|
tedman
Apr 6, 2009, 7:26 PM
Post #1 of 14
(6796 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37156649@N08/
first time shooting with the d40. Indian Creek and a few in Zion. These 12 were my favorites out of around 900. Amazing how hard it is to weed and choose! Lemme know what you think!
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Apr 6, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #2 of 14
(6782 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
Ok, my only complaint was that I was not there to experience that breath taking scenery.
Well done, those look great to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Climbhigh1123
Apr 7, 2009, 2:47 AM
Post #3 of 14
(6720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2008
Posts: 37
|
Awesome photos! I'm very impressed with the quality from the D40. I've been looking at the Nikon D60 for a while, but the D40 looks to take really nice shots!
|
|
|
|
|
maldaly
Apr 7, 2009, 4:01 AM
Post #4 of 14
(6696 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1208
|
tedman, great photos. The D40 is a great camera. Set the default exposure to -2/3 of a stop and those photos will saturate a bit better. They are all a bit hot. Just as with film, once you blow it out with a bit of overexposure, it's hard to bring them back. Under expose...please. With film, I used to expose for the blue sky which would beautifully saturate the photo. With digital, just look at what you've got in the LCD after each shot. Great real-world instructions for the D40 here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/index.htm
climbhigh1123, don't waste your money on a D60 or a D40x. If you feel the need to step up, get the D90. It uses the latest generation of chips and software and gets better images.
Mal
|
|
|
|
|
tedman
Apr 7, 2009, 5:02 AM
Post #5 of 14
(6672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
yeah I did a bunch of research before picking up the d40. At first I wanted the 60 because of the 10 megapixels, but it turns out that the 60 uses the same sensor as the 40 but just crams more pixels onto it. The cost is reduced light sensitivity! Saved me 200$ that I can put towards a fancy lens!
Thanks for the underexposure advice mal, I think I had it clicked up one or two to compensate for the polarizing filter I had on, but yeah I did notice in editing that I took most things down a click or two after the fact. Hey were you out at the Trango hotdog thing in the creek last weekend? my crew went pretty early but I think I heard a rumor that you were showing up later? dunno. good dogs tho! although it would have been hard to find you guys if we hadnt stumbled across it the day before looking for a crag!
|
|
|
|
|
nolifeking
Apr 9, 2009, 2:38 PM
Post #6 of 14
(6605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2009
Posts: 13
|
I thought they were quite good. I can't offer much advice on the technical aspects myself, but I like most of the composition. The shadow in 0811 really makes that one for me. All in all I like the strong colors as well. Good job!
|
|
|
|
|
extreme_actuary
Apr 10, 2009, 11:31 PM
Post #7 of 14
(6551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 26, 2006
Posts: 112
|
They look great.
Is that the kit lens or something fancier?
|
|
|
|
|
rockandlice
Apr 10, 2009, 11:40 PM
Post #8 of 14
(6547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2008
Posts: 622
|
They look great for your first outing 
You may already know this, but your filter (guessing a cir-pol based on those blue skies) is a bit thick for a wide angle lens. That is what created the darkened edges on a couple of those shots. You can find low profile ones to avoid this issue.
|
|
|
|
|
tedman
Apr 11, 2009, 7:42 PM
Post #9 of 14
(6492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
actually the problem was i forgot to take off the UV filter and just stacked the polarizer on top of it. lesson learned, oh well;-)
|
|
|
|
|
Paul_Y
Apr 15, 2009, 1:34 PM
Post #10 of 14
(6383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2007
Posts: 245
|
Nice shots, nice scenery! We can all see that you have an eye for composition. Does your Nikon have a "vivid" setting or did you enhance colors in post?
|
|
|
|
|
NDKalltheway
Apr 15, 2009, 3:49 PM
Post #11 of 14
(6374 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Posts: 27
|
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37156649@N08/3416235941/
The first one (DSC_0342) is awesome. I really like the backgrounds relative to the rock you're next to, great perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
rocknrock
Apr 15, 2009, 6:41 PM
Post #12 of 14
(6366 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2009
Posts: 34
|
excellent shots actually I'm quite impressed.
I though DSC was a sony dsl file prefix? guess not
|
|
|
|
|
tedman
Apr 15, 2009, 10:59 PM
Post #13 of 14
(6342 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 237
|
Yeah its on vivid, and in most of them I boosted it just a touch more (+5 or so). Nothing hokey, but I really like it when the colors just pop out at you dunno.
Kit 18-55 lens. I'm trying to decide if I want to go for something with a wider range - the 18-200 3.5 nikkor with VR (800$), or something thats faster like the sigma 17-70 2.8 (350$).
why do i always get into the freaking expensive hobbies?
|
|
|
|
|
climbsomething
Apr 15, 2009, 11:41 PM
Post #14 of 14
(6331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2002
Posts: 8588
|
It's hard to take a bad photo at Indian Creek, especially the Scarface wall, but these are all pretty good. No need to tear you apart!
The jugging one is pretty clever, but I'd like to see the hands/jugs a bit higher in the frame. A slightly shallower DOF probably wouldn't hurt, but that's pretty minor.
I do want to see more of the landscape in the Scarface ones. They don't have to be horizontals, although 0811 would probably be better that way- it might even be best with a panoramic crop. The timing/body position of the climber are nice.
I want a new DSLR. Mine is almost old enough to go to kindergarten now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
