Reading mode: Light Dark

The Story Continues......?

Go to last post
never buy another camera.
You make that D50 sing.
Fantastic sharp, saturated, well exposed wedding pics.
Hey I nead an assistant, can to relocate to Philadelphia.
and bring your wife. LOL
--
Sam
http://www.samjsternphotography.com
 
hey daniel...i like the colour and sharpness in the pics. However, I think a lot of them look as if the subjects are standing in front of back-drops!? It may be something in the PP technique that is causing a little sepparation between the subject and the background...

as well, like I suggested in my other post, I think these images would all be servered nicely if there were a little more play with DOF to soften the images overall.

Thanks for sharing, I enjoy seeing your take on people photography.

--
I likes shootin' things with them new-fangled picture-takin' devices! :D
VISIT OFTEN: http://emeka.smugmug.com (comments welcomed)

 
Sharpening is a bit strong ... halos around all the leaves and people. I suspect that is what is causing some people to notice the separation effect (I do too by the way) ...

But, lovely compositions and very good expressions caught here. The feet are actually a cute touch ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Hi,

l like the pictures very much - in particular the implementation of the sky (I admit: I' m a kind of blue-sky-fan;-) Would you mind sharing the aperture- an shutter-speed-values of the pictures? Is flash-sync-Speed at 500?

Thank you!

Greetz

Flo
 
It's not the Sharpening, it's the saving for web that is causing it, 60% quality. Thankyou :)
Kim Letkeman said:
Sharpening is a bit strong ... halos around all the leaves and
people. I suspect that is what is causing some people to notice the
separation effect (I do too by the way) ...

But, lovely compositions and very good expressions caught here. The
feet are actually a cute touch ...

--
http://letkeman.net/Photos
Click to expand...
--
Visit my website at
http://www.danielsdiaz.com
or my Gallery at
http://www.betterphoto.com?daniel_diaz
 
It was the lighting that day that caused the effect, It's in the RAW images also.
Emeka U said:
hey daniel...i like the colour and sharpness in the pics. However,
I think a lot of them look as if the subjects are standing in front
of back-drops!? It may be something in the PP technique that is
causing a little sepparation between the subject and the
background...

as well, like I suggested in my other post, I think these images
would all be servered nicely if there were a little more play with
DOF to soften the images overall.
Click to expand...
No chance to play with the DOF, I would have blown out the skies completely if I did. (no neutral filter, LOL)

Thanks for the comments :0)

Danny
Emeka U said:
Thanks for sharing, I enjoy seeing your take on people photography.

--
I likes shootin' things with them new-fangled picture-takin'
devices! :D
VISIT OFTEN: http://emeka.smugmug.com (comments welcomed)

Click to expand...
--
Visit my website at
http://www.danielsdiaz.com
or my Gallery at
http://www.betterphoto.com?daniel_diaz
 
It's not the sharpening, it's the saving for web at 60% quality that does it.
Thanks
Mark53 said:
samjstern said:
never buy another camera.
You make that D50 sing.
Fantastic sharp, saturated, well exposed wedding pics.
Hey I nead an assistant, can to relocate to Philadelphia.
and bring your wife. LOL
Click to expand...
They're over-sharpened, no two ways about it. Otherwise, nice.
Click to expand...
--
Visit my website at
http://www.danielsdiaz.com
or my Gallery at
http://www.betterphoto.com?daniel_diaz
 
Mark53 said:
I think the subject matter, exposure and composition is very nice,
but does anyone else feel they have an over-processed look? The
shots with the bride and bride/groom in front of the water almost
look like they're in front of a backdrop to me. I guess I just
like more of a natural look.
Click to expand...
Well, I think I know what you mean, but I don't think it's done in PP. Strong fill flash helps give the subject a closer exposure to the background, and this isn't the way we normally see. We usually see the subject in thier own shadows.

