DSLR Learning Curve - FRUSTRATED!

[Groucho]

I was flipping across a copy I found of Understanding Exposure, I assume that it must be an older version (I didn't see a copyright but it was the "Revised Edition"), because it only had a very small section on digital photography at the end, and it was written by someone who obviously (at the time, at least) just plain didn't understand digital photography. For example, he was setting the camera to shoot black and white and mentions missing a shot because of the time it took to go in and set the camera back to color - I would guess that any halfway-educated digital shooter nowadays would always shoot color and PP to b/w if needed... and if shooting raw, you still have the color version no matter what. He also mentions no option for choosing how saturated your picture will be ahead of time, etc. Like I said, I can only hope that this was an outdated version and that the current version (and his digital books) have more useful digital information. Not that this affects the rest of the book - I've still been learning tricks from 40+ year old photography books - but maybe there are better sources for digital-specific info?

The most recent photography book I've read was "Photography" (great title, eh?) by Phil Davis - it's about 20 years old, but had some good info, but I haven't read enough different books to know if it pales or shines in comparison to others.

AndrewWG, I can definitely get you some Pentax RAW files if you like. I have a huge amount of space on my web host (unfortunately, there's also not always as quick as I'd like, but what can you do) so hosting a few is no problem, if you'd like to play with some stuff. Maybe one that needed white balance adjustment, one that needed brightening, etc.

Ducky4Disney, I would agree with some of the others that it's probably best to stick to Program mode for a little while until you're more comfortable with the camera. That's one of those things about a DSLR - chances are that if you're getting bad photos, you can't blame the camera, only the user. Program mode (or, heaven forbid, "auto" if the D200 has it, which it probably doesn't) should be pretty forgiving.

In terms of "pop", often that's just the color curves - many/most DSLRs let you choose between a "natural" color and a "vivid" (or bright/chrome/etc) color. Natural is more realistic, while vivid "pops" more and is more like you'd get from a PnS, where they'll generally sacrifice natural color for flashier colors and often won't give you a choice. I went to Natural after a few months and went back to Vivid a few months later - I am slightly ashamed that I often prefer the less-realistic Vivid colors, but what can I say? At least with the RAW, I can choose after the fact, also, and redo older photos one way or the other.

 

[handicap18]

To the OP. You did make a big jump. The D200 is a lot of camera. Probably a bit more of a learning curve than with some others. But just like with anything else, it takes time a practice. Work on your technique, check where your focus is set and cross reference that with your aperture setting. With a PnS there isn't a lot of shallow DOF, even at f/2.8. On a dSLR, that changes quite a bit.

Took me a while to get used to my dSLR, where to shift my eye in the viewfinder in relation to which square I want the focus to be on. Then to figure out what settings I wanted. Played around with most of them, even the custom settings. Finally settling on VIVID. Then its just a matter getting used to holding it, where your hands are placed. It can be a long process depending on the person.

Andy,
I don't shoot RAW. Haven't gotten around to it yet. Though I did take a few yesturday. There still in the camera, haven't even looked at them to see how to get them processed and downloaded and all the jazz.

I'm very happy shooting at the highest JPEG setting. Taken well over 5,000 pics so far. Most of the time I do no PP at all. If I want a picture printed that will be enlarged I will crop it to that size myself. Occassionally I adjust some brightness or fix some color's. But thats about all I do.

 

[AndrewWG]

lets see how long this mindset lasts i said i'd never pay over $400 only 6 months ago ( still not up to the $1000 range but it is approaching faster than i like to admit) unfortunately i do think some of the good lenses cost more so it depends on how fanatical you get about it ( i'm up to the f.a.n.a.t.)

Yep, thats why I put in the "(well maybe never)"! I can see myself salivating over some particular lens in the future and just going for it. But then, that would be irresponsible of me, wouldn't it?

Andy

 

[AndrewWG]

AndrewWG, I can definitely get you some Pentax RAW files if you like. I have a huge amount of space on my web host (unfortunately, there's also not always as quick as I'd like, but what can you do) so hosting a few is no problem, if you'd like to play with some stuff. Maybe one that needed white balance adjustment, one that needed brightening, etc.

Groucho, that would be great. Just let me know what to do. No rush, though. I think I still have some time before I am in "must buy now" mode. Maybe not, though...

Thanks!

