Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Having fun with my "other" lenses on my D70

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 3:04:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Even though I have to use my older Nikon lenses in Manual mode, it's really
nice to be able and reach out and touch someone. The 80 to 200 works great,
and the single control for focus and zoom is always a nice touch. And my
500 mirror is now a 750! Pretty incredible. Can't wait to get my other
lenses back from the guy who's converting them to AI so I can use those,
too. I'll have a 55 micro to play with, and an 85 1.8. I got the 28mm
converted, too, but that one is definitely lame compared to the rest.

I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
Someone here recommended a Web site that takes a RAW image from start to
finish. Pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you look at the
original image compared to the finished product.

More about : fun lenses d70

Anonymous
January 29, 2005 1:55:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 00:04:24 -0700, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>Someone here recommended a Web site that takes a RAW image from start to
>finish. Pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you look at the
>original image compared to the finished product.

Thom Hogan's D70 eBook does this with Capture.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 2:06:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote in message
news:Bu2dnbTwTZPpqGbcRVn-rg@comcast.com...

> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
> Someone here recommended a Web site that takes a RAW image from start to
> finish. Pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you look at the
> original image compared to the finished product.

Can you repost the like?

Thanks

--

Rob
Related resources
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:13:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon wrote:

> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."

Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at shoot time
than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least manipulation.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 7:13:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>
> Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at shoot
time
> than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least
manipulation.

That I'm aware of. Garbage in. Garbage out.
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 8:37:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <Bu2dnbTwTZPpqGbcRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>And my
>500 mirror is now a 750!

It's still 500mm, but a crop that would be the angle of view of a 750mm
lens on a full-35mm-frame camera.

>Pretty incredible.

I am not as easily impressed, as I know that the comparison has a lot to
do with the limitations of the lens, and the capture medium. After all,
the crop lowers the number of lines that can be resolved in the focal
plane. If your crop is a 1.5x factor, then the resolution, in terms of
lines per fraction of the picture, is divided by 1.5 in the center of
the image. Also, if you had a lower-res DSLR, like one of the 2.7MP
Nikons, you are still going to get less subject detail than if you shot
with the same lens on a film camera with hig-res film, or a full-frame
DSLR with a much smaller pixel spacing (like the 1Ds mkII).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 9:42:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>> Someone here recommended a Web site that takes a RAW image from start to
>> finish. Pretty amazing what you can accomplish when you look at the
>> original image compared to the finished product.
>
> Can you repost the like?
>
Here ya go.

http://members.aol.com/bhaber/D70/index.html
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 9:57:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:nihnv0d88io9cinjs9qp7hapum2jml5hrh@4ax.com...
> In message <Bu2dnbTwTZPpqGbcRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>And my
>>500 mirror is now a 750!
>
> It's still 500mm, but a crop that would be the angle of view of a 750mm
> lens on a full-35mm-frame camera.
>
Yes, I understand that. But, the illusion is still impressive. :-)

Is it safe to assume that the distortion is exactly the same regarding focal
length whether you use a digital with a multiplication factor or a 35? For
example, many would consider a 105mm the perfect portrait lens. Therefore,
is the distortion factor, or lack of it, the same whether there is a
multiplication factor or not? In other words, is a 105 still the perfect
portrait lens on a DSLR, assuming you thought it was the perfect lens on a
35mm camera?
Anonymous
January 29, 2005 9:59:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:ctguam$3mg$1@inews.gazeta.pl...
> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>
> Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at shoot
> time
> than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least
> manipulation.
>

Yes, I finally went out and did some shooting today. Realized I went a bit
too far with my exposures, assuming what I was getting in the display was
what I would see on my computer. I'll figure it out. At least my mistakes
don't cost me film and processing.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:04:55 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <kMmdnXDW_cQfomHcRVn-ow@comcast.com>,
"Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

><JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
>news:nihnv0d88io9cinjs9qp7hapum2jml5hrh@4ax.com...
>> In message <Bu2dnbTwTZPpqGbcRVn-rg@comcast.com>,
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>>>And my
>>>500 mirror is now a 750!

>> It's still 500mm, but a crop that would be the angle of view of a 750mm
>> lens on a full-35mm-frame camera.

