I think you would have gained a lot more with the use of the onboard flash to fill-in than with a more expensive lens. First, with the more expensive lens to carry, maybe you wouldn't have gotten there before these two.
More expensive lens means a better image.
- Thread starter willowdogger
- Start date
I think you would have gained a lot more with the use of the onboard flash to fill-in than with a more expensive lens. First, with the more expensive lens to carry, maybe you wouldn't have gotten there before these two.
In terms of the look of an image. Your not going to be able to tell any difference. You frame up the shot. You expose for the shot. You take the shot. A more expensive lense isn't going to give you anything worth noticing when viewing at normal perspective. Of course for the pixel peepers, it may be a different story.
I like this raw (not RAW) image. Puts me in mind of the film 300 and suits the subject well. Gritty men shot in gritty style.
That said, the other advice here is fair, but on the point of dynamic range (which has been ably answered by one far more knowledgeable than me) one could argue that, by asking the question on here, research IS being adequately conducted online.
willowdogger
Senior Member
Thanks Jonathan. Not keen on "altered" images but the use of "clarity" in Lightroom seems to give it the edge I am looking for in a small number of shots. Struggling with the settings in my first few months of runners raining down on me. Need to go on a course or be mentored by someone in the know.
I don't think you can really beat joining a club/going on a course. Unfortunately, the long hours of my job mean that I return too late to go clubbing and going on a course is too selfish when I have a young family. This place is better than most for learning and (just as importantly) showcasing one's oeuvre. Get rid of the overly-sensitive skin and listen to the experts, though. As gnarled as they are, they do have nuggets they are more than prepared to share and you must be prepared to accept constructive criticism. Stay with us, and make US understand your perspective. Complaining about the light in your area is particularly moronic - make it work for you. Look at some of the English landscape snaps on here from Cumbria/North Wales - they are absolutely staggering in quality. Same light as you and me ...
When I read the thread title, I took it as a question, even though there is no question mark (?). My initial thoughts on the photo were, the shadows on their faces detract from the photo a little, would be nice to see the details bought out a little.
No surprise that many others gave constructive criticism along the same lines, I think Marcel had some excellent advice with the pop-up flash, would have made a world of difference.
After reading further into the thread, I was unsure what the intent of the thread was. If you just wanted praise, you should have titled it differently, and said " I took these photos and they helped raise money for "X" charity. You would have got the praise, but I am sure some constructive criticism would have still been thrown in as well.
There are a lot of good and knowledgeable people on the forum here, who are willing to help you progress along the road to becoming a better photographer, you just have to let them help.
I hope you have a nice day.
No surprise that many others gave constructive criticism along the same lines, I think Marcel had some excellent advice with the pop-up flash, would have made a world of difference.
After reading further into the thread, I was unsure what the intent of the thread was. If you just wanted praise, you should have titled it differently, and said " I took these photos and they helped raise money for "X" charity. You would have got the praise, but I am sure some constructive criticism would have still been thrown in as well.
You got given lots of good (and free) advice from some people "in the know" earlier in the thread but you seemed to ignore it, and maybe even seem a little annoyed by it................................... Need to go on a course or be mentored by someone in the know.
There are a lot of good and knowledgeable people on the forum here, who are willing to help you progress along the road to becoming a better photographer, you just have to let them help.
I hope you have a nice day
.I'm going to go out on a limb here and say I thought the responses went off topic and some of the comments were unreasonably harsh in that context.
He asked if better glass = better images. At a technical level the simple answer is generally yes they tend to be sharper and gather light more efficiently. Question answered.
If the thread throws in the concept of dynamic range it seems perfectly reasonable for the OP to enquire what it is. At no point did he ask how he could improve his artistic style.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
He asked if better glass = better images. At a technical level the simple answer is generally yes they tend to be sharper and gather light more efficiently. Question answered.
If the thread throws in the concept of dynamic range it seems perfectly reasonable for the OP to enquire what it is. At no point did he ask how he could improve his artistic style.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
dynamic range is the range of light intensity that our eyes or sensors can perceive or sense. The human eye is amazing,, we can see bright blue sky and the hills clearly at that site where you took the photo,, but film and now sensors do not have the same range,, so if you meter for the sky, the hills are dark, and if you meter for the hills, the sky will be blown out, so unlike our eyes, you would need to take 2 or more pictures and merge. or wait for different light.
That said, film and digital take advantage of this less dynamic range artistically by making shadows where our eyes would not have seen, often making a more
dramatic view then if you were just there.
That said, film and digital take advantage of this less dynamic range artistically by making shadows where our eyes would not have seen, often making a more
dramatic view then if you were just there.
I disagree. "Better" glass does not automatically equal to "better" images. "Better", being a strictly subjective word, does not necessarily depend upon crispness or lower ISO. In order to answer the OP's question, many of us choose to focus less on the glass (as we all know, world class images can come from the cheapest glass) and instead focus on the elements that actually make a "better" image. In fact, the sole entity "making" the image is the photographer, not the photographers equipment. So the answer to the OP's question, if read only for face value is "no", expensive glass does not automatically make better images.
willowdogger
Senior Member
When I read the thread title, I took it as a question, even though there is no question mark (?). My initial thoughts on the photo were, the shadows on their faces detract from the photo a little, would be nice to see the details bought out a little.
No surprise that many others gave constructive criticism along the same lines, I think Marcel had some excellent advice with the pop-up flash, would have made a world of difference.
After reading further into the thread, I was unsure what the intent of the thread was. If you just wanted praise, you should have titled it differently, and said " I took these photos and they helped raise money for "X" charity. You would have got the praise, but I am sure some constructive criticism would have still been thrown in as well.
