Just released Nikon D2X

[wd8cdh]

> I have > challenged the forum to post one single image shot with digital where > the sky and the background is well exposed with natural details in the > sky. Response: none, none from the so called experts.

I for one, haven't seen a sky that was worth taking a picture of for quit a while. Unfortunatly, the real world sky always looks washed out with haze and pollution here. I can easily get good exposure but it will still look like crap without manipulation since the natural details of the origional looked like crap.

Ron

 

[roman]

Innocent....is that not what split ND filters are designed for?

Hint....they didnt make Nikon specific split ND filters.....why?...because ALL cameras have the same problem.

Get over yourself....I have been watching your posts for a while....if you dont like Nikons.....go post on another board.

It's the BRAIN that makes a diffrence in photography, not the name on your camera. Take any decent photographer....and weather they have a Nikon or Canon...or any other brand in their hands....if their competent....their going to get similar results from their efforts.

Its funny to watch the people who think a brand name will make a diffrence in their their photography. With you in mind, I ran out and took a picture of a sky (not trying to be spectacular its a junky shot, just a shot within the peramiters you asked for, so you know its possable)....any person from a point and shoot to a high end camera can take the same pic if you have the sun to your back. If you want to get closer to the sun...that would require a split ND filter. Why?....because NO camera...film or digital....reguardless of name brand can capture the dynamic range our eye can. So the only intelligent reaction to that is to uses some means to level that range out to the capturable range of the camera.

 

[airgunr]

> [Innocent is being fed by the constant feedback to his posts.

I agree completely. If no one responds to his blathering he will end up carrying on a converstation with himself. Sooner or later he may get the hint and dry up!]

 

[innocent]

Roman, that was a good attempt, i.e. your shot. I am familiar with the grad filter and for landscape photography it is certainly a must have after the polarizer.

While it might be difficult to fully the assess the image you posted in view of the colour limitation of web graphics it is obviously clear that the shot appears very muddy, it lacks impact as well, typical of a digital capture.

See this shot on the front page: www.deltagallery.com and tell me what you think. The shot was done with a negative film. I will be posting more images on that site soon.

 

[roman]

You mean the first photo where the hilights are compleatly blown to smithereens?....I see it.

Personally, I prefer the shot I took...and on my work monitor (not calibrated there) I your shot has as much "flatness" as you call it...as mine.

Both shots could use some prost processing (mine is as is from the camera converted to sRGB....I will do that with both when I get home in my color calibrated environment with my shot. You do the same with yours....oh...and try to recover some of those blown hilights. I can in Digital...because I shoot raw (limited...but it works)....can you with film?

Roman

 

[rogerrichards]

| | I for one, haven't seen a sky that was worth taking a picture of for | quit a while. Unfortunatly, the real world sky always looks washed out | with haze and pollution here.| | Ron

Should move to Wales Ron, I put some shots of London skies in as well just incase ANYONE is interested (cough). http://rogertv.zftp.com/pictures/index.htm

Roger Richards

 

[Kerriganp]

> [Wow! Those photos are wonderful. What camera did you use? Spectacular! Thanks for sharing. Pat]

 

[jsmisc]

Great pictures Roger

 

[innocent]

Roger, there's no doubt that you do know your onions. The shots are great composition wise, but lacks the Velvia thing. It must have taken you a decade!! to nourish the images in Photoshop. This reminds me of a shot which I made with the D00 in Scotland and was sent to my then photo instructor for review who turned around and said I must have manipulated the sky. Well there you go- the digital thing, no one ever knows when a good shot is made from origin.

However, there may be members who are delighted to know how you achieved your results and the camera used. Talk us through any of the images. I can assure you that I need no lecture. From the look of the images, I will discount the d2h, but inclined to think of a shot out of a d1x that has been moderately adapted in Photoshop or perhaps a high end coolpix. Just imagine for a moment that those shots were made with a Velvia!!

BTW what part of Wales are you, as I'll be taking part in a spring golf meeting in South Wales sometimes in March. Wales is lovely. Photos of North Wales will follow soon, if time permits.

 

[rogerrichards]

[What camera did you use? Pat] All the picures, with the exception of one, were taken with a D100. The London pictures were the result of me getting over excited on a few days off with my purchase of a Nikon 10.5mm fisheye lens. The remaining pictures (with one exception) were shot with a D100 24-120VR Lens.

[It must have taken you a decade!! to nourish the images in Photoshop - Innocent] No. The London pics I just adjusted the levels and sharpness - no more than a minute. The seascapes I had to burn in the sky slighly, but took no time at all.

[Well there you go- the digital thing, no one ever knows when a good shot is made from origin. - Innocent]

I have spent hours dodging, burning and manipulating negative images in the darkroom - what's the difference?

[just imagine for a moment that those shots were made with a Velvia!! - Innocent] Well the shot of the lake and the tree was shot with a Hasselblad H1, Velvia 100 and scanned by a Nikon Coolscan 9000. Maybe i'm doing something wrong!