A little less exposure might have helped some, too. And don't forget, sRGB colorspace tends to saturate the colors a bit, too. Velvia was never a good wedding film, and Kodak Portra was never a good landscape film. We shouldn't be expecting one set of settings to work optimally under all shooting conditions.

--
  • Arved
'Take only pictures. Leave only footprints.' - Photographer's creed
 
In the second one, it looks like she is missing the front of her arm. Looks like she has a littel nub.
 
Daniel Diaz said:
I let the camera do the work for me, I actually had it set to full
AUTO, LOL. The lighting was constantly changing so I threw it into
AUTO, I also shot in RAW so I could tweak as necassary.
Thanks
Danny
Click to expand...
Are you saying that #1 was totally AUTO mode? The D50, in my experience, will horribly blow out any highlights in a case like that; perhaps they could be salvagable in RAW. You are making me rethink my outdoor shooting method entirely.

What I don't understand is how you got the nice sun with a star pattern. If I shoot into the sun under any circumstances, even when stopping down well beyond f/11, I get nothing but blooming all over the place.

Can you explain exactly how you shot #1? I don't see any EXIF data on the web image. [what lens, too.]

I'm really impressed with your results, although fill flashed images outdoors do always tend to look a little fake to my eye. I'm sure your full-resolution images look a lot better than the tiny web versions. #1 is an amazing exposure, though.

Doug
 
Yes it was full Auto Bryan, I just checked the EXIF and here are the settings: Focal lenght-18mm. 1/500, F/18, ISO 200. The RAW image was not blown out at all, it was actually underexposed by half a stop. That's the beauty of shooting in RAW :)
Lens used was the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8
D Knisely said:
Are you saying that #1 was totally AUTO mode? The D50, in my
experience, will horribly blow out any highlights in a case like
that; perhaps they could be salvagable in RAW. You are making me
rethink my outdoor shooting method entirely.

What I don't understand is how you got the nice sun with a star
pattern. If I shoot into the sun under any circumstances, even
when stopping down well beyond f/11, I get nothing but blooming all
over the place.

Can you explain exactly how you shot #1? I don't see any EXIF data
on the web image. [what lens, too.]

I'm really impressed with your results, although fill flashed
images outdoors do always tend to look a little fake to my eye.
I'm sure your full-resolution images look a lot better than the
tiny web versions. #1 is an amazing exposure, though.

Doug
Click to expand...
--
Visit my website at
http://www.danielsdiaz.com
or my Gallery at
http://www.betterphoto.com?daniel_diaz
 
dbvand said:
Excellent results Daniel.

How did you balance the flash with the backlighting where the sun
is behind the subjects. I've experimented with a gray card and the
"Flash Value" lock button. Did you do anything like that?

Your results confirm what I have believed for some time. The
camera does matter but only up to a point. You probably could not
have achieved those results with a cheap point and shoot camera no
matter how skilled you are but you didn't have to have a D2X either.

I'm not saying that a D2X isn't a better camera than a D50 but with
the proper know how you can achieve excellent results with a D50.
--
Bryan V.
P.S. I've had amnesia for as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...
Camera 10%, photographer 90%. A camera is like a brush in a painters hand.

Very nice shots; but I think I agree with Brad. Keep up the good work.

I just bought the D70s and almost regret I didn't bought the D80 !!! When I look at your pics, I don't regret it anymore, thanks. Your shots a far better than mine.

--
Peter (Wigen)
D70s - 18-70G ED - SB600
 
Daniel Diaz said:
Yes it was full Auto Bryan, I just checked the EXIF and here are
the settings: Focal lenght-18mm. 1/500, F/18, ISO 200. The RAW
image was not blown out at all, it was actually underexposed by
half a stop. That's the beauty of shooting in RAW :)
Lens used was the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8
Click to expand...
Are the Sigma better than the D50 kit lens ?

--
Peter (Wigen)
D70s - 18-70G ED - SB600
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top