Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="hark" data-source="post: 284530" data-attributes="member: 13196"><p>I looked at these plus a few of your Flickr images. As someone mentioned, you have nice composition, but many of the images appear to be too dark. Is your monitor calibrated? If not, that might be why they appear too dark to some of us but perhaps not to you. On an uncalibrated monitor, they would appear lighter. </p><p></p><p><u><strong>Dynamic Range</strong></u>--we as humans can see shades of light from very light all the way to very dark. Cameras tend to have difficulty capturing all the lights, darks, and in between shades. So the dynamic range of a camera isn't as good as our eyes. That's where bracketing and creating images using HDR software can help. HDR allows the light areas to retain detail as well as the dark areas. </p><p></p><p>The reason why it is difficult to really tell how your lens performs is because you've done too much editing. It is possible that your lens may not yield photos as sharp as a faster lens, but we can't tell by these. It might be that a more expensive lens can offer better contrast, but if you edit the contrast, we aren't seeing the true ability or lack of ability of your lens.</p><p></p><p>As far as the two images you posted here, the faces of the two men are too dark. In the shadowed areas of their faces, most likely there is a lot of detail, but the photo is just too dark to really tell. Again...part of that might be due to an uncalibrated monitor. The shadowed areas *might* look good on your monitor, but not on mine. The other photo is nice, too, except the dark trees (at least I assume they are trees) simply appear as a dark strip running through the center of the photo. I can't even discern any texture...although maybe you can see it. Again, the photo is too dark. </p><p></p><p>If you were to work with RAW files, you should be able to lighten the dark areas to allow more detail to become visible. These would look better if you had more light areas and better detail in the darker areas. Hands down a faster lens has benefits over your kits lens as the others have mentioned. OR you can keep this lens and do more photo editing than perhaps you'd do with a better quality lens. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="hark, post: 284530, member: 13196"] I looked at these plus a few of your Flickr images. As someone mentioned, you have nice composition, but many of the images appear to be too dark. Is your monitor calibrated? If not, that might be why they appear too dark to some of us but perhaps not to you. On an uncalibrated monitor, they would appear lighter. [U][B]Dynamic Range[/B][/U]--we as humans can see shades of light from very light all the way to very dark. Cameras tend to have difficulty capturing all the lights, darks, and in between shades. So the dynamic range of a camera isn't as good as our eyes. That's where bracketing and creating images using HDR software can help. HDR allows the light areas to retain detail as well as the dark areas. The reason why it is difficult to really tell how your lens performs is because you've done too much editing. It is possible that your lens may not yield photos as sharp as a faster lens, but we can't tell by these. It might be that a more expensive lens can offer better contrast, but if you edit the contrast, we aren't seeing the true ability or lack of ability of your lens. As far as the two images you posted here, the faces of the two men are too dark. In the shadowed areas of their faces, most likely there is a lot of detail, but the photo is just too dark to really tell. Again...part of that might be due to an uncalibrated monitor. The shadowed areas *might* look good on your monitor, but not on mine. The other photo is nice, too, except the dark trees (at least I assume they are trees) simply appear as a dark strip running through the center of the photo. I can't even discern any texture...although maybe you can see it. Again, the photo is too dark. If you were to work with RAW files, you should be able to lighten the dark areas to allow more detail to become visible. These would look better if you had more light areas and better detail in the darker areas. Hands down a faster lens has benefits over your kits lens as the others have mentioned. OR you can keep this lens and do more photo editing than perhaps you'd do with a better quality lens. Good luck with whatever you decide to do. :) [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikon DSLR Cameras
D7000
More expensive lens means a better image.
Top