Andy

 

[AndrewWG]

Andy,
I don't shoot RAW. Haven't gotten around to it yet. Though I did take a few yesturday. There still in the camera, haven't even looked at them to see how to get them processed and downloaded and all the jazz.

I'm very happy shooting at the highest JPEG setting. Taken well over 5,000 pics so far. Most of the time I do no PP at all. If I want a picture printed that will be enlarged I will crop it to that size myself. Occassionally I adjust some brightness or fix some color's. But thats about all I do.

Kyle,

I didn't realize that you shot mainly all jpg's. That is encouraging, for sure! Maybe I can go that route until I get used to doing the RAW file adjustments.

Now I'm getting the DSLR bug. This will not be good for my wallet.

Andy

 

[Groucho]

Groucho, that would be great. Just let me know what to do. No rush, though. I think I still have some time before I am in "must buy now" mode. Maybe not, though...

Thanks!

Andy

Will do. If you don't hear anything from me in within the couple days, please don't hesitate to send me a PM to remind me. I have been known to forget to do things if I don't have constant reminders.

 

[jann1033]

Kyle,

I didn't realize that you shot mainly all jpg's. That is encouraging, for sure! Maybe I can go that route until I get used to doing the RAW file adjustments.

Now I'm getting the DSLR bug. This will not be good for my wallet.

Andy

here's the rub, with raw you have much more latitude to correct exposure etc...in other words, handicap knows what he's doing so he doesn't need that "extra insurance". i guess it's kind of lazy on my part but i have more keepers with raw just due to the fact i can adjust more pp, otherwise i'd have to actually learn how to set everything right the first time . but raw pp doesn 't really take that long and some programs thats' all you need to do( ie it will do everything in one program...helicon filter i have been using some and it even crops..so that's i think all you really need to use and take a min or so. i don't process everything unless i want to use it as you can see the photo beforehand( ie if aunt lucy has her eyes crossed) and somethings you can batch process if they are basically the same situation

 

[Master Mason]

here's the rub, with raw you have much more latitude to correct exposure etc...in other words, handicap knows what he's doing so he doesn't need that "extra insurance". i guess it's kind of lazy on my part but i have more keepers with raw just due to the fact i can adjust more pp, otherwise i'd have to actually learn how to set everything right the first time . but raw pp doesn 't really take that long and some programs thats' all you need to do( ie it will do everything in one program...helicon filter i have been using some and it even crops..so that's i think all you really need to use and take a min or so. i don't process everything unless i want to use it as you can see the photo beforehand( ie if aunt lucy has her eyes crossed) and somethings you can batch process if they are basically the same situation

Light room allows the same, I have made the switch now to 100% raw, yes it takes a little bit longer, but my pictures are sooo much better with the xtra time spent.

 

[handicap18]

We have an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor lens right now. Not a bad lens at all (but what do I know). DH wants an 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED AF VR Zoom-Nikkor lens - that's $1400, baby.

That is one HECK of a HUGE lens too. It comes with a tripod collar for a reason. Putting that baby on a D200 and your talking some serious weight. Even with the VR, hand holding that lens on that body is giong to be a chore.

That lens has been around for quite some time now and speculation in the nikonians world is that it may be replaced with an AF-S version. I read a good share of people complaining about its focusing being on the slow side. It does take very good pictures though. That 400mm on a 1.5x crop makes for a very long looking lens.

The 18-70mm is a very good lens. Some of the nikonians believe it is the best of the "kit" lenses in the Nikon line, optically speaking. Though I think my copy is a bit on the soft side.

 

[photo_chick]

here's the rub, with raw you have much more latitude to correct exposure etc...in other words, handicap knows what he's doing so he doesn't need that "extra insurance". i guess it's kind of lazy on my part but i have more keepers with raw just due to the fact i can adjust more pp, otherwise i'd have to actually learn how to set everything right the first time . but raw pp doesn 't really take that long and some programs thats' all you need to do( ie it will do everything in one program...helicon filter i have been using some and it even crops..so that's i think all you really need to use and take a min or so. i don't process everything unless i want to use it as you can see the photo beforehand( ie if aunt lucy has her eyes crossed) and somethings you can batch process if they are basically the same situation

You make it sound like RAW is a crutch here. While it does have the advantage of beign able to make bigger changes than with a jpeg without as much loss to image quality, there are other reasons for shooting RAW. Teh main one for me is avoiding the compression artifacting you get from jpegs. Being able to recover more is great (and has saved many a picture for me), but it does still come at the expense of image quality just like with a jpeg. just not as much or as fast. And still you can't recover things that are not there as well, so it is not without it's limits.

