that this is all just my opinion. Yours may be different. I have no problem with that...in the end, the OP will have to draw his own conclusions from the discussions.