Some nice ones on day 2 with new lens

[puyjapin]

i would personally say the colour on the first one represents that of the goose i was staring at

 

[puyjapin]

could this have anythng to do with having colour mode set to 111a (srgb). whats the best mode? Also what is white balance preset on the d40?

 

[adamwilliamking]

AND does that mean a raw shot does not take into account the WB set in the camera?

the raw file saves enough information for you to safely change your white balance without much if any loss of quality.

 

[Samanax]

why would you want to spend so much on a lens with such a limited focal range?

It's not only about focal range...this lens has exceptional image quality (said to be near "L" quality), good low light performance (f/2.8), fast focus lock and IS (Image Stabilization).

I plan to get the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM later this year...need to save up first as it costs $1,700.

 

[Samanax]

I ask this question for learning purposes, not with the intention to critique. I was wondering how the bokah is in the geese photos? To me it seems harsh. Not as soft as I would like in a photo. But I'm not sure if it's because of the background or the lens itself. I find myself very distracted by the background and can't focus on the geese. I'm sure since the white balance is off that has a little to do with it (the geese are orangey and blend in), but I was just curious to help learn my photographer's eye.

The first goose picture has some noise in it and it's messing up the background bokeh/out-of-focus blur making it appear rough.

The second geese picture has less noise in it so the background bokeh/out-of-focus blur appears to be better/smoother.

 

[puyjapin]

that is because i believe i cropped and zoomed the first one
i still cant see that the colour is off, if that is the colour coming from the sun then surely that is the colour the photo is,

 

[Samanax]

i still cant see that the colour is off, if that is the colour coming from the sun then surely that is the colour the photo is,

Golden light because the pictures were taken during the golden hour (1 hour after sunrise or 1 hour before sunset)?

 

[puyjapin]

ok, have a look at the dog now. Is that better than b4?

 

[puyjapin]

so if they were taken in the golden hr then we expect a golden colour surely

 

[Samanax]

Better, but now the image seems a little cool. Maybe something inbetween the two.

 

[adamwilliamking]

so if they were taken in the golden hr then we expect a golden colour surely

Sure, if you want your pictures to look that way. We are trying to explain what a properly exposed, colour balanced photograph looks like.

Its about what the viewer sees and the viewer isnt going to look at your photography and go "Oh, its the golden hour" whatever that is. They are going to think gee, yellow is the main tone in these photographs.

Anyways, IF you would like some guidance on this forum I suggest you be more open to the criticism you are going to get.
The 2nd looks better but without a raw file its much harder to restore an auto white balance.

Notice how the woman and dog both pop more in the 2nd image?
White balance means alot.

 

[puyjapin]

perhaps im colourblind! or perhaps we all are, i agree that others wont know its the golden hour but I did. I have adjusted that one by using the correct colour cast, it was quite easy. Why would raw be easier, btw, have a look at the geese and see if that one is 'techincally' better.

 

[adamwilliamking]

Yeah Its definitely a little bit easier on the eyes. Like I said earlier in the post. a RAW file saves data that isnt technically visible in an image. Thats why when you shoot in raw you have enough space to up your exposure by about 2 full stops before you start to get degraded quality. Same with colour balance.

 

[jands]

The first goose picture has some noise in it and it's messing up the background bokeh/out-of-focus blur making it appear rough.

The second geese picture has less noise in it so the background bokeh/out-of-focus blur appears to be better/smoother.

Thanks for the info.

perhaps im colourblind! or perhaps we all are, i agree that others wont know its the golden hour but I did. I have adjusted that one by using the correct colour cast, it was quite easy. Why would raw be easier, btw, have a look at the geese and see if that one is 'techincally' better.

I'm curious, do you see the difference in the two photos? Do you see how the colors on the second photo look more natural (i.e. better white balance)? If your intent is to have a orange tint, then that's your intent. No one can tell you something is wrong with a photograph you took if you meant for it look a certain way. But it sounds like you are not clear on what white balance is and how to properly set your camera according to the surrounding light source(s). If that's the case, maybe reading (or re-reading) your camera's manual will help shed some light on the gray areas. Also, doing a Google search for something like "understanding White Balance" will provide excellent knowledge.

Just a few weeks ago I didn't know anything about white balance. Then one day, a co-worker told me it was "off" in some of my photos. After re-reading my manual and reading some material on the internet everything started to click.

Hope that helps.

 

[EhJsNe]

What risk are you talking about? I don't even use UV filters and nothing has happened to any of my lenses in the 15 months I've had my XTi. I do have lens hoods on all my lenses though.

I agree with the others...the white balance is way off in these pictures.

garsh! someones an unhappy camper? WHy alsways so negative?

He is talking about the very off chance something happens to his lens--maybe a peice of dirt gets on it and scratches it all up when he goes to clean it, maybe he could bump the fron element off the car door....and it shatters---in thoses cases a UV filter--which doesnt affect the images--willbreak, causing no harm to the lens itself.

Its much better to buy a new 10, 15 dollar filter (maybe 30 or 40 for a nice reletivley large one) then fork over a couple hundred to a few thousand dollars for a lens.



ABout the photos---very well done. The sun at that time can make pictures beatiful....and in this case--almost ruins some of them.

Good job and keep on shooting!