Post your photography skills! (self-gloss) - Page 106

Crane's you should do podcasts. Everything you write is interesting and also very helpful for a clueless beginner like me? Thanks for your great contributions in the thread.

I went to find a lens for the Minolta but due to the alpha mount, all I was looking at was quite expensive. So I've spent appr. what the 50mm f/1.7 would cost me and bought a barely used Canon EOS 3 which can then use my existing EF lenses. Also I hope that I'll find some nice things this week to fill up my current film in the Minolta so I can get it developed.

Maybe, but I only cut the picture.

Two more zoo pics. (Not completely sure whether I've posted the pelican before. Sorry if I have.)

tab

Well thanks. It's funny you say that because the magazine I shoot for has given me a couple of columns to teach people how to take better photos. The first lesson is going to be on white balance which is the most overlooked thing in digital photography. White balance is to digital what filters are to film. IMO fully understanding WB is probably the single most important thing a digital photographer should know all about. So your Minolta is an A mount eh? KEH Photo is your friend in the biz for lenses. I bought a 24 to 105 f3.5-4.5 tele Minolta Maxxum lens for about 140 bucks. It's the same thing as the 600 buck Sony Alpha lens.

Great shots, NODB!

Great site but if I order from there I'll have to add the tax and 19% VAT so even the cheapest lens I'm interested (50mm 1.7) in adds up to ~ 100 EUR if I include shipping. Unfortunately I didn't find any great camera equipment pages like that in Europe so far and buying used here locally is ridiculously expensive (example: I get the Canon hot-shoe cord on Amazon for 56 EUR. The local shop wanted to charge 117).

Sometimes I'm really jealous of people living in big, urban areas.

I was always under the impression that shooting in RAW negates having to worry about white balance because you can change the temperature later on in lightroom anyway, is this not correct? I don't see how white balance affects DOF or exposure.

Thanks, dhowini! * * * Some more zoo pics I'd like to see photoshopped, so feel free all to adjust them. They obviously lack contrast/strength, so I wonder how much you can pull out of them (and how). I've already made a b/w version of one of the pics, which I'll show later.

sweet, what lens are you using to get this close?

99% of the P&S cameras don't have RAW and many people who have DSLRs capable of RAW don't use it as well. Many of my posts target beginners or intermediate photographers. IMO a paid professional photographer already knows what they're doing or at least I hope they do. IMO if you spend more time fixing things in post processing than you did on the actual shot then there's a problem. I get paid well by the magazine that hired me. One of the reasons is because about all they do is crop a shot to suit their purpose and it's off to print. Most of the time it's print ready as is. In any case the goal of any photographer should be to get the shot they're after in camera. The less post processing the better. This is especially true if you are doing commercial work. Post processing is time and time is money.

NOBD I would look at the histogram and see if you have room to tighten it up on the white side. If you do then you can kill some of that muddy look and brighten the lighter colors (the cat). After that if you want more contrast you could try playing with a contrast curve but that might wipe out highlight detail.

A rather crappy Canon 75-300mm 1:4-5.6 III. On my camera that makes 120-480mm, which is quite nice.

Again (to all): feel free to play with the pics.

I'll check, but I don't think there was any room in the histogram.

If there isn't you can use a curve that lightens the color of the cat or one that increases contrast. What was the sky conditions for these shots? Overcast/cloudy?

(Had to check back to 2009.) It was a sunny winter's day. But the pics were taken through lion-proof glass. I guess that partly explains the lack of contrast.