You got given lots of good (and free) advice from some people "in the know" earlier in the thread but you seemed to ignore it, and maybe even seem a little annoyed by it.
There are a lot of good and knowledgeable people on the forum here, who are willing to help you progress along the road to becoming a better photographer, you just have to let them help.
I hope you have a nice day
Not used flash before for this type of event (fell runners out on the hills). Not sure how long the batteries(?) would last and with up to 500 exposures(?), I might have a bit of a problem.
Yes, I do want to learn and I will be the first to say that I "threw a bit of a wobbly" earlier on in the thread. Thanks to Geoffc for pointing out that my original question (badly put) was: If I spend money on a more expensive lens, what would I gain in terms of quality? Sorry if I seemed a bit "short" but it is frustrating when there is no-one around to answer technical questions. All the local photography clubs seem to be focused on competitions every other week. I just wanted someone who could point me in the right direction with any questions I have. There are lots of courses for portraits and landscapes but sports are few and far between. Thanks for all the replies, I DO take your words on board.
<Huddles closer to the camp fire>
If you get a battery grip that will give you (a) extra weight to carry up the hills but (b) two batteries to call on straight away, more if you carry additional in your pockets. Plus, if you have big hands like me, it gives you more to grip (which I really appreciate).
If you get a battery grip that will give you (a) extra weight to carry up the hills but (b) two batteries to call on straight away, more if you carry additional in your pockets. Plus, if you have big hands like me, it gives you more to grip (which I really appreciate).
Last edited:
I'd just like to share what I was able to do with the shot you posted. Since you mention in your "Image Editing preferences" that it is OK to edit your image, here's what I was able to get out of the file you put on this thread:
Now the only thing I did was to warm it up (color correction) and I dodged the faces to get them a little more light. I think their expressions are dramatic enough by themselves without having to give them more contrast. I don't know if you are trying to sell these to the competitors or are just doing them for your own pleasure, and maybe you prefer the colors you had to mine. It's OK, I'm not trying to impose my taste, but I just wanted you to compare another point of view and decide for yourself what you like more.
Now the only thing I did was to warm it up (color correction) and I dodged the faces to get them a little more light. I think their expressions are dramatic enough by themselves without having to give them more contrast. I don't know if you are trying to sell these to the competitors or are just doing them for your own pleasure, and maybe you prefer the colors you had to mine. It's OK, I'm not trying to impose my taste, but I just wanted you to compare another point of view and decide for yourself what you like more.
willowdogger
Senior Member
Wouldn't know which one to buy Jonathan. Point me in the right direction please? I did look at some photos that someone else had put together from a race I'd covered. Think they'd used a flash. Unsure about whether I liked it or not. Need a course on fill in flash.
Edale Skyline 2014 ? Summit Fever Media
I have this on my D7100, and it does me absolutely fine:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00CQ838VM/ref=wms_ohs_product_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1
As to fill-in flash, I'm no expert either but just experiment with the inbuilt one, especially as you don't want to be carrying too much kit out there. There's nothing to bounce the flash off to soften the light and all you'd be doing is brightening the dark areas/shadows in daylight so that should be fine. Others more knowledgeable will correct me if I am wrong.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B00CQ838VM/ref=wms_ohs_product_img?ie=UTF8&psc=1
As to fill-in flash, I'm no expert either but just experiment with the inbuilt one, especially as you don't want to be carrying too much kit out there. There's nothing to bounce the flash off to soften the light and all you'd be doing is brightening the dark areas/shadows in daylight so that should be fine. Others more knowledgeable will correct me if I am wrong.
willowdogger
Senior Member
I really appreciate you taking the time with the above image. When I shoot one of these, I try to get them out as soon as possible onto Flikr. I've even managed to post them before some people have returned home, had a bath and a bite to eat. Primarily, it's to raise money for Malaria No More. People donate on line or pass money onto me which I in turn donate under my own name. I would love to spend time AND have the knowledge that you obviously have about post image manipulation. There are lots of events to get to in the next few months, but I would like to pick out the best ones and work on them.
Today saw another of my wonderful blunders; I'd turned the monitor brightness down somehow and thought that the camera wasn't reading the light correctly. When I got home, the penny dropped and I found that the images I'd taken were not exposed correctly. Managed to change things a little and ... Ah well. Won't make that mistake again. Or WILL I? What is the best setting for monitor brightness when review an image?
I now understand where you stand and what your goal is. But, when you say you try to get them on flickr as soon as possible, maybe a few extra minutes in post processing with either lightroom, Aperture, or your other picture editor of choice could make your images so much better. So it will be up to you to gauge the extra processing time versus how fast you want to get them out there... There must me a good compromise that would be beneficial to the quality of your picture without taking too much of your time.
willowdogger
Senior Member
Cheers for that AND I should use the histogram rather than the image review to see if exposure is okay? I'm learning bit by bit.
FLICKR is SO slow and I do crop the odd bit to place runners in a better position. Over 200 images today and people seem happy with the results (I'm not).
Camera at the ready for tomorrow. 50 mm prime lens at the read, I love to get in close to the runners.
FLICKR is SO slow and I do crop the odd bit to place runners in a better position. Over 200 images today and people seem happy with the results (I'm not).
Camera at the ready for tomorrow. 50 mm prime lens at the read, I love to get in close to the runners.
Dave, if you read my text that you chose to quote it says "at a technical level". I did not mention artistic merit. The person asked what improvements he would see with better glass and I know sharpness and lower ISO would definitely be achieved. My 70-200 2.8 would achieve both over the kit lens with the same photographer skill and camera taking the shot. That's a "technical" fact that can be proved scientifically.
The reason I replied is because everybody leapt into answering everything but the question asked, in the same way you chose to read what you thought I was saying in my reply rather than what I actually was.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD