|
Kalkadan
|
 |
« on: October 17, 2006, 08:43:17 PM » |
|
Experimenting with a nikkor 17-35mm on the D200. All shot wide open at f2.8 on a monopod, pretty slow shutter speeds. Can you see the noise from the high ISOs? ISO 1400  ISO 1250  ISO 720  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Wayne
|
|
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2006, 08:53:06 PM » |
|
Whoa, they're really nice Dan! I especially like the first pic and find it the most pleasing composition of the 3. The noise isn't objectionable at these sizes - the second seems the worst even though it's not the highest ISO. Is it a crop? The digi seems to capture a pretty good dynamic range. So this was Kangaroo Point somewhere? Good to see some more local scenes  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
connealy
|
|
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2006, 05:14:11 AM » |
|
I like that first one too as the dark areas toward the center really suggest the atmosphere of the city at night. Digital seems a good choice for this kind of work as the modern meters do a remarkably good job of sorting out complicated lighting, and some progress has clearly been made with sensors since I picked up my old coolpix about five years ago.
. . The only time I tried something similar was for an architectural assignment. I locked the ASA at 100 to minimize the digital artifacts. I thought I could do a better job by manually selecting exposure, but it turned out that the camera was at least as smart as I was.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Madrigal
|
|
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2006, 05:37:33 AM » |
|
Stunning, kalkadan. I like the first one, but the third one draws me in, too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Character, like a photograph, develops in darkness. -Yousuf Karsh
|
|
|
|
Kin Lau
|
|
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2006, 05:44:55 AM » |
|
Pretty good on all 3 with the web sizes.
#2 has some noise-like stuff in the clouds, but that might just be how the clouds are.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I started with nothing... I still have most of it.
|
|
|
|
Mike Kovacs
|
|
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2006, 06:06:08 AM » |
|
Why not shoot a lot slower ISO? They are really noisy in the clouds even at web resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cenelson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2006, 07:56:29 AM » |
|
They're all acceptable to me for hi-ISO shots. What'll that top out at, Dan, 3200 yes?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cenelson
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2006, 07:56:41 AM » |
|
Nice shots, BTW.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Julio1fer
|
|
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2006, 01:44:07 PM » |
|
Very nice images. Noise is noticeable in the third and obvious in the clouds in the first two. Not important IMO, just because you asked about it. It is a strange effect in the clouds, and it is hard to see it anywhere else. Weird. Maybe exagerating it with Photoshop to get a special effect?
Since this is critique, I think the third shot would be a killer with less sky area and a bit less exposure. But I wish I had these quality pictures of my own city.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