Also people look at digital very differrently than they do 35mm it seems. With digital if you shoot jpeg you have the final image an can make a few adjustments, that is about it before the loss of image quality starts to be apparent. With 35mm you could push film in processing, change exposure in the darkroom when making a print, etc. There are a lot more variables that you can use when geting to the final print. To me shooting RAW gives me some of those variables back.

Now I say this and let me make it clear, IMO there is nothing wrong with only shooting jpegs if that is the way you prefer to work. I don't want someone thinking I am not being nice to those who shoot jpeg only. I see the choice much like choosing the 35mm film you use. I like T-max 100 (off topic, that is my b&w cat's name), while you might like something else.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

You make it sound like RAW is a crutch here. While it does have the advantage of beign able to make bigger changes than with a jpeg without as much loss to image quality, there are other reasons for shooting RAW. Teh main one for me is avoiding the compression artifacting you get from jpegs. Being able to recover more is great (and has saved many a picture for me), but it does still come at the expense of image quality just like with a jpeg. just not as much or as fast. And still you can't recover things that are not there as well, so it is not without it's limits.

I've never noticed any visible compression artifacts from a large/fine JPEG that was not repeatedly opened, editing, and re-saved. I'm sure that they are there, but I've always found them to be so trivial as to be unnoticeable.

The differences that make me shoot RAW include the larger exposure latitude and the greater bit depth. Neither is generally important when I get an image that is spot on, but when I make any significant exposure, white balance, or curves adjustments I find that having 4,096 different shades for each color rather than only 256 comes in very handy.

With modern workflow tools, I find very few disadvantages to me in shooting RAW. My camera has a large buffer, so I rarely hit shooting speed or buffer issues. I have a lot of storage space, so the extra size is no longer much of an issue. I do still shoot JPG when lighting conditions are benign and I have an extreme need for both speed and high numbers of shots, but those cases are relatively rare.

 

[photo_chick]

With stock photo sites looking deeper into the quality of images you almost have to shot RAW to get one through. It used to be easier but with advances in imaging even the smallest amount of artifacting will get an image rejected.

 

[jann1033]

You make it sound like RAW is a crutch here. While it does have the advantage of beign able to make bigger changes than with a jpeg without as much loss to image quality, there are other reasons for shooting RAW. Teh main one for me is avoiding the compression artifacting you get from jpegs. Being able to recover more is great (and has saved many a picture for me), but it does still come at the expense of image quality just like with a jpeg. just not as much or as fast. And still you can't recover things that are not there as well, so it is not without it's limits.

Also people look at digital very differrently than they do 35mm it seems. With digital if you shoot jpeg you have the final image an can make a few adjustments, that is about it before the loss of image quality starts to be apparent. With 35mm you could push film in processing, change exposure in the darkroom when making a print, etc. There are a lot more variables that you can use when geting to the final print. To me shooting RAW gives me some of those variables back.

Now I say this and let me make it clear, IMO there is nothing wrong with only shooting jpegs if that is the way you prefer to work. I don't want someone thinking I am not being nice to those who shoot jpeg only. I see the choice much like choosing the 35mm film you use. I like T-max 100 (off topic, that is my b&w cat's name), while you might like something else.

you jumped the gun here and read between lines i never wrote.
from the way i understand Andy, he is concerned about being able to post process raw and hopes with his soon to be purchased dslr( think it's his first one ) to shoot jpg...imo shooting jpg in that instance is going to take more exact accuracy of settings, which is going to be more difficult for him..i know when i first got a dlsr after being used to film, i was blowing highlights right and left shooting jpg, shooting raw let me post process the exposure if i needed to, jpg didn't.. i never said raw was a crutch but imo for a novice dslr user jpg is more difficult to get the shots you want.

 

[AndrewWG]

you jumped the gun here and read between lines i never wrote.
from the way i understand Andy, he is concerned about being able to post process raw and hopes with his soon to be purchased dslr( think it's his first one ) to shoot jpg...imo shooting jpg in that instance is going to take more exact accuracy of settings, which is going to be more difficult for him..i know when i first got a dlsr after being used to film, i was blowing highlights right and left shooting jpg, shooting raw let me post process the exposure if i needed to, jpg didn't.. i never said raw was a crutch but imo for a novice dslr user jpg is more difficult to get the shots you want.

