Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well, anyway, those are the effective focal lengths you used on those photos, and those are simply very sensitive to camera shake, is all I'm saying.
"Effective" focal length has nothing to do with camera shake.
MY GOD THOSE ARE SOME HUGE FREAKIN PICTURES!
Unfortunately, underexposing has a tendancy to increase noise when you make adjustments to exposure later. However, you also need to preserve the highlights to prevent lost data by blowing out one of the color channels (RBG) as you did in the first link. It is a compromise that you have to decide on. Which is best for your image.
Pixel peeping will drive you crazy if you don't consider what the print will actually look like. The larger the print, the more the noise will be noticed. Probably anything up to an 8x10 will hardly be noticed unless it's awful to begin with.
Invest in quality ND, Grad ND and CPL filters for sunrise/sunsets if that is your main interest. (CPL's are best at 90° to the sun.)
Yes once you position it correctly.Thanks for the input. Will the Grad ND make it so I can have the entire sunset exposed correctly instead of having the water a little underexposed and getting that noise? Would it help if I got the correct exposure while taking the photo and then brought the darkness out in post processing to eliminate the noise?
Does the D40 have mirror lockup? I would use that also to reduce camera shake.
Will being underexposed result in them being less sharp? I know at higher ISO, being underexposed can cause noise, but I didn't think that would affect ISO 200. I'm really trying to get rid of the noise before I even put them on my computer. I don't care about fixing these photos, but preventing the noise in the future. I guess I really just need to work with a higher shutter speed. I guess until I figure it out I'll do a lot of experimenting.
From the EXIF data on your photos, Palyriot! Somehow I trust those.
In this case, if he had a 200mm lens and a 1.5 crop factor, his EXIF could erroneously be displayed as 300mm.
If the crop factor is 1,5, and the EXIF says "Focal length in 35mm eq.: 300mm", what would be erroneous about that?