>Yes, I understand that. But, the illusion is still impressive. :-)

>Is it safe to assume that the distortion is exactly the same regarding focal
>length whether you use a digital with a multiplication factor or a 35? For
>example, many would consider a 105mm the perfect portrait lens. Therefore,
>is the distortion factor, or lack of it, the same whether there is a
>multiplication factor or not? In other words, is a 105 still the perfect
>portrait lens on a DSLR, assuming you thought it was the perfect lens on a
>35mm camera?

No.

It's the lens-to-subject distance that creates the big noses and such.

If your nose is six feet from your lens, then your ears might be 6.4
feet from the camera. Not much difference in magnification. If your
nose is .4 feet from the lens, then your ears are .8 feet from the
camera; twice as far away, so the nose looks big.

What concerns you hear is the angle of view; 70mm will give the same
angle with a 1.5x-crop-DSLR as a 105mm on a 35mm camera, so that is what
you'd use.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 6:06:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <b5jov0lfe9gp0rbvcu3figbrd3jj9f1rp2@4ax.com>, I,
JPS@no.komm wrote:

>If your nose is six feet from your lens, then your ears might be 6.4
>feet from the camera. Not much difference in magnification. If your
>nose is .4 feet from the lens, then your ears are .8 feet from the
>camera; twice as far away, so the nose looks big.

All those references to "camera" should be "lens".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:15:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:

>Even though I have to use my older Nikon lenses in Manual mode, it's really
>nice to be able and reach out and touch someone.

I'd thought the same (until I noticed all the fungus inside. Oh the
penalties of living in the tropics).

How do you typically meter in Manual? (I'm talking about non-AI)
Do you use the histogram and take a few test shots? What's the
advantage of AI, does that give the camera aperature feedback/control?

--
Ken Tough
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 7:15:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ken Tough" <ken@objectech.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0EO+90A5vO$BFwAy@objectech.co.uk...
> Sheldon <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>
>>Even though I have to use my older Nikon lenses in Manual mode, it's
>>really
>>nice to be able and reach out and touch someone.
>
> I'd thought the same (until I noticed all the fungus inside. Oh the
> penalties of living in the tropics).
>
> How do you typically meter in Manual? (I'm talking about non-AI)
> Do you use the histogram and take a few test shots? What's the
> advantage of AI, does that give the camera aperature feedback/control?
>
> --
> Ken Tough

I think AI stand for Automatic Indexing. Early lenses have an aperture ring
that reaches beyond the lens mount, making it impossible to use on the D70.
Metering was done by linking the aperture ring to the camera with a tab and
pin. Later lenses and cameras did away with this by notching the aperture
ring to link to the camera, and doing away with the tab sticking up on the
ring. It's those notches that work around the components sticking out on
the lens mount on the D70, and is the reason you can't use pre AI lenses on
the camera. Even though an AI lens will physically fit and work on the D70,
it will not connect to the metering system in any way (no CPU in the lens to
link to the camera). Shutter speed is set in the camera and aperture is
controlled by turning the aperture ring on the lens. Unfortunately, the
depth of field preview does not work at all.

As for metering, you can either set the ISO and transfer the general
exposure you get from your AF lenses, or I just use an external light meter.
Just like the good old days, the hand-held meter works just fine. I
normally use an older Sekonic attached to one of those retractable keychains
that clip on your belt. For difficult situations I use a higher-end
Sekonic. At least if you're off you don't have to wait for the processing
to see it.
Anonymous
January 30, 2005 10:56:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I get it. :-)

--

Sheldon
sheldon@sopris.net


<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:bjjov0tbr8reoes3tmaaam78q21kar119a@4ax.com...
> In message <b5jov0lfe9gp0rbvcu3figbrd3jj9f1rp2@4ax.com>, I,
> JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> >If your nose is six feet from your lens, then your ears might be 6.4
> >feet from the camera. Not much difference in magnification. If your
> >nose is .4 feet from the lens, then your ears are .8 feet from the
> >camera; twice as far away, so the nose looks big.
>
> All those references to "camera" should be "lens".
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
January 31, 2005 5:07:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Sheldon wrote:
>
>> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>
>
> Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at
> shoot time
> than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least
> manipulation.


True but I always seem to be shooting in low light, hand held in the
field and post-processing lets me recover shots to a usable quality that
would have been simply impossible otherwise. Counting on good lighting
is ideal but not always a physical possibility.

Meanwhile I'm working on learning to expose correctly <grin>.

