first few shots with d200

[rhall54]

trying to figure out this camera

here's a few shots.

1.

2.

3.

4.

 

[paulpippin29]

The first two don't really do anything for me subject wise, but I like the last two. Your image quality is outstanding as well.

 

[DScience]

I think number 3 is amazing! The composition is perfect, and everything else I really like!

 

[musicaleCA]

I think #3 is underexposed.

 

[DScience]

I think #3 is underexposed.

Nonsense! If it was any more 'exposed' the child's skin would be blown out and the detail would be lost. The only way to get this exposure better would be artificial lighting...and obviously, that was not the intention here.

 

[rhall54]

Thanks for the comments!

I knew that three would be a little dark for some people, but I like it that way. That's my little sister. I'm sure she's gonna get tired of me using her as a model haha

 

[KmH]

I'm with DScience on 3 being properly exposed but it sorely needed some fill from camera right or the pop-up in manual mode at a low power setting to be really good. I'm not sure why it was ISO 400 but.......So, it is what it is, a snapshot.

 

[rhall54]

I'm with DScience on 3 being properly exposed but it sorely needed some fill from camera right or the pop-up in manual mode at a low power setting to be really good. I'm not sure why it was ISO 400 but.......So, it is what it is, a snapshot.

Question..What would have been the correct ISO setting and why?

 

[NateWagner]

right, it may be properly exposed, but the focus is then on her arms, whereas it is generally recommended to attempt to make the face the focal point of an image.

 

[rhall54]

right, it may be properly exposed, but the focus is then on her arms, whereas it is generally recommended to attempt to make the face the focal point of an image.

The point of the picture was to show the childish destruction of the flowers. I had been telling her all day to quit picking all the flowers or the park would look ugly without them. So it was supposed to draw you into the flowers. Which she did pick every last one of them and then threw them at me :lmao:

 

[bdavis]

I think number 3 is amazing! The composition is perfect, and everything else I really like!

Its mostly underexposed and the the subject is dead center, hardly the "perfect" composition wouldnt you say?

 

[rhall54]

I think number 3 is amazing! The composition is perfect, and everything else I really like!

Its mostly underexposed and the the subject is dead center, hardly the "perfect" composition wouldnt you say?

This forum seems to be more and more of just people trying to argue with other people. I've gone thru so many posts and seem to just see a bunch of arguments.. anyway... place her in the back corner of the picture in your mind and tell me how awkward that would look. If you don't like the picture great, but it seems some people on this forum base whether or not they like a picture on "rules". This seems silly to me.

 

[ANDS!]

Oh boy. The shot IS underexposed. From the PERSPECTIVE that we are looking at, the focus IS the child, and the childs face isn't exposed properly. Its like 2+2=4 and The sky IS blue. We may have different interpretations on an aethetic level on whether an underexposed shot is cool or not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is indeed underexposed.

For me if the intention was to showcase the destruction of the flowers, I would have put my focus close in on the child's hand picking the flowers, maybe try and come from below looking up at the childs handpulling out the flowers so that you can also keep her in the shot and its as if she is reaching down to "pick" us (the viewer).

As for the exposure, popping up the flash would have solved this, not changing the ISO, or increasing the shutter speed. Well no, I would actually increase the shutter speed so that you could get more detail in the background, and dialed down the aperture, so that you aren't getting a nasty wash of light on your daughter (?) and instead a nice pleasing "fill" flash.

As for the subjective quality of the photos - who cares? At this stage with a new camera, the point isn't to take masterpieces, but to get familiar with your new tool. As such, keep on doing exactly what you are doing and taking the exact pictures you are taking.

 

[rhall54]

Oh boy. The shot IS underexposed. From the PERSPECTIVE that we are looking at, the focus IS the child, and the childs face isn't exposed properly. Its like 2+2=4 and The sky IS blue. We may have different interpretations on an aethetic level on whether an underexposed shot is cool or not, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is indeed underexposed.

For me if the intention was to showcase the destruction of the flowers, I would have put my focus close in on the child's hand picking the flowers, maybe try and come from below looking up at the childs handpulling out the flowers so that you can also keep her in the shot and its as if she is reaching down to "pick" us (the viewer).

As for the exposure, popping up the flash would have solved this, not changing the ISO, or increasing the shutter speed. Well no, I would actually increase the shutter speed so that you could get more detail in the background, and dialed down the aperture, so that you aren't getting a nasty wash of light on your daughter (?) and instead a nice pleasing "fill" flash.

As for the subjective quality of the photos - who cares? At this stage with a new camera, the point isn't to take masterpieces, but to get familiar with your new tool. As such, keep on doing exactly what you are doing and taking the exact pictures you are taking.

Thank you very much. THAT was actually helpful.

oh.. and she's my little sister.

 

[itznfb]

This forum seems to be more and more of just people trying to argue with other people.

isn't that what the internet is for? everyone on the internet who disagrees with my opinion is wrong, right?

anyway... i agree with what ANDS! said in that you shouldn't be looking for the perfect photograph at this point but rather taking a few technical pointers here and there and trying to apply them when you shoot next.

also... i actually like the composition and exposure of #3. is it "technically correct"? no. but i got what you were trying to achieve before you explained it so i think you captured it well. as you said, you don't always have to follow the rules. and following the rules doesn't always make a good shot.