Well, I just got in for the night and I have to say that you are all about the best thing that has happened to me today! To see that you answer, re-answer and even debate my questions during the day amuses the heck out of me. It has been one crappy day.

Anyways, I understand what you mean Jan. I was under the impression that jpg would be as easy to shoot as RAW and didn't think of the fact that jpg is "what you see is basically what you get". I see your point about shooting RAW giving you more latitude to correct for "mistakes" so to speak. Personally I plan on hitting my exposures perfectly with every shot so I guess jpg is for me! Just kidding of course.

Thanks to all who have spent time explaining these things to me.

Also, I now realize that I have completely hi-jacked this thread with my original question and would liek to apologize profusely to the OP here. Was it Duck4Disney? I hope that you have been able to pull some more knowledge out of this discussion as well. Sorry again.

Andy

 

[photo_chick]

you jumped the gun here and read between lines i never wrote.
from the way i understand Andy, he is concerned about being able to post process raw and hopes with his soon to be purchased dslr( think it's his first one ) to shoot jpg...imo shooting jpg in that instance is going to take more exact accuracy of settings, which is going to be more difficult for him..i know when i first got a dlsr after being used to film, i was blowing highlights right and left shooting jpg, shooting raw let me post process the exposure if i needed to, jpg didn't.. i never said raw was a crutch but imo for a novice dslr user jpg is more difficult to get the shots you want.

NONONO! I did not mean it that way. I just meant that it could be read that way and I know a lot of people view RAW as a crutch and frown upon it (if they really go tit I don't think they would). Anyhow I was adding to that the additional reasons --in addition to yours- why I shoot RAW. I was not trying to say that you siad it was a crutch.

Once again I must remove my fingers from my mouth becasue what I was trying to say did not come across right.

 

[Master Mason]

Also, I now realize that I have completely hi-jacked this thread with my original question and would liek to apologize profusely to the OP here. Was it Duck4Disney? I hope that you have been able to pull some more knowledge out of this discussion as well. Sorry again.

Andy

That is the nature of boards I think, I find that you usually get the most discussion and knowledge from the highjacked thread.

 

[jann1033]

NONONO! I did not mean it that way. I just meant that it could be read that way and I know a lot of people view RAW as a crutch and frown upon it (if they really go tit I don't think they would). Anyhow I was adding to that the additional reasons --in addition to yours- why I shoot RAW. I was not trying to say that you siad it was a crutch.

Once again I must remove my fingers from my mouth becasue what I was trying to say did not come across right.

that's fine i get what you got that i now get

 

[Ducky4Disney]

Yes Andrew, I have been able to get a lot of good info from this thread!

That is one HECK of a HUGE lens too. It comes with a tripod collar for a reason. Putting that baby on a D200 and your talking some serious weight. Even with the VR, hand holding that lens on that body is giong to be a chore.

Yeah, explain that to my DH. My DH is 6'7" tall and about 350 pounds. He has bear paws for hands and wishes he could get a bowling ball heavier than 16 pounds! I think he even used the it-fits-my-hands-better reasoning when sweet talking me into the D200.

What about the "Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar"? Why do I ask? Um... no reason.
And where can I find these nikonians so I can be assimilated and acquire their knowledge?

D4D

 

[handicap18]

Yeah, explain that to my DH. My DH is 6'7" tall and about 350 pounds. He has bear paws for hands and wishes he could get a bowling ball heavier than 16 pounds! I think he even used the it-fits-my-hands-better reasoning when sweet talking me into the D200.

I see absolutly NOTHING wrong with that reasoning.

What about the "Nikon Zoom Telephoto Zoom-Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 ED AF-D Autofocus Lens with Tripod Collar"? Why do I ask? Um... no reason.

The 80-200mm f/2.8's are GREAT lenses. I believe there are 2 versions. The AF-D which goes for somewhere around $800 and the AF-S which is about $250 more. The AF-S version focuses much faster and is newer, but optically wise, they both are very good.

And where can I find these nikonians so I can be assimilated and acquire their knowledge?

D4D

Here is the web site for the Nikonians.com Forum Page. That is the only other photo board I visit for forum type things. They have a pretty good set up having a forum section for each of the Nikon dSLR's as well as some Film SLR's, Nikon Lenses, 3rd Party Lenses, Flash Guns and many other things. Lots of good info especially with in the Lens forums.