Usually the default contrast & sharpening with jpeg is going to be just
right, sometimes it'll ruin an image. Using RAW lets you decide but it
is a whole lot of work. jpegs with all the adjustments turned off are
very bland (like a blurry brown murk filter was used) for most real
world lighting conditions so there are normally adjustments made to make
the pics pop in-camera. If you relied on perfect lighting & no
adjustments, jpeg fine could do a very reasonable job but if you want to
adjust, RAW certainly gives more control.

It's certainly fair to say you'd rather be selective about only shooting
ideal lighting and taking the time to expose perfectly than spend a
bunch of time in front of the computer. Personally I'm on the go in the
field and enjoy tinkering at home though adjusting all manually is too much.

An ideal workflow would be to shoot in RAW and batch versions unadjusted
and auto-contrast... scroll through those & choose the best and for the
rare ones than need more work, go back to the RAW to manually adjust.
Anonymous
February 1, 2005 3:15:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

paul wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Sheldon wrote:
>>
>>> I still need to learn how to work with RAW images and make them "pop."
>>
>>
>>
>> Getting "pop" from a photo has more to do with light and exposure at
>> shoot time
>> than manipulation in photoshop. The best caught photos need the least
>> manipulation.
>
>
>
> True but I always seem to be shooting in low light, hand held in the
> field and post-processing lets me recover shots to a usable quality that
> would have been simply impossible otherwise. Counting on good lighting
> is ideal but not always a physical possibility.

Shooting in low light does not prevent correct exposure. Relying on the
camera's meter can be misleading. Tripod and cable release are essential. Use
the histogram to adjust the exposure such that the histogram does not have much
in the way of 'wasted' bins on the right. Low ISO if possible with longer exposure.

>
> Meanwhile I'm working on learning to expose correctly <grin>.
>
> Usually the default contrast & sharpening with jpeg is going to be just
> right, sometimes it'll ruin an image. Using RAW lets you decide but it
> is a whole lot of work. jpegs with all the adjustments turned off are
> very bland (like a blurry brown murk filter was used) for most real
> world lighting conditions so there are normally adjustments made to make
> the pics pop in-camera. If you relied on perfect lighting & no
> adjustments, jpeg fine could do a very reasonable job but if you want to
> adjust, RAW certainly gives more control.
>
> It's certainly fair to say you'd rather be selective about only shooting
> ideal lighting and taking the time to expose perfectly than spend a
> bunch of time in front of the computer. Personally I'm on the go in the
> field and enjoy tinkering at home though adjusting all manually is too
> much.

To reitterate, low lighting is not "bad" lighting, it just requires the
appropriate exposure. DSLR's give you very fast feedback on the exposure.

Go in your backyard on moonlit night and you can take photos of flowers that
look quite nice. Tripod and time is all it takes.


>
> An ideal workflow would be to shoot in RAW and batch versions unadjusted
> and auto-contrast... scroll through those & choose the best and for the
> rare ones than need more work, go back to the RAW to manually adjust.

An ideal workflow would be no workflow! It would be nice if everything came out
of the camera requiring nothing more than a crop and size to print...

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
February 1, 2005 3:15:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
>
> Shooting in low light does not prevent correct exposure. Relying on the
> camera's meter can be misleading. Tripod and cable release are
> essential. Use the histogram to adjust the exposure such that the
> histogram does not have much in the way of 'wasted' bins on the right.
> Low ISO if possible with longer exposure.


I'm out bushwhacking in the brush at dusk with a friend & no time to set
up a tripod. I'm talking hand held.


>
> To reitterate, low lighting is not "bad" lighting, it just requires the
> appropriate exposure. DSLR's give you very fast feedback on the exposure.


High contrast in the shadows with a bright sky is bad lighting. I'm out
photographing plants and cannot wait till the sun changes. I'm not
necesesarily looking for good photo opportunities but looking for rare
plants and need to shoot them where they are and move on.


>
> An ideal workflow would be no workflow! It would be nice if everything
> came out of the camera requiring nothing more than a crop and size to
> print...


I'd rather adjust than return another time of day when lighting is ideal
or carry a tripod. This is another reason for me to get a faster lens.

Also RAW files always need some adjustment. They look awful without at
least deault contrast enhancement. Even pretty blue skys and sunlit
landscapes look muddy.
!